People Who Should Just Go Away

I don't mean anything bad or awful should happen to them but honestly, they should just go away.

Mitt Romney

George W. Bush

Dick Cheney (should have happened years ago)

Both Koch brothers

Donald Trump

All the Walton siblings

Chris Christie

Carly Fiorina

Rand Paul.

Rick Perry

Ted Cruz (see a trend here?)

Mike Huckabee (from Arkansas)

Senator Tom Cotton (also from Arkansas)

Bill O'Reilly.

Rush Limbaugh.

Sean Hannity.

Steve Doofus. Doocy. Whatever.

Ray Romano (just because he's so incredibly dull)

I'd say Jay Leno but thankfully, he did go away

Climate change deniers

Obama haters

Haters, period

NRA President Wayne LaPierre

Racists (but that's an easy one)

People who scream, fixatedly, about the nation's deficit

Single-issue people (again, this could be people fixated on the national deficit or abortion or whatever)

The overly emotional

The icy cold, eartless bastards of the world

All the Kardashians (there's more than one, right?)

Kanye West

Anne Coulter (absolutlely)

Rudy Giuliani

Sheriff Joe Arapaio

Megyn Kelly

Rupert Murdoch

Pat Robertson (the crazy, greedy, rich old bastard)

Anyone who doesn't bring intelligence or laughter or kindness--at least one--to the world

Quote of the day

"People who know little are usually great talkers, while men who know much say little."

 

--Jean-Jacques Rousseau

 

 

No, there's no racism about this president...or at Fox "News"...or in the Right Wing

And it doesn't inform their politics, either, no. Right.

Quote of the day

"There is nothing more frightening than active ignorance." ~Goethe

More proof of why we need the "Fairness Doctrine" back in our country (guest post)

A good and important read I somehow missed last Fall (and that nearly no one will read).
Olbermann, O'Reilly and the death of real news

By Ted Koppel
Sunday, November 14, 2010

To witness Keith Olbermann - the most opinionated among MSNBC's left-leaning, Fox-baiting, money-generating hosts - suspended even briefly last week for making financial contributions to Democratic political candidates seemed like a whimsical, arcane holdover from a long-gone era of television journalism, when the networks considered the collection and dissemination of substantive and unbiased news to be a public trust.

Back then, a policy against political contributions would have aimed to avoid even the appearance of partisanship. But today, when Olbermann draws more than 1 million like-minded viewers to his program every night precisely because he is avowedly, unabashedly and monotonously partisan, it is not clear what misdemeanor his donations constituted. Consistency?

We live now in a cable news universe that celebrates the opinions of Olbermann, Rachel Maddow, Chris Matthews, Glenn Beck, Sean Hannity and Bill O'Reilly - individuals who hold up the twin pillars of political partisanship and who are encouraged to do so by their parent organizations because their brand of analysis and commentary is highly profitable.

The commercial success of both Fox News and MSNBC is a source of nonpartisan sadness for me. While I can appreciate the financial logic of drowning television viewers in a flood of opinions designed to confirm their own biases, the trend is not good for the republic. It is, though, the natural outcome of a growing sense of national entitlement. Daniel Patrick Moynihan's oft-quoted observation that "everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts," seems almost quaint in an environment that flaunts opinions as though they were facts.

And so, among the many benefits we have come to believe the founding fathers intended for us, the latest is news we can choose. Beginning, perhaps, from the reasonable perspective that absolute objectivity is unattainable, Fox News and MSNBC no longer even attempt it. They show us the world not as it is, but as partisans (and loyal viewers) at either end of the political spectrum would like it to be. This is to journalism what Bernie Madoff was to investment: He told his customers what they wanted to hear, and by the time they learned the truth, their money was gone.

It is also part of a pervasive ethos that eschews facts in favor of an idealized reality. The fashion industry has apparently known this for years: Esquire magazine recently found that men's jeans from a variety of name-brand manufacturers are cut large but labeled small. The actual waist sizes are anywhere from three to six inches roomier than their labels insist.

Perhaps it doesn't matter that we are being flattered into believing what any full-length mirror can tell us is untrue. But when our accountants, bankers and lawyers, our doctors and our politicians tell us only what we want to hear, despite hard evidence to the contrary, we are headed for disaster. We need only look at our housing industry, our credit card debt, the cost of two wars subsidized by borrowed money, and the rising deficit to understand the dangers of entitlement run rampant. We celebrate truth as a virtue, but only in the abstract. What we really need in our search for truth is a commodity that used to be at the heart of good journalism: facts - along with a willingness to present those facts without fear or favor.

To the degree that broadcast news was a more virtuous operation 40 years ago, it was a function of both fear and innocence. Network executives were afraid that a failure to work in the "public interest, convenience and necessity," as set forth in the Radio Act of 1927, might cause the Federal Communications Commission to suspend or even revoke their licenses. The three major broadcast networks pointed to their news divisions (which operated at a loss or barely broke even) as evidence that they were fulfilling the FCC's mandate. News was, in a manner of speaking, the loss leader that permitted NBC, CBS and ABC to justify the enormous profits made by their entertainment divisions.

On the innocence side of the ledger, meanwhile, it never occurred to the network brass that news programming could be profitable.

Until, that is, CBS News unveiled its "60 Minutes" news magazine in 1968. When, after three years or so, "60 Minutes" turned a profit (something no television news program had previously achieved), a light went on, and the news divisions of all three networks came to be seen as profit centers, with all the expectations that entailed.

I recall a Washington meeting many years later at which Michael Eisner, then the chief executive of Disney, ABC's parent company, took questions from a group of ABC News correspondents and compared our status in the corporate structure to that of the Disney artists who create the company's world-famous cartoons. (He clearly and sincerely intended the analogy to flatter us.) Even they, Eisner pointed out, were expected to make budget cuts; we would have to do the same.

I mentioned several names to Eisner and asked if he recognized any. He did not. They were, I said, ABC correspondents and cameramen who had been killed or wounded while on assignment. While appreciating the enormous talent of the corporation's cartoonists, I pointed out that working on a television crew, covering wars, revolutions and natural disasters, was different. The suggestion was not well received.

The parent companies of all three networks would ultimately find a common way of dealing with the risk and expense inherent in operating news bureaus around the world: They would eliminate them. Peter Jennings and I, who joined ABC News within a year of each other in the early 1960s, were profoundly influenced by our years as foreign correspondents. When we became the anchors and managing editors of our respective programs, we tried to make sure foreign news remained a major ingredient. It was a struggle.

Peter called me one afternoon in the mid-'90s to ask whether we at "Nightline" had been receiving the same inquiries that he and his producers were getting at "World News Tonight." We had, indeed, been getting calls from company bean-counters wanting to know how many times our program had used a given overseas bureau in the preceding year. This data in hand, the accountants constructed the simplest of equations: Divide the cost of running a bureau by the number of television segments it produced. The cost, inevitably, was deemed too high to justify leaving the bureau as it was. Trims led to cuts and, in most cases, to elimination.

The networks say they still maintain bureaus around the world, but whereas in the 1960s I was one of 20 to 30 correspondents working out of fully staffed offices in more than a dozen major capitals, for the most part, a "bureau" now is just a local fixer who speaks English and can facilitate the work of a visiting producer or a correspondent in from London.

Much of the American public used to gather before the electronic hearth every evening, separate but together, while Walter Cronkite, Chet Huntley, David Brinkley, Frank Reynolds and Howard K. Smith offered relatively unbiased accounts of information that their respective news organizations believed the public needed to know. The ritual permitted, and perhaps encouraged, shared perceptions and even the possibility of compromise among those who disagreed.

It was an imperfect, untidy little Eden of journalism where reporters were motivated to gather facts about important issues. We didn't know that we could become profit centers. No one had bitten into that apple yet.

The transition of news from a public service to a profitable commodity is irreversible. Legions of new media present a vista of unrelenting competition. Advertisers crave young viewers, and these young viewers are deemed to be uninterested in hard news, especially hard news from abroad. This is felicitous, since covering overseas news is very expensive. On the other hand, the appetite for strongly held, if unsubstantiated, opinion is demonstrably high. And such talk, as they say, is cheap.

Broadcast news has been outflanked and will soon be overtaken by scores of other media options. The need for clear, objective reporting in a world of rising religious fundamentalism, economic interdependence and global ecological problems is probably greater than it has ever been. But we are no longer a national audience receiving news from a handful of trusted gatekeepers; we're now a million or more clusters of consumers, harvesting information from like-minded providers.

As you may know, Olbermann returned to his MSNBC program after just two days of enforced absence. (Given cable television's short attention span, two days may well have seemed like an "indefinite suspension.") He was gracious about the whole thing, acknowledging at least the historical merit of the rule he had broken: "It's not a stupid rule," he said. "It needs to be adapted to the realities of 21st-century journalism."

There is, after all, not much of a chance that 21st-century journalism will be adapted to conform with the old rules. Technology and the market are offering a tantalizing array of channels, each designed to fill a particular niche - sports, weather, cooking, religion - and an infinite variety of news, prepared and seasoned to reflect our taste, just the way we like it. As someone used to say in a bygone era, "That's the way it is."

Ted Koppel, managing editor of ABC's "Nightline" from 1980 to 2005, now a contributing analyst for "BBC World News America."

On Glenn Beck, Bill O'Reilly, Sean Hannity, Fox "News, etc., etc.

"The partisan, when he is engaged in a dispute, cares nothing about the rights of the question, but is anxious only to convince his hearers of his own assertions."    --Plato

Why we love Michael Steele (and heck, the Republicans right now, for that matter)

I love this guy. Mr. Steele, whatever you do, don't go anywhere. His top 5 worst gaffes: 1. Obama's Afghan war can’t be won Speaking at a Connecticut fundraiser last week, Steele misstated the history of the Afghan conflict, which began on George W. Bush’s watch shortly after the 9/11 attacks. He told a crowd of GOP supporters that Obama had prosecuted the war. “This is not something the United States had actively prosecuted or wanted to engage in,” he said. Steele also implied the war can’t be won. “If he’s such a student of history, has he not understood that, you know, the one thing you don’t do is engage in a land war in Afghanistan?” Steele said of Obama. “Everyone who has tried, over a thousand years of history, has failed.” 2. Rush Limbaugh is "an entertainer," "incendiary," "ugly" In a March 2009 interview with CNN, Steele was asked about the White House’s position that Rush Limbaugh was the leader of the GOP. He strongly denied that claim, insisting that he was the party’s top leader. “Rush Limbaugh is an entertainer. Rush Limbaugh's whole thing is entertainment,” Steele said. And he trashed Limbaugh’s over-the-top remarks about Obama. “Yes, it is incendiary. Yes, it is ugly,” Steele said, prompting Limbaugh to declare Steele as unfit to lead the party. Steele later apologized to Limbaugh, insisting he did not want to “diminish his voice.” Later, he strangely suggested the Limbaugh flap had been “strategic” on his part. “It may look like a mistake, a gaffe. (But) there is a rationale, there’s a logic behind it,” he said. 3. Abortion is an “individual choice” In an interview with GQ’s Lisa DePaulo, Steele said abortion is “absolutely … an individual choice” and said the question of legality should be settled by the states. The comments prompted criticism from several top social conservatives, including Gov. Mike Huckabee. Steele, who is pro-life, later said his words had been taken out of context. 4. The RNC's lavish, X-rated, obscene spending In March, Steele was forced to apologize after a fundraising report revealed the RNC had spent nearly $2,000 on a donor event at Voyeur, a bondage-themed West Hollywood nightclub. Steele has said he didn’t know anything about the event, or the specifics of the expenditures involved. But the scandal fueled criticism that Steele hasn’t been a good steward of the RNC’s cash. Detractors say he’s blown more cash than he’s brought in, as he struggles to land big checks from major donors. 5. Is the GOP ready to govern? "I don't know" Perhaps the most important role of a party chairman is to be a cheerleader for candidates and their campaigns, even in the most dire circumstances. But in January, Steele told Fox News’ Sean Hannity that not only was he not sure if the GOP would regain control of Congress, he wasn’t sure if Republicans were ready to govern. “Are we ready? I don’t know,” Steele said. Candidates “looking to run” have to hew to the GOP's core principles, he added. “If they don’t, they’ll get to Washington, and they’ll start drinking that Potomac River water and they’ll get drunk with power.” Link to original post: http://news.yahoo.com/s/yblog_upshot/20100706/el_yblog_upshot/michael-steele-screws-up-again-can-he-survive

On being open-minded

 

"I dreamed a lot when I was younger
I'm older now and still I hunger
for some understanding
There's no understanding now
Was there ever?"

--Ambrosia, "Harvey"
From the album "Somewhere I've Never Travelled"

Guest post on the Republican Party and health care reform

James Kunstler-- "The Party Of Cruelty"... (as posted on the "Monkeyfister" blog)

There is not much to disagree with here.

via Kunstler.com

It was amusing to see the Republican party inveigh against health insurance reform as if they were a synod of Presbyterian necromancers girding the nation for a takeover by the spawn of hell. This was the same gang, by the way, who championed the Medicare Prescription Drug Improvement and Modernization Act of 2003, then regarded as the most reckless giveaway of public funds in human history. Along the way, they enlisted an army of nay-sayers representing everything dark, disgraceful, and ignorant in the American character. If the Republicans keep going this way, they'll end up with something worse than Naziism: a party that hates everything but believes in absolutely nothing.

The most striking elements of so-called health care in America these days is how cruel and unjust it is, and in taking a stand against reforming it the Republican party appeared to be firmly in support of cruelty and injustice. This would be well within the historical tradition of other religious crusades which turned political --such as the Spanish Inquisition and the seventeenth century war against witchcraft. Whatever else the Democratic party has stood for in recent history, it has tended to oppose institutional cruelty and injustice, and notice that it has also been the party for keeping religion out of government.

Now a health care reform act has passed and there's some reason to hope that insurance companies will be prevented from doing things like canceling the coverage of policy-holders who have the impertinence to actually get sick, which has been their main device for revenue enhancement, and we'll see how they cope with the idea that being alive in a treacherous world is the fundamental pre-existing condition.

I surely don't know if the nation can afford to pay for what this law requires, but then can we really afford to pay for anything? -- including the salaries, retirement benefits, and health insurance of congressmen, not to mention two wars, bailout life support for banks, rising unemployment benefits, shovel-ready stimulus projects, et cetera, blah blah? Probably not.

My guess is that the health care "industry" will unravel in the years ahead under the weight of its own hypercomplexity just as all the other hypercomplex systems of normal American life (such as it is) groan and collapse under their own unworkable immensities -- and I speak here of industrial-style farming, Big Box "consumerism," Happy Motoring, too-big-to-fail finance, centralized public education, and the pension racket. All the activities of daily life in this country have poor prospects for continuing in their current form.

At least this once a workable majority in the government has stood up to the forces of cruelty and injustice, and whatever else happens to us in the course of this long emergency, it will be a good thing if the party of fairness and justice identifies its adversaries for what they are: not "partners in governing," or any such academical-therapeutic bullshit, but enemies of every generous impulse in the national character.

I hope that Mr. Obama's party can carry this message clearly into the electoral battles ahead, painting the Republican opposition for what it is: a gang of hypocritical, pietistic sadists, seeking pleasure in the suffering of others while pretending to be Christians, devoid of sympathy, empathy, or any inclination to simple human kindness, constant breakers of the Golden Rule, enemies of the common good. In fact, the current edition of the Republican party has achieved something really memorable in the annals of collective bad intentions: they have managed to create a sense of the public interest whose main goal is the destruction of the public interest.

This is exactly what the Republican majority on the Supreme Court did earlier this year by deciding that corporations -- which are sociopathic by definition in being answerable only to their shareholders and nothing else -- should enjoy the same full privileges in election campaign contributions as human persons, who are assumed to have obligations, duties, and responsibilities to the common good (and therefore to the public interest). This shameful act by the court majority only underscores the chief defining characteristic of Republicans in their current incarnation: an inability to think. And so, naturally Republicans gravitate toward superstition and the traditional devices of improvident religious authorities -- persecution of the weak, torture, denial of due process, and dogmas designed to spread hatred.

I hope the American public begins to understand this, because they have been manipulated in their own pain and hardship by these dark forces, and their thrall to the likes of John Boehner, Sarah Palin, Glenn Beck, Rush, Hannity, and the rest of these vicious morons could easily increase as their economic hardships deepen. We're facing a comprehensive contraction of wealth and economy that is going to challenge every shared virtue in our national soul, and we're not going to meet these difficulties successfully without a sense of mutual obligation and sympathy for each other. The Republican party is just itching to turn a giant thumbscrew on the US public -- that is, before they try to start burning their enemies at the stake. We understand that the Health Care Reform Act is a first stand against that.


Thank you, James.



And thank you Monkeyfister blog for bringing it to our attention.


Link to original post:
http://monkeyfister.blogspot.com/2010/03/james-kunstler-party-of-cruelty.html

Weekend entertainment suggestion

I think I have a great weekend entertainment suggestion for you today.

A friend mentioned that he did it last night while we were at breakfast this morning.

If you either get tired of "March Madness" basketball or your team isn't on or you just want something to watch on TV with the thought of having a good laugh, turn on Fox "News" this weekend.

Oh, yeah.

They're going nuts right now, what with the President and the Democrats anchoring to get a health care reform fix right now.

They're flipping out.

They're coming unhinged.

Whether it's Hannity or Beck or O'Really or whomever, go over and give them a view.

It's a hoot.

They're just sure that this is the end of the world or the virtual end of the world or that by Sunday evening we'll all be living in a Socialist country or some such absurd, ludicrous, insane, and/or emotional nonsense and hyperbole.

You may thank us later.

Have a great weekend, y'all.

Great fun with hypocrite Sean Hannity

The Colbert Report	Mon - Thurs 11:30pm / 10:30c
Tip/Wag - James O'Keefe & Sean Hannity
www.colbertnation.com
Colbert Report Full Episodes Political Humor Skate Expectations

After all, we ought to be able to have a great laugh while making legitimate points, shouldn't we?

Again, have a great weekend, y'all.

This is not your Grandfather's war

Okay, the President finally came out, after collecting all his information and doing his just homework (unlike the previous clod) and told us what he wanted and needed for our war in Afghanistan.

And it was "leaked" out so we knew what it was, too--30,000 more troops to go over as soon as possible.

Okay, blah, blah, blah.

We all knew it. We're resigned to it, let's move on.

I'm not being flip about war or our soldiers going to war, don't get me wrong. I'm just saying this was not a surprise.

What I would like to say is--could we stop acting like this is a war we can win in any way?

This is not World War I. This is not World War II.

This is not, as I said in the title, your Grandfather's war.

And it's not your Father's war, either.

This, ladies and gentlemen, is a war against terrorism, as though we haven't been told that, what? a thousand times?

Terrorism is an ongoing mess, folks. Terrorism is some nut seemingly randomly shooting people. Terrorism, we have found out, is right-wing fundamentalists (hear that, Pat Robertson?) strapping bombs to their chests and blowing as many people up as they can, thinking they're going to some lunatic heaven, with--how many was it?--71 virgins waiting for them. (I wonder what the female suicide bombers get).

Terrorism isn't, as we've found out, a standing army, waiting to attack us. It is a disparate group of people, loosely defined and organized who do their best to make their opposition's (read: virtually everyone else) lives miserable.

So could we stop talking about "winning this war", please?

We won't "win" Afghanistan or the Afghan war.

To "win" this war, we would have to rebuild virtually the entire country AND educate its people and no one has the time or money to do that.

To repeat: The Afghanistan war is not a war ANYONE can win.

Some day---and hopefully soon--we will have to leave Afghanistan, just as all the other invading armies have. We will have to do what Russia did, not that long ago.

And you know what? Russia survived. More than that, no one talks about how they were "defeated". Russia found it couldn't "win Afghanistan", so they took all their toys and went home.

Which is what we should do.

And the sooner, the better.

So, all you right-wingers out there--all the Glenn Becks and Rush "Porkulus" Limbaughs and Sean Hannitys and Bill O'Reillys and yes, even local Thomas McClanahans should stop talking about "winning Afghanistan".

No one wins Afghanistan, folks. Look into it. It just doesn't happen.

And it ain't gonna happen.

You don't win a war against terrorism.

You just educate as many people as you can and always stay on your guard, to watch for the nincompoops.

The previous administration didn't read that Daily Presidential Brief about terrorists training to attack us by plane.


Side note: If you want to know more on this, you might read Norman Mailer's book "Why Are We at War?" or any number of other books on the subject.

Links: http://voices.kansascity.com/node/6737
http://summit.clubmadrid.org/keynotes/a-global-strategy-for-fighting-terrorism.html
http://milo.com/why-are-we-at-war

Whole lotta' hatin' comin' on

The President is going to the United Nations first, it seems, on December 9, at the start of a 12 day session, then go to Oslo to accept the Nobel Peace Prize the next day.

Can you imagine how Glenn Beck, Rush "Porkulus" Limbaugh, Bill O'Reilly, Sean Hannity and all the folks at Faux News are salivating for this? I'm thinking they all figure they have a great deal to be thankful for.

They'll be trashing the UN, this Nobel Peace Prize--again or some more--and dissing on Mr. Obama all they can, every second.

Get ready. They're going to whip themselves into a holiday frenzy.

Link: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/26/us/politics/26climate.html?_r=1&th&emc=th

We need the Fairness Doctrine badly, folks

I'm telling you, after the video I saw and posted yesterday, of Governor Rick Perry of Texas, saying they want and need to buck Washington and their power and efforts, I'm more concerned than ever about where we're headed as a nation.

That little exercise of his yesterday has brought out some of the most ugly and divisive comments on the internet and I'm concerned where this is taking us.

Instead of still and always thinking of ourselves as Americans and being cohesive, we're getting more and more divided as "us vs. them", no matter who the "us" or "them" is.

And Fox News and Rush Limbaugh and Bill O'Reilly and Glenn Beck and Sean Hannity and Ann Coulter and Larry Kudlow are taking us there and it's really negative and damaging to the country.

It's dangerous, folks.

We're splintering ourselves into millions of tiny, militant, angry groups, who just want to "get even."

And we need to stop it.

I can see it now...

...it's mid-2009 and Rush "I'm a right-wing nut-job" Limbaugh will be blaming then-President Obama for the deficit.

I wish no one would buy off on that crap.

As soon as the President-elect is sworn into office, it's big times for that fat, ignorant slob.

But here's the truth on the budget, now, today, while "W" is still screwing things up:

Because of Right-wing, "Conservative" and very Republican George W. Bush, the budget deficit is already at the highest it's ever been, in our nation's history. For the first time ever, as I stated here earlier, we'll hit a trillion dollar deficit.

Thanks again, George!

And next year?

Because of the unregulated, unholy mess "W" helped create and is now leaving us with, it is projected to hit 1.86 trillion dollars.

With this huge downturn in the economy--again, thanks to George--we have to spend a huge amount, so we can keep our business wheels turning, so to speak.

And pay attention to this:

"The report shattered President George W. Bush's pledge that the government would balance its budget by 2012. Instead, CBO sees significant deficits at least through 2019."

So let's not let anyone get away with saying this is the Barack Obama recession--or worse.

It's nonsense.

From what I've heard, the "Big Fat Idiot" is already saying it's an Obama recession, unbelievably enough.

You'd think he'd at least wait 6 or more months before he (and Hannity, I see) would assume we forgot our recent history and the debacle that this current administration have been but no.

It's going to be a rough 8 years from these clowns.


Link to budget deficit story here:
http://www.reuters.com/article/newsOne/idUSN0643708720090107

Link to article covering Hannity/Limbaugh claim of "Obama recession":
http://mediamatters.org/items/200811120011