SoulHonky

The following clip pretty much epitomizes everything that is wrong with Glenn Beck.

Many blogs have jumped on the spelling error. It's embarrassing but Beck explained it away by pointing out that the word Czars had been on the blackboard earlier in the week and they just forgot it on Thursday. But, to me, the biggest problem is the fact that he seems to notice the problem in the clip (notice that he pauses before saying "H") but decides not to fix it. In typical Beck fashion, he doesn't let the facts get in the way of his rantings, even when he knows that his rant is going to make the mistake even worse (when he said only one letter was missing and that letter was Y). Beck would rather steam ahead with his opinion rather than make sure it is right.

My second issue is his over-the-top vocabulary. Beck claims that he is tired of being a sheep but I really don't recall him ever being sheepish about bashing the Obama Administration. He wasn't sheepish when it was just the Obama campaign. He then says he's going to take the gloves off but really all he's doing is his basic right, presenting another plan or another idea. This isn't some great act of defiance; it's his civic duty.
Some people might complain that the taking the gloves off comment is a violent image and could incite people but it's a common phrase that's used all the time so I think that's going too far. That being said, Beck makes himself out to be some sort of hero for just speaking his mind. The worst part, of course, is "saving our Republic". Obama hasn't been in office for even a year, his big health care plan isn't looking to good right now, how in the world is our Republic being ruined by progressives? It's also a bit troubling to fault progressives for everything that is wrong in America when it was progressives who pretty much powered through every great moment of social change in this country and if it wasn't for progressives, we wouldn't have medicare.

But the biggest problem with Beck is his hypocrisy. What was his plan to save the Republic? He wants his viewers to write their representatives and ask them Beck's five questions to see if they are In or Out and if they are out, then the viewers should vote those people out of office. While Beck keeps telling people to question everything, he doesn't allow any questions of his own beliefs. He doesn't seem to want anyone to question his five issues. He has given his five commandments and those are the guidelines that make one fit to be a member of the US government. If you disagree, you are out, no questions asked.

Nevermind that boiling down issues to yes or no questions is simply ignorant but to demand people question authority and then make yourself an authority and not take or even acknowledge the possibility of questions is the peak of hypocrisy.

Oh, and his five points? Yeah, they are absolutely nonsensical. As the author on the 24ahead.com site explains:

Beck is slightly on the right track, but what he's proposing is never going to have an impact outside his echo chamber. Beck suffers from the same mental problem that most others - especially those on the right-wing - suffer from. They come up with ideas but don't bother thinking through how to actually implement them. They don't think through what could go wrong; they don't plan for contingencies. They seem to think that simply by stating something it will happen. Well, that's wrong. In order to have an impact, you have to have an actual "Point A to Point B" plan. And, part of that plan is to show how the other side is wrong and you have to show that to the supporters of the other side. Simple demagoguery such as that employed by Beck is not going to cut it. If you just want to waste your time on things that aren't going to have an impact, don't let me stop you.

Any keep reading to see the five points yourself (but don't question them, just do what Glenn says.)

Continue reading "Politicked Off: The Epitome of Beck" »

Posted by SoulHonky at 01:48 PM | Permalink |Digg It!

"The Liberal Lion" is gone.

Not surprisingly, the comments on Fox News's site bring up his drunk driving accident (one person saying he will be judged by God for the evil he has done while another celebrated one less liberal in the world). TheFoxNation considers Kennedy's passing to be a 2nd story behind "Why is Obama Changing the 9/11 Anniversary?"  (They are apparently offended that Obama's calling for a Day of Service to commemorate the lives that were lost.) We shouldn't deify the guy but I was stunned that not even an hour passed before people immediately ignored the fact that a man has passed away and went back to their side of the fight.  OK, I wasn't stunned. Just saddened. And in all fairness, if W. has been the one who passed away, there'd be some liberal loons embarrassing themselves with their comments as well.

The world in which we live...

Posted by SoulHonky at 12:20 AM | Permalink |Digg It!

I know a lot of people loved Barney Frank talking down do the woman who thought Obama was a Nazi but I'm really not sure how it helps matters. The fact of the matter is that too many people believe what that woman said is true or somewhat close to the truth. Telling her that she's a waste of time isn't going to do anything to open her eyes or help convince other likeminded inviduals. It also doesn't do much to fight against the idea that Democrats think they're better than the common person.

While I despised his tone and approach, MSNBC's Laurence O'Donnell had a good response; he asked the protester if they were in favor of eliminating social security and Medicare. Unfortunately, his tone and constant talking over of his guest basically ruined the actual point he was trying to make but it was a good thought, at least. As much as it might pain people, they need to try to engage their critics, no matter how dumb they may turn out to be. Frank and all politicians need to embrace the idea of "There's no such thing as a stupid question." Now, if people refuse to listen to the answer or even contemplate the opposing stance THEN it's pointless to talk to them but to just respond immediately with a dismissive crack doesn't help anyone.

Not that the Right is any better. They also just spew talking points rather than debate, look to vilify their opponents rather than work towards a compromise. Someone on the Right needs to take the high road and start talking up their actual ideas, like tort reform.

If Washington isn't careful, the one thing that is going to come out of this health care debate is a general dislike of the government and both parties. While Republicans are enjoying the botch job by The White House, they aren't doing anything to make themselves stand out. They're basically cheering as the Dems sink to their level. Health Care will be a topic of strength for independent candidates.

Posted by SoulHonky at 01:20 PM | Permalink |Digg It!

While it's always fun to mock some of the self-involved egomaniacs in Washington (or Alaska), the tone that the health care debate has taken is doing this country a disservice. While pundits and politicians hammer away a catchphrases like "death panel" or "socialism", nobody seems to be actually talking about the policy, what it needs to do, and (more importantly) what else needs to be done to fix the health care issue in America.

These Town Halls are usually filled with people who don't know the whole story yelling at people who haven't even figured out exactly what story they want to tell. The current health care plan being floated around includes no tort reform, something which most people agree needs to happen. Critics of the plan have no real counter-solution. Most people agree that we need to do something about health care but nobody has a real plan.

It's time that we get leaders in the fields of medical, health care, and public policy together to actually discuss what's going on and try to find out a solution that will keep the most people happy. If that means we end up taking just a step or two in the right direction rather than going 100% into one groups idea of a "solution", so be it.

Health care in America needs to be fixed and these town halls and the current national debate isn't going to get us anywhere.

Although that bring me to another point, liberals really need to get off of the "racism" angle. Bill Maher looked absolutely ridiculous when he tried to boil Obama's opposition down to the fact that they don't like black people. Not only is that kind of attack dismissive and condescending but, even if it's true, it doesn't help. I don't think I've ever heard of a time when someone was called racist and suddenly realized the error of their ways. If anything, it will just make people more defensive.

The worst part about the media today is that everyone seems so quick to choose sides that they overlook what's actually going on. They hit the talking points and hammer away at their opponents' arguments but rarely, if ever, do they actually look at the subject at hand and discuss it on its merits.

Sadly, the media is in need of reform as much as the health care industry is.

Posted by SoulHonky at 03:38 PM | Permalink |Digg It!

To start, I have to say that the DailyKos often goes too far with their commentary and that the health care question needs more debate and the much discussed upcoming ABC News special probably isn't going to really add to the discussion much (more than it'll just be an argument for one side) but this little clip pointing out the hypocrisy of Fox News' outrage over it is pretty damning.

Sean Hannity has also pointed out that a former ABC News employee works in the White House communications department which sounds about right since when Fox got their "unprecedented" coverage, the White House press secretary was former Fox anchor Tony Snow.

Thankfully, not everyone is feigning outrage. Dana Perino laughed, "Yeah, look, I think there are a lot of double standards. Both, maybe you know, from the right and the left. And so I try not to use it as an excuse or a grudge."

Posted by SoulHonky at 06:44 AM | Permalink |Digg It!

Now I'm not sure if Fox or the Daily Beast cut out the question but to put the answer in context, the interviewer asked: "When you and I spoke in January, you said — I observed that you hadn’t gotten much bad press. You said it’s coming. Media critics would say not only has it not come but that you've got such favorable press, either because of bias or because good box office, that it's hurting the country because you're not being sufficiently held accountable for your policies -- that."”

Obama responded, "It’s very hard for me to swallow that one. First of all, I’ve got one television station that is entirely devoted to attacking my administration. I mean, you know, that’s a pretty… big megaphone. And you’d be hard pressed if you watched the entire day to find a positive story about me on that front." (Note: Where the ellipsis is, the interviewer said, "I assume you’re talking about Fox."

Yes, the word "devoted" was probably a poor choice of words but I really don't see how Cavuto can say that Obama was trying to "dismiss" Fox News. If anything, he was the one actually pointing them out as an alternate voice, a channel that is criticizing and holding him accountable. Honestly, how can the President bring up Fox News and then be accused of ignoring them? Cavuto then seems to insinuate that Obama's said that his staff doesn't watch Fox News which is completely opposite of what Rahm Emmanuel said (from the News & Observer)

The anchor of "Special Report with Bret Baier" recently ran into Rahm Emanuel, chief of staff for President Barack Obama. Emanuel told Baier, a former WRAL reporter, he was doing a great job since replacing Brit Hume as anchor on the Fox News Channel program on Jan. 5.
Emanuel told Baier the White House senior staff watches his show every night.
"I said, 'Oh come on ...,'" Baier says. "And he said, 'Now sometimes we have the volume down, but we watch it every night.'"

Now maybe something else has come up in the two months since that show aired but I'm really not sure why Cavuto is acting like the Obama Administration has been so rude, dismissive, or unpresidential. This is exactly the kind of thing that, had Bush said it, the liberal media would have picked up on and Fox would have called them all soft, whiny, oversensitive loons.

The shoe is on the other foot but, unfortunately, the media is still just walking in place.

EDIT: Apparently the White House wouldn't send anyone from Treasury to do Cavuto's show and claimed that Cavuto was not a "financial show" (which seems more than a bit odd) so his anger has some context. I still think his reply was poorly constructed and didn't further his point but it appears that he does have a legitimate cause for concern.

Posted by SoulHonky at 07:44 PM | Permalink |Digg It!

I know that I keep saying that I'll stop watching Fox News and MSNBC but I keep tuning in. I also waste too much time on The Fox Nation which is honestly embarrassing with the ridiculous spin it puts on stories and the constant and unrelenting Obama bashing. What was really funny was that today they took umbrage over the President saying that Fox was "devoted" to criticizing him. Mind you, this was on a site that was filled with anti-Obama administration articles. The reader comments also missed the fact that Obama's answer wasn't really attacking Fox News; the interviewer asked if the President thought that he wasn't getting enough criticism and if that was bad for the country. He cited Fox as always criticizing him so the idea that nobody is calling him out seemed like a weak argument. Maybe he shouldn't have used the word "devoted" but to try to make it into a controversy is odd. There's also an unsettling us vs. them attitude on the entire site, although that shouldn't be surprising since the Left cultivated the same Us & Them attitude during the Bush years.

On the bright side, Bill O'Reilly actually identified the tenuous position that President Obama is in with Iran. Sean Hannity, unfortunately, pulled his usua routine; he questioned Obama's restraint in denouncing the election... and then moments later, in what he considered a different thought, started talking about how Mousavi was a leader in the Iranian nuclear program and how he's not really a moderate. It was almost like he was hedging his bet so that if Obama did speak out, he could rail against the President backing Mousavi.

That being said, I think the President's health care idea might need to go. I know that the co-op compromise isn't perfect but I think it's a good first step and might eventually lead to more public support for the government assisted system. Also, the pork system is still all-systems-go in D.C. It was probably unrealistic to think that Obama could change it (especially in less than a year) but if he spent as much time publicizing the problems with earmarks as opposed to just giving one speech/TV appearance after another, he could help the cause.

Anyway, add Tuning Out MSNBC/Fox News to my list of new mid-year resolutions.

Posted by SoulHonky at 07:38 PM | Permalink |Digg It!

The Holocaust Museum shooter has ushered in a new round of the Blame Game. Liberals are saying he was a conservative nutjob. Conservatives are claiming he was more like someone on the extreme left. Democrats point out the KKK connection and Republicans remind us that the KKK was originally born out of the Donkey. Unfortunately what nobody in the media will say is that this is a sign of how ignorance and a belief system driven to the extreme can becomes dangerous and even deadly. They won't say that because to a lesser extent, driving beliefs to one far corner is where they make their money.

The media makes this world seem like you have two choices and those choices are Perez Hilton or Carrie Prejean. The same people who were saying that people threatening to leave the US because of George W. Bush were un-American are now saying that their American pride is going to drive them to secede. Glen Beck seemed like he was on a logical path as he explained how there are crazies on all sides and we need to realize that. A nice thought that he then basically ignored when he, moments later, said that America resembled early Nazi era Germany and that we were becoming a facist country. So much for a calming influence.

So instead of trying to find actual answers or maybe even ways that the average Joe can help improve their own life or the life of their fellow Americans, we have more and more stories designed to be "us or them". Letterman v. Palin is the latest. But guess what, there's a middle ground. Letterman shouldn't have made the joke and he should have apologized for it (and probably cut it out from the West Coast feed like SNL did when they had a rude Chelsea Clinton joke on Wayne's World). At the same time, the Palin's also have to realize that they helped make their daughter a public figure, a role which she then embraced by going on talk shows and appearing on the covers of magazine as a spokesperson on preventing teen pregnancy. As with most debates nowadays, both sides go so far to one side that they end up both being wrong.

To quote Chris Rock,

"Everybody's so busy wanting to be down with the gang. "I'm conservative", "I'm liberal", "I'm conservative". Bullshit! Be a fucking person! Lis-ten! Let it swirl around your head. Then form your opinion. No normal, decent person is one thing, okay?"

Maybe rather than using tragedies like the Holocaust shooting to place blame on others, we can try to use these events to bring Americans together.  I know that might not necessarily get ratings but maybe we can not let the paper chase effect everything, put monetary issues aside, and do what's best for the country.

That'll be the day.

Posted by SoulHonky at 09:31 PM | Permalink |Digg It!

I've been cutting down on my cable news viewing of late because, well, it's really just a waste of time but I caught a bit of Rachel Maddow's show and it didn't take me long to get frustrated. Two things on her show that really stuck out to me was the defense of Obama's date night and the Right's war on abortion. It was annoying but it was actually more tolerable than Bill O'Reilly's reaction to the murder of abortion doctor George Tiller.

Continue reading "Politicked Off: Mad Dow Disease" »

Posted by SoulHonky at 12:22 AM | Permalink |Digg It!

Yesterday, there was a march through West Hollywood to protest the California Supreme Court's decision to not overturn the constitutional amendment banning gay marriage. While I completely understand the disappointment and believe that Prop 8 is wrong, I didn't agree with the protest at all.

First off, they were marching through West Hollywood. If there was ever an example of preaching to the choir, it's that. Some other protests made more sense, going to the Federal Building, but even then, I don't agree with the protests and, honestly, a part of me was glad that the court ruled as it did.

For Gay Marriages to truly stand in California, I think it has to come from the people. It has to be a ballot measure that is passed by the majority. The courts had already spoken in favor of equal rights but the people rose up and voted it into the constituion. If the court then shot it down again, the conservatives would have a new cause to fight for. They could rail against activist judges who were forcing a different set of values onto the majority.

Furthermore, I think the issue in California could also push the White House to move towards what really needs to happen; the end of D.O.M.A. and a Federal bill giving equal protection to all couples (personally, I'd give all couples civil unions and take the word marriage out of the law books). I'm also not sure if what will really work to help promote the equal rights of all couples is people yelling and blocking traffic. 

All in all, the equal protection issue is one that will be and needs to be address during the next election. I think time will change people's hearts and minds and there will be a new movement towards equal rights; a movement led by the people, not the courts.

Posted by SoulHonky at 12:08 AM | Permalink |Digg It!

While the gay marriage brings out the worst in the Far Right, it doesn't do the Extreme Left any favors either. I'm hoping the Carrie Prejean story goes away. Not only is it amazing to me that a beauty pageant contestant is getting such flack for answering a question the exact same way that Presidential and Vice Presidential candidates for both parties did (albeit in a much less eloquent manner) but, also, it's THE MISS USA PAGEANT! With everything going on across the globe, Miss California doesn't deserve this much press.

Of course, the press will point out the new allegations that have arisen but let's be honest, if she doesn't answer that question the way she did, nobody gives a damn. MSNBC certainly doesn't spend the whole day covering the story. One MSNBC anchor responded to the "news" of Prejean keeping her crown with, "Can I vomit right now?" as if taking up time in a serious news program to discuss the fate of Miss California isn't already intellectual upchuck.

Even worse, Keith Olbermann deemed the story the #1 news story of the day. That's right, Miss California keeping her crown was somehow the biggest thing that happened in the news today. Granted, this is Olbermann who believes that Fox News and its personalities are routinely the biggest news stories of the day, so I guess I shouldn't have expected much better from him.

I tried to watch Olbermann's standard holier-than-thou rant but I couldn't get through it. Not only is he agonizingly pompous but after two minutes of listening to him I couldn't help but think, "Wait, who cares about Miss California keeping her crown?"

MSNBC should be embarrassed by the way they've handled this non-story. They covered it with such vigor and venom simply because this model didn't agree with their beliefs. I really don't know how Olbermann and the others can really preach open-mindedness when they respond to dissent in this manner.

Posted by SoulHonky at 07:22 PM | Permalink |Digg It!

Seeing that they are losing on the Gay Marriage front, some conservatives are now trying a new tactic. Or rather, they are moving one of their side arguments against gay marriage to the forefront. Reports are now surfacing about "triad marriage" aka polygamy and the going sentiment in these stories is that if homosexuals are allowed to marry then what is next? Why not allow polygamists to marry as well?

This is a classic diversionary tactic; when you can't win your argument, make up some sort of hypothetical strawman. It's somewhat similar to the approach the right is taking on torture. Most people think waterboarding crosses the line so they are now moving from "Did we torture?" to "Was torture helpful in saving American lives?"

And like with the torture debate, the inclusion of "triad marriages" into the gay marriage debate is completely off-point. First off, polygamy requires a completely new set of laws. Whereas homosexuals are just looking for the same laws that straight people get, polygamy doesn't translate. The rules about tax breaks, divorce, child custody, etc. would have to be completely rewritten in order to work around the multiple spouses. Second of all, allowing polygamy could alter existing marriages. If gays are allowed to marry, straight marriages aren't affected. Adultery, for instance, is still adultery. With polygamy on the books, adultery could get erased; explained away as someone just looking for their new spouse. Bigamy becomes a gray area as well. All in all, it's just a completely different discussion and really has no bearing on the gay marriage issue.

And finally, if you allow gay marriage, it doesn't mean that you are opening the floodgates and have to allow everything. I have no problem with drawing the line somewhere; in this case I (and many people) just have a problem with where the line is drawn. 

Personally, I'm still for taking the word marriage out of the law books and giving straight and gay people civil unions but I have a feeling that that will never fly because it's too much of a compromise and the extreme elements that seem to be running the left and right won't go for it. 

Posted by SoulHonky at 07:08 AM | Permalink |Digg It!

So Air Force One scared the bejeezus out of New Yorkers today. While this isn't really huge news, it is yet another lapse of judgement for the Obama White House. So far I've agreed with most things that Obama has done but he keeps tripping over these matters of protocol. And in some cases, not paying attention to details has bitten him where it counts, most notably when they let bailout money go to CEO bonuses.

Hopefully President Obama and the White House corps is getting their act together but these gaffes are becoming troubling since they seem to be happening with such frequency. Even if they don't amount to much more than noise, the noise alone can be used to distract voters and possibly lead to a shake up in 2010. Let's get it together, people. We expect these kinds of gaffes out of VP Biden; it's not OK for everyone else to keep slipping up.

Posted by SoulHonky at 07:34 PM | Permalink |Digg It!

Shepard Smith is one of the few people that I find myself agreeing with pretty often on Fox News. And while Shep usually does a good job of keeping his cool, he does start spouting off now and then and The Daily Beast recently listed their favorite mad moments. My favorite (and one I wholeheartedly agree with) is Shep getting angry about people mentioning that terror tactics were effective, as if that excuses us for torturing people. He even manages to get an F-bomb out there on live TV.

Posted by SoulHonky at 12:31 AM | Permalink |Digg It!

So the infamous torture memos came out and as was expected, they were greeted with the right and left sprinting to the extremes. As usual, the truth lies in the middle and, by moving to their far left/right, many people and pundits are running away from common sense. While the Left is denouncing sleep deprivation and putting a bug in a room with someone who's afraid of bugs, the right is defending everything.

To me, a prisoner of war is going to face some hostility. After all, the word "war" is in there and that's going to raise the level of acceptable treatment as opposed to a prisoner of the State. I try to judge things by what would I find unacceptable treatment if our courageous troops had to face it. Sleep deprivation and modified diets seem like a given for a prisoner of war. The issue of the bug would only cross the line if say a person who allergic to bees and you stuck him in a room with bees. In that case, you're putting the soldier's life in danger. I also think telling him that the bug is poisonous is crossing the line. It's like sticking a gun to the the head of a suspect; it doesn't matter if it is loaded or not, it's crossing the line either way. However, if the person just doesn't like insects, I really don't think sticking an insect in with them is tantamount to torture.

When you start to discuss physical violence, however, you start to enter the gray area. I expect American soldiers to face some beatings but I think if you are beating someone to the point of unconsciousness, then you are crossing the line. Waterboarding is an obvious torture method and I really don't understand how anyone can defend it. 

In an interview on The O'Reilly Factor, Karl Rove defended the procedure citing that the US always had medical people standing by. While he thinks that's a defense, I see that as an admission of guilt. Maybe it's me but if you are doing something that makes you think "You know, we should probably have a doctor around just in case." then you are crossing the line. Again, it's like putting a gun in a man's face. Threatening to kill someone (which is what "simulated drowing" is) is a step too far.

The conservative response is that waterboarding helped get quality information out of prisoners. This is not a legitimate argument. You could also get great information if you kidnapped the person's family and threatened to kill them in front of the prisoner. Obviously that's an extreme example but it goes to show that there's a difference between effective and moral. What made America great was that we never blurred that line. We stood by our morals even if it made things more difficult. We didn't take the easy road and then try to rationalize our misdeeds later.

I'm torn on whether White House officials should stand trial for these errors in judgement (that might have been outright war crimes) but I think, at the very least, there needs to be a full fledged Congressional investigation into what happened and how we let it happen. I know that this might not be the justice that people on the Left are crying for or the maintaining of the status quo that the right seems to favor but we need to make sure that this type of thing never happens again and that America doesn't sink to the levels of our foes.

Posted by SoulHonky at 01:29 PM | Permalink |Digg It!

It's tough to figure out which I'd rather see: the tea parties fizzling or for the conservative to come out in droves. I don't want to hear Hannity and Co. go on and on about how great the tea parties were but, at the same time, I don't want to hear Keith Olberman gloat if the Tea Parties fail to muster up many supporters. Of course, regardless of the outcome, I'm sure MSNBC and Fox News will claim victory so it's kind of silly to worry about it either way. I'd say that MSNBC and Fox News were two sides of the same coin but coins have actual value. (And I'm now going to make a resolution to try not to ever complain about MSNBC or Fox on my blog again since it's a waste of time and makes me no better than them.)

As for the tea parties themselves, the actual tax complaints seem to ring hollow. It's like a lot of people getting together to scream, "I Love America... but I don't want to pay for it." On top of that, there isn't even a shared cause. Some people don't like that we're spending so much money. Other people don't like various tax hikes. More than a few still think Obama is a socialist. One site wrote, "As unemployment soars and anger over Wall Street bailouts mounts, public outrage will seek an outlet." I'm sorry but if you don't want Wall Street bailouts then odds are that even more people are going to be unemployed. This complaint strikes me as someone getting mad at the fire department, As the fire burns and firemen get your house all wet... The Clinton and Bush administrations screwed everything up and now we're going to have to fix it. And that's going to cost money.

At the end of the day, I really wish people would just stop spending so much time and money on ad campaigns and random protests and use the money to actually help someone. The state of child care in America could be helped immensely if the money spent arguing over abortion was put towards improving schools, foster care, child health care, what have you. The amount of money that is raised for political campaigns could solve most problems. Some reports have the two major Presidential candidates raising over a billion dollars. I know that isn't going to make a dent in the big problems or help military spending but it could do a lot for a lot of social/family programs. It would be nice but unfortunately, it's never going to happen. People don't pay for a better America, they spend money so their own voice can be heard.

Posted by SoulHonky at 11:26 PM | Permalink |Digg It!

When I was in high school, I was the sports editor for the school paper and I got in trouble for not preventing the publication of a report that was laden with double entendres. The writers focused on one girl on the JV lacrosse team and wrote about her stick handling and how she liked to let everyone score. Admittedly it was a stupid moment of juvenile behavior and I learned my lesson.

Apparently, that's not a lesson that MSNBC has learned. A couple of days ago, I watched as Rachel Maddow giggled through a report on the Republican Tea Parties. It seems some of the protesters referred to their protests as "tea bagging" and, needless to say, they were completely oblivious to the alternate meaning of the term.

While Maddow was kind of silly, Countdown took it to a whole 'nother level. I'm honestly stunned that MSNBC let this go. Just watch the first two minutes and forty-five seconds of this clip.

Posted by SoulHonky at 08:24 PM | Permalink |Digg It!

Keith Olberman needs to get over his Bill O'Reilly obsession. It's reaching the point of ridiculousness now. On yesterday's show, he called O'Reilly a liar but Bill said that he never mentioned Olberman's name on his show. Keith called him out and his damning evidence was a shot from the O'Reilly Factor in which O'Reilly was reading a quote from somebody else who mentioned Olberman's name. That hardly seems like a legit complaint and Olberman made himself look sillier by adding something to the effect of, "I could show the clip of you saying my name from 1997 but that would just be mean." Really? I think most people were expecting a montage of O'Reilly saying Olberman's name. Showing one clip that was someone else's quote and then citing another example that happened over a decade ago?

Of course, the state of both MSNBC and Fox News is depressing. Their take on the Spanish courts possibly prosecuting Bush administration officials for their roles in torture was shockingly different. While Rachel Maddow was expressing shock, Bill O'Reilly was floating the idea of boycotting Spain. Maddow failed to mention that the man bringing the charges, Gonzalo Boye, was himself jailed for terrorism (for taking part in a kidnapping) and that the people being brought up were being charged for giving advice, something that would seem to be a thin charge even if it was for aiding and abetting. On the other hand, O'Reilly completely ignored the whole topic of torture, the fact that the American goverment sanctioned it, and that the Republicans are blocking an Obama nominee who is apparently set on bringing light to one of the country's darkest moments.

There has to be some sort of middle ground between the snark of MSNBC, the bluster of Fox News, and the stodginess of CNN. 

Posted by SoulHonky at 09:10 AM | Permalink |Digg It!

Jim Cramer appeared on The Daily Show and it was refreshing to see Stewart being fairly serious. However, to be completely honest, I think Stewart is being a little too sanctimonious on this one. This interview kind of reminded me of when people got all upset about Katrina. Who didn't know that shit was about to go down? Before the hurricans people knew the levees might not hold. How many people took it upon themselves to make some sort of effort or try to make a call to action? It seemed like everyone was waiting to see what happened. I know Stewart often cops the plea that his program is a comedy show but isn't that even more of a sin; in a corrupt world in need of watchdogs, Stewart is wasting his time on a making wisecracks?

I like to make a crosswalk comparison about three kinds of "people in the know". The majority of the populace are like a person not paying attention to the signs. walking against the light, and stepping into traffic. Jim Cramer and most media people just watch us walk into the street. For one reason or another, they don't want or care to stop us (or, in some cases, could profit from our injury). The rare kind is the person who steps out into traffic to reel us back in. That person puts their life in a bit of peril in order to make sure we don't get killed. The third person are the post-game pundits: they might not know exactly what's going on but they see us walking, know something isn't right, but don't say anything. When we get hit by a car though, they are the first to talk about what happened and explain why everyone else was in the wrong for not helping us.

During the interview, John Stewart says that he and Cramer are both snake oil salesman but at least his show labels itself as snake oil. Again, I think that's kind of a weak cop out. John Stewart is respected by many and has a good amount of viewers. If he really wants to stay on his high horse, it's about time that he replaced his snake oil with something that the people actually need. I'm not saying he has to become a full-time journalist or anything but at least try to have more segments that point out things that are going wrong or that other networks/news shows need to cover rather than fiddling around until the next fire starts so he can call someone out.

Posted by SoulHonky at 12:00 AM | Permalink |Digg It!

I have to admit that I wasn't expecting much to come out of D.L. Hughley's new CNN show but it's already inspired one of the best examples of what is wrong with the Republican party. On the show, RNC Chairman Michael Steele came out and said that Rush Limbaugh isn't the de facto leader of the GOP. He even went so far to call Limbaugh's words "ugly" and "incendiary"

Well, all it took was a couple of days and one Rush rant for Steele to make like the Republicans before him who've called out Rush: he took it all back. CNN is now reporting:

"There was no attempt on my part to diminish his voice or his leadership," Steele said. He added, "There are those out there who want to look at what he's saying as incendiary and divisive and ugly. That's what I was trying to say. It didn't come out that way."

What? How do you go from calling Limbaugh an entertainer and saying, "Yes, it is incendiary. Yes, it is ugly" to suddenly copping a plea like "My intent was not to go after Rush -- I have enormous respect for Rush Limbaugh," Steele told Politico in a telephone interview. "I was maybe a little bit inarticulate ... There was no attempt on my part to diminish his voice or his leadership." If that's really what he meant then I think that the first thing that Steele needs to do is organize a public speaking class for Republicans. After this and Bobby Jindal's debacle, the GOP should at least brush up on their communication skills.

Posted by SoulHonky at 08:55 PM | Permalink |Digg It!

I can't even begin to go into everything wrong with Bobby Jindal's Republican response (one that even Republican's seemed to shake their heads at) but this story really gets me the most. How can someone say that Hurricane Katrina was a sign of how American doesn't need its government to help. Most complaints are about how poorly the government did, can you imagine if they didn't bother getting involved at all? Don't you think that a lot of this could have been avoided with higher public safety standards? It's clear that people weren't paying much attention to the levies and people also didn't get up and save themselves before the hurricane hit.

I also like that this story (below) has his talking about a Democratic state employee trying to overcome the ridiculous red tape from the Republican powers-that-be and then surmising that what it all meant was that America didn't need government getting in the way. Clearly the problem wasn't government, it was the people who were in charge of it. In the end, Jindal's response was about as good as the GOP's response to Katrina.

I guess now I know why Sarah Palin is such a rising force in the party

Posted by SoulHonky at 09:09 PM | Permalink |Digg It!

Hollywood types always like to point out how the rich keep getting richer, people need to be more accepting, and America is run by morons but tomorrow they are going to give gold statues to multi-millionaires in a show that takes a rather elitiest stance on what makes a quality movie and is run by people who think hiring Hugh Jackman, the producer/co-star of Viva Laughlin, will help boost the ratings.

I'm just saying... 

Posted by SoulHonky at 06:54 PM | Permalink |Digg It!