Radio Rantings
We're Number One!
Thursday November 06, 2003 9:13 PM
In about the last three weeks, both Bill O'Reilly and Michael Savage made claims to have the top selling book in their categories. Savage says he has the top selling neocon book, beating out Ann Coulter. O'Reilly insisted to a caller that his book was number one on the bestseller lists. Here are the facts:
When I heard the O'Reilly claim, I went to the standard for top selling books, the NYT Book listing. O'Reilly had been in first place the previous week, but was then second to his arch-nemesis, Al Franken. At this writing, his book is in third place behind Michael Moore and Al Franken, in that order.
At Amazon.com, O'Reilly is in 14th place, Franken in third, followed by Moore.
Then, there's the Wall Street Journal - only Franken on the list....
Oh, and here's Savage's claim.
Rush Admits He Knows Nothing
Michael Savage, master of misinformation
When I get off work, this right-winger is holding forth on one local
station. So far, I have caught three major misinformation episodes:
- Religion and Political Speech.
- One day while driving home and scanning across the various
radio station, Savage was ranting about how no religious figure can
make political statements from the pulpit. This is misinformation,
since the only thing a pastor cannot do is directly or
indirectly endorse or oppose a candidate.
- Washington Sniper Descriptions.
- When the first descriptions of suspects in the D.C. area came
in, there were a variety of descriptions, from African-American to
White with some "olive-skinned" included. Savage, just a day or two
before the suspects were actually arrested, insisted on going with only
one, the one that gave an Arabic appearance. It turned out to be a bad
choice (except for Savage and his followers, who, like most pundits,
don't allow the facts to get in their way) because the description was
from the man who was proven to be lying, and has been charged with
lying to the police. Too bad radio ranters can't be similarly charged.
- MSNBC Personnel.
- On another occasion, Savage savaged MSNBC for their bland
personnel. Three names, the first he listed, are all I noted, however,
it was pretty bad. Connie
Chung, Larry King and Phil Donahue.
Well, notice where the links take you, obviously Savage only watches
FOX NEWS, for obvious
reasons.
- UPDATE: Those watching the Neocons are aware that Mr. Weiner is now on MSNBC. Looks like whining works.
Check the site directly below for additional background on the show, and the host.
Also get more from the daily rant and rebuttal at MichaelSavageSucks.com.
There is also a letter that was forwarded to me about another fraud perpetrated by Savage.
Check here for the demonstration of how Weiner can dish it out, but can't take it.
Twice since writing the previous example of Michael Savage's wimping out on callers, I heard him hang up because the caller didn't kiss his ass or put up with Weiner's insults. Today(Thursday August 07, 2003), Weiner also demonstrated some of the Rules and Neocon Ettiquette.
- ) Take everything personally[RULE 14]: he whined about the study that showed that many drivers are distracted. To make it an attack on him and his radio show, he focused on people who fiddle with the radio, suggesting that the 'liberals who control things (Technique: play the Victim card)' would pass some kind of law that would require all car radios be set to NPR.
- ) Play the Victim card: although the Republicans, most of whom today are Neocons, have functional control of all three branches of the U.S. Government, Neocons continue to play themselves as a persecuted minority, with some 'vast liberal conspiracy of government and media' suppressing their views, despite the predominance of Neocons on 'talk' shows.
- ) Attack non-Neocon views: regardless of the actual Conservative and Liberal slant of any issue, always take any opinion that is not Neocon and present it as 'Liberal'. Wiener referred to Abortion, Gay Rights and Gun Control as the three issues: Abortion as a choice is Conservative - the freedom of the Individual trumps the religious views of the group, in this case Neocon Xians. Gay Rights also is Conservative - the freedom of the Individual to live as they wish. Gun control is generally opposed by Conservatives, with certain restrictions on weaponry - for instance, private ownership of nuclear devices.
- Take claims to the level of the Absurd: As mentioned, Wiener attacked the dangers of driving while distracted and had to use reducto ad absurdum, making the idea of safer driving by paying attention to driving becomes a personal attack oh him (see #1) by trying to force people to listen to NPR instead of Michael Savage.
Friday September 05, 2003
The Reversal of Meaning
Savage is accusing the Democrats who filibustered a judicial nominee as 'racists' because they opposed him for his views, not for his ethnicity. Need I say more?
The Rush Factor
Occasionally, while driving in to work, I tune in Rush's show. (BTW, I
still have an outstanding request for an explanation how such "hard
working Americans" can take three hours in the middle of the work day
to listen to Rush, and still be "hard working Americans"). One day, I
found his second actual lie (see about the difference between lying and
presenting misinformation), when he says no one - on the so-called left
- has ever rebutted him. In fact, there is a book, and updates on the website of
FAIR that specifically rebuts Limbaugh's claims. There is even the most
recent material including the
demonization of Tom Daschle available from the homepage.
Update: within about thirty seconds, after tuning to Rush while driving to work (I work full time, swing shift, and have no time to indulge in masochism) I once again am reminded that English is clearly not his first language. He was complaining that "ballistic missles" were found in Iraq - which he says are not the "short range" because they are ballistic. Okay, once again throwing facts into the face of the Neocons, here's the appropriate definition. Simply, ANY missle (not liquid fueled, solid fueled, or even self-propelled) that reaches its target under the pull of gravity is BALLISTIC.
Rush's reaction to this? He'd Probably -->.
- How long can you listen to Rush without finding an error?
- Thirty seconds, if he's hemming and hawing for at least twenty of them.
Latest disinifornation
: Rush says that Iraq is using SCUD missles, which "the inspectors said they didn't have".
Check the UN Inspection site (you need Adobe Acrobat Reader for the reports) and see if there's any such claim.
(HINT: there isn't. The only mention of missles are ones outlawed for being beyond a set range, such as the Al Fathah)
More disinformation
, or in Rush's case, misinformation, since he knows no better. This quote is from a column by Marianne Means, a columnist for Hearst Newspapers, as reprinted in the Arizona Daily Star on April 5, 2003:
Nothing is too low for the GOP. Last week on Capitol Hill, a photo circulated on the Internet shows Senate Minority Leader Tom Daschle standing with other senators pledging allegiance to the flag.
His left hand instead of his right is over his heart. "He's so left of center, he pledges backwards," the caption reads, according to the Hill news-paper. The picture was doctored to create a reverse image. Daschle's wedding ring on his left hand is missing, and the buttons on his suit coat are on the wrong side.
As soon as I heard Rush describing the photo, I knew exactly what had been done. And why.
Return to top
The Doctor is Spin(ning)
Dr. Laura's mother was apparently murdered. However, there is one thing that I noticed in the various article, and that is the body remained unfound for weeks. While an article in the Chicago Sun-Times says "Laura Schlessinger said her mother had shut the family out of her life for years", her many articles talk about the importance of family, she seems to have made little attempt to actually reconcile.
For a link to anti-Dr.L or her homepage.
Bill! Oh, Really?
Listening to Bill O'Reilly [Thursday January 9, 2003] defending the tax break for the rich, he points out that government isn't efficient. Okay, sounds like a non sequitur, no? But it's Etiquette #3 - change the subject. He also used the "heckler's veto" to force the subject to his advantage. (Heckler's veto is also Etiquette #13.)
Listening to O'Reilly on Thursday, October 17th, 2003, O'Reilly was talking about the Koby Bryant case and 'frivolous lawsuits'. His conclusion? That those who file such suits should have the law turn against them, and put them in jail. No word on when he will be surrendering himself over the Al Franken book suit. In addition, when one caller pointed out that his book was NOT number one, he literally caller her a liar and hung up.
Also, when he approached a break, he teased the return as dealing with 'liberal bias', which accusation he repeated without presenting any evidence. Basically the change the subject rule.
Return to top
Neocons and Newspapers
Reading the newspaper(s), notably the opinion section, can lead to some
of the worst of Neoconservatism, from straight out lies from the
extreme right to perfect hypocrisy. The articles below are based on
news articles and editorials, and demonstrate the basically
self-serving nature of 'opinion' by Neocons.
Here are some especially egregious examples of Neocon 'thought':
- "Uncle" Thomas Sowell,
- Debra Saunders
- "Lo-"Cal Thomas
- Linda "Zoe Baird'ed" Chavez
- Ann "Blonde "Coulter
Let ne note here, as well, that if you compare the 'Liberal' columnists
with Neocon columnists, you will far more often find references that
you can check and compare to claims made in the 'Liberal' columns. One
of the important things in a Republic [Representational Democracy] is
that the electorate be informed. Those who present opinions without
reasoning weaken their position, and those who argue without evidence
have no solid backing for their positions. (This is a basic truth in
actual debate classes and practice)
Flip-flop, befuddled and confused
Debra J. Saunders, a 'conservative' columnist, is apparently advocating sentencing for 'hate crimes' in her latest column. Published in Tucson on Sunday April 20, 2003, her column included "Van der Graaf is an extremist who killed a human being to protest bacon. ". The rest of the article condemns the laxity of the courts in not frying Van der Graff, for the reasons she lists:"Van der Graaf used the immigration issue as a warm-hearted excuse for his cold-blooded deed. ","Fortuyn had supported re-legalizing the breeding of animals for fur. Van der Graaf, The Associated Press reported, was working up to 80 hours a week against commercial animal farming. ","On his Web site, van der Graaf called Fortuyn a threat because of his support for pig farming and fur breeding.". Knowing more about Europe than most Americans (possibly true), she informs us:"Van der Graaf's minimal sentence is in the spirit of the EU ideal. "
So, the decision of the court SHOULD (according to Saunders) have been influenced by what the suspect was thinking. Yet, Neocons also argue against "hate crimes" legislation because we can't determine what the suspect was thinking.
Another example of selective waffling by a Neocon pundit.
Those who can, do
Those who can't, teach
Those who can't teach, become pundits.
THOMAS SOWELL
Sowell's main ranting is centered on just how bad education is in
the United States, usually attacking teachers (notably unions) and
primary education. The irony is that he also considers higher
education - colleges and universities - to be quite good. This
immediately comes into a problem,since most colleges and universities
are inhabited by some of the people who came through the U.S.
educational system. How a system as bad (and it is quite flawed,though
not necessarily as Sowell claims) as U.S. public education can have
some members become educated while others never learn to read is never
addressed by Sowell.
In an opinion essay titled "Wal-Mart, Costco example shows what's
wrong with big government" Sowell attacks moves made by the legislature
in California to restrict 'big box' stores. He talks of how the bill
was "stampeded through the state senate", and how it "demonstrate(s) a
variety of corrupt political practices". THOMAS
SOWELL #2
Defending Pat Buchanan's comments in the book "A Republic, Not An
Empire", Sowell states that people who are commenting on or reviewing
the book says the book "is supposed to say that it would have been
better if Hitler had won World War II". This comment comes from an
unstated source, stories published from the Associated Press say no
such thing, and - like his unnamed California bill - is never
referenced by anything but Sowell's imagination.
The Associated Press story said the book says "that Nazi Germany
presented 'no physical threat to the United States of America' after
1940. ". When questioned on a TV newsmagazine FACE THE NATION,
Buchanan said that the "United States was not under a direct threat
from Nazi Germany following the Battle of Britain in 1940. ".
Obviously, the carefully edited news reports Sowell has read differs
from what most people read in their newspaper, since it also included
the statement that "Buchanan said the United States was right to fight
World War II after Germany declared war. "
This is, of course inconvenient for Sowell - thus is ignored in
order to allow the pontificating against his hallucinatory "liberal
media". Without the evil empire - be it the Soviet Union, the
Establishement, the Trilateral Commission, Bilderbergers, Illuminati or
the Liberal Agenda - there is no means for Neocons to bring their
followers into line against a common enemy. Without a common enemy,
the sheep may not decide to remain in the flock and may start to think
for themselves.
Also, in the article, there is a quote
that means the United States went into World War 2 as an 'undeclared
war' along the lines of Korea, VietNam, the Gulf(/Exxon) War, etc.
George Will
- Reading his column on April 9 in the local paper, I pulled two phrases:
- intended to intimidate
- a way that gives offense to onlookers
He is talking about distinguishing between action and speech. There is no right to not be offended, but there is a right to be (moderately) secure.
Rush Admits Ignorance
It's been said that Rush Limbaugh is either extremely well informed, or exremely poorly informed. Listening on Friday July 25, 2003, Rush said that the article he was reading was the first time he, or his staff (including Al Franken's "fact checker for Rush"?) had heard anything about John Kerry having served in Viet Nam. When I typed in:
"John Kerry" Vietnam
I
found
these
four
links.
Within the first two paragraphs of each (notably in number 3 'four') his service on a gunboat was mentioned. The first link, pretty well speaks for Kerry's politics, the second deals more with his, like many Viet Vets, dealing with later international cooperation with his former enemy.
Return to top
Privacy Policy: any emails sent to the DittoBusters are the property of dittobusters.com and may be posted at the webmaster's discretion.
Home
Update: Thursday May 18, 2006 10:31 PM