I know I said no more politics but I just couldn't let this pass by...
(meh, having trouble getting this video embedded. Until I get it to work right, here's the gist-
Kilmeade: It took Obama only "hours" to appoint Petraeus, "so why is it taking months to plug the leaking oil?")
God... it's just so STUPID!
Just to remind you, this is the portion of FOX news that is considered "news" and not opinion.
In other excellent questions:
It only took Bush 6 years to damage the economy, divide the nation, launch multiple wars, and wreck political discourse... why hasn't Obama been able to fix all this yet?
It took decades of neglect by presidents and congresses of both parties for the country to fill up with illegal immigrants yet Obama has not managed to fix this situation? Why?
It only took a few moments for him to eat breakfast this morning, so why hasn't Social Security been fixed yet?
Obama had a successful meeting with Russian leaders this week, why hasn't he been able to end violence in Africa?
The questions are endless! We need Obama to stop pussyfooting around and solve these problems!
Friday, June 25, 2010
Thursday, June 24, 2010
NewsBusters.org Esposing liberal media bias (agree with us or else!)
Last political post for some time, I promise.
So I recently signed up for the twitter feed belonging to NewsBusters since I so enjoy hearing/reading the viewpoints of people I don't necessarily agree with. Their motto seems sincere enough. Just as there is conservative media bias there is definitely liberal media bias and I am not naive enough to believe that only one side is guilty.
It took less than a week to find out that this site is full of crap and needs a completely different site to try and capture all of the bias that they are guilty of.
Almost every story I read is basically a hack job attempt at spin to make liberals look as bad as possible. It's exactly the type of site that a bunch of amateur bloggers would come up with where everyone can agree with each other without fear of having someone disagree with them.
As my previous post would indicate I like perusing the message boards and so I took the time one day to register so that I could join the discussion. Knowing how touchy these places can be I phrased a very articulate reply asking a reasonable question with a firm belief that it wasn't so inflammatory as to get my comment deleted.
It took less than a day for my account to be banned completely. I thought this weird and maybe I didn't verify my account properly so I tried again only to see that my email address had been banned from the site. From that point, with open eyes, I started reading the comment sections on a few pages only to see that is was chock full of lib-hating people in all their glory with nary a lefty comment to be seen. Ah ha.
So feeling oppressed launched a google query asking about getting banned from Newsbusters only to see that this is apparently how they operate. A site claiming to look for media bias rejects any and all two-sided discussions. Does that seem wrong to anyone else?
Ultimately it's not a big deal. These people have a club and there ain't no libs allowed. No biggy. I just thought it odd that a site attempting to be fair would be so close minded. I'll just have to find another enemy battleground to encroach on.
So I recently signed up for the twitter feed belonging to NewsBusters since I so enjoy hearing/reading the viewpoints of people I don't necessarily agree with. Their motto seems sincere enough. Just as there is conservative media bias there is definitely liberal media bias and I am not naive enough to believe that only one side is guilty.
It took less than a week to find out that this site is full of crap and needs a completely different site to try and capture all of the bias that they are guilty of.
Almost every story I read is basically a hack job attempt at spin to make liberals look as bad as possible. It's exactly the type of site that a bunch of amateur bloggers would come up with where everyone can agree with each other without fear of having someone disagree with them.
As my previous post would indicate I like perusing the message boards and so I took the time one day to register so that I could join the discussion. Knowing how touchy these places can be I phrased a very articulate reply asking a reasonable question with a firm belief that it wasn't so inflammatory as to get my comment deleted.
It took less than a day for my account to be banned completely. I thought this weird and maybe I didn't verify my account properly so I tried again only to see that my email address had been banned from the site. From that point, with open eyes, I started reading the comment sections on a few pages only to see that is was chock full of lib-hating people in all their glory with nary a lefty comment to be seen. Ah ha.
So feeling oppressed launched a google query asking about getting banned from Newsbusters only to see that this is apparently how they operate. A site claiming to look for media bias rejects any and all two-sided discussions. Does that seem wrong to anyone else?
Ultimately it's not a big deal. These people have a club and there ain't no libs allowed. No biggy. I just thought it odd that a site attempting to be fair would be so close minded. I'll just have to find another enemy battleground to encroach on.
What's in a name?
Ever since I started paying attention to politics I've enjoyed checking in on various websites and reading the comments that readers leave behind. As abrasive and crazy as people can be in public it doesn't even come close to what is exhibited when these people get the protection of electronic anonymity.
It is in these forums where you will see every example of awful debate, immaturity, ignorance, and zero class. You might think that people who immerse themselves in politics might be somewhat interested in a good eye opening debate. In fact they usually just want to stay safe within the secure confines of like minded people. Occasionally they may lead a sortie consisting of straw man arguments, blanket statements, ad hominem attacks, and the ever present violation of Goodwin's law but they will then retreat swiftly and ignore and points made against them.
Perhaps my favorite element of this little world would have to be the user names of conservatives on these message boards. It's very rare to see a simple last name + year of birth combo or anything equally innocent. Instead you get declarations that instantly make them better Americans than you. Take this page for example. On this page you get the following:
Old Yankee
Tea Party Patriot
Preacher 's justice
Patriot
wakeuppeople
Don't tread on me!
real American
One_Nation_Under_God
Statesman/Patriot
mad vet
Concerned_American
american boy
These are actually kind of tame compared to other pages I've seen but the point remains the same. Is it wrong that I think this is hilarious? It's kind of like a preemptive strike. "Sure you can try to refute my logic of why Obama is purposely trying to destroy the country but you can't win because the word 'Patriot' is in my username." That's the only way I can interpret this stuff.
Is there a reason that conservatives spend a good portion of their time telling each other how American or how patriotic they are? Is this part of the mentality that leads them to believe they can instantly discard any opposing viewpoint simply because they think the other person is a "libtard"?
I consider myself a "real American". I consider myself patriotic. I am firm in my beliefs and yet I have no need to tell everyone just how American I am. Part of me wants to ignore the circle jerk that is conservative discussion but the other part can't help but think about dudes who tell everyone how much ass they get to cover for the fact that they aren't getting any.
So it's absolutely fine that these people need to dub themselves "SuperPatrioticMan" or "MoreAmericanThanU" but it really does not mean a god damn thing. It also means nothing when Sean Hannity names 2 bimbos and himself the "Great American Panel". There is no validity behind the name "Keep America Safe" when in actuality all you are doing, Liz, is performing revisionism on the past.
So what's in a name? Absolutely nothing... as long as you're capable of seeing past the book cover.
It is in these forums where you will see every example of awful debate, immaturity, ignorance, and zero class. You might think that people who immerse themselves in politics might be somewhat interested in a good eye opening debate. In fact they usually just want to stay safe within the secure confines of like minded people. Occasionally they may lead a sortie consisting of straw man arguments, blanket statements, ad hominem attacks, and the ever present violation of Goodwin's law but they will then retreat swiftly and ignore and points made against them.
Perhaps my favorite element of this little world would have to be the user names of conservatives on these message boards. It's very rare to see a simple last name + year of birth combo or anything equally innocent. Instead you get declarations that instantly make them better Americans than you. Take this page for example. On this page you get the following:
Old Yankee
Tea Party Patriot
Preacher 's justice
Patriot
wakeuppeople
Don't tread on me!
real American
One_Nation_Under_God
Statesman/Patriot
mad vet
Concerned_American
american boy
These are actually kind of tame compared to other pages I've seen but the point remains the same. Is it wrong that I think this is hilarious? It's kind of like a preemptive strike. "Sure you can try to refute my logic of why Obama is purposely trying to destroy the country but you can't win because the word 'Patriot' is in my username." That's the only way I can interpret this stuff.
Is there a reason that conservatives spend a good portion of their time telling each other how American or how patriotic they are? Is this part of the mentality that leads them to believe they can instantly discard any opposing viewpoint simply because they think the other person is a "libtard"?
I consider myself a "real American". I consider myself patriotic. I am firm in my beliefs and yet I have no need to tell everyone just how American I am. Part of me wants to ignore the circle jerk that is conservative discussion but the other part can't help but think about dudes who tell everyone how much ass they get to cover for the fact that they aren't getting any.
So it's absolutely fine that these people need to dub themselves "SuperPatrioticMan" or "MoreAmericanThanU" but it really does not mean a god damn thing. It also means nothing when Sean Hannity names 2 bimbos and himself the "Great American Panel". There is no validity behind the name "Keep America Safe" when in actuality all you are doing, Liz, is performing revisionism on the past.
So what's in a name? Absolutely nothing... as long as you're capable of seeing past the book cover.
Wednesday, June 23, 2010
When keeping it real goes wrong
So there's this issue that really has not gotten much press lately (sarcasm for those who don't pick that up). Apparently a Rolling Stone news reporter was spending time with General McChrystal recently and kind of exposed the ugly side of military-civilian relations. The article reveals a number of statements/impressions given by McChrystal and his aides that are not exactly complimentary of President Obama, Vice President Biden, Afghanistan ambassador Karl Eikenberry, and a few others. As usual, hilarity ensues.
My take: McChrystal fucked up. Pure and simple. Should he be fired? I believe so. Or at least his resignation should be accepted to save him some face. The first rule in business is that no one is irreplaceable. In this political climate with the longest war in US history taking place a man in his position has no place to be having this sort of report be released to the public. That is inexcusable. The office of President of the United States of America demands a certain respect, regardless of who fills that position. Turd burglars like you and I can feel free to run our mouths about these guys as much as we want but a certain decorum is expected for those in important government/military positions.
That isn't to say that I think that McChrystal should be punished for his (alleged) views. What gets him in trouble is that, a) a reporter was given the access to these candid statements, and, b) his aides and staff were under the impression that they could be this candid with the reporter. I am certainly not as naive as to think that every member of the military would be infatuated with Obama or those who have never served. That's just delusional. Regardless, the fact that this did come to light and will now grace the pages of Rolling Stone, a magazine that regularly places a shirtless Shawn White on the cover, is an incredible lapse of judgement.
I've heard a number of conservative pundits run their mouths in the time since this story broke and not too many of them have recognized the serious breach of protocol and are instead acting as if they are the damaged party. It's exactly the way a child acts when guilty. That's besides the point. They just don't seem to get it. Just because they and their couple million listeners want the president impeached/executed for made-up offenses is not reason. There has to be some actual substance. So while they are spending their air time finding justification for McChrystal's misstep the man himself is answering to his boss and taking responsibility for it.
Consequence. Again these people have proven they have no idea what consequence is about.
So it is a shame that something like this was exposed to the public. I've often heard that civilians have no business being privy to what goes on in military life and that is something that I agree with 100%. We the people are too squeamish. Too easily offended.
So McChrystal made a mistake. He's a four star general who will now be forever associated with this and that is unfortunate, but it is the truth. Political junkies are now eagerly awaiting the news of whether or not a replacement will be needed for the Afghanistan campaign but largely the actual military implications of this event will be far outweighed by the politics as each side will now jockey to inform/misinform the public on what it all really means. It's already getting wore out by Rush. Mark Levin was bitching like crazy last night. It's just the current bullshit du jour right now. McChrystal kept it real... and it definitely went wrong.
My take: McChrystal fucked up. Pure and simple. Should he be fired? I believe so. Or at least his resignation should be accepted to save him some face. The first rule in business is that no one is irreplaceable. In this political climate with the longest war in US history taking place a man in his position has no place to be having this sort of report be released to the public. That is inexcusable. The office of President of the United States of America demands a certain respect, regardless of who fills that position. Turd burglars like you and I can feel free to run our mouths about these guys as much as we want but a certain decorum is expected for those in important government/military positions.
That isn't to say that I think that McChrystal should be punished for his (alleged) views. What gets him in trouble is that, a) a reporter was given the access to these candid statements, and, b) his aides and staff were under the impression that they could be this candid with the reporter. I am certainly not as naive as to think that every member of the military would be infatuated with Obama or those who have never served. That's just delusional. Regardless, the fact that this did come to light and will now grace the pages of Rolling Stone, a magazine that regularly places a shirtless Shawn White on the cover, is an incredible lapse of judgement.
I've heard a number of conservative pundits run their mouths in the time since this story broke and not too many of them have recognized the serious breach of protocol and are instead acting as if they are the damaged party. It's exactly the way a child acts when guilty. That's besides the point. They just don't seem to get it. Just because they and their couple million listeners want the president impeached/executed for made-up offenses is not reason. There has to be some actual substance. So while they are spending their air time finding justification for McChrystal's misstep the man himself is answering to his boss and taking responsibility for it.
Consequence. Again these people have proven they have no idea what consequence is about.
So it is a shame that something like this was exposed to the public. I've often heard that civilians have no business being privy to what goes on in military life and that is something that I agree with 100%. We the people are too squeamish. Too easily offended.
So McChrystal made a mistake. He's a four star general who will now be forever associated with this and that is unfortunate, but it is the truth. Political junkies are now eagerly awaiting the news of whether or not a replacement will be needed for the Afghanistan campaign but largely the actual military implications of this event will be far outweighed by the politics as each side will now jockey to inform/misinform the public on what it all really means. It's already getting wore out by Rush. Mark Levin was bitching like crazy last night. It's just the current bullshit du jour right now. McChrystal kept it real... and it definitely went wrong.
MediaMatters: Will BP be Fox News' tipping point?
Just read this post over at MediaMatters and I couldn't agree more:
Will BP be Fox News' tipping point?
June 23, 2010 8:51 am ET by Eric Boehlert
Eight-two percent.
That’s the number you need to keep in mind as you listen to the right-wing caterwauling about how poor, helpless BP has been tormented and demonized by the bullying, Constitution-hating Obama White House.
Eight-two percent.
According to the latest CNN poll, a huge, huge, huge majority of Americans supports the $20 billion escrow fund that BP agreed to create in order to help pay for the Gulf of Mexico cleanup.
And get this: According to the same CNN poll, a microscopic 5 percent of Americans think Obama has been “too tough” on BP. Just 5 percent.
But apparently those 5-percenters all host radio and TV shows, or blog online, because that radical claim that Obama’s to blame for creating the hated escrow fund (not to mention for causing the oil spill in the first place), has been exploding within the GOP Noise Machine as pundits, bloggers, and talk show hosts rush to defend BP and denounce one of the most popular things Obama has ever done.
And, of course, helping lead the charge to guard BP from Obama’s wicked ways has been Fox News.
Fox News is programmed for Obama dead-enders, that much is clear. They’re the radical minority of political hyper-partisans who hold as a matter of faith that Obama is a Manchurian candidate. It’s not just that Obama was born in Kenya and isn’t truly of this country, or culture, and that his policies are misguided and wrong for America. It runs much deeper. It’s that Obama ran for the Oval Office with the explicit plan to ruin America from within once he was elected. He ran for president in order to destroy this country by stripping it of its freedoms and liberties and transforming the United States into some sort of socialist or communist outpost.
That’s how far out on the ledge Fox News now operates. And FYI, if you view the world from that demented perspective, it probably does look like BP got jobbed. (Just like of course the Clinton White House sold nuclear secrets to China during the `90s; Democratic presidents are a treasonous bunch.)
As I said, the dead-enders represent a radical minority. And yet they have an entire right-wing media complex set up explicitly to whet their Obama-hating appetite. There is no thought put into the rhetoric anymore, or their partisan jousting. Instead, the content revolves around a very simple premise: If Obama did it, it’s wrong. Not just wrong. More like, if Obama did it, it’s evil and dangerous and ghastly and un-American.
So the stimulus bill was evil and un-American. Bailing out GM and Chrysler was evil and un-American. Passing health care reform, of course, was evil and un-America.
But securing $20 billion from BP to pay for the cleanup and to compensate working Americans for the damage done to their livelihoods. That was evil and un-American?
According to Fox News it was.
And with that audacious claim, I’m wondering if Fox News isn’t pressing up very closely to its tipping point; to the moment where Fox News reveals how certifiably insane it is by rushing to BP’s defense, and just how distant its programming is from the American mainstream.
I don’t mean it’s the tipping point in terms of there being some sort of collective realization within Fox News that its signature form of partisan Obama hatred has jumped about 19 different sets of tracks and its incessant campaign of smears and lies makes a mockery out of the news business, as well as does real damage to democracy. (I’m pretty sure everyone at Fox News already knows that.)
I’m referring instead to a collective realization among people outside Fox News and the GOP Noise Machine that there’s something fundamentally wrong with a so-called news organization siding with BP after what the oil giant has done to the Gulf of Mexico and the reckless, cavalier way it has ruined the livelihoods of countless of residents.
That there’s something just plain wrong and illogical in being so robotically ant-Obama that the Fox News team would consciously side with today’s version of Public Enemy No. 1 and insist, with complete conviction, that it’s the president of the United States who’s to blame for the big oil disaster, and it’s the president of the United States who should be attacked, smeared, and ridiculed for getting BP to set aside $20 billion in damages.
The tipping point could come when everyday Americans, as well as mainstream reporters, observe the right-wing media’s radical embrace of BP (fueled by all-consuming Obama Derangement Syndrome), look at each other and utter various equivalents of, “WTF?”
Because not only is Fox News in effect defending BP, but it’s using the occasion of the $20 billion agreement to depict Obama as some sort of monster bent on destroying America. How? By holding BP financially responsible.
Again, you can almost hear the “WTF’s” as the realization of the Fox News attack campaign sinks in. Rupert Murdoch’s channel is siding with BP over the United States???
You better believe it. From Fox News’ Andrew Napolitano:
I think you could argue that the government is, in large measure, responsible for this mess.
The reason I’m (perhaps naïvely) suggesting there may soon be a collective A-ha moment about Fox News with regard to its defense of BP, whereas the channel’s outrageous programming in the past has not triggered that kind of response, is that this is different because it’s not about politics. That Fox News will relentlessly attack Obama and Democrats about every conceivable issue is, at this point, a given -- Fox News functions as the Opposition Party.
But the BP disaster, and the callous disregard for how it was handled by the oil company, is different. The environmental fiasco very much resembles an attack on the United States by a foreign entity. (An act of eco-terrorism, if you will.) And common sense tells us that that should never be a partisan issue. And common sense dictates that no sane person would side with BP, let alone condemn the government for securing $20 billion in private funds to pay for the disaster.
Or would they?
It’s difficult to put into words just how isolated and extreme the right-wing media’s embrace of BP has been over the last week. It’s mind-bending that a major political movement in this country, driven by its media “news” outlets, would rush out onto the battlefield of public debate in order to plant its flag alongside BP, even as the incompetent petroleum giant remains unable to turn off the underwater gusher that is destroying the Gulf of Mexico.
And yet turn on Fox News or tune into Rush Limbaugh or Mark Levin, or a whole host of other BP apologists, and get a daily earful about how BP is being unfairly maligned and that Obama should be condemned for securing $20 billion in cleanup funds. (Keep in mind that no one associated with BP has ever suggested the White House bullied the company, or that BP was the victim of a “shakedown.” No one.)
And yes, I realize some conservative loud mouths claim that just because they’re attacking the White House over the $20 billion “shakedown,” that doesn’t mean they’re defending BP, or that they agree with Rep. Joe Barton (R-TX) and think the oil giant deserves an apology. But gimme a break. That’s a distinction without a difference because even before the “shakedown” meme was launched late last week, the same right-wing outlets, including Fox News, were weeping hysterically at how the White House was trying to “demonize” little ol’ BP, and how its poor executives were going to be paraded before Congress for a nasty “show trial.” Meaning, the right wing’s desire to throw its body in front of BP and protect it from alleged government abuse has been a constant for weeks now, and extends far beyond the “shakedown” defense.
The fact is, forced to pick a villain in the BP disaster, Fox News chose America and set its sights on the White House, not the foreign oil giant; a giant that even industry players have tagged as being reckless and guilty of “gross negligence.”
Has Fox News finally reached the point of no return?
Will BP be Fox News' tipping point?
June 23, 2010 8:51 am ET by Eric Boehlert
Eight-two percent.
That’s the number you need to keep in mind as you listen to the right-wing caterwauling about how poor, helpless BP has been tormented and demonized by the bullying, Constitution-hating Obama White House.
Eight-two percent.
According to the latest CNN poll, a huge, huge, huge majority of Americans supports the $20 billion escrow fund that BP agreed to create in order to help pay for the Gulf of Mexico cleanup.
And get this: According to the same CNN poll, a microscopic 5 percent of Americans think Obama has been “too tough” on BP. Just 5 percent.
But apparently those 5-percenters all host radio and TV shows, or blog online, because that radical claim that Obama’s to blame for creating the hated escrow fund (not to mention for causing the oil spill in the first place), has been exploding within the GOP Noise Machine as pundits, bloggers, and talk show hosts rush to defend BP and denounce one of the most popular things Obama has ever done.
And, of course, helping lead the charge to guard BP from Obama’s wicked ways has been Fox News.
Fox News is programmed for Obama dead-enders, that much is clear. They’re the radical minority of political hyper-partisans who hold as a matter of faith that Obama is a Manchurian candidate. It’s not just that Obama was born in Kenya and isn’t truly of this country, or culture, and that his policies are misguided and wrong for America. It runs much deeper. It’s that Obama ran for the Oval Office with the explicit plan to ruin America from within once he was elected. He ran for president in order to destroy this country by stripping it of its freedoms and liberties and transforming the United States into some sort of socialist or communist outpost.
That’s how far out on the ledge Fox News now operates. And FYI, if you view the world from that demented perspective, it probably does look like BP got jobbed. (Just like of course the Clinton White House sold nuclear secrets to China during the `90s; Democratic presidents are a treasonous bunch.)
As I said, the dead-enders represent a radical minority. And yet they have an entire right-wing media complex set up explicitly to whet their Obama-hating appetite. There is no thought put into the rhetoric anymore, or their partisan jousting. Instead, the content revolves around a very simple premise: If Obama did it, it’s wrong. Not just wrong. More like, if Obama did it, it’s evil and dangerous and ghastly and un-American.
So the stimulus bill was evil and un-American. Bailing out GM and Chrysler was evil and un-American. Passing health care reform, of course, was evil and un-America.
But securing $20 billion from BP to pay for the cleanup and to compensate working Americans for the damage done to their livelihoods. That was evil and un-American?
According to Fox News it was.
And with that audacious claim, I’m wondering if Fox News isn’t pressing up very closely to its tipping point; to the moment where Fox News reveals how certifiably insane it is by rushing to BP’s defense, and just how distant its programming is from the American mainstream.
I don’t mean it’s the tipping point in terms of there being some sort of collective realization within Fox News that its signature form of partisan Obama hatred has jumped about 19 different sets of tracks and its incessant campaign of smears and lies makes a mockery out of the news business, as well as does real damage to democracy. (I’m pretty sure everyone at Fox News already knows that.)
I’m referring instead to a collective realization among people outside Fox News and the GOP Noise Machine that there’s something fundamentally wrong with a so-called news organization siding with BP after what the oil giant has done to the Gulf of Mexico and the reckless, cavalier way it has ruined the livelihoods of countless of residents.
That there’s something just plain wrong and illogical in being so robotically ant-Obama that the Fox News team would consciously side with today’s version of Public Enemy No. 1 and insist, with complete conviction, that it’s the president of the United States who’s to blame for the big oil disaster, and it’s the president of the United States who should be attacked, smeared, and ridiculed for getting BP to set aside $20 billion in damages.
The tipping point could come when everyday Americans, as well as mainstream reporters, observe the right-wing media’s radical embrace of BP (fueled by all-consuming Obama Derangement Syndrome), look at each other and utter various equivalents of, “WTF?”
Because not only is Fox News in effect defending BP, but it’s using the occasion of the $20 billion agreement to depict Obama as some sort of monster bent on destroying America. How? By holding BP financially responsible.
Again, you can almost hear the “WTF’s” as the realization of the Fox News attack campaign sinks in. Rupert Murdoch’s channel is siding with BP over the United States???
You better believe it. From Fox News’ Andrew Napolitano:
I think you could argue that the government is, in large measure, responsible for this mess.
The reason I’m (perhaps naïvely) suggesting there may soon be a collective A-ha moment about Fox News with regard to its defense of BP, whereas the channel’s outrageous programming in the past has not triggered that kind of response, is that this is different because it’s not about politics. That Fox News will relentlessly attack Obama and Democrats about every conceivable issue is, at this point, a given -- Fox News functions as the Opposition Party.
But the BP disaster, and the callous disregard for how it was handled by the oil company, is different. The environmental fiasco very much resembles an attack on the United States by a foreign entity. (An act of eco-terrorism, if you will.) And common sense tells us that that should never be a partisan issue. And common sense dictates that no sane person would side with BP, let alone condemn the government for securing $20 billion in private funds to pay for the disaster.
Or would they?
It’s difficult to put into words just how isolated and extreme the right-wing media’s embrace of BP has been over the last week. It’s mind-bending that a major political movement in this country, driven by its media “news” outlets, would rush out onto the battlefield of public debate in order to plant its flag alongside BP, even as the incompetent petroleum giant remains unable to turn off the underwater gusher that is destroying the Gulf of Mexico.
And yet turn on Fox News or tune into Rush Limbaugh or Mark Levin, or a whole host of other BP apologists, and get a daily earful about how BP is being unfairly maligned and that Obama should be condemned for securing $20 billion in cleanup funds. (Keep in mind that no one associated with BP has ever suggested the White House bullied the company, or that BP was the victim of a “shakedown.” No one.)
And yes, I realize some conservative loud mouths claim that just because they’re attacking the White House over the $20 billion “shakedown,” that doesn’t mean they’re defending BP, or that they agree with Rep. Joe Barton (R-TX) and think the oil giant deserves an apology. But gimme a break. That’s a distinction without a difference because even before the “shakedown” meme was launched late last week, the same right-wing outlets, including Fox News, were weeping hysterically at how the White House was trying to “demonize” little ol’ BP, and how its poor executives were going to be paraded before Congress for a nasty “show trial.” Meaning, the right wing’s desire to throw its body in front of BP and protect it from alleged government abuse has been a constant for weeks now, and extends far beyond the “shakedown” defense.
The fact is, forced to pick a villain in the BP disaster, Fox News chose America and set its sights on the White House, not the foreign oil giant; a giant that even industry players have tagged as being reckless and guilty of “gross negligence.”
Has Fox News finally reached the point of no return?
Thursday, June 17, 2010
Crying over spilled oil
Politics is hilarious. Can I just say that? There has been a ton of absolutely hysterical behavior lately so it's been kind of difficult for me to choose any particular issue to dive in to on this here blog. However, this whole oil thing has just been a joke. Before I delve in to that, though, I'll hit up a few other topics.
There's been a little bit of new musics lately. I last blogged about STP's new album and over time it has really just struck me as mediocre. It just appears to be more blah blah blah like the last couple albums with nothing particularly pleasing to get excited about. It's always disappointing when the lead single is the high point of the album. At this point I have to admit that my affection for STP is nothing more than a fading memory of the mid 90s. There is nothing in their current works that bears any resemblance to Core or Purple.
Coming out at about the same time as STP was the new one by the Deftones. This cd isn't too shabby but, like STP, I am remembering the band more for one of my all time favorite albums (White Pony). Anyway, the reviews likened the new joint to White Pony and raved about it saying it was a return to that style but I just am not seeing it. I actually see their last three (post-White Pony) albums as kind of similar. There's nothing amazing going on in this particular era but I also don't hate it.
Another cd for me to get excited about would have to be the recent release by Sarah McLachlan. I love me some Sarah. She's awesome. I can't quite explain why my usually hard rock music taste is infiltrated by this sweet singing Canadian but the fact is that I love it. She sings great, there's usually some sweet ass bass lines going on, she's got commercials trying to make you adopt animals... what's not to like? Keep bringing it Sarah. Don't change a thing.
- Musics
There's been a little bit of new musics lately. I last blogged about STP's new album and over time it has really just struck me as mediocre. It just appears to be more blah blah blah like the last couple albums with nothing particularly pleasing to get excited about. It's always disappointing when the lead single is the high point of the album. At this point I have to admit that my affection for STP is nothing more than a fading memory of the mid 90s. There is nothing in their current works that bears any resemblance to Core or Purple.
Coming out at about the same time as STP was the new one by the Deftones. This cd isn't too shabby but, like STP, I am remembering the band more for one of my all time favorite albums (White Pony). Anyway, the reviews likened the new joint to White Pony and raved about it saying it was a return to that style but I just am not seeing it. I actually see their last three (post-White Pony) albums as kind of similar. There's nothing amazing going on in this particular era but I also don't hate it.
Another cd for me to get excited about would have to be the recent release by Sarah McLachlan. I love me some Sarah. She's awesome. I can't quite explain why my usually hard rock music taste is infiltrated by this sweet singing Canadian but the fact is that I love it. She sings great, there's usually some sweet ass bass lines going on, she's got commercials trying to make you adopt animals... what's not to like? Keep bringing it Sarah. Don't change a thing.
- Body movin'
So with the upcoming wedding thing the Hot Mary and myself have recently taken a couple dance lessons. Quite frankly I don't think we learned enough to actually hold our own anywhere but the surprising thing was that it was actually kind of fun. We had these cats teaching us some foxtrot steps and speaking to us in accents I could barely make out but I kind of dug it. Of course it's all sorts of expensive and will require practice that we don't necessarily have time to do but it might be something that we'll have to revisit in the future. Don't knock it till you've tried it.
- Eh... the fantasy baseballs
Wow. This season has been a bust. Let me give a brief summary. Doumit is ok at catcher but the guy I cut, Napoli, has since blown up. Konerko is one of the league leaders in dingers but the guy I drafted, Berkman, still has yet to do some damage. Beckham still can't put some distance between his average and the mendoza line. A-Rod is hitting well but is only on track for 20 HRs. Jeter is also hitting well but is mysteriously lacking the patience he once had (OBP of around .350). Abreu and Span are no where near the .300 AVE and .400 OBP they normally hit and Ellsbury is still not back from cracked ribs. Lester and Liriano are fine but Nolasco and Beckett are not contributing much. Finally, my closers are ok but Bailey and Franklin never get save opportunities.
That is my season thus far and, again, it is a miracle that I am not in last place.
Alright, so, the oil spill.
First of all, I suppose it's not even correct to refer to it as a "spill". That was an accurate description of what happened with Exxon up near Alaska but this situation in the Gulf of Mexico is more of an oil gusher. Not good news. The worst part (that's not actually true but it makes for a better phrase) of it is that it isn't a singular incident for which the news cycle will come and go and become yesterdays news. Nope, in this situation, as long as the oil continues to gush, so do all of the friggin experts.
This whole incident was labeled incorrectly right from the get-go as certain morons deemed it "Obama's Katrina". How does one single natural event resulting in thousands dead that was forecasted to occur have any similarity to a surprise man made event killing a dozen? I don't really know. Both of them involved water and Louisiana. Great job connecting the dots.
What it comes down to, and this is no surprise, is that there is a certain segment of the population flirting with blatant treason/sedition in the hopes of pushing Obama out of office. Most of these people like to come up with justification in their feelings despite the fact that they decided on this course before Obama was elected and even had a chance to unleash "TEH ZOMG EVIL SOCIALIST AGENDA".
The conservative criticism is two-headed and quite contradictory. On one side you have oil lover conservative head. These people are motivated by shouts of "Drill, Baby! Drill!" and, not surprisingly, is led by intellectual genius on all matters, Sarah Palin. She blames the crisis on environmentalists. This makes sense because environmentalists would prefer that there was no drilling at all. This causes drilling to occur in deep water which causes safety lapse induced explosions. In actuality I have no idea what Palin is talking about and I rarely do. I tried just now to connect the dots on her logic but I forget that pretty much everything says is some sort of Tea Party slogan which doesn't really translate well to actual thought. Fuck that bitch.
The other two prominent conservative minds claiming the oil gusher ain't no thang are Brit Hume and Rush Limbaugh. Just with the fact that Rush's name is attached to this is enough reason to already know that this stance is full of shit. Rush says that the ocean is used to absorbing oil all the time, so what's the big deal? You know what else isn't a big deal? Getting a little sun, having a glass of wine and eating a little bacon. However, just as dumping tons upon tons of crude oil in to the water isn't the same as a little oil naturally escaping in to the water it's also a whole different story to tan 5 hours of day, drink gallons of wine and eat a shit ton of bacon. Rush is a friggin moron. By the way, rush also spends his day criticizing Obama for his handling of this "non" crisis. Again, Rush is a friggin moron and so are the people who believe him.
As for Hume, it absolutely blew my mind when he asked a couple weeks ago on that idiot-fest known as Fox Sunday Morning or something like that: "Where's the oil?". What the fuck?!? At this point I had been douched with images of the following: oil slicks visible on the surface of the gulf, oil washed up on shores, oil slicks on fire in controlled burns in the water, unidentifiable oil covered avian creatures, dead turtles and other animals covered in that shit and satellite images of the mess in a big-picture view. And Hume asks where the oil is? Listen, Brit, the only reason you had no idea where the oil was is either because you are willingly ignorant on these images or your employer has chosen not to run any of the images and that's where you get all of your "news". Either one is inexcusable.
This brings us to the next bunch of critics. These are the people who think that Obama is personally responsible for everything that has ever gone wrong in this country. I really don't even know where to begin on this one as the criticisms have been coming from all directions and for any number of reasons. I'll try to round them up as I remember them.
One of the bigger complaints during this crisis is that Obama hasn't appeared to be upset enough and is detached from the situation. That criticism is entirely based on each individual. Some people want to see their leader get worked up and angry at those who have wronged us. Other people want someone who keeps emotion out of it. Regardless of your own preferences there are those that didn't like that Obama did not appear to care. Obama then made the mistake of saying that he needed to kick some ass in this whole ordeal and also gave a speech about it. All of a sudden now he is acting like a "street thug" and being rude. I also heard that he was acting like a child throwing a tantrum. These criticisms in many cases were coming from the same people who didn't like his then emotionless response. The obvious conclusions: these people wouldn't be happy no matter how Obama responded.
Next up we have the people who complained that Obama was not being hard enough on BP. This of course leads to allegations of collusion. Maybe Obama wanted this to occur hmmmm? Fast forward to this week and BP has been hit with the $20 billion bill for the damages. Now of course we hear these morons upset that Obama would dare force BP to pay for this. It's an absolute joke. The conclusion drawn in the previous paragraph is also applicable here.
The other criticism which I have personally repeated on Hannity as well as Fox is that Obama is not accepting any foreign assistance in this. This is an absolute lie and yet it gets repeated every single fucking day. There are no less than 15 nations with a ship in the gulf right now helping out in the process. All you have to do is a simple internet search. Why is that beyond the capabilities of these "professionals"?
All told I really don't know what the critics expected of Obama. I honestly don't believe that any department in the Federal Government is knowledgeable or equipped to handle an oil leak miles beneath the surface. Obama certainly made a large number of campaign promises but no where in those speeches did he say anything about being able to swim down there and take care of shit like this.
The list of outright lies and smearing that is being placed on the administration right now is so ridiculous that it really takes away from the actual tragedy. There has even been the lie spread that Obama was just fucking around for a month without visiting the scene despite the fact that Obama made an appearance right at the beginning of May. Again, it's all information that could be easily obtained should one want to know the truth rather than just tune in to sources that will tell you what you want to hear.
What the fuck would it really matter if Obama showed up on the Louisiana shores anyway? Perhaps he could stand on the beach and give the oil slick a stony stare that would send it scurrying back to the depths from whence it came. That's exactly what Reagan would have done.
As for Obama, he clearly has justification to give a hearty "fuck you" to those conservatives who find fault in everything he does. Simple as that. Why give a shit about people who hate for the sake of hating. All they want is a Republican in power. When you are the type of person to put the party above the country you have clearly fallen outside of reality. The ironic part is that these are the first people to declare themselves "patriots".
Stop getting your information from Sarah Palin facebook updates and wake up. It's either that or remain an idiot. Your choice.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)