big dark media

You’ve got to feel at least a bit sorry for Tucker Carlson.  He gets his ass handed to him by Jon Stewart a few years back, and subsequently gets his show – Crossfire – cancelled.  Generally, in this situation (at least in my opinion), the high road would be to admit defeat, and actually listen to the criticism – that as a journalist, he failed miserably in actually presenting balanced arguments and asking real, hard questions of his guests.  But Tucker’s pride is apparently too strong for that, and after Stewart’s recent skewering of CNBC’s ‘Mad Money’ host Jim Cramer for cheerleading soon-to-fall financial giants like Bear-Stearns and AIG when he should have known better, he took his bowtie back into the ring with a stunningly infantile screed on Jon Stewart, entitled “How Jon Stewart Went Bad“.

It really is a shame that after such an ass-kicking, Tucker couldn’t have just looked the other way- but his article is absolutely missing the point.  It truly is a sad state of affairs when a marginal comedian hosting a fake news show actually asks the hard questions that Jim Cramer should have, and Tucker certainly should have back when he got his own dressing-down.  It’s not about Jon Stewart and his liberal bias – which he wears on his sleeve, and it’s not even remotely Jon blaming the recent financial meltdown on Jim Cramer personally (which of course he didn’t) – it’s the fact that supposedly objective journalists like Cramer were really in the tank for gasbags Bear-Stearns and AIG- KNOWING they were operating in the shady realms of finance, yet still softballed them on his show to pretend the sky wasn’t falling.  But Tucker misses the point entirely, and the entire article comes off as a whiny, revenge-based potshot.  Sad.

Tucker should really take a lesson from Jim Cramer, who at least had the sack to stand up and take his lumps like a man, admitting he could have done much better.  Denial really doesn’t suit you, Tucker.   But more importantly- read the comment threads at your own article, see what people are saying about you now, and face the facts that your 15 minutes of fame ended quite a while ago, when a comedian showed you how to do your own job.  You really should have left well enough alone.

Posted in: politics by Scott / Tags: humor, politics, rant

No Comments

To listen to the Republican mantras this election season, one would get the idea that Obama is all about raising taxes across the board for the working man (and woman). The ‘tax-and-spend Democrat’ has become a pseudo-mythical right-wing citizen’s new world bogeyman- stealing their hard-earned money and spending it on a more bloated and intrusive government.  Or at least that’s what the Bush, and now McCain camp would have you believe.

A few charts have arisen which visualize the rather sobering truth here.

First, the Washington Post broke down how each candidate’s plan would play out across the gross income brackets in the US.
Secondly, Viveka Weiley provided a scaled version of that graph (shown below), reflecting the real weight of this distribution- i.e. with the size of each bracket drawn to scale in order to see how the cuts (and/or raises) really spread out across the entire spectrum. This graph is in my opinion the most accurate and telling, particularly when you note exactly where US median incomes fall on the scale (hint- it’s not in the high range).

Looking at how both Obama and McCain’s proposed tax plans pan out, it’s a very different story.  Obama is proposing tax cuts for 99% of the population, with the upper 1% income bracket (i.e. those making over $600k annually) footing the bill – which to me makes sense as they’re the ones profiting most from the economy. McCain’s graph, however, runs in reverse- granting his biggest tax cuts to that same abundantly-wealthy 1%, with the 60% of the country in the lower income brackets getting the shaft.

Now tax cuts should not be the measure of this election, there are a lot of other important issues to address – but this is a really sobering look at how our adopting McCain’s tax policy really would be like a third Bush term in that respect. The corporate fatcats and their cronies skate by with monstrous tax cuts, while the people in this country that scrape by on far, far less have to shoulder their tax burden.  The fact that the Republicans have been calling Obama an ‘out of touch elitist’ is  insultingly ironic given the contrast in their tax distribution plans.

I was about 85% in the Obama camp already, but add this to the disaster that is Sarah Palin (don’t even get me started), and the door just shut on McCain, at least for me.  Despite McCain’s ’straight talk’ for change and reform, he’s really just spouting the same policy we’ve had to bear for the last 8 years.  Enough is enough.

(disclosure: For the record, given this information I would pay higher taxes in an Obama presidency, so there’s really no tax incentive for me to support him this election.  It’s just the right thing to do.  And if you wish to repost/use this graph, please respect Viveka’s licensing terms – just click the graph above to visit her original post and get details.)

Posted in: Rantings, politics by Scott / Tags: politics, rant

No Comments

I normally don’t pass along political ‘chain email’, but just recieved the following and found it as sadly ironic as I did funny.  If you know who’s responsible for the original please leave a comment so I can credit ‘em appropriately, of course.

it depends on who’s calling the shots

If you’re a minority and you’re selected for a job over more qualified candidates you’re a ‘token hire.’
If you’re a conservative and you’re selected for a job over more qualified candidates you’re a ‘game changer’.

Black teen pregnancies? A ‘crisis’ in black America.
White teen pregnancies? A ‘blessed event’.

If you grow up in Hawaii you’re ‘exotic’.
Grow up in Alaska eating mooseburgers, you’re the quintessential ‘American story’.

If you name you kid Barack you’re ‘unpatriotic’.
Name your kid Track, you’re ‘colorful’.

If you’re a Democrat and you make a VP pick without fully vetting the individual you’re ‘reckless.’
A Republican who doesn’t fully vet is a ‘maverick’.

If you spend 3 years as a community organizer growing your organization from a staff of 1 to 13 and your budget from $70,000 to $400,000, then become the first black President of the Harvard Law Review, create a voter registration drive that registers 150,000 new African-American voters, spend 12 years as a Constitutional Law professor, then spend nearly 8 more years as a State Senator representing a district with over 750,000 people, becoming chairman of the state Senate’s Health and Human Services committee, then spend nearly 4 years in the United States Senate representing a state of nearly 13 million people, sponsoring 131 bills and serving on the Foreign Affairs, Environment and Public Works and Veteran’s Affairs committees, you are woefully inexperienced.

If you spend 4 years on the city council and 6 years as the mayor of a town with less than 7,000 people, then spend 20 months as the governor of a state with 650,000 people, then you’ve got the most executive experience of anyone on either ticket, are the Commander in Chief of the Alaska military, and are well qualified to lead the nation should you be called upon to do, so because your state is the closest state to Russia.

If you are a Democratic male candidate who is popular with millions of people you are an ‘arrogant celebrity’.
If you are a popular Republican female candidate you are ‘energizing the base’.

If you are a younger male candidate who thinks for himself and makes his own decisions you are ‘presumptuous’.
If you are an older male candidate who makes last minute decisions you refuse to explain, you are a ’shoot-from-the-hip-maverick’.

If you are a candidate with a Harvard law degree you are ‘an elitist – out of touch’ with the real America.
If you are a legacy (dad and granddad were admirals) graduate of Annapolis, with multiple disciplinary infractions you are a ‘hero’.

If you manage a multi-million dollar nationwide campaign, you are an ‘empty suit’.
If you are a part time mayor of a town of 7000 people, you are an ‘experienced executive’.

If you go to a South Side Chicago church, your beliefs are’extremist’.
If you believe in Creationism and don’t believe global warming is man-made, you are ’strongly principled.’

If you cheated on your first wife with a rich heiress, and left your disfigured wife and married the heiress the next month, you’re a Christian.
If you have been married to the same woman with whom you’ve been wed to for 19 years and raising 2 beautiful daughters with, you’re ‘risky’.

If you’re a black single mother of 4 who waits for 22 hours after her water breaks to seek medical attention, you’re an irresponsible parent, endangering the life of your unborn child.
But, if you’re a white married mother who waits 22 hours, you’re ’spunky’.

If you’re a 13-year-old Chelsea Clinton, the right-wing press calls you ‘First dog’.
If you’re a 17-year old pregnant unwed daughter of a Republican, the right-wing press calls you ‘beautiful’ and ‘courageous’.

If you kill an endangered species, you’re an ‘excellent hunter’.
If you have an abortion you’re not a Christian, you’re a ‘murderer’ (forget about if it happens while being date raped).

If you teach abstinence only in sex education, you get teen parents.
If you teach responsible age appropriate sex education, including the proper use of birth control, you are ‘eroding the fiber of society’.

…

Yeah, we sure do have a ‘liberal media’ in this country, don’t we… >:/

Posted in: General, politics by Scott / Tags: humor, politics

No Comments

I feel I would belittle the brilliance of Jon Stewart by even attempting to intro this clip. Hypocrisy does speak louder than words.

Posted in: politics by Scott / Tags: awesome, culture, politics, video

No Comments

This movie should lock it in. Boots Riley FTW.

Posted in: Rantings, music, politics by Scott / Tags: awesome, hiphop, music

No Comments

If only these 11 asshats could be brought to task and directly address their 4-year-old quotes- eating those words in front of the same audiences they’re still spouting their litanies of screed upon today. One of the best cartoons I’ve seen in quite some time- although I’m not entirely sure I see the humor in it. Rather pathetic, actually.

Witness Tom Tomorrow’s ‘Great Moments In Punditry: Four Years Later‘. Brilliant cartoon, Tom. Hats off t’ya.

Posted in: politics by Scott / Tags: lame, news, politics

No Comments

It’s always impressive to make those incessant ‘top 100′ lists, so kudos for hitting number 87 in the The Phoenix’s “100 Unsexiest Men of 2007″ list, Ann!

Finally- an accolade you’re actually qualified to receive.

Posted in: Links, politics by Scott / Tags: news, politics

No Comments

From the Daily Show- a classic I missed the first time around.
Hilarious! (or maybe not…)

Posted in: politics by Scott /
No Comments

So… Ann Coulter gets interviewed by Canadian TV. In doing so, she tries to assert that Canada supported the US during Vietnam by sending troops (perhaps as some half-assed example of how Canada may have turned their backs on us over Iraq?). Of course, any remotely coherent, informed person would know that statement isn’t even remotely true – so you’d think she could politely admit she doesn’t REALLY know the facts, when politely called on it by the interviewer (Bob McKeown of the CBC).

But this is Ann Coulter, after all. Since when does she deal in truth? Or better- apologize for her lies? Watch her walk straight into the headlights of her own bullshit (clip provided by iFilm):

Posted in: politics by Scott /
No Comments

well? didja, punk?

Make sure and fulfill your civic responsibility – this is an important election. I don’t wanna hear any critiques about results tomorrow from lameasses and armchair quarterbacks who couldn’t get their own fat tubs into the booths, or at least have the forethought to send in an absentee ballot (which Des and I did again this election- dropping our ballots off in person at the SF City Hall in person 10 days ago to avoid any mail snafus or the like).

I will refrain from making any suggestions – your vote is your own choice, and I can only hope that you’ve done some good, non-partisan research into the issues instead of blinding following partisan politics like a lemming. I’m particularly leaning off the heavy opinions as I’ve been bludgeoned far too much with phone calls, leaflets and increasingly slimier ads from BOTH sides of the political spectrum this year- and have decided to avoid and dismiss all- doing my research by rolling up my sleeves and checking the fine print, reading both sides of each issue/candidate’s position, and avoiding all the superfluous spin that seems to be consuming the mainstream press and political arena these days. That’s a suggestion I will make to you, right or left, donkey or elephant, liberal or conservative, red or blue.

Now go hit them polls!

Posted in: politics by Scott /
No Comments