PeterDavid.net

Yeah, they are definitely having a tough launch. The signal from their LA station keeps cutting out, and today their news just stopped in the middle of a sentence, and the middle of a sentence from one of their shows began with no warning.

Still, at least they're trying to get some more voices on the air.

I went to their website, clicked on the "O'Franken Factor" show, and it said if to want to send them comments, send them here:

my2cents@airamericaradio.com



Hope that helps, Peter!

~Brad

Whoops! Guess I didn't read your post carefully enough about what the problem was.

Anyway, I just e-mailed them your little ditty myself. (Giving full credit of course). It seemed to go through fine for me. I'll keep an eye on my "in-box", though.

~Brad

I clicked on listen live and had no trouble hearing what was on air. Unfortunately, with a 4 year old that demands attention, I haven't been able to turn on my computer while Al Franken is broadcasting. Let's hope the Seattle area gets them soon.

I always had this pegged as a one year venture--more important as just existing than as a genuine entity.

It's gotten a ton of free publicity so its message has already gotten out to a far greater degree than it's viewership could possibly warrant.

Puzzling about the website. Their loss, of course.

I joined yesterday and it went through without a hitch.
The only problem is that I was forced to use Internet Explorer to listen to the streaming audio.

I've listened to Air American online and have no problems with it, but have not tried to e-mail them. I also comes in fine on my clock radio- I'm in NJ. I hope Brad got it through for you.

As I've mentioned on my blog, I can just barely hear them on my work radio, and only when the fax machine on the other side of my cubicle isn't spitting out any pages. They do seem to have had a tough online launch, but I'm confident that all the bugs will be worked out in short order.

I was pessimistic about Air America, but listened to see how it was. I've actually been enjoying it quite a bit.

Comes in nicely on XM satellite radio.

The only problem is that I was forced to use Internet Explorer to listen to the streaming audio.

Alot of sites are forcing people to use IE for streaming stuff.

It pisses me off to no end.

I have been listening (or trying to) since the middle of last week. The web site is literally changing hourly. When I first checked it out on Tuesday or Wednesday last week it came up second or third in a Google search for "Air America".

The only thing on the page was a logo and a link to listen live (which played a short message saying "please try again during broadcast hours" even though it was during broadcast hours).

The next day I found the site pretty much as it looks now, but it didn't require a login. I was able to listen for 4-6 hours without too much of a problem, though the feed did unexpectedly stop several times and I needed to reload the Real player.

Today I found that I needed to create an account. It was slow, but it worked the first time. Obviously they are working hard to get things up and running, and they are dealing with quite a demand. I encourage you to keep trying. It's an entertaining stream to listen to.

Phinn

Wait, PAD. Both you and Franken are Jewish. Shouldn't your Zionist Secret Decoder Ring with Wrist TV/Radio Transmitter be able to get you in touch with him? You know, the worst part about celebrities in secret societies is when they conveniently "forget" they belong to them.

Really, I haven't heard much of anything about Franken's show yet; I had no idea it was even on the air yet. The newness of the show and the incompetence of most big companies to get even a halfway decent website up and running kind of explain your difficulty getting through to anybody involved with the show.

One other thing: having looked at the website now (after my previous post) I can firmly declare that, though I enjoy Al Franken's work, I think Lizz Winstead's show will be better. Franken, as people seem happy to forget, is a comedian with a political bent. Winstead, however, is a political comedian, and she's quite frankly funnier than Al Franken.

See, I didn't even know they had a website until ten minutes ago. I just got back from there and REALLY have to agree with PAD on this. I gave up on doing anything with it or signing up after the 15th or so time that I hit a JRnn error (?) or had a "could not find this page" message pop up. I hate to say it but it doesn't look good for their long term life span if they can't even set up a simple homepage website while 6th graders are out there with their copies of Home Pages for Dummies running much better sites that work a lot better. Does the radio end work as well as the e-end? Yeah, this is gonna last.

Gee, I've been listening to AAR (not to be confused with AA) during my commute last week, with relatively little problems. The L.A. station (1580 AM) dropped twice from me, and the signal is a little weak compared to the bigger names out here, but otherwise it's been fine. I even got the RealAudio stream to work on Friday, and everything jives with my sense that they're finally shaking the bugs out of the system.

I agree with Bill Mulligan on this -- right now, the important thing is for them to get on the air at all, and demonstrate that there is an audience for something other than right-wing religious-fundamentalist talk radio. Sure, it'd be nice to launch with an all-star cast 24/7 in 500 markets, but the people with enough money to bankroll such a scheme happen to be right-wing religious fundamentalists. ;-)

But regardless of your political views, having a variety of viewpoints available should be a good thing, and for that alone, I hope AAR does grow to make Rush quiver in his boots.

Jerry - If you know one of these sixth graders, please send them over to Canada's main passenger rail company. Their 'improved' site was (is?) so bloody awful(*) that ladyfriend and I gave up after about twenty minutes trying (I in English and she on the Japanese version of their site) to get information on rates/schedules to and from Montreal and tried the intercity bus company's site instead. Thirty seconds later we had the times and fares. Guess who got our money?

(*) Aamong other delights, the schedule page is encrypted! Who knew train schedules were a matter of national security?!

Oh, it just keeps getting better. I'm taking a combo lunch and break from the break from the yard (Sunny here but cold and windy as hell. This is Spring?) and decided to try my luck again. Actually got on and got the listen live to work. However, all of the links for contact and sign up seem to have done a now you see me now you don't.
Remember the trailer for the movie Zoolander? That scene with the two of them doing the bit with them acting like chimps with the computer (like the opening moments of 2001)? Why do I keep getting that image in my mind when I go to their website?

But seriously folks........how is Bush too blame for this?

Robert Jung,
First, "right-wing" and "religious fundamentalists " are not automaticaly one and the same. Honest.
Second, the only people "with enough money to bankroll such a scheme happen to be right-wing religious fundamentalists"? For one thing, the idea that right-wing Republicans are the only ones with serious cash falls into the "only Republicans are rich" stereotype which is simply incorrect. After the 2000 election, the only four Senators with personal wealth of at least $200 million were Democrats; in fact, in terms of personal wealth,eight of the top 11 Senators are Democrats: Senator John Kerry, D-Mass.($620 million); Senator Jon Corzine, D-N.J. ($400 million); Senator Herb Kohl, D-Wis. ($300 million); Senator Jay Rockefeller, D-W.Va. ($200 million); Senator Lincoln Chafee, R-R.I. ($63 million); Senator Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif. ($50 million); Senator Maria Cantwell, D-Wash. ($40 million); Senator Peter Fitzgerald, R-Ill. ($40 million); Senator Bob Bennett, R-Utah ($30 million); Senator John Edwards, D-N.C. ($25 million); and Senator Ted Kennedy, D-Mass. ($25 million).
Seems like these guys could help banroll such a venture, don't you think? That's if they thought it would make money and be successful, which I highly doubt.

Air America Radio is going take the fight to the right in conservative strongholds like New York, Chicago, Los Angeles, Portland, Minneapolis, Inland Ca., satellite radio....and geeze...is that it? 6 stations all located in ultra-liberal cities (correction: Inland in an area, not a city) & satellite radio? Yeesh....well at least the left will finally have a way to get their message out...well other than all the newspapers, cable outlets, and websites that have been incessantly hyping the debut of "Air America". Well in any case, with great interviews like this from conspiracy spewing harpy (And yes, I've heard her show before) Randi Rhodes, how can they go wrong?

..............................

Ralph Nader: ... can you – is this the way you want to start Air America? You want it to be Hot Air America?

Randi Rhodes: Oh, no, you see ...

Ralph Nader: ... Log on to the web site votenader.org ...

Randi Rhodes: Ralph, let me tell you something. If you did get to be president, tell me who you would caucus with. Tell me who you could get to vote for your ... views and visions, and your, your bills! Who is an independent other than Bernie Sanders and Jim Jeffords? Who are you gonna count on? You ... let's say you win, OK?

Ralph Nader: You can't win without a huge mobilization of voters ...

Randi Rhodes: ... let's say ya do ...

Ralph Nader: ... that would replace many members of Congress.

Randi Rhodes: ... let's say it's seventy years old, from your house in Connecticut, your little house ...

Ralph Nader: ... now wait a minute. Now wait wait wait. You're ...

Randi Rhodes: ... you are, you are ready to do this.

Ralph Nader: ... listen, listen. Now you're getting nasty.

Randi Rhodes: I'm not!

Ralph Nader: You are ruining the first day ...

Randi Rhodes: I'm not ruining anything.

Ralph Nader: ... the first day of Air America.

Randi Rhodes: This is Air America.

Ralph Nader: ... you're not letting your, you're not letting your guest be, have a chance to speak. You're ...

Randi Rhodes: I asked you a question.

Ralph Nader: ... you're not letting your guest have a chance to speak.

More bickering

Ralph Nader: ... you've got a very bad interviewing technique ...

Randi Rhodes: ... uh uh uh. I am not ...

Ralph Nader: ... and you're not going to get an audience by overtalking ...

Randi Rhodes: ... interviewing you ...

Ralph Nader: Do not overtalk!

Randi Rhodes: I am not ... interviewing you!

Ralph Nader: Do not overtalk!

Randi Rhodes: I'm mad at you! Don't you understand the difference?

Ralph Nader: Fine, just close up and start screaming to your audience.

Randi Rhodes: [laughs] Look. Don't tell me how to do radio; I've done it for twenty years. You screwed up the last election, and now you want to screw up this one, and I'm pissed!

Ralph Nader: (pause; speechless) You know, you ought to be ashamed of yourself because you ...

Randi Rhodes: But I'm not! You know you should ...

Ralph Nader: ... you agree with me ...

Randi Rhodes: ... be ashamed of yourself!

Ralph Nader: ... you agree with me on so many issues. You really ought to be ashamed of yourself.

Randi Rhodes: I'm not ashamed of myself. I can't afford you! [End of Excerpts]

................................

The interview ended when Nader finally hung up on Rhodes.

Wow....that was uh...uh...something. But hey, they're getting the message out...assuming it has something to do with bickering.

But, if NPR can make, Alan Colmes can make it, Ted Rall can get published on Yahoo, Noam Chomsky can make a living peddling America hatred, why not these guys? Sure, if I were betting, my guess would be that Air America will probably be playing Salsa or Top 40 radio in 18 months or so rather than continuing on with Franken, Chuck D., Garofalo, and the rest of "team screechy liberal," but stranger things have happened. I can't say that I'm wishing them luck, but at least from this point on, no one will ever be able to claim that conservatives have somehow, someway, held back the left on radio...

So, James, why is this "interview" technique somehow less legitimate when practiced by Randi Rhodes than when practiced by, say, Bill O'Reilly, or Rush Limbaugh, or Sean Hannity, or (here in San Diego) Roger Hedgecock, or... I think you get my point by now.

No, Mr. "the other one", I don't get your point. Have you actually watched or listend to these men? I don't think Rush ever had anyone who he agreed with on issues hang up on him. As a conservative I think it is funny if anyone considers O'Reilly a conservative and I have to wonder why you used him as an example. To be fair to Mr. O'Reilly I think he does a pretty fair job with his interviews and the only time he doesn't have two guests on to defend a certain view point is when they are two chiken to show up.

When it comes down to it at least the people you listed can keep their guests on the air long enough for you to get an idea of what the guest stands for. I don't think any of the people listed have bickerd with a guest so much they just hung up or walked out on them.

Tried listening on the Mac at home, but while iTunes has successfully played RealAudio files for me before, it wouldn't stream this no matter how many times I tried. And I refuse to install RealAudio itself on my home machine, due to all the horror stories I've heard about it.

James,

If you think Riverside, CA counts as a liberal enclave, it's swooningly obvious that you've never spent a single moment there.

It's been home to some very conservative initiatives and heavily right-wing Congresscritters in its time -- and I don't mean 50 years ago.

Now, LA, New York, etc. ... those I'll agree with.

Me, I'm just annoyed it doesn't have a Bay area station yet.

TWL

Re: Air America not having a Bay Area station.

Tim, do we really need another conservative talk radio station around here? :-)

[For those who aren't familiar with Bay Area, and particularly SF and Berkeley, politics, what'd be called liberal in many other places would count as conservative to middle of the road here. For example, the new SF mayor, Gavin Newsom, who started the current flood of same sex marriages, almost was defeated for mayor because he was considered too conservative. Especially relative to the other candidate in the runoff.]

For whoever cares, the problems with the Air America Radio web site are apparently due to them being completely swamped -- According to The Hampster (http://www.the-hamster.com/mtype/archives/000776.html),

"It's Brian from I Stand For, we're doing the AAR website.

"We're so sorry things have been buggy, nobody could have anticipated the response we have received.

"We've broken records people... We are Real Audio's #1 stream. We were at 50,000 streams during Al's show around 2:00 EST. We got 350,000 unique visitors from 8:00 last night to 2 this afternoon. That puts us on pace to be a top 50 site...on the entire web. We're talking Bank of America, Dell Computers numbers.

"You guys are awesome, this is amazing and we're so proud to be a part of it."

And for Dave Van Domelen (yes, I kept the "V" uppercase B-), I installed RealAudio on my iMac without any problems, and wouldn't hesitate to recommend it.

Tom,

Okay, point taken. :-)

Actually, a friend of mine who lives in SF proper said something similar a ways back. "I love the fact that I can be considered a moderate in this town. Anyplace else I'd be burnt at the stake."

(He's also probably one of the five smartest people I've ever met ... not that this is relevant, but I thought I'd mention it.)

TWL

I'm impressed at the way Air America is trying to redefine the business model of a successful radio program. Most hosts/programs start their careers in small markets and work their way up to larger and larger markets, and very few ever become national. Air America expects to start at the top, then they whine about not enough stations carrying their "new product". If you saw Franken on Nightline last week, you saw him whining.

Folks, it's not politics, it's business. No one, including Rush, Sean Hannity, Alan Colmes, or anyone else started out in the top markets. They worked their way up by providing a product that advertisers could buy time on. That means bringing in an audience. Advertisers generally don't care about content, just numbers.

Unfortunately, some idiot at my job deided we can't have RealAudio on our computers so I'm having to listen to the stream of WLIB's webiste which craps out about every three to ten minutes. I think I'm going to switch over and catch the rerun at 11 pm.

I've been listening to the live stream ver the 'net, as iAir America doesn't have a Seattle affiliate yet.

I've had zero problems with the web site.

I work in Woodland Hills, California, located in the San Fernando Valley. I can't even get the L.A. station that broadcasts Air America. What a weak station!

The funny thing is, the only stations which have "paid" to get Air America (the majority have been donation or liberal funded), are 3 Clear Channel stations.

But of course, we all know Clear Channel is satan's own private company.

Heh. It all comes down to business. If they can get listeners, they will grow. You can't run a radio as a charity forever (unless you count NPR).

Jerry

You know, Sean Hannity and Bill O'Reilly are not ever as obnoxious as Randi Rhodes was to Nader. Last week, when the black New York talk show host who was fired for saying "I'm a racist. I hate white people...When I see a black man and a white woman together, I hate them both (and immediately got another gig!) was on "Hannity and Colmes" the strongest statement Hannity (or Colmes) made was "I have to be honest. I think what you said was wrong." He even held back when she lamely said, "I thought I was a racist, but then i looked it up in the dictionary and I realize what the definition is and I now know I'm not"She then went on to say Black people can't be racist. They don't have the power" and that she was echoing the feelings of a lot of black women on interracial dating.
Now, all you Rush bashers, what do you think the reaction would be if he had stated "I'm a racist. I hate black people" and then said he thought he was but "looked it up in the dictionary" and now realizes he's not? And made similar statements about interracial dating? And do you think he would be treated with kid gloves AND immediately gotten another job after being fired. There's a dangerous double-standard at work."

As far as Nader, I actualy feel really bad for him. Whatever side of the political divide you're on, here's someone who has truly been a public servant and always conducts himself with dignity. Yet he chalenges the Democratic party to be true to its principles instead of edging to the center, and he is constantly told he "cost" Gore the election. First, many of those who voted for Nader are those who truly believed in him and would NOT have voted for gore if he was not on the ballot. Second, the margin of victory for Bush in Florida it can be argued that any number of third-party candidates - Socialists, libertarians, etc. - can also be said to have gotten enough votes to swing the election to Bush or make it closer for him than it would have been otherwise.
Finally, it is known that Ross Perot hated George Bush's guts. He helped convince people that a in the midst of the Democratic Convention, enabling Clinton to snag the lion's share of his support after his acceptance speech. Then he got back in at the time of the Republican convention, efficiently blunting the natural boost Bush would get. And he was alowed in the debates, where he hit Bush repeatedly on the economy while defending Clinton's actions as a young man. As a result, 19 percent of the electorate (two-thirds of which would likely have voted for Bush) voted for a man who is clinically insane.
Even now, no one is talking about Nader's ideas. The focus is on how the democrats fear he could "cost" them the election, but of course that is what the liberal media fears. If Kerry were smart, he would FIGHT to get Nader into the debates. How better to deflect charges of being a liberal and look like a moderate than to stand next to Nader? Bush should fight to get the Libertarian candidate into the debate for the same reason. "You think I'M RIGHT-WING? Listen to THIS guy?"

"Even now, no one is talking about Nader's ideas."

That's because they're irrelevant. Her combative style aside, Rhodes' implication was correct: On the totally bizarre, insane, wholly unlikely chance that Nader were elected, then what? No friends in either House or Senate, and both Dems and GOP pissed off with him because their candidate isn't in office. He'd be stonewalled at every turn. Even Nader admitted that voting him in wouldn't be sufficient. Voters would have to put into place an entire slate of independents or Nader can't get a damned thing done, even if his ideas are the greatest since some guy said, "Hey, how about if we slice the bread before selling it."

PAD

Alot of sites are forcing people to use IE for streaming stuff.

It pisses me off to no end.(unquote)

No need to even open a browser to listen. And certainly no need to use the (evil) RealPlayer.

Download and install JetAudio (free!)

http://www.jetaudio.com

Note: it is a HUGE program, as it includes software for internet broadcasting as well, but most of that can be ignored if you do a custom install.

And you can also set the preferences to make JetAudio the default player for .ram and .rm files, if you so desire.

Just create an album with the URLs of any internet streaming audio you might want to listen to. It's not a bad litle music/CD player, either, but that's not my interest in using it.

Have been using this for about a year to listen to BBC World news, and now for AirAmerica, and, other than expected problems due to high traffic from the curiousity factor in the first day or so, have no problems connecting. Listening right now, as a matter of fact.

Peter,
Really, I'm surprised at you. Yes, of course it's unlikely but if it DID happen, I tend to think a dramatic, historic victory by Nader wouldn't give him a powerful mandate. If it got to that point, he likely would sweep at least SOME liberal Democrats and perhaps even some Greens in. he would have the bully pulpit of the Presidency and veto power. You don't think Democrats now afraid of looking too liberal would welcome Nader. Or "mavericks" like John McCain.
Besides, ideas are hardly "irrelevant". Barry Goldwater got smoked against LBJ, but he inspired modern conservatism and galvanized young people like Ronald reagan to become conservative. Perot didn't win, but by getting 19 percent of the vote and focusing on the budget deficit, he helped pave the way for the 1994 Contract With America and the House Republicans who took over Congress in 1994 in large part on promises to tackle the deficit(They actually came one vote shy of passing a Balanced Budget Amendment in the Senate). He made it more politically "relevant" for both them and Clinton to balance the budget by making it a important part of the debate.
And, relevant or not, he should still have his ideas HEARD.

I've said it before, but it bears repeating:

Any candidate with a ghost of chance of getting elected who seriously proposes an overhaul to switch us to preference voting (third-party voting, Australian-rules voting, whatever you want to call it) will get the biggest political contribution I've ever made.

With that system in place, the "costing X the election" argument would no longer apply. People could vote their consciences completely, with the effect that (a) the will of the people will likely be reflected more accurately, and (b) third-party candidates like Nader might actually see their support *grow*.

I don't see a way to bring this about short of some electoral catastrophes that make 2000 look like a walk in the park, but it's a nice dream.

TWL

On the subject of Liberal Radio I'm predicting failure. Not because of some hatred for liberal ideas, in fact I share many of those ideas. Just as I share many ideas with conservatives. I predict failure because the whole notion of Liberal Radio seems reactionary in nature. Kind of like the whole 'My dad's better than your dad' mentality. I think that if the liberal side of the spectrum REALLY wanted to get peoples attention and build a 'fan-base' then they would start something akin to a radio underground and use that as a foundation to build their future in broadcasting. The method that is currently in use feels like desperation to me. Like the kid who'd let you use his swimming pool if you'll just be his friend. It's because of this impression of mine that I can't take Liberal Radio seriously at this time.

Actually, I don't take conservative radio all that seriously either. Mr. Limbaugh, while occasionaly funny, says some things that are pretty stupid if you ask me.

On the Ralph Nader issue, well, I can respect him for saying what he believes. I think that if (BIG if) he were elected president and had some support from cangress and the senate then at least we'd se something get done. That's all I really want from politics. A leader. Preferably a good one. One that will stand tall and tell our country that it's time to knock off the bullshit and adress some REAL issues.

Of course this hypothetical politician would be assassinated less than a week after making such a statement. Probably by big oil or big insurance or some other Haliburton-esque outfit.

Ok, I went off-track a bit. Anyway I think that Mr. Nader, with his background as a consumer advocate, has the background that I can take most seriously in this latest group of candidates.

Salutations,

Mitch

The only time I tried to listen I caught what I assumed was Janeane Garofalo screaming into the microphone "RAY-DEE-OH!"

Only slightly quieter was a conversation with a call-in fellow who was agreeing with her on something.

So I caught a forty-five-second exchange between two people of the Left saying how nice it was for them to be on the radio. And she was loud about it. And the whole thing was self-congratulatory. And she screamed into the mike.

So not only

1) was the topic not something that I am interested in, because if I want to witness somebody who is full of himself congratulate myelf, I'd look in the mirror and speak.

2) Garofalo has no real voice or skill for radio herself. She's LOUD.

but

3) combined with my short attention span I wasn't going to be listening to this very long.

If I wanted rampant leftism, I'd turn on the TV and I wouldn't find people screaming at me. I'd open a newspaper or one of my Time Magazines... because almost none of them is so... full of themselves.... and at least reading is a lot more quiet than hearing Garofalo scream RAY-DEE-OH at 3 in the morning.

CJA

Blue Spider, sounds like who you heard was Randi Rhodes, not Janeane Garofalo (especially if it was at 3AM). I'll agree that Rhodes is annoying (in voice, tone, attitude and many other ways), and I doubt I'll listen to her show again. The rest of the line-up I've heard is pretty good, though. Rough around the edges (Garofalo in particular, also Franken to some extent), but entertaining. If I could get the station in my car I'd probably become a regular listener.

They should have worked up a better web presence prior to their launch, especially with several of their guests coming from political web-logs, and frequent references to on-line articles. They are working on it, with some of the shows having their own sites, but those aren't even linked from the main site.

"But, if NPR can make, Alan Colmes can make it, Ted Rall can get published on Yahoo, Noam Chomsky can make a living peddling America hatred, why not these guys?"

- Why does everyone consider NPR liberal? They are as middle of the road as one can get when it comes to events that are hapening in the world and always try to have both sides of an issue represented.
- Alan Colmes is a neutered eunich who seemingly gets paid to be bullied by Sean Hannity.
- Why is Ted Rall being published on Yahoo even worth mentioning? Yahoo also gives a weekly outlet to the insane ramblings of Ann Coulter and the uber-religious conservative views of Maggie Gallagher. Ted may be liberal but he never ventures into the realm of telling blatant lies (Coulter) or using passive aggressive hate speech (Gallagher).
- Noam Chomsky meet Matt Drudge. Ideology ( and Drudge's penchant for being tabloid sleazy) is the only difference between the two.

Derek, Derek, Derek,

You must be forgiven for missing the point of the party line and trying to use reason and logic. Don't you get it? NPR, YAHOO and others are, of course. wildly lib commie BECAUSE they give both sides a fair shake. That's the new def for commie lib that the Right subscribes to. You're only honest and balanced if you cheerlead for the Right. Really, get with the program and stop trying to use your brain.
Some people.

Derek:
>>>Why does everyone consider NPR liberal? They are as middle of the road as one can get when it comes to events that are hapening in the world and always try to have both sides of an issue represented.

NPR is one of the news providers that comes closest to unbiased, two-sided stories. I'm not ure that one could call them liberal or conservative..... although, they did show some nationalistic bias during the first month or so of the Iraqi War.

A possible point of interest for those looking to get more comprehensive news or even simply to get other points of view in order to becomemore aware of our own bias is going to the websites for the Palestinean newspapers.... or even other prominent papers from Europe and around the world. Truly an eye-opening experience for those interested in opening their eyes. :)

Derek,
Why does everyone consider NPR liberal? Gee, I have no idea! Wait, yes I do! Consider:
1.) When CBS hired former Congresswoman Susan Molinari in 1997 to co-anchor a new Saturday morning show, in which her "job" was to cover fitness, coking and movies, the liberal media erupted. You would swear CBS was turning over their whole news division to the Republican National Committee. "The GOP News From CBS" was the title of an editorial in The New York Times.
But, National Public Radio's Nina Totenberg seemed to most anxious and resentful of Molinari giving cooking and sewing tips on a morning TV show. "Well, this really makes me want to puke", she said, "You know, at least CBS had the decency, when they hired Diane sawyer from the Nixon White House, to make her go out and stand in the rain for a year or so, to earn her position..It really, it just makes me want to throw up."
At the time of Totenberg's hard-hitting, "objective" analysis, NPR's President was Delano Lewis, who had been chief fund-raiser for Washington Mayor Marion Barry. He had joined NPR when the former president Douglas Bennet, a Carter Administration refugee, left to join the Clinton Administration. Bennet had replaced Frank Mankiewicz, who had worked for George McGovern's 1972 presidential campaign.
Nope, no liberal leanings in that group! But as is often the case, the "revolving door" from politics to the media and back seems to only be okay for liberals. It's okay for all of the above and many others to be part of the "objective" media, but hiring someone like the pro-choice, "moderate" Mlinari is cause for alarm.

Jerry in Richmond,
Where do I sign up for my lobotomy? I think it would be nice to live in Happy Valley. Then I can be told what to think too!

Very funny. Your post brought a nice grin to my face. :)

Jerome,

I like that. You point out the headline of a newspaper as an example of NPR's left leaning ways. You then point out who's been in charge and what some NPR employees have said about paying dues in their proffession. Of course, you failed to point out the content of the average NPR broadcast day.
Most of NPR's broadcast day is music. Jazz, classic and in some areas local. Many of NPR's shows have no leanings one way or the other. Car Talk being a prime example. Lot's of the Right pointed out NPR giving Garrison Keillor his two hours a week as another Lib attacking American values back when he poked fun at a certain wrestling Gov. Well, most his show is folk, jazz or country music, his News part of the show often holds up as great the small town heartland spirit of America that so many on the Right pay lip service to, a lot of his skits poke fun at the PC nature of the left, some of his skits make fun of the same stuff Rush and crowd make fun of, his show made just as much fun of Clinton, Gore, Teddy and other Lefty pols as it ever did Jesse (if not more) and most the people who jumped to Jesse's defense by attacking PHC back then have now become the people who point out what a joke this third party, wrestler Gov wanna be is/was.
So that leaves the NPR news and information shows. How does it stand up as fair and complete coverage. Well, good enough that I often get a small laugh whenever I have a coworker or friend listening to Rush, Savage, Sean, etc. One of the regular lines of these guys is, "you won't hear this on those commie lib networks or you won't hear this part" or "I'm telling you this and can't believe no one else has touched this story". It's part of the whole line to create this fake image of the left wing lib commie media cheering for the left and jumping on the right. Thing is, without fail, almost everytime I hear one of them say that I have already heard the whole story plus more at least a day or two before on NPR. I've even heard more news coverage on the bad points of Kerry as Prez on NPR News then on the other networks. Mind you, that's actual news and not the silly crap that seems to be the stock and trade of talk radio.
See, like I said above when joking with Derek, the Right seems to want to paint anybody and anything that doesn't stand up and cheer for their side as a commie lib America hater. Hell, I thought it was funny as all get out that the talkers on the right savaged the Left leaning Newt a few months ago because he questioned Bush's war. The talk radio baboons were even making comments on how this seemed to be a set up for a Kerry/Newt run. Newt as Lefty? Yeah, right.
Most the people who stand up and point to NPR as lib radio only show how they themselves see the world. Not how NPR reports it.

Karen,

I think they're giving out discount coupons on Rush 24/7. Or you could just commit to a week of Savage until your brain melts. I think that's how most of 'em do it anyhow. :)

I note that Totenberg is the same charmer who, in 1995, said that if the "Good Lord" knew justice, Senator Jesse Helms will "get AIDS from a transfusion, or one of his grandchildren will get it."

The fact that she was not fired for this hate speech--and if this isn't hate speech what the hell exactly is?--tells you volumes aboutthe values of NPR. One could wonder what might happen if someone less suitably leftist made such a comment but such wondering is not needed--it happened to that Savage idot who was on MSNBC.

One point I think needs to be suggested--I'm not overly upset about the media's left wing bias because I think it HURTS the left wing. For example, every time Republicans win an election you see liberals looking like they just took a gutshot. Where the hell did THAT come from, they wonder. When you only see stuff reporting what you want to hear you will always be shocked when the national mood reveals you to be in the minority.

Jerry in Richmond,
You sooooo missed the point! Which was: A "moderate" Republican woman was seen as the end of "objective' reporting as we know it - even when giving out cooking and sewing tips - yet people who work for the Democratic party/candidates are seen by people such as yourself to have no problem presenting objective news, whether it is at NPR or anywhere else. And if the heads of NPR had been staffers for Bush or Giuliani, I think you may be singing a differnet tune. Given the Left's almost obsessive hatred of Fox News, I'm almost sure you would. Oh, and i don't see you as a commie lib America hater. I just disagree with you. There's a difference. Honest.

Jerome,

No, I didn't miss the point. Thing is, I have no problem with who runs anything and wouldn't sing a different tune at all. I wouldn't care one wit if old Rupp bought NPR lock stock and barrel if the news coverage and programs didn't change. I don't have a problem with FOX News because of who owns it. I have a problem with FOX News because of some of the stuff it spins while claiming to be Fair and Balanced* (C & TM FOX News or so they would have you believe). And I've had those same probs with CNN in the past by the by. But those things with CNN and others are far more rare then FOX's spin games. Again, you point out the personal opinions of a news woman or an interviewer but DO NOT ADDRESS the coverage and programs themselves.
And pointing out that some in the field got upset about an R doing something on the news is silly. Some in the field have gotten ticked about former D's working the news game. It wasn't the party line. It was just some nosy people as has been the case with both sides. You (generic) remember what you want to remember. If you see someone complain about something like this then you remember it and point it out to strengthen your arguement. But you fail to actually sit back and look at the huge number of people employeed in the news and opinion game that are former staffers or pols themselves from the R side. Even before FOX news. Same for the D's. A lot of them seem to forget how many of them are now in the news game from time to time. It happens when everyone wears blinders designed to only see in R's and D's.

Derek,
First, "Alan Colmes is a neutered eunich who seemingly gets paid to be bullied by Sean Hannity".
I don't agree with Colmes on a lot, but this was a cheap shot. Whay would you say this? Because he's not as combative or passionate as you's like him to be? I could point out that tucker carlson seems like a shrinking violet at times compared to James Carville, yet I think he gets his arguments out just fine. Whay attack him for being low-key? Is every liberal SUPPOSED to be angry and obnoxious?
Of course, Colmes has had to face more than his fair share of criticism for even "lowering" himself to appear on FOX News. Funny how liberals will blast FOX for not being "fair and balanced" and then the people they have on to try and BE "fair and balanced" are pilloried.
Here's something even funnier,an exchange that took place when FOX, as part of its insiduous attempts at mind control, invited a protester againast "conservative bias" on FOX News, Cheryl Gutman, to make her case on FOX's polluted airwaves. Her argument is quoted at length only in the interest of comedy.
ALAN COLMES: I'd like to understand from you what your beef is.
CHERYL GUTTMAN: Well, what our beef is, is that we feel the media is realy biased in a conservative fashion, even though people have been told it's
biased in a liberal fashion. There were twice as many stories criticizing Gore in the election, for instance. Since...
COLMES: All right. Go ahead. But why are you -but why are you protesting - that's all right. You're allowed to speak. But why are you protesting us? Why are you picking on FOX?
GUTTMAN: Well, we feel FOX is the most egregious because they say they're fair and balanced, but studies have shown that they're more conservative.
COLMES: Well, that's very interesting. Now you were saying before we got on the air here that you've never seen this show.
GUTTMAN: Yes, but studies have shown...
(Laughter)
COLMES: Well, wait a minute. Wait a minute-you are putting yourself on the line. You're going out there in that street. That's today out there in front of FOX NEWS, and you're protesting something that you've never even seen!
GUTTMAN: There's something else, too.
COLMES: You've never even seen the show!
GUTTMAN: No, but there's something else, too. FOX hired John Ellis, and John Ellis, who is obviously biased, called the election for Bush.
COLMES: Yeah, you know what you're doing, Cheryl? Look, I'm a liberal, and I've been attacked by liberals for being on the FOX News Channel, and liberals have been meaner to me than conservatives have because of what I do here very night. I may have to join the vast right-wing conspiracy.
Look, John Ellis - do you know that - now maybe you're dealing from talking points or things you've read since you apparently don't watch the FOX News Channel. Are you aware of the fact that John Ellis worked for NBC for about ten years prior to coming to FOX? Did you complain that NBC was conservative because John Ellis worked there?
GUTTMAN: Well, as I understand it, he quit because of a conflict of interest. So why did FOX hire him? And he was instrumental in calling the election for Bush, even though it was too close to call.
COLMES: He quit the Boston Globe. He didn't quit NBC.
GUTTMAN:Okay. I'm sorry.
COLMES: You ought to get your facts straight. If you're going to protest, you really ought to, first of all, watch the programming you're protesting, know what's on the channel you're protesting, and understand the facts.
GUTTMAN: I'm not - I'm not an expert. I'm an organizer, okay?
COLMES:But if you're organizing a protest and you've agreed to apear on this show to give your point of view, the fact of the matter is that John Ellis worked for the Boston Globe. He quit that. Prior to that, he spent ten years with NBC and nobody complained. Why is it only when he worked for FOX News is there an uproar about it?
GUTTMAN: because he called the election for Bush and, psychologically, people felt that means Bush won.
Hysterical, isn't it?

Derek,
Regarding the "insane ramblings of Ann Coulter? Care to cite an example? Or of her "blatant lies"? Here's a woman who is an attorney and legal affairs correspondent and has written three best-selling books. She is sharp as a tack. If she shared your views, you'd love her. So why the personal attacks?

I'm not Derek (nor do I play him on TV), but I think I can answer Jerome's question.

So you wonder why we'd attack Ann Coulter given your telepathic understanding that "if she shared [our] views, [we'd] love her."

Perhaps it's because she's called us all traitors in the title of one of the best-selling books you so laud.

On the other hand, you appear to have no problems claiming that Walter Cronkite, one of the few people recognized by pretty much the entire country as a journalistic treasure in his heyday, is a "liberal gasbag" who single-handedly lost us the Vietnam War and arguably committed treasonous acts in doing so.

So, y'know, I'm kinda wondering why you even have to ask.

Jerry's recent post sums up the rest of what I'd have to say, so in the interest of saving space I'll just refer you back to that.

Jerome,

Colmes gets described that way (not because he's not angry, rude and loud in the way Hannity is) because he often fails to point out the other side of the story. Here's one anyone can look up. Remember the CNN heads editorial about the stuff that CNN reporters had seen in Iraq but failed to report on? He gave a small list of things that the felt they couldn't report on because it would get the people that they worked with in Iraq killed. FOX News loved that. Hannity pounded away on the fact that CNN was pro-Saddam and anti-war and how they had covered and flaked for Saddam for all these years since Gulf War 1 and refused to do stories about Saddam and son's crimes against the people of Iraq. And Colmes just sat there looking ill. Most, if not all, FOX News broadcasts that I saw that week where this was discussed were much the same. Now, I had to laugh at one thing. I found it hard to believe that they thought anyone would believe that line since you could see those stories on CNN and had for years. Seems many a FOX watcher and Hannity radio listener did though as they just quoted the party line that they were fed. One thing I didn't laugh at. I read the thing when it was printed in the local papers. Colmes, sitting there with all the same info that Hannity had, and just about every other "balanced" FOX broadcaster failed to point out the last two paragraphs. You know those, don't you? The ones that started, "And then their was all the stories we did tell..."
See, there were two paragraphs at the end of a very short peice that made the story the FOX crew were trying to sell fall completely apart. But Colmes just sat there and let Hannity lie and spin as he often does. Hysterical, isn't it?
The flip side of the coin? CNN did a bit on FOX and how one of its head guys was now advising Bush while still working for FOX. Pro and con was discussed and more then a few people pointed out that it wasn't a conflict of interest and it almost seemed the norm these days because of all the old pols and aids to pols that were now working AS the news media.
Which one seems more fair and balanced there?
How about the FOX News morning interview with the guy bring the action against the pledge that started with Linda Vester(sp?) almost screaming at him, "Who the hell do you think you are." Real proffessional, fair and balanced there. And don't even get me started on Shep Smith.
Again, you point to a person (Guttman) and not the content of a network. Nice trick but it doesn't stand up too well.

Jerome,

Here's one quick example of Ann's stupidity. I read part of her book. I noticed that she quoted newspapers to make her point and then refs them in the back of her book. But some of those quotes stuck out in my memory since I like to read a lot and keep up and read the source papers. I went and looked a couple up. Turns out that most the times in Ann's last book when she sights what a paper said she is actually quoting a quote from a news story in order to create a false image/lie. The paper didn't say it. The paper reported what was said. How is that different you ask? If you quoted in one of your posts somebody who said that Hitler had it right and all the jews should have been gassed, would that be the same as you saying it? Would it then be honest of me to go around saying that Jerome is a bad person because he said that Hitler.... etc? No. You would say I was making stuff up and that it was a lie. Ann got spanked for that as well on her book tour. She had an interview with Couric where she got taken to task for saying that the Today Show had said some things about Reagan that it hadn't said but had had a guest on who had said those things in his new book. Did Ann back down? Did she say she misquoted Couric? No. She just flipped out and started going on about how this was just another example of the lib left attacking someONE for something that they said that the left doesn't like to hear etc, etc, etc. Ann got caught in a lie. That night or the next she was on Hannity and Colmes with Hannity giving her a thumbs up for putting Couric in her place and Colmes sat there on his hands looking ill.

Not a huge Ann or Katie fan but here's the actual quote from the Couric/Coulter catfight:

COULTER: What I said was - which is true - that the "Today Show" opened, I believe that it was three days in a row, with the announcement "Ronald Reagan was an airhead. That's the conclusion of this new book by Edmund Morris." When Edmund Morris came on [the show] with you, he described that as a grossly unfair characterization of his point."

Sooooo....if that's what she said in her book it would seem that she is NOt, as you claim, putting someone's words in katies perky little mouth, but claiming that she took a quote out of context to make reagan look bad. And, in actuality, the quote is indeed incorrect--the author actually wrote "apparent airhead".

There is a difference.

In Coric's defense, the misquote had been widely reported as such for a few days before the interview and the crack Today Show factcheckers apparently didn't get to read the book in time to alert Katie.

Most folks who saw the interview thought Katie came out the loser, so if Alan really "sat on his hands" it may be because he wanted to change the subject. At any rate, I've spoken to Colmes and he's a good guy. he may not have the venomous appeal of a Michael Moore or James Carville but he also doesn't become as rapidly boring as those two one trick ponies do after prolonged exposure.

Jerome,
Here's a whole article citing the libertys Ann Coulter takes with the truth.
http://www.fair.org/extra/0211/annslanders.html

Jerry sez:

"Now, I had to laugh at one thing. I found it hard to believe that they thought anyone would believe that line since you could see those stories on CNN and had for years. Seems many a FOX watcher and Hannity radio listener did though as they just quoted the party line that they were fed. One thing I didn't laugh at. I read the thing when it was printed in the local papers. Colmes, sitting there with all the same info that Hannity had, and just about every other "balanced" FOX broadcaster failed to point out the last two paragraphs. You know those, don't you? The ones that started, "And then their was all the stories we did tell..."

"See, there were two paragraphs at the end of a very short peice that made the story the FOX crew were trying to sell fall completely apart. But Colmes just sat there and let Hannity lie and spin as he often does. Hysterical, isn't it?"

Indeed, though not for the reasons you think. Actually the last 2 paragraphs read as follows:

"Then there were the events that were not unreported but that nonetheless still haunt me. A 31-year-old Kuwaiti woman, Asrar Qabandi, was captured by Iraqi secret police occupying her country in 1990 for "crimes," one of which included speaking with CNN on the phone. They beat her daily for two months, forcing her father to watch. In January 1991, on the eve of the American-led offensive, they smashed her skull and tore her body apart limb by limb. A plastic bag containing her body parts was left on the doorstep of her family's home.

I felt awful having these stories bottled up inside me. Now that Saddam Hussein's regime is gone, I suspect we will hear many, many more gut-wrenching tales from Iraqis about the decades of torment. At last, these stories can be told freely."

Sooooo....we have the president of CNN telling us for several paragraphs how they spiked stories about the Iraqi regime--for the best of reasons, to be sure. Then he tells us a story about how a Kuwaiti woman was killed in Kuwait by the Iraqis.

I'm guessing you remembered this incorrectly as being a story that CNN bravely reported about the Iraqi regime in Iraq...not that this would really invalidate the critics from Fox (and a whole bunch of other folks as well!) about how, by withholding the truth CNN was giving us a distorted picture of what was going on.

If yopu're going to malign other people you should make sure you have the facts straight. Colmes was right.

Interested parties can check out the op-ed piece for themselves at a number of sites--try http://www.indybay.org/news/2003/04/1599076.php

Bill,

No, I didn't remember it wrong. CNN pointed out that crimes were commited. Yeah, I couldn't quite remember how the paragraph started. My fault for putting it in quotes. It still doesn't change the fact that CNN reported stories of Saddam and sons and their crimes for TEN years after Gulf 1 and FOX spun the piece into saying CNN reporters and reports were pro-Saddam, didn't report on any of those crimes by mandate from above and swept under the rug all those stories for up ten years. The only stories they sat on were stories that might have put the lives of Iraqis they worked with in danger. Why do that when you already have a report on more or less the same crimes/horrors that won't put someones life in danger. It was major spin and it bent the truth. Hell, one of the most in depth pieces I saw on Saddam's two sons that made them look worse then the devil himself was on CNN years ago.
Did the Today Show act in the most noble way? No. I'm not a fan of theirs either. But Ann's statements from her book tour and book were still inaccurate. The thing with that is that she could have just made the statement that you did. But she wanted to go that extra mile to play to her fan base and went into the realm of spin/lie. An accurate charge would have been damaging to The Today Show in an arguement. Ann's spin just made both sides look stupid.
And I don't know who most people are in your little corner of the world. In my little corner of the world, most people thought that they both came out of it looking foolish.

Just curious, Bill -- how'd you get in a position to speak with Colmes? This isn't a politically motivated question -- I'm just curious how you rate and we don't. :-)

TWL

And, my getting that part of the op-ed wrong from memory aside, we seem in agreement on something about the substance of it. FOX spun it into something it wasn't. Under that agreement, Colmes couldn't have been right. There is no way he could not have known of at least one CNN story from the prior ten years that painted Saddam and Sons as bastards. By not standing up for the truth in that arguement he lived down to the brush he is often paineted with as Sean's punching bag.

Yeah, Tim's got a good one there. I feel so unspecial now. Even the local guys have only ever spoken to me to say, "dude, move. Your in our shot."

Bill,

Just read my own post from 3 or 4 above. that should start out that I didn't remember the substance of my arguement wrong. The why FOX played it. Since I then go on to mention that I did remember the quote wrong that does make me look a bit thicker then I actually am. Sorry about that.

The sad thing is, the discussions on this board are, more often than not, better than the stuff you can see on TV. And those guys make big dollars. It is to cry.

Well, I'd love to say that Alan comes over on Sundays for coffee and croissants but the sad truth is that I used to work odd hours in a soybean oil processing plant as a qulaity control chemist. Hold on to your bladder control--it wasn't as romantic as it sounds. Anyway, this was when talk radio was really getting going and we used to call in to Alan's show from the many different phone lines so sometimes we could get on more than once, using different accents. ("now it's Sven from Wichita! Sven? "Ya ya, her der fleur der ber der ger! bBbabooey!"

(If your soybean oil circa 1992 was a bit off, now you know why.)

Anyhoo, Alan had a late night show...can't remember the name...had a segment called "radio graffiti' where you got one sentence and one sentence only...so we'd call in with lame one liners like "according to Gennifer Flowers Bill Clinton will never be on a hung jury!"

(Seriously, there were days where I'm not sure what we shipped out was even really oil.)

But sometimes we got into real substantial arguments with Alan, who was always a gentleman. Such things may not play on Hot Air America but then again Alan wasn't just preaching to the choir. Seems like a likeable guy, more than can be said by a few folks I've known who have had encounters with Al Franken (but that's pure hearsay, I know. He might be a helluva guy).

"And I don't know who most people are in your little corner of the world. In my little corner of the world, most people thought that they both came out of it looking foolish"

Well, Ann was Ann. Not my cup of tea anymore (kinda liked her at first)but pretty much as always. Katie lost her cool and came off very brittle, especially with her you are not the boss of me moment ("since I'M conducting this interview")

As for my corner of the world, it includes eonline--
The Couric-Coulter Catfight"
Katie Couric vs. Ann Coulter. Majority seems to say that Ann won this round. Eonline, June 27, 2002.

But as far as I'm concerned it might as well be Varan vs Megalon; fun to watch but I don't care who wins.

Tim Lynch wrote:
On the other hand, you appear to have no problems claiming that Walter Cronkite, one of the few people recognized by pretty much the entire country as a journalistic treasure in his heyday, is a "liberal gasbag" who single-handedly lost us the Vietnam War and arguably committed treasonous acts in doing so.

Mr. Cronkite pretty much openly admits his liberalism:
"Let's face this one down right now: I'm neither Republican nor Democrat. I'm a registered independent because I find that I cast my votes not on the basis of party loyalty but on the issues of the moment and my assessment of the candidates. Basically, I'm a fiscal conservative and a social liberal, but those who rabidly support those positions will be more often disappointed in my views than otherwise.

I believe that most of us reporters are liberal, but not because we consciously have chosen that particular color in the political spectrum."

As per your dictum, the following quote can be found: http://www.centredaily.com/mld/dailytimes/2003/08/15/news/opinion/6530182.htm

Meanwhile, I'm trying my best to figure out just how you can be a fiscal conservative and a social liberal. The two seem to be pretty much mutually exclusive.

Mr. Cronkite pretty much openly admits his liberalism:

Saying "I'm neither Republican nor Democrat" and "I cast my votes not on the basis of party loyalty" is openly admitting liberalism? Since when?

I mean, hell -- if that's being a liberal, then someone who is a Democrat and who does partially consider party loyalty when voting has got to be further to the left than Karl Marx. I'm just not getting this.

Cronkite's quote hardly says he's a "liberal gasbag" and a traitor. He says he's an independent with some leanings in one direction and some in the other -- he also says outright that most people on one extreme or the other are going to be disappointed.

You do READ the quotes you provide, right? :-)

And on your last sentence: I don't think being a fiscal conservative and a social liberal is self-contradictory in the least, and an awful lot of Democrats describe themselves as exactly that. "Social liberal" in this context tends to mean liberal on "culture war" issues like abortion, school prayer, vouchers, gay rights, etc., while being fiscally conservative means arguing against complete wild-ass spending sprees (i.e. not being the traditional "tax and spend" liberal, though how that's any worse than the borrow-and-spend philosophy currently in power is something I've never understood).

I don't see those as remotely self-contradictory: they're mostly encompassing two entirely different arenas. What about those two positions strikes you as such?

(And y'know, there was no dictum to be found, merely a request and/or suggestion. That act's getting a little old.)

And to Bill -- you may rest assured that I'm checking the label from here on out on every bottle of soybean oil I ever buy. You guys were scary!

(And I'm so desperately trying to resist the "Blazing Saddles" riff that your "hung jury" comment is evoking...)

TWL

"Meanwhile, I'm trying my best to figure out just how you can be a fiscal conservative and a social liberal. The two seem to be pretty much mutually exclusive."

As long as you are pro choice you will be portrayed as a social liberal or at least, a "moderate". being for gay Rights helps too.

"Fiscal conservative" to a Republican means less taxes, less programs. To a Democrat it means more programs but no tax cuts so no deficit. I've never heard anyone describe themselves as a "fiscal liberal", except maybe Santa Claus.

Observe that President Bush hasn't been a very good fiscal conservative so far (and Kerry won't be any better, if he actually gets all of the programs he will have to promise in order to be elected.) It's a bad development in American politics that BOTH parties are now heavily into the buying votes with fiscal pork game.

Tim, Tim, Tim. You don't buy bottles of soybean oil! No, actually, you ate our fine products on everything from your potato chips to your microwave popcorn.

Our job was to hydrogenate the oil to the appropriate "hardness", breaking the hydrogen bonds which would raise the melting point of the oil.

"Golly Mr M! That sounds dangerous!"

Not at all, Timmy, not at all! Ok, once one of my coworkers had a steam hose break and he took a shot of steam to his inner thigh and by the time I got him to the hospital he had blisters on blisters, it would have given Tom Savini nightmares. They had to graft pigskin on his leg.

"Wow! Didn't it hurt when, weeks later, they had to take it off?"

Sure did, Timmy. Here, tell me how it feels when I apply some melted bikini wax to your underarms and pull it off...

"Ouch! Boy, I never knew the world of industrial chemistry could be so exciting!"

You said it Timmy. Hey! Did I ever show you how you can play a funny trick on your co-workers involving a chocolate ex-lax cake and a half pound of dry ice flushed down the toilet at exactly the right moment?

"Wow! that sounds swell...say Mr M, hasn't hydrogenated oil now been linked to all kind of heart diseases?"

Err, well, yes. Yes they have.

"So it must make you feel pretty bad when Dateline NBC runs stuff like HYDROGENATED SOY BEAN OIL: THE SILENT KILLER, huh? Do the faces of those you've wronged haunt your sleep"

They sure do, Timmy! They sure do!

Next: a very special episode of Blossom.

Meanwhile, I'm trying my best to figure out just how you can be a fiscal conservative and a social liberal. The two seem to be pretty much mutually exclusive.

Only to rigid minds.

Bill,

Bingo. We really do agree on some things. Although V vs M would actually be something I might want to see. I only saw those two spit at each other because I lost the vote on the Hotel TV that morning.
I'll go with you on Colmes' manners as well. That's not what I'm knocking. It just seems as though he often doesn't stand up for his own arguement when Hannity railroads an issue. That isn't exactly something that comes off as spirited debate. Despite what some on this site have guessed at from my posts, I would be just as vocal about a reverse of that situation. I almost never watched CrossFire when Carvel was on it for the same reason. One side ranting like a loon and the other side letting itself get yelled over and talked down. If Air America gets big enough and it acts the same as FOX does now; I'll be pissing and moaning about them as well.
In this we agree again. Some of these sites are a hell of a lot better then those shows. More fun too.
Hmmm... 1992. So you're why my shrimp stir fry made all those people sick. See, I just knew it wasn't my cooking.

It's easy to be a fiscal con and a social lib. I don't like higher taxes, I don't like wild spending and massive programs, I believe most taxes and gov programs should be local and state because then the money goes where it needs to and ther should be better control of the funds. You lose less cash without the red tape overhead of sending your money through the entire system just to have it sent back to the town next door. I'm fine with gay unions, abortion up to some levels (part birth is not on my A.OK list), often don't agree with the things the gov wants to clamp down on in books, art, TV, movies and such. I pretty much believe that if it's not in public and you're not hurting someone then do what you want. ETc, etc, etc.
I'm neither a R or a D. Won't ever be. I think the blinders game is stupid as hell.
By the by... read some of my own posts and some of my quotes in Bill's and others posts...
Remember something when reading me. The way I mean things isn't as hard or smart ass as it reads in B&W. Well, maybe smart assed. I tend to write like I talk and most my posts are "said" with a smile on my face and some good humor. Try and read me like the friend that you chat with in the local bar. I'll piss about with you but even the worste is said with a wink and a grin.

Tim, Tim, Tim. You don't buy bottles of soybean oil!

I used to be aware of that. Unfortunately, I had entirely too much microwave popcorn in '92-93, the full price of which has only become clear thanks to your recent posts.

See, it's really all YOUR fault. :-)

(Seriously, I did know that -- just had a bit of a brain-fart while posting earlier. I like the good-humored rebuttal, though -- why am I betting you happened to watch "Dinosaurs" with the infamous Mr. Lizard in the early '90s?)

TWL

Hell, Tim, I'm old enough to actually remember the actual Mr. Wizard!

One of the sad things about aging, like, for example, the ever encroaching cold embrace of death, is that the bits that would absolutely SLAY my buddies get a whole room full of blank stares from my students and I have to explain them which pretty much sucks the humor right out. "see, kids, there was this show called Mutual of Omaha's Wild Kingdom and this really old guy named Marlin Perkins would pretend to wrestle a 340 foot long python but actually it was always his assistant "Jim" who did all the work and, you know, I swear that "Jim" wasn't always the same person, like maybe they kept getting killed or something. hey, don't get me started on how they just replaced Darren on BEWITCHED!"

Nothing! What's the use of being able to do a killer Ted Knight impression for a bunch of kids who have never heard him intone "AQUAMAN...KING of the SEVEN SEAS!!!"

Bill,
It is funny the things you remember - and only people your age can truly "get". Ironically, a new employee where I work has nicknamed me Monroe (Munroe?) from "Too Close For Comfort" because i was so tired and was really "out of it". The guys around my age all laugh, and the younger people have no idea what we're talking about...

"Derek,
Regarding the "insane ramblings of Ann Coulter? Care to cite an example? Or of her "blatant lies"? Here's a woman who is an attorney and legal affairs correspondent and has written three best-selling books. She is sharp as a tack. If she shared your views, you'd love her. So why the personal attacks?"

For a look at Ann's insane ramblings I need only direct you to her 3/18/04 Op/Ed piece on Yahoo. In that column Ann puts John Kerry in bed politically with Kim Jong Il; Infers that the United States is the "Chosen Land" of God; states that the Democratic candidate for president "wants to represent godless Europeans".
While you are there take a look at her 3/11/04 piece where she basically accuses all liberals of hating Christians and Christianity.
One of my favorite Coulter lies ( mainly because she still refuses to admit it is an untruth) was her making a huge deal in one of her trashy books about the evil liberal bias of the New York Times towards NASCAR fans. Ann wrote that the Times refused to print a front page story about Dale Earnhardts death until three days later and that was only after being pressured into it. I'm assuming this was written to bludgeon readers of her book over the head with the notion that the New York Times is a "big city elitist liberal" paper that doesn't care about the "common man" who hapens to be a fan of NASCAR. The only problem with this is that the Times did run a front page story on Earnhadt's death the day after his accident occurred. Despite eveidence proving she was wrong, to this day Ann refuses to admit she lied, was mistaken or just plain screwed up which I think is a sure sign that Ann is a sociopath.
Also she lied about how Max Cleland lost his limbs in an attempt to demean his service record and the sacrifice he made for his country.
She is just a twisted harridan and I don't trust a thing that she says or writes.

Bill,
It matters who wins. Really. Even if I lose my fondness for Ann (which I doubt, but you never know) I can pretty much say with confidence that I will always LOATHE Katie Couric. SHE is the one who took a quote out of context to make Reagan look bad. Instead of SHE admitting she may have gotten facts wrong, she attacks Ann. the arrogant "I'M the one conducting this interview" bit was typical Katie. How dare Ann - or anyone - let her know how WRONG she usually is?
Two other incidents that bolster my "Contempt of Couric":
1.) 1991- Right after the Thomas/Hill hearings, Couric asks "what went wrong?" Obviously in Katie's world any man ACCUSED of sexual harassment by ANY WOMAN is not entitled to a presumption of innocence. If he is not found guilty, then something must have gone wrong.
2.) 2001 - TEN YEARS later, Couric verbally attacks PA Senator Arlen Specter, who despite being for abortion rights and supportive of other "women's issues" had the audacity to question if hill was teling the truth while trying to submarine a black, conservative Supreme Court justice's nomination (which obviously wasn't seen as "just about sex"). Specter had been warning that ex-president Clinton could be impeached, even though he was out of office, for selling presidential pardons. Couric asked him if he had any regrets. Specter, had, after all, voted to acquit Clinton two years earlier. But those weren't the regrets she was asking about. She took the opportunity to ask: "You know you, you angered a lot of feminists when you accused Anita Hill...and you accused her publicly of, quote, 'Flat out perjury'.Any regrets? "
Yeah, Katie, of coming on a show to talk to you!

I find Katie Couric to be completely annpying so I guess we are in agreement on that score but I can't fathom how you'd detest Couric for her inability to admit when she's wrong yet like Ann Coulter who seems to suffer from the same problem.

"If she shared your views, you'd love her. So why the personal attacks?"
I share some of the same views as James Carville and aside from being facinated with his E.T. like appearance and southern drawl, I am not a fan of his. I sometimes agree with things that Bill O'Reilly says but that doesn't change the fact that Bill is an overbearing, egomaniacal blowhard.
Sharing views with someone doesn't automatically make me a fan just as having opposing views doesn't instill any hatred in me towards a person.
Except for Ann Coulter.

Bill:
Hell, Tim, I'm old enough to actually remember the actual Mr. Wizard!

Oh, no doubt -- I am as well (albeit dimly), and I get the feeling you've a few years on me.

But "Mr. Lizard" always had the same kid -- "Timmy" -- who always wound up getting maimed or burnt to a crisp. Hence the statement, "We're gonna need another Timmy!"

That's the reference I was thinking of.

One of the sad things about aging, like, for example, the ever encroaching cold embrace of death, is that the bits that would absolutely SLAY my buddies get a whole room full of blank stares from my students and I have to explain them which pretty much sucks the humor right out.

Amen to that. Fortunately, my current school seems to have students with a wide array of pop-culture references and tastes, so I've usually got one or two kids who'll laugh -- but I completely understand where you're coming from there. Eesh.

(They, on the other hand, will also routinely make references to things like "The O.C.", where they'll get half a sentence in and I'll have zero idea what's being discussed, so it cuts both ways.)

Of course, teaching at a girls' school means I also have to watch what references I make for reasons beyond simple humor...

TWL

"Of course, teaching at a girls' school means I also have to watch what references I make for reasons beyond simple humor..."

Oh God. I'd be toast. Actually I'm LUCKY the kids don't get half the references I make, I'd spend half my time on the phone with parents if they did. Dancing on the razor's edge...

It's always great though to find that one kid who "gets it." Their eyes light right up, like they just discovered that they are not alone in the world. really makes your day when that happens.

Derek,
You write:
"One of my favorite Coulter lies (mainly because she still refuses to admit it is an untruth)was her making a huge deal in one of her trashy books about the evil liberal bias of the New York Times towards NASCAR fans."
A huge deal? It was one paragraph, plus one related sentence. That's all!

"Ann wrote that the Times refused to print a front-page story about Dale Earnhardt's death until three days later and that was only after being pressured into it. I'm assuming this was written to bludgeon readers of her book over the head with the notion that The New York Times is a 'big city elitist liberal' paper that doesn't care about the 'common man'who happens to be a fan of NASCAR. The only problem with this is that the Times did run a front-page story on Earnhardt's death the day after his accident occurred. Despite evidence proving she was wrong,to this day Ann refuses to admit she lied, was mistaken of just screwed up which I think is a sure sign Ann is a sociopath."
Okay, one, two..AAAAAAAAAAAAARRRRRRRRRRRGGGGH!!!!
You know I have heard this proof of a "blatant lie" by Ann by you, Karen/FAIR, and Franken's book. You obviously haven't read the passage in "Slander" or else you would know this accusation is simply NOT TRUE!
Here is the paragraph(plus 2 sentences) in its entirety:
"The day after seven-time NASCAR Winston Cup champion Dale Earnhardt died in a race at the Daytona 500, almost every newspaper in America carried the story on the front page. Stock-car racing had been the nation's fastest-growing sport for a decade, and NASCAR the second-most-watched sport behind the NFL. More Americans recognize the name Dale Earnhardt than, say, Maureen Dowd. (Manhattan liberals are dubly blinking at that last sentence.) Demonstrating the left's renowned populist touch, the NEW York Times front-page article on Earnhardt's death three days later began, 'His death brought a silence to the Wal-Mart'. The Times went on to report that in vast swaths of the country people watch stock-car racing. Tacky people were mourning Dale Earnhardt all over the South!"

Now,
1.) Did the paragraph state that every paper in america carried the death of Earnhardt on the front-page EXCEPT for the times. NO! I took it to mean INCLUDING The Times, which it DID!

1.) Did the paragraph state that every paper in america carried the death of Earnhardt on the front-page EXCEPT for the times. NO!

Yes.

You start a statement with "almost every newspaper" then follow up with another statement "the TIMES story three days later", the implication is pretty clear.

At best, you're guilty of sloppy writing. At worst, you're engaging in deception.

I expect something like deception for someone who called Norm Mineta a traitor for brining up reservations that were based on his personal experience.

Of course, teaching at a girls' school means I also have to watch what references I make for reasons beyond simple humor...

Oh God. I'd be toast. Actually I'm LUCKY the kids don't get half the references I make, I'd spend half my time on the phone with parents if they did. Dancing on the razor's edge...

You too, huh? Fortunately, with seniors they're not likely to go home and say much to any parent who's likely to cause a fuss.

I remember a student writing a note at the end of the year (at my previous school, which was coed) referencing my "off-the-wall, senseless, and occasionally inappropriate humor." He did in fact mean all of them as positive traits, fortunately.

It's always great though to find that one kid who "gets it." Their eyes light right up, like they just discovered that they are not alone in the world. really makes your day when that happens.

Absolutely. As a particularly geeky example, when I discuss sonic booms I always mention Cerenkov radiation as something of an aside (along the lines of "hey, shock waves could happen in any kind of wave you like"). One year I had a student come up to me after class and ask if I thought that's what we were seeing in TNG with that flash whenever a ship went to warp.

Smart, smart kid.

(I also remember making an MST3K reference once in conversation with someone, knowing full well that they were big fans. Their eyes widened for a minute -- something like "hey, you watch that TOO?")

TWL

Just to close the circle, it's worth pointing out that numerous examples of Ann Coulter's lying can be found in Al Franken's book, Lies and the Lying Liars Who Tell Them. He's got two entire chapters devoted to her, and -- unlike Ann -- Al's references in the back of the book actually work.

In fact, it's interesting to note that of all the high-profile political partisan-bickering books that have been out lately, Al's is the only one whose references have stood up to repeated scrutiny. Not Coulter, not Moore, not O'Reilly, not Hannity -- just Al.

Just to be fair... Have to say that even Al has a few that fall down. Mostly due to slopping writing though.

I actually like the turn this blog has taken since last night. Age, youth and the blank stare. I'm 33. I can remember Perkins from being a wee wort in front of the TV but I still meet more then a few people who have no idea what I'm talking about.
I think the thirties are the best age group for getting those stares. Some of you guys talk about getting blank stares from those YOUNGER then you. My gen gets blank stares from two groups. Those older and those younger then us. Of course, that could be just cause we're nuts.
:)

"You start a statement with "almost every newspaper" then follow up with another statement "the TIMES story three days later", the implication is pretty clear.

At best, you're guilty of sloppy writing. At worst, you're engaging in deception."

You know,I'd heard this claim about Coulter before and just assumed it was true. I can see now that it wasn't. Her critique was that the Times had a snarky tone to it, which may or may not be true. Considering how some of these folks were willing to give Bill Clinton a bye on perjury ("well, when he said that he and Monica were never alone, well, are any two people ever REALLY alone? Washington DC is a big place.") I think that they need to find more than just "implications" of lying.

Coulter may be a little nuts but she seems to drive some of her critics REALLY nuts.

Al franken and Michael Moore can get away with falsehoods because they claim that any section of their books that are wrong are just parody. "It was a joke! I can't believe you took it seriously! get a sense of humour! This is SATIRE, man! I'm like Johnathon Swift!" (And to be fair, Rush Limbaugh does exactly the same thing).

Anyway, here's a hardcore Bill-o-meter of cultural illiteracy--can you identify the following:
1- freakies
2- Godmonster of Indian Flats
3- The Plugz
4- Devil Dinosaur
5- ray Harryhausen
6- Wonderama
7- Tondro
8- Jack Baker
9- The Patterson Film
10- Bababooey

No fair using google

If you reread the actual paragraph (you know, instead of reading something into it) the "three days later" refers to the feature article that started "His death brought a silence to the Wal-Mart." She WAS accusing them of condescension. She DID NOT, as has been said, say the Times only "eventually" ran a front-page story because "they were pressured to do so".
She never said they DIDN'T run a story the day after. She WAS referring to an arguably snotty story three days later. Confusing? Maybe. Sloppy writing? Perhaps. An example of being a "Lying Liar" or one who tells "blatant lies". No.
You know, it's ironic, the next paragraph after her (deliberately) misinterpreted Earnhardt comments, Ann's first sentence says this,
"Except for occasional exotic safaris to the Wal-Mart, or forays into enemy territory at a Christian Coalition dinner, liberals do not know any conservatives. It makes it easier to demonize them that way."
Looks like she was more right than even she thought.

Bill,

1. No clue.
2. Just off the tip of my mind I want to say E.R.B.
3. I know a punk band called the Plugz.
4. Kirby's big red beast. Moon Boy.
5. Grandmaster of FX. Some of his stuff still holds up pretty well today.
6. No clue
7. Sounds like indian food.
8. Want to say a writer or an film star.
9. Big Foot film. Or a coworker's summer vacation home movie.
10. Old cartoon character or Stern's sidekick depending on your age group.

I would love to no what some of the others are.

Jerome,

How can she be sharp as a tack, a pro writer with lots of best sellers, a highly educated, mental powerhouse of the right and still always be let off the hook because she's "just a sloppy writer" when it comes to getting her point across. And why is it that so many on the right seem to only be able to defend their side by comparing their players to Clinton. And do you know how badly that falls flat when you're using that line of defense with someone, say, like me, who used to smack D's he knew (and knows)across the back of the head for defending the dumb word games of Clinton rather then addressing the problems with some level of reason. Just wondering.

Bill,

I've got #4, 5, 6, and possibly 8 -- the others aren't ringing much of a bell. (My wife's a huge Devil Dinosaur fan, though, so I should pick up some extra points there on her behalf. :-)

Jerry in Richmond, Va.,
Well, I did say "perhaps" her writing could be seen as sloppy, since I did interpret it the way she says she meant it when i first read it, before Franken, FAIR, etc. started calling her a liar. Maybe it realy does depend on the point of reference you're reading it from. I just didn't see it that way. And i think we agree that someone that says "Everyone says liberals love America too. No, they don't" doesn't exactly have a problem saying what she feels. I feel the criticism in this instance is greatly unjustified.
That's all.

Freakies Cereal! (Oh gods and goddesses, I'm old...) ;)

That's a cereal??????????????????????????????

OK. I have a huge old radio collection, tons of pulp novels and more then a few old mags. I have never heard of a cereal called Freakies.

Never mind. My mom and dad are visiting and I just asked him. He loved the stuff.

Ok, thanks for playing. Here are the answers:

1- FREAKIES- A cereal. I don't remember which cereal species it belonged to--probably a fruity pebbles type. The freakies were little monsters who lived in a freakie tree. They sang a song which included the line "We never miss a meal, 'cause we love our Cer-e-al". Of course, every box came with a free freakie doll.

2- GODMONSTER OF INDIAN FLATS- THE worst monster movie of all time. OF ALL TIME, I tells you! It has a MONSTER SHEEP! Sheep!!! Makes the giant rabbits from Night of the Lepus look like freakin Godzilla.

3- THE PLUGZ- Seminal Latino punk rock band. great stuff, just TRY to find anything by them. Good luck.

4- DEVIL DINOSAUR- Jack Kirby does dinosaurs. Kirby must've read Chariots of the Gods one time too many because it shows up in a lot of his late Marvel work. It's hard to recommend DD on a purely quality basis...but I loved it then and, by crom, I love it now.

Incidentally, if you're a creationist, Devil Dinosaur can serve as something of a documentary.

5- RAY HARRYHAUSEN- God King of Special Effects. Animated little puppets with the now almost vanished technique of stop motion animation. I'll bet that kids today will laugh at the effects of 7th Voyage of Sinbad and Jason and the Argonauts. Their great great loss.

6- WONDERAMA- a Sunday kids show. Live action. I only remember bits of it--the nice guy host sang a song about "Does anybody here have an aardvark" and give out money for anyone having certain household objects "I have a $100 Odyssey Game for anyone who has a...CLOTHES PIN!!!"

He also sang a song called "Kids are people, too, (Wackadoo Wackadoo Wackadoo)"

7- TONDRO-- Well actually I think it might be Tundro. The big Rhino/dinosaur from the Herculoids. I loved that show. We would pretend to be the Herculoids and I would always be Tundro, while my friends would play the big rock ape or gloop and gleep. Nobody wanted to play the human characters, of course. I think that Alex Toth may have been involved with the show. Worth checking out on whatever cable show shows good classic 60s cartoons.

8- Jack Baker- the black actor who played Sticks on a few episodes of Happy Days. Later made hardcore porno movies like NEW WAVE HOOKERS, with music by...THE PLUGZ! No involvement by Alex Toth.

9- The Patterson Film- Alleged film of a female bigfoot. I've looked at this thing everyway from Friday and I still don't know what to think. A recent book that supposedly debunks the film is full of crap. I don't know if it's real or not but it has a lot of interesting details...either the real thing or an amazing fake.

10- Bababooey- Gary Dellabante, Howard Stern's producer, was explaining how he collects animation cells and had bought one of Bablooey, Quickdraw McGraw's sidekick. But he mispronounced it and as a result "Bababooey" became a code word for stern fans to use to torment many people, most especially Larry King:

"Dave in Detroit! You're on!"
"Hey great show, Larry. I just wanted to ask Senator Kerry if he thinks that the ballooning deficit will hurt Medicare’s chances of subsidizing HOWARD STERN'S PENIS!!! WHOOOO! BABABOOEY! BABABOOEY! BAB---"
"Bob in Louisiana!"
"Hey this is Bob...Bob...A BOOEY! BOBABOOEY!"

Don't know if any of this will ever come in handy...but you never know.

We interrupt this nostalgia trip for an urgent and welcome bulletin:
Smallville and Angel both have fresh episodes next week! Jonathan Kent laying the smack down on Lionel Luthor! Clark finding out more about his Kryptonian ancestry! Christopher Reeve! And the beginning of what looks to be a kickass last arc for David Boreanaz and company! Yay!

Yeah, I think it was Tundro. I seem to remember two shmoo looking things as well that went by Gleep and Glop.

In re: #5 - I'd like to think that more people got the joke in "Monsters Inc." than that. Remember when Mike was trying to impress the pretty young gorgon at the reception desk? He managed to pull some strings and get them reservations at the most exclusive restaurant in Monstropolis - Harryhausen's!

"In re: #5 - I'd like to think that more people got the joke in "Monsters Inc." than that. Remember when Mike was trying to impress the pretty young gorgon at the reception desk? He managed to pull some strings and get them reservations at the most exclusive restaurant in Monstropolis - Harryhausen's!"

Yeah! And I was squealing like Ned Beatty at a West Virginian cookout when they did it! Especially since Mike's girlfriend looked like Harryhausen's Gorgon from Clash of the Titans. When I was a kid I wanted to be Ray.

"Except for occasional exotic safaris to the Wal-Mart, or forays into enemy territory at a Christian Coalition dinner, liberals do not know any conservatives. It makes it easier to demonize them that way."
Looks like she was more right than even she thought.

Looks like some people can't write an article without bitchslapping the other party either.

Yeah, what a wonderful system we have.

But then, when you have people like Bush running the country, the demons create themselves.

"squealing like Ned Beatty at a West Virginian cookout when they did it."

Of course, that's another line that undoubtedly draws blank stares from your students.

I had a moment like that during the MST3K movie. There's the chisel-jawed hunky scientist hero type, and his weaselly assistant. Weaselly assistant goes to the door to get a package, signs for it, and walks it back in. As he does, we hear Crow say,

"Oh, boy! My Niels Bohr swimsuit calendar!"

Lisa chuckles. I'm dissolving into a small puddle and almost on the floor.

The rest of the theater wonders what the hell is wrong with me.

TWL

Jerome Maida: If you reread the actual paragraph (you know, instead of reading something into it) the "three days later" refers to the feature article that started "His death brought a silence to the Wal-Mart." She WAS accusing them of condescension.
Luigi Novi: And didn’t Al Franken point out that the author of that article was actually from the South himself?

Oh, and btw, I get 1190 on my Walkman perfectly clear in Jersey, just across the Hudson River.

Per the Drudge Report, it looks like our friends at Air America are in a little trouble. They've bounced a check, owe someone $1 million, and are off the air in Los Angeles and Chicago. Apparently, the Chicago station was kind of taken off by force, with someone kicking the Air America employee out the door, switching to a Spanish broadcast, and locking the door.

I didn't think this thing was going anywhere, but I'm shocked that it's having trouble so early.

Bwahahahaha!

I hope Al Gore finally does get his liberal news channel set up so we can watch that fall apart too.

Yep, for those who may not feel comfortable with matt Drudge as a sole source (understandably so)the New York Post and Chicago Tribune have also done stories in the past week about the liberal radio network already being unplugged in a dispute over bills.

Yep, Air America - which was obviously desperately desired by so many, NOT! - was abruptly yanked off the air in Los Angeles and chicago yesterday amid claims of "shakedowns" and downright thievery.
It was pulled from Multicultural Broadcasting's L.A. and Chicago stations in a nasty dispute over leased-time payments.
"They bounced a check today", Multicultural Broadcasting's owner Arthur Liu said, "It's a default. They have paid only a very small portion of what they owe us.
Liu also claimd that Air America is two months behind on a security deposit for both stations.

So now what are those who actually find Al Franken amusing enough to listen to for a couple hours a day - all five of you - going to do?

Sorry if i'm taking glee in this. I just find Franken and those who hang on his every word and believe every word he says to be incredibly annoying. Heck, I have more respect for Michael Moore - who at least puts himself out there, refuses to blindly support the Democratic party because he no longer feels it reflects or promotes his beliefs and won't support them simply because the Republican party is supposedly worse - and James Carville - who actually works hard to get the ideas of his candidates and his party out - than I do Franken, who is basically a clown regurgitating Democratic talking points while being asked to be taken seriously. The fact that so many people find his book "Lies" to be the oracle of truth is both amusing and frightening at the same time.

sorry jerome.

Since friday, its come out that multicultural radio, who Air america was leasing space from, had a staunch republican owner. the owner sold airtime he had already sold to air america to a spanish station. when he was called upon it, he locked air america out of their chicago offices in retaliation. however, air america was able to prove that they were not behind in payments, and that they were locked out in unfair business practices, and able to get a temporary restraining order against liu, the owner, to get them back on the air.

over the course of the thursday and friday in which this was playing out, they not only got back on the air, they got a second station in chicago to carry them, and then picked up 15 new affiliates. all this served to do was bring attention and publicity back to air america.

so, theyre kin of stronger than ever after this.

Finally, I found this on a website. It's Ann Coulter responding to the alleged "lies" attributed to her by Franken's book.

ANN COULTER RESPONSE TO INTERVIEW QUESTIONS OF EDWARD NAWAOTKA FOR PUBLISHER'S WEEKLY

QUESTION: FRANKEN CLAIMS THAT THERE ARE NUMEROUS FALSEHOODS IN YOUR BOOK, ESPECIALLY BURIED IN THE FOOTNOTES...WHO IS ULTIMATELY RESPONSIBLE FOR THE ERRORS, YOU, THE PUBLISHER, OR BOTH?

Coulter: I see we're off to a good start! In your interview with Al Franken, after suggesting that some readers may want franken to run for president, you ask him hardball questions like:

-"It's got to be a little grating to see your book on the same New York Times bestseler list as the Ann Coulter book."

-"You fact checked Ann Coulter's book and found a lot of inconsistencies, outright lies and quotes that are taken out of context. Who is responsible for those kinds of errors, the authors or the editors?"

- "How should bookselers deal with this?"

You ask me questions like these:

- "Who is ultimately responsible for the errors (in your book), you, the publisher, or both?"

- "What gives - was this an honest mistake or malfeasance as he suggests?"

- "Why all the name calling?"

Apparently, Ed, it never occured to you that Franken's allegations of errors in my book - or "outright lies" as you put it - are false.

It's interesting that the most devastating examples of my alleged "lies" keep changing. As soon as one is disproved, I'm asked to respond to another. This is behavior normally associated with tin-foil-hat conspiracy theorists. One crackpot argument after another is shot down - but the conspiracy theorists just move on to the next crackpot argument without pause or reconsideration. Certainly without apology.

So before responding to the two aleged "lies" you cite from Franken - the source of all wisdom - I shall run through a few of the alleged "lies" from Franken's book that I have already been asked to respond to - and whic have now been dropped by the Coulter hysterics as they barrel ahead to the next inane charge.

FRANKEN'S VERY FIRST CHARGE AGAINST ME IS THAT I TOLD A REPORTER FROM THE OBSERVER THAT I WAS "FRIENDLY" WITH FRANKEN, WHEN IN FACT, WE ARE NOT "FRIENDLY".

Needless to say, I never claimed to be friendly with Al Franken. Inasmuch as i hardly know Franken, a normal person might have looked at that and realized the reporter misunderstood me. But apparently, Franken thinks he has a pretty cool name to drop - the oddest case of reverse name-dropping I've ever heard of.

I don't hear about this "lie" so much anymore.

FRANKEN HYSTERICALLY ACCUSES ME OF "LYING" FOR CALING MY "ENDNOTES" "FOOTNOTES" IN INTERVIEWS ON MY BOOK.

Yes, notes at the end of a book are technically "endnotes", not "footnotes". Franken will have to take his case up with the New York Times, the LA Times, and the Washington Post - all of which referred to my 780 endnotes as FOOTNOTES. Also God, for inventing the concept of "colloquial speech".

I don't hear so much about this "lie" anymore.

FRANKEN CLAIMS I COMPLAIN THAT CONSERVATIVES DON'T GET ON TV ENOUGH.

Inasmuch as I am on TV a lot, this would be a hilarious point. Too bad I never said it. My book "Slander", which franken seems to have gone over with a fine-toothed comb - would ave been a good place to make that point if i wanted to make it. "Slander" contains an entire chapter on the media, and yet I never claim that conservatives are not on TV enough. What i say is: "Democrats in the media are editors, national correspondents, news anchors and reporters. Republicans are "from the right" polemicists grudgingly tolerated within the liberal behemoth."

By the way, I also say: "The distinction between opinion journalism and objective news coverage isseemingly impossible for liberals to grasp." Franken's absurd description of my point proves it.

I haven't heard so much about this "lie" anymore.

I CLAIM EVAN THOMAS'S FATHER WAS THE SOCIALIST PARTY PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE, NORMAN THOMAS.

Franken drones on and on for a page and a half about how Norman Thomas was not Even Thomas's father - without saying that he was Evan's GRANDFATHER. This was one of five inconsequential errors quickly corrected in Slander - nd cited one million times by liberals as a "LIE". Confusing father with grandfather is a mistake. Franken's deliberate implication that there was no relationship whatsoever between Norman and evan Thomas is intentional dishonesty.

I haven't heard so much about this "lie" anymore.

I INCORRECTLY CLAIMED DALE EARNHARDT'S DEATH WAS NOT MENTIONED IN THE FRONT PAGE OF THE NYT THE DAY AFTER HIS DEATH.

In my three bestselling books - making the case for a president's impeachment, arguing that Joe McCarthy was a great American patriot, and detailing 50 years of trachery by the Democratic Party - this is the only vaguely substantive error the Ann Coulter hysterics have been able to produce, corrected soon after publication.

CONGRATULATIONS LIBERALS!

The Columbia Journalism Review was crowing about this great victory over Ann Coulter a year ago. A search of "coulter" and "earnhardt" on Google turns up over 1,000 hits. Now Franken dedicates another two pages in his book to it. I believe this triump of theirs has been sufficiently revisited by now. At least I didn't miss the Ukrainian famine (like) Pulitzer prize winning New York Times reporter Walter Duranty.

I don't hear so much about this "lie" anymore.

FRAZIER MOORE, A FANTASIST FOR THE ASSOCIATED PRESS, WROTE AN ARTICLE ACCUSINF ME OF USING "ROUTINELY SLOPPY" RESEARCH AND "CONTRIVED" FACTS. LIKE YOU, THE AP FANTASIST TREATS RANKEN AS THE SOURCE OF ALL WISDOM, CITING ONE KILLER EXAMPLE FROM FRANKEN:

"Here's one: On pages 265-266, Coulter blasts New York Times writer Thomas Friedman fpr oposing racial profiling in a December 2001 column. She quotes (and credits) several passages that seem to back up her complaint. But it turns out that Coulter misappropriated Friedman's words in a way that has nothing to do with racial profiling or anything else addressed in his column, as anyone who reads it will discover. His column actually drew the less-than-startling conclusion that a new age of terrorism threatens our personal safety and free society."

This is what is known as "bicycle accident reporting". I defy anyone to explain what head-injury boy is trying to convey in his crucial, accusatory sentence: "Coulter misappropriated Friedman's words in a way that as nothing to do with racial profiling or anything else addressed in his column."
Huh? The AP could throw a deck of cards out the window and wait to see who picks up the four of clubs to find someone who writes better than Frazier Moore.

But as long as I'm already breaking my rule about not responding to meritless, overwrought attacks, I'll go for broke and break my rule about not responding to gibberish. Aparently, head-injury-boy here is very upset about how i characterize a Friedman column and it has something or other to do with racial profiling.
In the column at issue, titled "Fly Naked", Friedma spends 6 of 10 paragraphs discussing airport security after 9-11 and concludes that flying naked is the only solution, because, "It's much more civilized tha racial profiling." I wrote: 'New York Times columnist Thomas friedman sniffed that racial profiling was not "civilized".
I'm really trying to grasp the lie in that statement, but I don't see it.

Incidentally, contrary to head-injury-boy's characterization, only four paragraphs at the end of the Friedman column discuss "personal safety and our free society" - as anyone who reads it will discover!" I salute the AP's unorthodox afirmative action program, but they might want to assign reporters who are not developmentally disabled to write the articles accusing me of "sloppy" research and "contrived" facts.

I haven't heard much about this "lie" since the AP article came out and normal people took the trouble to look up Friedman's column and post it on the internet.

Drudge is hardly a credible source for gossip, let alone actual news. I don't call him the Dumpster Diver for nothing...

Wildcat

Adam Schwartz,
If they were being screwed and got that fixed, more power to them. I still feel tere is very little market for liberal radio. If there was, there would have been some success stories by now.
As far as "they're stronger than ever", well, they've been on the air less than three weeks, so what does that really say, exactly?
Also, if it takes scandal to make people aware they're on the air, well then they're in even bigger trouble than I thought.

[i]"I still feel tere is very little market for liberal radio."[/i]

"Conservative" radio has a market of, what, 30% of the population at best? The rest of the country tunes out because from our POV, talk radio tends to be negative and hate-filled. For whatever reason, station managers have been blind to that other 70%, or at least the large portion of that that aren't satisfied with NPR. That's hardly a "little market."

[i]"If there was, there would have been some success stories by now."[i]

Randi Rhodes was #1 in her market -- during Rush's time slot. Clear Channel hired her away, gave her a different air time, and vowed to *never* syndicate her. She continues to host the #1 show in that market in South Florida, across the board.

Mike Malloy was #1 across all demographics as well, at WLS in Chicago, pulling higer ratings than anyone else, even at his own station, including Rush and Laura. ABC fired him because they didn't like his politics. His new employer, IA America, failed not because of it's own viewpoint, but because it's owners (the UAW) were abject failures at promoting *any* radio format.

There are others in other markets that are faring well. You don't hear about them mainly because the people who own and run the networks tend to lean right and don't *want* to promote a viewpoint that contradicts their own, even if it *is* profitable.

Wildcat

"I still feel tere is very little market for liberal radio."

"Conservative" radio has a market of, what, 30% of the population at best? The rest of the country tunes out because from our POV, talk radio tends to be negative and hate-filled. For whatever reason, station managers have been blind to that other 70%, or at least the large portion of that that aren't satisfied with NPR. That's hardly a "little market."

"If there was, there would have been some success stories by now."

Randi Rhodes was #1 in her market -- during Rush's time slot. Clear Channel hired her away, gave her a different air time, and vowed to *never* syndicate her. She continues to host the #1 show in that market in South Florida, across the board.

Mike Malloy was #1 across all demographics as well, at WLS in Chicago, pulling higer ratings than anyone else, even at his own station, including Rush and Laura. ABC fired him because they didn't like his politics. His new employer, IA America, failed not because of it's own viewpoint, but because it's owners (the UAW) were abject failures at promoting *any* radio format.

There are others in other markets that are faring well. You don't hear about them mainly because the people who own and run the networks tend to lean right and don't *want* to promote a viewpoint that contradicts their own, even if it *is* profitable.

Wildcat

Mods -- please delete the *first* of my duplicate posts (and this as well) -- I hit the wrong button somewhere. :P

Wildcat,
First, you claim that coservative talk radio serves "30% of the market" at best. Heck, shrink that to 15% to exclude children and the rest of the country that doesn't vote, anf that's still 45 million people. And if the other alleged 70% really wanted liberal talk radio, there would be a success story to fill thre gap

Wildcat,
Two more things :
1.) The people who own the networks lean right? Riiiiiiiiiiiiight! We can have a full-fledged ebate about this. But for now, let's say i feel you are mistaken.
2.) Even if the heads of networks WERE right-leaning, you really are suggesting a cut-their-nose-off-to-spite-their-face attitude being prevalent if you really feel they would forgo profits for ANT reason. That is what they are in business for!
Take Rupert Murdoch. He is described by those who know him as liberal. His network, FOX, has produced irreverent fare ranging from "The Simpsons" to "Married With Children". Yet when he bought The New York Post, he realized that what was killing it (and The New York Daily News, which along with the Post filed for bankruptcy in the '90s) was that it was serving the same liberal-leaning readers as the Daily News, The New York Times, Newsday and The Village Voice. NO ONE was offering a point of view that was more to the right. He did so - not because of ideology -but because it was good business. He started FOX News for the same reason - to offer a different point of view and serve viewers who were unhappy with the liberal leanings of CNN, Brokaw, Rather, Jennings, etc.
Successful businesspeople don't look down at the opportunity to make a profit.

Wildcat,
I also find it almost amusing that you refer to talk-radio as "negative and hate-filled". Why? Because you don't like what they say. I can give you some examples from Philly talk-show hosts that would have Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity and the like s--tcanned if they said analagous things. Which is probably a big reason "local liberal legends" don't become nationwide success stories.

Further, I don't recall a Republican president blaming a national tragedy on liberal talk show hosts, like President Clinton did in the aftermath of the oklahoma city bombing, when he practically accused rush limbaugh of being the chief culprit.
Clinton unleashed all the typical liberal curse words for conservatives. He blamed "loud and angry voices" heard "over the airwaves in America" that were making people "paranoid" and spreading "hate". Clinton couldn't have been more specific if he had referred to "that guy Al Franken called a big fat idiot."
It was perfectly clear for example to Dan Rather, who said, "President Clinton named no names, but made it clear who's talking that talk." it was also aparently clear to Bryant Gumbel, who made the very same point on the "Today" show. Gumbel said: The bombing in Oklahoma city has focused renewed attention on the rhetoric that's been coming from the right...Right-wing talk-show hosts like Rush Limbaugh, Bob Grant, Oliver north, G. Gordon Liddy, Michael Reagan and others take to the air every day with basically the same format: detail a problem, blaming the government or a group, and invite invective from like-minded people. never do most of the radio hosts encourage outright violence, but the extent to which their attitudes may embolden and encourage some extremists has clearly become an issue."
In a story in the Roanoke Times & World News titled "Conservatives Should own Up to Their Share Of The Blame", Peter S. Fosl compared "Rush limbaugh, Newt Gingrich and other conservative media personalities" to "the hutu broadcasters who urged on Rwandan militias in their deadly business."
What was that about hate-filled?

Randi Rhodes was #1 in her market -- during Rush's time slot. Clear Channel hired her away, gave her a different air time, and vowed to *never* syndicate her. She continues to host the #1 show in that market in South Florida, across the board.

Uh, Wildcat...the point of getting into radio is syndication. Were it me, and my station vowed to NEVER syndicate me, come contract time, I'd flee at TOP SPEED. I don't think I'd call being a #1 show in a distressed market like South Florida much to crow about either, but your mileage may vary...

Also, if it takes scandal to make people aware they're on the air, well then they're in even bigger trouble than I thought.

Well, it's called a "scandal" for good reason.

You know, like Halliburton stealing millions from the American people being scandal.

Too bad that one still hasn't gotten enough attnetion.

You know I love the way that so many liberals are soooo obsessed over Halliburton, yet then ignore the Iraqi oil-for-food scandal, in which the almighty U.N. not only looked the other way at Saddam taking money meant to be used for food and medicine and other humanitarian needs meant for the Iraqi people but many of it's members, including France - those paragons of virtue, especially if the virtue is appeasement and/or hypocrisy - and Russia. Oh and Kofi "Iraq is a country I can do business with - Annan and/or his son.
The fact that they were getting money in a scheme that was literally taking food out of Iraqis' (while coddling a dictator) mouths wouldn't have ANYTHING to do with Chirac's and Putin's and Annan's fierce opposition to the war, would it?
No,because that would totally obliterate the argument that we need ta "permission slip" from the all-holy U.N. to do anything and the approval of our all-important "allies".
Maybe that's why it hasn't been reported more. We want to make sure they like us.
So we'll harp on the ONE instance of halliburton overcharging instead.
Hey, it's no fun to bash Saddam, France, Russia, Annan, or the corrupt United Nations for taking food out of babies' mouths.
It's so much more fun obviously for the liberal media to bash the U.S. and the Bush administration.

Hey, it's no fun to bash Saddam, France, Russia, Annan, or the corrupt United Nations for taking food out of babies' mouths.

Actually, there's been quite alot of bashing of the French all around.

You can tell how bad it's gotten by the amount of whining their gov't has been doing the past few months.

But then, I don't think the oil-for-food program was mentioned once during the "diplomacy" leading up to the war in Iraq.
It was obviously a non-issue to the administration, along with everything else.

Actually, Craig, it was a non-issue because it did not come to light until after the invasion when the details were found in Iraqi records.

Jerome, with all due respect, if you use the term "permission slip" or "all-holy U.N." one more damn time I'm going to find you and thwack you on the nose with a thesaurus.

You're having fun here cackling away with your straw men, but I'd like you, just this once, to find even one instance where I, or Karen, or Craig, or even anyone in the so-called "liberal media" you so decry, has used either of the above phrases in a serious way.

I can't speak for Craig or Karen, but I'm not fond of the oil-for-food situation at all. I am, however, perfectly willing to admit that the U.N. is flawed. Everything is flawed -- every person, every leader, every institution. Of course there's occasional corruption. Of course nobody acts as a perfect individual at all times.

The idea of the U.N. is a solid one and one I'll back to the hilt. The reality rarely lives up to the ideal, of course.

Unlike you, it seems, I can say that without thinking it somehow invalidates my whole argument. It's the current administration that never admits error, never admits to second thoughts, never takes any position than "we're always right and you're unpatriotic dangerous fools for thinking otherwise." Those of us hoping for a change of administrations don't think our side's remotely perfect -- just an overwhelming improvement.

The only public individual who's claimed this is about a "permission slip" is the flightsuit-in-chief you're so fond of parroting.

Could you give it a rest now?

TWL, feeling a tad exasperated at one-note arguments

Besides, I thought Dubya was claiming UN Resolution 1441 gave him the "permission slip" you're saying he didn't need, from "the all-holy UN"? Or do we only remember that one when it's convenient to recall our alliances and treaties, and ignore it when we're posturing in Reaganesque cowboy fashion, claiming it's all about the "War on Terror"?

Take Rupert Murdoch. He is described by those who know him as liberal.

Vast majority of his campaign contributions were to Republicans from 2000-2004 (85-90%). He's given some amounts to Kerry and to Markey (though I believe Markey is a leading figure in the telecommunications committee).

Contributions to Specter, McCain, Sunnunu, the Republican National State Elections Committee, etc. are not that much of hallmark for a liberal.

The idea of the U.N. is a solid one and one I'll back to the hilt.

To me, the UN is nothing more than a forum for debate on the world level.

They have no power, no authority, and they aren't willing to get their hands dirty.

To me, the UN is nothing more than a forum for debate on the world level. They have no power, no authority, and they aren't willing to get their hands dirty.

And yet, if anyone ever tries to give them authority or power, or if they ever consider getting their hands dirty, militia groups start screaming about loss of national sovereignty, "world government!" and black helicopters. (And that's not to mention the fundamentalists who believe a world government is written in stone in Revelation as a major sign of the apocalypse.)

Seems a bit of a no-win scenario for 'em. If they try to act, nations get paranoid; if they decide not to, they're dismissed as irrelevant.

Where's a John Sheridan when you need one? :-)

TWL

And yet, if anyone ever tries to give them authority or power, or if they ever consider getting their hands dirty, militia groups start screaming about loss of national sovereignty, "world government!" and black helicopters.

You mean like the United States does? :)

The EU seems to be having some success, although they don't have the military to do anything.

Seems a bit of a no-win scenario for 'em.

Again, I think it hinges alot on our gov't playing nice and fair.
It's something the Bush Administration hasn't done and doesn't intend to do from the look of things.

Tim,
With all due respect, if you feel exasperated over my citing "permission slips" and calling the U.N. "all holy", how do you think I feel, for the past year:

1.) Listening to people who have nothing else to say - Karen, Craig and yourself and many posters here excluded - use the phrase/slogan "No Blood for Oil" and "No War For Oil" when many have stated it would be a lot easier politically to simply
a.) Make a deal with Russia or the rest of OPEC or, heck, even drill more in Texas or the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to get more oil. (I don't support drilling in the ANWR, by the way. We would lose too much for what we could possibly gain.) Heck, WE could have made a secret deal with saddam, and that still would be a heck of a lot less risky politically - and weigh a lot less on the Administration's conscience than sending our sons and daughters off to war.

b.)Hear virtually every single Democratic candidate and Hillary Clinton and Walter Cronkite and on and on never elaborate on what is wrong with the policy, but just state that "we need to work with the United Nations". Edwards was just saying that the other day. Kerry has not offered a visionary alternate plan on Iraq, just that "the United Nations should be involved."
You know, I would have more respect for people making these arguments if they said something like "acting unilaterally goes against not only 225+ years of foreign policy but everything this country is supposed to stand for."
That is an important, credible and thought-provoking argument. It's why I struggled with this all the months leading up to our actual invasion a year ago. I knew the evidence wasn't 100% obvious for WMD, and i knew if we did strike preemptively in this instance, there would be no turning back. Not just in the near future but ever. But then I weighed that against the credibility of people like Powell and the possible consequences if we did not act. People who know me were wondering why I was so silent on the matter. They all expected me to be going "Rah!Rah! Go Bush! God Bless USA! And I had to remind them that this wasn't a football game, and that I was very torn over what we should do.

c.) Hear about how the U.N. represents an ideal. Well, we do too, don't we? yet the same people who seem to have no faith in the Administration - or even America in general - are willing to give the U.N. the benefit of the doubt and allow decisions about our security to be made by others. as you said, you can always vote out Bush, and put Kerry, Nader or whoever you want in his place if you don't agree with U.S. policy. You have control. How do you make your voice heard if we eventually do cede our sovereignty to the U.N.?
And while ir may represent an ideal, the reality is WAY different. Even BEFORE the current scandal, the late Daniel Patrick Moynihan called the U.N. "a theater of the absurd, a decomposing corpse and an insane asylum". And jeane kirkpatrick characterized it as "nothing more than the executive committee of the Third World dictatorships".
Why do people feel more strongly that this corrupt body has more a chance of working than the administration's plans for the Mideast? One has proven to be a failure for decades.

d.) Hear about Halliburton at every turn, yet someone very intelligent who I respect when asked about the Oil-For-Food Scandal said she had not heard about it. Neither is right. But the oil-for-food scandal is as if money given to the red cross were being diverted to someone like Donald Trump. The idea that the institution and purpose are supposed to be moral and noble is what makes it so sick and disgusting.
But Craig even showed a lack of understanding of the situation by saying the scandal wasn't the reason stated for going there.
No, because it would not have been uncovered if we did not invade, for one thing.
And again, the Administration has been bashed for its motives relentlessly. At least partially because France and Russia did not support us. The fact that they may have had ulterior motives themselves which involve benefitting from the betrayal of others should be at least equally disturbing. Yet very few are even mentioning it. Not even Fox is giving it that much attention.
That's all.

Tim,
With all due respect, if you feel exasperated over my citing "permission slips" and calling the U.N. "all holy", how do you think I feel, for the past year:
(much deleted)

That's not the issue, and it's to some extent dishonest for you to try and make it such.

Sure, you're perfectly justified in objecting to one or another argument, as vociferously as you see fit.

My point, which I believe I made fairly clearly last time, is that the "permission slips" phrase -- not just the argument, but THAT EXACT PHRASE -- is about all that you've posted here in the last week.

[Shatner]
It. Gets. Tiresome.
[/Shatner]

You're also being somewhat disingenuous here because the arguments you're citing as ones that exasperate you are NOT ones we've been routinely making -- you even go out of your way to say "many posters here excluded".

I, on the other hand, am talking explicitly about points YOU are making over and over and over. There's a distinct lack of symmetry here.

In other words -- if you start making more varied arguments that show some indication of listening to what we actually say, I'll be happy to listen. Until then, you're basically just on an endless rant, and that's not something I find particularly conducive to conversation no matter whether I agree with the points made or not. (As an example, about a dozen threads back I explicitly pointed out that you were avoiding a whole ton of questions, and you said "okay, I'll addressed them" and then went off on another unrelated rant and never did anything of the kind. That's not behavior that makes people want to continue talking with you.)

Out of courtesy, however, I'll address those of your points I think are relevant in another post in a little while. (I'm running off to a meeting shortly, so it may be a bit.)

TWL

Okay ... back now. As promised, I wanted to address some of Jerome's questions.

#1 -- given that I don't believe I've ever used the phrase "No Blood/War for Oil", I'll let someone else to whom it IS applicable answer.

#2 --
Hear virtually every single Democratic candidate and Hillary Clinton and Walter Cronkite and on and on never elaborate on what is wrong with the policy, but just state that "we need to work with the United Nations". Edwards was just saying that the other day. Kerry has not offered a visionary alternate plan on Iraq, just that "the United Nations should be involved."

How many alternate plans did George W. Bush have in April of 2000? I think you're asking for something unrealistic here -- seven months before the election, candidates rarely if ever have detailed plans, visionary or otherwise. The last person I can think of who did have an overwhelmingly detailed plan was Clinton's economic plan in '92, and last I checked that didn't go far to impress you.

At the moment, the operative argument from Kerry et al. is "we did this so unilaterally that we've pissed off all our allies." I think that's a valid debating point, and while I agree that we should hear arguments of what they'd do instead, I don't know that we should be expecting to hear them right now.

(Besides, I'd also postulate that were Kerry to offer a detailed plan now, he'd be accused of not supporting the president in a time of war, not letting politics end at the water's edge and all that. Not necessarily by you, but that argument's certainly been made before on both sides.)

In an ideal world, any given debate would be about nothing but that. Debate #1 -- what to do about Iraq, with as many details as possible. Debate #2 -- detailed economic plans. Debate #3 -- detailed ideas about Al-Qaeda and terrorism. Etc. etc. I don't think there's even one chance in a million that we'll get that series of substantive debates, but it's what I'd like to see.

As an aside -- Cronkite? The man's been out of public life for two decades except for the occasional newspaper column. Why mention him? (I know, I know, he's a liberal gasbag who singlehandedly demoralized 200 million people during Vietnam, or so you've argued. That doesn't mean he's got influence now, even if I accepted your point.)

You know, I would have more respect for people making these arguments if they said something like "acting unilaterally goes against not only 225+ years of foreign policy but everything this country is supposed to stand for."

I have made that argument, here and elsewhere. I made it about the war. I made it about the Patriot Act. I made it about Ashcroft's theocracy-in-training.

I agree with you that it's an important argument. I maintain it's one that's being made, here and elsewhere.

Frankly, the argument was pretty well stated by Bush himself back in 2000, when he said in one of the debates that we should be a humble nation and not an arrogant one. He was absolutely dead on, and I wish he'd listened to that later on.

Even without arguments based on principles, however, arrogant unilateralism is seriously flawed on practical grounds as well. No civilization remains top dog on the planet forever. Rome fell. The British Empire faded. So, eventually, will we -- and if we've been doing nothing with our power but throwing our weight around and swaggering, there will be nations lined up three deep to kick us once we're down. Simple prudence suggests that maybe we should try a different approach than the one we've got.

#3:
Hear about how the U.N. represents an ideal. Well, we do too, don't we?

Not in the same sense that I mean it, no. Frankly, I don't think a two-party representative system is an ideal form of government: I'd prefer a well-informed Athenian democracy, myself.

My saying that the UN represents an ideal, however, is in no way trying to give it or any institution the benefit of the doubt. In some ways, it's a flowery way of saying I'm an internationalist -- but overall, what it's saying is that I think a single, unified world government with different nationalities acting in common cause is a more stable, more open, and more long-lasting one than a set of nation-states struggling for dominance.

As a result, yes, I have a substantial bias in favor of building and supporting long-term alliances, and against unilateral action in the face of overwhelming opposition. It's a bias that can be superseded under the right conditions, but given two otherwise equal actions I'll take the multilateral one over the unilateral one every time.

That's what I meant by the UN representing an ideal. I said nothing about its current structure, its current leadership, or its current policies, and I apologize if you were led to believe otherwise.

as you said, you can always vote out Bush, and put Kerry, Nader or whoever you want in his place if you don't agree with U.S. policy. You have control. How do you make your voice heard if we eventually do cede our sovereignty to the U.N.?

I've already ceded my personal sovereignty in having a government that can control my actions in any way whatsoever. As for national sovereignty ... frankly, I'd like us to move away from it. Nationalism, particularly the hyper-patriotic kind, creates a lot more problems than it resolves.

Thus, I frankly don't have any concerns about having my voice heard. I think a well-run UN is at least as likely to listen to an average citizen's concerns than a well-run federal government -- and the current administration is not exactly fostering my faith in either.

#4 -- given that I believe I've mentioned Halliburton once in the past six months, this isn't my question. Someone else can address your exasperation at this one.

There, now. Reasoned? Substantive? I hope so.

TWL

Tim,
Reasoned? Substantive? Definitely.
I have to run. More to follow.