January 29, 2007
Now Santa Cruz, CA joins the list of ex-Air America stations.
The left-leaning radio network, aimed at taking on Rush Limbaugh and other conservative talk shows, debuted on Central Coast airwaves in July 2005, but local advertisers never bought in, [KOMY 1340 AM] station owner Michael Zwerling said.No wait, it gets better.
"We didn't sell a single ad in a year and a half," Zwerling said Thursday. "I thought liberal radio would work as a viable advertising business in the most liberal town in America. I was wrong"
Santa Cruz isn't the only place Air America has problems. The network is struggling nationwide and filed for bankruptcy four months ago.
Limbaugh is a major moneymaker for the station, Zwerling said, and his show pulls the highest ratings of any program on KSCO or KOMY.So you'd think such a "Blue" market would be ideal for advertisers looking to appeal to the audience that would eat up Air America's kind of format, right?
However, in Santa Cruz, where the vast majority of registered voters are Democrats and voted for Sen. John Kerry in the 2004 presidential election, Zwerling wanted to give listeners a program that better plays to their political beliefs.
Um. Actually, no.
"It's an angry, nasty, pissing and moaning format where the only thing they say is 'Bush stinks' or 'Bush is bad'," [Zwerling] said. "No commercial advertiser wants to be associated with that"So where does that leave the station? Well, apparently some old and tired routines are more attractive than others.
Taking Air America's place is oldies music Â— artists such as Roy Orbison, Patsy Cline, Chuck Berry and The Platters Â— with local, live disc jockeys.Heh.
January 25, 2007
An absolute must-read from Greg Gutfeld.
Are you a patriotic terrorist?Did I just link The Huffington Post? Egads!
If you are intensely critical of the US, while tolerating homicidal enemies who condemn everything you previously claimed you are for - human rights, voting rights, gay rights, women's rights, porn - then you're a patriotic terrorist.
If you talk about tolerance constantly - and hilariously tolerate genocide and suicide bombers because those actions undermine your more intimate opposition, the American right - then you're a patriotic terrorist.
October 17, 2006
Man, how sad is that? They see their guy floundering because he can't gain traction with any voter who isn't on board with the nutroots and Republicans are rallying behind Joe.
So they figure, hey, if they can just convince CT Republicans that this Schlesinger guy is the bee's knees then maybe they'll vote for him even though he hasn't a snowball's chance in hell of winning. Because unless Republicans (and Republican-leaning Independents) drop their steadfast support for Lieberman it's Ned Lamont who doesn't have a snowball's chance.
Ace puts it this way:
Connecticut Republican voters -- go out there and vote for Schlesinger! Because Jane Hamsher told you to, and you're as retarded as she thinks you are!Gee, Jane. You've opened my eyes! Why vote for Joe Lieberman when we have a perfectly good Republican in the race? What was I thinking? Jeez.
Nice try, sweetheart.
Now, what else have you got?
Dean Barnett muses about this silliness:
Perhaps the Nutroots have turned over a new leaf and henceforth will practice a more civil form of political warfare. Either that, or they think simple-minded Republicans will be gulled into supporting Schlesinger because heÂ’s winning rave reviews from the left wing blogosphere.Tell you what, guys. If you like Schlesinger so much, you vote for him.
Markos, please listen to me Â– I know you think yourself a kingmaker, but Republicans really donÂ’t care what you think.
October 16, 2006
Stewart was arrested six months after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, along with Mohamed Yousry, an Arabic interpreter, and Ahmed Abdel Sattar, a U.S. postal worker. The two men also were to receive their sentences Monday.She should consider herself lucky. She could have gotten thirty years.
Yousry and Stewart, both convicted of providing material support to terrorists, were facing up to 30 years in prison. Sattar, convicted of conspiracy to kill and kidnap people in a foreign country, could face life in prison.
In addition to the material support conviction, Stewart was also convicted of defrauding the government and making false statements for breaking her promise to abide by government rules to keep the sheik from communicating with his followers.
We will make no distinction between the terrorists and those who assist them. That includes Left-wing radical lawyers who think they're above the law.
October 13, 2006
Simple accounting, really. $4 million in assets less $20 million in liabilities equals $16 million in the hole = miserable failures.
To paraphrase Yoda: "Lost their audience the Liberals have. How embarrassing. How embarrassing."
Jonah Goldberg sums it up best:
If very large numbers of people wanted to listen to Air America, Air America wouldn't be bankrupt. Money would have rolled in and this keystone cops stuff would have remained invisible. But despite the best efforts of very serious Progressive types and ample up front investment and enormous free publicity and goodwill from the mainstream media, the thing still bombed. Air America was launched on the assumption that "if you build it, they will come." They didn't. And that's the moral of the story few on the left will ever admit or call attention to.
Let us be more pointed. Students, stars, media movers, academics: They are always saying they want debate, but they don't. They want their vision imposed. They want to win. And if the win doesn't come quickly, they'll rush the stage, curse you out, attempt to intimidate.Read the whole thing here.
And they don't always recognize themselves to be bullying. So full of their righteousness are they that they have lost the ability to judge themselves and their manner.
And all this continues to come more from the left than the right in America.
Which is, at least in terms of timing, strange. The left in America--Democrats, liberals, Bush haters, skeptics of many sorts--seems to be poised for a significant electoral victory. Do they understand that if it comes it will be not because of Columbia, Streisand, O'Donnell, et al., but in spite of them?
What is most missing from the left in America is an element of grace--of civic grace, democratic grace, the kind that assumes disagreements are part of the fabric, but we can make the fabric hold together. The Democratic Party hasn't had enough of this kind of thing since Bobby Kennedy died. What also seems missing is the courage to ask a question. Conservatives these days are asking themselves very many questions, but I wonder if the left could tolerate asking itself even a few. Such as: Why are we producing so many adherents who defy the old liberal virtues of free and open inquiry, free and open speech? Why are we producing so many bullies? And dim dullard ones, at that.
Former Nazi looks at today's young Leftists and basically says Hitler would have been proud. Gateway Pundit has the story.
September 27, 2006
Warning: Finish your breakfast/morning coffee before clicking or you'll risk having it fly out your nose.
September 05, 2006
Yeah, we can all play Monday morning quarterbacks since 9/11. But the film's scrutiny of the Clinton-Albright-Berger-Reno crew has more to do with highlighting their mindset that terrorists should be treated like criminals rather than combatants - a mindset that, by the way, that is still ingrained in the leadership of the Democrat party five years after the attack. The facts of history are difficult to ignore. Having swept the decks for the Democrats by ending the Cold War, Republican Presidents Reagan and George H.W. Bush freed up President Clinton and his Administration to deal with other threats to national security.
As Dick Morris likes to point out (and this guy knows first-hand), Clinton had no desire to even acknowledge the threat of terrorism - from the first World Trade Center bombing in 1993 to the Khobar Towers to the U.S.S. Cole. Why? Because the issue didn't poll well. The fact is, we could have had Bin Laden handed to us on a silver platter. We declined the offer. We could have connected the dots that would have led to the thwarting of the plan that was executed on 9/11 - that is, if the Clinton Justice Department hadn't prevented the CIA and FBI from sharing information (remember the "Gorelick memo"?).
Now Democrats - who already have a credibility problem in the area of National Security - are losing it because they're being forced to confront the truth. And, sadly for them, it comes at a time when voters are beginning to pay attention to the coming mid-term elections. Why are they so determined to discredit this mini-series?
Jason Apuzzo at Libertas explains:
Make no mistake about what this film does, among other things: it places the question of the Clinton AdministrationÂ’s culpability for the 9/11 attacks front and center. And Sandy Berger wonÂ’t be able to stuff this film down his pants; the film shows him hanging-up on the CIA and the Northern Alliance right as they were calling him for approval to get bin Laden. Nor will Madeline AlbrightÂ’s faux-European hauteur be sufficient to cover her shame in helping botch a missile strike against bin Laden - something else depicted in the film. As for Clinton, the film makes him look strikingly bafoonish (merely by intercutting actual footage of him), and captures the legalistic, Â‘depends-on-what-the-meaning-of-the-word-is-isÂ’/CYA culture that defined his administration.The folks at that blog are among the few who've actually seen "The Path To 9/11". The review by Libertas' Govindini Murty is here.
Who specifically is doing all the moaning and groaning? The usual suspects, of course. And rather than watch the film and try to rebut it with facts, they're screaming for it not to be aired at all.
Funny, I thought Liberals were against censorship. Whatever.
Now, my Lefty friends will all scream about that miniseries about the Reagans that got pulled off the air by CBS back in 2003 because Conservatives squawked about it. Okay, well the difference there is that the writer of that little hatchet-job admitted in the end that almost all of the events and the dialogue that he wrote were pretty much made up (but he was sure that's what they were really like).
This project was based on the results of the 9/11 Commission and is rooted in facts that are on the record (despite Sandy Burglar's attempt to shove the evidence down his socks and pants).
The fact that "The Path To 9/11" evokes such outrage and frenzy among the nutroots indicates how close it hits to the mark. For those who want to be sure, I say watch it and judge for yourself.
Oh, and for those huge Giants and Colts fans out there? Just set those VCRs, DVRs and TiVos!
August 27, 2006
Pic Curtesy of Zombie
Russell Shaw over at Hufflepuff daydreams of a Democratic victory on election day brought to them by the mass murder expertise of a terrorist organization.
What if another terror attack just before this fall's elections could save many thousand-times the lives lost?
I start from the premise that there is already a substantial portion of the electorate that tends to vote GOP because they feel that Bush has "kept us safe," and that the Republicans do a better job combating terrorism.
If an attack occurred just before the elections, I have to think that at least a few of the voters who persist in this "Bush has kept us safe" thinking would realize the fallacy they have been under.
I am not proud of myself for even considering the notion that another terror attack that costs even one American life could ever be considered anything else but evil and hurtful. And I know that when I weigh the possibility that such an attack- that might, say, kill 100- would prevent hundreds of thousands of Americans from dying who otherwise would- I am exhibiting a calculating cold heart diametrically opposed to everything I stand for as a human being. A human being, who, just so you know, is opposed to most wars and to capital punishment.
But in light of the very real potential of the next two American elections to solidify our growing American persona as a warlike, polluter-friendly nation with repressive domestic tendencies and inadequate health care for so many tens of millions, let me ask you this. Even if only from the standpoint of a purely intellectual exercise in alternative future history:
If you knew us getting hit again would launch a chain of transformative, cascading events that would enable a better nation where millions who would have died will live longer, would such a calculus have any moral validity?
Why do I believe that most Democrats on the Hill and those around the nation believe this philosophy? To read it in a public forum says much about the author - he has the guts to speak the truth about Democratic philosophy without hiding behind a false sense of patriotism. Democrats and Liberals hate America as it is and would welcome, if not encourage, a violent event to be the catalyst of change - hoping it would be in their favor.
August 22, 2006
The midterm election looms, and once again efforts begin afresh to increase voter participation. It has become standard wisdom in American politics that voter turnout is synonymous with good citizenship, justifying just about any scheme to get people to the polls. Arizona is even considering a voter lottery, in which all voters are automatically registered for a $1 million giveaway. Polling places and liquor stores in Arizona will now have something in common.
Simply put, liberals have a big baby problem: They're not having enough of them, they haven't for a long time, and their pool of potential new voters is suffering as a result. According to the 2004 General Social Survey, if you picked 100 unrelated politically liberal adults at random, you would find that they had, between them, 147 children. If you picked 100 conservatives, you would find 208 kids. That's a "fertility gap" of 41%. Given that about 80% of people with an identifiable party preference grow up to vote the same way as their parents, this gap translates into lots more little Republicans than little Democrats to vote in future elections. Over the past 30 years this gap has not been below 20%--explaining, to a large extent, the current ineffectiveness of liberal youth voter campaigns today.
Puts a whole new spin on the "Vote or Die" campaign. Based on this data, what are the chances of liberals adding themselves to the endangered species list?
The fertility gap doesn't budge when we correct for factors like age, income, education, sex, race--or even religion. Indeed, if a conservative and a liberal are identical in all these ways, the liberal will still be 19 percentage points more likely to be childless than the conservative. Some believe the gap reflects an authentic cultural difference between left and right in America today. As one liberal columnist in a major paper graphically put it, "Maybe the scales are tipping to the neoconservative, homogenous right in our culture simply because they tend not to give much of a damn for the ramifications of wanton breeding and environmental destruction and pious sanctimony, whereas those on the left actually seem to give a whit for the health of the planet and the dire effects of overpopulation." It would appear liberals have been quite successful controlling overpopulation--in the Democratic Party.
Perhaps an altogether larger reason for the baby gap between conservatives and liberals can be found in the results of this STUDy. Obviously stronger, more enduring competition is only one part of the puzzle in understanding the fertility problems encountered by liberals. In a revealing photo journal entry, Zombie captures the essence of the fertility difference (as diminutive as it is) between liberals and conservatives. Taking into account this lacking in the liberal persona and the not so appetizing choices that populate the liberal dating pool, it is no surprise for me to read that liberal fertility rates are dwindling in the wake of stiff competition.
August 17, 2006
Carter, of course, brings up the usual canards of how President Bush has cut taxes to benefit the rich while the poor suffer and how Bush is breaking down that wall between church and state. He doesn't give specifics, however, telling readers that the details are in his latest book...the fact that most Germans won't bother to read the book and will be getting their information from this publicity stunt disguised as an interview notwithstanding. Of course, the Germans wouldn't find out from the book either that the administration is cutting taxes for those who pay the most of them. And a personal belief in God by the president is obviously a serious disintegration of the separation between church and state. Now you know!
Here's one of the more nauseating passages of the interview:
SPIEGEL: What makes you personally so optimistic about the effectiveness of diplomacy? You are, so to speak, the father of Camp David negotiations.
Carter: When I became president we had had four terrible wars between the Arabs and Israelis (behind us). And I under great difficulty, particularly because Menachim Begin was elected, decided to try negotiation and it worked and we have a peace treaty between Israel and Egypt for 27 years that has never been violated. You never can be certain in advance that negotiations on difficult circumstances will be successful, but you can be certain in advance if you don't negotiate that your problem is going to continue and maybe even get worse.
SPIEGEL: But negotiations failed to prevent the burning of Beirut and bombardment of Haifa.
Carter: I'm distressed. But I think that the proposals that have been made in the last few days by the (Lebanese) Prime Minister (Fuoad) Siniora are quite reasonable. And I think they should declare an immediate cease-fire on both sides, Hezbollah said they would comply, I hope Israel will comply, and then do the long, slow, tedious negotiation that is necessary to stabilize the northern border of Israel completely. There has to be some exchange of prisoners. There have been successful exchanges of prisoners between Israel and the Palestinians in the past and that's something that can be done right now.
If at first you don't succeed, try, try again. Carter blames Israel earlier in the interview (of course!) and thinks that if we all sit down for a cuppa and a nice long chat, we can sort out the differences. What he fails to address, however, is that Hezbollah and the Palestinians don't really want peace: what they want is the total annhialation of Israel. Nothing else will suffice. But his one success (bolstered by the fact that Israel and Egypt at the time were ready for negotiation no matter who brokered it) makes him an expert on every situation in the Middle East.
SPIEGEL: Should there be an international peacekeeping force along the Lebanese-Israeli border?
SPIEGEL: And can you imagine Germans soldiers taking part?
Carter: Yes, I can imagine Germans taking part.
SPIEGEL: ... even with their history?
Carter: Yes. That would be certainly satisfactory to me personally, and I think most people believe that enough time has passed so that historical facts can be ignored.
Because international "peace keeping" forces have been so successful in the past. And the Germans wouldn't take part anyway. They're too busy acting as though they're above the fray. (Here's an interesting bit of German and Muslim history that doesn't get talked about much these days.)
What really sticks out in this interview is how many times Carter refers to how things affect him: he's distressed, he'd be personally gratified, when he was president, blah blah blah.
Reading the whole thing is a great idea if you're dieting...it'll help to keep your appetite at bay.
Burnishing his reputation...
one interview at a time
Crossposted to Blogmeister USA
July 24, 2006
"Chicken hawk" isn't an argument. It is a slur -- a dishonest and incoherent slur. It is dishonest because those who invoke it don't really mean what they imply -- that only those with combat experience have the moral authority or the necessary understanding to advocate military force. After all, US foreign policy would be more hawkish, not less, if decisions about war and peace were left up to members of the armed forces. Soldiers tend to be politically conservative, hard-nosed about national security, and confident that American arms make the world safer and freer. On the question of Iraq -- stay-the-course or bring-the-troops-home? -- I would be willing to trust their judgment. Would Cindy Sheehan and Howard Dean?But they're not. In their minds, they have some kind of self-designated moral authority to stand in front of Walter Reed Medical Center and insult our wounded veterans.
The cry of "chicken hawk" is dishonest for another reason: It is never aimed at those who oppose military action. But there is no difference, in terms of the background and judgment required, between deciding to go to war and deciding not to. If only those who served in uniform during wartime have the moral standing and experience to back a war, then only they have the moral standing and experience to oppose a war. Those who mock the views of "chicken hawks" ought to be just as dismissive of "chicken doves."
Then you have the Left-wing pinheads who try to have it both ways regarding support of the troops. You can't say you "don't support the mission, but support the troops". I can't think of a more ridiculous assertion. That's like saying, I support the players on the team but I don't support their effort to win the game.
Here's the skinny: if you don't support the mission than by extension you support its failure (and more for political reasons than anything else, which is sick). If you support the failure of the mission then you, in fact, support the failure of those carrying out the mission - which means you support the failure of the troops. In other words, you DON'T support the troops. You're just afraid to say you don't support the troops because you're worried that people will think you're not patriotic.
Most Liberals hate the military and everything it represents. If they could disband every branch and create a "Department Of Peace", they certainly would. Which is why they can't be trusted to defend this nation or be put in charge of it's national security.
So when these wingnuts taunt the supporters of our military as "chicken hawks" they make themselves feel superior enough. But for the rest of the country, they remind us why they should never be returned to power again.
July 19, 2006
One of the major failings of liberals (and liberalism in general) is an attitude that reeks of smugness, of arrogance, and of a sense of intellectual and cultural superiority. They're enlightened, the rest of us are not. And, as a matter of policy, they know what's best for us poor unwashed dolts living between Manhattan and Berkeley, and Brentwood and Georgetown. Limousine liberals often fail to connect with "regular" people because they talk down to them, primarily because liberals view so many of their values with contempt - especially if we're talking about the South.I find this to be especially true of those who aspire to be Limousine Liberals; those average folks, especially in Blue States, who see themselves as a cut above the rest of us ignorant, flag-waving rubes - all the while enjoying the smell of their own farts.
June 28, 2006
AP chose to ignore the scores of scientists who have harshly criticized the science presented in former Vice President Al GoreÂ’s movie Â“An Inconvenient Truth.Â”Dafydd at Big Lizards eviscerates the AP's claim:
In the interest of full disclosure, the AP should release the names of the Â“more than 100 top climate researchersÂ” they attempted to contact to review Â“An Inconvenient Truth.Â” AP should also name all 19 scientists who gave Gore Â“five stars for accuracy.Â” AP claims 19 scientists viewed GoreÂ’s movie, but it only quotes five of them in its article. AP should also release the names of the so-called scientific Â“skepticsÂ” they claim to have contacted.
The AP article quotes Robert Correll, the chairman of the Arctic Climate Impact Assessment group. It appears from the article that Correll has a personal relationship with Gore, having viewed the film at a private screening at the invitation of the former Vice President. In addition, CorrellÂ’s reported links as an Â“affiliateÂ” of a Washington, D.C.-based consulting firm that provides Â“expert testimonyÂ” in trials and his reported sponsorship by the left-leaning Packard Foundation, were not disclosed by AP. See http://www.junkscience.com/feb06.htm
The AP also chose to ignore GoreÂ’s reliance on the now-discredited Â“hockey stickÂ” by Dr. Michael Mann, which claims that temperatures in the Northern Hemisphere remained relatively stable over 900 years, then spiked upward in the 20th century, and that the 1990Â’s were the warmest decade in at least 1000 years. Last weekÂ’s National Academy of Sciences report dispelled MannÂ’s often cited claims by reaffirming the existence of both the Medieval Warm Period and the Little Ice Age. [my emphasis]
This is about as self-selected a group as it's possible to compose: climate scientists who actually take Algore seriously as a spokesman for the dangers of "global warming pollution!"Curt at Flopping Aces cuts to the chase:
(While AP is quick to note that some of those they contacted were "vocal skeptics of climate change theory," you may notice they oddly fail to mention how many of the 19 who responded to them were among those "skeptics." At a guess, I'd have to say -- zero?)
If you're a climatologist -- and even if you more or less support the IPCC position on global climate change -- how likely would you be to seek out a showing somewhere of Al Gore's An Inconvenient Truth? Most scientists I know cringe at such populist caricatures, even if they agree with the basic premise... especially if they agree.
Scientists tend to be irritated anyway by the depiction of science in movies, even so-called documentaries: everything from orbits that "decay," to explosions that can be "outrun," to a rotating space station that produces a gravitational-like force... directed along the axis of rotation.
But they're even more skeptical of science when the subject is controversial within the scientific community (which anthropogenic global warming certainly is) -- and in spades and doubled when the moviemaker is not himself a scientist but a politician with no formal training in any math or science beyond what he learned in high school (which, considering Algore's GPA at St. Alban's and at Harvard, was probably not very much).
Most climate scientists would steer so far away from An Inconvenient Truth, even if they supported global-warming theory, that they would probably pretend they didn't even know it existed. Those who went to pains to actively seek it out would be a special breed: scientists who were so tickled that someone as important as Albert A. Gore, jr. would make a movie about their crackpot theory, that they could hardly stop themselves from gushing.
I wish the Associated Press had thought to ask those 19 gushers who they thought had really won the 2000 election.
The very essence of scientific consensus is that every person must give an opinion; every position must be canvassed; all objections must be answered. If you contact 100 scientists and only 19% have seen some work, their opinion is not a consensus: at best, it's a sampling; but more likely, it's a biased pool that does not represent the whole. [all original emphasis]
How much you want to bet those 19 agreed with Gore before they saw the movie. Now how much you want to bet the other 81 didnÂ’t want to see the movie because its fiction?The enviro-scaremongers will always find fellow travelers to prop up their claims. And the antique media is only too happy to be complicit in distorting reality for those who only skim headlines and buy into this silliness...because some scientists say it's true.
May 05, 2006
AllahPundit chronicles prior incidences of when this moonbat was off his meds.
"General, sometimes there just reaches a moment when I can no longer suffer fools like that one gladly. Soon as this presser is done, I want you to get me Jack Bauer on the phone."
April 26, 2006
Next we have radio. Air America continues to tank in the ratings, losing more than a third of its audience in the last year. Where's the market for gob-smacking Bush hatred? Even in NYC where Air America is broadcast from its flagship station WLIB, the best that afternoon drive time host Randi Rhodes can pull in is 27,000 listeners, down from 60,000 last fall.
I have some thoughts about these items. But first, a little Shadenfreude... more...
Go check out the list and rationale for the ranking. See if you can guess which was number one. Here's a hint: peace, love, dope.
April 19, 2006
Well, here's a fascinating post that explains the neuroscience behind this phenomenon known as "emotional contagion".
The next time you see a poll that shows Republicans or Conservatives being "happier" than Democrats and Liberals, remember that physiology plays a big part. Bottom line: Angry and negative people are bad for your health. Stay away from them. You'd think this would be common sense, no?
April 13, 2006
Nice. Needless to say, it garnered some complaints. Who's the teacher who wrote the question? The college ain't sayin'.
"The college declined to release the name of the teacher who wrote the question. [Bellevue Community College President Jean] Floten said the teacher has apologized and requested cultural-sensitivity training.In 2004, John Kerry carried King County, WA by 66%. You probably don't have to think too hard to figure out the political inclinations of the teacher in question, though.
The test question was originally written with the name of a comedian, Gallagher, whose signature shtick was to smash a variety of objects, often watermelons. Later, the question was rewritten, and the name was changed to Condoleezza, Floten said."
It's probably one of those "racially-sensitive" Liberals.
April 11, 2006
The highest per capita taxes in the entire nation. Calvin Coolidge must be rolling in his grave. Dang Flatlanders!
120 queries taking 0.0623 seconds, 287 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.