When You Say It Enough...

Your prejudices don't seem so distasteful. This past Sunday morning [October 18, 2009] I stopped clicking on ABC's weekend news show This Week. I normally don't watch them, but when I do, it is usually the Fox offering with Chris Wallace. This particular Sunday I recognized why I do not patronize most non-Fox shows.

George "Clinton Administration" Stephanopoulos host the show and moderates the group opinion-discussion portion. This Week, not unlike all the others, try to have a bi-partisan panel. Yet on this particular broadcast, George's political persuasion was revealed - and he may not have even noticed it. [Although I didn't need "proof" of his belief, this incident lends credence.]

Video: Roundtable: 2010 Midterms

Discussing a few local races and problems they each have, E.J. Dionne Jr. appears unaware of the Tea Party's actual name :

Dionne Jr.: The conservative party in New York state put up a right-wing candidate supported by the "teabaggers"... {video -5:16}

Mr Dionne finished his point by presuming the Republicans have a long struggle ahead of them. Then George springboards off E.J.'s point to facilitate the discussion, addressing Peggy Noonan, he says:

Stephanopoulos: This hardcore part of the [Republican] base is in a world unto its own. Uh, right now. The "Teabag Movement" and they are sort of driven by the idea that President Obama and Democrats have a secret plan to impose Socialism. {video -4:50}

While George was speaking, the camera was trained on Peggy Noonan. She was ready to respond to the question George was asking when he uttered "teabag movement." Peggy does a little speculating why the Republicans in upstate New York in turmoil before subtly admonishing E.J. for using the slur "teabagger." {video -4:16}

What if sportscasters were to start referring to Green Bay's football team as the "Fudge Packers?" Would that not cause a big problem? Well, degrading a large group of Americans peacefully protesting to show their disagreement with the government's spending and law making is of poor taste for a media outlet. I would expect this from cable channels or left-wing black helicopter blogs.

{video -4:16} = point in ABC's clip where quote was made

A Very Telling Line

The LA Times article addresses and focuses on the artist's, Shepard Fairey, "fair use" and copyright problems. They also spend considerable time pointing out how he lied, lied to cover-up a mistake, and based a counter lawsuit on his lie. I am not disagreeing with that angle of the article.

What I found so telling is the paragraph:

"The artist expressed his remorse in his statement, saying that he is taking 'full responsibility for my actions which were mine alone. I am taking every step to correct the information and I regret I did not come forward sooner.'"

His admission that he acted alone and take "full responsibility" raises a huge flag, at least to me, that he is the fallguy for someone or some group. Why would he have to say this, as a caveat? A prosecutor may be accusing him of being part of a conspiracy, and if so, his defense is understandable. Please understand, I am not stating that he is taking the hit, but with dealings recently uncovered with the National Endowment for the Arts, it is questionable.

Shepard Fairey admits to wrongdoing in Associated Press lawsuit

Rush is Right, Again!

I am a "Dittohead." An unabashed listener. A dedicated fan to Rush Limbaugh's radio show. Some may now reject me as biased and therefore write me off as just another racist protecting my "kind." Others will understand I am well versed in Rush's philosophy and know he does not espouse racism. If he did, I wouldn't listen.

I am lucky enough to have a job which offers me the opportunity to hear almost all fifteen hours of his broadcast each week. I have now been a listener for over a decade. Due to my faithful attendance in the EIB "Institute for Advanced Conservative Studies," I rarely miss much of his broadcast. One of my rare, unexcused absences caused me to miss Rush's comment where he dared utter "Crips and Bloods" in the same sentence as the National Football League. I have no idea when he made this observation, nor do I know in what context he spoke.

Initially I was left to cable news network pundits to understand of what Rush referred. Hosts and guests alike could only paraphrase Rush's daring comment, call a football game like a battle between the Bloods and Crips without weapons. I too have to paraphrase the pundits' loosely quoted attribution, into an aggregation of adulterated restatements with one theme in common.

The picture my mind painted was a collage of past news articles covering violence which does not belong on the football field or certain hand gestures having nothing to do with play calling.

Two instances came to my mind each time I heard cable news show pundits excoriate Rush. First I recalled a leading news story about the NFL concerned over the possibility of gang signs being used on the sidelines. A simple Yahoo! search brings up articles from June 2008 from such sources as LA Times, ESPN, Chicago Tribune. The articles relate how the NFL hired a consultant - an expert - to review hours of game film, to find out if, in fact, any hand gestures were being falshed by players.

Secondly, one episode of violence came to mind. While no evidence of intentional gouging was found, and no fine levied, the event of the September 2008 event made news headlines. A little further back in history brings to mind "an uprecedented" suspension for a player how reportedly knocked off the helmet of an opposing teammate before stomping on his head. This incident, is reported at ESPN.com.

Rush did explain the genesis of his comment. He uttered his opinion after a play during a Patriots'-Charger game in which an unsportsman like conduct penalty cost the game. More of his extemporaneousness showing his passion for the game and increasing loss of sportsman like conduct. Was Rush that far off the mark? No. Does the NFL have problems with gangs and violence similar to a gang fight without weapons? Sure seems that way to me.

Some links I used to reaffirm my vague memories

• Yahoo! Search results: nfl gang signs


• Yahoo! Search Results: nfl eye gouge


• Yahoo! Search results: nfl head stomp

Obama's Next Conquest: Media

According to The Hill in a September 20th article, Obama claims he "would be happy to look at" two present bills to "bail out" newspapers.

Below is the text of Senate Bill 673:

S 673 IS

111th CONGRESS

1st Session

S. 673

To allow certain newspapers to be treated as described in section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 and exempt from tax under section 501(a) of such Code.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

March 24, 2009

Mr. CARDIN (for himself and Ms. MIKULSKI) introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Finance

A BILL

To allow certain newspapers to be treated as described in section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 and exempt from tax under section 501(a) of such Code.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. TREATMENT OF CERTAIN NEWSPAPERS AS EXEMPT FROM TAX UNDER SECTION 501.

(a) In General- Paragraph (3) of section 501(c) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended by inserting ‘(including a qualified newspaper corporation)’ after ‘educational purposes’.

(b) Qualified Newspaper Corporation- Section 501 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended--

(1) by redesignating subsection (r) as subsection (s), and

(2) by inserting after subsection (q) the following new subsection:

‘(r) Qualified Newspaper Corporation- For purposes of this title, a corporation or organization shall be treated as a qualified newspaper corporation if--

‘(1) the trade or business of such corporation or organization consists of publishing on a regular basis a newspaper for general circulation,

‘(2) the newspaper published by such corporation or organization contains local, national, and international news stories of interest to the general public and the distribution of such newspaper is necessary or valuable in achieving an educational purpose, and

‘(3) the preparation of the material contained in such newspaper follows methods generally accepted as educational in character.’.

(c) Unrelated Business Income of a Qualified Newspaper Corporation- Section 513 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended by adding at the end the following new subsection:

‘(k) Advertising Income of Qualified Newspaper Corporations- The term ‘unrelated trade or business’ does not include the sale by a qualified newspaper corporation (as defined in section 501(r)) of any space for commercial advertisement to be published in a newspaper, to the extent that the space allotted to all such advertisements in such newspaper does not exceed the space allotted to fulfilling the educational purpose of such qualified newspaper corporation.’.

(d) Deduction for Charitable Contributions- Subparagraph (B) of section 170(c) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended by inserting ‘(including a qualified newspaper corporation as defined in section 501(r))’ after ‘educational purposes’.

(e) Effective Date- The amendments made by this section shall apply to taxable years beginning after the date of the enactment of this Act.

My favorite local talk radio host spoke of the irony in which Obama ran on the promise of "Hope and Change," but providing these numerous financial bail-outs are not changing anything. While this is a valid point, need I say lost on Obama supporters, I see another aspect in this newspaper aid.

Placing tax-exempt status on newspapers, in this bill, would happen when newspapers fall into line which meet the government's guidelines. The government would be in the position to deem if a certain newspaper meets "educational" minimums and maximum advertisement in proportion to its content - which would also have to meet certain amounts of local, regional and national stories. Worst of all, the government would determine the term 'Qualified Newspaper Corporation.'

Not only does this particular bill likely fly in the face of the First Amendment, it uses an often disputed designation of 501(c)(3) to label newspapers. In the past, political contributors and interests have lost their tax-exempt status to quiet their voices. You can view the 29 page IRS application here. Wikipedia lists the application cost either $350 or $750 based on gross income (costs rising in 2010).

As the bill specifies, it would "allow certain newspapers" to be eligible. Does this signify the end to papers such as the Wall Street Journal? How about neighborhood weeklies? Senator Cardin chose to write newspapers are expected to carry "stories of interest to the general public." Economic and political coverage in the Wall Street Journal should be "of interest to everyone," but could easily be construed as a trade journal. Likewise, small and limited publications which serve localized areas don't normally print reprints of stories from the New York Times or LA Times, and probably could not afford to. While stronger, papers viewed to be conservative and/or critical of the current Administration, not obtaining a 501(c)(3) tax savings, may not be a death-blow, but to the minimum circulation papers which cover local events - like city council events which impact local politics - may not survive. Not only could respected, responsible journalism be fading from the game on a national level, but front-line reporting of local importance disappear.

For a President who has proclaimed his love of competition when defending healthcare reform, nothing he supports in supplying financial assistance lends to competition. The strongest papers will survive; the strongest will be those who earn tax-exempt status. The strongest papers will be the ones to conform to government constraints and not be so controversial as to protect their 501(c)(3) protection.

So long to a free and independent press!

The Most Childish Argument in the Healthcare Debate

Obama takes the stand on healthcare -- chicagotribune.com

Posted using ShareThis

Yes, according to the article, Obama repeats a counter to public option foes:

Obama went on to note concerns that healthcare changes would mean rationed care. Already, the president argued, "insurance companies are rationing care. They are basically telling you what's covered and what's not."

This is supposed to end the debate and public option proponents expect us who oppose Government's take-over to fall in line? This is a junior high level rebuttal that does not fix nor change a perceived problem.

Americans used to believe in not giving Government too much power, especially over personal choices. When did this change? I figure it was a step-by-step evolution as each Progressive used Europe to provide examples of how something could be better.

How many contradictions can one cram into a single article?

From a recent Yahoo! News/AP article¹, I have collected a barrage of quotes from Lawmakers and aides in this article. The Associated Press attempted to "cover" fall out regarding illegal aliens and the Healthcare Bill as prompted from Rep. Joe Wilson's [R-S.C.] peanut gallery outburst during President Obama's speech to a joint session.

"What we are trying to prevent is anyone who is here illegally from getting any federal benefit," said Sen. Kent Conrad, D-N.D...."

"The White House says that Obama does not want illegal immigrants to be able to buy insurance through the new purchasing exchange as they would be allowed to do under Democratic legislation in the House."

"... although the Finance Committee bill is also expected to let illegal immigrants shop in the exchange..."

"'Illegal immigrants would not be allowed to access the exchange that is set up,' Gibbs said Friday. Verification requirements are 'something we'd work out with Congress,' he said."

"Republicans' contention that illegal immigrants would be able to get federally funded health coverage under the House health bill — even though the bill expressly prohibits federal subsidies for illegals.Critics note that there are no enforcement mechanisms, or language on how to verify whether or not someone is in this country legally."

"Democrats in two House committees defeated amendments that would have required verification of legal status."

All of these quotes are from the news piece. These quotes clearly illustrate that there is nothing in the bill which would back up Obama's guarantee that illegal aliens would use my families healthcare dollars!

What happened to 'truth to power'?

The tactic of placing anger (and unashamed claims of racism) towards a Representative who chose to speak up only direct our attention away from the content and promises Obama made in his speech.  Another aspect leads me to inquire: what has changed in the last few weeks?  During Obama's August push to reform healthcare, he refused to counter "death panel" concerns, siting that the bill had not been finalized.  Yet he promises things which cannot be guaranteed, because portions are still being resolved in committees? In essence, President Obama is contradicting himself, but very few are catching on.

1. Health care talks focus on illegal immigrants

Pelosi Chokes Up Amid Fears of Political Violence

Pelosi Chokes Up Amid Fears of Political Violence

Shared via AddThis

Apparently the push to label all Obama "disagree'ers" (every group needs a label: truther, birther, teabagger) as racist malcontents wasn't working. There might have been too much hurt feelings from this political friendly-fire.

Yes, not all the attendees at Healthcare Town Halls or the recent 9/12 protest were vicious, right-wingers out to destroy the country! No one can publish a reliable count of how many people attended. So, putting a number on the percentage of Democrats and the ever-needed swing voting Independents is impossible.

Nancy Pelosi attempts an award winning performance, but her method acting falls short. 

Please elaborate!  What language has been used?  Can you describe this "frightening rhetoric?"  I was born in the 70s, and not in San Francisco.  What happened?  I know about the Civil Rights work in the 50s and 60s; the Haight-Ashbury Revolution in the late 60s, but what could bring you to crocodile tears at the podium today?

She is now making such broad statements, that it is difficult to know whom she is talking about or what she is hearing that is inciting violence.  Like beating up a wheelchair-bound black man?  Or nearly biting off the pinky of an elderly man?  Of course not, those were Obama "disagree'ers." 

Yes, let us have more personal responsibilities about what we say!  Mrs. CIA-Lied-To-Me.  Please give an example or show us a photo of the swastikas you saw a one town hall meeting!  Please make a clear analogy between 1970s San Francisco and peaceful outrage towards Obama's plans, for those of us who have no clue what you are talking about.

Who are the "unbalanced" that you speak of?  Regular American's who hear how more and more sectors of our economy are becoming Government run?  The men and women, who thought they were getting "Hope and Change," only to find out they hope things don't change? 

It is typically those on the left who "want to teach business a lesson" when the WTO comes to town or Republicans have their convention.  I understand there were zero arrests during the 9/12 march on Washington D.C..  How many police cars were torched?  Was there a garbage can tossed through a store's window anywhere in the city related to American's converging on our Capital? 

In one sentence you speak of "incitement" and being held accountable for inciting 70s-style violence.  I don't know on anyone who would disagree - aside from maybe the ACLU.  I am confused, wouldn't someone making inciteful statements or requests not be balanced?  Obviously, those who would act out at the request are clearly unbalanced.  But, you begin to blur the line between rhetoric and stating one's belief with inciting violence. 

What is now considered incitement?  Merely stating your dissatisfaction with ObamaCare or fear that Obama's call to "fundamentally change America", is this incitement should  it fall on some ears of an imbalanced person who would become violent?  Please, Mrs. Lawmaker, be more clear.
From this video, I see the Speaker has learned her lesson about returning to the podium to answer lingering questions from the press.