FT216: “Liberals are about as open-minded and tolerant as Nazis and communists were.” —Old Pithy

Posted by PITHOCRATES - April 4th, 2014

Fundamental Truth

The CEO of Mozilla resigned for Thinking ‘Incorrectly’

In 2008, Brendan Eich donated $1,000 to support California Proposition 8.  A proposal to keep marriage in California between only a man and a woman.  Proposition 8 passed as most Californians agreed with Brendan Eich.  They did not want to change law, tradition and custom.  The left has determined that the people of California are hate-filled people.  And liberal judges have since overruled the will of the people of California.

So who is Brendan Eich?  Until recently he was the CEO of Mozilla.  The company that puts out the internet browser Firefox.  He rose to CEO this year.  He cofounded Mozilla Foundation in 1998.  So he’s been there for awhile.  And did good work.  To rise to CEO you have to be pretty darn good.  And you can’t be a monster.  For if you are a monster the odds are slim of becoming CEO.  For it tends to garner bad press.

Well, as it turns out, exercising your free speech can make you a monster.   A hate-filled individual.  Which the left said he was.  Because of this $1,000 donation.  Just because he thought like the majority of all Californians.  That marriage should be between a man and a woman.  And because he did the left demanded his resignation for daring not to think ‘correctly’ like them.  So he did.  He resigned for thinking ‘incorrectly’.

Conservatives were not Welcomed at a Feminist Conference on Inclusivity

This is not the only ‘thought crime’ the left has leveled at someone.  For anyone that dares to think differently from them they call a thought criminal.  And do everything in their power to silence them.  For the ‘tolerant’ left is very intolerant of anyone that thinks differently from them.  Because the left hates dissenting views.  Especially those of conservatives.  As there are about two conservatives for every liberal they face a lot of dissenting views.  So they have a lot of ‘thought crime’ to police.

Universities are mostly liberal these days.  And whenever a conservative is invited to speak the thought police come out.  They protest.  They heckle.  They throw pies.  Just ask Ann Coulter.  Even when conservatives are invited back to their alma maters to give a commencement speech the thought police turn out to keep them from speaking.  Just ask Dr. Ben Carson.  Or Condoleezza Rice.

Feminists on university campuses are particularly intolerant to other points of view.  Even at a feminist conference about inclusivity.  Everyone was welcomed.  Except conservative women.  In fact, the feminists at this conference identified a woman as being a conservative.  Telling the students gathering there that they shouldn’t talk to her.  Because conservatives were not welcomed at this conference on inclusivity.  Just ask Katherine Timpf.

It’s hard to Pass your Agenda when you’re Outnumbered Two to One

Liberals have long wanted to revive the fairness doctrine.  For the one area they can’t control is talk radio.  And they don’t like what they’re saying on talk radio.  So they want to shut them up.  To balance the content broadcasted over the public airwaves.  As determined by the Federal Communications Commission.  Which could, of course, find that 3 hours of Rush Limbaugh a day is not balanced.  And require that he give up an hour or two of his time for an opposing viewpoint.  Hence the moniker the ‘Hush Rush Bill‘.

The left has been warning us about the calamity of global warming for the last three decades or so.  Telling us if we don’t act now the world will end within the decade.  But the people aren’t quaking with fear.  Some are even debunking their ‘science’.  With real science.  Something the left does not like.  And they want to do something about.  They want to shut them up.  Some even want to jail them.

Conservatives don’t do this.  They don’t call for boycotts or resignations when people exercise their right to free speech.  They don’t throw pies at people.  They don’t pressure universities to shut down debate by preventing someone from speaking that disagrees with them.  They don’t warn young women that someone ‘thinks wrong’.  That they shouldn’t talk to ‘wrong thinkers’.  They don’t try to balance the content in the liberal-dominated media.  And they don’t put politics over science.  Liberals do.  But conservatives don’t.

There have been some in history that put politics above everything else.  Just like liberals do.  People who punished those who said the wrong things.  And punished those for thinking wrong.  They had state censorship.  Propaganda.  And jail for those who weren’t like them.  Or worse.  Things the left would love to do to stifle all debate.  Because it’s hard to pass your agenda when you’re outnumbered two to one.  So who are these people from history?  Nazis.  And communists.  Yes, liberals are about as open-minded and tolerant as Nazis and communists were.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Al Gore’s Liberal Current TV about to go the way of Liberal Air America Radio

Posted by PITHOCRATES - June 24th, 2012

Week in Review

Things don’t look good for Al Gore’s television network.  They have lost so many viewers that their cable company may drop his channel (see 10 Brands That Will Disappear in 2013 by Douglas A. McIntyre, 24/7 Wall St, posted 4/21/2012 on Yahoo! Finance).

Each year, 24/7 Wall St. identifies 10 important American brands that we predict will disappear within a year. This year’s list reflects the brutally competitive nature of certain industries and the reason why companies cannot afford to fall behind in efficiency, innovation or financing…

Al Gore’s Current TV was on life support even before it fired its only bankable star, Keith Olbermann, in March following a set of battles with the host over his perks. He was replaced by serial talk show host failure Eliot Spitzer. Compared to Olbermann’s March figures, Spitzer’s ratings in April were down nearly 70%, according to TV audience measurement firm Nielsen. At the time, The Hollywood Reporter wrote, “Replacement Eliot Spitzer pulled an anemic 47,000 total viewers in the first outing of Viewpoint, with just 10,000 among adults 25-54. The weeks since saw an early rebound, particularly in the demo, but in its four weeks on air Viewpoint has steadily declined in both respects.” Reuters recently reported that Current TV’s audience had fallen enough that cable giant Time Warner Cable (NYSE: TWC) may have the right to discontinue carrying the channel. The closest Current TV has to a star is talk show veteran Joy Behar, a former cast member of “The View,” who had her own show canceled by CNN’s HLN in November. Gore does not have the pockets to keep a network with no future going.

Current TV will fail for the same reason Air America Radio failed.  Liberals just aren’t deep thinkers.  They’ll watch The Daily Show and The Colbert Report because they are funny.  They’re entertaining.  They make fun of conservatives.  And they’re each on only for one half hour a day, 4 days a week.  They’ll watch these shows to learn what’s in the news.  Because the network news isn’t as funny or as entertaining.

Now contrast this with conservative talk radio.  Which with Air America gone is pretty much all of talk radio.  Why does conservative talk radio succeed when liberal talk radio does not?  Because conservatives are older.  More grown up.  And are interested more in the issues than being entertained.  That is, conservatives are deep thinkers.  A lot of them are because they’re married and trying to raise a family.  So those things the younger liberals aren’t interested in – economics, monetary policy, fiscal policy, foreign policy – greatly interest conservatives.  Because these things impact their lives daily.  Especially when they have the checkbook out.  While college students are more interested in knowing where the good parties are.

It is rather ironic that the very thing liberals use to attract their liberal base is the reason they can’t get them to listen to or watch their programs.  They have sold the welfare state to their liberal base in lieu of rugged individualism.  Basically telling them, “Don’t worry.  We’re here to take care of you.”  So they have.  They trust in government completely.  And enjoy being young.  Not worrying about the issues of the day.  Because government is there to take care of them.

And then there is the population breakdown.  About 40% of the people call themselves conservative.  While only about 20% call themselves liberal.  So they’re playing to a smaller audience to begin with.  And that other 40%?  Independents and moderates who don’t much like politics to begin with.  Their party affiliation, or lack thereof, suggests they may tune into The Daily Show or The Colbert Report because they’re entertaining.  But they’re probably not going to be policy wonks and tune into any hardcore political program.  Because they’re comfortable in the center.  And that’s just not where Air America was or where Current TV is.  Or conservative talk radio for that matter.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

A Neutered American Lapdog is Advancing Agenda, not Reporting News

Posted by PITHOCRATES - July 22nd, 2011

Dirty Journalists keep Politicians Clean

Poor Rupert Murdoch.  He’s getting no love from the British Establishment over the phone hacking scandal.  Those who once courted the “feral beast” (British tabloids) are turning against it.  Probably because the other political party wooed them more successfully.  And if you’re in politics, you want them on your side.  Because they’re good at their jobs (see In Defense of Hacks by Toby Harnden posted 7/21/2011 on Foreign Policy).

Whereas our American counterparts have long viewed themselves as comparable to lawyers and doctors, we British hacks still see ourselves as practitioners of a grubbing craft rather than members of an upstanding profession. (The public, which views us as on a par with real estate agents, prostitutes and perhaps even criminals, tends to agree.)

Yes, they’re less Walter Cronkite and more Louie De Palma (a character on the American sitcom Taxi).  For a good journalist knows how to get dirty.  Like Louie, a good journalist is born dirty.

While the American press has certainly had its share of similar disgraces, it is true that American newspaper articles are in the main more accurate and better-researched than British ones; the Rupert Murdoch-owned Wall Street Journal was not wrong when it ventured that Fleet Street has “long had a well-earned global reputation for the blind-quote, single-sourced story that may or may not be true.” But stories in the American press also tend to be tedious, overly long, and academic, written for the benefit of po-faced editors and Pulitzer panels rather than readers. There’s a reason a country with a population one-fifth the size of that of the United States buys millions more newspapers each week.

For all their faults, British “rags” are more vibrant, entertaining, opinionated, and competitive than American newspapers. We break more stories, upset more people, and have greater political impact.

That’s the way American journalism was before the Political Class co-opted it.  And why ordinary Americans once read newspapers.  To keep an eye on the scoundrels we put into elected office.  It was one of the few things that kept our elected officials somewhat honest.  Or, at least, honest enough not to lose the next election.

In fact, for the British press, the most damaging revelation of the phone-hacking scandal is the degree to which it shows that journalists — or, to be more precise, News International executives — breached the inner sanctums of the British Establishment. A breed that had always taken pride in being made up of grubby outsiders was allowed in and made the most of the opportunity.

In the United States, journalists are already on the inside: Witness President Barack Obama’s private chats with op-ed columnists, the Washington Post and Time magazine types who effortlessly segue into White House press secretaries and the cozy consensus of Washington’s political-journalism-industrial complex. All too often, American editors, perhaps mindful of their future cocktail party invitations, would prefer their reporters stroke rather than stick it to authority. British journalistic excesses can rightly be condemned, but the American media could use a few more of them. It took the National Enquirer to bring Senator John Edwards to book — and Fleet Street would not have stood for the credulous U.S. reporting on the Bush administration that characterized the run-up to the Iraq war.

That’s the last thing you want.  Your journalists getting all warm and cozy with the people they’re supposed to keep honest.  You don’t want the media to be an adjunct of one party, following orders to advance an agenda while launching personal attacks on the other party.  A good journalist should hate all political authority equally.  And show no favoritism when destroying political careers.  

It is the very politicians who used every opportunity to ingratiate themselves with Murdoch and his acolytes who are now those calling for News International to be broken up — and for the media as a whole to be called to account. Their aim? A regulation system — probably headed up by new a government-appointed “independent” body — that produces a neutered press close to the American model. Having visited Washington and seen reporters stand up when the American president enters the room (British hacks do no such thing for the prime minister) and ask respectful, earnest three-part questions, no wonder our politicians would want more of the same.

The danger of the fevered atmosphere in Britain — where justified outrage over tabloid tactics is fast leading to a hasty public inquisition, with 10 official inquiries or investigations underway at last count — is that what Prime Minister Tony Blair once termed the “feral beast” of the media might be tamed and muzzled. Perhaps the worst outcome of all would be for it to be turned into an American-style lapdog.

If you want to learn about American politics (or journalism) read a British newspaper.  The British Establishment hates and fears them.  Because they do their job.  Whereas in America, the Political Class only hates and fears FOX NEWS and talk radio (Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, etc.).  Which tells you where to go to get your news.  Because if you want objective reporting, you have to go where they dare to be unflattering.  Unlike the sycophants in the ‘mainstream’ media.  For an unneutered feral beast is the only thing that will go for the political jugular.  And restrain the excess of our elected scoundrels.  I mean representatives.

And sometimes you need to get dirty.  Because getting dirty is sometimes the only way to keep politicians clean.

Good Journalism is more Reporting and less Stroke

If you watch FOX NEWS or listen to talk radio you’ll hear a different ‘version’ of the news than that on the mainstream media.  For example, the mainstream media has reported repeatedly polls citing that Americans want the Republicans to stop being intransigent and raise taxes already so the budget deal to raise the debt limit can move ahead.  Interesting how that ‘report’ meshes perfectly with the Obama administration policy agenda.  And yet Rasmussen reports a completely contrary poll finding (see Most Voters Fear Debt Deal Will Raise Taxes Too Much, Cut Spending Too Little posted 7/22/2011 on Rasmussen Reports).

The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that 62% of Likely U.S. Voters are worried more that Congress and President Obama will raise taxes too much rather than too little in any deal to end the debt ceiling debate. Just 26% fear they’ll raise taxes too little. Twelve percent (12%) aren’t sure. (To see survey question wording, click here…)

There’s a wide difference of opinion, however, between the Political Class and Mainstream voters. Fifty-nine percent (59%) of the Political Class is worried the deal will cut spending too much, while 63% of Mainstream voters fear it won’t cut spending enough. Those in the Mainstream worry more than Political Class voters by a near two-to-one margin – 70% to 37% – that the debt deal also will raise taxes too much.

It sounds like ordinary Americans don’t want higher taxes and more spending.  In fact, they are worried that any deal may raise taxes too much or cut spending too little.  Now this opposes the Obama administration policy agenda.  So I wonder which journalism is more reporting and less stroke?  And which is truer?

Entitlement Spending is the Cause of all our Budget Woes

Americans should be worried about raising taxes instead of cutting spending.  Because there is a much bigger problem out there (see Missing the Debt by Yuval Levin posted 7/21/2011 on The Corner).

…starting in the 2050s, CBO projects that health-care spending will be greater than all other non-interest spending combined, and the federal government will basically be a health insurer with some unusual side ventures like an army and a navy.

…health-care entitlement spending is basically 100 percent of our medium and long-term debt problem.

That thing that Obama and the Democrats refuse to put on the table?  Entitlement reform?  Especially all the health care programs (Medicare, Medicaid and now Obamacare)?  They’re the cause of all our budget woes.  Ignoring this fact makes the budget debate pointless.  It’s just political theatre.  Fiddling while America burns.  Pity we don’t have an unneutered feral beast to put this issue front and center.  Besides FOX NEWS and talk radio, that is.

FOX NEWS will Report what the Political Class rather you not Hear

Interestingly, FOX NEWS is part of the Rupert Murdoch Empire.  And those on the left viciously belittle it as not being ‘real’ news.  But they sure incur the wrath of the Political Class.  Which should tell you a thing or two.  Because when it comes to news organizations, they only hate those who report things they’d rather you not hear.

Of course there is a chance that the FOX NEWS isn’t a legitimate news organization.  And that they are only reporting inflammatory pieces to make a buck.  And that the Political Class is pure and innocent as the winter’s snow.  That everything they do is for our own best interests.  Being the honest public servants that they are.

Yeah, right.  Pull the other.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Mass Murder and a Fallen Democrat Provide an Opportunity to Reenact the Fairness Doctrine

Posted by PITHOCRATES - January 10th, 2011

The Left wants a Fairness Doctrine to Stifle Political Dissent

And here it is.  The big one.  What the Left really wants.  The ability to censor the opposing viewpoint so they can easily advance their agenda without political dissent.  You know what it is.  It’s called the Fairness Doctrine.  To stifle that vitriol we call free speech.  Our First Amendment right.  Which some are saying caused the Arizona Shooting rampage (see Clyburn: Words can be danger by Yvonne Wenger posted 1/10/2011 on The Post and Courier).

U.S. Rep. Jim Clyburn, the third-ranking Democrat in Congress, said Sunday the deadly shooting in Arizona should get the country thinking about what’s acceptable to say publicly and when people should keep their mouths shut.

Clyburn said he thinks vitriol in public discourse led to a 22-year-old suspect opening fire Saturday at an event Democratic U.S. Rep. Gabrielle Giffords held for her constituents in Tucson, Ariz. Six people were killed and 14 others were injured, including Giffords.

Clyburn thinks wrong.  From what we’re learning, it sounds like the shooter wasn’t even aware of reality let alone the public discourse.  Of course, you wouldn’t know this if you rush to some kind of judgment.  Or are just using the tragedy to advance a stalled agenda.

The shooting is cause for the country to rethink parameters on free speech, Clyburn said from his office, just blocks from the South Carolina Statehouse. He wants standards put in place to guarantee balanced media coverage with a reinstatement of the Fairness Doctrine, in addition to calling on elected officials and media pundits to use ‘better judgment.’

The Fairness Doctrine.  Statutory censorship.  You see, back then there were only three networks and PBS.  And the Fairness Doctrine was to keep them fair and balanced.  If they aired a story favoring one viewpoint, they then had to give time for the opposing viewpoint.  Or face a fine.  Sounds fair, doesn’t it?  But it’s just a fancy way to enact state censorship.

Here’s how.  Who’s to determine what programming meets the balancing requirement of the Fairness Doctrine?  The FCC.  Which is part of the executive branch of the government.  So the president had the power to determine what was appropriate speech.  And what wasn’t.  That’s a lot of power.  And JFK and LBJ put that power to good uses.  They used it to harass their political enemies.  Made it so costly to air a point of view opposing theirs that stations would refuse to air them.  It really stifled political dissent.  And made it a lot easier to pass the Great Society legislation.

Ah, yes, those were the good old days.  When you didn’t have all that messiness we call free speech.  The 1960s and 1970s were Big Government decades.  Times were good for the liberal left.  That is until Ronald Reagan came along to spoil everything.  For it was Reagan who repealed the Fairness Doctrine.  And ever since the Left has wanted it back.

The Left wants a Fairness Doctrine to Hush Rush

The party really ended in the 1980s.  Not only did they lose their beloved doctrine, but there was a new kid on the block.  Talk radio.  It was bad enough not to have ‘fairness’ as they saw fairness, but now there was more than three networks and PBS.  There was content all over the place that they couldn’t control.  And it really pissed them off.  Especially a guy by the name of Rush Limbaugh.  He was such a thorn in Bill Clinton’s side that some called the Fairness Doctrine the ‘Hush Rush’ bill. 

You have to remember how Bill Clinton won the election.  He won with one of the lowest percentages of the popular vote.  Ross Perot was a third-party candidate that drained votes away from both candidates.  But, more importantly, he turned the election into a media circus.  Everyone was following what wacky thing he would say or do next that few paid attention to Clinton’s less than spotless past.  And people were spitting mad about George H.W. Bush‘s broken pledge not to raise taxes.  You take these two things away and Bush the elder would have been a two-term president.  So Clinton wasn’t very popular with the people to begin with. 

During the Nineties, some 20 million people a week were tuning in to listen to Rush.  Why was he so popular?  For the simple reason that he held the same views as some 20 million people in the country.  And these people were tired of the media bias.  For them Rush was a breath of fresh air.  His radio show was the only place this huge mass of people could go and not hear the Democrat spin on everything.  And this was a real threat to the Left.  They blamed him for their failure to nationalize health care.  And the Left blamed Rush for Whitewater, Gennifer Flowers, Paula Jones, Monica Lewinsky, the blue dress, etc.  Hillary Clinton called the Lewinsky affair a vast right-wing conspiracy.  And if it wasn’t for Rush and talk radio, those things would have remained hidden. So you can see why they hated him.

The Shooting of a Democrat Allows the Left to Attack Conservatives

It was bad for Bill Clinton.  But President Obama has it even worse.  The FOX News channel has blown away the cable competition.  The Internet has come of age.  There’s more content out there than ever before.  And the old guard (the three networks, PBS and the liberal newspapers) are losing more and more of their influence.  In other words, they need the Fairness Doctrine like never before.  Because there is way too much free speech for their liking.  It’s just not a good time if you’re trying to be devious.

So when a mass murder comes along and a Democrat is shot in the head, they pounce.  Representative Clyburn uses this tragedy to advance the Fairness Doctrine.  Even though he knew little at the time.  But that didn’t stop him.  They have no evidence, but the Left has blamed the Tea Party, Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck, Sean Hannity, Sarah Palin, Michelle Bachman, FOX News, and anyone else who has ever held a contrary viewpoint.

So, what, then, motivated this killer in Arizona? 

Who is Jared Loughner

Well, let’s hear what a close friend of the shooter, Jared Loughner, says.  Bryce Tierney knew him since high school.  Even went to college with him.  And from what he says, Loughner doesn’t sound like he was influenced by anyone on the right (see Exclusive: Loughner Friend Explains Alleged Gunman’s Grudge Against Giffords by Nick Baumann posted 1/10/2011 on Mother Jones).

Tierney tells Mother Jones in an exclusive interview that Loughner held a years-long grudge against Giffords and had repeatedly derided her as a “fake.” Loughner’s animus toward Giffords intensified after he attended one of her campaign events and she did not, in his view, sufficiently answer a question he had posed, Tierney says. He also describes Loughner as being obsessed with “lucid dreaming”—that is, the idea that conscious dreams are an alternative reality that a person can inhabit and control—and says Loughner became “more interested in this world than our reality.” Tierney adds, “I saw his dream journal once. That’s the golden piece of evidence. You want to know what goes on in Jared Loughner’s mind, there’s a dream journal that will tell you everything…”

But the thing I remember most is just that question. I don’t remember him stalking her or anything.” Tierney notes that Loughner did not display any specific political or ideological bent: “It wasn’t like he was in a certain party or went to rallies…It’s not like he’d go on political rants.”  But Loughner did, according to Tierney, believe that government is “fucking us over.” He never heard Loughner vent about the perils of “currency,” as Loughner did on one YouTube video he created… 

Once, Tierney recalls, Loughner told him, “I’m pretty sure I’ve come to the conclusion that words mean nothing.” Loughner would also tell Tierney and his friends that life “means nothing…”

Tierney believes that Loughner was very interested in pushing people’s buttons—and that may have been why he listed Hitler’s Mein Kampf as one of his favorite books on his YouTube page. (Loughner’s mom is Jewish, according to Tierney.) Loughner sometimes approached strangers and would say “weird” things, Tierney recalls. “He would do it because he thought people were below him and he knew they wouldn’t know what he was talking about.”

In college, Loughner became increasingly intrigued with “lucid dreaming,” and he grew convinced that he could control his dreams, according to Tierney. In a series of rambling videos posted to his YouTube page, dreams are a frequent topic. In a video posted on December 15, Loughner writes, “My favorite activity is conscience dreaming: the greatest inspiration for my political business information. Some of you don’t dream—sadly.” In another video, he writes, “The population of dreamers in the United States of America is less than 5%!” Later in the same video he says,  “I’m a sleepwalker—who turns off the alarm clock.”

Loughner believed that dreams could be a sort of alternative, Matrix-style reality, and “that when you realize you’re dreaming, you can do anything, you can create anything,” Tierney says. Loughner started his “dream journal” in an attempt to take more control of his dreams, his friend notes, and he kept this journal for over a year…

After Loughner apparently gave up drugs and booze, “his theories got worse,” Tierney says. “After he quit, he was just off the wall.” And Loughner started to drift away from his group of friends about a year ago. By early 2010, dreaming had become Loughner’s “waking life, his reality,” Tierney says. “He sort of drifted off, didn’t really care about hanging out with friends. He’d be sleeping a lot.” Loughner’s alternate reality was attractive, Tierney says. “He figured out he could fly.” Loughner, according to Tierney, told his friends, “I’m so into it because I can create things and fly. I’m everything I’m not in this world.”

But in this world, Loughner seemed ticked off by what he believed to be a pervasive authoritarianism. “The government is implying mind control and brainwash on the people by controlling grammar,” he wrote in one YouTube video. In another, Loughner complains that when he tried to join the military, he was handed a “mini-Bible.” That upset him: “I didn’t write a belief on my Army application and the recruiter wrote on the application: None,” he wrote on YouTube. In messages on MySpace last month, Loughner declared, “I’ll see you on National T.v.! This is foreshadow.” He also noted on the website, “I don’t feel good: I’m ready to kill a police officer! I can say it…”

Since hearing of the rampage, Tierney has been trying to figure out why Loughner did what he allegedly did. “More chaos, maybe,” he says. “I think the reason he did it was mainly to just promote chaos. He wanted the media to freak out about this whole thing. He wanted exactly what’s happening. He wants all of that.” Tierney thinks that Loughner’s mindset was like the Joker in the most recent Batman movie: “He fucks things up to fuck shit up, there’s no rhyme or reason, he wants to watch the world burn. He probably wanted to take everyone out of their monotonous lives: ‘Another Saturday, going to go get groceries’—to take people out of these norms that he thought society had trapped us in.”

It wasn’t Vitriol, it was Insanity

Well, he doesn’t sound like a Tea Party guy.  Or a fan of Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck, Sean Hannity, Sarah Palin, Michelle Bachman or FOX News.  He doesn’t sound like a religious guy.  He may have been anti-Semitic.  He felt superior to those around him.  He liked to dream and spend a lot of time in his imagination.  He may have liked the movie The Matrix.  Maybe even thought he was in a ‘Matrix‘ fantasyland.  He did drugs and drank at one time.  When he went sober, though, he seemed to go deeper into his imagination.  He was pretty certain that the government was controlling people with an insidious form of grammar.  And he wasn’t a fan of authority figures and thought killing a cop would cheer him up.

I don’t know, maybe it’s me, but I wouldn’t call this guy a conservative.  And I don’t think there was any vitriol egging him on.  I doubt any vitriol could compete with what was going on in his imagination.  This guy had serious mental issues.  He was unstable.  And dangerous.  And the only reason why he shot Representative Giffords is because she had the misfortune of being his representative.

So Representative Clyburn, and the far left, are wrong.  No one on the right is responsible for this tragedy in Arizona.  The shooter was just a nutcase.  Little solace for the victims’ families.  But it does say that we don’t need a Fairness Doctrine.  For it would NOT have altered what happened in Tucson, Arizona, this past Saturday.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Will Arizona Shooting Rampage, Giffords near Mortal Wound Save the Left’s Liberal Agenda?

Posted by PITHOCRATES - January 9th, 2011

The Left is Giddy with the Possibilities of the Arizona Shooting Rampage

We haven’t buried any of the victims yet.  Giffords is still fighting for her life in the hospital.  The government hasn’t put a case together yet against the shooter, Jared Loughner.  But the Left has pointed the finger of blame.  J’accuse!  Tea Party.  J’accuse!  Second Amendment.  J’accuse!  Talk radio.  J’accuse!  Sarah Palin.  J’accuse!  Republicans.  J’accuse!  First Amendment.

All I can say is what a load of merde.

Will the actions of one lone nutcase change the political landscape?  Will it nullify the 2010 midterm election results?  The mandate for limited government?  And lower spending?  Perhaps.  And the Left is just giddy with the possibilities of the Arizona shooting rampage.

Did the Arizona Shooter Advance the Liberal Agenda?

Remember that other nutcase?  Timothy McVeigh?  Who blew up the Murrah Building in Oklahoma City?  He was a guy that went a little cuckoo after Ruby Ridge.  And the Branch Davidian Compound in Waco, Texas (where he watched the buildings burn in person).  Yeah, he was nuts.  Probably wore aluminum foil in his hat (to shield himself from the government brainwashing waves) and feared those unmarked black helicopters.  He was another one of those consummate losers.  No girlfriend.  Bullied as a kid.  Suicidal.  And pissed off at the government.  Who was just another bully.  Nay, the biggest bully of them all.  Who was out to get him.  So he had two burning ambitions.  To get even with bullies.  And to die.

He was not a rank and file member of the Republican Party.  He was, what’s the word?  Yes.  Insane.

But the Left said he blew up the Murrah Building because of the vitriol on talk radio.  In particular, Rush Limbaugh.  Of course, Rush, being born some 17 years before McVeigh, there was no way that he could have bullied McVeigh in school and sent him down that road to the Murrah building.  But that didn’t matter.  The Left didn’t like Rush.  And they needed something.  And this was better than anything they could have ever hoped for.  So they politicized it.

And here we are.  With another lone nutcase who wasn’t loved enough in his childhood.  And now here they are.  Again.  The Left.  Ginning up fear of our fellow citizens (those in the Tea Party, that is).  And trying their best to make us ask them for more government.  It has even delayed the vote to repeal Obamacare.

What the hell?  Is the shooter a liberal Democrat?  Did he want the liberal agenda to advance?  Because that’s exactly what his actions have done.  Giving that failed agenda new traction.  If I was a conspiracy nutcase I’d say something.  But I’m not.  So I won’t.

The Left Parades out the Usual Suspects

It doesn’t come as any surprise.  It’s probably standard operating procedure whenever a nutcase does something stupid.  Whenever they can make a connection between a nutcase and conservatives.  No matter how tenuous the connection is.  And here are some of the usual suspects:  Tea Party, Talk radio, Religious Right, Guns, Sarah Palin, Republicans.

The Tea Party?  Those people upset with the government because they are constantly overstepping their constitutional authority?  Come on.  These are Rule of Law people.  They don’t break the law.  They obey the law.  With extreme prejudice.  And they just want everyone else to, too.

Talk radio?  Rush Limbaugh has some 20 million listeners tune in each week.  And have you ever listened to those who call in?  A lot of small business owners and heads of households.  They’re law abiding citizens concerned about their business and/or family’s future.  They, too, just want everyone to live within the Rule of Law.  Including their elected representatives.

The Religious Right?  Those people who want the Ten Commandments posted in our public buildings?  Come on.  These people don’t kill.  It’s one of their Commandments.  Thou shall not kill.  Their religion is a religion of peace.  Really.  Unlike that one that guy followed who went on a shooting spree on Fort Hood shouting “Allahu Akhbar!”  But he’s just a sick man.  While those in the Religious Right are people to be afraid of.

Gun control?  You know, you didn’t have these problems in the Wild West.  If some nutcase started shooting women and children, he wouldn’t have gotten too far.  Because other people with guns would have shot his ass.  To protect the women and children.  See?  People can use guns in two ways.  It all depends on the people with the guns.  Are they good people?  Or bad?  If you make them illegal, only the bad people will have them.  Which explains why the bad people are all for gun control.  Because it makes easier victims.

Sarah Palin?  Because she used words like ‘lock and load’ and put crosshairs on maps of districts to target for campaign challenges?  That’s bad?  But movies about how to assassinate George W. Bush are just art.  And protected by our First Amendment.  Go figure.  Come on.  Palin is a Tea Party gal.  And Tea Party people are all about the Rule of Law.

Republicans?  Those people who have for years cowered as the Left’s bitch?  Who for decades have asked the Left meekly to let them participate in Congress?  Please?  Which the Left replied, “Sure, we’ll listen to you.  Humor you.  But don’t get your hopes up.  Because elections have consequences.”  The people who capitulate so fast after gaining power because they don’t want to offend and be removed from the ‘invite’ list for all those Washington parties?  Give me a break.  Self neutering people just aren’t a threat.

Another Oklahoma City Bombing?

Yada, yada, yada, the Left hates conservatives.  And will use any crisis or incident to further their hate against conservatives.  Especially when the people have rejected them and their liberal agenda at the polls.

There are some who said what Obama needed was another Oklahoma City bombing to reinvigorate his liberal agenda.  And he got it.  Thanks to this pathetic loser nutcase who feared the government’s manipulation of grammar.  And the Left is running with it.  Shame on them for doing so.  Then again, it is hard for anyone to feel shame when they have no shame.  It’s like trying to punish a lion for killing a zebra.  It’s just who a lion is.

Let us just pray that the victims’ families can escape the politicizing of this terrible tragedy in their lives.  Let them mourn their losses with their families.  Alone.  And in peace.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

LESSONS LEARNED #30: “Liberal talk radio is not successful because liberals are not deep thinkers.” -Old Pithy

Posted by PITHOCRATES - September 9th, 2010

CENSORSHIP BY ANY OTHER NAME IS STILL CENSORSHIP

When an oppressive, totalitarian regime seizes power, they shut down the radio and television stations.  It’s at the top of their ‘to do’ list.  Because it’s the fastest media.  Then they turn to the newspapers.  Once they control the content they open for business again.  We call it censorship.  The people only hear what they want the people to hear.  And they kill/imprison those who persist in trying to distribute anything other than the state’s propaganda. 

When you control the media, you can tell any lie.  You can report the state has increased food protection while millions die from famine.  You can report the great economic success of the Five Year Plan while people wait in lines for hours to get their rations of soap and toilet paper.  You can report the success of your Keynesian economic policies while record numbers of people go unemployed.  If you have control of the media you can tell any lie.  And prevent the telling of any truth.

When government pursues policies that are not popular, the telling of lies and the controlling of truths becomes policy.  Enter the Fairness Doctrine.  JFK used it to muzzle the Right when they debated the Nuclear Test Ban Treaty.  LBJ used it to muzzle conservative radio stations (who were attacking his Great Society policies, not the Vietnam War).  Nixon tried to use it to silence his enemies (it doesn’t work, though, when your enemies are liberal media outlets). 

Ronald Reagan, a supporter of First Amendment rights, revoked the doctrine during his administration.  And the Left has been trying to bring it back ever since.  (They even want to extend it to the Internet – another medium the Left does not control.  But that’s another story for another time.)

FAIR IS NOT FAIR

The liberals say it’s not fair that a Rush Limbaugh can go on the air for 3 hours a day 5 days a week without an opposing viewpoint to ‘balance’ his views.  Bill Clinton said it’s not fair because there is no ‘truth detector’ to separate fact from fiction (he said that before he was impeached for perjury).  When they talk about ‘fairness’ it’s code for censorship.  What they want is to silence these alternate viewpoints. 

If you want to talk about being fair, let’s be fair.  Do conservatives have an unfair advantage in media?   The Culture and Media Institute (a Division of the Media Research Center) published a special report for the Media Research Center titled Unmasking the Myths Behind the Fairness Doctrine.  It’s 30 pages but well worth your time in reading it.  On page 5 of this report they cite audience reach and circulation statistics for the top 5 sources of information liberals and conservatives use:

Broadcast TV news, millions/day   Liberal  42.1     Conservative  0.0
Top 25 newspapers, millions/day   Liberal  11.7     Conservative  1.3
Cable TV news, millions/month     Liberal 182.8     Conservative 61.6
Top talk radio, millions/week         Liberal  24.5     Conservative 87.0
Newsweeklies, millions/week        Liberal   8.5      Conservative  0.0

When you look at these numbers, you see a dominance of liberal sources.  In fact, talk radio is the only source in the list where conservatives make up a larger percentage of the audience than liberals.  And yet talk radio is the only source that liberals cite as needing a fairness doctrine.  What does that tell you?  The only bias that exists in the media is against conservatives.

FOLLOW THE MONEY

Air America, the all-liberal national radio network (now there’s fairness), went belly up.  Chapter 7 (liquidation).  They tried Chapter 11 (reorganization) earlier but the reorganized business couldn’t make any money either.  By contrast, Rush Limbaugh has been on the air since the late 1980s.  And, according to him, he has never had a down year or had to lay off a single employee.  Why?

Radio is free.  To us.  The listeners.  Others pay so we can listen free.  Advertisers.  Do they do this out of altruism?  No.  They do it out of greed.  They advertise to increase their sales revenue.  It’s a win-win.  They promote their products and services.  We listen for free.  And broadcasters make enough money to cover their bills and earn a profit.  (Well, I guess that’s more of a win-win-win.  There’re three winners.  But I belabor the point.)  It’s really a simple formula.  There’s only one catch.  Advertisers only want to advertise where people are actually listening.

And that was the problem with Air America.  No one was listening.  Weak ratings equal weak advertising sales.  Liberals can exist in the realm of National Public Radio (publicly funded no matter how few people listen), but if their revenue is tied to their popularity, they’re screwed. 

LIKE READING BOOKS

FOX paired liberal Alan Colmes with conservative Sean Hannity on Hannity and Colmes.  The show had a successful run.  Sean Hannity still has that timeslot.  Alone.  As well as the #2 radio program behind Rush Limbaugh.  Colmes has not gone on to such bigger or better things.

Colmes blamed the failure of Air America on unfair treatment.  The conservatives got the best stations and time slots.  So Air America never had a chance.  Despite having big on-air talent like Al Franken and Janeane Garofalo.  But it wasn’t unfair treatment that favored conservatives.  It was advertising revenue that favored conservatives.  If the liberals could have delivered the ratings conservatives did, they’d be on the best stations in the best time slots.  But they couldn’t.  So they weren’t.

Liberals like to be entertained.  They’ll tune into SNL and The Daily Show.  For they love a good personal attack on a conservative.  They’ll watch the network news that is full of entertainment news.  They’ll buy The New York Times and read the Arts section.  They’ll tune in and listen to the shock jocks on FM and satellite radio. But they don’t like thinking about serious issues.  To them listening to talk radio is like reading a book.  And where’s the fun in that?

FARTS ARE FUNNY

Liberal talk radio will never have the numbers conservative talk radio has.  Not in a center-right country.  The intelligentsia (liberals in the media, college professors, etc.) is a very small minority.  The other liberals are just children who haven’t grown up yet.  And how many children do you know that eat their vegetables?  Wash behind their ears?  Read a book?  Or engage in deep, philosophical thought?  I don’t know any.  The kids I know think fart jokes are funny.  Think about that the next time someone laughs at a fart joke on TV.  I’ll bet you it’s a child that’s laughing.  Or a liberal.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

FUNDAMENTAL TRUTH #30: “Liberal talk radio is not successful because liberals are not deep thinkers.” -Old Pithy

Posted by PITHOCRATES - September 7th, 2010

LESS THAN MEETS THE EYE

The Left has long searched for an answer to talk radio.  It is one of the few mediums they do not control.   And it’s a powerful medium.  Lots of people listen to talk radio.  Few of them liberal.

When you hear ‘talk radio’, what do you think of?  Rush Limbaugh?  Probably.  Most people do.  When you hear ‘conservative talk radio’, what do you think of?  Rush Limbaugh again?  Probably so.  Now think of Liberal talk radio and what do you think of?  Silence?  Silence that is so silent that you can hear crickets chirping?  Probably.  Successful talk radio and conservative talk radio are synonymous.  Why?  America is a center-right country.  Limbaugh’s success isn’t due to any genius on his part.  He just says what a vast majority of Americans think.  And the Left hates that.  Because they’re not in the majority.

They sound big.  But that’s because they’ve got big mouths.  Sort of a mouse that roared kind of thing.  They’ve got the vast majority of the network news and print media.  The college professors.  The Hollywood elite.  And a bunch of rich people who assuage their guilt over their unearned wealth by proclaiming their liberal tendencies.  This is not a lot of people.  In fact, it’s quite few.  However, if we read or watch the news, watch a movie or a program about entertainers, go to college or hear the obscenely rich talk about helping the ‘little people’ they can’t stand and want nothing to do with, they’re there.  They’re in our face.  Some in positions of credibility.  So people see them as…credible.  However incredible they are.  Which makes it seem like there are a lot more of them than there actually are.  So, then, who are they?  Really?  These liberals?

THE GUILTY RICH

Some people have amassed vast fortunes for doing nothing. Some inherited it.  Some married into it.  Others have made vast fortunes by pretending to be other people (actors).  Some wrote books.  Others made it big in pop ‘music’.  Others rode a wave of celebrity for silly behavior for which they have no shame.  These people don’t live in the real world.  The kind of world where you get up with an alarm clock and go to work 5 days a week (or more) for a paycheck that barely pays your bills.  No.  These people don’t need alarm clocks.  And they never want for anything.  Except to be loved.

Because there are some in politics (i.e., Liberals/Democrats) that like to make everything into a class struggle, these rich people feel guilty.  For in class warfare, the rich are always the bad guys.  And they don’t want to be the bad guys.  Because people don’t love the bad guys.  So they show how much they care for those less fortunate.  They call themselves liberals.  And we forgive them for all that wealth.  The kind of wealth we say CEOs shouldn’t have.  But it’s okay for rich liberals.  Even though they don’t create jobs.  Or make things that make our lives better.

THE YOUNG AND THE STUPID

Kids are stupid.  Don’t believe me?  Ask a parent.  You tell them not to drink, do drugs, have sex, drive recklessly, skip class, lie, cheat, etc., and they still do.  Not all of them.  But many do.  They engage in reckless, stupid, irresponsible behavior all of the time.  And parents find drugs in their rooms.  Deal with a teen pregnancy.  Or an abortion.  Comfort a child with an STD.  Or help her deal with the trauma she suffers when her ‘private’ nude photos aren’t so private anymore (and seeing her arrested for distributing child pornography).  Or hearing from a child’s teachers (or your priest) that they were forwarded a sexting from your child.  Seeing a daughter in a Girls Gone Wild commercial (and seeing her lose a job because of it).  Go to the emergency room because of a car accident or drug overdose.  Enroll a child into rehab.  Or go to the morgue to identify a dead child.  Or something less traumatic, like babysitting a grandchild while your daughter dances at a topless bar.  Or is out turning tricks. 

Kids live in the now.  And they want to have a good time.  All of the time.  Sex, drugs, abortion and STDs.  That’s what they’re thinking about.  And the ‘skankification’ of women.  Of girls.  Boys want only one thing.  Sex.  And girls want to be loved.  So they’re liberals.  They’re all for the liberation and empowerment of women.  Of girls.  Anything that makes girls ‘easier’.  And helps a girl’s self-esteem by making them more ‘popular’.  So legalize drugs.  And lower the drinking age.  Makes it easier to get girls into bed.  And keep abortion legal.  So a girl doesn’t have to worry about getting pregnant.  Makes her less hesitant in putting out.  And cure those incurable diseases, damn it.  Sometimes you’d like to hook up with a girl without having to get her drunk first.  And she’d be a whole lot more cooperative if she didn’t have to worry about an STD or two.

LOOK AT ME

I drive a Prius.  Because I care.  And I’m better than you.  That’s the message.  But when a rich celebrity drives a Prius and then flies away in their private plane for some fun in the sun, they give a different message.  They’re saying, “I’m a hypocrite.”  And, of course, that they’re better than us.

There comes a time in a rich celebrity’s life when they realize they haven’t done anything worthwhile.  I mean, sure, they’ve become rich and famous.  But they did that by pretending to be someone they’re not.  Or by writing some songs that Big Music marketed well.  Or simply for being good looking.  At some point in that ’empty’ life they need validation.  That their life has meaning.  So they champion a cause.  Warn us about the oceans.  Global warming.  The hungry.  They become politically active.  And provide expertise in things they know little about.  They’ll testify before Congress not because they have scientific credentials.  But because they played someone in a movie who did.  And to show their cerebral prowess they’ll call themselves liberals.  And warn us not to vote for George W. Bush.  For if we do, he’ll legalize rape or send all the gay people to one state.  (And, no, I won’t say who said these things.  I’m sure they’re embarrassed enough.)

And we love our celebrities.  Want to be like them.  So we, too, drive a Prius.  Because we, too, care.  And, of course, because we’re better than you.

THE SELFISHLY NARROW MINDED

The single-issue people care only for single issues.  Gays and lesbians who vote based on only gay and lesbian issues are single-issue people.  People who vote based only on a person’s abortion stand are single-issue people.  People who vote based only on environmental issues are single-issue people.  Etc.  Social Security.  Welfare.  Anti-war.  Anti-nuclear power.  Race.  Redistribution of wealth.  Animal rights.  People can be passionate about any one issue.  And if they are only passionate about any one issue, they’ll vote to advance that one, narrow issue.  And damn the unintended consequences that result from advancing that one narrow issue.  And they’ll call themselves liberals.  Because they’re about the enlightened ideal.  Not profits.  National security.  The rest of us.  Or common sense.

IT’S JUST A JUMP TO THE LEFT, AND THEN A STEP TO THE RIGHT

Liberals are indeed a minority of the population.  And yet our government governs very liberally.  How does this happen?  Simple.  Politicians lie.

During the primary election, they have to appeal to their base.  And their base includes all the small little groups of people noted above.  And more.  To get that liberal vote, they have to show how liberal they are.  Once they get the nomination, they have to move to the center and lie to the independents and moderates in the general election.  Convince them that they are centrists.  If elected, they move back to the left to pay off the far Left that financed their election.  When their poll numbers fall, they then move back to the right.  It’s a dance.  Like the Time Warp.  From the Rocky Horror Picture Show

It’s just a jump to the left
And then a step to the right
Put your hands on your hips
You bring your knees in tight
But it’s the pelvic thrust
That really drives you insane,

Let’s do the Time Warp again!

And there is some pelvic thrusting going on.  But it’s not the good kind.  If you know what I mean.

IS THERE ANYBODY OUT THERE?

So why isn’t there a ‘Rush Limbaugh’ in liberal talk radio?  Because liberals are a small demographic.  And it’s a demographic created from small, narrow, special interests.  And a lot of them have things on their minds other than monetary and fiscal policy.  Foreign policy.  Affordable housing.  They’re thinking about sex and drugs.  Where to jet off to next.  Or checking into rehab.  They’ll rock the vote at election time.  But after that, they have better things to do.  You add it up and there is simply no market for liberal talk radio.  At least, not like there is for conservative talk radio.

When Liberal talk radio succeeds, it’s often by shocking the audience.  Belittling conservatives.  Name calling.  Like on SNL.  Or John Stewart’s The Daily Show.  It’s heavy on the comedy.  Light on the issues.  Because their audience is there for the entertainment.  Not for deep, intellectual thought.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,