it is about race - part 4: don't let it be...

I have had a political crush on Donna Brazile for a long time. She is forward thinking, open and honest in what she reports and comments. She is not afraid to say things as they are and this is an example of how race cannot be part of the 2008 election.

The video below is from a panel discussion the New Yorker Magazine held last Saturday, October 4, 2008, moderated by Jeffrey Toobin. It is the part with Ms. Brazile pointedly saying that the election has to get down to the issues and she puts things into a real perspective making it as obvious as she can that this election is one of the most important in U.S. history.





Here is the corresponding story on the New Yorker website: DONNA BRAZILE: “IF I WERE RUNNING THIS CAMPAIGN” where you can view the video of the entire panel discussion.

It frightens me that we could go backwards as she implies explicitly and not just on race.

An idea that has been rolling around in my head for the last couple of weeks is a comparison of the McCain campaign to the all out-fight the Catholic church waged in the Middle Ages against the Guttenberg Printing Press. The church wanted to keep people ignorant so that they could keep control of their thoughts, their lives, and their money - complete enslavement.

The church fought to keep the invention of Gutenberg's printing press under wraps, because if people could easily get printed material, more would want to learn how to read. If people know how to read, their minds can be open to new ideas that others have and form their own ideas as well. The church realized that knowledge was dangerous to their control.

Sadly, this still goes on in some places in the world, e.g. the Taliban in Afghanistan, and other groups, even in this country, struggle to control what people think by feeding on their fears, by trying to stifle the media through intimidation and innuendo, and by pushing fundamentalism on the country.

i'm sure Jefferson, Madison, Adams et. al. are somewhere shaking their heads at what they are seeing...

the upcoming debate...

I did stop watching the primary debates. They were unsubstansive, silly, and petty. I guess I relied on the recaps the days following them but probably didn't pay much attention to them.

Well, Media Matters feels the same way. They did a review of the debates, Republican and Democrat, and found that there was very little on issues that face the nation.






Truthfully, I have been debating whether I am even going to watch the first of the Presidential debates this Friday. While I would like to see how Obama is going to deal with the attacks on his lack of Foreign Policy experience from Mcpain, who thinks he's the world's foremost authority, I believe the attacks are all going to be based on lies.

I can visualize Mr. McCain totally loosing it, going on the attack and making a scene that proves he could not handle himself cautiously in a major crisis. I can also wait to see it on rebroadcasts or on youtube.com.

besides, there is a new episode of Stargate: Atlantis this Friday. I'm sure it would be infinitely more informative, and I don't miss Stargate: Atlantis.

I could DVR it, but it's just not the same...

can't someone tell Tweety to STFU?

It's been excruciating to watch MSNBC during the actual convention coverage because of Chris Matthews. He speaks over everyone, including people on the podium that are being covered; he makes inane comments; and he makes Keith Olbermann show faces that border or WTF is he saying almost out of embarrassment.

I guess, maybe, it's because Tweety thinks he wants to run for the Senate himself. [If there is a god, s/he better put the kabosh on it.]

David Mixner posted what may be some proof:

Now MSNBC's Chris Matthews just can't keep quiet. With the rumors swirling that he wants to run for Senate in Pennsylvania, Queerty.com reports this exchange happened between Matthews and publisher Mark Segal from the Philadelphia Gay News when he asked Matthews about marriage equality. When caught off guard, Matthews talked about freedom but didn't answer the question. When the reporter pressed, this very testy exchange occurred:

Segal: Well, where are you on the issue?
Matthews: I have an open heart. I’ll have to live with it.
Segal: In other words, you won’t answer the question.
Matthews: I can answer it the way I have, which is any fucking way I want. I can answer in my way even if it isn’t your way.

and people wonder why i stopped doing posts on this election. it's populated by idiots!

the Tsar and his Rasputin continue the attacks...

and I'm not talking about Iraq or Afghanistan. Those don't seem to work anyway.

They are attacking the "public".

In another move to take more and more away from the people they are pushing a bill up for a vote tomorrow in the Senate that would keep more of the truth from us.

The administration has proposed cutting the public broadcasting budget by 56 percent -- putting at risk vital news, educational and cultural programming that millions of Americans say they prefer to commercial media. Freepress, 23 June 2008

Built into the laws have always been a requirement to collect local viewer data, report factual materials, provide educational opportunity, and programs of public interest. A lot of the programming is also backed by both private and public grants, giving more meaning to reflecting the needs and wishes of the public. In other words, telling the truth or allowing the public to decide for ourselves.

More and more the "public" is becoming a concept rather than a reality as a result of the Bush/Cheney seven year fiasco. More and more is being done for big business and less and less for the people at our expense.

Business needs to realize that it is the "people" that keep them going. What would they do if the "public" decided to stop paying their bills? Oh, wait, Bush/Cheney would bail business out.

Let your senators know directly by sending them an online letter via Freepress here and sign a petition they have working to make all lawmakers aware that you want public broadcasting to be fully funded and additional funding provided here.

MSNBC call on West Virginia...

6:30 pm (CDT) - They went to commercial at 6:26 until now! In previous Democratic primaries, MSNBC has called Obama the winner within 30 seconds of the polls closing and with 0% of precincts reporting. They never did that for any primary the Clinton won.

WOW! MSNBC actually called the West Virginia primary within 30 seconds of polls closing for Senator Clinton by a margin of 2 - 1 with NO precincts reporting and NO votes counted, using only exit polls.



6:15 pm (CDT) - Tweety has been interacting with Terry McAuliffe, Clinton Campaign Chairman, for the last 15 minutes, maybe I should say trying to badger him rather than interact. McAuliffe is the number one drumbeater for Clinton and will not be intimidated by Matthews. He put out a strategy how she can still win the nomination. Even Huckabee, now being interviewed by Olbermann, is saying that Hillary is in it because it is her longtime goal and she doesn't have to do it.

NO call yet with 14:38 until the polls close.

6:00 pm (CDT) - NO call from MSNBC yet but they continue talking about the whiteness of WV and how the education level is lower. Oh, and they keep wondering how far Hillary will go until she pulls out. MSNBC has also been showing a lot more commercials than usual...

5:41 pm (CDT) - MSNBC has not done anything yet except countdown the time [47:48] until the voting ends. I've been checking about every half-hour. All predictions say that Sen. Clinton will take the election by a wide margin, about 60%. One man that was interviewed for an exit poll said, "We are probably the whitest state in the country." You know what the spin on that statement is...

now isn't this a bag of s***...

NOT one of the leading progressive blogs has a single solitary post today on the Rev. Wright appearances at the NAACP meeting in Detroit yesterday or at the National Press Club in Washington D.C. today!

Check them out here:

Crooks and Liars


The Huffington Post


dailyKos


Cliff Shecter and Other Opinionated Talents


AmericaBlog


therawstory


BuzzFlash.com


MediaMatters.org




Now why do you suppose that is?



ABC, CBS, NBC, MSNBC, & CNN are covering it. The New York Times has it on their front page online edition.


But every one of the progressives has something negative about Hillary on their sites today. Just like every day.


Now why do you suppose that is?


Move along. No bias here.


Here is the one question that I have for Mr. Obama. If you were a member of Rev. Wright's congregation for 20 years, and you said that he was a close spiritual advisor who was almost like family, HOW can you say that you never heard him say any of the things he is saying or at least heard about him saying them?

AND, of course, Rev Wright's response is that Mr. Obama didn't attend every sermon he gave, so he may have missed these.

puhleez...

i haven't offered that bridge i've been trying to sell for a long time.

it's still for sale...

is there a race issue?

He's black.

She's white.

There is a race issue.

He's a man.

She's a woman.

There is also a sexism issue...


or......... is the media making it an issue?

just asking...

today's primaries and pri-caucus...

It is now 30 minutes since the polls closed in Ohio. Senator Clinton, with 3% of the districts reporting, is about 500 votes over Senator Obama.

MSNBC has not called the race for Clinton.

In the previous primaries, MSNBC called the races for Obama with 0% of the precincts reporting within <1 to +17 minutes when he had less of a lead than Hillary has now.

interesting, don't you think?

just asking...

jeebus cripes, they just won't stop...

from an article just posted [2:38 pm]on the NYT's website:

Clinton Says Debate Remark Not Meant as Farewell

DALLAS — With the mood of her campaign darkened by the death of a motorcycle officer escorting her motorcade Friday, Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton vowed to carry on her campaign despite reflective remarks in a debate Thursday night that some people took as a valedictory to her long effort to win the Democratic presidential nomination....

In the wake of the accident, Mrs. Clinton decided to cancel a rally in Fort Worth, speaking only briefly to the assembling crowds.

and so they think that this is a sign that she knows that she can't win!

it's six more months until the convention in Denver. The NYT, even though most are considering it's report specious, printed a piece about John McCain and a lobbyist that could put his campaign to a halt, even though no one is running against him except Huckleberry. One huge misstep and it could be fast curtains for him.

The same thing can happen to Obama or Clinton. They, at the least, are both within reach of a possible brokered nomination.

The American media has this thing about writing the news and not reporting it. Maybe writing isn't the correct word to use. Maybe it would be better to say make up the news. Dan Abrams has been making a direct reference point to this on his show for the last few weeks - right after Olbermann's Countdown program that makes no bones about the fact that it's news with a point of view.

i know, i'm getting caught up in the craziness and i said i wouldn't. it's kind of hard when i'm not really sure about Clinton's finishing statement in the debate last night: "I know that no matter what happens, we'll be all right."

my anti-Vietnam War days are still at the back of my head. there are too many idiots out there. the most noteworthy is our dear leader Tsar George...

MSNBC reports...

Well, at least MSNBC waited 17 minutes this time before declaring Obama the winner in Wisconsin.

Of course, they did call it with only 1% of the precincts reporting. That's 1% more than in the past primaries.

why don't we just forget about primaries and let the MSM decide who the candidates will be? they seem to be making the decision anyway...


i'm just asking...

David Shuster, Chris Matthews...

A couple of days ago I did a post entitled new addition to the blogosphere... when I talked about a new site I had just started called no comment....

In it I mention where I found the idea - on Euronews. I talked about how refreshing it was to see the news rather than listen to someone's blather about what they thought, how they interpreted what a news item meant, or why it made a difference. Just the news.

Fox News seems to be based on non-reporting reporting. [Can we use the "Enquirer" as a comparison?] Chris Matthews is one of the pundits who does this slanting all the time. Some others who use it are Joe Scarborough, Lou Dobbs, Wolf Blitzer, Glenn Beck.... The list goes on with no seeming end. [Max Headroom be proud!]

There has been much talk lately about Matthews' misogyny especially after an exchange concerning Hillary Clinton, but it has not been limited just to Clinton. There is a pattern with Matthews making these types of comments with other women.

I must say that the issue with David Shuster of MSNBC really does surprise me. I have been watching him and have been impressed with his ability to more or less stay above the fray. He has done reporting rather than editorializing, even when he would sit in for Tucker or Matthews. His style was more interviewing than showing a bent.

One website says that he was having a bad day all the way around when it began on Morning Joe when Scarborough told him not to interrupt him when he's on the phone, asked Mika to tell David about this [as she did with her Joe's a diva smirk], and then told him to continue with what he was saying.

Now the latest on the Shuster matter is being discussed as a plan/ruse/maneuver by MSNBC to keep Hillary from dropping out of the next scheduled debate it's sponsoring, and her campaign has even mentioned it as a possibility [Check here for more on this speculation.]

Whatever...

We spent eight years of Bill Clinton's presidency with all the innuendos and allegations of misdeeds, one after the other. It got so ridiculous that he was finally impeached for a b***j**! It's continued with his wife. The waterboarders have all of that in their plans and are now salivating at the thought of getting to Obama with drugs and who knows what else.

Bush at least made it clear that his twins were off limits, and that must have been a real letdown to the newspeople because those two were potential Britneys or Paris's. He also made it clear that the kind of crap that he and his supporters used on Clinton would not be tolerated. Now, the way is clear again.

I do feel sorry for David Shuster. He did make a mistake and he seems to realize it and has apologized, but it seems he's going to take the brunt of it for other's idiocy.

oh well, all popularity contests have their winners and their losers...

here comes the spin on the NIE...

Right Claims Iran NIE a CIA Plot Against Bush

George Bush says he got the new NIE report last week: Oh, really?

Mainstream media gives Bush a pass on Iran lie, they're all one big happy club

Bush: Iran Still a Danger Despite Report

Enough Spin Already: Bush and Cheney Lied, Iran Didn't

Hillary gets grief over Iran vote

Giuliani advisor: Doubt the NIE

Get Ready for Rightwing Blowback

Iran? Yeah, Just Faking It (like Saddam?)

Revisionism and The Iranian Non-Bomb

I’m Not a Believer

now, some of these links are from rightwing sites and some from progressive ones. the spin is on both sides.

can you tell which?

just asking...

"ALL" of them were...

Caught Ann Coulter on MSNBC spewing some of her vitriol today. [by accident, purely, by accident.] I can't remember who the reporter was, but she said to Coulter as an introduction to a question, "Some of your books have been on the top 10 list...." Coulter instantly cut her off and emphatically said, "ALL of them have been." The reporter tried to continue as though she was non-plussed until Coulter repeated it again. Not once, but twice.

The reporter, at this point, had a look on her face that was saying, "You f***ing b****," but her response was something to the point of, "If that's what you say. [Whatever]." She just continued to the interview but it was obvious that she couldn't wait to get Coutler's face off the camera. She remained polite.

Whatever the point Coulter was trying to make was lost. I haven't the faintest idea what she was talking about. All I remember was the above exchange, and it struck me that Coulter will do anything for self-aggrandizement. She was condescending and superior in demeanor - a complete phony.

i just wish someone would ask her to take her mask off. halloween isn't for another 21 days...

boo...

NBC pulls out of iTunes...

NBC pulled out of the iTunes agreement with Apple over pricing. They want more charged for their shows! So what else is new?

So today they announce an agreement with Amazon.com's Unbox service -NBC in Deal With Amazon to Sell Shows on the Web.

HELLO!

I just looked at the Amazon.com Unbox website for NBC shows. THEY'RE CHARGING $1.99!

AND... instead of the $9.99 for movies, Unbox charges $14.99! Oh, yeah, you can rent the movie for $3.99, but what are the requirements? You can only use a PC; you have to download the Unbox video player; you have 30 days to begin viewing it and once you start 24 hours before it is erased automatically. Netflix is easier. Not to mention cheaper starting at $4.99 a month and you can keep the movie as long as you want and take as long as you want to watch it.

sheesh... maybe NBC is getting a bigger cut from Amazon.com but what are consumers getting from this? the shaft...

Let's Start the Internet Revolution...

Dear Friends:

The FCC is on the verge of turning over a large chunk of the public airwaves to the same giant phone and cable companies that control high-speed Internet access for more than 96 percent of connected American homes.

This public "spectrum" could revolutionize the Internet in America. Its wireless signal passes through concrete buildings and over mountains; it can connect tens of million of Americans who are being passed over by Internet providers like AT&T, Verizon and Comcast.

Don't let the FCC give away our wireless Internet to these price-gouging giants. The FCC deadline is fast approaching. Act now:

Tell the FCC: Use Our Airwaves for the Public Good

Broadcast television channels will soon vacate these airwaves when they go digital by 2009. If used right, these public airways will revolutionize the ways we connect to laptops, cell phones, PDAs, music players and other mobile Internet devices. They can deliver an open Internet into your house without the need for a telephone wire or cable modem.

Phone and cable lobbyists are pressuring the FCC to sell companies like AT&T, Verizon and Comcast our airwaves so they can horde spectrum and stifle competitive and cheaper alternatives to their established networks.

This would be a disaster. After years of phone and cable company control over Internet access, the United States has fallen to 16th in the world in high-speed Internet rankings, with few choices and some of the highest prices for the slowest speeds in the world. We will continue this decline as long as we let AT&T, Verizon and Comcast dictate the terms of Internet access for the majority of Americans.

These phone and cable giants refuse to open their networks to competitive applications and services. They lobby Washington to stifle new innovations like Internet phone service and to destroy Net Neutrality, the one principle that protects equal opportunity and free choice on the Web.

We need to end their stranglehold and demand a better Internet for everyone:

Tell the FCC: Keep the New Internet Open to All

With open networks, the rest of the world has rapidly adopted high-speed, Internet platforms for education, economic innovation, creativity and civic participation. Countries like South Korea, Japan, France and Canada have leapfrogged the United States and now offer faster Internet connections at far lower prices.

It's time we caught up.

Act now and help clear the path for a technology that will deliver faster, more open and affordable Internet for everyone.

Thank you,

Timothy Karr
Campaign Director
Free Press

The FCC needs to hear from you about the importance of setting aside the public airwaves for a faster, more open and neutral Internet.

I just told my story at SavetheInternet.com and urged the FCC to protect the public airwaves for the public good. This is our one best chance to make America's Internet more accessible and open to everyone.

Click here to take action to improve the Internet for generations to come:
Save the Internet

and tell your friends.

Thank you

what DID Rosie actually say?

Rosie O'Donnell: Six-hundred and fifty-five thousand Iraqi civilians are dead. Who are the terrorists?

Elisabeth Hasselbeck: Who are the terrorists?

RO: ...six-hundred and fifty-five... I'm saying you have to look from... We invaded...

EH: Who are you calling terrorists?

RO: ...I'm saying if you were in Iraq, and another country, the United States, the richest in the world, invaded your country and killed six-hundred and fifty-five thousand of your citizens, what would you call us?

EH: Are you saying we're killing their citizens or are they, their people also killing their citizens?

RO: We're invading a sovereign nation and occupying a nation against the UN...

First, the 655,000 figure is not accurate. Second, Hasselbeck's remark that it's not just the troops killing Iraqis but many many more are killing each other is undeniable. Third, what has been most misconstrued is O'Donnell actually calling the troops terrorists. If you listen carefully, you can tell that she is giving another possible viewpoint - a viewpoint that might be one that the Iraqis could have. At no point did she say the troops were terrorists that I could hear.

I was watching the program that day, and I very seldom watch it, and did not think that she actually said that the troops were terrorists. Here is a clip from Scarborough Country that has the dialogue above. Unfortunately, I cannot find a stand-alone version of the exchange. The dialogue happens almost at the beginning and continues until about 1:01 minutes. Then Scarborough goes off on his rant, along with his guests, that she called the troops terrorists.



Of course what became more important is the rant that Rosie had this week with Elisabeth over not coming to her defense against the Republican pundits and now Rosie's early departure from The View. Donald Trump has weighed in on the fray; FOX has hit hard on the exchange; the rest of the media has focused on the terrorist aspect.

Isn't it sad that we are still listening to the main stream media not questioning the basic discourse about Iraq? Not attempting to give a fair balance to the issues? Not standing on its own two feet as the Fourth Estate?

In what should be an inspiration to the media:

"Il nous faut de l'audace, et encore de l'audace, et toujours de l'audace." Georges Danton

"We must dare, and again dare, and forever dare.

Of course, eventually he lost his head...