Quote of the Day, On Tea Baggers

The tea party movement is upset. Okay, that goes without saying. They're upset about a lot of things. But one thing that gets their bags in a bunch is when pundits, news people and bloggers refer to them en masse as "tea baggers." The term was originally slang for a sex act, one that can be easily imagined if you have even a slightly dirty mind. When the first "tea parties" (sounds awfully dainty, doesn't it?) sprung up, some members enthusiastically embraced the "tea bagger" double-meaning on signs, such as "Tea bag Obama!"

What they didn't figure on, was having the term turned around against them, in a derisive, snarky way. When that happened, they got all indignant. How dare Keith Olbermann, Rachel Maddow and Anderson Cooper use such a vulgar double entendre when referring to this patriotic uprising? Why? Why not? The movement used it first! I found this comment at the Newshounds website (they watch FOX so you don't have to). It's perfect.

"Even after they were told the dirty meaning of Teabagging, many of them chose to keep referring themselves as teabaggers. Therefore, they not only have no room to get upset if people snicker, but it's saying something about them every time they call it a slur just because a non-teabagger says or types it. That's the bottom line- at least for me. I'm not even gonna touch the hilarious irony/hypocrisy of that most of these people were coming up with and repeating blow*** jokes about Clinton for years." --Aria

Source: Newshounds

"Ode to Sean Hannity" by John Cleese

A masterpiece. And after the poem, a dramatic reading by Keith Olbermann.

Ode to Sean Hannity
by John Cleese

Aping urbanity
Oozing with vanity
Plump as a manatee
Faking humanity
Journalistic calamity
Intellectual inanity
Fox Noise insanity
You’re a profanity
Hannity

Olbermann's reading appears about halfway through the video, and is worth the wait, as is the fabled Hannity smackdown by Robert Gibbs, and Olbermann's discussion of the matter with Rachel Maddow.

Read more about it at: Newshounds

Found on the Internets: Orwell for 2008

Image by Editor

Every once in a while, you find something on the internets that is too good not to share. While reading the comments section on Newshounds, regarding Alan Colmes discovery of his spine the other day, I found this incredibly simple but profound comment:

WAR IS PEACE.

FREEDOM IS SLAVERY.

IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH.

FOX IS NEWS.

Chuck Anziulewicz Homepage 08.13.08 - 10:54 am

And for those of you who have not read George Orwell's Nineteen Eighty-Four, please do so immediately.

Source: Newshounds

Aviation Expert Debunks Bush's Open Airways

A while back, I posted a positive story about George W. Bush. Imagine that. Now, imagine that what the President actually presented was an empty gesture. According to aviation expert, Mike Boyd, the President's plan to open the military airways to ease holiday congestion was little more than a dog and pony show to get a little positive press. Imagine that.

It doesn't hurt that his comments were aired on the (extremely) Bush friendly (and oddly named) FOX & Friends on FOX "News." Delicious. Check out the story and comments at NewsHounds.us, and watch the video here.

More on Hannity & Dobson from Newshounds

Earlier, I posted my take on last night's Hannity & Colmes, where Hannity pleaded with James Dobson to see the "good" in Giuliani. As usual, NewsHounds.us (they watch FOX so you don't have to) did a more thorough job dissecting the episode. Check it out.

[Excerpt]

Hannity Pleads With Dr. James Dobson To Support Top Tier Republican Candidate

Poor Sean Hannity. As if the Republicans’ chances for holding on to the White House in 2008 weren’t bad enough, now Dr. James Dobson and a group of religious right leaders are threatening to vote for a third party candidate if either Rudy Giuliani or Fred Thompson becomes the Republican nominee for president. Hannity pleaded with Dobson to reconsider during the first half of Hannity & Colmes last night (10/8/07) but to no avail. . .

Read the rest at NewsHounds.us

Sean Hannity: Investigative Reporter?

I've made no secret of my feelings for Sean Hannity on this blog. He's a blowhard, he's disingenuous, he's got an enormous ego, and he couldn't legitimately argue his way out of an argument with a fifth grader. And those are the nice things about him!

Sadly, some people (a favorite FOX "News" phrase) take nearly every word this Lou Costello lookalike says literally. And now (very humorously) he seems to fancy himself an investigative reporter. And this was the best he could do, in his "expose" of MoveOn.org.

Marie at Newshounds.us has annotated the piece, which is helpful for pointing out the flaws in Sean's "investigative report." By the way, love the ominous negative campaign commercial music! Enjoy.

FOX "News" Republican Debate

I didn't watch the latest Republican Presidential debate (this time on FOX "News"), as--honestly--I forgot it was on. But I'm watching the Hannity & Colmes re-run of the wrap-up right now. Pollster (and twit) Frank Luntz has been showing graphs of audience reaction to the "contestants."

After reading this post on NewsHounds.us, I found out that a little more went on than H&C is letting on. Read on. . .

[Excerpt]

Hannity & Colmes Overlooks Republican Audience’s Anti-War, Pro-Gay Marriage Sentiment In Post-Debate Coverage

There were some surprising moments in the Republican presidential candidates’ debate last night (9/5/07). On at least two occasions, the Republican audience very vocally contradicted the GOP talking points: First, by booing Senator Sam Brownback’s proposal to ban gay marriage, then cheering Congressman Ron Paul as he asked why we should believe those who say there will be a bloodbath if we leave Iraq when they are the same ones who predicted the war would be a cakewalk. But neither of those moments made it into the post-debate analysis on Hannity & Colmes. With video. [snip]

But clearly, the liveliest, most interesting part of the debate came when Paul was asked about his position on leaving Iraq. “The people who say there will be a bloodbath are the ones who said it would be a cakewalk, it would be a slam dunk and that it would be paid for by oil. Why believe them? They’ve been wrong on everything they’ve said.” The audience erupted into cheers and applause. “So why not ask the people who advised not to go into the region and into the war? The war has not gone well one bit.” He went on to say that threatening Iran was a terrible idea, too. “We need a new foreign policy that said we ought to mind our own business, bring our troops home, defend this country, defend our borders.”

Read more at: Newshounds.us

UPDATE: Watched an hour or so in re-runs. Same old. Does anybody--even hard right-wingers that may have wandered in here--think any of these guys should be President. Really?

The Elephant in the Room

While taking a break from reading the classics (Book Report), I happened upon a great read called Fair and Balanced, My Ass!: An Unbridled Look at the Bizarre Reality of Fox News by Joseph Minton Amann and Tom Breuer. These guys also are the authors of Sweet Jesus, I Hate Bill O'Reilly, and this book is a sequel of sorts.

"FOX-watching" has been sort of a hobby of mine, though it gets more and more difficult to actually watch the channel. It seems to have spun out of control since the 2006 elections. Or maybe its bag of tricks just coincidentally ran out at the same time. Since I can only take FOX for a few minutes these days, I rely ever more on sites such as MediaMatters and NewsHounds (motto: "We watch FOX so you don't have to"). I've also recently discovered Eyes on Fox News Network, which is also a terrific debunking site.

This book is a wonderful addition to the fore-mentioned sites, and like them offers countless descriptions of FOX's tactics. The book lays out the obvious (yet somehow oft disputed) hugely right-wing bias of the channel. They also rightly point out that while FOX is the highest rated "news" network, they barely even qualify as news in the first place. Now, if FOX or its supporters should deign to give this book any attention at all, I'm sure it will be called a "smear" or "attack." That has been their tactic with all of the sites mentioned. But that story won't have any more validity than most of their programs do.

You see, what all of these resources have in common is examples. Word-for-word transcripts, lots and lots of them. In the case of the websites, often times video. Calling verbatim quoting either "out of context" or "smears" is just weak. These guys have got them dead to rights. There is, of course, snark aplenty in the book, and that makes it particularly tasty.

Trust me, if you see FOX News for what it is: a right-wing propaganda network, you'll love this book. It's a tremendous validation to see what you know must be true proven in an entertaining way.

Highly Recommended