Sanford is the new frontrunner for the 2012 election. Hey, before you say i'm crazy ask yourself this--what Republican governor (who still has the job of governor) has better name recognition than him. What's my proof? I didn't even have to google his name to get it right. I just knew it from memory...
Republicans are funny, eh?
Friday, July 03, 2009
Monday, June 08, 2009
my HuffPost Webby award...
acceptance speech is among the finalists.
"The Revolution has been digitized"
(by the way, the rules are that the speech has to be five words long)
Other ideas I had:
Newspapers aren't dead....jk ;)
The Internet isn't a truck
Proof: Internet...not a truck
If the speech could be six words then i'd go with:
Apparently, the Internet isn't a truck.
Self serving, I know...but in light of the Alaska connection this year and the power of Huffpost more generally, it actually seems like the best idea to me.
What do you think?
"The Revolution has been digitized"
(by the way, the rules are that the speech has to be five words long)
Other ideas I had:
Newspapers aren't dead....jk ;)
The Internet isn't a truck
Proof: Internet...not a truck
If the speech could be six words then i'd go with:
Apparently, the Internet isn't a truck.
Self serving, I know...but in light of the Alaska connection this year and the power of Huffpost more generally, it actually seems like the best idea to me.
What do you think?
Sunday, February 08, 2009
What do Democrats and Republicans have in common?
1. When Democrats should have stood up to Republicans regarding Iraq funding, War Powers, Patriot Act etc. etc. etc... they always always ALWAYS caved...always at the expense of Americans.
2. Republicans never cave and it's always always ALWAYS at the expense of Americans.
So pretty much everything both parties do is always at the expense of Americans.
But answer me this--why is it that Republicans never cave and Democrats, given the chance, always always always do?
Even on the current stimulus package--guess who caved first?
2. Republicans never cave and it's always always ALWAYS at the expense of Americans.
So pretty much everything both parties do is always at the expense of Americans.
But answer me this--why is it that Republicans never cave and Democrats, given the chance, always always always do?
Even on the current stimulus package--guess who caved first?
Saturday, January 17, 2009
Friedman the Green...
as in greedy for the green stuff...
Check out this hilarious post by Matt Taibbi on the miserable train wreck that is Tom Friedman...
Why do certain people, e.g. Friedman, who get everything wrong about everything continue to make money telling us what they think about things? And why do people continue to buy their garbage? Can't we stuff guys like Friedman in the recycling bin and be done with them? Can't they ever get fired?
Check out this hilarious post by Matt Taibbi on the miserable train wreck that is Tom Friedman...
Why do certain people, e.g. Friedman, who get everything wrong about everything continue to make money telling us what they think about things? And why do people continue to buy their garbage? Can't we stuff guys like Friedman in the recycling bin and be done with them? Can't they ever get fired?
Saturday, December 27, 2008
Why do I make it a habit to check out right wing blogs?
Because it helps me gauge what the right wing is looking to do;
It helps me understand what they're thinking;
It gives me insight into their world view;
And gives me a frame of reference for the supposed objective reporting of the media giants like cnn, abc, msnbc, cbs, nytimes, etc... Are the messages found on right wing blogs really any different from the reporting of the media titans? (Often, the answer is no)
Now that said, it seems to me something different is going on, on many of the right wing blogs right now. For instance, check out this jaw-dropping post on michelle malkin's site--and after you see it, tell me the last time you saw this kind of vitriol directed at Bush...from the right wing no less.
Obviously, she's reading the polls too and realising that she'd better get in front of this monster, but on the other hand, it's striking to me how similar this post is to many you can find on more progressive blogs. (albeit a day late and a dollar short)
and what's even more striking are the responses of her members. You would have thought that a nut job like her would have as her supporters the 23%ers who are going to miss bush...and you would have thought 23% was a biggest enough chunk of the population to pay her bills many times over...
What's heartening about this to me is that if nutjobs like malkin and her followers can agree with me on one thing than who knows maybe they won't be so averse to socialised medicine, getting out of iraq, regulating big business, etc...then again, maybe their only beef with bush is the baillout...
It helps me understand what they're thinking;
It gives me insight into their world view;
And gives me a frame of reference for the supposed objective reporting of the media giants like cnn, abc, msnbc, cbs, nytimes, etc... Are the messages found on right wing blogs really any different from the reporting of the media titans? (Often, the answer is no)
Now that said, it seems to me something different is going on, on many of the right wing blogs right now. For instance, check out this jaw-dropping post on michelle malkin's site--and after you see it, tell me the last time you saw this kind of vitriol directed at Bush...from the right wing no less.
Obviously, she's reading the polls too and realising that she'd better get in front of this monster, but on the other hand, it's striking to me how similar this post is to many you can find on more progressive blogs. (albeit a day late and a dollar short)
and what's even more striking are the responses of her members. You would have thought that a nut job like her would have as her supporters the 23%ers who are going to miss bush...and you would have thought 23% was a biggest enough chunk of the population to pay her bills many times over...
What's heartening about this to me is that if nutjobs like malkin and her followers can agree with me on one thing than who knows maybe they won't be so averse to socialised medicine, getting out of iraq, regulating big business, etc...then again, maybe their only beef with bush is the baillout...
Thursday, November 20, 2008
Media Continues to Frame Bailout Packages...
...as being tied to the fate of the markets. Which is specious reasoning at best and an out and out conflict of interest at worst.
Take for example today's headlines on the major US media websites:
CBS.com: As Auto Bailout Hopes Fade, So Do Stocks
ABC.com: Stocks plunge as hopes for immediate bailout for auto industry fade.
CNN.com: (first line in their lead story on the dow drop) Concerns over the ailing U.S. auto industry...
FOXNEWS.com: As auto bailout is put on hold, Dow plummets amid Wall Street sell-off.
The intent is clear: large media conglomerates want desperately to paint the picture that when billions of dollars are given to big corporations the dow goes up and conversely when billions of dollars are withheld, the dow goes down.
Yet the facts tell a different story. The day after the House approved the 700 billion dollar baillout agreement, the dow dropped 777 points in a single day, the largest point drop ever....and since the bill has been passed, we've witnessed the most dramatic decline in the stock market since the great depression.
Yet nevertheless, when baillout proposals emerge--the big media tries to show how this caused the markets to go up and when these proposals are not acted on they try desperately to show how this caused the markets to go down. Next time stocks drop or rise, check out the home pages of the big media and see for yourself how they all frame the debate.
The truth is the reasons for these declines are complex and perhaps even psychological. The money being thrown at big businesses ultimately doesn't seem to effect the markets one way or the other--or to put it more bluntly, the market is going one place---down and no matter how many billions of dollars the govt hands out to the captains of industry, this downward trend is not bothered in the least.
Take for example today's headlines on the major US media websites:
CBS.com: As Auto Bailout Hopes Fade, So Do Stocks
ABC.com: Stocks plunge as hopes for immediate bailout for auto industry fade.
CNN.com: (first line in their lead story on the dow drop) Concerns over the ailing U.S. auto industry...
FOXNEWS.com: As auto bailout is put on hold, Dow plummets amid Wall Street sell-off.
The intent is clear: large media conglomerates want desperately to paint the picture that when billions of dollars are given to big corporations the dow goes up and conversely when billions of dollars are withheld, the dow goes down.
Yet the facts tell a different story. The day after the House approved the 700 billion dollar baillout agreement, the dow dropped 777 points in a single day, the largest point drop ever....and since the bill has been passed, we've witnessed the most dramatic decline in the stock market since the great depression.
Yet nevertheless, when baillout proposals emerge--the big media tries to show how this caused the markets to go up and when these proposals are not acted on they try desperately to show how this caused the markets to go down. Next time stocks drop or rise, check out the home pages of the big media and see for yourself how they all frame the debate.
The truth is the reasons for these declines are complex and perhaps even psychological. The money being thrown at big businesses ultimately doesn't seem to effect the markets one way or the other--or to put it more bluntly, the market is going one place---down and no matter how many billions of dollars the govt hands out to the captains of industry, this downward trend is not bothered in the least.
The man, the myth, the legend, who inspired me...
...in every way imaginable, and whose words launched the great truck that is this blog, finally got the boot. Good riddance.
Friday, September 19, 2008
So it takes an epic economic disaster...
the likes of which has not been seen since the Great Depression, to put Obama back on top (barely) of McCain?!
How is it that for a Democrat to win things have to get so bad that no one in their right mind would want to be President?
Why is the country so enamoured with right wing rhetoric and Republican gamesmanship, that we'd put a guy like nutjob, dimwit McCain with his dimwitted flunky, barely intelligible moron of a running mate Palin in office in a year in which nearly everyone in America agrees that Republicans have completely f*$!cked us?! Why?!
And yet, even after some of the worst economic news (again, arguably brought to us by the free-market scumbags of the world--Bush, McCain and the rest of the Repukelicans), Obama can only muster poll numbers that, while technically higher than McCain's, are still within the margin of error. How the f!*ck is that possible!?
How is it that for a Democrat to win things have to get so bad that no one in their right mind would want to be President?
Why is the country so enamoured with right wing rhetoric and Republican gamesmanship, that we'd put a guy like nutjob, dimwit McCain with his dimwitted flunky, barely intelligible moron of a running mate Palin in office in a year in which nearly everyone in America agrees that Republicans have completely f*$!cked us?! Why?!
And yet, even after some of the worst economic news (again, arguably brought to us by the free-market scumbags of the world--Bush, McCain and the rest of the Repukelicans), Obama can only muster poll numbers that, while technically higher than McCain's, are still within the margin of error. How the f!*ck is that possible!?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
