Matt Drudge: still a GOP stooge

[Click for a larger view]

Every once in a while, I enjoy pointing out just how absurdly moronic Matt Drudge is. I know, it's not particularly newsworthy, and really, it's a demonstration that I have a firm grasp of the obvious. But, every once in a while it bears repeating. Why? Because his Website is one of the most visited on the Web.

For some reason, the GOP and its shills like Drudge still seem to have a fetish for Al Gore. Perhaps its because of Gore's success and the inroads he's making in raising the warning flag about global warming. Who knows? But, the misinformation and attacks are like the Energizer bunny - They keep coming... well, you know the rest.

The above image is a screen capture from the Drudge Report a few days ago, featuring a prominent story about Gore's energy consumption. What a joke. The link goes to a story Here, by the Tennessee Center for Policy Research, a blatantly right-wing funded organization. (I wrote about it Here when these morons tried to embarrass Gore just hours after his ground-breaking movie, An Inconvenient Truth, won several Oscars.)

Gore's energy consumption habits aren't really of interest to me or anyone else other than the most rabid GOPers. And, of course, his energy consumption only tells part of the story. Here's a guy criss-crossing the globe trying to make a difference with global warming, in addition to the fact that he buys green energy, and he has solar panels installed on his very large home, yet he's getting his balls busted by partisan hacks who don't have anything better to do.

Meh - enough of it - I guess I'm no better than they are, but it's worth pointing out that Drudge will do whatever he can to smear prominent Democrats, and this is just another example.

I'll never tire of pointing out that the idea of a "librul media" is unadulterated bullshit. Drudge is one of the most visited sites on the Web (and many news networks report what his Website says, like it's news! And not just Fox News, either), Fox News is the most watched cable news channel during most time slots, Rupert Murdoch's News Corporation is the largest media conglomerate in the U.S., and the top three radio personalities are all GOP shills. Oh yea, we have a "librul media" alright.

No wonder the right is panicked about the possibility of a Democratic Congress re-instituting the Fairness Doctrine.

I'm pleased that Obama has talked publicly about enforcing the Sherman Antitrust Act if he becomes president. It's about time - no president has enforced it since Reagan effectively gutted it when he became president. It's still a law that's on the books, it's in the public interest, and it's about time that some of these huge corporations be broken up, specifically our mass media conglomerates.

Murdoch praises Obama? Don't trust it...

Hey, I took Psych 101, and when we hear a hard-line right-winger like Rupert Murdoch predicting a Barack Obama win in the fall, we all should call it out for what it really is - a big, steaming pile of GOP #2. C'mon, you don't have to be a political scientist to figure out what he's trying to do here - a lil' reverse psychology. It's not in Murdoch's best interests for Obama to win the election this fall, so don't think for a second that Murdoch and his "network," Fox Noise Channel, won't do everything in its power to propel John McCain to the White House.

For instance, Obama recently publicly said that the Sherman Antitrust Act ought to be reinforced, and if an Obama administration decided to do just that, it could possibly spell an end to News Corp's hegemony (and maybe even right-wing talk radio, too). I also think it's time to bring back the Fairness Doctrine, something President Reagan allowed to lapse in 1987.

Anyway, here is some of what Murdoch had to say about Obama:

He is a rock star. It's fantastic. I love what he is saying about education. I don't think he will win Florida.....but he will win in Ohio and the election. I am anxious to meet him. I want to see if he will walk the walk.

Again, I'm wary about what he's saying. Maybe, just maybe, even Murdoch realizes what most other political realists do - that McCain has an increasingly steep hill to climb to win the White House.

However, this is exactly the type of development and pronouncement that Democrats have to guard against. It isn't going to be an easy election for (presumptively) Obama to win, and Republicans and the right-wing neocons aren't going to simply roll over and die. But, they may play possum, and that's what I think Murdoch is doing here.

Photo from AP

CN8 Host fired for criticizing Bill O'Rielly

I got this from Crooks & Liars the other day, so I'm getting most of my information about this story from that site, which, by the way (as I frequently mention) is arguably the best liberal blog and information site on the Internet (along with HuffPo & Think Progress). The people over at C&L do tremendous work, and liberals owe that site a debt of gratitude for the hard work they put in by bringing us spot-on commentary and raising and highlighting issues that otherwise wouldn't get the attention they should. I get lots and lots of my video clips from that site, too. I don't always remember to post h/t's (hat tips) to C&L for providing video clips, but I try to remember. Anyway, if you haven't visited that site, 1. Where have you been? It's the best, and 2. Please spread the word and support C&L, a site that I hope CMB is 1/8th as good as, some day. Anyway, moving on...

This is the most stark example I've seen in quite some time as to why our corporate media needs to be broken up - now. More on that point in a minute.

Barry Nolan of CN8 in Boston, Comcast's news channel, has been fired for daring to criticize the fact that Bill O'Reilly, of all people, was being honored at the Emmy Awards.

I am appalled, just appalled," [that O'Reilly was being honored] Nolan told the Track. "He inflates and constantly mangles the truth... and his frequent target is the 'left-leaning' media - the ones who do report the news fairly. And those are the same people who will be sitting in the room honoring him."... More Here.

It's pretty refreshing to see someone have the balls to put his job on the line for daring to oppose this blowhard:

"Their take is that I was insubordinate," Nolan told us yesterday. "They wanted me to sit down and shut up." The host of "Backstage With Barry Nolan" had argued that O'Reilly, the volatile Fox News host and former Channel 7 anchor, was unworthy of the Governor's Award. (Past recipients include the likes of Mike Wallace, Ken Burns, and Natalie Jacobson.) "The idea of honoring someone who does their job with constant factual errors, name-calling, and mangling of the truth... It's ridiculous," said Nolan...

We're told Nolan was warned by his bosses at CN8 to pipe down, but at the May 10 dinner honoring O'Reilly he handed out a six-page document listing some of O'Reilly's wackier errors, utterances, and information about the talk-show host's sexual harassment settlement. Seems Comcast was concerned that Nolan's actions could harm the network's relationships with the academy and Fox. He was immediately suspended without pay for two weeks and then fired over the phone Tuesday.

One particular instance that I find incredibly nauseating is how O'Reilly goes after crime victims (or victims' surviving family members, like when he attacked the son of a man killed in the World Trade Center on his show, an then threatened him with violence). John Amato over at C&L has thoroughly documented and written about how O'Reilly went after Shawn Hornbeck, an 11-year old who was held captive for over four years by Michael J. Devlin in Kirkland, Missouri. Devlin is currently serving 74 life sentences, and if there's any justice in this world, a prisoner where he is incarcerated will test out a new shiv on him. (Posted above is video O'Lielly discussing attacking Hornbeck during a discussion with Greta Van Susteren, the princess of plastic.) Take a look at the video - it's just plain sickening and revolting. By the way, O'Lielly's attack on Hornbeck got him uninvited to a speaking engagement to the National Center for Missing Kids. (Due in part to the efforts of Amato over at C&L; predictably, no comment from BOR.)

This is just one example of the kind of sewage and filth that O'Reilly continually spews forth to his listeners. The truly frightening thing is that people listen and believe a great deal of it.

As Amato succinctly put it over at C&L the other day (and I whole-heartedly agree) - it's worth considering whether Rupert Murdoch is now going after anyone who criticizes O'Reilly, his networks or their executives? After all, he's not above going after NBC over Keith Olbermann's criticisms of Roger Ailes, the head of Fox Noise Channel.

As Howard Kurtz of WaPo has reported, last summer Ailes threatened to go after NBC if Olbermann didn't cease going after him and Fox, using BOR and The New York Post.

This is exactly why our corporate media conglomerates must be broken up. I find it outrageous that any CEO of a corporate media entity would see fit to going after a critic by using TV stations, commentators and newspapers as cudgels. But, that's exactly what Murdoch has been doing for years. Phew! Thank GOD his corporation was permitted to buy The Wall St. Journal!

I'm very thankful (and hopeful) that if Barack Obama gets elected, he will reverse this troubling trend in our press. He recently stated that if elected, he feels it's time the U.S. government start enforcing the Sherman Antitrust Act, a law that is still in the books (if you can believe that) that would break up these multi-media giants. I don't care if we're talking about liberal or conservative media conglomerates - they all are a threat to destroying our free press. (I do wonder and worry that Obama may have incurred the wrath of these multi-media giants by saying he would like to bust them up, before he wins the election. God only knows what lengths these companies will go to in order to get McCain elected now. We've always known that our corporate media is on McCain's side - Obama's recent comments did nothing to ameliorate this worrisome concern.)

In the meantime, O'Reilly goes on as one of the loudest mouthpieces for Murdoch's News Corporation, the parent of Fox News, carrying out his marching orders from the abominable Murdoch.

McCain, Murdoch: two clueless men

I got a kick out of this one - the other night, Keith Olbermann rightfully took aim at Rupert Murdoch for sticking his mom with a multi-million dollar tax bill, and to John McCain for being... John McCain.

It's been said on liberal blogs the world over for the last 48 hours or so, but it's my turn...

This guy is running for president based on his foreign policy credentials, yet he makes the same mistake three times in a 24-hour period about who is training Al-Qaeda?!? This is to say nothing about how he would undoubtedly lead the American economy, likely right down the crapper just like Bush.

I find it amazing, but not surprising, that propaganda networks like Fox News could actually succeed in getting tens of millions of Americans to vote against their best self interests because of a preacher's racist comments.

It sure could happen; we have to keep fighting so it doesn't.

WSJsells out; I get out

This morning, it appears to be official - enough members of the Bankroft family have voted to approve the sale of The Wall Street Journal to Rupert Murdoch's News Corp. It's all over but the paperwork now. In light of that, it was time for me to put up my nano-sized protest to the paper this morning.

I guess now's the time to write that I was a reluctant subscriber to the paper in the first place. Its blood-soaked editorial page was awfully hard to swallow, and while I was a subscriber, I largely ignored it. (For a flavor of just how bad the WSJ's editorial page is, go back in time to the idiotic, moronic, misguided and hateful pieces it did on Vince Foster, President Clinton's friend and legal adviser. Ultimately, those editorials played a small but notable role in Foster's suicide.)

Anyway, I became a subscriber because of the WSJ's first-rate reporting, but even that is not reason enough to remain a subscriber. Sooner or later (bet on sooner), the paper's quality and integrity will be eroded by Murdoch's meddling. It's not a question of will he meddle, it's a question of when. For solid proof of what Murdoch does to a publication, look no further than The New York Post, a paper the RM saved from bankruptcy, but also a paper that serves as a political tool to advance his right-wing agenda.

Anyway, here's the letter I wrote the WSJ's customer service this morning...

Dear Dow Jones:
Please immediately cancel my subscription and refund the remaining balance to my credit card.

With news of the impending sale of The Wall Street Journal to News Corp., my decision is easy - I will in no way support a Rupert Murdoch entity, if I can help it, and there are plenty of alternatives to the WSJ that Murdoch does not own where I can get my news. (Hello, New York Times)

Thanks for your prompt attention.

Sincerely,
RJ

Latest Fox News "Mistake"

It's no longer a surprise when Fox News pulls stunts like this - identifying Republican Pennsylvania Senator Arlen Specter on screen during a broadcast as a Democrat. It's now a surprise when the network doesn't do it. This is anything but a mistake. C&L has a short list of other instances of Fox's, ahem, "mistakes."

I wonder, if Specter would have made supportive statements today AG Alberto Gonzales during the latter's testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee, would he "earn" an "R" from Fox News? What, is Fox News now the athletic department of Congress? I guess so - Republicans now have to prove their conservative mettle to earn the much coveted "R" during Fox's asinine and absurd "news broadcasts."

And Rupert Murdoch wants to buy more media outlets in the United States? This is precisely the reason why we must demand strictly enforced, reasonable limits on any person, corporation or entity of any political persuasion from owning too many media outlets in the United States.

I have over 20 letters I've been meaning to write to my Congressional representatives, and this is near the top of the list - the FCC needs to roll back media ownership limits. NOW.

During vacation next week, my fingers are going to be sore from pounding away at my laptop keys. Of course, I will share these letters with you and encourage you to write your leaders about a host of issues as well.

Murdoch quashes China stories; let's let him buy the WSJ? No way.

I found a pretty interesting article in this morning's New York Times, which reports some scandalous behavior over at the Rupert Murdoch-owned New York Post. (Which I refuse to read - see the headline at right for a stark reason why.)

It contains some gossip about the paper's Page Six gossip column, which makes for some amusing reading, but one passage in particular caught my eye.

An excerpt:

Page Six, The New York Post's free-swinging showcase for gossip about canoodling celebrities and cheating spouses, ran a tell-all item yesterday about a subject it does not usually cover in eye-popping detail: itself. And it had some pretty juicy details: the editor of the paper patronized a strip club, and the longtime author of the column, Richard Johnson, once took a $1,000 cash gift.

And that was not all.

The item also raised anew long-heard allegations that Rupert Murdoch, The Post's owner, had directed the Page Six writers to avoid items that could be seen as critical of China, where he was trying to do business. [Emphasis Mine]

The 675-word item was the latest twist in the long-running dispute involving Jared Paul Stern, a former freelance contributor to Page Six. He was suspended in April 2006 amid allegations that he had demanded money for favorable coverage — allegations that the authorities later declined to prosecute.

But the fight rages on. Mr. Stern now says he might sue Page Six, and as part of the legal preliminaries, his lawyer obtained a statement by a fellow former reporter for Page Six, Ian Spiegelman.

That four-page blast opens with allegations about Page Six and the editor of The Post, including the strip club and the $1,000 gift. While confirming those assertions in the item, the editor, Col Allan, was quoted as calling Mr. Spiegelman's claims a "tissue of lies."

Gossip aside (is anyone surprised that a writer for the sleazy Post would take a $1,000 bribe of sorts?), what really got my dander up was how Murdoch allegedly told Page Six staffers to avoid unflattering stories about China, because he was trying to do business there.

This is exactly the reason why Murdoch should not only be prohibited from buying The Wall St. Journal, but he should be forced to sell off part of the media empire he already owns.

Media conglomeration is a direct threat to our democracy. The argument for media conglomeration is always "let the market decide" and "I/we [CEOs and corporate boards of these companies] don't interfere with the news departments and/or editorial decisions."

But this is simply the latest example that heads of media companies DO interfere with news and editorial decisions, and our government must put a stop to it.

Murdoch is hardly the only example. In the last 10-15 years alone, CBS and ABC have also been in the middle of some heady controversies about corporate talking suits and lawyers preventing their news divisions from reporting stories that didn't serve their corporate interests.

In the case of CBS, it was the high-profile case of Dr. Jeffrey Wigand, formerly of Brown & Williamson (a very large American tobacco company that has since merged with Phillip Morris), who decided to go public on 60 Minutes with the revelation that his former employers knew full well that tobacco was not only addictive, but that B&W was adding chemicals to its cigarettes to make them more addictive.

Faced with the possibility of an enormous lawsuit from B&W, CBS coerced the producers of 60 Minutes to air a sharply edited version of the story, which later became a huge story. (It's important to note that CBS in the process of being sold to Westinghouse, and the heads of the network did not want the sale jeopardized with a high-profile lawsuit.)

I digress, but the story of CBS is an amazing one, which was turned into a very good movie, The Insider, starring Russell Crowe and Al Pacino.

But, the angle of Wigand's story that didn't get nearly as much attention as it deserved is this - when should a sale or corporate merger override the public interest, in this case the health of tens of millions of Americans? Of course, the answer is "never," unless, in this case, you happened to hold thousands of stock options in CBS or Westinghouse.

Anyway, this is the cost of mega-mergers and media conglomeration with our supposedly "free" press.

Our press is only as free as the corporate boards who run our media companies want it to be. And that scares me.

Who among us thinks it would be a good idea for Rupert Murdoch to own ANY more newspapers, radio stations, television networks, etc.? The only people who like such a move are on Wall St.

Thankfully, it looks as if his purchase of the WSJ is not going to happen, but only because the Bancroft family who owns a controlling interest in the paper won't sell, not because our government is stepping in and saying, "Nice try, Rupert - you own enough."

It's time for our government to say "enough" when it comes to media conglomeration. But, unfortunately, we will probably have to wait for those changes to take place - does anyone believe the big business fetishists in the Bush administration would put a stop to Murdoch's purchase of the WSJ?

BOR foams at the mouth over Soros... again

The Bill O'Reilly smear and fear machine knows no bounds. His latest target: Retired General Wesley Clarke, George Soros and Retired General John Batiste.

BOR's attacks on Soros are quickly becoming cliché to the point of absurdity. Soros, a self-made millionaire, has an intense dislike for President Bush. (So does 72 percent of the rest of the population, at last check.) So, Soros is putting his money where his mouth is with his contributions and activism. And that's making BOR mad. Reeeeeeallllly mad.

I'm wondering if anyone else thinks it's the height of hypocrisy that O'Reilly criticize a billionaire with a political agenda, since Rupert Murdoch signs his paychecks. Soros may have deep pockets, but Murdoch has that, and a world-wide media empire to slant, distort and report the news as he sees fit. In this country, there are laws about how much campaign cash you may contribute, but there apparently are no longer limits about how big your media empire can become. We need to put more effective limits on both.

BOR has pounded the drum to exhaustion (it's making me exhausted, at least) that Soros has contributed to Media Matters, a liberal-watchdog group devoted to debunking the lies and distortions of people like BOR. It seems like MM has hit a nerve, and that's good. (I can just imagine staffers at MM high-fiving every time O'Reilly goes on a rant about them.) The bottom line is that O'Reilly feels threatened. He should.

Quite frankly, I don't care if Soros has contributed to MM or not. In fact, I hope he does. If the group is performing activities that he supports, open up your checkbook. MM was started by David Broder, a converted conservative smear monger, without the help of Soros, but if he wants to chip in, so be it.

At the risk of being as repetitive as BOR, it's worth mentioning again that in addition to Murdoch, there are many high-profile billionaires who have contributed hundreds of thousands, if not millions of dollars to groups who have made it their mission to bring down the Democratic party. But, I digress.

Anyway, here's BOR taking aim at Batiste for his VoteVets ad that is critical of Bush and the War in Iraq. He then turns his aim elsewhere. Notice how calm and composed Clarke is.

Well done, general. I hope Clarke plays a role in a Democratic administration beginning in January 2009. And for the millionth time, I'm sick and tired of Repubes' opining that everyone should keep their mouths shut in time of war.

Hey Bill, if you want to tend sheep, why not move to New Zealand? There's millions of sheep there.

This footage is so ridiculous, it's almost unwatchable, but I'll never get tired of calling O'Reilly the foaming-at-the-mouth fraud that he truly is.

Here's the VoteVets ad that has gotten so much attention lately, most notably from O'Reilly and Fox News. Visit their Website for more information.

Rupert Murdoch's fourth divorce...

This time, it's from reality.

Listening to Rupert Murdoch defend President Bush strikes me as profoundly sad. It reminds me of parents whose child has been caught in a nasty prank, when the evidence is overwhelming, and they are the only people left defending the child. Admirable and understandable in many ways, but hardly a credible source. And Murdoch falls into that same category - hardly a credible source - papa Rupert defending his infant, W.

Murdoch, attending Michael Milkin's Global Conference in Los Angeles, resumed his hackneyed Bush PR campaign earlier today. (Isn't that what your network and newspapers are for, Rupert?)

According to The Hollywood Reporter, Murdoch remains solidly in the president's corner:

The News Corp. chairman and CEO said that, personally, Bush is "persuasive, strong and articulate" but that "he seems to freeze whenever a television camera appears."

Motioning to Paul Gigot, editorial page editor of the Wall Street Journal, Murdoch said, "Apart from your newspaper and mine, there's a sort of monolithic attack on him every day of the year."

News Corp. is the parent company of Fox News Channel, the New York Post and dozens of other media assets.

"The atmosphere is absolutely toxic," Murdoch said of the partisanship of U.S. politics and much of the media. "You can't really expect anything to be achieved in the next 18 months, and it's a very serious, sad problem for this country."

Yes, the atmosphere in Washington, and in fact around the U.S. is toxic, but Murdoch and his media outlets never, ever miss an opportunity to slam, defame and defile anyone with the audacity to oppose President Bush and his disastrous policies, both foreign and domestic.

The examples are too numerous to mention, and quite frankly, I grow bored of pointing out all of them. Okay, disclosure - it's fun, especially when there are so many who insist that Fox News is merely doing what other networks have done for years. Yea, sure.

I haven't been above some name-calling at times when someone really makes me angry, but I'm not running a daily newspaper with a circulation into the hundreds of thousands, either.

The New York Post has made sport out of embarrassing Democrats or anyone who dares oppose the president. The example at right is just one of literally dozens of examples. This headline ran when the Iraq Study Group (a.k.a. the Baker-Hamilton Commission) released its report saying what the rest of us have known for years - that the War in Iraq is a waste of American and Iraqi lives, to say nothing of the half-trillion dollars we've spent (and counting). (The Baker-Hamilton was a bipartisan group made up of five prominent Democrats and Republicans.)

Again, I repeat - it's people like Murdoch, who defile and denigrate those who oppose Bush's radical, right-wing agenda, who are principle architects of the toxic atmosphere in Washington.

One other thing from Murdoch's comments that had me heaving with violent fits of laughter - he called Bush "persuasive, strong and articulate." Yea, and I'm Tickle Me Elmo.

Has Rupert gone senile? Maybe he thought he was at a Comedy Central roast of President Bush.

NY Post Corzine cover beyond contempt

Another Rupert Murdoch-owned media outlet has found new gutters through which it can crawl.

This past Saturday, The New York Post ran the above front page picture and headline about New Jersey Governor Jon Corzine, who easily could have died in an automobile accident late last week. I don't even remember the last time I saw a headline that even approached the lack of decency or compassion that this one does.

Corzine, sitting in the front seat of an SUV while traveling to the governor's mansion, was in an accident on the Garden State Parkway. Corzine suffered multiple injuries in the accident, and as of Saturday morning (when the above cover his the news stands), he was still listed in critical condition.

Evidently, he was not wearing his seatbelt. Ouch. It's a mistake that could have cost him his life, but thankfully, it didn't. He deserves some heat for breaking the law by not belting up, but right now?

One thing is for certain - I will never, ever buy another copy of the Post again. I fired off a letter to the editor this morning. I would be shocked if the paper has the balls to print it. Don't bet on it:

To the Editor:
Your April 14 front page "photograph" of New Jersey Governor Jon Corzine was revolting, disgusting and in the poorest of taste. He could have died from his injuries, and while his family is grieving your paper runs a cover like that? I'm surprised you didn't run a picture of Bill Clinton eating a cheeseburger after he had his heart bypass surgery. Maybe I shouldn't give you any ideas. My days of reading The New York Post are over.

RJ

I doubt the letter will do much good, but it beats just whining about it.

American Idle: ratings slide is on

This could be a first - a television producer blaming declining ratings on Daylight Saving Time. People so rarely surprise me, especially in Hollywood, but I don't recall a producer ever using that one.

Whatever the reason, the proof is in the pudding - Nielsen Ratings show that American Idol's popularity may be waning. Ratings for the Tuesday "performance shows" off 10 percent compared to last season. However, don't start crying a river for the likes of Simon Cowell just yet - the show is still pulling in an average of 28 million viewers every Tuesday night.

I have to admit - I haven't pulled this hard for a show to fail since Survivor. (Yes, I know, it's still on TV, but it's popularity is at least waning a little.)

This past Wednesday's "results episode," which saw Gina Glocksen get the gate, was the least-watched episode of the season, according to TV Week.

But Idol producer Nigel Lythgoe said, as reported on TMZ.com, that what's causing the problem is Daylight Saving Time, which started three weeks earlier this year. Lythegoe said that ratings trend down every year when the time change kicks in. That makes sense, really, because I'd rather go outside in the daylight and get eaten alive by mosquitoes than watch 60 minutes of Idol.

"Even if we lost 50 percent of our audience, we'd still be in the top three shows in the country," Lythgoe said at a press conference on Monday. Cocky and full of hubris, without question, but Idol has been such a ratings behemoth the last five years, I suppose he can afford to be.

I wonder (hope) if Sanjaya Malakar is the reason that ratings are down. I doubt it, though, because I think the show is actually getting new viewers because of this train wreck. I've already voted for him once, and I'll keep on voting for him, because I hate American Idol and I'd love nothing more than to see him win. It might bring down Rupert Murdoch's precious franchise, and nothing would be better than that.

Websites like Vote for the Worst have proliferated this year to poke American Idol in the eye.

In the About Us section on Vote for the Worst's Website, the sites creators hit on the head why I hate the show:

We're back! Votefortheworst.com was started in 2004 to support voting for the entertaining contestants who the producers would hate to see win on American Idol. Why do we do it? During the initial auditions, the producers of Idol only let certain people through. Many good people are turned away and many bad singers are kept around to see Simon, Paula, and Randy so that America will be entertained.

The site's right - finding the best singer in America is only a small part of Idol's goal. It's main purpose is to entertain America (and sell records). During the first half of the season, it's all about putting down bad singers, which I too believe the producers of the show intentionally let in just so morons Simon, Paula and Randy can belittle and degrade them. Reeeeeaaaalllllly cool.

Keep on voting, America - we need another week of Sanjaya, even if no one is watching because it's lighter out longer.

Photo from AP

Boxer has Rice for lunch - GOP press hysterical

It didn't take long for the GOP-backed press to start going crazy over the Democratically controlled Congress.

Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice appeared before the Senate yesterday to answer questions about President Bush's troop surge of over 21,000 troops.

Senator Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) wasted no time going after Rice:

"Who pays the price? I'm not going to pay a personal price," Boxer said. "My kids are too old, and my grandchild is too young."

To Rice, Boxer said, "You're not going to pay a particular price, as I understand it, with an immediate family."

Cue right-wing hysteria, beginning with the Rupert Murdoch-owned and operated New York Post, New York's conservative tabloid rag.

In this morning's paper, the Post took aim at Boxer:

Breathtaking.

Simply breathtaking.

We scarcely know where to begin.

The junior senator from California apparently believes that an accomplished, seasoned diplomat, a renowned scholar and an adviser to two presidents like Condoleezza Rice is not fully qualified to make policy at the highest levels of the American government because she is a single, childless woman.

It's hard to imagine the firestorm that similar comments would have ignited, coming from a Republican to a Democrat, or from a man to a woman, in the United States Senate. (Surely the Associated Press would have put the observation a bit higher than the 18th paragraph of a routine dispatch from Washington.)
But put that aside.

The vapidity - the sheer mindlessness [emphasis in original] - of Sen. Boxer's assertion makes it clear that the next two years are going to be a time of bitterness and rancor, marked by pettiness of spirit and political self-indulgence of a sort not seen in America for a very long time.

##

When I got done laughing, I became a bit angry. This "right-wing outrage" smacks of what happened in the 2004 presidential campaign.

When Democratic Nominee John Kerry correctly pointed out that President Bush, Vice President Cheney and Republicans all support an amendment to the Constitution to ban gay marriage, Kerry referred to Cheney's gay daughter, Mary - a not so subtle shot at his opponents' hypocrisy.

Lots of phony outrage ensued, including Lynne Cheney proclaiming in front of a crowd of Republican sycophants, "This man [Kerry] is not a good man!" This from a woman, along with her husband, who proclaim themselves to be Christians. Umm Hmm.

Anyway, Senator Boxer did nothing more yesterday than state the obvious - that Rice has no personal sacrifice in this war, just as President Bush and Vice President Cheney don't have any sacrifices, either. Cheney's children are too old, and does anyone think the president's daughters, Jenna and Barbara, are going to serve in the military? RIGHT!

So, that's all Boxer was doing - again, pointing out that the decision makers about this war don't have any personal stake in this war, and that includes Condi Rice.

I would seriously doubt that Senator Boxer believes that "an accomplished, seasoned diplomat, a renowned scholar and an adviser to two presidents like Condoleezza Rice is not fully qualified to make policy at the highest levels of the American government because she is a single, childless woman."

I'd love to have seen the look on the editor(s) at the Post who penned this article. Do they really believe that Boxer believes that?

It's beyond ridiculous.

The American public is overwhelmingly against Bush's Troop Surge, and Boxer took Rice to task on this administration's decision.

Simple as that.

Murdoch is one of the biggest threats to our democracy - along with other media conglomerates.

I'll have more on Murdoch in a bit when I review Outfoxed: Rupert Murdoch's War on Journalism, which I watched last night.

I've already steeled myself to the fact that there will be much more of this pseudo outrage over the next two years.

Get used to it.

What a shock from Fox

Found this last night, and it's making its way around the 'net. I found it on Arianna Huffington's Website, and I'd like to think that if she ran with it, she had a good source. According to her site, it's a leaked internal memo (below) obtained from a source at Fox News. Penned by the network's vice president of news, John Moody, it reveals Fox's game plan the day after Democrats won control of both the Senate and the House. Really, should anyone be surprised by this?

The Department of Homeland Security should put out an APB for all Republicans how still piss and moan about "Rathergate," the incident prior to the '04 election where Dan Rather did a report on President Bush's time in the National Guard. It was revealed the story was based on forgeries and false documents. "Bias! Bias! Bias!" righteously indignant Republicans screamed. I'm not sold on Rather's bias, but it was sloppy, stupid reporting, and Rather should have known better. But, if Rather's reporting was biased, that would make this Fox News memo WHAT?

If Rupert Murdoch has any balls whatsoever (and we know he doesn't), he'll immediately fire John Moody and apologize to all of FN's viewers. Moody is the new Dan Rather, but on official state TV, there are no consequences.

Two quick afterthoughts here. On the drive home yesterday, thinking about this memo and how it relates back to Dan Rather and his forged documents, two things struck me:

1. I wonder if Rather was trying to get back at Bush 41 with the report on W in September '04. Anyone remember when Bush Sr. was running for president in 1988 and he got in a shouting match with Dan Rather, and Bush really got the best of him by mentioning when Rather walked off the set in the early 1980s?

2. Speaking of documents, I wonder why the forged documents, hyped as "proof" by the Bush administration, are never brought up in the phony Iraq purchase of yellow cake in Niger? (An incident which gave rise to the whole Valerie Plame affair, by the way.) Rather was duped by forged documents, just like the Bush administration was. One led to war and the senseless death of tens of thousands, the other to embarrassment, not of Bush, but of Rather.

I only bring up Rather now because the analogy is already being made between the so-called bias at CBS and the blatant bias at Fox News. They are not analogous, but I can guarantee that Republicans will try to make that distinction. Christ, I could practically write Sean Hannity's show for today.

It's gonna be an interesting two years of Democrats ruling Congress.

Must-see movie: Outfoxed: Rupert Murdoch's War on Journalism

Here's a movie trailer from one of my latest must-see movies - "Outfoxed: Rupert Murdoch's War on Journalism." It looks pretty good, and I'll be bringing you a complete review soon.

Honestly, this looks like it hardly breaks new ground; it merely verifies what many have claimed all along - that Fox is merely state-run TV for the Republican party. But, it certainly is worth watching and discussing.

More soon, and if any of you see it, I would love to know your thoughts.

Clinton sodomized in 9-11 movie

I've been away for a while and haven't had much time to post much lately because of school and the craziness before, during and after the wedding (A good, but busy kind of craziness!). However, I do have a lot on my mind from my time away from the blog, and I do plan on at least partially catching up.

In the meantime, I laughed today when I clicked on a link of an article to The New York Post about the upcoming movie, The Path to 9-11, which will air on ABC this Sunday and Monday. Bill Clinton appears to be pretty pissed, and it looks like he has good reason to be. According to the article in the Post, part of the movie details how Clinton was too distracted by the Lewinsky scandal to deal with bin Laden. What a truckload of shit.

The accurate history of what happened the summer the embassies were bombed was that Clinton was busy going after bin Laden following the attacks, trying to do his job, despite a witch hunt out to get him. Unfortunately, this coincided with the growing momentum to impeach the president. Republicans in Congress accused the president of trying to distract the American public with a missile attack against bin Laden. Self-righteous Republicans didn't want to hear stories about bin Laden - they wanted to get the president. Fortunately, the American public wasn't fooled - nearly 3/4 of Americans didn't want to see Clinton removed from office, and he wasn't, much to the frustration of Republicans. However, when viewed through a post-9-11 lens, this paragraph all seems too unbelievable to be true, but it IS true.

Here's a thought - maybe if the FBI didn't have dozens (and I've read hundreds in some places) of agents investigating a blow job (along with the majority of Congress), maybe the agency could have been protecting America. The same goes for Congress at the time. Call me crazy.

And here's a few more thoughts on the movie and right-wing myths. 9-11 happened on Bush's watch, not Clinton's. Idiots on the far right suffer from amnesia about this. The Clinton administration handed over all sorts of information to the incoming Bush administration on bin Laden and the growing threat of terrorism, but to no avail. The Bush cabal was too busy trying to figure out a way to repay favors to people who put Bush in office. Part of this repayment included massive tax cuts for the rich (that we still can't afford), instead of taking part of that money and adequately funding anti-terrorism programs.

If this movie is depicted as discussed in the Post article, it is a massive distortion and a disservice to the dead of 9-11, and to all Americans. The latter all too often relies on movies and pop culture to get depictions of history, and this movie will unfortunately play a part. That's pathetic and sad.

ABC has already stated that some scenes were dramatized in the movie. Really? What a shock.

Two other quick points. I'm not one of those people who believe Bush knew about 9-11. No president would knowingly permit such a brutal, ghastly attack. I do believe that if the agencies, including the CIA, FBI and NSA, hadn't had its collective head up its ass, they may have been prevented. Bush deserves some blame, no doubt, but so does Clinton, Congress and a host of other people. This is a story that will continue to emerge for years if not decades. But, I also laugh derisively at people who buy into the urban legend making its way around the Internet that states bin Laden could have been handed over to the U.S., but Clinton refused to take him into custody. This absurd right-wing myth that persists, facts be damned, and it's laughable.

And Republicans were so obsessed with bin Laden in the late 1990s (a total fucking lie), they why haven't they captured his ass since then? They've only had nearly 6 years, and 5 since 9-11. But, don't worry, people. I'm sure bin Laden is somewhere in Iraq.

I don't know what's worse - the obsession with Clinton in the late 90s, or the travesty that continues in Iraq, each and every day. Bush has got us in a real quagmire. There, I said the Q word. His debacle in the Middle East will wear the Scarlet Q for years to come, all at the cost of American blood.

My other point? Rupert Murdoch is no doubt laughing his extremist-right-wing ass off today. He owns the Post.

**

Anyway, I will watch the movie this Sunday and Monday, and report back how I feel about it. We are also having our post-wedding celebration in the Poconos this weekend, so I will no doubt have many great pictures to share. Oh, and a teeny little league called the NFL starts tonight, and I'm definitely ready for some football. And I'm even more ready for the NHL season. So much to write about, so little time. All for now.

Tune back tomorrow for a highly scientific analysis of who will have a better season, my Dallas Cowboys, or my wife's (and in-laws') Denver Broncos. Part of this proof will be in pictures!