Folks told me I should try and send my “Chicago” parody to Al Franken at Air America Radio.
First I tried to create an account at their website, which was repeatedly stymied as assurances of a confirming e-mail proved empty. When the e-mail with the special “unlocking” code finally showed up, I went back to the website, entered the code, and was send three times to a page that said, “You shouldn’t have been sent to this page.” Swear to God, that’s what it said.
Finally, managing to make that all work, I went to the “Contact us” section. There it said they could be e-mailed, or be sent snail mail, or be reached via Fax. I tried e-mail about six times. It wouldn’t go through. It either told me to fill out the “comments” section, which I had but it didn’t seem to realize it, or it would remove the topic line and then tell me I had to fill in the topic line. Fax? Nice notion. If there was a fax number there, I couldn’t find it. Which leaves snail mail, but I doubt I want to bother with it.
I tried to e-mail them about how crappy their website was. That wouldn’t go through either.
Which all works out, I guess, because my radio doesn’t pick up 1190 anyway, lord knows I tried.
Yeah, I bet Rush is just shaking in his boots.
PAD
• 
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 hëll 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. Hëll, 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 bášŧárdš. 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, hëll — 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-ášš 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 pìššìņg and moaning about them as well.
In this we agree again. Some of these sites are a hëll 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 hëll.
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 ášš 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
Hëll, 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:
Hëll, 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 pørņø movies like NEW WAVE HØØKÊRS, 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
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 bìŧçhšláppìņg 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.