Monday, October 26, 2009

Limbaugh & Company Caught Peddling Phony News - How Shocking

Calls President Obama a "Little Boy"

Republican Party Leader Rush Limbaugh and the Right wing media were caught over the weekend peddling a fake story regarding Obama's Columbia thesis. In the story, Obama was critical of the U.S. Constitution and the Founding Fathers. (As if that would have been so bad even if it were true).

The bogus thesis excerpts were posted as satire back in August. But Michael Ledeen, supposedly a trained researcher, re-posted the information on the internet via Pajamas Media. It didn't take long for Ledeen to realize he had been mistaken, but by then Limbaugh and Company came across it and decided to run with it. But the idiots forgot to check with the main source for the story, columnist Joe Klein. Of course Klein had nothing to do with the made up story. When Klein found out about the bogus report, he responded:
"A report is circulating among the wingnuts that I had a peek at Barack Obama's senior thesis. It is completely false. I've never seen Obama's thesis. I have no idea where this report comes from--but I can assure you that it's complete nonsense."

The spreading of false information is nothing new for these clowns... it's an integral part of what they do. Lou Dobbs went with the story even after the debunking began. And the other blob, Rush Limbaugh, insists that the report is still true because he is sure that it's what Obama believes. The fact that there are millions of Americans (mostly folks who don't know any better) who are ready to believe anything they hear from Limbaugh and Co. is also nothing new. Critical thinking is not exactly a virtue here in Amerikkka.

But what was really interesting about Limbaugh's comments was his use of language when describing Obama. He described the President as a "Little Boy". Now the last time I checked Obama was the President of the United States, has been a U.S. Senator, an Attorney, a Father, a Husband, an Educator, and was a grown man when he attended Columbia University. Listen below:



Limbaugh has a history of this sort of nonsense. I've been listening to Limbaugh for well over a decade, although not on a daily basis.... but a few times a week, usually while driving. (yes, you must know the enemy). I also keep track of his comments via Media Matters, Think Progress, and other websites. Maybe it's just me....but I don't recall Limbaugh engaging in this kind of disrespectful behavior and using this kind of language when discussing White men. Not even Bill Clinton (and he's said some pretty sick and ugly things about Clinton....and even his daughter Chelsea in the past). Maybe he has called White men boys....and perhaps I just missed it.... who knows. But I damn sure can't recall Limbaugh using this language (repeatedly) when talking about White men.

It speaks volumes, in a Freudian kind of way, about what Limbaugh & Co. are all about.

Obama's Critics Aren't Driven By Racism, They Simply Don't Like His Policies

Well folks.... here's yet another example of Republican outrage against Obama's policies. (yeah, whatever). I'm wondering if I should start cataloging all of these incidents. Now I would expect this from the Birthers, from Glenn Beck, from Rush "Boss Hog" "Leader of the Republican Party" Limbaugh, Tea Partiers or those crazy Aryan Nation folks. But this was posted on an RNC affiliated webpage. Something was finally done about this little problem after Progressives started talking. Apparently Republicans weren't motivated to do anything about it on their own for 5 days.

This is part of a pattern with the Right. And their response is always so predictable....(let's all say it together)..... "But...we're not racists".

Comedian Lee Camp on net neutrality: Internet F*cking Freedom vs. Slow Porn

hat tip - Jack Turner

Sunday, October 25, 2009

Two for One - Alphonse Mouzon & Miles Davis



Miles 1964 - Miles' great 60's band featuring Wayne Shorter on Sax, Tony Williams on Drums, Herbie Hancock on Piano, and Ron Carter on Bass.

Friday, October 23, 2009

Thursday, October 22, 2009

Two-Party System Shills

Pundit Chris Cilizza pooh-poohed the idea of the “Rise of Independents” in this Washington Post article.

Despite the reported increase of Americans self-identifying as independents according to the latest poll results Cilizza decides to throw some rain on independents’ parade by saying:
Before we get too far down that road, it's important to remember that talk of a third party and the reality of it are too far different things.

He cites a study that shows deep divisions among people who consider themselves independent, the very real institutional hurdles to building a third party, and that even if a third party candidate does emerge in the 2012 or 2016 elections, that it is highly unlikely that their candidacy will lead to the creation of a viable third party. He cites the example of Ross Perot to illustrate this point.

Cilizza’s whole angle on the rise of independents irks me. Because the entire thrust of his piece was to defend the status quo of the two major parties. His entire piece was basically an argument directed to independents saying “you are in no position and will never be in a position to really challenge the status quo. You might as well just give it up and play politics the way the two major parties want you to play it. Get with the program and STFU!”

Cilizza wasn’t that blunt but he essentially meant the exact same thing if you followed his arguments to their logical conclusion.

There are so many ways Cilizza could have handled this. He could have asked the question: why are so many people so disgusted by BOTH major parties that they are self-identifying in rejection of them in far greater numbers than in the past? What makes them stink so much that people are rejecting their label?

Then perhaps rather than piss on independents and third-party supporters and condescend to them, he could have turned the tables on the major parties and asked of them: both major parties must be doing something wrong – what can they do to get people back into the fold? What can they do to get people to support them and self-identify along their lines instead of just being compelled to play politics on their terms because two-party politics is all the system supports and is built on?

Of course, he doesn’t do that. He would much rather poke a stick at independents without acknowledging the fact that they are constituents and that declaring independence is an effective way ordinary people can and have registered their disgust with the failed policies and politicians of the status quo. Isn’t that a democratic act and which deserve a bit more respect than he is giving them?

The bottom line for people like Cilizza is to defend the two-party system. The bottom line for independents like me is that democracy is broken, the two major parties are not cutting it in terms of representing the interests of Americans in any adequate way, and we must find a way to fix this broken system. The logical extension of the independent point of view is to ask: what needs to be done to revitalize democracy? What needs to be done to promote greater participation, transparency, and to involve ordinary people in democratic practices? What needs to be done so people in positions of representing The People can have their trust and confidence?

Cilizza and those who make the same arguments that he does completely miss and dismiss these points because deep down they could care less about participatory democracy. They only care about the two major parties and preserving the status quo. They are perfectly content to serve as shills to the two major parties without challenging them or demanding that they answer all the hard questions that deserve to be posed to them.

One Senator tears into those defending rapists; the other Senator tears into those helping domestic violence victims

hat tip:DailyKos

So. In one case, you have a U.S. Senator tearing apart a guy for trying to defend the gang rape, battery and imprisonment of a young woman.




In the other case, you have a U.S. Senator tearing apart a woman for trying to help domestic violence victims get medical attention.