Friday, December 08, 2006

Rush Limbaugh: What You Do. (12/08/06)


So driving home from work listening to the first hour of your show
I finally figured it out! What it is YOU DO so well on your show. What makes you SEEM so AFFECTIVE.

In order to PROVE that what you’ve dubbed the Iraq SURRENDOR Report was as you put it a DUD you first CONVINCINGLY re-defined it in such a way that you could then CONVINCINGLY defeat it.

It’s not a list of recommendations but an attempt to overcome partisanship! (for example)

And THIS is what YOU DO so well on your show.

You do the same basic thing to your callers. They attempt to make a point, and the moment you see where they’re going you cut them off and proceed to CONVINCINGLY ‘encapsulate’ their point in such a way that you can then CONVINCINGLY defeat it. Of course that’s ONLY IF ‘where they’re going’ is somewhere you don’t want them to go. If they’re blowing sunshine up your hind end you let them go and go and go…

Your colleague (ha!) Michael (weiner) Savage does the exact same thing…only A LOT better than you! But no matter how you slice it…what you and he do is outright hegemony! And it kills me that so many people are actually swayed by your twisted manipulations.

Keep up the bad work!!!

Tim Ford

Friday, September 08, 2006

Laura Ingraham: For What It Is. (9-8-06)


During your lead-up to, and interview with U-S Attorney General Alberto Gonzalez you betrayed your supposed knowledge of law.

During the House Armed Services Committee hearing Thursday (9-7-6) on the Bush Administration's proposal for military commissions to try terror suspects General James Walker, staff judge advocate of the U.S. Marine Corps, called one provision in their proposal a "major problem". The provision he was referring to was the one under which a suspected terrorist could be tried and convicted without ever having seen the evidence against him or her...

General Walker went on to say:

"I'm not aware of any situation in the world where there is a system of jurisprudence that is recognized by civilized people," he said, "where an individual can be tried without -- and convicted without -- seeing the evidence against him. And I don't think that the United States needs to become the first in that scenario."

The judge advocate generals of the Army, Navy and Air Force, who also testified Thursday, all agreed.

So just who are we kidding here?

That the Bush Administration would even TRY to write its own rules so blatantly is clear and present evidence of either its raw hubris or its utter stupidity. I since I refuse to believe they could actually be that dumb...I'm forced to really see it all for what it is...and it's fascism folks. Or if not fascism, it's fascistic. It at least tastes like fascism:

"A totalitarian philosophy of government that glorifies the state and nation and assigns to the state control over every aspect of national life."

I heard that quote from General Walker on the radio and while sitting at the next stop light scribbled this on a scrap of paper...

We'll win the `war on terror' (the "war against Islamic fascists") by demonstrating our ability as a a peacefully defeat our own government's rising fascistic tendencies. We must work to create the conditions under which acts of terrorism anywhere are universally understood as wrong and unjust. But we cannot try to make people think this - but instead act as a nation in such a way that it becomes so clear that all people, everywhere, have no choice but to realize that all terrorism is wrong and unjust. And this will happen once our hubris has subsided and our culture's true nature actually shines through. But remember, that means those of us who aren't fascists must stand up!

Right now the conditions exist under which a bomb that kills Americans is seen as a good idea by far too many people on this planet! That's for sure!

So we need to demonstrate to the world what it is about our culture that's good - and start doing it fast (like November 7th) because the clock is ticking, and it seems pretty clear to me that our enemies are stacking up a whole lot faster than we're knocking them down.

So that's it...we've got to peacefully remove OUR fascists in order to show the world it's possible to build a culture in which it's possible to defeat fascism peacefully!!!

And you see, the funniest...or maybe the most ironic...thing the Bush Administration's got in its arsenal for its `war on terror' is its supposed Guiding Light's mission statement. Because the `war on terror' would've never gotten off the ground if only the Bush Administration could've kept asking itself, what would Jesus do? But of course they've re-written that history, too. They've actually turned his turned cheek into a freaking smart bomb! You know, I sure wish Jesus would return - just to kick George Bush's ass...but remember, he'd have to do it peacefully.

Because every violent victory begets yet another future conflict, period.


Thursday, May 25, 2006

Laura Ingraham: Mexico, Oil & a brief flash of Honesty. (5-25-06)


Do you think the fact that Mexico is our single greatest source of foreign oil has anything to do with the Bush Administration’s clear reluctance to act as its “base” would have it act?

Imagine if we crossed the wrong wires with the Mexican Government…they could instantly cripple us if they so desired. I think maybe our government’s goal (not necessarily JUST the Bush Administration) is to allow Mexico’s citizens to become engrossed into our culture and society as a sort of insurance policy guaranteeing easy access to safe, relatively local petroleum. I’m really surprised the aspect of our relationship with Mexico hasn’t gotten more attention.

And I was listening to a talk show besides yours the other day and heard a caller complain that “these illegals” aren’t JUST taking below minimum wage jobs that “no American would do like tomato picking” – but also higher wage jobs that Americans WOULD do like construction jobs paying $10 an hour or more. He said once he found this out it really ticked him off. He said it really got him on board with Representative Sensenbrenner’s House legislation, and its crack down hard approach.

The host said “so do you mean you had no problem with them being here until you found out some of them weren’t being taken advantage of?” He chimed right back “you got it.”

I couldn’t believe his frankness, frankly. But I think his sentiment, coupled with election year energies, pretty much sums up where we are and where we’re going and why.

Tim Ford

Saturday, May 13, 2006

Ingraham/Limbaugh: True Face of NSA Data Collecting. (5-13-16)


I don’t believe the question of whether or not the NSA collecting millions of phone records is LEGAL is what’s important. The question is whether existing laws or political mindsets are taking into consideration the rapidly advancing technologies at play in the world today. If 50 years ago you were to tell a person that you could instantly search through billions of pages of text for certain key words, and then be able to read those results in a matter of seconds they would have called you a fool. We all know there’s nothing foolish about that statement. I heard Laura Ingraham and Rush Limbaugh both cite the sheer number of calls moving across the world during every instant as proof the NSA wasn’t listening in…because they couldn’t be – not without millions of listeners working 24 hours a day. Well I’m here to tell you that the day is coming when searching through digital audio as it crisscrosses the world for key words and the like – just as simply as Google does it for us now. Consider the implications of that notion. Add to that search the text of every email we all send. The thoughts contained in every web page we publish to. All cross-referenced for extensive and utterly effective ‘data mining’. This day is coming. Maybe before the end of the decade? Who knows?

All I know is we’d all start preparing ourselves and how we live our lives for a level of utter transparency that now seems as hard to fathom as Google would have to a man on a farm in Iowa in 1947. Or we need leaders who understand how this notion can be effectively and safely interwoven with our precious-but-rapidly-evaporating 4th Amendment. But we don’t even have leaders…let alone effective ones. All we’ve got left is a bunch of corporate heads trading places every few years or so.

Thursday, April 13, 2006

Laura Ingraham: Every Eye Wide. (4-13-06)


When you read flight 93’s cockpit transcript today and said we should listen closely in order to never forget the horrors of that day I agreed with you completely. You said we should see more often the images and sounds captured on Nine Eleven, and I agreed with you completely. You pointed to the inane, partisan boardroom we call a government and asked if we were insane and I agreed with you completely. Keep showing the videos of the women and children whose flesh was burned off, you said, and I completely agreed once more. We CANNOT allow THIS to happen again, and SHAME on US if we do, you demanded…and you’re right.

The only problem is this: While many thousands of innocent people died on Nine Eleven, many tens of thousands of innocent people have died in the ensuing months and years because of our response to it. Every death is tragic. EVERY SINGLE ONE. So I ask you, would you agree with me if I said we should show every tragic video clip of every innocent civilian caught in the crossfire of our war of retribution? Every image of every dead child? Every piece of video of every dismembered mother? And I also ask, would you refuse the right of those left holding the memory of those they’ve lost as “collateral damage” to mutter beneath their breaths, we CANNOT allow THIS to happen again, and SHAME on US if we do!?!?!

If we truly hold the cultural high ground, as you so often claim we do, wouldn’t responding to violence with kindness be our only real choice? Freaking peacenik go away, you’re muttering beneath your breath (if you’ve gotten this far)…but here’s three quick more questions…

1) Would you agree that a good way to define our “enemy” in this “war on terror” is ‘the total number of people alive on the Earth who are willing to die to kill an American’?

2) Do you think there are more or less such people alive today than there were on September 11th, 2001?

3) And do you think, on our current course, there will be more or less such people in 5, 10 or 20 years than there are today?

We can’t respond to violence with retribution unless we expect to once again wind up back at the beginning with blood on our own lips, and the lips of our children. I mean, if I pluck a gray hair out of my beard, and four more grow back…and then find sixteen more after plucking the four, it seems pretty clear to me that I’ve got to stop and rethink my approach, that is IF my goal isn’t to go completely gray as quickly as humanly possible.

Tim Ford

Cal Thomas - Your Way or the Highway. (4-13-06)

Mr. Thomas-

In a recent editorial, you say “the press”, as well as books and movies, is increasingly pushing anti-biblical points of view. You point to stories on theories of how Jesus might have walked on water, and to new fossils found by archeologists that supposedly put to rest creationist beliefs. And then there’s the Da Vinci Code movie, and the so-called “Gospel of Judas” - both of which, according to you, are soon to add to the growing anti-biblical hegemonization of our culture with their wild, fantastic versions of Christian storylines.

Well, you’re exactly right.

But I don’t think it should surprise you, because in a way your editorial does the very same thing…because Christian storylines are just that…storylines. Wouldn’t you agree that it’s fair to say the Bible is a combination of metaphors AND historical documentation? Very few Christians defend the creation story as literal anymore. Oh, God didn’t actually make the world in 7 days, that’s just a metaphor for what really happened…is what the common interpretation among “modern” Christians has evolved into.

And that’s the catch. Not even Christians can agree on where to draw the line between the facts and the metaphors contained in the Bible. Some Christians do still defend the creation story as literal. This variation of perspective can be found between all kinds of Christians on all sorts of stories found throughout the Bible.

And because of this, it is clear that anyone who claims to know beyond a shadow of a doubt precisely where to draw the line between metaphor and history in the Bible is simply adding another man-made version to the already long list of interpretations that have been applied to this great historical document…this fantastic work of art.

The examples you cite as anti-biblical are simply more people trying to cash in on western culture’s history and faith. But they’re not the only ones cashing in. There are plenty of “good Christians” doing precisely the same…yourself included.

Tim Ford

Thursday, March 02, 2006

Laura Ingraham: Michael Brown. (3-2-6)


I’ve you’ve got even one iota of intellectual honesty you’ll agree that Michael Brown’s appearance on your show Thursday was about as weak as I could’ve even imagined it could be.

You practically had to lead him by the nose.

His lame rhetorical attempts to spin his story in what he hopes to be the right direction were completely blatant and utterly ineffective. Can you even begin to defend him? Can you say with a straight face that he was even in the top hundred people actually qualified for a position of such importance?

If you’ve got even one iota of intellectual honesty, you cannot.

But you will, etc…

Tim Ford

Thursday, December 29, 2005

Laura Ingraham: NSA Wiretaps. (12-29-5)


A few thoughts on the National Security Agency wiretapping situation…

The argument that warrants weren’t sought because of a need for expediency is not valid because the 1978 law which set up the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court specifically contains a “listen first, and ask for permission later” provision.

And from what I’ve read, the success rate for requested warrants is actually quite high, which to me means if the wiretaps undertaken without a warrant were as crucial as the Bush Administration is claiming them to be, they would’ve very likely, if not definitely, been approved.

And lastly, does any thinking person in our country actually believe that since 1978, the NSA has only listened in on a few thousand phone calls? What happens on paper and what happen in reality are, I’m certain, two completely different realities. Of course the NSA is listening, and reading! And that SHOULD bother us…ALL of us.

Timothy Ford

Wednesday, November 30, 2005

Michael Savage: Purple Mafia? (11-30-5)

Dr. Savage-

So tell me, if it’s the “homosexual mafia” that’s primarily pushing abortions in the U.S. – does that mean that gay conservative republicans are pushing abortions too?

And do you actually think that people who support the right to have an abortion actually LIKE the fact that people have abortions? Do you think there’s any woman, anywhere, EVER that actually LIKED having an abortion?

Abortion is a tragedy. But it comes after a tragic decision is made by an individual. Until a person is personally in that position, espousing their personal view of the “rightness” or “wrongness” of deciding to have an abortion is in my opinion useless, damaging rhetoric.

(speaking of useless, damaging rhetoric)

Just seconds after defending the absurd pre-Christmas shopping that in so many ways exemplifies our culture, you turn around and attack extravagant Bar-Mitzvah’s.

“That’s what our culture is all about” you said. “If you’ve got it, spend it, why not?” you said. “Shopping makes people FEEL good” you said…about Christmas shopping.

So if the person with the 10-million dollar Bar-Mitzvah “had IT to spend” – then why shouldn’t they “spend IT?”

Because a Bar-Mitzvah’s a sacred ceremony, you’ll probably say. But what the hell is Christmas supposed to be?

And don’t think for a second I’m defending the Bar-Mitzvah or the Christmas shopping orgy that’s been tied so successfully to “The American Dream”. I think that BOTH are fantastic examples of what’s really tearing down our culture.

The unbridled capitalism that this country was literally founded upon, both literally and ideologically, has overshot its mark by a thousand fold…and in so doing has literally supplanted “living for life” with “living as commerce”.

And by the way, your segment with Mickey…painful, just plain painful.

God that was bad radio.

And by the way, I DO NOT think kids should be able to get abortions without parental notification. I think if a teen was having a medical emergency that required an abortion any doctor would do what he or she would have to do in order to save that teen’s life, no matter what the law said. I believe that those who take the side against parental notification do so because they fear any slippery slope that might possible lead to the overturning of Roe v. Wade. And that this is a great example of the gigantic flaw in the way our political process operates. Most people take the side of that which is required in order to maintain other “sides” they believe to be important…which leads to a bunch of really “important” people taking stands they don’t “truly” believe in. Our political quagmire is filled with such examples.

YOUR SHOW is filled with such examples.

And if you think gay’s who support abortion are narcissistic, you should listen to this radio show called The Savage Nation. Boy is this guy in Love with himself…

Tim Ford

Tuesday, November 08, 2005

Michael Savage - Intellectual Honesty. (11-8-5)

Dr. Savage-

What’s playing out on the global stage in the suburbs of France is nothing short of a full-scale test of the theories of modern-day “liberalism” versus “conservatism”.

You’re not the only AM talk radio pundit to rail at the French government for even suggesting there might be a bit of merit in the supposed “complaints” of those burning cars and breaking windows across the French countryside.

Curfew at dark and shoot to kill…plain and simple…the orders you and Rush & Laura Ingraham & Neal Boortz & “the leprechaun” as you so laughably call him would have long-since given to French military commanders.

Well maybe you’re right?

But you claim that whether or not the violence escalates to full-scale, Iraq-esque suicide bombing campaigns and the like is a foregone conclusion. Of course it will, you say repeatedly.

Well what if you’re wrong?

I’m not claiming that you ARE wrong – because of course I don’t know what will happen next. (any more than you know) But I do know that no matter what the spark actually is behind all of this violence, responding in the manner you’ve described – all guns-blazing, foot stomping down hard upon those lashing out – would no doubt exacerbate greatly the already-tenuous situation.

Taking a moderate – non-over-reactionary approach, as Chirac has done, might seem insane…but maybe he’s right? Only time will tell.

I must beg a favor of you. If things DON’T escalate – if Chirac’s seemingly-lame approach (or lack of any approach, maybe) and pro-activity toward a more evenly distributed social justice does NOT lead to the kind of further escalation you’ve forewarned – I beg of you at least a moment of intellectual honesty.

For as I said before, what’s playing out on the global stage in the suburbs of France is nothing short of a full-scale test of the theories of modern-day “liberalism” versus “conservatism”.

The world is watching. Only time will tell.

Ever hear the saying, anyone who followed the rules of the Old Testament to the letter would be a criminal – while anyone who followed the rules of the New Testament to the letter would be insane. Well, maybe Bush is a criminal and Chirac insane?

It seems clear to me that our binary political system desperately relies on a base-line understanding among “its” citizenry that one side or the other is ALWAYS right. Required for this system’s continuation is the assumption that our job as citizens is to constantly decide which side is “doing right”, and which side is “doing wrong”.

Well, I think you’ll agree that they’re BOTH DOING WRONG ON MANY POINTS. (while of course they’re both doing much of what’s right…and that’s the catch, they really overlap so squarely on so many issues they manage to keep us looking the other way on others)

Until enough of us wake up to such realizations, we’ll just keep on “voting” for the CEO of Corporation A or Corporation B. Which neither of us really wants, I think.

But remember, a brief flash of intellectual honesty…depending upon how this whole mess moves forward into the future. I promise to do the same. (not that you give a rat's ass about me)

Tim Ford