Media Malpractice: Watching the News Today

I was flipping between the news channels today, and I thought the contrast was pretty intense.  It's always a pretty clear contrast between the three channels (MSNBC, CNN, and Fox), but it was particularly apparent today, because of the upcming election.  Here is what was on:

I started on MSNBC:
Andrea Velez Mitchel was interviewing the President of the AFL-CIO about the Pensylvania candidates, and what he thought of them.

I got bored so I flipped to CNN:
Fareed Zakaria GPS was on, and he was talking about how to get our economy moving again.  He crafted an excellent argument about how we have to start funneling money into R&D and putting people to work in the new information sectors, and stop trying to replace the sectors like manufacturing that are disappearing.  He suggested we spend 6% of GDP on R&D, which is about what we spend on the military right now.  How are we going to pay for it?  an Innovation tax on consumer goods, because as fareed notes, consumerism and credit is what got us into this mess, so this tax does anything to slow consumerism in this country, he thinks that is a good thing.  Overall, I liked what he was saying!  No big surprise there, the guy is a genius.

Commercial break, so I flipped over to Fox:
(1) "Did a TV station in Alaska controlled by the liberal mainstream media try to steal the election from Miller?"
That was the first thing I heard.  So, just to be clear, MSNBC is interviewing interests groups, CNN is talking about fixing the economy and new business sectors, and Fox is airing conspiracy theories to try and get their candidates elected.  Wow...
(2) Shortly after that, they aired a segment about "mail bombs" showing up in airplanes.
How transparent!  2 day before the election, ratchet up the terrorism rhetoric so you can win votes off of people's fears.  Seriously, Fox has no f***ing shame!!  this is why I don't feel bad for voting Democrats straight down the ballot this year.  This is trashy!

So then I channel surfed for a while, before returning again to Fox News (I pretty much just went in reverse order this time):
Still hammering that "mail bomb" campaign, although I did learn that the pundit who was pushing the fear angle was none other than Megan Kelly.  That woman needs a muzzle... YES, I'm insinuating that she is a B****.

Then I switched back to CNN:
They had taken a break from FZ GPS and were siring the international news.  There were some attacks in the middle east.  And then they talked a little bit about how they were the best political team on television.

At that point my gag reflex kicked in and I switched back to MSNBC:
They were talking about whether or not Obama was going to follow a Clinton model of running things, now that the Republicans are probably going to take over the House (I'd like to point out that the election has not happened yet, so this is media malpractice in and of itself!).  I don't remember the guest they had on because it is silly and speculative, and even if it is true, the media must take some complicity in the Democratic loss this year for basically parroting the Fox News propaganda about this election for the past 18 months.  We all know that the media has incredible electioneering power, which is why they should stay out of it.

In summary
MSNBC: Why are groups supporting certain candidates, and how is Obama going to govern after the election.
CNN: Fareed = awesome
Fox: (1) conspiracy theories, (2) bombs on planes, (3) crazy blonde woman.
Anybody else noticing a difference?

Anyhow, I figured I would share that.

The Failder of the Haters... I mean Failure...

This is something I picked up off of my friend Sumi's facebook page!

FAILDED?

It's kinda funny that the haters always end up making signs with misspellings on them.  I wonder if there is some kind of relationship there between education and hatefulness.  Someone should do a study on that.

Election 2010 Predictions

No Races:
23 Republican Seats
38 Democratic Seats

Republicans Will Hold 
Safe Republican Seats: 23 (Non-Races) + 21 (Easy Victories) = 44

Alaska: Miller (Tea Party Republican) - currently tied with Murkowski, both leading the Democrat by 6 points.

• The only reason that Miller will win is because people tend to vote by party, as opposed to voting for a candidate.  It is unlikely that many of the voters are smart enough to know that Murkowski was their last senator, and that she is a Republican also.  Most of them will just see the "R" next to Miller, and vote for him.
• Even with Republicans splitting the vote between two candidates the Democrat is behind by a significant margin.  There is just no chance of a Democrat winning in Alaska.

Alabama: Shelby (R) - currently leading by a 2:1 margin


Arizona: McCain (R) - currently leading by 19 points


Arkansas: Boozeman (R) - currently leading by 19 points


Florida (Republican Incumbent Retiring): Rubio (R) - currently leading Crist (I) by 15, and the Democrat by 23



Georgia: Isakson (R) - currently leading by 18


Idaho: Crapo (R) - currently leading 2:1


Iowa: Grassley (R) - currently leading by 25

Kansas (Republican Incumbent Retiring): Moran (R) - currently leading by 42

Louisiana: Vitter (R) - currently leading by 13

Missouri (Republican Incumbent Retiring): Blunt (R) - currently leading by 8

New Hampshire (Republican Incumbent Retiring): Ayotte - currently leading by 9

North Carolina: Burr (R) - currently leading by 13

Ohio (Republican Incumbent Retiring): Portman (R) - leading by 17

Oklahoma: Coburn (R) - leading by 42

South Carolina: DeMint (R) - currently leading by 40

• Apparently the good people of South Carolina don't mind sex scandals as much as the people of other states.  Why am I not particularly surprised.

Utah (Republican Incumbent Retiring): Lee (R) - currently leading by 26

Kentucky (Republican Incumbent Retiring): Bunning (R) - currently leading by 5

Republicans Will Pick Up
Indiana (Democratic Incumbent Retiring): Coats (R) - currently leading by 17

North Dakota (Democratic Incumbent Retiring): Hoeven (R) - currently leading by 42

Democrats Will Hold
Safe Republican Seats: 38 (Non-Races) +  8 (Easy Victories) = 46

Connecticut (Democratic Incumbent Became VP): Blumenthal (D) - currently leading by 8

Delaware (Democratic Incumbent Retiring): Coons (D) - currently leading by 18

• I'd like to point out that the media is making it sound like O'Donnell actually has a chance in this race.  She is behind by 18 points!!  She has no chance of ever winning in this race, so why are we even talking about her in the first place?

Hawaii: Inouye (D) - currently leading by 30

Maryland: Mikulski (D) - currently leading by 18

New York 1: Schumer (D) - currently leading by 41

New York 2: Gillibrand (D) - currently leading by 18

Oregon: Wyden (D) - currently leading by 18

Vermont: Leahy (D) - currently leading by 33


Democrats Will Pick Up
Nothing!

Deciding Contests (GOP 46, DEM 46, 8 Close Races)

California: Boxer (D) - Currently leading by 3 (within the margin of error)

• I've said it before and I'll say it again, this happens every year and Boxer always ALWAYS comes out with a win.  In her first election (1992) she won by 4.9%.  In the last two elections she has had anemic opponents and has won by 10% (1998) and 19% (2004).  Against a household name like Fiorina, of course it will be close, but she is still going to win.
• I would also like to point out that California does elect moderate republicans from time to time, like Arnold!  however, Fiorina is CLEARLY not moderate.  The only reason she is doing well is because she, being a business person herself, enjoys the support of businesspeople in the state who are quite powerful.  But it's still not enough to get past the fact that she has allied herself with the likes of Sarah Palin and John McCain.

Nevada: Reid (D) - currently down by 1 (within the margin of error)

• It is ridiculous to think that Reid, the leader of the senate, would lose to Angle, the Tea Parties most psycho talker.  There are people here who I know will vote for her, but still I think most of them are doing it out of party loyalty and not because they actually agree with her views.  If there were any sort of justice in the world, she would never win.

Colorado: Buck (R) - currently up by 3 (within margin of error)

Illinois: Giannoulias (D) - currently down by 1 (statistical tie)

• As if the Republicans are going to win Obama's old senate seat.

Pennsylvania: Toomey (R) - currently in a statistical tie with Sestak

• The democrats are going to be punished for Specter's defection.  Even though Sestak already beat Specter, it wont stop the Republicans in the state from being pissed about his party switch.  Republicans are going to take this state back.

Washington: Murray (D) - currently leading by 2

• Washington tends to be relatively liberal, so I think it's fair to err on the side of the democratic candidate in this state.

West Virginia: Manchin (D) - currently leading by 2

• Very blue collar, so traditionally this would be a strong liberal base, but that has moved somewhat rightward.  I think it's still a pretty strong democratic base.

Wisconsin: Feingold (D) - currently down by 6

• Feingold is an institution in democratic politics and I'd be surprised if he lost.

SUMMARY

Strong Republican: 46

Republican Toss-Up Victories: 2

Strong Democratic: 46

Democratic Toss-Up Victories: 6

Final Senate Balance: 52 Democrat, 48 Republican

Realistically, I think this have been the historically stable balance for either party.  60-40 was never going to be stable, and I think everyone on both sides assumed the pendulum was going to swing back to the middle.

Racial Politics: "The Roots of Obama's Rage"

Conservative ideologue and "author" Mr. D'Souza has surpassed even his own shameless, hateful rhetoric and taken it to a whole new level of straight up racism.

In his book "The Roots of Obama's Rage," D'Souza uses Obama's support of his father to paint the president as an angry, anti-colonial, kenyan national.  This was subsequently parroted by Newt Gingrich, who was forced to pull back much of his statement and has since been somewhat silent on the national scene.  As one might expect from the media obsessed only with politicians and not with the truth, most stations neglected to mention that his words come almost verbatim from D'Souza's book.  The media moved on to another topic without even mentioning the horribly racist pages from which the quote was taken.

I usually take these books as what they are.  Trashy talking points and ignorant sensationalism thrown together in some neo-con media machine trash-mill with a famous name slapped on the cover.  Seriously, I think they have manuscripts laying around where all you have to do is insert a famous name and whatever group is out of favor (muslims, socialists, communists, etc.) and you've got a conservative bestseller.  And the conservative masses do their job.  They go out and eat this crap up like the mindless drones they are.

Anyway, I digress.  What is different about this book for me is that it's no longer just mindless conservative drival touting economic policies that don't work, mainstreaming religious extremism, or justifying trillions of dollars in war spending.  This is just good old fashion racism.  There is just nothing else you can say about it.

Let's break it down:

Obama is angry (Rage was a pretty good word, I'm sure they will be keeping that in their manuscript pile for the next time a black person gets elected president):  This WREAKS of "angry black man."  I mean, when has Obama EVER gotten angry?  has anyone ever seen him blow up at anyone?  has he ever lost his temper in an interview?  Is there ANY evidence what so ever that he has ever been anything other than cool and collected?  No, exactly the opposite.  Try reading Game Change, and you'll realize that Obama's cool, collected attitude probably does mask his irritations better than most, but never has he ever gotten close to anger, much less "rage."  Contrast that to the Republican candidate in 2008 and maybe you'll get a clue.

Obama is anti-colonial:  WELCOME TO THE 21st century... oh wait, no, your still about 200 years behind.  Colonialism has been out of vogue since about the 1800s.  In fact, we had a whole revolutionary war about that I'm pretty sure.  Does the US still engage in "colonial-esque" activity.  Yeah sure it does, but I'm pretty sure just about every liberal (and most conservatives for that matter) are categorically opposed to that kinda thing.  So why is it suddenly a pejorative when Barack Obama is anti-colonial?  Maybe Mr. D'Souza has it in with an undercurrent of American pro-colonialists the rest of us have never heard of before.  Or maybe he's just a d-bag.

Obama is Kenyan:  whether D'Souza was using it as a descriptor "kenyan anti-colonialism" or just accusing the president of being Kenyan all together, it's trash.  In the second instance he is lying through his teeth, which I think everyone should be opposed to no matter how much an ignorant conservative redneck you may be.  He's not a Kenyan, he's an American.  Get over it you xenophobic d-bags.  The first instance is slightly more sinister.  It's meant to point out the "he's not one of us" message that the conservatives have been pushing since Nov 3, 2008.  It plays on our Xenophobia in the same way that "illegal aliens" and Obama's middle name play on our xenophobia.  So what is it conservatives?  is he muslim?  or is he Kenyan?  or he both?  or is he a Socialist, Maoist, Communist, Muslim, Kenyan??  is it even possible to be all of those things? (the correct answer is no, but heaven forbid a neo-con would have stayed in school long enough to learn the differences)

To put it simply, this book is trashier than usual, and as such worthy of scorn.  Another truly sad development is that it is now #2 and #4 on the Amazon.com bestseller list.  What is the world coming to where we eat up trashy, racist, zenophobic garbage like this and thinks it's legitimate.  There were actually people commenting on the book who thought it was a biography of Barack Obama!!  How did we become that stupid as a nation where people think a radical conservative would write a biography (or at least one that wasn't clearly tainted with lies and misinformation) about a democratic president?

There is ignorance, and then there is willful ignorance.  The latter seems to define today's conservative movement.