Watched some of Keith Olberman the other night. I was very impressed. He must spend a fortune on facials and his pores. Other than that, Outrage Boy of MSNBC is a joke.
In a more perfect world, if one were to look up the words 'obsesses' or 'raving', there would be a picture of Keith-O. No more need be written.
I can imagine in three of four years that Keith-O would have his own subscription Internet/Satellite Radio/Cable Channel being sent from his new studio at the former Camp Casey in Crawford, Texas. Yes, Keith will be there to cover every person going
into or out of the Bush Ranch.
I am sure that he will get some great interviews while asking his great leading questions as he runs alongside their vehicles while banging his mike onto the windows.
"Sir, did you know that Bush is a war criminal? And you doing business with him! Sir, how could you? For the sake of humanity, why would you do business with such a despicable person - the worst person of the century?
"Idiot! I work for UPS. Didn't you notice the big lettering on the side of the truck? Can you spell? Get out of my way!"
"Oh? Picking up or delivering?"
"It's none of your business but at this time of the day we are usually delivering. Most people with sense enough to get out of the rain would know that."
"Then you were delivering something evil and nefarious? Plans to take over the government and throw our Saint Barack in Jail?"
"Saint Who?"
"Don't lie to me - the American people - sir. You, sir, are part of the criminal conspiracy who are dedicated to taking away the rights of every righteous American. I will fight you to my dying breath."
"My God, I just realized that your lemon aide stand with the camera has an address and I have a package for you. I think it's your meds. Here you go, sign here and get the hell out of my way."
"This is Keith Olberman reporting live from the Bush Survivalist Compound outside the community of Crawford, Texas. A community that could be rightfully now called a Village in that they have their Idiot once again in residence."
"Keith, this is Chris back in Washington. Did you know that there was a cow taking a dump behind you? So whatever you do, don't step back without looking . . . Keith? Keith? Damn, third time this month."
Sunday, May 25, 2008
Friday, May 16, 2008
The Obaminator
The day that I knew was coming was here.
Everything is about the Obaminator.
The President makes a speech about the failure of appeasement when dealing with brutal dictators; a speech I thought was directed to the despot's best friend - Jimmah Carter.
The Obama stands up and declares that Bush is talking about him - the Obaminator. Talk about self-obsessed. Someone should warn The Obama about believing one's own press releases.
I can't wait until we talk about fiscal policy and the tax code. Any criticism of anything that comes from the lips of The Obaminator will be condemned as Racists Rants of Republicans.
Folks, it's time to pay off your credit cards, save your money, and refinance from an ARM to a fixed rate mortgage - it's gonna be a bumpy ride.
Everything is about the Obaminator.
The President makes a speech about the failure of appeasement when dealing with brutal dictators; a speech I thought was directed to the despot's best friend - Jimmah Carter.
The Obama stands up and declares that Bush is talking about him - the Obaminator. Talk about self-obsessed. Someone should warn The Obama about believing one's own press releases.
I can't wait until we talk about fiscal policy and the tax code. Any criticism of anything that comes from the lips of The Obaminator will be condemned as Racists Rants of Republicans.
Folks, it's time to pay off your credit cards, save your money, and refinance from an ARM to a fixed rate mortgage - it's gonna be a bumpy ride.
Saturday, May 10, 2008
Is Senator Obama smarter that a Fifth grader?
Senator Obama recently stated that he would meet with the enemies of this country, as Roosevelt and Kennedy had met with the enemies of this country during their Presidency.
Roosevelt, if you overlook his administration's antipathy for the Soviet Union before September 1, 1939, only had to deal with three leaders who led nations that were enemies of the United States: Hitler, Mussolini, and Tojo. Of these three, only Tojo survived the war as a prisoner before his execution for war crimes. Mussolini was killed by Italian partisans and Hitler committed suicide so as to not fall into the hands of the Soviet Red Army.
Roosevelt never met with any of these three leaders; he did meet with the leaders of our allied nations: Churchill and Stalin. While the United States and the Soviet Union did become adversaries again after the end of the Second World War, that was not until after the death of President Roosevelt.
The point is that if the Senator wishes to base his candidacy and his administration policies upon the lessons his history, it would behoove him to known enough about history - real history - and not some alternate history from a paperback book, to learn what has worked in the past, and what has failed in the past, before he makes his usual empty and high sounding pronouncements.
The old adage is that those who fail to learn [from] history are doomed to repeat it. Maybe the Obama corollary should be that those who learn an incorrect version of history will never admit they are wrong. Maybe If the Senator would start singing a Sam Cooke song, the press might forgive him for his lack of knowledge about basic American history.
Now, about his desire to be the President of all 57 states...
Roosevelt, if you overlook his administration's antipathy for the Soviet Union before September 1, 1939, only had to deal with three leaders who led nations that were enemies of the United States: Hitler, Mussolini, and Tojo. Of these three, only Tojo survived the war as a prisoner before his execution for war crimes. Mussolini was killed by Italian partisans and Hitler committed suicide so as to not fall into the hands of the Soviet Red Army.
Roosevelt never met with any of these three leaders; he did meet with the leaders of our allied nations: Churchill and Stalin. While the United States and the Soviet Union did become adversaries again after the end of the Second World War, that was not until after the death of President Roosevelt.
The point is that if the Senator wishes to base his candidacy and his administration policies upon the lessons his history, it would behoove him to known enough about history - real history - and not some alternate history from a paperback book, to learn what has worked in the past, and what has failed in the past, before he makes his usual empty and high sounding pronouncements.
The old adage is that those who fail to learn [from] history are doomed to repeat it. Maybe the Obama corollary should be that those who learn an incorrect version of history will never admit they are wrong. Maybe If the Senator would start singing a Sam Cooke song, the press might forgive him for his lack of knowledge about basic American history.
Now, about his desire to be the President of all 57 states...
Thursday, May 8, 2008
I am waiting for someone in the Democratic Party or the Democratic Media to make the observation that the defense of President Clinto during the impeachment was, in retrospect, a mistake.
The rationale being that if President Clinton had been removed from office, Al Gore would have become the President and would have been elected in 2000. Further, a President Gore would have been able to prevent the 9-11 attacks, so no war in Afghanistan or Iraq, the Clinton years of prosperity would have continued uninterrupted, the United States would have not pulled out of the Kyoto treaty, the threat of global warming would have been reduced, etc.
The rationale being that if President Clinton had been removed from office, Al Gore would have become the President and would have been elected in 2000. Further, a President Gore would have been able to prevent the 9-11 attacks, so no war in Afghanistan or Iraq, the Clinton years of prosperity would have continued uninterrupted, the United States would have not pulled out of the Kyoto treaty, the threat of global warming would have been reduced, etc.
Sunday, May 4, 2008
I took the title of this blog from my desire to get the facts and not the narrative.
What's the difference?
The facts are the facts - the who, what, when, where, why and how of information gathering and dissemination. What used to be called serious reporting.
What we get now is the narrative - the overarching truth that the journalist wants us to understand is behind the story. At least, what the journalist believes is behind the story.
The slant that the journalist gives to the story so that we can feel what he feels about the world he sees and experiences.
I once saw an interview with Pete Hamill on the C-SPAN program booknotes. Mr. Hamill, a reporter and author, said that the newspaper business had suffered when reporters became middle class. Now that so many journalists have become personalities who aspire to be pundits, the damage to serious reporting must be severe.
Reporters once went to politicians, bureaucrats, scientists, engineers, and businessmen looking for experts - someone with an informed opinion. Today, the journalists are the experts. Watch the political shows and see how many people being interviewed are journalists. The interview each other more than anyone else. Are they talking about the what they have learned from experts or are they talking from their perspective, their view, their opinion?
I do not want a journalist who works for a paper that laying off other journalists to write stories about the economy. If he is afraid about losing his job, and he writes about the economy using his narrative, how can he not write about "the worst economy since the Depression" irrespective of the facts?
How else could a 5.1 per cent unemployment rate under one president being a sign of a great economy and a 5.0 per cent unemployment rate under a different president be the sign of a economic meltdown?
When have you ever seen a journalist get a story wrong, wrong, wrong, and was made to pay a price for his error or omission? Journalists have gotten into trouble for plagiarism - they stole from the works of others and one got into trouble for stealing from himself. No journalist has ever been called down for getting the narrative wrong. The press has a vested interest in burying their mistakes and pretending that they weren't wrong.
Examples:
Dan Rather and the Bush TANG memo - still believes that the documents have been proven to be fakes.
Walter Cronkite and the Tet offensive. He said we lost Tet, but the facts prove otherwise. Do you think he or CBS will ever admit he got it wrong?
When the press, which loves to serve humble pie, can learn to eat the same, then maybe more of the public might be interested in their product.
What's the difference?
The facts are the facts - the who, what, when, where, why and how of information gathering and dissemination. What used to be called serious reporting.
What we get now is the narrative - the overarching truth that the journalist wants us to understand is behind the story. At least, what the journalist believes is behind the story.
The slant that the journalist gives to the story so that we can feel what he feels about the world he sees and experiences.
I once saw an interview with Pete Hamill on the C-SPAN program booknotes. Mr. Hamill, a reporter and author, said that the newspaper business had suffered when reporters became middle class. Now that so many journalists have become personalities who aspire to be pundits, the damage to serious reporting must be severe.
Reporters once went to politicians, bureaucrats, scientists, engineers, and businessmen looking for experts - someone with an informed opinion. Today, the journalists are the experts. Watch the political shows and see how many people being interviewed are journalists. The interview each other more than anyone else. Are they talking about the what they have learned from experts or are they talking from their perspective, their view, their opinion?
I do not want a journalist who works for a paper that laying off other journalists to write stories about the economy. If he is afraid about losing his job, and he writes about the economy using his narrative, how can he not write about "the worst economy since the Depression" irrespective of the facts?
How else could a 5.1 per cent unemployment rate under one president being a sign of a great economy and a 5.0 per cent unemployment rate under a different president be the sign of a economic meltdown?
When have you ever seen a journalist get a story wrong, wrong, wrong, and was made to pay a price for his error or omission? Journalists have gotten into trouble for plagiarism - they stole from the works of others and one got into trouble for stealing from himself. No journalist has ever been called down for getting the narrative wrong. The press has a vested interest in burying their mistakes and pretending that they weren't wrong.
Examples:
Dan Rather and the Bush TANG memo - still believes that the documents have been proven to be fakes.
Walter Cronkite and the Tet offensive. He said we lost Tet, but the facts prove otherwise. Do you think he or CBS will ever admit he got it wrong?
When the press, which loves to serve humble pie, can learn to eat the same, then maybe more of the public might be interested in their product.
I've been reading about the realtionship between Senator Barack Obama and two former Weathermen, William Ayers and Bernadette Dohrn f/k/a Bernadine Dohrn.
Ayers and Dohrn were involved in bombings of government offices and attempts to kill people for the purposes of a political purpose. Isn't a definition of terrorism the use of violence, and the threat of violence, to strike fear into a people to achieve a political goal? Their goal, the overthrow of the government of the United States or the system of capitalism, would logically make Ayers and Dohrn self-described enemies of the United States government.
Yet, Mr. Ayers has hosted a fundraiser for Barack Obama when he first ran for the Illinois state senate. Since Mr. Ayers has never repudiated his own past actions and rhetoric concerning the government, and in fact has gone on record still being in favor of his past actions, then his support for someone running for elective office as part of a government that he despises leaves me puzzled. Did Mr. Ayers believe that he knew something about Mr. Obama that would allow him, Ayers, to support Mr. Obama who wanted to be part of the government that he wanted to destroy?
Unless Mr. Ayers believed that Mr. Obama would be an agent of change - radical change in line with the stated goals of Ayers and Dohrn, then supporting Obama would be in support of the government that they wanted to destroy.
I am not of the opinion that Mr. Ayers and Ms. Dohrn are hypocrites.
Assuming that Senator Obama becomes President Obama, he would have to make the following oath:
"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."
Would not his pledge to "preserve, protect and defend" place him at odds with people who believe in using bombs and bullets to change United States policy that was arrived at using the legal means under the Constitution?
Would not the past actions and current declarations by Ayers and Dohrn place them at odds with a President Obama?
Since Senator Obama has not condemned the terrorism of Ayers and Dohrn in the past or their current afformations thereof, would he be as neutral about their oppostion to his administration and its policies. and he has been to their opposition to the administrations of his predecessors?
After all, the Senator could not bring himself to criticize Reverend Wright in the Philadelphia speech and had nothing to add until the Reverend was seen making statements that made the Senator seem like another politician doing the expedient thing to get elected. How would President Obama react to similar statements made by Ayers and Dohrn? That the President was only doing what all politicians do - lying to the people?
Ayers and Dohrn were involved in bombings of government offices and attempts to kill people for the purposes of a political purpose. Isn't a definition of terrorism the use of violence, and the threat of violence, to strike fear into a people to achieve a political goal? Their goal, the overthrow of the government of the United States or the system of capitalism, would logically make Ayers and Dohrn self-described enemies of the United States government.
Yet, Mr. Ayers has hosted a fundraiser for Barack Obama when he first ran for the Illinois state senate. Since Mr. Ayers has never repudiated his own past actions and rhetoric concerning the government, and in fact has gone on record still being in favor of his past actions, then his support for someone running for elective office as part of a government that he despises leaves me puzzled. Did Mr. Ayers believe that he knew something about Mr. Obama that would allow him, Ayers, to support Mr. Obama who wanted to be part of the government that he wanted to destroy?
Unless Mr. Ayers believed that Mr. Obama would be an agent of change - radical change in line with the stated goals of Ayers and Dohrn, then supporting Obama would be in support of the government that they wanted to destroy.
I am not of the opinion that Mr. Ayers and Ms. Dohrn are hypocrites.
Assuming that Senator Obama becomes President Obama, he would have to make the following oath:
"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."
Would not his pledge to "preserve, protect and defend" place him at odds with people who believe in using bombs and bullets to change United States policy that was arrived at using the legal means under the Constitution?
Would not the past actions and current declarations by Ayers and Dohrn place them at odds with a President Obama?
Since Senator Obama has not condemned the terrorism of Ayers and Dohrn in the past or their current afformations thereof, would he be as neutral about their oppostion to his administration and its policies. and he has been to their opposition to the administrations of his predecessors?
After all, the Senator could not bring himself to criticize Reverend Wright in the Philadelphia speech and had nothing to add until the Reverend was seen making statements that made the Senator seem like another politician doing the expedient thing to get elected. How would President Obama react to similar statements made by Ayers and Dohrn? That the President was only doing what all politicians do - lying to the people?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)