Spocko's Brain

Found in North Carolina Sewer!

2009-07-02T18:06:00.001-07:00

Creepy!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TcKpx2DxGwY

C.H.U.D?

A Public Option for Health Care: Tell Senator Landrieu: Support the people of Louisiana NOT insurance companies.

2009-07-02T15:32:00.000-07:00

The pull quote at the end is:
Tell Senator Landrieu:
Support the people of Louisiana
NOT insurance companies.

Privacy, Violent Rhetoric and Talk Radio: Michael Savage Edition

2009-06-30T15:15:00.000-07:00

Michael Savage vows to post Media Matters staff pictures and ‘pertinent information’ on website (Link)

The story above really is scary.

Just how close do we have to be to RTLM (Hutu Power Radio) for anyone to see the parallel and say, "That's enough, the people making these kind of threats are off the air for good."?

(You might recall from your watching of Hotel Rwanda that the hosts at RTLM gave information on where the Tutsis were located after talking about crushing the Tutsis like cockroaches. Note: those hosts are now serving jail time for war crimes.)

Is it going to take a few more murders of the targets of right wing talk radio host's ire for someone to act? And by someone I mean their own management. And if management doesn't act, showing us in writing the warnings to Savage along with his signed agreement posted on his website that he won't do this, then they need to pay a financial price. That is the only thing that might get them to act.

The government will not act unless the EXACT right type of murder or violent assult happens. I don't think that will ever happen. Savage knows he needs to avoid certain words and phrases. He knows that unless it is spoken in-person to the person carrying out the murder the people defending the hosts will work on the "he has his right to free speech!" line.

All talk radio and TV hosts know this, so they dance around it and practically demand that the people on the LEFT defend them.

Here is an example of what I mean. Last week

Terry Gross of Fresh Air interviewed Chip Berlet last week and asked him the question about violent rhetoric. She set up for him the question right wants the left to answer. She said,

"The right wing pundits don't pull the trigger. The don't whisper in the ear and say, 'You, you go out and shoot somebody.'"
-- Terry Gross, Fresh Air interviewing Chip Berlet Right-Wing Populism in America: Too Close for Comfort. (link)

That is bar that the right is happy the left is setting for them. "Legally he isn't culpable because he didn't pull the trigger." They are very concerned about protecting his "right" to make violent death threats on the air.

My buddy David Niewert can warn people, write excellent books on the topic and then, when the shootings happen go on TV and explain why it happened, but the media will continue to defend these radio and TV hosts. Why? Is it even ever possible to get them to say these people have gone too far? I don't think so.

The media are afraid that any suggestion of limitation of speech will be used against them. Even speech that clearly crosses the line in the category of falsely yelling fire in a crowded theater, . At a macro level they see Savage as "one of them".

Who enables Michael Savage? Several groups:

1) His management. Talk Radio Network, they profit from him and as long as he is making them more money than he is costing them, they will do nothing.

2) His listeners on the right.

3) People on the left who believe standing up for Michael Savage's violent rhetoric and incitement to violence are somehow standing up for the First Amendment.

4) The advertisers who are paying to advertise on his show with the hope that the listeners will buy their goods and services.

Hosts like Savage want to be defended by people on the left. They want it to become a "free speech" or First Amendment issue. But as I have pointed out, it's a corporate issue and a financial issue.

The people who profit from Savage are not going to reign him in, unless he costs them money. And unless he is generating negative revenue they have no incentive to tell him to do something differently.

The people who support Savage's views are not going to tell him to stop.

The people on the left get antsy when it comes to any kind of development of new government speech rules. It is a long expensive legislative battle they don't want to fight. (As much at the right is screaming about a reinstatement of the fairness doctrine, Obama has said that he isn't planning to go there. Of course they don't care what he says, they will still bring out this boogy man whenever they want.)

The only people who can have any impact are the advertisers. We can point out to the advertisers just how bad it is to be connected to Savage. They often have advertising guidelines that give them permission to walk away from controversial people like Savage. If they really, really want to keep advertising they will make up reasons to stay, I think we should give them reasons to leave. Reasons that are consistent with their own internal rules. "Hey, I didn't write your HR and advertising guidelines, you did.")

Some advertisers will wait until more people are killed or violently attacked to act. They are hoping to squeeze out some juicy juicy sales from the people who support Savage. That is their choice.

I don't think that they really want to see, "These acts of violence against Media Matters staff are brought to you by Product X, a long time sponsor and friend of Michael Savage! "

Remember, Nike dumped Michael Vick. They had no desire to be connected to him after what he did. They understood that you need to protect your brand from people who are tainting it. It's too bad they couldn't have extracted themselves and their sponsorship BEFORE the revelation. Maybe there weren't any warning signs in the Vick case. In the case of Savage the warning signs are out there every day. Do you really want to be the last advertiser standing by the next Michael Vick?

Coleman concedes. It's Senator Franken Now!

2009-06-30T13:47:00.001-07:00

Update 4:28 p.m. ET: Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty has released a statement announcing that he will sign the election certificate, which clears the way for Franken to be seated in the Senate. "In light of [the] decision and Senator Coleman's announcement that he will not be pursuing an appeal, I will be signing the election certificate today as directed by the court and applicable law." Earlier, a spokesman for Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid said Franken could be seated as early as next week.

Joe the Plumber Suggests Lynching Chris Dodd

2009-06-27T20:17:00.001-07:00

Violent rhetoric directed at an individual. This is irresponsible, dangerous and should trigger a law enforcement visit.

Joe The Plumber Suggests Lynching Chris Dodd

Mayor found nude: Guess the Party

2009-06-27T17:34:00.000-07:00

I've got 200 quatloos on Republican.

Former Georgia Mayor Arrested For Nudity

Now THAT is a tall basketball player

2009-06-26T23:39:00.001-07:00

\

From Wired UK

Hammer Dance in Clothing Store

2009-06-25T12:16:00.000-07:00

Every where I go from Antwerpen to LA people just seem to be showing up and dancing.

RULE OF LAW! Until it happens to Fox.

2009-06-24T12:45:00.000-07:00

Court Backs Fines for On-Air Expletives

By JESS BRAVIN and AMY SCHATZ
WASHINGTON -- A 5-4 Supreme Court ruling Tuesday upheld the Bush administration's rule penalizing radio and television broadcasters over isolated utterances of an expletive before 10 p.m

This is about Fox losing the case regarding the 2003 Golden Globe Awards, when U2 singer Bono said on live television that winning a trophy was "really, really f -- ing brilliant!" Read the whole thing in the April 29, 2009 Wall Street Journal

This story isn't really about free speech. It's about money. Fox doesn't want to pay the fine. And the liberal media will defend them because they don't want to be fined either. If you have enough money you can figure out a way (with enough clever lawyers and lobbyists) to get around the rules."Follow the money" is great advice for journalists, but also useful when understanding why companies (and people) do certain things.

The right wing authoritarians LOVE rules and like to enforce the rules when it can be used to punish someone else. When it comes to being used against them? Well that's another story! They don't want the rules to apply to them, especially rules that were designed to hurt their competitors or rules that were enacted by their base. For example, say that the base believes that obscenity and indecency is a bad thing. The right wing broadcasters are fine with that, especially when it hurt Howard Stern. But what do they do when it happens to them?

Blogosphere slogan: IOKIYAR which means, It's OK if you are Republican. Sometimes it's their own rules that are broken. I may or may not agree with them. I didn't make them. But the whole industry acknowledged them, and everyone agreed to follow them. They set up 7 second delays, they screened callers and when someone slipped, they fired people. (Like the recent firing of KGO talk radio host "Karel" and the board operator who let the obscenity-laden rant go out on the air and wanted "Joe the Plumber" dead.)

If we demand that they follow the rules they attack us, "Well YOUR people swear all the time! Your liberal friends swear! Your RAP music is all about swearing and killing and violence! We didn't even say it! It was Bono, a LIBERAL, who swore! What about that? Huh? I thought you believed in free speech! I thought you loved George Carlin!"

Exsqueeze me? Baking powder?

These are THEIR rules. I'm just asking that they follow them. This isn't about me, this is about them. The religious right worked overtime to make those rules have financial teeth. Not 6k fines like in the old days, but $350,000 or $550,000 (the hosts should remember that the unions, which the right hates, ensured that those fines wouldn't be levied to the host personally. Be sure to thank your union rep next time you see him.) The right designed software and sent blast emails to the FCC. Many on the right believed the arguments that it was to protect the children. Apparently they even convinced the majority of the Supreme Court.

Their guy, Justice Scalia, remembers the rules that were put into place that they agreed to:

"Programming replete with one-word indecent expletives will tend to produce children" who use them, Justice Scalia wrote.

Instead of just accepting the fine they are fighting it using all their rhetorical and legal tricks. They really want to come down on the side of the First Amendment because the alternative is to come down in favor of obscenity. Well I say let's turn this back to what it is, News Corporation not wanting to follow the obscenity rules.

Right now News Corporation (Fox News parent) is working to develop a brief in favor of people swearing on broadcast radio and TV. That's right, Fox News wants your children to hear more of the F-word, the S-word and the C-word. They want the time when your children are watching TV or listening to the radio to be an unsafe place for children. Of course that is not how they will position it. It will be all about the Government limiting their speech and their "First Amendment Rights!". Now, does Fox have the right to make these arguments? Sure. And they will spend millions of lawyer dollars to make them. They will appeal and delay and work the FCC staffing hoping that they get swearing friendly Obama appointees.

This is just another aspect of big media using their power to break the rules and ignore the wishes of the people (especially their own listeners) when it comes to current and future profits.

FCC Fines That Don't Exist

I like to remind people that the FCC didn't have any fines to give out when Melanie Morgan called for the death of journalists by hanging or when Lee Rodgers called for the killing "like a mad dog" of political supporters of Ron Paul. They did not have a fine for KSFO when Brian Sussman talked about cutting off a finger and a penis of an Iraqi. That is why I went to the advertisers. The management didn't care, they FCC didn't care, because there wasn't a group of people who got together and said, "This kind of violent rhetoric is dangerous and creates an environment where someone will act." I actually asked acting FCC Chairman Michael Copps about this. He said that contacting the advertisers was the best course of action unless I wanted to lead an campaign about new rules for violent content.

But the FCC DOES care about obscenity and indecency on the broadcast airwaves because a one time in history a group of people convinced the FCC to regulate the broadcast airwaves. It was about protecting the children.

This Supreme court ruling means that at this moment in time this is settled law. (Unless you think that Justice Scalia is being an activist Judge!)

I can and will ask the FCC to enforce their own rules about obscenity and indecency because they are their rules. If the right wants to go after Rappers for swearing on publicly broadcast radio or TV, go right ahead, be my guest. The right wing went after Howard Stern and forced him out of broadcast radio, they have the power.

There are very few levers that the public has when it comes to media. Demanding that they pay a financial price for what is deemed irresponsible speech is one of them. We as a country haven't yet decided that calls for death of individuals and groups on broadcast radio and TV is irresponsible enough for an FCC fine. But we have decided that obscenity and indecency qualifies for a fine, if Howard Stern had to pay, so does Fox News.

Mythbusting Right-Wing Domestic Terrorism

2009-06-23T15:06:00.000-07:00

These Mythbusting points are from Sara Robinson over at Orcinus. Read all the points, each myth has info underneath it to explain more. Here are a few of the myths (link) See #7 in which my work is featured.

1. These are just "lone wolf" psychos who are acting alone. You can't hold anybody else responsible for what crazy people decide to do.

True and false. But mostly false.

4. This is just a minority movement that isn't really capable of changing anything. We don't really need to worry about it.

False. And evidence of tremendous denial.

5. It's not fair to hold right-wing media talking heads responsible for the things their listeners might do.

Riiight.

6. All that crazy stuff you hear on the right -- you can find the left wing saying things just as bad. They're equally culpable for how bad it all its.

False. There is no equivalency whatsoever to be drawn here.

7. "Dial it down?" Don't you mean that you want to use the power of government to forcibly shut up right-wing hate talkers?

False. There are a few folks in Congress who tried to gin up support for some kind of legislation -- but progressives should resist this impulse, and denounce it as the shameless grandstanding that it is. We believe in the First Amendment. And if we compromise it now, we're no better than the Bush-era conservatives who were so eager to shred the Constitution when they felt threatened. We are better than that -- or should be.

Besides, we've already perfected a tried-and-true method that actually works. Even better: it's grounded completely in conservative free-market philosophy; so if when the right wing starts blustering about it, we get to fire right back and call them out as hypocrites. Big fun all around...and so much more elegant than wantonly trampling on people's civil rights.

Short and simple: we take our appeal to the advertisers. We note who the hate talkers are, what they're saying, what date and time they said it -- and then we write letters to the CEOs of the companies that sponsored those shows. Do these people speak for you? Is this the kind of media you want your product associated with? If the answer is no, what do you intend to do about it?

Note that this is not a boycott -- just a call for moral accountability. Being associated with hate speech is so bad for business in so many ways that no boycott should be required. It taints the brand. It usually violates the sponsors' own HR standards -- any employee who said that stuff at the office would be canned on the spot. It's horrible PR, especially if some enterprising blogger decides to make an issue out of it. Simply pointing that out has often been enough to convince executives that it's a bad idea, and they need to get out before it blows up in their faces.

Don Imus lost his show this way. So did KSFO's Melanie Morgan. (There's even a verb for it -- "spockoed" -- referring to the blogger who used this technique to get Morgan and several other California hate talkers off the air.) It turns out that advertisers actually read these letters -- especially when they're getting them by the hundreds. It doesn't take much of this before they pull back their ads; and when their major sponsors walk away, the talkers lose their shows. They may thrash a little -- but usually, it's all over in a matter of just a few weeks.

Note, too, that both TV and radio stations are already losing revenue year over year at a rate that's starting to rival newspapers, so they're probably even more exquisitely sensitive to this kind of pressure now than they were just a couple years ago. If we want these people off this air, this is the way to get them gone for good -- and make the cultural point that this garbage is no longer acceptable on the nation's airwaves.

There are more, check them out at Orcinus

What is to be Done? Violent Rhetoric on Talk Radio

2009-06-17T13:51:00.000-07:00

I get really frustrated when I see people on the left get pushed into the black and white corner of the right when it comes to violent rhetoric on talk radio or TV. People in the media have an especially hard time discussing this issue because they are afraid of saying anything that even hints of a restriction.

If you call out someone for their violence rhetoric following an act of right wing violence the quick response on the right is, "Are you saying I'm responsible? I didn't pull the trigger. I've got my free speech! What, don't you like free speech?" Then, to respond, some people start with the, "I didn't say you were responsible, Yes, I love free speech, I'll defend your right to say etc. etc. etc."

Using this response they have pulled us into the position to supporting THEM.

The right will never say that their words will have a direct causal link to action when it comes to violence.

Why?

One reason could be because they don't believe their words are powerful enough to convince someone to be violent. Their words can convince people to:

buy products
vote a certain way
make phone calls
show up at rallies
donate money

but in their mind their words can not convince anyone to do anything violent. Does that make any sense?

The power of their words always stops short when it comes to violence. Nice trick that, obviously they know their audience and their non-violent ways and commitment to peaceful resistance. (snark)

Another reason is that the focus has been moved to who is responsible is broadcast lawyers advising them. They have developed the idea that they can't be held legally responsible so they are working that argument in public. They don't want to deal with moral or ethical responsiblity, just, "Can I be sued or go to jail if I say this?" It is a legalistic mind set that fits in quiet well with the Authoritarian mind set. They will happily use lawyers to help them create legal cover. They ask the lawyer, "I want to do this, how can I do it with out getting into trouble legally?"

They will also use people I call platitude free speech advocates to support them. These are people who bring out the "I'll defend to the death your right to free speech" before knowing what the other person is even talking about. If you asked them, "Would you defend their right to falsely yell fire in a crowded theater?" they would say no. So you really need to look at exactly WHAT you are saying you are defending.

I was at a presentation Monday sponsored by Working Assets/Credo that brought together Dave Brock, CEO of Media Matters, Eric Boehlert, author and senior fellow at Media Matters and Joan Walsh, editor-in-chief of Salon.

I asked a question I wanted them to address. What can we do economically about violent rhetoric on talk radio?

I wanted to get us into an area that we have some proven successes in this regard. We could go to the FCC to start the process of adding inciting violence to the list of finable offenses, but that would be a multiyear process and a fight that the right might want to have so they can be seen as the poor victims who are just talking about "self defense". It also would turn into a linguistic word splitting game. And as we all know, the right is better at parsing words to avoid responsibility than anyone.

The government might not want to step in and say, "If you suggest to your listeners on the air that they go out and kill people" we will fine you or take away your license, but that doesn't stop the sponsors from saying, "Our corporate value system is against suggesting you kill people on the air." (Pretty funny that we need to count on a corporate value system, but there you have it.)

Corporates are still made up of people who can make decisions on where they spend their advertising dollars. They are not the Government. They can make a business decision that they do not want to taint their brand by sponsoring people who suggest violence toward others. Others who are potential customers. Others who are current customers.

They do not have to come out and say anything about whether or not the radio hosts are or are not responsible for anything, if they pull support they aren't censuring any one, just withdrawing their paid support. As I point out time and time again, the hosts have no right to paid sponsored speech.

False Comparisons: SOP in Debates

2009-06-12T18:06:00.000-07:00

I was a lousy debater at the Vulcan Science Academy. I was too easily pushed into my human side by Vulcan bullies (as demonstrated by the documentary of one of my alternative timeline lives).

As I got older and my logic took over I got better. I got even better when I began to see the patterns in the debate and give them names. I still didn't really like to do it, I would rather persuade than argue, have a conversation than a debate. Folks who have degrees in rhetoric like my dear friend Interrobang give me names for techniques that I experienced in the right-wingnutosphere.

Some times I knew how to counter them, other times I realized that the person I was debating would never admit they were wrong, but simple switch to another technique to "win" the debate. Since there was usually not a third party to declare victory, like ajudge, debate coach or wise respected parent, they would never stop. Frankly it got tiresome. I also found some wouldn't take YES for an answer. "I AGREE with you! I think Gary Davis is a crummy governor. You've won! Stop trying to convince me."

The people I'm arguing with are usually men, when they have lost they rarely, if ever concede. From the book "You Just Don't Understand: Women and Men in conversation" Deborah Tannen explains the loss of status that men often feelwhen it comes to admitting they are wrong, (this explains why they hate to admit they are lost. Even admitting to someone they will never see again, like a gas station attendant, is seen as a status lowering event. )

A long time reader of this blog, Jim, who often brings me good comments that force me to be more complete in my posts, wrote the comment below.

I sometimes wait for one of my other 18 readers to respond, but I figured that I would respond to this. And since I only have 19 readers (which is 16 more than many bloggers) I always try to be polite. I leave the righteous swearing to Athenae at First-Draft.

Here's Jim:

So 1 neonazi nut shoots people and it's caused by right wing talk radio? I suppose you can also say that liberal bloggers supporting muslims cause american soldiers to die because 1 muslim nut killed an american recruiter: http://www.usatoday.com/news/military/2009-06-01-army-recruiter-killed_N.htm; 6:11 AM
spocko said...: Jim, Jim, Jim. Come one, you are usually better than this. And usually your reading comprehension is much much better. Often you provide me with well thought out rebuttals which offer me a chance to make my points clearer. And in the past I've agreed with some of your points. I'm sorry that you jumped to this argument. You are probably rusty (like I know that I am after my vacation).

As you can see I didn't say that right wing talk radio caused the neonazi to shoot people. I said, "I believed that the constant repeating of anger, hate and suggestions of violence toward others had and has a very real effect on people's thinking."

I still believe that my statement is correct. Unless you believe that people are never affected by what their hear. And I don't think you would argue that.

As for your second comment. Come on, that is a weak strawman. I hate the fact that military recruiters were killed. I'm against violence without just cause. I don't condone it, and if you can point to serious public people on the left calling for Muslims to kill American Recruiters I'd like to see it. On the other hand I CAN provide you with audio clips of Lee Rodgers calling for the death of millions of innocent Muslims. I can provide you with audio clips of Brian Sussman wanting to torture Iraqi's by cutting off their fingers and penises. I can provide you with audio clips of Sussman agreeing with a caller who wants to send cruise missiles into Mosques. (hmm, killing defenseless people in their houses of worship, where have we heard of another man doing that lately?)

When Melanie Morgan gathered a bunch of her supporters using her broadcast pulpit at KSFO to have a "show down" at "high noon" with Medea Benjamin of Code Pink during one of her peaceful protests of the military recruiter sites in Berkeley I wrote Morgan's management telling them that her language was inflammatory and that gathering a mob to confront a group for a "show down" at "high noon" (Morgan's words) has a high potential for violence. And guess what? Violence happened. One of Morgan's supporters took a knife and slashed the Code Pink banner and then slashed the cord to Benjamin's microphone. A few inches in another direction and it would have slashed the holder's neck. Now, I have talked to a DOJ attorney about his, talked to Medea and talked to the head of the rally who has photos of the perpertrator. I have audio of Morgan's comments before that event documenting her inflamatory comments.

With all this there are people who will say that isn't enough to show inciting violence to give the government a reason to step in. Okay, fine, but that doesn't mean that the company that funds her can't say, "That is irresponsible, tone it down or we will be on the hook for a civil claim in someone comes after us."
If the government is afraid to act because of their concerns of stifling free speech then we need to ask the responsible corporations to act. To ignore it is to condone it. If the people at the radio station aren't responsible then we need to ask the people who pay the bills, if they want to keep supporting them. The station will act out of fear of lawsuits, and maybe some of them understand the potential for violence and just don't like it for their own brand image.

Michael Rowe has an interesting article over at Huffington Post
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/michael-rowe/the-holocaust-museum-shoo_b_214133.html
That makes the point that, there was "A time when it was expected that citizens would understand the difference between free speech and irresponsible speech."; I don't want to get into the technical and legal definition of hate speech here, but the "falsely yelling fire in a crowded theater" argument has to do with the potential for injury. The FCC has a whole section on inciting violence and what constitutes "fighting words" but they don't have fines. They have left that up to the good judgment of the rational managers of the radio stations. The FCC figures they have their hands full with the obscenity and the indecency rules that they currently spend their time regulating.

Speaking of obsenity, are you actively spending time trying to get obscenity back on the radio so they can have their "free speech?"over that?
Or are you accepting that decision as something the public decided to do to regulate its public airwaves?; Thanks for posting Jim, but this is not one of you better efforts. Keep coming back though, maybe next time you'll "win" the conversation.

In memory of Dr. Tiller. Where to Donate --By Interrobang

2009-06-12T16:18:00.000-07:00

So, the terrorists have managed to close Dr. Tiller's clinic. In nearly no cases will this outcome "save" any "babies." What it will do is condemn a lot of women to unsafe deliveries of dead fetuses, condemn a lot of women to delivering their doomed children in a regular maternity ward, only to be surrounded by happy parents -- while they wait for their child to take its last breath. What it will do is practically guarantee that a woman dies unnecessarily in childbirth. What it will do is increase the amount of misery in the world.

What it is doing, step by step, is depriving women of their ownership of their own bodies. By terrorism.

If you would like to make a donation in memory of Dr. Tiller, and to help increase abortion rights and access, here are some places you can donate:

A list from Feministe, including:

The National Abortion Federation
Medical Students For Choice (Note: You can earmark donations to MS4C to your favourite group; I sent mine to the university where I did my undergraduate degree.)
Planned Parenthood and International Planned Parenthood Federation
Haven Coalition
Lilith Fund (helps women pay for abortions)
Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice
DKT International (overseas family planning services)
Catholics for Choice
Education For Choice (UK)
Marie Stopes International

If you are in Canada and would like to make a donation to a Canadian pro-choice cause in memory of Dr. George Tiller, a contact at the Morgentaler Clinic recommends:

The Morgentaler Defense Fund
33 Hazelton Ave # 101
Toronto, ON
M5R 2E3
(to assist Dr. Morgentaler in his legal battle to ensure abortion access in New Brunswick)

The Morgentaler Patient Assistance Fund
727 Hillsdale Avenue East
Toronto, ON
M4S 1V4
(According to the woman I spoke to at the MC -- I am keeping her safely anonymous -- although most services are covered by the provincial healthcare plan, many women require travel assistance, and many many women come to Canada from abroad to obtain safe, accessible abortions in Canada, where otherwise abortion is illegal or they would be facing prosecution.)

ARCC - Abortion Rights Coalition of Canada
P.O. Box 2663
Station Main,
Vancouver, BC
V6B 3W3
(fights to ensure access for Canadians)

Canadians for Choice
300-260 Dalhousie St.
Ottawa, ON
K1N 7E4
(Canadian pro-choice activism)

---From Interrobang

More Right Wing Violence: Holocaust Museum Shooting

2009-06-10T12:33:00.000-07:00

I was on vacation when Dr. Tiller was shot so I didn't comment. I'll put up a post from Interrobang later to address that. Today someone shot two people at the Holocaust Museum in DC. Coincidentally, I just found out Monday that I had a connection to the Holocaust story that I didn't know about.

Monday I was at the service for my Uncle, a WWII paratrooper who I just found out liberated one of the concentration camps. He submitted a description of his experience to the Holocaust Museum in 1997. When I get a copy of his recollections from my cousin I'll post some of it.

I could do a big post talking about the role of right-wing radio hosts in inciting violence toward multiple people and groups but I've written that post over and over again.

Everyone Talks about Violence on Talk Radio but Who Does Anything About it?
When I heard on talk radio violence directed at others I got so sick of it I did something about the situation. I believed that the constant repeating of anger, hate and suggestions of violence toward others had and has a very real effect on people's thinking. I think it is irresponsible to not vigorously challenge calls for violence on commercially supported broadcast radio. And, because I know how the right wing radio loves to play the courageous protector of "Free Speech", especially when they cross the line with violence, I made a conscious decision to go to the only audience that really cares what they say, the advertisers.

[Side note: How much of an impact did we make on KSFO? I don't know for sure, but this was posted to my blog on Feb. 9 2009 in response to my post about the UUC killings of Jim Adkisson's. I can't confirm the financial figures, but I find it interesting]

we've been waiting for you to get back on the pulpit spocko. i highly doubt that you, your readers, or the media who covered your efforts over the past few years, have any idea how much you affected ksfo. your work cost them millions of dollars in a very short period of time. the long term losses are much greater and will never be recouped. probably tens of millions in future losses.

think about it. 27 big brand advertisers, gone. agency buyers who are familiar with your work don't take the risk exposing their other clients to ksfo so that money is gone. melanie morgan, gone. so much time and energy spent on damage control by sales people and management. the list goes on an on and on. it all began with a few emails to key people and tens of millions of dollars later, we still remain in awe of you.

You see the advertisers are not the government. They aren't radio management (who get higher ratings from a controversial host than one who is rational.) Advertisers can make a business decision and don't have to worry about violating the First Amendment when they pull their ads or tell a host to knock off the violent threats right before they play a commercial for their product. And, if they look at their own internal corporate policies, they often find the hosts are violating their own HR guidelines.

Radio Host's Violent Rhetoric Taints Brands
Can you imagine Mercedes sponsoring a newspaper ad with a photo of Lee Rodgers making this comment, "This call to kill Jews is brought to you by Mercedes"? Then why when Lee Rodgers calls to kill Muslims Bay Area Mercedes still acts as a sponsor? What's up with that? Double standards on who it is okay to talk about killing on the air? You bet. [Audio of Rodgers suggesting that millions of Muslims need to be killed (and he didn't mean terrorist Muslims, just plain ol' Muslims.)]

Note to Bay Area Mercedes, "Dead Muslims can't buy cars." Sponsoring a host who calls for the death of potential car buyers is a marketing fail.

Of course what the radio hosts never mention is that they are already regulated by the government when it comes to obscenity and indecency. If there were fines for incitement to riot or suggestions of violence toward others you can be sure that the seven second delay button would have been worn out being used on Lee Rodgers, Brian Sussman, Melanie Morgan and "Officer Vic". A couple of $350,000 fines and they would be off broadcast radio.

It is really only the threat of losing money from their calls to kill people that could have an impact. Especially in a timely fashion. If the left decided to go to the FCC and ask to include threats of violence to the fine list that would be FUN for the right wing. They would get to be "under fire" from the liberals. "They are trying to squelch my free speech!!" Bill O'Reilly would try and rally people on the left who don't know the distinction between commercially sponsored regulated speech that is approved by his management --and unwitting sponsors --and speech that the government is not supposed to mess with as stated in the First Amendment.

Who Supports Violent Threats on the Radio and TV?

There are people on the left who you will hear say, "I don't like what he has to say but will defend to the death his right to say it." I ask these people if they will defend his right to call for someone to be murdered on the air and then give his address and work schedule. Some of them understand the difference in those comments, but others still like to stick to a platitude. Not surprisingly sometimes they are the people who make money off the hosts. "Hey it's just his opinion, he has a right to his opinion."

It is an important education process to help people understand the logic underpinning the rule about falsely yelling fire in a crowded theater. It's about the potential for harm to others with irresponsible speech.

I'm not an scholarly expert like the folks that Joe Garofoli of the San Francisco Chronicle included in his round up story about the topic. I wish that he would have called me because exposing violent rhetoric from right-wingers has been one of my main issues for years. Of course I understand-- quoting someone named "Spocko" from a blog named Spocko's Brain doesn't carry the same weight as Kirk O. Hanson, executive director of Santa Clara University's Markkula Center for Applied Ethics or David Hudson, a scholar for a First Amendment Center. But if, as is often the case in American, you look at the bottom line, I think what I did, and the methods I used are worth discussing. Especially since we did it all legally, using the marketplace and we exposed the hypocrisy of the management that would cry "they have free speech!" on one hand while shutting down my blog with a bogus copyright claim on the other.

The national hosts are more popular and maybe more fun to focus on, but sadly here in San Francisco we have our own radio hosts at KSFO who have called for the violent death of their political rivals, journalists, liberals, democrats and Muslims.

A Cheerful Song from Garfunkel and Oats

2009-06-01T18:00:00.001-07:00

I love the shout out to Duck Tales.

Lots of sadness in the world today, a happy silly song is just what I needed. Thanks Riki and Kate.

I read a lot of time travel books. But I would make a lousy time traveler. I

2009-05-23T12:38:00.000-07:00

I read a lot of time travel books. But I would make a lousy time
traveler. I like the modern world. Dental care. Clean water! Gelato!
High speed trains!

Lately I've been in places that have had civilization for centuries
and they have the buildings and art work to prove it.

There is something about the physicality of the statues, paintings and
frescos that have traveled through time to us that makes the time
passage more real. I deal in ideas, words and language in a medium
that people say will be around forever, but I know these words will be
buried in time like the 1st century temple of Minerva covered over by
a Christian church.

The infrastructure to keep the internet going is not trivial. If I
want to push my ideas and thoughts down the ages I should be trying to
get it into a book. Not because the Internet will fail but because
with time each advance of technology and ideas will bury the next
unless they are constantly refreshed into new and diverse mediums (for
example I've got some brilliant posts on Prodigy...) But a book seems
like an egotistical gesture for my ideas which to me seem slight,
common sense and tied to a narrow scope. But the idea appeals to me if
only as a way to some how get out of the "invisible ghetto" of the
Internet. The rich Italians in places like Venice wanted others to see
their wealth expressed in buildings and art.

I think about how previous men and women went about transmitting their
ideas or the ideas of others. If you were a painter in a certain
century you painted religious figures, and to break away from that was
a big deal. How many people wanted to paint other things but didn't?
I'm sure some art history major can tell me of the hundreds who did
but were ignored because they didn't follow the wishes of the patrons.
So if you wanted to get paid and know that your works would be seen,
you worked with the people who had the money and could protect your
work over the ages.

I was famous on the Internet partly because I understood what "the
money" wanted and I pointed out to them the sick ideas they were
paying for in their quest for customers.

My natural inclinations are to help the Patrons achieve their goals by
offering them a better artist to patronize but first I had to let them
know what they were paying for. I think of so many companies that have
"brand police" who worry about colors and fonts yet let their brand be
tied to verbal violence, sexism and lies (Did medieval Kings have
brand police?)
I think one of the reasons people in companies let horrific violent,
racist or sexist comments pass is because they are so visually
oriented. Radio is "invisible" without the receiver but this
invisibility is very powerful because it activates the parts of the
brain not overloaded by visually processing images or text. The words
can become more emotional, like a parent talking to a child. Maybe
this is why right wing authoritarians respond so well to talk radio.

I wonder if we took the words and made them physical, if it would be
easier for people to grasp the horror the patrons are paying the
"artist" for. If you imagine the ideas carved in stone or painted, you
could see the moral depravity they represent. Hearing those words is
qualitatively different.

If I had a sculpture of "The slaughter of Innocents (Iraqi version)"
and put it in front of the Patron's building, say Autozone, and said,
"You paid for this image, this world view. You are the patron of the
"artists" who support this vision of the world. They aren't just
describing historical acts, but they are actively FOR the slaughter."

Would the words turned to statues seem real to them then? Talking
about wiping out millions of people means you are for the slaughter of
innocents.
When artists painted "The slaughter of Innocents" they weren't saying
"Lets do more of this!" Compare this to the "artists" who support war.
Although they should be funded by those who benefit (defense
contractors) they are instead funded by cancer charities.

-- This message was composed with PhatWare WritePad.

I read a lot of time travel books. But I would make a lousy time traveler. I

2009-05-23T12:36:00.001-07:00

I read a lot of time travel books. But I would make a lousy time
traveler. I like the modern world. Dental care. Clean water! Gelato!
High speed trains!

Lately I've been in places that have had civilization for centuries
and they have the buildings and art work to prove it.

I was famous on the Internet partly because I understood what "the
money" wanted and I pointed out to them the sick ideas they were
paying for in their quest for customers.

-- This message was composed with PhatWare WritePad.

Reading someone elses travel notes can be so insanely boring that I expect most of my 19 readers will flick off to Digby or boing boing. I have no new insights about the places, just what they trigger in me.

2009-05-13T11:24:00.001-07:00

Reading someone elses travel notes can be so insanely boring that I
expect most of my 19 readers will flick off to Digby or boing boing. I
have no new insights about the places, just what they trigger in me.

I don't know if it is my birthday, the economy or the locations we are
going to but one thing I know about myself is that I'm a worst case
scenerio kind of guy. Or to quote Will in Oklahoma "with me it's all
or nuthing" which can tie me into mental knots. Throw in my enhanced
ability to merge with others minds and I can find myself whip sawed by
thoughts leading to feelings.

So for example, in Assisi, St. Francis' home town, I'm thinking about
poverty, spirtuality, money and the future. In Florence, de Medici's
home town, I'm thinking of commerce, money art talent and what gets
remembered in the future. Commerce is what they are known for, but I
don't expect how intense my mind is impacted by the people around me.
I'm thinking about how to make money and running out of time to make a
"ton of money".

Is this because of all the people selling stuff at every cormer and in
the middle of the sidewalk. "Rolez watches for €22!" says the nice
Nigerian man.

Funny Family Memories from Maria Bamford

2009-05-01T16:31:00.001-07:00

I have lots of things in common with the comedian Maria Bamford. It appears that she has stuff in common with my sister too. The Funny voices!

*By the way, if you want to see Maria live here is her schedule here (Link)I'm saving up my nickles so I can see her when she comes to SF.
If you are in Duluth, Minn tomorrow May 2nd hop on down to Fregeau Auditorium at Marshall School at 7 pm!

I love that it is a benefit for child and adolescent mental health. We used to say how for some comedians doing stand up was "in loo of therapy." One of my hopes for the future is universal health care that includes mental health.

I just got an amazing gift from my youngest sister. We both can do funny voices and she just reminded me of that. I also appreciate this video clip because I see some of the pain behind the funny stories. At one time in my life I remember thinking, "Sure this is a terrible experience, but someday it will make a funny story!"

I just found out that what was a scary story for me turned out to be a future funny story and growthful experience for my sister. Yeah!

Thanks for the gift, it was better than "A NEW CAR! A bar base!"

Email Filters at ProFlowers have Higher Standards than KSFO Radio Hosts

2009-04-28T14:13:00.001-07:00

Mark Sottosanti, Senior Vice President of New Business Initiatives and Marketing,
Provide Commerce (parent company for ProFlowers)

Dear Mark:

You probably don't want to hear that KSFO host Lee Rodgers describes waterboarding as nothing more than "dipping testicles in a basin of cool water." right before he reads your ProFlowers commercials. (audio wma MP3 )

And, because of your Provide Commerce spam filters, you won't. My email to you yesterday contained so many foul words said by the hosts of KSFO it never made it to you or your colleagues. It's kind of ironic that your email filters have higher standards that the radio hosts at KSFO.

You are an extremely technical company, I'm impressed by all the advanced technical degrees within your management team, you clearly WANT data, you want to know how your brand is being enhanced or tainted as it meets the great wide world, but you probably never anticipated that some radio hosts are so disgusting in their comments that an attempt to alert you would be thwarted by a simple Spam Assassin language setting.

It's hard to know if the filter was triggered by the words, testicles, penis or anal sex. It might have been triggered by too many links. The links are to document the host's actual words so that you will be convinced that I'm not making any of this up.

The people at Citadel Broadcasting, (KSFOs parent company) are relieved that you couldn't read the email. This gives them time to create their excuses and attempt to demonstrate how they sternly chastised the offending hosts. What you don't know is that any "chastising" is nothing more than a winking memo saying, "Try not to do it again. :-) Mickey."

They know you are too busy to follow up and keep track of the new horrific comments the hosts make. They certainly aren't going to tell you. Is your ad rep going to tell you and lose a commission on a package? They have a vested interest in keeping you in the dark. They don't care if your ad comes up at the tail end of "Testicle Talk with Lee and OV!"

Yesterday I sent you audio clips from three years ago showing KSFO host's love of gruesome torture. I linked to clips from two years ago where they didn't apology and clips from last week showing them laughing about torture. If you cared to listen just this morning at 6:37 am Lee Rodgers comes out again in favor of torture. (KSFO archive link)

Now I could spend some time pointing out all the logical fallacies, straw men and out of date information Rodgers uses to make his case, but that's really not the point. The point is that testicle and torture talk is mainstay of his program.

Would it help you to hear some more audio clips? How about this joke suggesting a former KGO host be castrated and his testicle sack be used as a tobacco pouch? Now imagine that conversation ending with, "brought to you by the florists at ProFlowers." (audio Rogers, "OV" aka Tom Benner).

When Rodgers isn't calling the former governor of Arizona, Janet Napolitano, a bitch, auto executives whores or talking about the penis size of pirates, he is calling for the death of his political opponents on broadcast radio. ( audio linkWMA) (audio link MP3)

His latest gambit is to tell advertisers what kind of ads they CAN NOT run on his program. I hope you don't want to run "green" ads on KSFO.

"If any business advertises anything green I'll never buy their product or services." -Lee Rodgers, KSFO/ABC Radio/Citadel Broadcasting. 4-24-2009 6:07 am

Melanie Morgan chimes in, "Boycott green!" (audio link wma audio link MP3)

(I wonder if that applies to the green plants you offer. Looks like you might not have his business in the future.)

Rodgers and Brian Sussman aren't going to change their views or what they say on commercially supported broadcast radio. KSFO management has shown time and time again that there isn't anything their hosts can say that is bad enough to warrant correction because otherwise they would be seen as "wussies" by Lee Rodgers, the most powerful man in radio. (Audio link wma)

I guess KSFO management is happy to lose advertiser after advertiser rather than be seen as a wussies. I suppose there is always another advertiser who wants to hang with the tough talkers. Some men will do anything to avoid been seen as a wussy. Torture! Kill! Insult advertisers! Lose millions! Lay off support personal! Just Don't Call Me a Wussy!

If you do decided to leave, please don't feel bad, KSFO will simply find another advertiser who hasn't heard the stories or believes the ad rep who says, "Oh, they aren't like that any more." Who are you going to believe, them or your lying ears?

LLAP (Live Long and Prosper)
Spocko

Is ProFlowers ProTorture? KSFO hosts tie your brand to torture

2009-04-26T21:52:00.000-07:00

Mark Sottosanti, Senior Vice President of New Business Initiatives and Marketing,
Provide Commerce

I'm not sure if I made myself clear last week on the phone. The radio hosts of KSFO are tainting the ProFlowers brand. Let me explain how.

KSFO hosts, Brian Sussman and Lee Rodgers, are currently reading your ProFlower ads for Mother's day. Sussman audio wma audio mp3; Rodgers audio wma audio mp3

These hosts have a history of making horrific comments including violent rhetoric directed towards liberals, democrats, journalists and Muslims. They are unrepentant in their calls to torture and kill people. (Listen to Lee Rodgers NOT apologizing for calling for attaching electrodes to the testicles of Kevin Holder, a criminal in Lincoln Nebraska, before he suggests that we "blow his bleeping brains out." (audio wma ) Remember, Rodgers is acting as your spokesman to the San Francisco Bay area.
KSFO hosts Proudly Pro Torture for Years
They are pro torture and have been for years.

Brian Sussman from 2005, 'You know me, I'm pro-torture". They have sick fantasies about torturing people. (audio wma)
Sussman from 2005 talking about cutting off the finger then the penis of a Iraqi.
(audio wma)
Sussman from 2009 talking about blowing off the kneecaps of someone during an interrogation. (audio wma)
Torture jokes. Lee Rodgers and Melanie Morgan joking about waterboarding employees of rival station KGO from last Thursday, April 23, 2009. Audio wma Audio mp3

I find their views repugnant, but I'm not paying them to associate with my product. You are. Question: Is ProFlowers ProTorture? If so, Brian Sussman and Lee Rodgers are ideal spokesmen.

Next week, when more photos of Americans torturing comes out, please remember that these hosts are FOR the acts of torture shown in those photos.

ProFlowers parent company, Provide Commerce was voted one of the best places to work in California and in San Diego. Your motto, "finding a better way to do it" is interesting. Your business proposition, connecting consumers with growers, makes sense but your ads bank on the listener's relationship with the hosts. That's swell but it it also puts your brand under the control of the people who are selling your product. Ask Nike what happened when its spokesperson, Michael Vick, came to represent a repugnant act like dog fighting.

You won an award for being a great place to work. I'm guessing that you don't threaten to torture people.

The ProFlowers brand experience on KSFO: Listeners hearing horrific comments about torturing people by cutting off fingers and penises and then hearing that exact same KSFO radio host exhorting listeners to buy flowers for Mother's day. Is that the brand link you want? Is a joke about simulated death by drowning better?

Some people hate their mother. They may decide to purchase flowers for their Mother after hearing about torture. If reaching that demographic is the goal of your advertising on KSFO you have succeeded.

I want to make it clear that I'm not objecting to the discussion of the topic, what I find offensive is their support of a repugnant act. These hosts are NOT having a discussion about torture as part of an intelligent debate like you might hear on the Rachel Maddow show. Also, you are not the Government. By removing your paid financial support you are not limiting their speech, you are simply exercising your right to spend your marketing dollars in ways that more closely match your own corporate guidelines. The "we don't support torture" guidelines that most companies have in their bylaws.

Listen to KSFO's "Officer Vic" Imitating President Obama Having Anal Sex with Michelle Obama
Additionally this is not the only horrific comments from these hosts. Listen to traffic and weather reporter Officer Vic doing an imitation of President Obama having anal sex with his wife via "the port entry" or "the tunnel" and then using sound effects to make sure we all get the image. (audio wma).

If you decided to pull your ads from the Brian Sussman and Lee Rodgers' show "Officer Vic" would be reading the ads. The news and weather isn't even a safe place for your ads.

KSFO's Sussman attacks Advertisers who Support Same Sex Marriage
I also don't want to presume that there are any gay people in the floral industry because that might be playing into some stereotypes. But I would think that you would want to provide flowers for all occasions to people of all sexual orientations. To do otherwise would be bad for business. A gay marriage would require as many flowers as a straight one.

Brian Sussman didn't like that Pacific Gas & Electric stood up for their employee's civil rights when it came to same sex marriage. He went on the air telling people how to get their gas from other suppliers. (audio wma mp3) Brian Sussman will use your support of the equal rights of your employees against you on his show and actively tell people how to buy products from your competitors.

Mark, I wanted you to know what you are getting into when you advertise on this station. These hosts are not like the others you have reading your commercials. You could ignore my letter but "finding a better way to do it" means having more and better information about the people selling your products. I hope you will choose to disassociate yourself from these people. Who you choose to associate with and how and where you advertise your product says something about you and your company. Please don't choose people who are pro torture.

I encourage you or your agency to listen to the overall content of these shows, I'm confident you will quickly determine the multiple ways the hosts of KSFO are tainting your brand. They currently have a 7 day archive you can listen to at their website.

If you want to call the the sales manager and alert her to your desire to go another direction with your ads, contact Deidra Lieberman- Director of Sales for KSFO. Her email is
Deidra.lieberman@citcomm.com her number is 415-954-8118.

cc.
Anna Hansen, Senior Vice President of Consumer Insights and Service
Penny Handscomb, Vice President Human Resources
Kent Olson, Vice President, Website

pr@providecommerce.com

Updated4-28-2009 to correct link, phrasing.

The T-Word: They can't even say the Word Torture

2009-04-24T12:16:00.000-07:00

Torture is a hot topic, there are other people talking about it who are drilling down to the details. My friends over at Fire Dog Lake are all over this. Marcy Wheeler is giving us details that will not only explain what happened when based on public records, but Jane and Christy will talk about the other implications.

I want to know the details so that I can win a debate with the radio hosts who are misinforming their audience and using these actions by Obama to ramp up the fear. But once again I'm going to pull from the wonderful book, "The Authoritarians" by Bob Altemeyer, Associate Professor, Department of Psychology, University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, Canada.

You’re not likely to get anywhere arguing with authoritarians. If you won every round of a 15 round heavyweight debate with a Double High leader over history, logic, scientific evidence, the Constitution, you name it, in an auditorium filled with high RWAs, the audience probably would not change its beliefs one tiny bit. Authoritarian followers might even cling to their beliefs more tightly, the wronger they turned out to be. Trying to change highly dogmatic, evidence-immune, group gripping people in such a setting is like pissing into the wind.

I figured this out a long time ago. But I still want to "win the conversation" with the Double High leaders of the Right Wing Authoritarians. But they do not have any obligation nor the intellectual honesty to admit that they are wrong. It might be emotionally satisfying, but it will neither persuade, convince nor compel them to a different conclusion. RWAs like to say that "the enemy" will only respond to brute force, because they know that is the only thing that would work on them. They think the left will try and silence them because that is what they do and have done in the same situation.

If you do present evidence that refutes their claim they will appeal to secret knowledge, "Cheney leads the way! Yeah, let us know what the "harsh interrogation" came up with! Ah ha! Then you will see just how great it was! "Harsh interrogation" saved LA! In YOUR FACE wussy liberals! In. Your. Face!" And if it was regular interrogation that gave up with those leads? Well never mind. If the harsh interrogation later came up with a ridiculous plot to blow up the moon? Well never mind.

What is it all about?

Is it a sin?
My friend Rich likes to bring in deep metaphors about sin when he talks about this issue.

Is it illegal?
Lawyers talk about the law breaking and the rewriting of law

Is it interrogation or torture?
Linguists talk about definitions, "It depends on what the definition of torture is".

Do we need it?
The right is framing this politically so that the issue becomes, "If we don't torture we will be unsafe."

What is to be done?

If you can't win an argument with people who won't listen to evidence, who will willfully distort history, defy logic, dismiss scientific evidence, and ignore the Constitution what can you do?

Personally I like to get their views in front of normal people. People who CAN remember history, who do understand logic, who don't dismiss evidence and who follow the Constitution. I want to get their sick world view in front of people who don't share their views. These people are often disgusted by the views of the torture apologists. They can see that they are offering false choices, "We must torture or we will all die!"

And when they see this they can say, "Hey you can have your history defying, illogical, anti-Constitutional world view, but my company isn't going to pay to support your sick stuff. It's bad for our brand. Come on, I'm selling flowers here, not whips and chains.

The right has decided that we want to shut them up. Why? Because that is what THEY would do and it is what they HAVE done. This is an old saw from the free speech folks. "You fight bad speech with more speech."

Advertisers might be willing to hear multiple views on a topic if it was presented as such (as an intellectual challenge) but they don't have to pay to support a viewpoint that is morally repugnant to them. They are using their right to choose where they put their money. They are supporting their already defined internal company policies. They can vote with their feet too.

The Authoritarian has Never “merged files”

2009-04-15T19:32:00.001-07:00

I'm reading a great book by Bob Altemeyer called The Authoritarians. you can download and read it for free. His work was frequently referenced by John Dean in his book Conservatives Without Conscience. His book is funny, he has Star Trek references and he's from the University of Manitoba in Winnipeg Canada so what's not to love?

I dropped him a note to be prepared to comment to the press to help them explain the anger that they saw at the tea bag parties. Anger that really isn't based on their own tax situation (unless the parties were attended by the top 1 percent in America, a statistical improbability) but was whipped up by the right wing leaders.

As I've been reading more I've found, as did John Dean, so many answers to the question that my friend PTCruiser posed about some of these talk radio hosts. 'What is wrong with these people?"

Dr. Bob, as his student's call him, explains how the hosts can say one thing one second and then a contrary thing the next. He describes it

2. Highly Compartmentalized Minds
As I said earlier, authoritarians’ ideas are poorly integrated with one another. It’s as if each idea is stored in a file that can be called up and used when the authoritarian wishes, even though another of his ideas--stored in a different file--basically contradicts it. We all have some inconsistencies in our thinking, but authoritarians can stupify you with the inconsistency of their ideas. Thus they may say they are proud to live in a country that guarantees freedom of speech, but another file holds, “My country, love it or leave it.” The ideas were copied from trusted sources, often as sayings, but the authoritarian has never “merged files” to see how well they all fit together.

I like that metaphor a lot. And if you point this lack of merged files out to them? "But Clinton!!!!" (Which will soon become, "Your buddy Obama said..."). They do not see their own inconsistent logic as a problem. He also explains later how fundamentalists (Christian and others) are also fine with a lack of consistency. I'm not to the last chapter (What's to be done?) But I'm looking forward to it.

Let the Mocking Continue! Sinfonian, Teabagging In Paradise!

2009-04-15T19:13:00.000-07:00

So my buddy Sinfonian from the Blast Off blog went to a Fox News, FreedomWorks, teabagging party today. And of course he told people the truth and was roundly booed. That's gratitude for ya!

It's almost like they didn't WANT to hear the truth.

I didn't attend any of the Bay Area teabagging parties because I know that the right-wing KSFO listeners are really right on the edge of violence and I didn't want to be a target, what with my DFH shirt and all.

As I predicted, a fight did break out at the SF event. And as I also predicted a caller to KSFO said that it was "Acorn types" that started it. I should have further predicted Brian Sussman's comment on the scuffle, because I think he might read my blog. I like to show off my mind reading capability because it gives me geek cred. I did predict that the ACORN types would get blamed by "getting in the faces" of the real American and the real Americans just had to respond. "I had to punch him Mom, he called me dirty word!" What did he call you honey? "A conservative."

It is actually hilarious how the right seems to think that we operate like they do. The projection of their tactics, view points and ideas on others is constant and boringly predictable.

They like to say that any PR is good PR. I disagree. The tea-bagging protest did get media coverage, but it was easily mockable and showed how pathetic and disjointed their messages are. And yet I try not to get complacent. You do not turn your back on these people.

Many of them are on a hair trigger. These people have guns with ACTUAL triggers -- it's not a safe situation. They don't even bother to suggest they aren't going to kill people. They want us to know they are just about ready to snap--with gun in hand. They say those guns are to stop an out of control government or home intruders, but it's funny how energized they are now when under Bush the Bill of Rights became the Bill of 9 suggestions and one right-the Almighty 2nd Amendment!

I'm proud of Sinfonia for getting up and having his say, I gave him some advice on what to say, but his delivery and timing was all his. Well done! I forget to be funny sometimes when I'm dealing with the right wing because they are very serious with their anger. So I'm pleased he was able to make it funny and true at the same time. I'm also glad that nobody decided that he was threatening him and had to "stand their ground".
Live Long and Prosper Sinf.

Updated Sinfonian spelling. 4/22