Monday, February 27, 2006

Why did Stacy Keibler lose to Jerry Rice?

Maybe they used Diebold machines in the count. I asked the wonderful TV critic Heather Havrilesky at Salon to explain this to me.

(Jerry Rice danced better than her? Maybe in Bizarro universe.)

Dear Heather:

Please explain why Jerry Rice beat out Stacy Keibler in the final of Dancing with the Stars? I can understand Drew and his partner winning, but JERRY RICE coming in SECOND PLACE?! WTF?

I have my theory but I'd like to hear yours, both in terms of the narrative that the show's producers wanted to tell, as well as the reasons behind the public's voting (or alleged voting) for Jerry vs other performers.

My take? There was one standard for Jerry (and maybe George Hamilton) and another for everyone else.

I view this result not unlike the way our idiot President was positioned for the debates. "Al Gore is a PROFESSIONAL DEBATER! George Bush is just a cowboy of few words. Simple words. Monosyllable words. When you hear complete sentences from him that's like a little leaguer hitting a home run in the big leagues." And, "Of course John Kerry won the debates, but we don't need professional talkers and thinkers in the job, just people you want to have a near bear with! He's a regular guy! Not a wind surfer!"

George Bush was being set up as winning if he could keep from drooling on TV, Jerry Rice was set up as a winner if he didn't trip on his own feet. It was almost as if, "Look! The Football player can walk in time to music! 9 points!" He positioned himself as a guy who is TRYING REALLY HARD, and GETTING BETTER.

Rice also got to play the game of offended superstar, allowing his fans to proclaim "How dare those judges call him the worst! He's JERRY RICE!" In some ways he was like George Hamilton, there for the comic relief, not for his dancing chops. I understand that, it's just smart TV. Rice was there for the "dog on a skateboard!" appeal. And while that is fun to watch, after awhile you just want to watch something that looks more like a dance and less like a 5th grade boy at a cotillion.

I wonder if there was a cabal of football fans calling in for Jerry week after week? I'm not on any football player message boards where guys are telling each other to call in and vote each week, 'He might be dancing on a fru fru show, but I'll be damned if he loses to some lady rassler! Betty bring me the phone!"

It was PAINFUL to watch Rice dance each week whereas Keibler was not only delightful to watch but filled with positive energy.

Finally, I don't follow all the ins and outs of the scoring, but this article explains how

Saturday, February 25, 2006

Dick Cheney Shooting Followup Blogging

I wrote this letter to the TV reporter who did the story about another hunting accident. I doubt if she will respond, but hey, just thought I'd try.

Lynn Giroud

Hi Lynn:I'm one of those "bloggers" you have heard so much about. I blogged your story about the hunting accident and I was curious if there is any more information about this story.

The reason I asked is because I track the media and politics and since this story happened so recently after the Vice President's accident it would be interesting to compare and contrast the two. Of course this is a much more serious and tragic event, but Harry Whittington could have died in his hunting accident.

I'm curious about the following things:

  1. How long did the hunting party wait to inform people? 2 hours? 18? How long did it take to inform police?
  2. Who informed the police?
  3. How was the incident investigated?
  4. Were basic questions like, "Were people drinking?" asked?
  5. Were blood alcohol tests administered? Are they SOP with the police after a shooting accident?
  6. Did the police at the scene interview all witnesses?
  7. How soon after the accident were they interviewed?
  8. What is the history of the person who shot the weapon? (of course this person was not a public figure, but did he have 2 DUIs on his record? Other accidents?)
  9. Were there any diagrams of the distance that the person was shot from? Does this distance jib with the forensics evidence?
  10. Did the person who fired the weapon have the correct hunting license?
  11. Did he complete any mandatory hunter safety classes?
  12. Were other members of the party drinking? On drugs? On medication that would make one drowsy?
  13. Was the type of accident unusual for this kind of hunting?
  14. Other things that raise suspicions with the police or you?

The Vice President shouldn't be above the law, but when something like this shooting happens and the law is obviously flaunted (the delay, the questions that weren't asked, the cover-up of the drinking by the designated spokespersons) we can all see a double standard. Your shooting is a tragic coincidence in which the two events could prove the lie to people that the Vice President was treated different than someone else would have been treated in the same situation.

I don't know your political leanings, but our political system is one of laws and not of men. When men feel that they are above the law tragic things happen in this country. You might be able to move the national political dialog forward with a through follow up of your hunting accident story. Then when people want to show an example of politicians acting above the law and the press or the police not getting the correct information in a timely fashion, you can provide a solid contrast to prove the case. I know you don't want to intrude on the tragedy this family faced, but I'm guessing the police had to ask hard questions of them already. They might appreciate the ability to both clear the air on this issue and offer an example of the importance of safety while hunting for others.

Thank you,

Friday, February 24, 2006

Friday "Dick Cheney Shot a guy in the Face" blogging

"He sat down for a one-on-one with Fox News. Very bold choice. Dick Cheney sitting down with Fox News is like Mrs. Butterworth sitting down with the Pancake Channel." --Jimmy Kimmel

"They were in a car, they drive along, they get out of the car, he shoots his friend in the face, then they get back in the car and they go hide for 18 hours. That’s not hunting ... that's an episode of 'The Sopranos'" --Jay Leno

"But here is the sad part -- before the trip Donald Rumsfeld had denied the guy's request for body armor." --David Letterman

Nun compares Bush to Hitler ! or Goodwin's "law" to be amended?

I've been a fan of Sister Joan Chittister, OSB, ever since I saw her on NOW. I read her, "From Where I Stand" columns on a regular basis. In today's column she talks about what happens to a nation that substitutes idolatry of the leader for responsible citizenship.

She asks: "What happens to a nation that substitutes idolatry of the leader for responsible citizenship"?
She notes: "a military system and its loss of integrity and truth."
She wonders how people can follow the "groundless rhetoric of a rampageous leader who has committed one international crime after another in their name."

And she questions if we are substituting the tradition of "getting behind the president in wartime" for getting behind the values that once made us a great and peaceful nation?

Someone once said that when I made a comparison to something that is happening now to Hitler and Nazi Germany that I had invoked Goodwin's Law and had lost the debate. Well here is a very smart religious woman making a comparison between Bush's America and Hitler's Germany based on the movie "Downfall".

I think I'll forward this to that slippery sophist Hannity so she can be a guest. I'm sure he would have no problem beating up on a nun. I can just hear his flat little tin pot, front-of-face voice saying, "Sister, I'm sure you are an educated person, but do you really believe that George Bush is as bad as Hitler? Yes or no? Come on, this is a simple yes or no question. Is George Bush another Hitler?" Ah yes, The Sean Hannity Show where intelligent debate goes to die. Sigh.

And for my literal X vs. Y readers, it goes without saying that in many ways Bush is no Hitler, (for one he isn't as competent at executing a war) but if the jackboots fit...

Wednesday, February 22, 2006

Ask the Bunny a Question

This is from the Starz-sponsored bunnies satellite media tour August 12, 2005, the spokesbunny I fielded questions for 15 different interviews.

My favorite is number 4. You need to click twice. Once to go to the site, once for the answer to play.

Here is a link to the whole "Movies in 30 seconds as re-enacted by Bunnies" list.

Tuesday, February 21, 2006

Man Dies In Apparent Hunting Accident

Spotted this when looking for photos of Bush at Wendy's in Ohio when I found this.

Man Dies In Apparent Hunting Accident

Now first I feel terrible for everyone involved. Whittington didn't die, but he could have. This guy did die in what looks like a quail hunting accident. So can we do some comparisions? Of course they are not the same, but shouldn't the law be the same when it comes to some events? That people shouldn't be above the law?

Now I wonder if the guy will be given 18 hours to "get the facts straight" as Cheney was given. Will his word be taken at face value on what happened? Will people try and cover up his drinking for him? Will he get a spokesperson to talk to the press for him? I'm just curious.

Location in the Tri-state

Reported by: 9News
Web produced by: Mark Sickmiller
Photographed by: 9News
First posted: 2/21/2006 6:02:29 PM

WCPO-TV will have an update on 9News @ 11 p.m. Tuesday

Police say a man died in a Dearborn County hunting accident Tuesday afternoon.

It happened at the Quail Ridge Sportsman's Club in Manchester, Indiana.

Investigators are interviewing the person who shot the victim, but they believe it was an accident.

No names had been released early Tuesday evening.

Stay with and WCPO-TV for updates. Please click "refresh" on your browser to view the most recent version of this story.

Monday, February 20, 2006

Should America be the Low Cost Provider of Science?

Check out this great post by David Sirota on Corporate America's education with additional commentary by our favorite science talking guy, Kelley B.

Education is Ignorance and other Corporate Truthiness

Friday, February 17, 2006

Swearing on the radio: What will it cost KSFO? Nothing? $7,000? $14,000? $500,000?

Hey Adults! Be sure to get your FCC complaints in early! We all know how slow the FCC is to react when it comes to anything other than Janet Jackson's right breast. Of course KSFO was up for its station license renewal on December 2005 and it went through because the requirements are so low these days.

But you can always tell the FCC about transgressions of various radio hosts who you hear swearing on the air. Sadly, Brian Sussman's hateful anti-Muslim speech is just fine to broadcast on radio (although not with most national advertisers, as we have proved!). But there are still a plethora of other transgressions that aren't okay to be broadcast on the Radio between 6 am and 10 pm.

FCC's Rules Governing Obscene, Indecent, and Profane Programming Congress has given the FCC the responsibility for administratively enforcing the law that governs obscene, indecent, and profane programming. The FCC may revoke a station license, impose a monetary forfeiture, or issue a warning for the broadcast of obscene, indecent, or profane material. The Supreme Court established the definition of obscenity.

And what counts as indecent on the radio?

Indecent Broadcast Restrictions
The FCC has defined broadcast indecency as “language or material that, in context, depicts or describes, in terms patently offensive as measured by contemporary community standards for the broadcast medium, sexual or excretory organs or activities.” Indecent programming contains patently offensive sexual or excretory material that does not rise to the level of obscenity.

The courts have held that indecent material is protected by the First Amendment and cannot be banned entirely. It may, however, be restricted in order to avoid its broadcast during times of the day when there is a reasonable risk that children may be in the audience.

Consistent with a federal indecency statute and federal court decisions interpreting the statute, the Commission adopted a rule that broadcasts -- both on television and radio -- that fit within the indecency definition and that are aired between 6:00 a.m. and 10:00 p.m. are prohibited and subject to indecency enforcement action.

Now remember, these are agreed upon rules between the government who-- representing the people--gave this radio frequency spectrum to the broadcasters. If you want to keep your license you follow the rules. If you break the rules you get fined. Ask Howard Stern whether or not the FCC will carry through on fines.

So what indecent excretory material did Brian Sussman spit out on his KSFO radio show airing between 6 am and 10pm?

Brian Sussman: You know, who is the party that is going to cry foul over that?
It's not going to be the Republican Party, what party would it be?

Caller: It's going to be the Democrats who care about the resources

Brian Sussman: OH BULLSHIT! I can't believe you would say that. That's just, that's crazy.

Click here to hear the 7:43 pm swear word Mr. Sussman uttered in anger on Feb, 7 2006 - Clip is in Windows Media Audio and runs 14 seconds (Not Safe For Radio between 6am and 10pm)

The funny thing is that Sussman will probably be defended by the union he hates so much, I'm sure the union lawyers will love to hear some of clips I have of him bad mouthing the unions. But they will still do their job, because they go to bat for all their members, even the ones who badmouth them. He has all the luck.

Well this is one filing, now it might get ignored, or KSFO might get a warning, so then the next filing--with the guest swearing on the radio-- they might get some "counseling". Historically for the third offense they might get a $7,000 fine. Now I'm not sure if talking about "cutting off someones penis" will count to the FCC, but I know the advertisers probably will count it. And they can take their business else where, you know free market.

But probably not, because as we all know "It's All Okay When You are a Republican." applies to talk radio. Lucky ducky Sussman also swore before the FCC new rules have taken effect, I'll bet the management at ABC Radio hopes they don't apply them retroactively. Even then knowing the Suss-man I'm sure that it won't slow him down. There will be more chances for people to fill out FCC Form 475b!

Scientific Ballistics Test of shooting

Yeah! Someone did a test of the distance claimed in the shooting and compared it to the pattern on the victim. I was requesting this the other day, and lo and behold someone did it! They looked at the distance, the shotgun, the size of shot and the condition of the person hit. Guess what? They aren't telling the truth about the distance either! Surprise!

Now you all know Spocko loves him some science, but I'm no Kelley B, and I could quibble over the experiment, but don't you think that it deserves to be checked out by some real legal forensic experts?

And finally, today's "Cheney shot an old man in the face joke of the day!"

This is really all Harry Whittington's fault.
At lunch he said, "I'll have a beer and a shot."

(hat tip to DWD - Challenged Homepage 02.16.06 - 7:57 pm for the beer and a shot joke)

Wednesday, February 15, 2006

Where are the rape videos?

The comment below is in response to Salon's running of more Abu Ghraib torture photos

As everyone in Hollywood knows, you need to ratchet up the violence in the sequel to get the attention of people after the first show.

I don't think these photos will move the needle in terms of people's outrage, they will be dismissed and downplayed as before by Hannity, Rush and lesser hosts like San Francisco's own pro-torture theocon, Brian Sussman on KSFO. (Link) In fact, the very act of showing them will be seen as treasonous by the likes of O'Rielly. Instead of asking why did this happen they will blame YOU for fanning the flames.

I think it will take the videos of boys being raped (which we were told existed)to make people readdress this issue. To stand up against the torture apologists (and there are a lot of them, sadly) we need to point out the number of people who should NEVER have EVEN been in Abu Ghraib. I think that for every radio host that jokes and says that they are all terrorists who are trying to kill us, we need to identify the non-terrorists who DIED from TORTURE. Yes almost two dozen Iraqis were TORTURED to DEATH. Somehow that little statistic seems to get ignored when shown photos of "harmless" stress positions and men with underwear on their heads. According to the army's own reports

"There were five cases of detainee deaths as a result of abuse by U.S. personnel during interrogations... There are 23 cases of detainee deaths still under investigation..."
--The Schlesinger Report, August 2004

Based on the Taguba report, the Red Cross report and yes even the photographs themselves, clearly more than seven military police were involved.

"The new reports not only decisively prove what was long known, widening the circle of direct blame for what happened at Abu Ghraib to nearly fifty people, including military intelligence soldier and officers (although subsequent disclosures suggest that the number is at least twice that.)"
--Mark Danner, Torture and Truth America, Abu Ghraib, and the War on Terror. p. 27

The fact that this was tamped down to a few people convicted "on the night shift" is astonishing. Photographic evidence PROVES and signed documents SHOW that more were involved than were ever punished.

Must we have a notarized photo of Donald Rumsfeld raping, torturing and killing an Iraq who was rounded up by mistake to get people to take this seriously? Because by signing the military orders and putting in place his policies, he is responsible for those actions as surely as if he committed them himself. To state otherwise is to deny the existance of the military command structure.

The Beer Question

Boy I hope someone asks Scotty the Beer Question at the Gaggle. I'll bet 200 quatloos that April Ryan asks the question. She seems smart.

I guess we'll just have to wait and see if she does. I read earlier today that Holden over at First Draft is handicapping who will ask Scotty this question. Do you think that she will ask HOW big the glasses were? Was it a bottle or can? What TYPE of beer? I mean there are some huge endorsement possibilities here. Corporate America really needs to get on the ball. Some of them even have slogans that might fit in with the circumstances. Or they can create new ones. "The Choice of Vice Presidents everywhere" "Drink their beer and you'll shoot a man in the face. Drink ours and you'll just get shit faced."

Let's look at a few famous beer slogans from the Beer Slogan Database (There really is a database like that!)

Miller Beer Slogans:

Tastes great, less filling ('cause pellets don't fill you up!)
The Champagne of Bottled Beer (Pop a cap into 'em)
No matter what what's-his-name says, I'm the prettiest and Lite's the greatest (The slogan of deniers everywhere.)

Coors beer Slogans:
It won't slow you down (Light) (As for your aim, that's a different story)
Turn it loose! (Ain't that the truth?)

Budweiser Beer Slogans:

The King of Beers (He is the King of America after all.)
Where there's life, there's Bud (I mean nobody has died-- yet)

Busch Beer slogan:

Busch Beer. Head for the mountains (Or an undisclosed location)

Hemeling Lager brand Slogans:

Give him a right good Hemeling tonight (Or her-- kind of a Swiss Miss line)

St. Pauli Girl brand, Germany Taglines:

Germany's Fun-Loving Beer (Germany, beer, guns, fun-- what's not to like?)
St. Pauli Girl. The Original Party Girl (Party girls on the hunt? Hmmm.)

And finally:

Newcastle Brown Ale brand
Slogans: Newcastle Brown Ale. The Other Side of Dark.
I think we have a winner!

Monday, February 13, 2006

Blogger playing tricks on comments

Hi everyone. Well I just heard from one of my 20 readers that my comments section was eating everyone's posts. So I went into blogger and sure enough comment moderation was turned on! I never did that on purpose, but it appears that the people at blogger switched it on without notifying ME. Oh well. I just found all the comments that have been posted since December 20th or so and published them.
I'd like to thank everyone who posted and I'm sorry I didn't respond. (You weren't banned Ellroon! I'd never do that --unless you started shilling for herbal Viagra!)

I'm going to put up an email address now so that people can alert me to stuff like this.

The good news is that there were some comment spam in there that I was able to delete and not bore you with.

I might comment on a few comments now that I've found them. There were a few comments from Jim that have since been answered in the news for us so I won't need to comment there. I don't always agree with Jim, but I'm happy he comments from time to time.
And of course I appreciate all 19 of my other readers immensely.

I'll be light posting for a while while I complete a project (both light in both volume and content.)

And for those of you who have been following the Sussman Saga, from looking at the blog web stats I can tell you that people from both Disney and Citadel have read the blog and have listened to the audio. I'm guessing that there is some hullabaloo behind the scenes right now. Too bad I can't get a cut of the fines that will be levied for the swearing. And when he leaves to "spend more time with his family" the twenty of us will know the real reason.

I'm also happy to have an online interview with Talkers Magazine, Media Week, or Billboard Radio after the fact.

Sunday, February 12, 2006

"I shot a man in Texas, just to watch him die." *

Cheney bags his limit in Texas Lawyers. ( Link )

Could this be Cheney's way of telling Harry to stop fighting eminent domain?

Or maybe he didn't like Harry's views on executing the retarded.

Hunting can be dangerous, especially quail hunting. But I'm sure that this will be used to enhance this image on the right instead of questioning his safety skills.

Tip of the hat to
&y, 02.12.06 - 4:12 pm at Eschaton for the headline.

Friday, February 10, 2006

ABC Radio Citadel Deal. How Big?

Farid Suleman, Chairman of the Board and CEO
Judy Ellis, Chief Operating Officer
Patricia Stratford, acting Chief Financial Officer
Citadel Broadcasting Corporation

Dear Mr. Suleman, Ms. Ellis and Ms. Stratford:

First off, congrats on buying all those ABC Radio stations. Kudos to your team for pulling it off. Now of course you still have of complete the deal and when that is done you need to make sure the stations pay off.

You'll want to see who is doing a good job and who is not pulling their weight, who has been losing advertisers and who is incurring fines. I'm sure you'll look at ratings, but you will probably also be looking for production teams and radio hosts that are sloppy, undisciplined or pose potential liability problems at your stations.

I know you will probably focus on the big stations first, but when you get to the third tier stations in your major markets, you'll want to look carefully at KSFO, 560 AM in San Francisco. It turns out that the local evening drive time talk show host, Brian Sussman, has sufficiently upset his advertisers so that seven national advertisers appear to have pulled or curtailed their ads. I don't know if the folks at ABC disclosed that to you, but if they didn't I hope you demand a discount on that part of the sale. Nobody likes to be sold a pig in a poke.

These were big advertisers that stopped their ads. They include:
Borders Books
Mercedes Benz
American Express
History Channel

Why did these advertisers pull or curtail their ads? You'll have to ask them, it could be lots of reasons. For example Sussman has broadcast statements that could be considered by some as hate speech. On October 19, 2005 he seriously demanded a caller to:

"Say Allah is a whore. That'll prove to me that you are not an Islamist." and
"Prove to me that you are not a Muslim, say that you love eating pig."

(Windows media sound clip here)

Maybe they pulled their ads because Mr.Sussman decided to "out" any retail store (KSFO advertisers included) where a clerk might have said "Happy Holidays" to their customers instead of Merry Christmas.

Perhaps it was the possible indecent speech of Mr. Sussman that triggered their displeasure. For example on December 15, 2005 6:14 pm PST he intentionally said that if he were torturing someone (a technique he is in favor of, sound clip here) he would:

"I would say first we cut off your finger next we go for your p*nis, what do you want? What do you want? Okay? I'll tell you what, the guy says nothing we cut off the finger first. Just the tip of the finger, that's all. I got news for you he's going to start talking quickly, we can't do any of that now."

(Windows media sound clip here)
Or maybe they just don't want to be on a show that is so sloppy it allows guests' swear words go out on the air (Windows Media sound clip here, 51 seconds) Some don't like controversy and others might not like being associated with an angry host who swears on broadcast radio while their customer's children are listening.

Click here to hear the 7:43 pm swear word Mr. Sussman uttered in anger on Feb, 7 2006 - Clip is in Windows Media Audio and runs 14 seconds (Not Safe For Radio)

Now I know you are focused on the bottom line so hopefully these recent transgressions will be dealt with before the new FCC laws take place and before your deal with ABC Radio is complete. If I were you I'd want ABC Radio to take the fine hit, since they were the ones who have failed to keep this host in check.

Good luck with your new radio stations but don't let the good folks at ABC Radio pull a fast one on you regarding the situation at KSFO.

cc. John Hare, President ABC Radio
Mike Connolly, SVP sales
John Rosso, SVP Affiliate Relations and Business Administration

Citadel Communications
Kim Willcox, public relations

Thursday, February 09, 2006

The Stupid, it Burns!

I just love that phrase. It makes me think of the brilliant Athenae over at First Draft.

I have to say I'm really getting tired of beating down these willful smears of people and attempts to make the Abramoff story a bipartisan scandal. The willful misleading and just plain ignoring of the distinction between accepting money from special interest groups and taking money as a quid pro quo just pisses me off.

Also the AP article that was quoted left out some very important facts

The AP noted that Reid opposed legislation to approve a Michigan casino for a Native American tribe that would have rivaled a casino owned by a tribe represented by Abramoff. But the article omitted the fact that Reid said at the time that he opposed the legislation because it would create a "very dangerous precedent" for the spread of off-reservation gambling -- something Reid had opposed for nearly a decade. The article also suggested that Reid coordinated with Abramoff to sabotage proposed legislation that would have raised the minimum wage in the Northern Mariana Islands, a U.S. territory represented by Abramoff, without noting that, in fact, Reid was a co-sponsor of that legislation and spoke on the Senate floor in favor of its passage.


Accepting money from the Indian Tribes is and of itself IS NOT ILLEGAL. The key issue here is quid pro quo. (Latin, this for that, as my Latin Scholar reader will no doubt tell me). The good people at myDD have an excellent post about this. Now if a certain radio talk show host would bother to understand the distinction he wouldn't have a "Hot" topic to rant about. When he did have a caller, Jim, who wanted to calmly point out the facts Sussman changed the subject (and then hilariously said he wasn't changing the subject.)

Good try Jim, but trying to have a rational conversation with Mr. Sussman and get him to admit he is either wrong or intentionally misleading is like pushing water uphill. Like a used car salesman he has three slippery statements to every one of your rational facts. I wrote about this type of interaction in December, "How to Talk to Wing Nuts." When confronted by facts that prove that they are wrong they switch topics and pull up a different "fact" you know nothing about, use the classic, "But, Clinton" or --which was the case in this exchange -- they sum your entire statement falsely. It's what they do. The sad thing is that some people hear this "entertainment" and use it to solidify their opinions or, most horrifing, use these people's inaccurate information and smears as sources of news.

Jim, Media Matters has some good advice on dealing with these hosts under the heading of Take Action, it might help for the next time you call, but remember it's not a level playing field and they never make it a fair fight.

Important things to remember for certain radio talk show hosts and this AP article: (from bink at myDD)

Abramoff is a convicted criminal. He plead guilty, in Federal courts, to the following:

* Defrauding the Indian Tribes
* Tax evasion
* Conspiracy to bribe a Congressman Bob Ney (R) with material gifts and lavish trips * Bank fraud in the purchase of the SunCruz casino deal

Now, looking at this article, how is Harry Reid implicated in any of these charges?
He wasn't.

Tuesday, February 07, 2006

KSFO Employees, meet Farid Suleman, Chairman of the Board and CEO, your new Boss!

So ABC Radio sells its stations to Citadel Broadcasting for $2.7 billion. So how will this effect you? Well if you work for a program that has been known for saying mean things to suspected Muslims, maybe a guy named Farid might be a bit annoyed by you. Now I'm not sure what Mr Suleman's faith is, maybe it doesn't bother him that one of his radio hosts demanded of a caller:

"Say Allah is a whore. That'll prove to me that you are not an Islamist."


"Prove to me that you are not a Muslim, say that you love eating pig."

(42 second Windows media sound clip here)

Now of course this was last October, so maybe he will cut you some slack, I mean it's not like you have done anything new to intentionally provoke another religion under the banner of "free speech". What? You say that you are using your KSFO webpage to directly link to the offensive cartoons of Muhammad? That seems to be just asking for trouble, doesn't it? I sure hope that Farid doesn't notice a pattern here of saying offensive things, never apologizing and spreading hate.

But I'll bet Farid is a bottom line kind of guy. Someone who just looks at the ad sales.
Oops! Boy, I hope he doesn't notice that KSFO's evening drive time host is so radioactive with his offensive comments that pretty much all the major national advertisers have pulled their ads, during the BUSY HOLIDAY SEASON no less. Bummer.

I mean big advertisers like:
Borders Books
Mercedes Benz
American Express
History Channel

That must have hit the bottom line a bit. I heard of a liberal radio host that lost an advertiser and then lost her job. But we all know that right wing hate radio is very different from other radio, they have a long tradition of propping up money losing hosts even though they profess to love the invisible hand of the market in this great capitalist society. Heck, Rush Limbaugh lost money for years, The Washington Times -- the GOP house organ owned by the Rev. Sun Myung Moon, still loses millions every year. It really isn't about the all mighty market, it's about making sure attack poodles are in place to serve the big right wing "media" picture. Let's just hope that Farid doesn't listen to the show or look at the books.

Because really, Farid Sulman is a busy, busy man now. He probably never heard about the comments on December 15, 2005 6:14 pm PST during Brian Sussman's 6 to 8 PM drive time show where Mr. Sussman talked about cutting off someones penis.

"I would say first we cut off your finger next we go for your penis, what do you want? What do you want? Okay? I'll tell you what, the guy says nothing we cut off the finger first. Just the tip of the finger, that's all. I got news for you he's going to start talking quickly, we can't do any of that now."

(20 second Windows media sound clip here)

And I'm sure he won't notice when the FCC indecency complains come in, because as we all know, broadcast radio has different rules for speech than someone standing on the corner in front of the Federal Building expressing his opinion. Radio is regulated. And our good friends at the American Family Association have pushed harder and harder to ensure that indecent speech between 6 am and 10 pm is punished with big fines. Of course if H.R. 310, the Broadcast Decency Enforcement Act of 2005, were to pass and trigger the new proposed FCC indecency or obscenity fines of $500,000 per instance someone at Citadel Communications might notice.

Farid might not worry about what the children hear, but a $500,000 fine just doesn't look good to the stock holders especially if the fines aren't balanced out by revenue from advertisers.

Some say that radio companies are amoral when it comes to issues, but as a public corporation when the bottom line is threatened, they act.

The people at Citadel might just be tough as nails professional folks who don't appreciate sloppiness. For example, they know they can swear all they want in their office, but as owners of lots of radio stations they know that obscenity is never allowed on the radio. Nothing personal, it's just business. They know there are special tools on radio that are suppose to protect little children's ears from being burned.

So when they hear swearing going out over the air on one of their broadcast stations they might think first of how the sloppy team can be more professional and then maybe they worry about of the huge fine.

Click here or on the carton of hate to hear the 7:43 pm swear word Mr. Sussman uttered in anger on Feb, 7 2006 - Clip is in Windows Media Audio and runs 14 seconds (Not Safe For Radio)

Now to me this obscenity seems slight, but then I'm not the one who wrote the rules for radio and I'm not the one pushing for stiffer fines. It's the rapture right wing Christians who want to impose their morality. I don't think it will be a multiple million dollar Howard Stern size fine that the Christian Right has been begging the FCC for. How ironic if the fine would be used on one of the Christian Right's own? It's one of those stories of blow-back and unintended consequences that the traditional media just love to cover.

But I doubt anything will happen. If Disney owned ABC decided to just absorb the loss of seven major national advertisers instead of dealing with a offensive broadcaster's comments, I doubt Citadel will do anything different. So rest easy KSFO employees as you meet your new boss he'll probably be the same as your old boss. (Then again, maybe not...)

Why NOW is one of the best Shows you haven't seen

Just watched the 2:00 am repeat showing of NOW on KQED regarding the TOTAL SHAM Colin Powell speech was to the UN. Why bother with this now? Because they are setting us up for either the US or Israel to bomb Iran. They lie like most people breath. And when they get people to support them in their delusions and word games people die.

The NOW story is damning. The WH used stuff from known bad sources, and repeated unconfirmed reports as facts. It is just stunning how blatantly we were lied to.

Here is part of the transcript
BRANCACCIO: The business about mobile labs was not the only claim administration officials were making based on false information. Anyone with a TV would have noticed they were also intent on linking Saddam Hussein to Al Qaeda.

Television Clips: CHENEY: Al Qaeda sent personnel to Baghdad to get trained…
RICE: The head of training for al Qaeda, they sought help…

RUMSFELD: When I say contacts, I mean between Iraq and al Qaeda.
BRANCACCIO: The president said so too, most notably in a prime time speech to the nation in October 2002.

PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH speech, Oct. 7, 2002: We've learned that Iraq has trained Al Qaeda members in bomb-making and poisons and deadly gases.

BRANCACCIO: According to the administration, these were more than just suspicions: they claimed to have a first hand, eyewitness account. In his U.N. speech, Secretary of State Colin Powell spelled it out.

POWELL: Fortunately, this operative is now detained and he has told his story. I will relate it to you now, as he himself, described it.

BRANCACCIO: That operative who said Iraq was working with al Qaeda was an al Qaeda official named Al Libi. Al Libi was captured in 2001 and sent to a prison in Egypt where he may have been tortured, according to published reports. It was during his imprisonment in Egypt that al Libi "confessed."

BRANCACCIO: There's only one problem with al Libi's confession: it was most likely false. It was only after the invasion the C.I.A. admitted as much. But here's the thing-there were doubts about this guy going back years.

SEN. CARL LEVIN (D-MI), press conference Nov. 14, 2005: The intelligence community said, "That's not what we believe."

BRANCACCIO: Senator Carl Levin is a Democrat from Michigan. A member of the Senate Intelligence Committee, he gets secret briefings. He says when it comes to dubious claims about a link between Iraq and al Qaeda, the public doesn't know the half of it.

Levin's been working to declassify what he can. One item he recently brought to light: a Pentagon assessment of al Libi that goes back to a year before the war. It reads, "it is…likely this individual is intentionally misleading debriefers." And there's more, agents wrote that Iraq was, "wary of Islamic revolutionary movements," like al Qaeda, and was, "unlikely to provide [them] assistance."

LEVIN: There is a clear difference between what the administration was saying in that regard, and what the intelligence community was saying.

BRANCACCIO: Levin says before the war, intelligence officials told members of Congress they didn't believe Iraq was working with al Qaeda — certainly the White House must have known that too. Levin eventually voted against the war.
LEVIN: The administration was making statements, repeated statements, that there was a relationship between Saddam Hussein and al Qaeda, the people who attacked us. Those statements were exaggerated, they were misleading. And the C.I.A. had concluded that, in fact, there was no significant relationship at all between the two.

BRANCACCIO: So did the administration mislead the public? The President says he was just conveying the best information he had at the time. The White House refused to comment for this story. But late last year, Vice President Dick Cheney had this to say:

VICE PRESIDENT DICK CHENEY speech (Nov. 21, 2005): Any suggestion that pre-war information was distorted, hyped, or fabricated by the leader of the nation is utterly false. Senator John McCain put it best: "It is a lie to say that the president lied to the American people."

BRANCACCIO: Senator Levin believes at the very least, the administration played fast and loose with the facts. Consider, he says, the president's now infamous line about uranium from his 2003 State of the Union speech.

PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH speech (Jan. 28, 2003): The British have learned that Saddam recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa.

BRANCACCIO: The administration has admitted that statement was false. But just weeks ago, another damaging revelation: this newly declassified memo from the State Department. It shows administration officials were warned before the President's speech that the uranium claim was probably untrue.

LEVIN: The only purpose, the only purpose, of telling the American people that the British have learned that Saddam was seeking uranium in Africa was to create the impression that we believed it. But we didn't believe it. The intelligence community did not believe it.

BRANCACCIO: Levin believes Vice President Dick Cheney also played with language in a way that is not accidental. One of Cheney's oft-repeated remarks? Unsubstantiated reporting of a meeting between the Iraqis and one of the 9/11 hijackers.

CHENEY (NBC News, "Meet the Press", Sept. 8, 2002): "We have reporting that places him in Prague, with a senior Iraqi intelligence official."

LEVIN: The CIA did not believe that meeting took place. "We have reporting that places him in Prague." Technically, that was true. But it creates the impression we believed something we didn't.

Dick Cheney's use of language to obscure information is more damaging to America than any phrase Bill Clinton ever parsed.

"We have reporting." Is the reporting believed to true? No. But I guess if nobody asks you "Is that reporting to be believed?" everything works. Now whose job was it to ask those questions? Now that we know his tricks, the media need to ask him those kind of follow up questions. Of course he will play the "National Security card" and we will all be told to shut up.

Boy, playing the fake national security card is almost as good as Bush playing his Born Again Christian card. It shuts people up fast.

Friday, February 03, 2006

Newspapers should carry pet obits

I found this posted on a telephone poll when visiting a friend of mine. It was just so touching.