Re: "What Now-Curb Your Outrage," from the October 29th Augusta Chronicle editorial page.
As I showed on a previous blog entry, Michael Ryan allows Rick Mckee's anti-semitic caricatures on his editorial page. Yet in this editorial, he whines about a recent episode of Curb Your Enthusiasm in which the lead character, Larry David, accidentally urinates on a painting of Jesus. Clearly, Mr. Ryan is a hypocrite.
Larry David was not inciting hatred of a religion or group of people, like Rick McKee's political cartoons do on a regular basis. Mr. David was taking a satirical look at those nutty people who sometimes see Jesus in such mundane items as a French fry. I find this kind of humor quite clever.
Leave it to Mr. Ryan, and a few Catholics to be offended. Mr. Ryan complains that to "cynically mock an entire religious faith's belief in miracles is an insult overlaying an insult."
Any people who believe in religious miracles or any other superstitious nonsense deserve all the mockery they get.
Mr. Ryan further complains that comedy writers would never think of mocking the Muslim faith. Evidentally, Mr. Ryan hasn't seen many episodes of Curb Your Enthusiasm. Mr. David devoted one entire episode to making fun of a Muslim woman wearing a burkha, and he's made fun of his own religion (Judiasm) more often than any other.
Mr. Ryan's whine that Christianity is the only religion to be mocked by comics is just not true, and the occasional theme in his unsigned columns of the persecution of Christianity is based on his own imagination rather than facts.
Larry David is a genius; Michael Ryan is a mentally-retarded plagiarizer. The latter has no business criticizing the former.
BTW, the funniest part of this Curb Your Enthusiasm episode is the sight gag in the final scene.
*************************************************************************************
RE: "Obama Stews, We Lose" from the October 30th edition of the Augusta Chronicle editorial page.
Once more, Mr. Ryan claims he's not being personal when he attacks President Obama. Don't believe it. He's trying to stick our president with the labels of weak and indecisive, but he has no basis for this criticism. In this editorial Mr. Ryan thinks President Obama is taking too long to decide upon a strategy for Afghanistan.
To support his argument, he quotes ex-VP, Dick Cheney who recently said President Obama was dithering. Dick Cheney has no credibility at all with the American people. This is the man who lied to us about WMD's, torture, and Saddam's role in 9-11. The American people wished the administration he was in would have taken the time to make better decisions about the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, wars that have cost billions in dollars, tens of thousands of innocent civilian lives, and thousands of U.S. soldiers lives.
Perhaps conservatives are hoping to rush President Obama into making a bad decision that they can later use against him.
There's no reason to rush. Actually, the best strategy would be to withdraw completely. The terrorists who attacked us are in Pakistan. There are very few left in Afghanistan. Our presence there, no matter how many troops we put in, is little better than a "whack the mole" strategy. The U.S. should withdraw, and if terrorists try to re-establish camps, destroy them with missiles and raids.
Mr. Ryan wrote, "Bloggers and internet posters across the nation are demanding a decision..."
So what? The U.S. government is not based on mob rule?
Whatever decision Obama makes will most likely be far superior to any made by the Bush administration because he will actually be using something unknown to conservatives--brain power.
Friday, October 30, 2009
Wednesday, October 28, 2009
Michael Ryan Knows Nothing about Climate Science
Re: "Skepticism is Warming Up," from the October 26th editorial page of the Augusta Chronicle.
Once again, Mr. Ryan is cherry picking polls, finding one that shows that only 36% of people think anthropogenic activities are causing global warming. I'm sure there are many polls out there that differ, but public opinion polls about this subject are completely irrelevant. The vast majority of people are scientifically ignorant.
What really matters is what climate scientists think. 97% of climate scientists who have published peer reviewed studies do believe that anthropogenic activities are causing the earth's climate to warm. These are people who actually study the science and know what they're talking about.
So the first part of the underheading of Mr. Ryan's title, "Like the science itself, public views on global warming are unsettled," is a total lie. The science is not unsettled, at least among scientists who actually study climate.
Source: http://tigger.uic.edu/~pdoran/012009_Doran_final.pdf
Mr. Ryan stated, "Thus, if global warming is indeed influenced by humans, we've then taken the necessary steps to reverse it..."
This is a strange comment. The U.S. government or the "we" he's referring to have done very little about climate change.
Furthermore, Mr. Ryan falsely claims that cap and trade will cripple the economy. There's no evidence that cap and trade will cripple the economy. Again, Mr. Ryan is making an unsupported allegation.
************************************************************************************
On today's editorial page, Mr. Ryan published yet another column, this one by E. Thomas McClanahan that cherry picked polls. The title of this editorial is "More Voters are Souring on Health Reform."
Mr. McClanahan used a recent Rasmussen poll, but ignored an AP poll that shows support for health care reform is on the rise.
**********************************************************************************
One more thing worth noting from today's editorial page, Re: "They're making opting out looking good."
Mr. Ryan writes, "The truth is, this country was founded on the notion that a central government would be convened to do the states' collective bidding--not the other way around."
This is not true at all. The debate between whether the U.S. should have a strong centralized government or one based on a weak form of federalism was the biggest controversy the framers of the constitution had. The constitution is full of plenty of examples that show federal supremacy over the states, including minting money and making treaties. The tenth amendment was merely a bone to be tossed to states righters when the constitution was being written. There's nothing in any of the health care reform plans that conflicts with the tenth amendment because judicial precedent has clearly allowed the federal government to take precedence over the states when it comes to issues like these.
Once again, Mr. Ryan is cherry picking polls, finding one that shows that only 36% of people think anthropogenic activities are causing global warming. I'm sure there are many polls out there that differ, but public opinion polls about this subject are completely irrelevant. The vast majority of people are scientifically ignorant.
What really matters is what climate scientists think. 97% of climate scientists who have published peer reviewed studies do believe that anthropogenic activities are causing the earth's climate to warm. These are people who actually study the science and know what they're talking about.
So the first part of the underheading of Mr. Ryan's title, "Like the science itself, public views on global warming are unsettled," is a total lie. The science is not unsettled, at least among scientists who actually study climate.
Source: http://tigger.uic.edu/~pdoran/012009_Doran_final.pdf
Mr. Ryan stated, "Thus, if global warming is indeed influenced by humans, we've then taken the necessary steps to reverse it..."
This is a strange comment. The U.S. government or the "we" he's referring to have done very little about climate change.
Furthermore, Mr. Ryan falsely claims that cap and trade will cripple the economy. There's no evidence that cap and trade will cripple the economy. Again, Mr. Ryan is making an unsupported allegation.
************************************************************************************
On today's editorial page, Mr. Ryan published yet another column, this one by E. Thomas McClanahan that cherry picked polls. The title of this editorial is "More Voters are Souring on Health Reform."
Mr. McClanahan used a recent Rasmussen poll, but ignored an AP poll that shows support for health care reform is on the rise.
**********************************************************************************
One more thing worth noting from today's editorial page, Re: "They're making opting out looking good."
Mr. Ryan writes, "The truth is, this country was founded on the notion that a central government would be convened to do the states' collective bidding--not the other way around."
This is not true at all. The debate between whether the U.S. should have a strong centralized government or one based on a weak form of federalism was the biggest controversy the framers of the constitution had. The constitution is full of plenty of examples that show federal supremacy over the states, including minting money and making treaties. The tenth amendment was merely a bone to be tossed to states righters when the constitution was being written. There's nothing in any of the health care reform plans that conflicts with the tenth amendment because judicial precedent has clearly allowed the federal government to take precedence over the states when it comes to issues like these.
Sunday, October 25, 2009
Michael Ryan Cherry Picks Poll Results to Mislead About President Obama's Approval Rating
Re: "Nothing Personal," from the October 24th edition of the Augusta Chronicle.
Here's a classic case of cherry picking poll results. Of the 8 major polls, only 1 (The Rasmussen, the only one Mr. Ryan mentioned) shows President Obama having a negative job approval rating. Even the Fox News Poll has President Obama with a positive job approval rating (49%-45%). The average of the 8 polls shows President Obama's job approval rating is 52.1%-43.6%.
The Gallup Poll, which Mr. Ryan cites incomprehensively as "More sobering for Obama, Gallup reports that Obama's latest quarterly average ranks 144th, or in the 44th percentile, for all post-war presidents during any quarter," has Obama with a 55%-39% job approval rating. So it's evident Mr. Ryan is aware of the other polls.
Considering that the economy is likely to improve as the recession ends, President Obama's job approval ratings are in good shape.
Source: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/
Moreover, Mr. Ryan must not read his own newspaper. Recently, the Augusta Chronicle ran an article about how President Obama's stimulus saved thousands of local teacher's jobs. Yet, Mr. Ryan writes, "...others point to the huge economic stimulus package the president insisted would help earlier this year--but which appears has not."
Mr. Ryan needs to spend more time reading his own paper, instead of plagiarizing other conservative pundits.
This editorial is another example of how Mr. Ryan is attempting to smear President Obama with the labels of weak and unpopular--both of which are unfounded. Of course, he also condescends to write that it's nothing personal, that Obama's a nice guy.
If Mr. Ryan genuinely think Obama's a nice guy, than why is he continually smearing him with lies?
Here's a classic case of cherry picking poll results. Of the 8 major polls, only 1 (The Rasmussen, the only one Mr. Ryan mentioned) shows President Obama having a negative job approval rating. Even the Fox News Poll has President Obama with a positive job approval rating (49%-45%). The average of the 8 polls shows President Obama's job approval rating is 52.1%-43.6%.
The Gallup Poll, which Mr. Ryan cites incomprehensively as "More sobering for Obama, Gallup reports that Obama's latest quarterly average ranks 144th, or in the 44th percentile, for all post-war presidents during any quarter," has Obama with a 55%-39% job approval rating. So it's evident Mr. Ryan is aware of the other polls.
Considering that the economy is likely to improve as the recession ends, President Obama's job approval ratings are in good shape.
Source: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/
Moreover, Mr. Ryan must not read his own newspaper. Recently, the Augusta Chronicle ran an article about how President Obama's stimulus saved thousands of local teacher's jobs. Yet, Mr. Ryan writes, "...others point to the huge economic stimulus package the president insisted would help earlier this year--but which appears has not."
Mr. Ryan needs to spend more time reading his own paper, instead of plagiarizing other conservative pundits.
This editorial is another example of how Mr. Ryan is attempting to smear President Obama with the labels of weak and unpopular--both of which are unfounded. Of course, he also condescends to write that it's nothing personal, that Obama's a nice guy.
If Mr. Ryan genuinely think Obama's a nice guy, than why is he continually smearing him with lies?
Friday, October 23, 2009
Rick McKee uses anti-semitic caricatures
I'm posting Rick McKee's political cartoon to illustrate three points.First, he's using an anti-semitic caricature. The bad guy looks like an Arab (or Jew) with the exaggerated semitic nose and a long beard required by some muslim fundamentalists. Rick Mckee is equating semitic Arabs with terrorism. I attached the photos of actual alleged terrorists recently foiled and arrested by law enforcement. Note, they look nothing like McKee's anti-semitic caricature. One is even blonde and blue-eyed and looks Anglo-Saxon.
Second, Mr. McKee makes the terrorist look so menacing, yet the actual terrorists look like the guys next door. It's misleading to make terroists look like menacing monsters. The most reprehensible crimes in history have been committed by rather ordinary-looking people. Nazis in charge of the holocaust, and those guilty of the Rwandan genocide looked just like normal people.
Third, the captioned dialogue is a complete lie. The Obama administration hasn't "outlawed the use of the phrase--war on terror." They simply chose not to use the propaganda-laden words.
Thursday, October 22, 2009
The Augusta Chronicle editorial page Consists of Just a Pack of Lies
Re: "Obama's Flawed Fox Hunt," from the October 22nd edition of the Augusta Chronicle.
Michael Ryan wrote that the Obama administration..."wants to silence dissent and destroy dissenters at home. Ground zero is Fox News."
This statement is a ridiculous lie. The Obama administration is rightfully pointing out that Fox news is little more than a propaganda arm of the republican party. They aren't out to crush dissent.
In this editorial Mr. Ryan once again brings out the tired old whine about how the rest of the mainstream media is liberal. This is mostly untrue as well. The mainstream media is owned by big corporations with pro-conservative agendas. Therefore, journalists are constrained to report in a way that's limited to stay within conservative and centrist ideologies. The mainstream media cites conservative think tanks much more often than liberal think tanks. And although journalists tend to be liberal on social issues, when it comes to economic issues most of them are conservative.
Later in this editorial, Mr. Ryan redundantly repeats the charge he makes in his first paragraph when he writes, "it is highly unusual for a U.S. administration to launch an authoritarian vendetta against an individual news station." This is utter nonsense. The Obama administration has not outlawed Fox news, they've not arrested Fox News employees, they've not even sent the IRS to audit them.
It's apparent that Mr. Ryan just likes making things up. Moreover his claim that the mainstream news has a "left of center oligopoly that has not reflected public opinion" is completely unsupported. He gives no examples of liberal media bias and ignores a recent Washington Post poll that shows that only 20% of Americans identify themselves as republicans. When push comes to shove on such issues as health care, social security, and the environment, the public is overwhelmingly liberal.
*********************************************************************************
Mr. Ryan's lies are not the only ones appearing on his editorial page. Today, Robert Smock (a regular, contributing, conservative shmuck) adds his lies to those of the editorial page editor. He wrote that Obama took a fairly mild recession and worsened it with taxing the rich. That's just a stupid lie. Obama reduced most people's taxes. The recession was already severe when Obama took office, and the vast majority of Americans understand this. Mr. Smock claims that voters have buyers remorse, but this is just not true either. Obama currently has a 55% approval rating. It's republicans who are sinking in the polls right now, probably due to their irrational and corrupt opposition to health care reform.
On yesterday's editorial page two columnists that regularly run on this page, Cal Thomas and Walter Williams, began both of their columns with ridiculous lies.
Mr. Thomas wrote that "the greatest generation lived within their means." Actually, the biggest national debt in U.S. history occurred during the "greatest generation," due to World War II. To begin a column with such a lie destroys his credibility, but it's been evident to me for a long time that Mr. Thomas is not a very smart man and has little credibility to begin with. He believes fairy tales should be taught in science class.
Mr. Williams is a free market fanatic. In his column yesterday he listed "anti-government" as a good quality for an American to have. Conservatives claim to hate government so much that they don't seem to believe in it at all. Maybe they should stay out of trying to run it then. Mr. Ryan once wrote when criticizing the democrats, "most alarmingly, they believe in government." So if conservatives don't believe in government, what do they belive in? Anarchy?
Mr. Williams falsely claimed that the U.S. is the "most prosperous nation in mankind's entire history." There are about ten nations on earth that have higher standards of living than the U.S. I pointed this out to Mr. Williams once, and he admitted I was right, and he was wrong, yet he's still telling this lie.
Michael Ryan wrote that the Obama administration..."wants to silence dissent and destroy dissenters at home. Ground zero is Fox News."
This statement is a ridiculous lie. The Obama administration is rightfully pointing out that Fox news is little more than a propaganda arm of the republican party. They aren't out to crush dissent.
In this editorial Mr. Ryan once again brings out the tired old whine about how the rest of the mainstream media is liberal. This is mostly untrue as well. The mainstream media is owned by big corporations with pro-conservative agendas. Therefore, journalists are constrained to report in a way that's limited to stay within conservative and centrist ideologies. The mainstream media cites conservative think tanks much more often than liberal think tanks. And although journalists tend to be liberal on social issues, when it comes to economic issues most of them are conservative.
Later in this editorial, Mr. Ryan redundantly repeats the charge he makes in his first paragraph when he writes, "it is highly unusual for a U.S. administration to launch an authoritarian vendetta against an individual news station." This is utter nonsense. The Obama administration has not outlawed Fox news, they've not arrested Fox News employees, they've not even sent the IRS to audit them.
It's apparent that Mr. Ryan just likes making things up. Moreover his claim that the mainstream news has a "left of center oligopoly that has not reflected public opinion" is completely unsupported. He gives no examples of liberal media bias and ignores a recent Washington Post poll that shows that only 20% of Americans identify themselves as republicans. When push comes to shove on such issues as health care, social security, and the environment, the public is overwhelmingly liberal.
*********************************************************************************
Mr. Ryan's lies are not the only ones appearing on his editorial page. Today, Robert Smock (a regular, contributing, conservative shmuck) adds his lies to those of the editorial page editor. He wrote that Obama took a fairly mild recession and worsened it with taxing the rich. That's just a stupid lie. Obama reduced most people's taxes. The recession was already severe when Obama took office, and the vast majority of Americans understand this. Mr. Smock claims that voters have buyers remorse, but this is just not true either. Obama currently has a 55% approval rating. It's republicans who are sinking in the polls right now, probably due to their irrational and corrupt opposition to health care reform.
On yesterday's editorial page two columnists that regularly run on this page, Cal Thomas and Walter Williams, began both of their columns with ridiculous lies.
Mr. Thomas wrote that "the greatest generation lived within their means." Actually, the biggest national debt in U.S. history occurred during the "greatest generation," due to World War II. To begin a column with such a lie destroys his credibility, but it's been evident to me for a long time that Mr. Thomas is not a very smart man and has little credibility to begin with. He believes fairy tales should be taught in science class.
Mr. Williams is a free market fanatic. In his column yesterday he listed "anti-government" as a good quality for an American to have. Conservatives claim to hate government so much that they don't seem to believe in it at all. Maybe they should stay out of trying to run it then. Mr. Ryan once wrote when criticizing the democrats, "most alarmingly, they believe in government." So if conservatives don't believe in government, what do they belive in? Anarchy?
Mr. Williams falsely claimed that the U.S. is the "most prosperous nation in mankind's entire history." There are about ten nations on earth that have higher standards of living than the U.S. I pointed this out to Mr. Williams once, and he admitted I was right, and he was wrong, yet he's still telling this lie.
Tuesday, October 20, 2009
Michael Ryan Plagiarizes Glen Beck, The Drudge Report Yet Again
Re: "A Rotten Role Model," from the October 20th edition of The Augusta Chronicle.
Once again, Michael Ryan plagiarized the latest paranoid invention of Glen Beck and The Drudge Report, that Obama Communications Director, Anita Dunn, admires the late Chairman Mao.
What Anita Dunn said in front of a high school class was that she liked one particular philosophical point shared by both Mother Theresa and Chairman Mao. She didn't say she supported the atrocities or ideology of Mao.
Mr. Ryan also copied Glen Beck's mischaracterization of a statement Ms. Dunn made about controlling the media. She didn't say the Obama administration was controlling the media. She was telling how during the campaign for the office of president they tried to control the message which makes perfect sense--all politicians running for office certainly want a consistent message.
This consistent plagiarization of the most insane conservative pundits in the media is more evidence that Mr. Ryan is an idiotic, lazy editorial page editor.
**********************************************************************************
Re: "Adored and Ignored," from the October 19th editorial page of The Augusta Chronicle.
This was a particularly weak editorial. Here, Mr. Ryan is trying to give the impression that President Obama is a weak leader. But he gives not a single concrete example. Instead, he cherry picks quotes from other pundits.
Talk about lazy.
Once again, Michael Ryan plagiarized the latest paranoid invention of Glen Beck and The Drudge Report, that Obama Communications Director, Anita Dunn, admires the late Chairman Mao.
What Anita Dunn said in front of a high school class was that she liked one particular philosophical point shared by both Mother Theresa and Chairman Mao. She didn't say she supported the atrocities or ideology of Mao.
Mr. Ryan also copied Glen Beck's mischaracterization of a statement Ms. Dunn made about controlling the media. She didn't say the Obama administration was controlling the media. She was telling how during the campaign for the office of president they tried to control the message which makes perfect sense--all politicians running for office certainly want a consistent message.
This consistent plagiarization of the most insane conservative pundits in the media is more evidence that Mr. Ryan is an idiotic, lazy editorial page editor.
**********************************************************************************
Re: "Adored and Ignored," from the October 19th editorial page of The Augusta Chronicle.
This was a particularly weak editorial. Here, Mr. Ryan is trying to give the impression that President Obama is a weak leader. But he gives not a single concrete example. Instead, he cherry picks quotes from other pundits.
Talk about lazy.
Friday, October 16, 2009
Michael Ryan Whines again about Leftist Pundits Giving Tit for Tat
Re: "Attacking with Acid," from the Augusta Chronicle editorial page of October 16th.
Just 12 days ago, in an unsigned column I commented on here, Mr. Ryan was complaining that the left was guilty of name-calling. The left is only guilty of giving the right some of its own medicine, and apparently, this causes Mr. Ryan to whine regularly about it, because here again is another column crying about how vicious left wing pundits are. Mr. Ryan must be running out of ideas, if he so frequently returns to this subject.
Today, Mr. Ryan took issue with Keith Olbermann when he made Michelle Malkin one of his "Worst Persons in the World." He called Ms. Malkin a "mindless, morally bankrupt, knee-jerk, fascisitic, without which Michelle Malkin would just be a big mashed up bag of meat with lip-stick on it."
Of course, Mr. Ryan completely leaves out the reason why Mr. Olbermann attacked her. Ms. Malkin falsely accused Ms. Carney-Nunez of writing and directing the "Obama Song," that elementary school children sang in New Jersey. You know, the one that's got conservatives so hot under the collar about indoctrination, that they're sending protestors to the school to frighten the children. It turns out Ms. Carney-Nunez had nothing to do with the song, but as a result of Ms. Malkin's false accusation, she's received death threats and hundreds of pieces of hate mail.
Taken in context, Mr. Olbermann's criticism of Ms. Malkin is justifiable. Mr. Ryan's a Christian who has attended his fair share of Sunday school classes. I'm sure he's aware of the evils of bearing false witness.
Mr. Ryan then blames liberals for derailing Rush Limbaugh's bid to become part owner of the Rams. This is entirely false. It's the conservative owners of the other NFL teams who didn't want to have such a polarizing individual causing controversy for their milk-toast product.
***********************************************************************************
Oh and Mr. Ryan just happened to run Ms. Malkin's column today--"Who's Behind the White House War on Fox News? Corruptocrats."
Once again, her column is full of outright falsehoods. She claims Fox is the one news outlet not in President Obama's pocket. To support this ridiculous, unfounded argument, she cites the example of CNN fact-checking a Saturday Night Live skit that was critical of the President. She obviously didn't watch the segment--her source must have been some other conservative pundit. I did watch that segment. CNN sided with the Saturday Night Live skit, not President Obama.
Furthermore, she claims the "press gurus" keep Obama from looking thuggish. Thuggish? There's nothing thuggish at all about the Obama administration, except for maybe in her own paranoid dreams that she shares with the Glenn Becks of the world.
Her case that the Obama administration is full of corruptocrats because a few worked on a failed re-election bid for ex-Senator Daschle is also weak and generally unfounded.
She finishes off with another false claim--that "conservatives are reveling in the left's hysteria over Fox News Channel's dominance." Fox News hardly dominates the media. Compared to the combined ratings of ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN, and MSNBC, its ratings are minuscule. And its demographic is pretty much limited to old, white conservatives.
Just 12 days ago, in an unsigned column I commented on here, Mr. Ryan was complaining that the left was guilty of name-calling. The left is only guilty of giving the right some of its own medicine, and apparently, this causes Mr. Ryan to whine regularly about it, because here again is another column crying about how vicious left wing pundits are. Mr. Ryan must be running out of ideas, if he so frequently returns to this subject.
Today, Mr. Ryan took issue with Keith Olbermann when he made Michelle Malkin one of his "Worst Persons in the World." He called Ms. Malkin a "mindless, morally bankrupt, knee-jerk, fascisitic, without which Michelle Malkin would just be a big mashed up bag of meat with lip-stick on it."
Of course, Mr. Ryan completely leaves out the reason why Mr. Olbermann attacked her. Ms. Malkin falsely accused Ms. Carney-Nunez of writing and directing the "Obama Song," that elementary school children sang in New Jersey. You know, the one that's got conservatives so hot under the collar about indoctrination, that they're sending protestors to the school to frighten the children. It turns out Ms. Carney-Nunez had nothing to do with the song, but as a result of Ms. Malkin's false accusation, she's received death threats and hundreds of pieces of hate mail.
Taken in context, Mr. Olbermann's criticism of Ms. Malkin is justifiable. Mr. Ryan's a Christian who has attended his fair share of Sunday school classes. I'm sure he's aware of the evils of bearing false witness.
Mr. Ryan then blames liberals for derailing Rush Limbaugh's bid to become part owner of the Rams. This is entirely false. It's the conservative owners of the other NFL teams who didn't want to have such a polarizing individual causing controversy for their milk-toast product.
***********************************************************************************
Oh and Mr. Ryan just happened to run Ms. Malkin's column today--"Who's Behind the White House War on Fox News? Corruptocrats."
Once again, her column is full of outright falsehoods. She claims Fox is the one news outlet not in President Obama's pocket. To support this ridiculous, unfounded argument, she cites the example of CNN fact-checking a Saturday Night Live skit that was critical of the President. She obviously didn't watch the segment--her source must have been some other conservative pundit. I did watch that segment. CNN sided with the Saturday Night Live skit, not President Obama.
Furthermore, she claims the "press gurus" keep Obama from looking thuggish. Thuggish? There's nothing thuggish at all about the Obama administration, except for maybe in her own paranoid dreams that she shares with the Glenn Becks of the world.
Her case that the Obama administration is full of corruptocrats because a few worked on a failed re-election bid for ex-Senator Daschle is also weak and generally unfounded.
She finishes off with another false claim--that "conservatives are reveling in the left's hysteria over Fox News Channel's dominance." Fox News hardly dominates the media. Compared to the combined ratings of ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN, and MSNBC, its ratings are minuscule. And its demographic is pretty much limited to old, white conservatives.
Wednesday, October 14, 2009
Michael Ryan thinks "Washington should start over" on health care
Re: "Ship of state appears rudderless," from the October 13th editorial of the Augusta Chronicle editorial page.
It's taken democrats nearly a year to get a health care reform plan passed in just one Senate committee. And Mr. Ryan thinks "Washington should start over." I've got news for him-- Washington already started over, when the democrats won the election in 2008. So basically, Mr. Ryan thinks "Washington should start over," because he doesn't like the health care reform plan.
I wonder what his response would've been, if when President George W. Bush rammed his initial tax cuts through Congress, a liberal pundit suggested that Washington should start over.
He probably would've considered it laughable.
The excuse Mr. Ryan uses to suggest we need to start from scratch on the health care reform plan is the completely faux propaganda concocted by the PricewaterhouseCoopers report--an insurance company misinformation group. Mr. Ryan admits that "an insurance industry report must be taken with a grain of salt." But he thinks it may have merit anyway. Why? Because he's obviously on the side of businesses profiting, while millions suffer in sickness and bankruptcy. In other words he's in favor of sick people dying quickly, as are all business-crook, conservatives.
His editorial includes the fantasy that government should get out of the way and let the free market solve our health care problems. "Let folks buy insurance across state lines," is their idiotic solution. But it's the free market that has caused the current health care mess. Letting people buy insurance across state lines would reduce competition, not increase it, because big insurance company monopolies would dominate the market, collude, and wipe out smaller insurance companies.
It's obvious, Mr. Ryan thinks we should start over, because he wants no insurance reform. If there's no insurance reform, it will make President Obama look like a failure, and Mr. Ryan, along with all other conservatives, want the president to fail.
************************************************************************************
That Mr. Ryan would allow Star Parker's column on his editorial page proves he has no integrity.
In her column "Consumers need protection all right--but from their government," she espouses support for the legalized loan shark industry, the payday loan companies which are criminal business enterprises.
I address her column in my article at www.useless-knowledge.com/1234/09oct/news014.html
************************************************************************************
I found the original source for Mr. Ryan's plagarized idea that Obama should "politely decline," the Nobel Prize. It's Doug Heye, a blogger for USA Today who on October 9th, a day before Mr. Ryan's column came out, wrote that President Obama should "politely decline," the award. Of course, all the conservative pundits, including Glen Beck and Michelle Malkin jumped on this silly idea.
In today's Chronicle editorial page Cal Thomas too expresses his jealousy that Obama won the award, while his hero, Ronald Reagan didn't. Mr. Thomas subscribes to the myth that it was Reagan who liberated Europe from the "totalitarian hand of Soviet communism."
I think Gorbachev had a lot more to do with that than Reagan. He's the one who actually tore down that wall.
It's taken democrats nearly a year to get a health care reform plan passed in just one Senate committee. And Mr. Ryan thinks "Washington should start over." I've got news for him-- Washington already started over, when the democrats won the election in 2008. So basically, Mr. Ryan thinks "Washington should start over," because he doesn't like the health care reform plan.
I wonder what his response would've been, if when President George W. Bush rammed his initial tax cuts through Congress, a liberal pundit suggested that Washington should start over.
He probably would've considered it laughable.
The excuse Mr. Ryan uses to suggest we need to start from scratch on the health care reform plan is the completely faux propaganda concocted by the PricewaterhouseCoopers report--an insurance company misinformation group. Mr. Ryan admits that "an insurance industry report must be taken with a grain of salt." But he thinks it may have merit anyway. Why? Because he's obviously on the side of businesses profiting, while millions suffer in sickness and bankruptcy. In other words he's in favor of sick people dying quickly, as are all business-crook, conservatives.
His editorial includes the fantasy that government should get out of the way and let the free market solve our health care problems. "Let folks buy insurance across state lines," is their idiotic solution. But it's the free market that has caused the current health care mess. Letting people buy insurance across state lines would reduce competition, not increase it, because big insurance company monopolies would dominate the market, collude, and wipe out smaller insurance companies.
It's obvious, Mr. Ryan thinks we should start over, because he wants no insurance reform. If there's no insurance reform, it will make President Obama look like a failure, and Mr. Ryan, along with all other conservatives, want the president to fail.
************************************************************************************
That Mr. Ryan would allow Star Parker's column on his editorial page proves he has no integrity.
In her column "Consumers need protection all right--but from their government," she espouses support for the legalized loan shark industry, the payday loan companies which are criminal business enterprises.
I address her column in my article at www.useless-knowledge.com/1234/09oct/news014.html
************************************************************************************
I found the original source for Mr. Ryan's plagarized idea that Obama should "politely decline," the Nobel Prize. It's Doug Heye, a blogger for USA Today who on October 9th, a day before Mr. Ryan's column came out, wrote that President Obama should "politely decline," the award. Of course, all the conservative pundits, including Glen Beck and Michelle Malkin jumped on this silly idea.
In today's Chronicle editorial page Cal Thomas too expresses his jealousy that Obama won the award, while his hero, Ronald Reagan didn't. Mr. Thomas subscribes to the myth that it was Reagan who liberated Europe from the "totalitarian hand of Soviet communism."
I think Gorbachev had a lot more to do with that than Reagan. He's the one who actually tore down that wall.
Monday, October 12, 2009
Michael Ryan Encourages our President to have Bad Manners
Re: "And the Nobel for Good Intentions goes to..." from the October 10th editorial page of the Augusta Chronicle.
Conservatives sure demonstrate their jealousy of President Obama's influence. Admittedly, he's done nothing to deserve the Nobel peace prize, which is basically an irrelevant award, ever since they gave one to the likes of Yasser Arafat.
Nevertheless, it is an honor for a sitting U.S. president. Incredibly, Mr. Ryan suggests that the president should decline the award. Just within the last few weeks, Mr. Ryan wrote a column lamenting the lack of civility in this modern world, and here he is encouraging bad manners. What a diplomatic faux pas that would be, if the President declined the Nobel Prize.
Mr. Ryan thinks awarding the Nobel peace prize will encourage the president to be an appeaser, and he cites the example of how fighting World War II promoted peace. It is true that sometimes war is the answer, but more often than not, war creates more problems than it solves.
In any case, suggesting President Obama decline the award is another example of the ridiculous jealousy that right wing pundits have for him. This point is not Mr. Ryan's original idea. It's yet another example of a plagiarized conservative talking point that he put very little thought into.
**********************************************************************************
Re: "Danger: Radioactive," from the October 12th editorial of the Augusta Chronicle.
Mr. Ryan rightly condemns Nathan Deal's reference to "ghetto grandmothers."
I guess the racism wasn't subtle enough for him. Mr. Ryan demonstrated a subtle form of racism in yesterday's editorial, "Free Markets, Free People," when he falsely blamed last year's economic collapse on "government presssure to load Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac with bad loans in order to puff up home ownership statistics."
He didn't use the word, minority, but every reader knows what he meant was the government was giving out too many loans to poor black people who couldn't afford to pay the mortgages. This is completely false. Minority loan programs have a higher rate of successfully paid mortgages than average. The collapse of the real estate market was caused by rich people (mostly white) who used real estate as an investment, rather than as a place to live. The speculation caused the value of the properties to skyrocket far past their value, and when the values declined to realistic numbers, lots of people lost their shirts. It had nothing to do with what Fannie Mae, and Freddie Mac were doing.
So in one column, Mr. Ryan was scapegoating black people, and the very next day he criticized a conservative politician who was not subtle enough about his scapegoating. However, they are on the same side of the fence.
There is also one laughable line from this column. Mr. Ryan's all for the free market and against salary caps, even though it is the unequal distribution of wealth that causes all recessions and depressions. He wrote "And think of what kind of world we'd have...if all compensation were capped at $500,000. Where would human ambition and striving go to breathe?"
I think 99.99% of the population would be motivated, if they knew it was possible to make $500,000. I don't think capping salaries at $500,000 would discourage very many people.
Conservatives sure demonstrate their jealousy of President Obama's influence. Admittedly, he's done nothing to deserve the Nobel peace prize, which is basically an irrelevant award, ever since they gave one to the likes of Yasser Arafat.
Nevertheless, it is an honor for a sitting U.S. president. Incredibly, Mr. Ryan suggests that the president should decline the award. Just within the last few weeks, Mr. Ryan wrote a column lamenting the lack of civility in this modern world, and here he is encouraging bad manners. What a diplomatic faux pas that would be, if the President declined the Nobel Prize.
Mr. Ryan thinks awarding the Nobel peace prize will encourage the president to be an appeaser, and he cites the example of how fighting World War II promoted peace. It is true that sometimes war is the answer, but more often than not, war creates more problems than it solves.
In any case, suggesting President Obama decline the award is another example of the ridiculous jealousy that right wing pundits have for him. This point is not Mr. Ryan's original idea. It's yet another example of a plagiarized conservative talking point that he put very little thought into.
**********************************************************************************
Re: "Danger: Radioactive," from the October 12th editorial of the Augusta Chronicle.
Mr. Ryan rightly condemns Nathan Deal's reference to "ghetto grandmothers."
I guess the racism wasn't subtle enough for him. Mr. Ryan demonstrated a subtle form of racism in yesterday's editorial, "Free Markets, Free People," when he falsely blamed last year's economic collapse on "government presssure to load Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac with bad loans in order to puff up home ownership statistics."
He didn't use the word, minority, but every reader knows what he meant was the government was giving out too many loans to poor black people who couldn't afford to pay the mortgages. This is completely false. Minority loan programs have a higher rate of successfully paid mortgages than average. The collapse of the real estate market was caused by rich people (mostly white) who used real estate as an investment, rather than as a place to live. The speculation caused the value of the properties to skyrocket far past their value, and when the values declined to realistic numbers, lots of people lost their shirts. It had nothing to do with what Fannie Mae, and Freddie Mac were doing.
So in one column, Mr. Ryan was scapegoating black people, and the very next day he criticized a conservative politician who was not subtle enough about his scapegoating. However, they are on the same side of the fence.
There is also one laughable line from this column. Mr. Ryan's all for the free market and against salary caps, even though it is the unequal distribution of wealth that causes all recessions and depressions. He wrote "And think of what kind of world we'd have...if all compensation were capped at $500,000. Where would human ambition and striving go to breathe?"
I think 99.99% of the population would be motivated, if they knew it was possible to make $500,000. I don't think capping salaries at $500,000 would discourage very many people.
Friday, October 9, 2009
Another example of Michael Ryan's poor research
Re: "Give us Substance, not Stagecraft," from the October 9th editorial page of the Augusta Chronicle.
Mr. Ryan writes, "Do you even know, after all these months, where the president stands on the so-called "public option"? Or what 4 or 5 principles he wants represented in a final bill?"
This quote makes Mr. Ryan seem uninformed, and in fact his entire column seems rushed. He must have been too busy to put much thought or research into it.
President Obama's made it quite clear that he's in favor of a public option but would be willing to sign a health care reform bill without it.
He's also clearly listed more than 5 principles he want represented in a final bill.
See www.barackobama.com/issues/healthcare/
It's all pretty clear and simple. He wants 1) an end to discrimination on pre-existing conditions, age, and gender, 2) the prevention of insurance companies' policies of dropping sick people, 3) caps on out of pocket expenses, 4) an elimination of limits to preventive care, and 5) tax credits for people buying insurance. These principles among many others are listed on his website.
Once again, here's evidence that Mr. Ryan does little research, other than the plagarization of conservative talking points from the likes of Glen Beck.
************************************************************************************
I do think, however, the contrived press event, where some Obama administration official handed out white coats for all the doctors to wear was an insult to the American people's intelligence.
Mr. Ryan writes, "Do you even know, after all these months, where the president stands on the so-called "public option"? Or what 4 or 5 principles he wants represented in a final bill?"
This quote makes Mr. Ryan seem uninformed, and in fact his entire column seems rushed. He must have been too busy to put much thought or research into it.
President Obama's made it quite clear that he's in favor of a public option but would be willing to sign a health care reform bill without it.
He's also clearly listed more than 5 principles he want represented in a final bill.
See www.barackobama.com/issues/healthcare/
It's all pretty clear and simple. He wants 1) an end to discrimination on pre-existing conditions, age, and gender, 2) the prevention of insurance companies' policies of dropping sick people, 3) caps on out of pocket expenses, 4) an elimination of limits to preventive care, and 5) tax credits for people buying insurance. These principles among many others are listed on his website.
Once again, here's evidence that Mr. Ryan does little research, other than the plagarization of conservative talking points from the likes of Glen Beck.
************************************************************************************
I do think, however, the contrived press event, where some Obama administration official handed out white coats for all the doctors to wear was an insult to the American people's intelligence.
Wednesday, October 7, 2009
Rick McKee's Cartoon about Letterman is Libelous
There is no evidence that David Letterman threatened to fire or promote any women based on sexual favors. There is no evidence that this is a case of classic work place sexual harrassment.
Mr. Letterman is a celebrity. It's more likely that these women were like groupies attempting to seduce him all the time, so they could get a part in his show or become his wife--a lucrative situation. Rick Mckee's cartoon is just libelous.
***********************************************************************************
Mr. Ryan felt it necessary to weigh in on the bad excessive celebration call against the Georgia Bulldogs in last week's game. He doesn't mention, however, that the rule itself is racist.
The rule was Vince Dooley's idea. The rule was put in place exactly the same time that African-American athletes began to dominate college football. Southern white men just could not stand to see African-Americans enjoying their excellence on the field.
The rule is also completely subjective and should be eliminated.
**********************************************************************************
Gil Ward is a regular contributor to the Augusta Chronicle editorial page. Today, he wrote this preposterous line--"There is a no reason for a normal healthy person to be poor in America unless they want to be--or unless their leaders and the government want them to be."
What world does this guy live in? First of all, most unemployed people are not lazy or crazy. At times, especially now during a recession, it can be tough to find a job. Moreover, many jobs pay meager salaries. So even if a person works two jobs, they can still be poor. To suggest that the government wants people to be poor is absurd, though conservatives do push policies that keep wages low.
I'm sure Mr. Ward meant to blame democrats and the "cycle of welfare" myth. He doesn't realize that, if any group keeps people poor, it's conservative republicans who are always against minimum wage increases.
The existence of poor people proves the free market doesn't work. I think that's why conservatives hate poor people. Their existence proves they're wrong.
Mr. Letterman is a celebrity. It's more likely that these women were like groupies attempting to seduce him all the time, so they could get a part in his show or become his wife--a lucrative situation. Rick Mckee's cartoon is just libelous.
***********************************************************************************
Mr. Ryan felt it necessary to weigh in on the bad excessive celebration call against the Georgia Bulldogs in last week's game. He doesn't mention, however, that the rule itself is racist.
The rule was Vince Dooley's idea. The rule was put in place exactly the same time that African-American athletes began to dominate college football. Southern white men just could not stand to see African-Americans enjoying their excellence on the field.
The rule is also completely subjective and should be eliminated.
**********************************************************************************
Gil Ward is a regular contributor to the Augusta Chronicle editorial page. Today, he wrote this preposterous line--"There is a no reason for a normal healthy person to be poor in America unless they want to be--or unless their leaders and the government want them to be."
What world does this guy live in? First of all, most unemployed people are not lazy or crazy. At times, especially now during a recession, it can be tough to find a job. Moreover, many jobs pay meager salaries. So even if a person works two jobs, they can still be poor. To suggest that the government wants people to be poor is absurd, though conservatives do push policies that keep wages low.
I'm sure Mr. Ward meant to blame democrats and the "cycle of welfare" myth. He doesn't realize that, if any group keeps people poor, it's conservative republicans who are always against minimum wage increases.
The existence of poor people proves the free market doesn't work. I think that's why conservatives hate poor people. Their existence proves they're wrong.
Tuesday, October 6, 2009
Michael Ryan's Unfounded Accusation that Liberals Weaken America
Re: "Does the Left Want a Weakened America," from the October 6th Editorial Page of the Augusta Chronicle.
The very first sentence of Mr. Ryan's unsigned editorial is a rather obvious lie I've debunked on a previous entry on this blog. The claim that President Obama was indoctrinating children received the full ridicule of Jon Stewart and deservedly so. The Obama administration was not behind this spontaneous gesture of support. School children sang the praises of President Bush too, and conservatives didn't cry "indoctrination." Conservatives look silly telling this lie, and as we all know, telling the same lie over and over again doesn't convert it to truth.
A second lie in this editorial is Mr. Ryan's claim that President Obama's health care proposal is more unpopular the more he talks about it. It's not Obama's proposal--the bills and resolutions considered originated in the halls of Congress. Perhaps Mr. Ryan needs a refresher course in constitutional law.
Then, Mr. Ryan quotes some unfair criticism coming from George Will who ticks off a list of foreign policy goals that President Obama has failed to accomplish. But these are the same issues that previous presidents, republican and democrat, have failed to solve or in the case of Bush even address.
Finally, Mr. Ryan writes that Obama "springs from a wing of the democratic party that's ashamed of America and its power." What unfounded nonsense. Mr. Ryan doesn't cite a single fact to support this blanket statement.
***********************************************************************************
On today's editorial page Lee Benedict regales us with another incoherent, rambling letter. This one was about an argument he had with a protestor at Joe Wilson's rally. It's apparent from his version of the debate that Mr. Benedict doesn't understand historical change. Yes, at one time there was a wing of the democratic party that opposed civil rights. They were conservative democrats who have since evolved into conservative republicans. All the racists who used to vote for this wing of the democratic party (the southerners), now vote republican.
*************************************************************************************
Star Parker's column was another example of her hypocrisy. She's against planned parenthood, yet in other columns she's demonstrated her opposition to welfare. In her world women should be forced to bear unwanted children, but after they're born the children can all starve as far as she's concerned because she's against the government programs that would feed them. She only cares about children when they're microscopic specks of goo in the uterus. After they're born, well, they can "die quickly," so to speak.
The very first sentence of Mr. Ryan's unsigned editorial is a rather obvious lie I've debunked on a previous entry on this blog. The claim that President Obama was indoctrinating children received the full ridicule of Jon Stewart and deservedly so. The Obama administration was not behind this spontaneous gesture of support. School children sang the praises of President Bush too, and conservatives didn't cry "indoctrination." Conservatives look silly telling this lie, and as we all know, telling the same lie over and over again doesn't convert it to truth.
A second lie in this editorial is Mr. Ryan's claim that President Obama's health care proposal is more unpopular the more he talks about it. It's not Obama's proposal--the bills and resolutions considered originated in the halls of Congress. Perhaps Mr. Ryan needs a refresher course in constitutional law.
Then, Mr. Ryan quotes some unfair criticism coming from George Will who ticks off a list of foreign policy goals that President Obama has failed to accomplish. But these are the same issues that previous presidents, republican and democrat, have failed to solve or in the case of Bush even address.
Finally, Mr. Ryan writes that Obama "springs from a wing of the democratic party that's ashamed of America and its power." What unfounded nonsense. Mr. Ryan doesn't cite a single fact to support this blanket statement.
***********************************************************************************
On today's editorial page Lee Benedict regales us with another incoherent, rambling letter. This one was about an argument he had with a protestor at Joe Wilson's rally. It's apparent from his version of the debate that Mr. Benedict doesn't understand historical change. Yes, at one time there was a wing of the democratic party that opposed civil rights. They were conservative democrats who have since evolved into conservative republicans. All the racists who used to vote for this wing of the democratic party (the southerners), now vote republican.
*************************************************************************************
Star Parker's column was another example of her hypocrisy. She's against planned parenthood, yet in other columns she's demonstrated her opposition to welfare. In her world women should be forced to bear unwanted children, but after they're born the children can all starve as far as she's concerned because she's against the government programs that would feed them. She only cares about children when they're microscopic specks of goo in the uterus. After they're born, well, they can "die quickly," so to speak.
Monday, October 5, 2009
Michael Ryan should drop Michelle Malkin
Michelle Malkin's column today was mean-spirited, pointless, and unfounded.
When Ms. Obama commented about how hard people have been working to bring the olympics to Chicago, the little voices in Ms. Malkin's head translated that into a case of self-absorption. Her statement's was completely unfounded.
Ms. Malkin's been accusing the Obama's of a big scandal of cronyism because they know some people who might've made money, if the olympics had been given to the city of Chicago.
So the Obamas know somebody who might've made money on a sports deal. Big deal. I'd hardly call that cronyism, expecially compared to when George W. Bush put coal mining and oil drilling executives into the Interior department and the office of the Vice-president. Moreover, the accusation is just unfounded.
Ms. Malkin's criticisms of the first lady are petty and pointless and not worth printing in any newspaper.
How this Asian-American woman (who thinks the Japanese internment during World War II was justified) can have a nationally syndicated column is a wonder.
**********************************************************************************
I didn't disagree with Mr. Ryan's editorial today about second hand smoke, but I did find a couple of the letters appearing on his editorial page kind of amusing. Brian Martin was rebutting a pro-abortion letter. He believed he was falsifying the pro-abortion letter writer's statement that the government can't tell a woman what to do with her body by citing anti-prostitution laws. That's not a real strong point. Sure, the government can make prostitution illegal, but they can't even come close to enforcing the laws. It's the same with abortion.
Catherine Minor's letter was even funnier. She too was writing to rebut the pro-abortion letter. She wrote that Ms. Waller (the pro-abortion rights letter writer) should google opinions that falsify her position.
Maybe the Chronicle would publish one of my letters again, if I wrote "do a google search to see how wrong conservatives are."
When Ms. Obama commented about how hard people have been working to bring the olympics to Chicago, the little voices in Ms. Malkin's head translated that into a case of self-absorption. Her statement's was completely unfounded.
Ms. Malkin's been accusing the Obama's of a big scandal of cronyism because they know some people who might've made money, if the olympics had been given to the city of Chicago.
So the Obamas know somebody who might've made money on a sports deal. Big deal. I'd hardly call that cronyism, expecially compared to when George W. Bush put coal mining and oil drilling executives into the Interior department and the office of the Vice-president. Moreover, the accusation is just unfounded.
Ms. Malkin's criticisms of the first lady are petty and pointless and not worth printing in any newspaper.
How this Asian-American woman (who thinks the Japanese internment during World War II was justified) can have a nationally syndicated column is a wonder.
**********************************************************************************
I didn't disagree with Mr. Ryan's editorial today about second hand smoke, but I did find a couple of the letters appearing on his editorial page kind of amusing. Brian Martin was rebutting a pro-abortion letter. He believed he was falsifying the pro-abortion letter writer's statement that the government can't tell a woman what to do with her body by citing anti-prostitution laws. That's not a real strong point. Sure, the government can make prostitution illegal, but they can't even come close to enforcing the laws. It's the same with abortion.
Catherine Minor's letter was even funnier. She too was writing to rebut the pro-abortion letter. She wrote that Ms. Waller (the pro-abortion rights letter writer) should google opinions that falsify her position.
Maybe the Chronicle would publish one of my letters again, if I wrote "do a google search to see how wrong conservatives are."
Sunday, October 4, 2009
Michael Ryan Accuses Left of Name-calling, having no ideas. What?
Re: "Stop Name-Calling and Come Up with some Ideas" from the October 4th editorial page of The Augusta Chronicle.
I hate to use such a tired cliche' but isn't the pot calling the kettle black here when it comes to name-calling. For years the likes of Rush Limbaugh have called liberals such dehumanizing names as femi-Nazis, welfare queens, environmentalist wackos, etc. The Chronicle used to run a column by Mona Charen who wrote a book calling liberals "useful idiots." They also used to run Ann Coulter's column. Ms. Coulter calls liberals "traitors. In recent years it's gotten even worse with Glen Beck referring to President Obama as a Nazi, marxist, and racist. Tea bag protestors carry signs depicting President Obama as batman's nemesis, the Joker, and others showing him with a Hitler mustache, or as a monkey, or as a jungle bunny.
For Mr. Ryan to claim that the left is using name-calling to a greater degree than the right is outrageous and completely untrue.
To say they're out of ideas is even more ridiculous. It's liberals who, like it or not, are pushing for real health care reform, stimulus plans that do help the economy, and the cap and trade solution to global warming.
These problems that democrats are trying to address festered under conservative rule for decades, and conservatives offered no solutions whatsoever. Now, Mr. Ryan is accusing liberals of having no ideas? Who is he kidding?
Mr. Ryan defends conservatives from being called "wingnuts" by citing the number of advance copies of Sarah Palin's new book that have been sold. He wrote that, "there must be a lot of them (nuts) around." It wasn't his intent, but he admitted it--there are a lot of nutty people around. There is a market for conservative zombies who like to read books that support their pre-conceived notion of how things should be. Once again he also accuses the media of assassinating Ms. Palin's character. The media didn't assasinate her charactre--it's not their fault that she was clearly unqualified and unprepared.
In the tenth paragraph we finally see what has Mr. Ryan so riled up. Bill Maher called republicans lunatics, religious fanatics, flat-earthers, Civil War re-enactors, and bimbos."
Much of what Mr. Maher (a political satirist) said is true. A good chunk of republican support today comes from religious fundamentalists who want to teach fairy tales in science class. Republicans deny the possiblity of anthropogenic global warming, despite the near unanimity of opinion among climate scientists. And there's been more than one republican politician who has made statements in favor of secession from the United States.
And I can see from paragraph 14 why Mr. Ryan is so upset with Mr. Maher. Mr. Maher made fun of Glen Beck, saying he would some day be caught in a dress and playing with feces or something. As I demonstrated on previous entries in this blog, Mr. Beck is the source of the conservative talking points that Mr. Ryan plagiarizes. Mr. Maher dared to make fun of the republicans current, favorite sacred cow.
As I predicted in an earlier blog entry, Mr. Ryan weighs in on congressman Alan Grayson's recent comments on the house floor. Mr. Ryan wrote that it was much worse than what Joe Wilson said.
What Alan Grayson said was so true and not at all comparable to what Joe Wilson said. Here's the difference: Grayson had the floor and was telling the truth; Wilson did not have the floor and was not telling the truth. Grayson did not violate protocol, but Wilson did.
Republicans (and conservative democrats) are opposed to health care reform because they take bribes to protect insurance company profits. Insurance companies do profit when sick people die quickly. What Alan Grayson said was a refreshing (though calculated) burst of fresh air.
I hate to use such a tired cliche' but isn't the pot calling the kettle black here when it comes to name-calling. For years the likes of Rush Limbaugh have called liberals such dehumanizing names as femi-Nazis, welfare queens, environmentalist wackos, etc. The Chronicle used to run a column by Mona Charen who wrote a book calling liberals "useful idiots." They also used to run Ann Coulter's column. Ms. Coulter calls liberals "traitors. In recent years it's gotten even worse with Glen Beck referring to President Obama as a Nazi, marxist, and racist. Tea bag protestors carry signs depicting President Obama as batman's nemesis, the Joker, and others showing him with a Hitler mustache, or as a monkey, or as a jungle bunny.
For Mr. Ryan to claim that the left is using name-calling to a greater degree than the right is outrageous and completely untrue.
To say they're out of ideas is even more ridiculous. It's liberals who, like it or not, are pushing for real health care reform, stimulus plans that do help the economy, and the cap and trade solution to global warming.
These problems that democrats are trying to address festered under conservative rule for decades, and conservatives offered no solutions whatsoever. Now, Mr. Ryan is accusing liberals of having no ideas? Who is he kidding?
Mr. Ryan defends conservatives from being called "wingnuts" by citing the number of advance copies of Sarah Palin's new book that have been sold. He wrote that, "there must be a lot of them (nuts) around." It wasn't his intent, but he admitted it--there are a lot of nutty people around. There is a market for conservative zombies who like to read books that support their pre-conceived notion of how things should be. Once again he also accuses the media of assassinating Ms. Palin's character. The media didn't assasinate her charactre--it's not their fault that she was clearly unqualified and unprepared.
In the tenth paragraph we finally see what has Mr. Ryan so riled up. Bill Maher called republicans lunatics, religious fanatics, flat-earthers, Civil War re-enactors, and bimbos."
Much of what Mr. Maher (a political satirist) said is true. A good chunk of republican support today comes from religious fundamentalists who want to teach fairy tales in science class. Republicans deny the possiblity of anthropogenic global warming, despite the near unanimity of opinion among climate scientists. And there's been more than one republican politician who has made statements in favor of secession from the United States.
And I can see from paragraph 14 why Mr. Ryan is so upset with Mr. Maher. Mr. Maher made fun of Glen Beck, saying he would some day be caught in a dress and playing with feces or something. As I demonstrated on previous entries in this blog, Mr. Beck is the source of the conservative talking points that Mr. Ryan plagiarizes. Mr. Maher dared to make fun of the republicans current, favorite sacred cow.
As I predicted in an earlier blog entry, Mr. Ryan weighs in on congressman Alan Grayson's recent comments on the house floor. Mr. Ryan wrote that it was much worse than what Joe Wilson said.
What Alan Grayson said was so true and not at all comparable to what Joe Wilson said. Here's the difference: Grayson had the floor and was telling the truth; Wilson did not have the floor and was not telling the truth. Grayson did not violate protocol, but Wilson did.
Republicans (and conservative democrats) are opposed to health care reform because they take bribes to protect insurance company profits. Insurance companies do profit when sick people die quickly. What Alan Grayson said was a refreshing (though calculated) burst of fresh air.
Saturday, October 3, 2009
Michael Ryan is Right About Roman Polanski
I almost never agree with Michael Ryan about anything, but he is right about Roman Polanski. The list of Hollywood artists supporting this child rapist should be ashamed of themselves.
Mr. Polanski drugged a 13 year old girl and forced her to have sex with him.
He ended up serving only a little more than a month in jail, then he left the country after a judge was about to renege on a plea bargain deal.
Hollywood stars claim that he's served his time and all should be forgiven.
No, he hasn't served his time, and the constitution forbids the punishment he does deserve--castration.
Whoopi Goldberg made the outrageous claim that it wasn't rape-rape, as if the thirteen year old girl in question was a willing participant which she was not. Let me repeat:
Mr. Polanski drugged and forced a 13 year old girl to have sex with him. That without a doubt is rape-rape.
One of the people signing a petition supporting Polanski is Woody Allen. Woody Allen married his own daughter. No one really knows for sure but it's probable he's brainwashed her and took advantage of her before she came of age. Technically, what he did to his daughter isn't incest because she was adopted, but he was supposed to be a father figure, not a husband.
Woody Allen is a freak, just like Roman Polanski. They are great film-makers, but that will never excuse their actions. I would never let freakos like this inside my household.
************************************************************************************
Because this isn't a negative entry, I might as well praise Mr. Ryan for running Eugene Robinson's column. I know many arch-conservative readers of the Chronicle are irate over this, but at least one liberal pundit occasionally gets published on his editorial page.
Mr. Polanski drugged a 13 year old girl and forced her to have sex with him.
He ended up serving only a little more than a month in jail, then he left the country after a judge was about to renege on a plea bargain deal.
Hollywood stars claim that he's served his time and all should be forgiven.
No, he hasn't served his time, and the constitution forbids the punishment he does deserve--castration.
Whoopi Goldberg made the outrageous claim that it wasn't rape-rape, as if the thirteen year old girl in question was a willing participant which she was not. Let me repeat:
Mr. Polanski drugged and forced a 13 year old girl to have sex with him. That without a doubt is rape-rape.
One of the people signing a petition supporting Polanski is Woody Allen. Woody Allen married his own daughter. No one really knows for sure but it's probable he's brainwashed her and took advantage of her before she came of age. Technically, what he did to his daughter isn't incest because she was adopted, but he was supposed to be a father figure, not a husband.
Woody Allen is a freak, just like Roman Polanski. They are great film-makers, but that will never excuse their actions. I would never let freakos like this inside my household.
************************************************************************************
Because this isn't a negative entry, I might as well praise Mr. Ryan for running Eugene Robinson's column. I know many arch-conservative readers of the Chronicle are irate over this, but at least one liberal pundit occasionally gets published on his editorial page.
Friday, October 2, 2009
Michael Ryan Mischaracterizes the Summer of Conservative Temper Tantrums
Within the last few weeks Michael Ryan wrote an editorial that completely mischaracterized this past summer's rowdy town hall meetings. He actually wrote that "liberals went ballistic when older citizens peacefully expressed their concerns about health care reform plans." Everybody that follows the news knows that's not what happened. Mr. Ryan's comment is not even revisionist history--it's revisionist current events.
People were disrupting congressmen who were trying to explain the various health care reforms being considered. They were hardly peaceful protests, and the admitted goal of the insurance company lobbyists financing and organizing these protests was to "shout down intelligent debate."
In a separate editorial Mr. Ryan suggested using these noisy, brainless tactics to protest House Resolution 2190, which would force chemical companies to reduce mercury contamination of our waters, because it might make Olin Corporation (a local factory that poisons the Savannah River) to lay off a few workers, if they can't comply in time. So in one column Mr. Ryan was egging on ballistic behavior among conservatives that in another column he falsely claimed liberals were engaging in.
Demonstrating this kind of chutzpah shows that Mr. Ryan is just, to put it bluntly, a stupid jerk.
People were disrupting congressmen who were trying to explain the various health care reforms being considered. They were hardly peaceful protests, and the admitted goal of the insurance company lobbyists financing and organizing these protests was to "shout down intelligent debate."
In a separate editorial Mr. Ryan suggested using these noisy, brainless tactics to protest House Resolution 2190, which would force chemical companies to reduce mercury contamination of our waters, because it might make Olin Corporation (a local factory that poisons the Savannah River) to lay off a few workers, if they can't comply in time. So in one column Mr. Ryan was egging on ballistic behavior among conservatives that in another column he falsely claimed liberals were engaging in.
Demonstrating this kind of chutzpah shows that Mr. Ryan is just, to put it bluntly, a stupid jerk.
Thursday, October 1, 2009
Glen Beck's indoctrination fear/ACORN
Re: The September 27th unsigned editorial on the Augusta Chronicle editorial page entitled "Hooray Mr. President, you are No.1"
The crazy conspiracy theory that President Obama is somehow planning on indoctrinating children originates with Glen Beck. Mr. Beck is mean-spirited, foolish, and ignorant. Yet, apparently he is now the source of conservative republican talking points.
Both in Michael Ryan's column and in Michelle Malkin's column, which Mr. Ryan redundantly placed next to his, they plaigiarize Mr. Beck's idea that the Obama administration is bent on indoctrinating children with propaganda. The facts easily dispute these ridiculous allegations.
In Mr. Ryan's column he falsely claims that the National Endowment for the Arts held a conference where the director of communications, Yosi Sergeant, asked artists to consider creating works of art to further President Obama's agenda. Actually, he asked them to work with Michelle Obama to create works that would assist groups sponsoring public service projects--something that obviously has nothing to do with the President's legislative agenda.
Mr. Ryan also repeats some senators' false claim that this might be a violation of the Hatch Act. If Mr. Ryan would have done the slightest bit of research, he would've known the list of government agencies falling under Hatch Act jurisdiction doesn't even include the NEA. (See www.osc.gov for the list of government agencies that do fall under this law's jurisdiction.)
Mr. Ryan also implies that Mr. Sergeant was forced to resign as communications director. This isn't exactly true either, but the controversy, generated by the Glen Beck Show, did lead him to take another position within the NEA.
But perhaps the most ridiculous point of Mr. Ryan's editorial was his claim that a song some students sang in an elementary school in New Jersey was some kind of nefarious indoctrination. The Obama administration had nothing to do with this. I think conservatives are just jealous because democrats have a charismatic leader capable of inspiring spontaneous gestures of support. They know they looked silly when they had a temper tantrum last month about President Obama's address to schoolchildren, and they're just looking for some reason to justify their silly opposition. Jon Stewart puts the whole controversy in context in this clip-- http://mediamatters.org/mmtv/200909290003
Note: The clip also shows schoolchildren singing the praises of George W. Bush's handling of Katrina.
**********************************************************************************
Re: The September 28th unsigned editorial on the Augusta Chronicle Opinion page entitled "ACORN who?"
ACORN is a worthwhile organization that helps poor and working class people find jobs, finance housing, and register to vote. Conservatives hate poor people, and they've been out to get this organization for a long time. The recent dishonest documentary produced by James O'Keefe and funded by business lobbyists does do a great deal of damage to ACORN. The documentary is dishonest because Mr. O'Keefe claims that no ACORN offices turned him down when he was baiting illicit counseling. In fact police records prove that some ACORN employees did reject and report him. It's a shame ACORN, which does so much good, now has an unfairly tarnished reputation.
In his editorial Mr. Ryan quotes a Wall Street Pundit, John Fund, in an attempt to tie President Obama with ACORN, as if that would be a bad thing. Here is the misleading quote:
"He (Obama) became a top trainer for ACORN's Chicago conference. In 1995, he became ACORN's attorney, participating in a landmark case to force the state of Illinois to implement the federal Motor Voter Law. That law's loose voter registration requirements would later be exploited by ACORN employees in an effort to flood voter rolls with fake names."
President Obama was never a paid employee of ACORN, though it is true he worked alongside U.S. Justice Department lawyers on one case--that's not much of a connection. ACORN reported irregularities with voter applications they paid for. Lazy workers defrauded ACORN--that's the truth of this matter. There is no evidence whatsoever that any of these phony names ever made it on to voter rolls or were counted as votes.
Shame on the pathetic cowards in the democratic party, and the crooked pro-business republicans for defunding ACORN, a violation of the constitution's Bill of Attainder provision, as pointed out by Rachel Maddow.
**********************************************************************************
I predict Mr. Ryan will weigh in on Alan Grayson's comments on the house floor, and he will, as usual, copy conservative talking points. Just wait and see.
*********************************************************************************
Local radio talk show host, Austin Rhodes, has suggested my blog is slanderous. There's nothing slanderous about it, and I challenge anyone to find slander on any blog I've written.
The crazy conspiracy theory that President Obama is somehow planning on indoctrinating children originates with Glen Beck. Mr. Beck is mean-spirited, foolish, and ignorant. Yet, apparently he is now the source of conservative republican talking points.
Both in Michael Ryan's column and in Michelle Malkin's column, which Mr. Ryan redundantly placed next to his, they plaigiarize Mr. Beck's idea that the Obama administration is bent on indoctrinating children with propaganda. The facts easily dispute these ridiculous allegations.
In Mr. Ryan's column he falsely claims that the National Endowment for the Arts held a conference where the director of communications, Yosi Sergeant, asked artists to consider creating works of art to further President Obama's agenda. Actually, he asked them to work with Michelle Obama to create works that would assist groups sponsoring public service projects--something that obviously has nothing to do with the President's legislative agenda.
Mr. Ryan also repeats some senators' false claim that this might be a violation of the Hatch Act. If Mr. Ryan would have done the slightest bit of research, he would've known the list of government agencies falling under Hatch Act jurisdiction doesn't even include the NEA. (See www.osc.gov for the list of government agencies that do fall under this law's jurisdiction.)
Mr. Ryan also implies that Mr. Sergeant was forced to resign as communications director. This isn't exactly true either, but the controversy, generated by the Glen Beck Show, did lead him to take another position within the NEA.
But perhaps the most ridiculous point of Mr. Ryan's editorial was his claim that a song some students sang in an elementary school in New Jersey was some kind of nefarious indoctrination. The Obama administration had nothing to do with this. I think conservatives are just jealous because democrats have a charismatic leader capable of inspiring spontaneous gestures of support. They know they looked silly when they had a temper tantrum last month about President Obama's address to schoolchildren, and they're just looking for some reason to justify their silly opposition. Jon Stewart puts the whole controversy in context in this clip-- http://mediamatters.org/mmtv/200909290003
Note: The clip also shows schoolchildren singing the praises of George W. Bush's handling of Katrina.
**********************************************************************************
Re: The September 28th unsigned editorial on the Augusta Chronicle Opinion page entitled "ACORN who?"
ACORN is a worthwhile organization that helps poor and working class people find jobs, finance housing, and register to vote. Conservatives hate poor people, and they've been out to get this organization for a long time. The recent dishonest documentary produced by James O'Keefe and funded by business lobbyists does do a great deal of damage to ACORN. The documentary is dishonest because Mr. O'Keefe claims that no ACORN offices turned him down when he was baiting illicit counseling. In fact police records prove that some ACORN employees did reject and report him. It's a shame ACORN, which does so much good, now has an unfairly tarnished reputation.
In his editorial Mr. Ryan quotes a Wall Street Pundit, John Fund, in an attempt to tie President Obama with ACORN, as if that would be a bad thing. Here is the misleading quote:
"He (Obama) became a top trainer for ACORN's Chicago conference. In 1995, he became ACORN's attorney, participating in a landmark case to force the state of Illinois to implement the federal Motor Voter Law. That law's loose voter registration requirements would later be exploited by ACORN employees in an effort to flood voter rolls with fake names."
President Obama was never a paid employee of ACORN, though it is true he worked alongside U.S. Justice Department lawyers on one case--that's not much of a connection. ACORN reported irregularities with voter applications they paid for. Lazy workers defrauded ACORN--that's the truth of this matter. There is no evidence whatsoever that any of these phony names ever made it on to voter rolls or were counted as votes.
Shame on the pathetic cowards in the democratic party, and the crooked pro-business republicans for defunding ACORN, a violation of the constitution's Bill of Attainder provision, as pointed out by Rachel Maddow.
**********************************************************************************
I predict Mr. Ryan will weigh in on Alan Grayson's comments on the house floor, and he will, as usual, copy conservative talking points. Just wait and see.
*********************************************************************************
Local radio talk show host, Austin Rhodes, has suggested my blog is slanderous. There's nothing slanderous about it, and I challenge anyone to find slander on any blog I've written.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)