This is a test. Does it work?
News & Politics podcast:The Radio Factor
Posted using ShareThis
Friday, December 12, 2008
Saturday, April 12, 2008
FOX: Good
Easy, cheap,not totally fair humor, but sometimes you just have to enjoy the red meat.
Don't miss the scroll on "Oliver Now".
Don't miss the scroll on "Oliver Now".
Sunday, April 6, 2008
Common Ground
Sometimes the anti-governmental attitude of the conservative intersect with the bean-counting of the liberal. One such case is ethanol. This is a boondoggle largely based on pandering to the good farmers in the Midwest.
It would be great if ethanol derived from corn could be a realistic alternative fuel - but it isn't. It isn't even environmentally friendly as a substitute for gasoline as it costs more energy to produce than it ultimately releases as kinetic energy for your car.
I mention this because I heard Rush Limbaugh a couple of weeks ago railing against ethanol as another example of a bad governmental policy based on the global warming hoax. Also, today Paul Krugman condemns "demon ethanol" as one of the bad policies that are exasperating the dangerous world wide trend toward higher food prices.
I hope we can unite conservatives and liberals when we agree, even if it is for opposing reasons, to change or prevent unsound policies.
It would be great if ethanol derived from corn could be a realistic alternative fuel - but it isn't. It isn't even environmentally friendly as a substitute for gasoline as it costs more energy to produce than it ultimately releases as kinetic energy for your car.
I mention this because I heard Rush Limbaugh a couple of weeks ago railing against ethanol as another example of a bad governmental policy based on the global warming hoax. Also, today Paul Krugman condemns "demon ethanol" as one of the bad policies that are exasperating the dangerous world wide trend toward higher food prices.
I hope we can unite conservatives and liberals when we agree, even if it is for opposing reasons, to change or prevent unsound policies.
Tuesday, April 1, 2008
Keith Olbermann Riffing on Faux News' Treatment of Hillary Clinton
This was a particularly good "Worlds Worst". I highly recommend Keith's MSNBC web site. Between iTunes podcasts of the first one or two segments and MSNBC's site, you can get most of the important stuff from his show. This is one of the reasons I was able to let go of cable and content myself with internet streams and an HDTV antenna for PBS. Other newsy TV recommendations online, iTunes streams of the Sunday Morning shows, 60 Minutes, Bill Moyers, and Religion and Ethics Newsweekly. Some of these come with audio only, but most have video and are free. It is a bit of a pain at first to learn iTunes, but once you do, it is an extremely convenient way of catching up on the news as long as you don't mind listening/or watching your PC or your iPod. Oh, and the best part is, it is all free not including your broadband connection.
Saturday, March 29, 2008
Who Knew?
Not me for one. Here are the origins of the peace symbol. Sad thing is that before reading this, I would be hard pressed to come up with the distinctions between the Mercedes symbol and the peace symbol. Turns out to be one little vertical line, yet the values represented by each are so contradictory. Could the Mercedes symbol, which predated the peace symbol by half a century, have helped popularize the peace symbol?
Wednesday, March 26, 2008
Clear, Hold, Build
Frontline: Bush's War Broadcast March 24th and 25th 2008 on PBS
While this is mostly a rehash of earlier Frontline reports, it is still important. I hope everyone gets to see it, especially those of us stuck in the miasma of our domestic media.
Some thoughts. First of all it is interesting to note that this was broadcast within the same week we reached our 4000th military death. I haven't thought of this before, but maybe that is what helped turn the tide in 2006. The amount of military deaths in the war on terrorism out grew the number of deaths in the actual terrorist attack. That is significant.
Also, how many Iraqis have been killed or are currently displaced? A poster at the Daily Kos says 37 to 300 for every one U.S. soldier. As our current military objective is to maintain security of the Iraqi people, isn't it important for the military to try to keep track of and maintain an accurate record of these numbers and make them public?
Talk radio has had a huge influence in selling and maintaining this war. Talking hawks like Mr. Limbaugh and Mr. Medved have been advocating strong action in the Middle east since before 9/11, and have taken advantage of that attack to lead the choir in this tragic mis-use of American foreign policy and military power.
It would be instructive to see what their policy suggestions have been throughout the war time line. I know it began with the fact that dissent and criticism should be shunned as we are at war. This tactic ended around the 2006 elections as it became increasingly clear how badly the management of the war had been bungled. I also remember how little discussion was allowed at the beginning when we were being sold the war. Did we ever think about we were going to deal with the power vacuum in the region, especially in regard to Iran?
The bungling of Iraq is not a series of honest mistakes. It is based on a systematic corruption of our government based on a political philosophy that basically does not believe in government. So many times during the Frontline narrative there are classic instances where policy initiatives take precedence over facts. The most frustrating of these is the diminution CIA and State Department, two organizations that are despised by many of the deepest believers in the conservative cause basically because of their institutional momentum which can be so difficult to change with the political whims of any one administration.
To call this Bush's war is inaccurate. It is really America's war. We all have the power to affect change and we have been largely mute. The question going forward is what do we do? Democrats have to be realistic about this. Currently, the talkers do have a point - complete removal of troops could be disastrous for the Iraqi people and the responsibility would have been ours. I hope we can be realistic and not be disillusioned by a continued occupation. Hopefully the presumably Democratic controlled occupation will be a great deal smaller and will include informed and intelligent regional diplomacy (for a change). The wounds created by the Bush administration are going to take some time to heal. And we do have to do what we can to fix the humanitarian disaster that we created, largely on a whim and a prayer, in the Middle East.
While this is mostly a rehash of earlier Frontline reports, it is still important. I hope everyone gets to see it, especially those of us stuck in the miasma of our domestic media.
Some thoughts. First of all it is interesting to note that this was broadcast within the same week we reached our 4000th military death. I haven't thought of this before, but maybe that is what helped turn the tide in 2006. The amount of military deaths in the war on terrorism out grew the number of deaths in the actual terrorist attack. That is significant.
Also, how many Iraqis have been killed or are currently displaced? A poster at the Daily Kos says 37 to 300 for every one U.S. soldier. As our current military objective is to maintain security of the Iraqi people, isn't it important for the military to try to keep track of and maintain an accurate record of these numbers and make them public?
Talk radio has had a huge influence in selling and maintaining this war. Talking hawks like Mr. Limbaugh and Mr. Medved have been advocating strong action in the Middle east since before 9/11, and have taken advantage of that attack to lead the choir in this tragic mis-use of American foreign policy and military power.
It would be instructive to see what their policy suggestions have been throughout the war time line. I know it began with the fact that dissent and criticism should be shunned as we are at war. This tactic ended around the 2006 elections as it became increasingly clear how badly the management of the war had been bungled. I also remember how little discussion was allowed at the beginning when we were being sold the war. Did we ever think about we were going to deal with the power vacuum in the region, especially in regard to Iran?
The bungling of Iraq is not a series of honest mistakes. It is based on a systematic corruption of our government based on a political philosophy that basically does not believe in government. So many times during the Frontline narrative there are classic instances where policy initiatives take precedence over facts. The most frustrating of these is the diminution CIA and State Department, two organizations that are despised by many of the deepest believers in the conservative cause basically because of their institutional momentum which can be so difficult to change with the political whims of any one administration.
To call this Bush's war is inaccurate. It is really America's war. We all have the power to affect change and we have been largely mute. The question going forward is what do we do? Democrats have to be realistic about this. Currently, the talkers do have a point - complete removal of troops could be disastrous for the Iraqi people and the responsibility would have been ours. I hope we can be realistic and not be disillusioned by a continued occupation. Hopefully the presumably Democratic controlled occupation will be a great deal smaller and will include informed and intelligent regional diplomacy (for a change). The wounds created by the Bush administration are going to take some time to heal. And we do have to do what we can to fix the humanitarian disaster that we created, largely on a whim and a prayer, in the Middle East.
Tuesday, March 25, 2008
It's Not About Race, It's About Patriotism
Most of what we are hearing in the media is wrong. Senator Obama's polls have been dropping badly over the past two weeks and it is looking for the first time like the Democrats could be vulnerable in the general election. While the kerfuffle that really stuck to our nation's consciousness - the Reverend Wright sound bites - is rooted in race, it is really being attacked for it's anti-Americanism. This is the hammer that that right in one voice is using with a great deal of efficacy against the Democratic front-runner.
Their ultimate point is - in a moment of crises, with whom will President Obama surround himself, or put another more simply is he really for or against us "U.S.".
Some of the evidence against Senator Obama (to be fair I am leaving "evidence" out of quotes)
Barak Obama's drop in the polls in the last two weeks coincides with the fact that the right is for the first time in forever, united again against a common foe. They have seen the writing on the wall before Senator Clinton has and have begun attacking the front runner.
The media and Rush like to credit his "Operation Chaos" where he takes credit for prolonging the "Uncivil War" (in Rush's terms) in the Democratic Party. In this case, it is the whole lot finally able to speak with a loud, common voice again against Senator Obama. The object is character assasination, the subject is Anti-Americanism; two of the talker's greatest strengths.
I blogged previously about the "Politics of Other". In Senator Obama's case they will try to portray the Senator as Muslim, Black, or Liberal, often in very subtle ways. I realized this week that there is more to it than just marginalizing Senator Obama and his supporters out of the mainstream and therefore out of the largest voting block. All of these "Other" have at their core (at least the way the right sees it) an Anti- American essence.
The Muslims can be extrapolated to Terrorists, Blacks to Malcolm X or Louis Farrakhan, and liberals to Marxists - all very anti-American in the polarized world view of the right.
I think this is a critical point. Questioning the patriotism of liberals really is the heart of the conservative attack against the left ever since the Cold War. It is such an effective political tactic as it is negative, personal, and easy for the populace to digest.
What it does is put the Democrats and their ideas on the defensive, so when we start talking about issues such as health care, soft instead of hard foreign policy, progressive tax rates, and rebuilding our infrastructure and social safety net, they can throw around other words like "Marxist" that will scare people out of really listening to the issues.
As an aside, a parallel discussion can be had of the right's use of the culture wars against the left. Of all the issues I mentioned above, they all seem pretty "Pro-Life" to me. Who is the real "Pro-Life" party?
Their ultimate point is - in a moment of crises, with whom will President Obama surround himself, or put another more simply is he really for or against us "U.S.".
Some of the evidence against Senator Obama (to be fair I am leaving "evidence" out of quotes)
- Michelle Obama's phrase saying Barak's candidacy is the first time she is proud of America.
- Senator Obama was seen not holding his hand over his heart during a ceremonial event when others on stage were.
- Senator Obama's decision to not wear the American flag lapel pin
- And finally, the one that stuck, Senator Obama's preacher's sound bites.
Barak Obama's drop in the polls in the last two weeks coincides with the fact that the right is for the first time in forever, united again against a common foe. They have seen the writing on the wall before Senator Clinton has and have begun attacking the front runner.
The media and Rush like to credit his "Operation Chaos" where he takes credit for prolonging the "Uncivil War" (in Rush's terms) in the Democratic Party. In this case, it is the whole lot finally able to speak with a loud, common voice again against Senator Obama. The object is character assasination, the subject is Anti-Americanism; two of the talker's greatest strengths.
I blogged previously about the "Politics of Other". In Senator Obama's case they will try to portray the Senator as Muslim, Black, or Liberal, often in very subtle ways. I realized this week that there is more to it than just marginalizing Senator Obama and his supporters out of the mainstream and therefore out of the largest voting block. All of these "Other" have at their core (at least the way the right sees it) an Anti- American essence.
The Muslims can be extrapolated to Terrorists, Blacks to Malcolm X or Louis Farrakhan, and liberals to Marxists - all very anti-American in the polarized world view of the right.
I think this is a critical point. Questioning the patriotism of liberals really is the heart of the conservative attack against the left ever since the Cold War. It is such an effective political tactic as it is negative, personal, and easy for the populace to digest.
What it does is put the Democrats and their ideas on the defensive, so when we start talking about issues such as health care, soft instead of hard foreign policy, progressive tax rates, and rebuilding our infrastructure and social safety net, they can throw around other words like "Marxist" that will scare people out of really listening to the issues.
As an aside, a parallel discussion can be had of the right's use of the culture wars against the left. Of all the issues I mentioned above, they all seem pretty "Pro-Life" to me. Who is the real "Pro-Life" party?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
