Surviving the Wingnut Family ... again

Thanksgiving is a time for sharing and conviviality, for family, food, and football. And for me, at least every other year, it's a time for trying to survive being the only liberal in a family full of arch-conservatives -- and not the basically harmless, small-government, Goldwater kind but the rabid, Beck-and-Palin-adoring neo-con kind.

If you've been reading this crappy blog for a while, you've seen me mention my own wingnut family on several occasions -- my mother, my aunt and uncle, even my estranged father. Well, once again I made it through another week with the Right Wing Gang, but it wasn't the smoothest sailing the whole time. Before heading north, I vowed to stay away from political discussions altogether ... and I almost did it. Almost.

You see, my ultra-wingnut aunt and uncle were in attendance this year, having moved to spend their winters near my widowed mother, and while I know Mom is a lifelong Republican, I hadn't realized the influence her sister and brother-in-law had been having on her. For starters, I had forgotten that Mom has become a loyal Fox News viewer. Several times I noted that she was watching "the propaganda channel," and each time, Mom retorted that "Fox [News] is the only one that actually does news." This probably comes as a surprise to CNN and, despite their all-criminal holiday weekend, even MSNBC. But when I noted that, she scoffed and said CNN was too "slanted." I think she actually meant slanted left, which is laughable, but I digress....

I also had forgotten that Mom had turned into somewhat of a climate change denier, which still troubles me because I always considered her intelligent. Even though her college degree was in speech, and she earned it in 1954 when, admittedly, science was a tad less advanced, Mom ought to be aware of the scientific basis for climate change, shouldn't she? Naturally, she called it "global warming," which is a classic right-wing misnomer, as it causes them to think it should be sweltering hot year-round or something (as though a blizzard in Buffalo in January is "proof" that climate change is hokum). I patiently explained that when you increase the temperature of any system, whether it's a manufacturing plant or a planet, you don't necessarily see it get hotter but rather more volatile, which Earth's climate undoubtedly is doing. But her Fox News-addled mind didn't grasp that, or didn't want to ....

The coup de grâce, however, was my avowedly wingnut uncle, who on the way to a holiday light display at a local botanical gardens was regaling us in the minivan with the story of how Army Maj. Nidal Hasan, the so-called "Fort Hood shooter," was "a homeland security adviser to the Obama administration." Recognizing a classic wingnut fantasy/talking point when I hear one, I innocently (well, kind of innocently) asked my uncle, "So where did you learn about that?" His response was almost too predictable: "I got an email about it."

So naturally, thanks to the magic of an Internet-enabled Blackberry, I immediately Googled it up and the first hit took me to Snopes.com, the definitive myth-debunking website, which not only had the text of the email my uncle received but all the evidence debunking it. Indeed, plenty of websites, like this one, have the truth -- which, of course, is that Maj. Hasan had nothing to do with the White House or the Department of Homeland Security whatsoever (big surprise there) -- and anyone with half a brain can investigate as quickly as I did and discover that the email in question is bullshit; Maj. Hasan attended a private think tank's task force meeting that was open to the public.

Sadly, though, apparently my own uncle, like so many wingnuts, lacks that half-brain. Odd, given his graduate degrees and having been an Air Force officer and pilot and all .... oh well. The topper, though, was my uncle's response after I read him the salient part of the Snopes post and concluded, "He attended a think tank meeting as a member of the audience!" Uncle sarcastically shot back, "Oh, I guess that's okay?"

Well, yeah, it is, actually.

If, like me, you suffer through a wingnut family, I know exactly how you feel. (You can vent about it in Comments....)

Blast Off! Radio today at 4:00 pm EDT: Why do wingnuts still control American discourse?

Considering that the United States is pretty clearly split more or less evenly on ideological grounds, while polls repeatedly show that Americans -- even many right-of-center ones -- favor health care reform, same-sex marriage, and other so-called "liberal" ideas, it's somewhat puzzling to me that the Radical Right still controls so much of what we see and hear on a daily basis. In the past -- the ever-more-distant past -- the minority would be able to state their positions, but more often than not a pat on the head and a "that's nice, dear" would be about the only response needed. In 2009, though, the minority controls nearly every major media outlet and their often-insane rantings (against ACORN, gay rights, and the Scary Black Man in the White House, among others) not only are given credibility, but indeed they get their way far more often than they should (why the President is even giving them the time of day on ACORN is beyond me -- so much for socialism).

So, today on Blast Off! Radio, we'll take another look at the right-wing noise machine, locally and nationally, and talk about how they have turned what once might have been reasonable debate into the hate-and-fear-mongering prevalent today. In a saner time, there wouldn't be any dispute about the constitutionality of a court order banning organized prayer in public schools -- today, it's not only disputed, but the Christianist side is winning. In a saner time, people wouldn't shout in the faces of members of Congress on the issue of providing health care to the less fortunate among us -- today, it's encouraged. In a saner time, nutjob fringe radicals like Glenn Beck would be writing for some underground fascist rag -- today, he's the face of a major cable news network and the cover story in Time magazine. In a saner time, wingnut douchebags (self-loathing and otherwise) who ought to be in jail end up on reality TV game shows or with their own radio talk shows.

I really want to hear your thoughts on this today. Tell me your thoughts and whether or not you think sanity ever can be restored to political discourse in America.

It's very easy to be a part of the show. Here are the details:

TIME: 4:00 pm Eastern TODAY

Click here to listen

Call in number: (646) 716-7543

E-mail: blastoffradio-at-gmail-dot-com

So, please get your thoughts together, on this or anything else that's on your mind, and I'll catch you this afternoon on Blast Off! Radio.

Miami Herald bullies Florida blogger

Remember a year or so ago when the Associated Press went after the guy who runs the parody news aggregator, the Drudge Retort, and threatened to sue him for linking to excerpts from AP articles on his website (and in at least one instance, for use of an AP excerpt by a commenter)? There was a bit of hubbub for a short time, but eventually the AP figured out that they had a complete loser of an argument, in light of the Fair Use doctrine (as cited in the disclaimer at the bottom of this very blog), and the controversy went away quietly.

You'd think that mainstream corporate media organizations would learn from the AP's experience and therefore refrain from threatening bloggers with frivolous litigation, wouldn't you? Well, you would be wrong ... and, as it turns out, the Next Big Scary Newspaper Threats are happening right here in America's Wang™.

There's one executive at the [Miami] Herald who's apparently so satisfied that everything is running smoothly that she took some time out of her busy day to fire off a threatening email to Random Pixels over a few Miami Herald photos I posted yesterday.

Suzanne Levinson, whose title is Director of Site Operations for the Miami Herald, sent me an email this morning with the ominous subject line, "Use of Miami Herald photos on your blog‏."

Here's part of her email:

It has been brought to our attention that the web page located at http://randompixels.blogspot.com/2009/08/random-pixels-recognizes.html has content reproduced from The Miami Herald and MiamiHerald.com.

Please remove these photos and any other Miami Herald content present on your site immediately.
[...]
[We] do not allow reproduction of complete stories or full-sized photos.
[...]
Please reply with confirmation of action taken within 5 business days or this matter will be forwarded to the McClatchy Company's legal department for further action.

My first reaction was "what took you so long?" My second was to ignore her.

But after thinking about it a bit more I responded that I didn't use full-sized photos; rather I resized them. I also pointed out that because the post was meant as a parody, it was in my opinion, protected under the fair use doctrine, an area of the law that many lawyers can't agree upon.

I also pointed out that my blog is a non-commercial blog with a limited audience and I didn't see how posting a few small photos posed a threat to the business interests of the Herald.

This is exactly the kind of dick-swinging tactics that the AP tried -- unsuccessfully -- last year, and it's not going to work this time, either. The big papers -- which are barely keeping their collective heads above water because most of them can't report the news for shit anymore -- get angry because we bloggers call them on their shit far too often for their liking, and they look bad in the process. So they throw around a few Latin phrases and get an executive or one of their high-powered (and expensive) lawyers to write a strongly worded email and think that we'll just back down and say "Thank you, sir, may I have another?" like ... well, like Democrats in Congress when challenged by the minority party.

But short of out-and-out plagiarism, like taking someone else's work and reproducing it as one's own without attribution, the papers don't have a legal leg to stand on. Bloggers -- at least the ones I know -- are scrupulous about linking and citing and attributing properly -- to my mind, if I make an assertion on this sucky blog, I want to back it up with whatever support I can in order to bolster my credibility*. So I link and I cite and so do most of us ... and that's why the Herald's legal position is dead in the water.

Simply put, "fair use" means that we can quote and excerpt and cite to our heart's content -- with proper attribution, of course -- so long as we do so "in an effort to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc.," as the disclaimer below explains. Fair use, in short, is a settled aspect of U.S. copyright law, and unless media bullies like the Herald can show that a blogger has used an outrageous amount of their material, or has done so for commercial purposes, or has caused egregious damage to the value of that material to the original source, they are, in layman's terms, fucked.

Blast Off! fully supports Random Pixels in fighting back against the Herald and its lawyers and, provided I passed the Florida Bar exam (I find out a month from today; I'm already licensed in two other states), I'll be happy to provide legal counsel as appropriate (pro bono, naturally) to defend against any potential litigation. In the meantime, I encourage media outlets whose material is used or linked or cited here to send me a threatening email ... just so I can have the immense pleasure of telling you where to stick it.

(h/t South Florida Daily Blog)

---

* I feel compelled to note that right-wing blogs are far less likely to provide attribution, given their notorious aversion to facts, but that is well beyond the scope of this particular post.

Today's Daily Schadenfreude: Glenn Beck

Following the summer/bar exam hiatus, today Blast Off! brings back its popular barely tolerable series, the "Daily Schadenfreude," with a regular honoree: ladies and gentlemen, give it up for the most execrable person on television, a cretin among cretins, the one and only Glenn Beck!

Poor Glenn is finding that advertisers aren't taking to his customary lies and hate very well anymore.

GMAC Financial Services has "ceased advertising on the Glenn Beck program"

That's the word this morning from spokesperson Sue Mallino, who confirmed to Media Matters that the company recently pulled its ads off the Fox News program. Mallino would not comment on whether the move was made in response to Beck's claim that President Obama is a "racist," an allegation that sparked a grassroots campaign by ColorofChange.org to get advertisers to stop supporting Beck's program.

Mallino said only that the company has final say over which programs are "not appropriate" to advertise on, and that GMAC Financial Services will continue to advertise on Fox News. But she reiterated the company "has ceased advertising on the Glenn Beck program."

GMAC Financial Services joins a growing list of advertisers who have recently abandoned Beck's television show, including ConAgra, Roche, Sanofi-Aventis, RadioShack, Men’s Wearhouse, State Farm Sargento, LexisNexis-owned Lawyers.com, Procter & Gamble, and Progressive Insurance.

Yes, as noted, GMAC will continue to advertise on Fox News generally, as will, undoubtedly, many of the other advertisers who have ditched Beck. So they'll still be supporting the lies and distortions of the rest of the so-called news network.

However, this is definitely a step in the right direction. In the media, money talks, and seeing this mass exodus from Glenn Beck, whether directly because of his lies or because no one wants to be associated with such an odious person, is both refreshing and long overdue. And the more that the remaining advertisers see their own bottom lines affected through boycotts and other such actions against them in response to their support of this pustulant purveyor of propaganda, the more likely that Fox will see that continuing to employ Glenn Beck is damaging to their bottom line. And while they surely want to spread his message of filth and foulness, further defections by advertisers could mean they simply can't afford to do so anymore.

So, Glenn, you despicable pile of excrement, enjoy the desertions, because no one deserves to be shunned more than you. In the meantime, perhaps you can salve your wounded pride with this meager award, because today's Blast Off! Daily Schadenfreude is for you!

UPDATE (8:30 pm 8/18/09): Eight, count 'em, eight more advertisers pulled their ads from Beck's show today, deciding that they, too, couldn't countenance his disgusting racism and hatred. And one of them is, believe it or not, Wal-Mart.

Dude, if you're a wingnut and you've lost Wal-Mart, well, you might as well just give up.

I never made the connection

I'm being facetious with that title, of course. The connection is obvious to anyone with half a brain ... because everyone involved clearly has less than half a brain.

I'm talking about the organized shout-downs at national town hall meetings led by members of Congress and others regarding the health care debate. Indeed, the primary objective of these people is to prevent debate, not to make their own positions known -- and they're the same people who have organized that ridiculous, hypocritical "tea party" movement (in which I've played a bit part for the opposition).

It's critical to uncover this movement and reveal it for what it is -- a sham intended only to disrupt -- because, naturally, the right-wing corporate media is reporting it as a legitimate form of protest.

“Teabaggers” refers to the fact that many of the groups behind the manipulated chaos are the same outfits that staged the phony grassroots “Tea Party” tax protests earlier this year. Then, as now, Fox News and other right-wing media outfits are trying to portray the actions as genuine revolts. Many of staged tax “protest” events drew just a handful of people, but closeup camera angles and breathless, fawning coverage seriously exaggerated the scope of the protests.

But now, they are armed with a battle guide from the anti-government group Right Principles that tells them to disrupt meetings “early and often….Watch for opportunities to stand up and shout…rock the boat…stand up and shout.” They are being encouraged by a growing number of health care reform opponents, including Republican leaders trying to kill President Obama’s reform initiatives.

The main goal of these disrupters is to kill health care reform, not debate it, not refine it, not find a middle ground, just kill it. (For a more detailed look, check “Swiftboating Town Halls” at The Progress Report.)

I've been saying it here and elsewhere for years: the Right can't win on the issues, so they use disruption and misstatements to try to derail sensible discourse. Moreover, the protests from the Right have an increasingly frightening tendency to become violent, far more than the Left ever does:

As Think Progress reported last week, these disruptive tactics have been used at a growing number of meetings and forums.

This growing phenomenon is often marked by violence and absurdity. Recently, right-wing demonstrators hung Rep. Frank Kratovil (D-Md.) in effigy outside of his office. Missing from the reporting of these stories is the fact that much of these protests are coordinated by public relations firms and lobbyists who have a stake in opposing President Obama’s reforms.

The lobbyist-run groups Americans for Prosperity and FreedomWorks, which orchestrated the anti-Obama tea parties earlier this year, are now pursuing an aggressive strategy to create an image of mass public opposition to health care and clean energy reform.

The union movement has always supported free speech rights and the right to demonstrate and picket. But that’s not what these disruptions are about—they are crude and anti-democratic efforts to silence speakers, elected officials, in fact, in meetings with constituents—and intimidate people’s exercise of associational rights.

I've heard voices from the Right say they have a First Amendment right to protest at these town halls. That may be -- but it is possible to go too far.

The First Amendment does give Americans the right to express themselves as they see fit, but there are limits to free speech. Speech constitutionally can be restricted to appropriate times, places, and manners, but more to the point, speech or expressive behavior that is intended not to communicate a position but rather to prevent another opinion or position from being communicated constitutionally can be restricted. You see that all the time when, for example, Code Pink protestors are hustled out of congressional hearings where they are protesting. Their ejection is not premised, constitutionally, on the theory that they don't have a right to protest; rather, it's that, from a legal standpoint, they are doing so in an impermissible time, place, or manner. Same thing with these anti-health care mobs.

You see, there really is a difference between protestors from the Right and protestors from the Left. Before you wingnuts go on about Code Pink and other protestors from the Left, stop and think how the media is complicit in protesting. If we actually had a "liberal media," presumably they would report on Code Pink (for example) protests as though they represented the prevailing viewpoint, just as they've done with those feeble "tea parties" and now the health care protest crazies, wouldn't they? I mean, the tea parties, which drew literally hundreds around the country, got exponentially more press coverage than did an anti-war protest in Washington in which I personally participated in 2007 along with tens of thousands of my closest friends ... some "liberal" media we've got.

Anyway, I digress ... I'm not saying we shouldn't have a healthy, fact-based discourse about health care in this country. But I am saying that the Right's organized efforts to disrupt town hall meetings, like the tea parties, merely demonstrate their collective inability to support their position with anything other than hate, violence, and fear.

GOP leader: calling me gay is a "scurrilous" insult

I'm visiting my mother in North Carolina this week, so I thought I'd take a moment to show you that Republicans up here aren't very different from those in Florida -- or elsewhere -- when it comes to discrimination, hate, and bigotry.

One of the candidates to lead the North Carolina Republican Party is suing a radio talk show host and the host's employer for defamation, alleging that the host said the candidate was gay.

Tom Fetzer, a former Raleigh mayor, said Tuesday he filed the lawsuit late Monday in Wake County Superior Court seeking a jury trial and monetary damages to defend and protect his name. He accuses Curtis Wright, who hosts a morning drive-time show aired on two stations, of forwarding an anonymous letter about Fetzer that Wright knew to be false.

Fetzer, a former political consultant who once worked with the late Sen. Jesse Helms, is one of four announced candidates seeking to succeed Linda Daves as party leader at the state GOP convention June 13 in Raleigh.

"It is justice that I seek, not vengeance," Fetzer said in a statement.

Ah, so Fetzer worked for Jesse Helms. At least now I see that he comes by his redneck bigotry honestly.

Anyway, take a look at what Fetzer says in his lawsuit about the suggestion that he might be gay:

The statements in the anonymous letter are "false and defamatory" and "tend to charge Mr. Fetzer with a crime or offense involving moral turpitude" and "disgrace and degrade" him, the lawsuit said.

The lawsuit didn't contain the letter, and Fetzer's attorney didn't immediately respond to a request seeking a copy.

But Fetzer wrote to supporters May 22 that "I am not gay - never have been - never will be. There is absolutely no evidence whatsoever to support any of the scurrilous allegations made in the anonymous attack on me."

You see, according to the Republican Party, being gay is a crime of moral turpitude, it's disgraceful, and it's scurrilous to "accuse" someone of being gay. And because the talk show host Wright is a wingnut and his employer likewise, they're likely going to defend the case not on the grounds that there's nothing wrong with being gay, but on some other basis like the words weren't uttered, or there was no intent to defame, or something like that.

And therein lies the disconnect between Republicans, especially their batshit crazy Christianist leaders, and normal society. Read the article again, but this time substitute "African-American" or "female" or "disabled" or any other immutable characteristic you like for the word "gay." Is it "scurrilous" to be a woman? Is saying someone isn't white defamatory? Can you imagine a lawsuit in 2009 claiming defamation because someone said the plaintiff was disabled? Even if you filed such a lawsuit, you'd be laughed out of court so fast, your head would spin.

Sadly, today's GOP is so tone-deaf about their own bigotry that they're willing to go to court to proclaim it. And they wonder why, in normal society (that is, everywhere but the mainstream corporate media), they're being marginalized ...

(cross-posted at Daily Kos)

Your "liberal" media in action

I have one simple question: what the high holy fuck is wrong with the Pensacola News Journal?

Take a look at this front-page article in today's PNJ. (I've highlighted the problematic parts to help any wingnuts slower folks who may read this.)


Never mind the ludicrously disproportionate coverage, giving valuable front page column inches to a handful of know-nothing douchebags who can't even spell properly. How can they say "hundreds" in the headline, then immediately contradict that with "About 60" in the lede of the story? Well, I'll answer my own question: they can do that because, like all Gannett papers and most other mainstream corporate news outlets in the United States, they're nothing but shills for the GOP and, more generally, the right-wing. I read the article in vain to see if "hundreds" referred to people around the country, or in Florida, or somewhere other than Pensacola ... but there was no such language. This was either a massive fuck-up or an egregious show of right-wing bias. Either way, it's further proof that the mainstream media's credibility is approaching zero.

Then again, maybe it's a simple editing error ... but if so, that raises the question: do you think they prepared the headline in advance, expecting "hundreds" of teabaggers to appear? It would be irresponsible not to speculate ...

Oh, and one other thing, Travis Griggs -- I was there when you were there; I saw you taking pictures and presumably gathering information for your story. I counted about 30 teabaggers present, and I'd even be willing to say 40 if pressed, based on photographic evidence. Where did you come up with 60? Maybe that was just wishful thinking?

It's tough to be a liberal these days when you're fighting not only the whackjob conservatives who have such unwarranted power in government (given their dwindling numbers), but also the media responsible for reporting on them.

No, David Gregory: torture is NOT debatable

Exhibit no. 177 proving that the mainstream corporate media are anything but liberal: yesterday the host of NBC's Meet the Press, David Gregory held an online chat, and my question was chosen for him to answer. I asked (timestamped at 2:11), "Why is debating torture a 'crucial debate to have?' How exactly does it go beyond 'torture is illegal?' "

And here's the response I got from torture-apologist, Cheney-fellator Gregory:

[Sinfonian], because it is too easy to dismiss all these techniques as "torture." Were all the techniques torture? The debate to have is how do we treat our enemies in a new threat environment and can you defeat an enemy like this without compromising the values of the country?

Can there be any more blatant indication that Gregory is in the tank for the Bush crime syndicate? The one incontrovertible fact that he and his buddies on the Right seem to miss is that TORTURE IS ILLEGAL. Period. And there can be no legitimate argument against the fact that, for example, waterboarding IS torture. Indeed, the outcry against waterboarding and sleep deprivation and the other "techniques" used isn't whether or not they constitute torture -- of course they do. The "debate" actually is whether or not torture is permissible, and if so under what circumstances.

So, Gregory gets the issue exactly wrong. And because not only is torture morally wrong, it is not permissible under American or international law, there quite simply can be NO debate. The very fact that Gregory and his peers in the MSM have created this faux-debate out of whole cloth should make clear to all but the most obtuse observers that our media have abdicated their responsibilities as journalists and have become, in the truest sense of the word, propagandists of the worst kind.

Incidentally, I asked Gregory one other question that didn't get selected: "Have you ever considered being a contestant on 'Dancing With the Stars?' " I'm sure Dancin' Dave would be a big hit, given his brilliant 2007 performance with his pal Karl Rove (Gregory is, appropriately, to Rove's right in the video):

Another great moment in journalism. I mean, "journalism."

Grading the mainstream corporate media

Well, the test results are in. Friday, marches were held across the country to urge President Obama administration to adhere to his campaign promise to reform immigration policy in America, and the marches were forecast to draw attendees comparable on a nationwide level to those ludicrous, hate-filled "tea parties" on April 15. As I suggested, the mainstream corporate media had a chance this weekend to demonstrate just how "fair and balanced" they (allegedly) are by covering these "liberal" marches to an extent equivalent to how they drooled all over themselves promoting and reporting from the "conservative" tea parties.

So, how'd they do? Well, about as well as one would expect from a "Fourth Estate" that is securely suckling at the teat of the Republican Party.

That's not to say there was no coverage at all. Here in America's Wang™, for example, one of the state's leading newspapers, the Orlando Sentinel, took the bold step of publishing an Associated Press pool piece about the marches ... although to their credit there also was an article about the Orlando march that drew about 125, well below the estimated 20,000 who attended in 2006.

Meanwhile, the Naples Daily News provided local coverage of a march in Immokalee that, like the aforementioned AP article, focused less on the message of the marches than on the supposed cause for their "disappointing" attendance: the swine flu scare.

And although organizers didn’t expect to see numbers quite like those of the 2006 marches, they were disappointed when just over 100 people attended the Immokalee event.

The event’s timing was not the best, organizers admitted, as health officials tried to clamp down on a swine flu epidemic.

For most rally organizers, swine flu was secondary to promoting immigration reform, including pathways to citizenship for an estimated 12 million illegal immigrants who have renewed hope buoyed by Barack Obama in the White House and a Democratic-controlled Congress.

But the swine flu scare took a toll, Hernandez said, especially when a second case was confirmed in Lee County.

“I think that the people got scared,” Hernandez said after the event adding that she would have cancelled the event had she known of the second case earlier in the day.

Attendance of over 100 in Immokalee, 2,000 in Washington, D.C., and similar crowds elsewhere (2,000 in Chicago, a "large" but undefined gathering in Milwaukee, about 1,000 in San Jose, even 400 in Greeley, Colo.) might suggest -- even in light of the lower numbers allegedly due to the swine flu scare -- that this was a major undertaking whose total attendance rivaled estimates of the national "tea party" turnout. But, naturally, other than a handful of patronizing articles about how fewer people marched this year than in the past (due in part, it was supposed, not so much to swine flu as to fears of arrest and deportation or "lost hope" in the immigration-reform movement), the media chose to ignore it.

Heckuva job, mainstream corporate media. Thanks for reminding us once again how much you're in the pocket of the right wing in this country.

Test day for the mainstream corporate media

Well, class, I hope you've been studying hard, because today you have a chance to show some evidence that you folks in the mainstream corporate media are not just shills for the Republican Party in America. Yes, today you can show the country that you'll cover newsworthy events with comparable attendance and impact in the same way regardless of whether they're organized by the Right or the Left.

Remember last week I notified you that you'd have a chance to redeem yourselves somewhat by covering today's immigration marches with the same fervor and allocation of resources with which you slobbered all over those essentially meaningless (but wingnut-approved) "tea parties" on April 15? Well, today's the big day -- are you ready?

Judging by the preliminary test results, I'd have to say no fucking way. While admittedly I haven't checked every news outlet, I've only seen one report regarding today's immigration marches, specifically pertaining to the march in Immokalee, Fla. (and that one focuses largely on the impact of the swine flu scare on these events). Of course, one certainly didn't need to monitor every news source in order to be inundated with reminders, coverage, and analysis of the Teabaggers' Balls a couple of weeks ago ... but maybe it's just early in the day and those marches, which drew upwards of 1 million in 2006, will get the kind of coverage their national attendance -- possibly dwarfing that of the tea parties -- deserves. Right?

Then again, maybe we'll just get more confirmation that the American press is in the tank for the Right. Call me skeptical, but I'm not holding my breath for comparable coverage ...

Catch me on the radio today at 4:30 pm Central

Just a quick note for anyone interested that I'll be a guest on the "No Bull Bert Show" on 1330AM WEBY this afternoon at 4:30 pm Central (5:30 Eastern; the rest of you can figure it out yourselves ;) ).

If you're not in the greater Pensacola-Mobile area, you can listen live to the online stream of the show. Don't know whether or not it'll be available later as a podcast ...

I'll be joining Bert to discuss the recent Teabaggers' Balls and the hubbub I seem to have caused in Pensacola. Hope you'll listen, and I believe Bert will be giving folks an opportunity to call in as well.

Another test for the so-called "liberal" media

Earlier today I showed you yet another example of how the media's right-wing bias shows clearly, even in an article that ostensibly sets out to report something favorable about President Obama.

Well, they're going to have another chance May 1. And I'll bet I already know how it's going to turn out.

People in hundreds of cities across the United States will march next week to urge President Barack Obama to move ahead with promises of immigration and labor rights reform.

"The unified message [of the marches] is support for the Obama Administration in moving humane immigrant reform this year, an affirmation of the importance of immigrants to the U.S. economy, and challenging the failure of enforcement only policies under Bush that have created so much suffering and violations of civil, labor, and human rights," writes Voces de la Frontera, an immigrant rights group. The May 1 Nationwide Immigration and Labor Rights March is spearheaded by the U.S.-based Fair Immigration Reform Movement, a network of over 300 organizations.

A press release accompanying the article explains that in Milwaukee, where Voces de la Frontera is based, 70,000 people marched in similar demonstrations in 2006 and 2007, although the press release is unclear whether that's 70,000 each or in toto. Nevertheless, it is reasonable to predict, I think, that if a march in Milwaukee draws even 35,000, then there likely will be well over 200,000 -- estimating very conservatively -- in all the marches throughout the country. And that kind of attendance in turn will put it into the ballpark of -- you guessed it -- the Tea Parties' national turnout.

So if the immigration marches have numbers approaching those of the Teabaggers' Balls (the events, not the body parts), then surely they'll have nearly the same press coverage, right?

*crickets*

Mixed message

You know, it's funny: as much as the Right squawks about the "liberal media," it's always the conservative side of every issue that gets the most media attention. Cases in point: the president's interaction with Hugo Chavez ("OMG, Obama shook his hand and smiled!!!1!!eleven!"), which compared with Drunky McStagger laying a big ol' kiss on a Saudi prince and Donald Rumsfeld's handshake with Saddam Hussein is pretty much a tempest in a tea bag ... I mean, pot; and the Teabaggers' Balls last week, which garnered an impressive but wholly disproportionate share of media attention.

Well, here's another example from that bastion of wingnuttery, the Associated Press. You know, I'm old enough to remember when they were a legitimate news organization ...

Anyway, they reported today on a new poll showing that a solid majority of Americans approves of the work done by President Obama thus far, as he approaches that 100-day milestone in his administration next week. But get a load of the tone of the article:

For the first time in years, more Americans than not say the country is headed in the right direction, a sign that Barack Obama has used the first 100 days of his presidency to lift the public's mood and inspire hopes for a brighter future.

Intensely worried about their personal finances and medical expenses, Americans nonetheless appear realistic about the time Obama might need to turn things around, according to an Associated Press-GfK poll. It shows most Americans consider their new president to be a strong, ethical and empathetic leader who is working to change Washington.

Nobody knows how long the honeymoon will last, but Obama has clearly transformed the yes-we-can spirit of his candidacy into a tool of governance. His ability to inspire confidence — Obama's second book is titled "The Audacity of Hope" — has thus far buffered the president against the harsh political realities of two wars, a global economic meltdown and countless domestic challenges.

"He presents a very positive outlook," said Cheryl Wetherington, 35, an independent voter who runs a chocolate shop in Gardner, Kan. "He's very well-spoken and very vocal about what direction should be taken."

Other AP-GfK findings could signal trouble for Obama as he approaches his 100th day in office, April 29:

_While there is evidence that people feel more optimistic about the economy, 65 percent said it's difficult for them and their families to get ahead. More than one-third know of a family member who recently lost a job.

_More than 90 percent of Americans consider the economy an important issue, the highest ever in AP polling.

_Nearly 80 percent believe that the rising federal debt will hurt future generations, and Obama is getting mixed reviews at best for his handling of the issue.

And yet, the percentage of Americans saying the country is headed in the right direction rose to 48 percent, up from 40 percent in February. Forty-four percent say the nation is on the wrong track.

Not since January 2004, shortly after the capture of former Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein, has an AP survey found more "right direction" than "wrong direction" respondents. The burst of optimism didn't last long in 2004.

Did you catch that? I searched for some indication of the actual poll numbers, but you don't get it until the article is more than halfway done, when we learn that "64 percent of the public approves of Obama's job performance." But what kills me is that the first four paragraphs, essentially favorable to the president, give way quickly to the tired old clichés: Obama's not experienced enough, he's going to face problems, he's not doing enough ....

Yes, I know the country's in a bit of a mess. But despite what those teabaggers will tell you, it's not President Obama's fault. Maybe a year from now you can say that, but for now, AP, why don't you report the news that's actually happening and leave speculation to the pundits and editorial columnists? Thanks in advance.

In the meantime, would everyone kindly shut the fuck up about the "liberal media?" There is no such thing and, in fact, with few exceptions, it's pretty much a conservative media today across the board. Might as well get used to it, folks -- it's been this way for a while now.

P.S. Oh, AP, since you're going after bloggers who use your stuff -- Bring. It. On. First, though, you might want to read the disclaimer at the bottom of the page here ... and bone up a bit on the Fair Use Doctrine. Just saying ...

Air America bids adieu to south Florida

The changeover happened just over an hour ago, as Miami's Air America affiliate, WINZ, switched its format to sports talk radio instead of progressive talk. It thus becomes the sixth -- SIXTH!! -- sports talk station in the Miami-Fort Lauderdale market.

This is ridiculous. First of all, why the hell does any market, even one as large as Miami, need six sports-talk radio stations? Secondly, how is it that the most progressive region in Florida can't sustain an Air America station?

I've long lamented the dearth of progressive voices in American mainstream media, even though I know what causes it: the corporations and conglomerates who control the media outlets -- e.g., ClearChannel, Rupert Murdoch's NewsCorp, GE, WaPo, and so on -- have their collective mouths clenched firmly around the dicks of the right wing, specifically the Republican Party. I get that.

But what I don't get is why one start-up network can't gain a foothold in a presumably liberal-oriented market. Did WINZ's bosses (it's a ClearChannel station) hand down the orders to get the DFHs off the air? Did the advertising revenue dry up? Or was it really that the message just isn't one that translates well to radio? (I don't buy that last one; radio is not the sole domain of the Right.)

Then again, maybe it's the prevailing attitude represented in the very blog post to which I've linked, wherein the Sun-Sentinel's Tom Jicha commented:

Conservatives have few places to hear their views ratified and discussed. This isn't the case with liberals, who have the network newscasts, MSNBC, CNN, NPR and most mainstream newspapers in synch with them. They also have the White House and both houses of Congress. They don't need a radio network.

What an utter crock of flaming dogshit. But as long as that "liberal media" meme survives, even in the face of mountains of evidence to the contrary, progressive media outlets are likely to struggle.

Your liberal media

John McCain has been on CNN regularly of late, and he's a frequent guest on the Sunday morning political talk shows like Face the Nation and Meet the Press. Just as a reminder, he lost the 2008 presidential election handily.

But, of course you remember how John Kerry was always on those shows in 2005 and Al Gore was a regular contributor to cable news in 2001, right?

You don't?

Yeah, neither do I.

Checking the fact-checkers: FAIL

There was a time when the Associated Press was a respected news organization. You could rely on them to report, accurately and impartially, what was going on and leave opinion to the editorial pages. Obviously, the current, insidious rightward tilt of the AP proves that those days are gone.

Calvin Woodward of the AP steps to the plate and lines one sharply to deep right field today with his so-called "fact check" of the president's news conference last night. The thing is, Woodward's "claims" and "facts" have, well, no fucking connection whatsoever.

I don't want to reproduce the entire article here (of course you get linky goodness instead), but I'll try to summarize the salient points. That is, I would, if the points Woodward tries to make pertained in any substantive way to what the president actually said. But I'll give it a shot anyway ...

First, the president's quote:

"We will recover from this recession. But it will take time, it will take patience, and it will take an understanding that when we all work together, when each of us looks beyond our own short-term interests to the wider set of obligations we have to each other, that's when we succeed."

Now an excerpt of Woodward's allegedly responsive "facts:"

No one really knows when the recession will end. But Obama's own budget forecasts the recession will continue through this year but with a relatively shallow 1.2 percent decline in the gross domestic product.

Then, the budget predicts solid 3.2 percent growth for 2010, followed by three years of more than 4 percent growth each year.

Christina Romer, head of the White House Council of Economic Advisers, said this week she was "incredibly confident" the U.S. economy will recover within a year.

Congressional Republicans and some Democratic budget hawks have suggested the Obama budget projections are unduly optimistic to make the math to pay for the president's programs work.

Did you catch that first sentence? "No one really knows when the recession will end." What did the president say? "We will recover ... but it will take time ..." Woodward clearly wants the reader to think that President Obama was misleading people, but of course the actual facts don't bear that out in any way. (And who are "some Democratic budget hawks" and how many are there? Per standard MSM procedure, Woodward doesn't say.)

Hold on ... it gets worse. Try this one on for size:

President Obama: "In this budget, we have made the tough choices necessary to cut our deficit in half by the end of my first term even under the most pessimistic estimates."

Woodward's "facts:" Not all credible estimates foresee a deficit halved in that time.

Obama's budget forecast a deficit of $530 billion by the end of 2013. That would cut by half the deficit he inherited at the start of his term. To succeed, Obama is counting on a recovered economy, a tax boost for the rich and success in easing foreign entanglements. But his assertion that he can accomplish that "even under the most pessimistic estimates" flies in the face of an answer he gave moments later.

Um, Cal, the president never said "all credible estimates," nor did he say the budget certainly would be halved. What he actually said (if you care) was that his administration had "made the tough choices necessary" to do so. Very different. But I'd expect that kind of half-assed reporting from the modern AP.

Oh, and that "answer he gave moments later" to which Woodward refers? Don't expect to find it in the article; Woodward never tells us what that is. Typical shoddy journalism ...

Here comes another head fake from Woodward:

Says Woodward: Obama repeated his assertion that his housing bailout will help "stabilize the housing market and help responsible homeowners stay in their homes."

Then "The Facts:" Even officials in his administration, many supporters of the plan in Congress and the Federal Reserve chairman have said some of the bailout money is bound to go to those who acted irresponsibly.

Cal, buddy ... that doesn't negate what the president said!! Indeed, your point is completely irrelevant to his quote! The bailout will, according to Obama, help responsible homeowners stay in their homes. The fact that some bailout money allegedly will "go to those who acted irresponsibly" isn't mutually exclusive to that! Money can go both to help responsible homeowners and (unfortunately) to those to acted irresponsibly! It's called "logic," Cal -- you might look into it sometime.

Finally, the coup de grâce:

THE CLAIM: Responding to Republican critics in Congress who say his proposed budget carries an irresponsible deficit, Obama said, "I suspect that some of those Republican critics have a short memory, because, as I recall, I'm inheriting a $1.3 trillion deficit, annual deficit, from them."

FACT: Obama inherited a whopper of a deficit, much of it due to policies and spending led by Republican President George W. Bush. But the Congress, which authorizes spending and is not blameless in driving up deficits, was controlled by Democrats in the last two years of Bush's presidency.

This is so idiotic, I'm tempted not to address it at all. Two years versus six years ... okay, sure, Congress isn't blameless. But let's not forget that congressional Democrats, "led" by Speaker Nancy Pelosi, regularly and almost enthusiastically bent over and let the GOP have their way with them for the two years they were in charge under the Bush crime syndicate.

It would be nice if a "fact check" used, you know, actual facts. But this is, after all, the Associated Press we're talking about: "Proudly and Shamelessly Kissing Republican Ass Since 2000."

Same media, different president

You know, I really had high hopes that some of the massive right-wing influence on the mainstream corporate media might have been neutralized, or at the very least lessened, by the advent of a new administration: the Democratic, truth-based, transparent administration of President Obama.

My hopes were dashed today, though, following the first press briefing by new White House press secretary Robert Gibbs, when CNN's White House correspondent Ed Henry and the ubiquitous Leslie "Wolf" Blitzer criticized Gibbs on "The Situation Room" for evading questions. Now, granted, I expect that from the wingnut propaganda outlet and porn site Faux News -- and naturally they didn't let me down -- but the others are piling on, too.

I watched most of the presser, and I actually found Gibbs to be both engaging and informative, certainly far more so than his predecessor, Barbie Dana Perino. But of course they can't possibly acknowledge that on teevee! That would be sacrilege to their right-wing masters!

So, the more things change, the more they stay the same ... guess we'd better buckle up and enjoy the ride.

A reminder for the mainstream media

This may come as a surprise for those of you who will be insisting (and I know some of you will) that Florida's polls close at 7:00 pm Eastern time (and who can't be bothered to consult a friggin' map), but for your information: part of Florida extends into the Central Time Zone -- namely, the western panhandle, from the Apalachicola River westward to the Alabama state line.

So, even though that's a rather red area, in the interest of maximizing voter turnout, I implore you: DON'T CALL THE ELECTORAL VOTES FOR FLORIDA UNTIL AFTER 8:00 pm EASTERN TIME!!

Thank you in advance.

Liveblogging Obama in Miami: photo post #2

Here, have some more pictures from today in Miami:

While many of us were waiting to get into the park, and continuing into the rally itself, a small plane flew in circles over Miami Beach and Biscayne Bay, displaying this banner for all to see. As I asked rhetorically in the crowd, "Why can't Republicans spell?"

The overflow section, where I finally entered, quickly filled up against the barricades and on the hill beyond.

An intrepid blogger's perspective. Here's where I sat on the ground beside Swampstyle's Oliver and listened to the speeches ... and looked at a lot of legs.

Here's what it looked like in the opposite direction, away from the speeches and the podium and the center of the crowd: a nice view of the MacArthur Causeway heading over to Miami Beach. The hydraulic lift is courtesy of the Miami-Dade police, who use it to get a better view of what's happening.

Hello, mainstream corporate media!

The view looking towards the stage (where the "CHANGE" banner is) featured a lovely view of some of the Miami skyline, including the distinctive Freedom Tower.

I spotted this remarkable sign being carried into the park and hurriedly took several pictures at that time, but fortunately, after the rally, people were lining up to have their picture taken with it, and I was able to get a good look at it. I spoke briefly with the artist, who told me he wants to show it and share it as much as possible before hopefully selling it on eBay.

The sun sets over a happy crowd of Democrats in Miami. At left in this shot is American Airlines Arena, home of the NBA's Miami Heat.

Waiting for the Metrolink train in downtown Miami, I thought the nighttime skyline looked especially lovely. Maybe it's because I have ... hope?

More photographic goodness: wrapping up Tuesday

"What?," you're saying. "But today's Thursday!" Yeah, I know. I'm like a day and a half behind on pictures and it's only going to get worse. But I'm trying ...

This batch takes care of Tuesday ... stay tuned for Wednesday's pics.

Here's an early look at the stage setup for tonight's festivities at Invesco. As of Tuesday night, when I took this picture, there were none of those elitist uppity pretentious columns. I just figured Obama would rise up on a platform in the middle and join Bon Jovi for "You Give Love a Bad Name."

The purveyors of lies right-wing talking points mainstream broadcast coverage will be ensconced on the north side of the field.

At the "Four State Four Star" event in the East Club Lounge at Invesco Field Tuesday night, featuring (l-r) Pennsylvania Gov. Ed Rendell, New York Gov. David Paterson, former president Bill Clinton, Sen. Hillary Clinton, and New Jersey Gov. Jon Corzine. No word on whose brilliant idea it was to light the stage from behind.

Sen. Clinton with FPC blogger Legend Killer.

President Clinton poses with a supporter.

I love the logo for tonight's event. It looks great on the big screen at Invesco, doesn't it?

The FPC bloggers rub elbows with the chair of the Florida Democratic Party. Left to right: Ray Seaman of Ocala, FPC chair Kenneth Quinnell of Tallahassee, Justin Hope of Tallahassee, Legend Killer of Jefferson County, FDP Chair and former congresswoman Karen Thurman, Sinfonian of Boynton Beach, and former state legislator Ed Jennings of Gainesville.