Racism in Policing

SO, I've made the case several times that open-carry is a Whites-only privilege, and that the cops treat whites and blacks dramatically differently in the same situation.

Well, here you go:


Tell me again how racism is dead? How the police don't have a racial bias? Tell me why one man's rights are protected while several of the other's are violated.

Simple answer: If you cannot give a Right to everyone equally, then no one should be given that Right.

Cracked Nails it Again! (And: Behold your liberal media!)

Great article from Cracked about 6 B.S. Myths You Probably Believe About America's "Enemies".  Good read. I highly recommend it, as I do 99.9% of what they produce.  (They are to print media what John Stewart is to Broadcast Media.)  And really quickly, I'd like to point out some interesting trends in these myths.  I'm going to put the "Myth" next to the "Truth," in order in a moment. I'd like you to ask yourselves, just who it is that is creating and perpetuating these myths, and who benefits from them.  There's a couple where you can say "both sides do it," but, as usual, there's some false equivalency at play if you do...

1) MYTH: Iran Could Start a Crazy War at Any Minute!

TRUTH: Iran's military is a joke, their Nuclear program is basically nonexistent and their REAL leaders (the Guardian Council) hos no interest in doing so, despite whatever posturing that Monkey in a Suit that they have for a President says. (He has no real power.) And what's more... they recently hired a Mexican to kill a Saudi in America. I mean... If they wanted to kill a Saudi, wouldn't it have been a lot easier to send an Iranian to kill one in Saudi Arabia?! That pretty much proves that even when they WANT to, they basically have no fucking idea HOW to!


2) MYTH: China's Economy Is Going to Steamroll America's!

TRUTH: We're the customer. They need US a LOT more than we need them.
 
 
3) MYTH: America Relies on Its Enemies for Oil!

TRUTH: 36% of our oil is domestic, 22% comes from Canada and our third biggest supplier is Mexico.  As for the rest? See myth #2. Even Venezuela has no interest in cutting us off or threatening us. (We send them MONEY, after all!)
 
 
4) Al-Qaida Is Still a Huge Threat!

TRUTH: You had a 0.3% chance of dying in a terrorist attack if you were IN NEW YORK, on 9/11!  Big picture? They never really were.  And I'll give Bush credit for doing a few things right, because after 9/11 things only went downhill for them. (If only he didn't get this stupid obsession with Iraq, he'd could have killed Bin Laden himself, back in 2003.)  But yeah... When you have to resort to guys lighting their underpants on fire? You're no longer a threat.
 
 
5) North Korea's Military Is Dangerous and Insane!

TRUTH: See Iran.  Kim Jong Il might be crazy, but he isn't stupid.  He's got a pretty good gig going.  A decent little lifestyle for himself.  There's just NO WAY he fucks that all up by getting his ass handed to him in a War with the much richer, much more militarily capable South.
 
 
6) The World Hates America!

TRUTH: Most of the world has a better view of American than most Americans do, and hold us in higher esteem than we hold our own leaders. But let me come back to this in a moment.
 
 
So... what do I see as the trend here?
 
Well, (1 - Iran) is just xenophobic warmongering. The same bullshit that got us into Iraq. It's the mindless pro-Isreal lobby, and pro-Oil lobby, and pro-Christian lobby, etc... IOW? Real Liberals. Just kidding.  That's lies from the Right, by the Right and for the Right. Yet it's pretty much the consensus view, isn't it? Why is that, I wonder? (Behold: You're Liberal Media!)
 
(2 - China) is one that can go both ways. The Right have no love for Communism, and the Left? Well, hey: far be it for a self-admitted Working Class Warrior to ignore where all of out manufacturing jobs have gone!  But think about it for a moment... Who is it that is terrified of making any kind of tough trade sanctions against China? And who is it that BENEFITS from treating China like they're some kind of Leather-Clad Dominatrix to the us, the lowly Sub?  Who is that REALLY benefits from stoking the FEAR that ANY kind of tough negotiation with China will somehow RUIN us?  Ding! Ding! Ding! .That would be the OWNERSHIP CLASS! AKA: Our corporate overlords. AKA: The RIGHT! And yet, that's still pretty much a consensus view, isn't it? Why is that, I wonder? (Behold: You're Liberal Media!)

(3 - Oil) is another one that someone who's not really playing attention might try to pin on both sides.  We all know the Right's contribution - we're still fighting a damned war in Iraq over it!   But one MIGHT say that the Left uses this to bolster their environmental arguments.  Except that, no, we really DON'T.  OK, we might, to try and convince a Righty to eat some greens, by using what he already believes against him.  But in reality, Environmentalists don't NEED peripheral reasons to try and reduce our dependence on OIL, in general, regardless of where it comes form.  Saving the environment is reason enough for most of them!  So, again, Thank You, Bush, Cheney, Rice, Rumsfeld, and that no-good jackass who traded in all of his good reputation and credibility in support an illegal, immoral and completely unnecessary war: General Colin Fucking Powell.  Thank you all for this one. (And... Behold: You're Liberal Media!)

(4 - Al Quaeda) *sigh* See #3. We spend twice as much on defense as Russia, China, the United Kingdom and France COMBINED.  And what reason do they USUALLY feed us to justify this psychopathy?  (Oh, yeah... and behold: You're Liberal Media!)

(5 - North Korea) *sigh* see #'s 3 and 4. (And behold: You're Liberal Media!)


So far, the trend for who is perpetuating these myths, and benefiting from them, is pretty clear.  In his last comment, in my "Occupy Reality, Part 2" post, Classic Liberal said that "The American conservative elite has waged a relentless war on the notion that there is any such thing as an objective fact" and had gone on to say that their refusal to simply ACKNOWLEDGE reality (and their preference to try and shape or re-define it) is "a serious problem," one he's called "our most serious problem." And I'm inclined to agree with him. Our semantics may have differed, but my previous post, and my reason for posting this one are pretty much the same: It's not about Liberal-Conservative anymore, or even Progressive-Regressive.  Those issues are secondary to the far greater problem of Reality vs. Whatever World the Conservatives Think they Live in or Exists.  He is (as usual) SPOT ON.  The year is 1984. And for the foreseeable future? On the Right? It will continue to be.

Now... as for #6...

Cracked brings up a very salientpoint that, at first blush, seems like a very valid "both sides do it" argument:

The right wing will tell you that everyone from France to Iraq hates our freedom, or our democracy, or our ability to get chili cheese fries added to any meal. The left will tell you with a grim fatalism that the developing world hates us because we've been occupying their countries, damaging their culture and our reputation for years.

Now... Once we accept the reality that, in fact, most countries DON'T hate us, it might be easy to conclude that "both sides" us this for their own political agenda.  But I think this serves as a pretty shrewd example of how both sides think, and explains why I am perfectly happy to demonize the Right and proudly wear whatever label they want to pin on me, "Progressive," "Liberal," "Commie," whatever...

THEY use this myth to JUSTIFY doing horrible things. 


WE use to try and STOP US from doing horrible things! 

Think about that! Let that sink in for a moment. It just ain't the same! Once we accept that both sides are wrong in this case?  At worst? WE are still advocating for peace and diplomacy and a continuation of ALL THE GOOD that our country has done for the World!  And at BEST?  They end up with a self-fulfilling prophecy!  I mean, fine: Maybe the World DOESN'T hate us.  Great. But drop enough bombs? Invade enough countries for no good reason? Kill enough innocent civilians? Continue to act like the arrogant School-Yard Bully?  And eventually?

They will.

Now... Can ANYONE tell me why ANYONE who not an integral part of the Right-Wing Power or Money Structure would call themselves "Conservative?"

Oki?

Anyone?

Bueller? 

Bueller?

Same Old Song and Dance

I haven't been very topical lately, and a lot of it has to do with just how depressing the political landscape is right now.  Obama and the Democrats made a mad dash for the Center, overshot the mark considerably, and yet are losing to morons and neophytes who are out campaigning (to the ignorant and the gullible) how "Obama's liberal policies" are destroying this country.  And of course, I'm forced to ask, "WHAT liberal policies?"  The only thing "liberal" about Obama and the Democrat's "policies" are that the teabaggers are describing them as such.  It's absurd. 

1) They cut to the Right of Center.
2) Liberals have largely abandoned them.  (Just take a look at the primary turn out rates!)
3) The Right is poised to take back most, or all, of the Democrats majorities
and (most depressingly of all)
4) The press will characterize the Democrat's defeat as being a backlash against their Liberal Policies!

Again...

WHAT FUCKING LIBERAL POLICES?!?!

NAME ONE!!!

And yet most people still think the press leans Liberal!!!

The press leans STUPID, first and foremost.  But stupidity has a Conservative bias, so...

I can't even talk about it anymore.  It just too depressing.

Because ClassicLiberal was right, in the Pseudo-Conservatives post:

The left in the U.S., to be sure, is a glutton for punishment. It takes a beating over and over again and replies with "thank you sir, may I have another?" But everyone has their breaking point, and those at the White House are smoking crack if they think [fill in anything they've done] going to do anything but hurt them.

He was referring specifically to Press Sec. Gibbs' absurdly ignorant comments about the "professional Left," but I think it applies to practically everything, from Health Care, to Financial Reform, to Elena Kagan, to... Christ, just about everything.

And do you know what REALLY sad part is?  I'm still gung-ho to support the Democrats!  I'm STILL saying "thank you sir, may I have another," because if I/we DON'T then we'll not only be looking at a Tea Party majority in Congress, and President Palin in 2012 - and all the policies, and Court appointees that will result from it - but we'll have to listen to the press say that the Dem's lost because they were too Liberal.

The Dem's will only LOSE if the Liberals STAY HOME.  Which is pretty much exactly what's happening!  And as much as I'd love to "send a message" to the Democrats, that message will never get sent, because the mainstream press simply will not carry that narrative!  To them, it will be: the Right won, the Left lost, so we must just be a conservative country. I'm sorry.  I can't deal with two years of that insanity leading up to November, 2012.  (And the aftermath for this country that will likely, inevitably result.)

But that was the story in 1980, and it was the story in 1994. It's ALWAYS the story... except when the Democrats make gains. And then, even when there an unpopular Republican in the White House, the story is that it's because they were political moderates, willing to work with the Right.  Blue-Dogs, so to speak. DINO's, if you will.

(But DINO 's who will suddenly be painted as flaming liberals come the next election cycle!)

So despite everything that's happened (and everything that hasn't) the thought of the alternative is just too depressing.

Even more so than the current reality... which is just too depressing.

It's all too depressing.

I wish these gutless, spineless Democrats would wake the fuck up.  But that ain't going to happen, and the press would actively work against them if they DID.

I'll be on med's by November.

Newsflash: Liberals are smarter, more evolved.

CNN reports on a study verifying what we already knew: Liberals and Atheists have higher IQ's.  What's more the data in the study is explained though evolution.  The conservatives are sure to hate this, huh?  Especially coming on the heels of multiple papers showing how conservatism is like a form of mental illness!

Now let's recap.  According to Conservatives:

ACADEMIA, meaning people that study and learn things, has a liberal bias.

The part of the MEDIA that practices anything even resembling actual JOURNALISM, has a liberal bias.

And SCIENCE (climatology, evolution, stem cell research, etc...) has a liberal bias.

That says, pretty clearly, that RESEARCH, STUDYING, LEARNING, and KNOWLEDGE CREATION all have a liberal bias.  So it really shouldn't come as any surprise that higher intelligence would be liked to Liberalism and Atheism, since, according to CONSERVATIVES, all the things that support intelligence and come from intelligence ALL have a LIBERAL BIAS! 

You wouldn't think they should be so proud of that, but as "Mister Conservative," Glenn Beck himself said: We don't WANT to evolve! 

Well, good on you then Glenn, because: you haven't.

Actually, I still think then-Senator Obama said it best, during a 2008 campaign speech: "It's like these guys take pride in being ignorant!"  As eloquent and articulate as President Obama can be, I still believe that statement to be the most relevant, prescient, observant, telling and accurate of his political career.

And lest you think this phenomenon is anything new, consider this exchange between Adlai Stevenson and an admirer of his during the 1952 campaign:

     "Senator, you have the vote of every thinking person!"

     "That's not enough, madam, we need a majority!"

The Right has learned this lesson all too well and, in the decades following 1980, have devolved from a party of Libertarianism, Progressivism and Center-Right Populism to one of hate, bigotry, fear, paranoia, greed, superstition and madness.  Obama realized the pride they take in their ignorance but thus far he does not seem to have any ideas how to confront the problem.  Nor do I.  When it comes to separating the dumb from the Right, I have no idea where to even begin.  And don't get me wrong: I only want their votes, not their voice.  The Right got their vote by giving these fools actual representation.  That was the ultimate example of putting party and personal interests above those of the country.  Never underestimate the power of stupid people in large numbers. But there sure are a LOT of them, aren't there?  And we can't fix anything if we don't WIN ELECTIONS.  So what to do?

For once? I'm stumped.  Good luck, America.

They don't understand SEXISM anymore than they do RACISM

A while back I saw this item on MMFA.  At the time, I just chalked it up to one more nail in the coffin of the Liberal Media bias Myth - even if Liberals are the only ones who actually acknowledge said coffin.  But then I stumbled over this piece in the Washington Examiner.  Take a read, if you want to either have a good laugh or just something to get sick over. There are several OBVIOUS things wrong with the article's whole premise, not to mention tone: That "the Left" is pissed because of the ad's "strong Christian message," or because it features a successful, home-schooled Christian athlete (I wonder if he can pass a basic science test as easily as he does a football?) when the real problem (as MMFA pointed out) was that CBS refused to air the United Church of Christ's ad, which had a stong message of inclusion and tolerance (ideas that always get the Right's "panties in a twist" even though ANYONE should be able to recognize that they are inherently less controversial than the Abortion issue.  (I have many pro-life friends and co-workers who are also pro Gay-Rights, for example.)  I'm not sure why pointing out CBS's hypocrisy, have shut out the Religious Left on ostensiblty principled grounds, but welcoming the religious Right while ignoring those same principles, constitues getting your "kinckers" "tangled." If the reverse had been done, we'd be subjected to endless tirades from the Right about Liberal Bias in Media, decaying moral values, blah, blah, blah... So yeah, it was a bunch of the typical RW nonsense.  But there was once section in particular that I just felt I could NOT let pass:

Jehmu Greene, head of the Women's Media Center, is leading a drive to punish CBS for airing the ad, which she claims is "sexist."


A little decoding is necessary here.

In terms of Super Bowl ads, "sexist" is code for "anti-abortion." But "sexist" does not apply to parading women around in their underpants to sell beer.

Got it?

Well... the Washington Examiner clearly doesn't.   Using women in their underpants to sell beer may be clearly tasteless and tawdry (not that Fox News ever misses a chance to show scantily clad women in their "news" stories, but I digress) but what is MORE sexist: The objectification of women that is implicit in these adds -OR- the explicit idea within conservative religion that women ought to be buttoned up, prissy little virgins until marriage, otherwise they're not worthy of a "good" man, after which they can be subserviant to their husbands, having no say in, or even the right to express, their own sexuality?  I realize that Women's lib isn't just about sexuality, but if you really understand what the bible teaches up about women's sexuality, and their role in sex and in marriage, you'll realize that sexual freedom and sexual equality are integral parts of women's equality in general.  And yes, unfortunately, that includes the acceptance of occasioanlly tawdry behavior.  It's not PERFECT, and I'm not dismissing the negative impact that objectifying women has on society, but Beer ads didn't CAUSE this phenomonon, and even so I still say it's preferebly to the "old world" view of women's sexuality.  (Which is to say, that they're not allowed to have any.)

So... here's some "decoding" of my own...

Say that women belong in the home, covered to their ankles and not having ANYTHING but a passive victims role in Sex is NOT sexist.

AND...

Not giving them any say over their own reproductive activity or child bearing is ALSO NOT sexist.

Got it?

('Cause I sure as hell don't!)

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
More on Health Care coming next.  I was going to do that next (meaing in this post) but that article really pissed me off and I felt I had to say something about it.

Jimmy Carter is an Idiot!

I figure that title should get the attention of both Liberals and Conservatives. By the end of this, both may be pissed at me, but that's fine. Just hear me out.

I've already laid out how the media is in fact conservatively biased. Regular MMFA readers already knew this, but maybe someone else needed convincing. I want to show you now how brilliant the Republicans are in manipulating this media. (It shouldn't be that hard to manipulate a media that's already carrying water for you, but check this out...)

It's been the strategy of the far right to hammer home the myth of LIBERAL BIAS in the media for decades now. AM Talk Radio and Fox News have repeated this lie so many times that most moderates (and even a few liberals) have just come to accept it as the truth. And look at how devious this is: When the mainstream media AGREES with Fox/Talk Radio on something, people see this as giving them legitimacy. When the MSM calls them out on their bullshit, it's liberal bias showing! Once you get the public to accept the liberal bias myth, you will never have to worry about your credibility again! Now let's see what they've been doing with that power...

You may recall a lot of talk about Nazi's in the first half of this year. That was mostly coming from the right. To be fair, the big talkers didn't say "Nazi." Fascist was their politically correct term. (Put aside for now how utterly absurd it is to call someone a fascist just a week after trying to convince everyone they were socialist! You also don't need to worry about your credability when your base audience couldn't find their own ass on the political spectrum with two hands and a flashlight.) The REAL Nazi stuff was coming from the Right-Wing protesters. The teabaggers. (Another term that, because it was self-adopted, further shows the right doesn't really have a really broad vocabulary. Or, you know... know what words actually mean.) Most of them held up signs saying things like "NO FASCISM" with Swastikas in red circles with lines through them. Now... IF our President was 'Barack Obama (N)' or 'Barack Obama (F)' that sign would qualify as mere political opposition. Since he's 'Barack Obama (D),' it's clearly an insinuation of Fascism or Nazism. But when Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi called out the protesters for inappropriate signs, swastikas etc... How did the right react? They played the victim, suggesting that the SPEAKER was accusing THEM of being Nazi's. So here was their strategy:

1) Call the Democrats Nazi's until one of them calls you out on your bullshit.
2) When they do, play the victim, saying how inappropriate it was for THEM to call YOU a Nazi.
3) Go back to calling the Democrats Nazi's.

Nice pattern, huh? Somehow this simple trap was completely invisible to the media who walked into it time and time and time again.

NOW the strategy has changed a bit. THANK GOODNESS. But it's a little worse this time around. NOW they're all crying about being called racists whenever they criticize the President or his policies. Up until the other day, WHO was actually doing this? Um... that would be frickin' NO ONE! Once again it was all bullshit. It works kind of like the "liberal media" myth. Anyone who agrees with you validates your position, and anyone who doesn't is calling you a racist. Whether or not they are, or whether or not it would even be relevant doesn't matter. It's like a reverse-ad hominen. If I call you racist, that may or may not be true, but it also may not be a valid counter point to your argument. I'm just trying to win over the audience by making you look bad. That's the ad hominen fallacy. But if I MAKE a counter-argument and it's VALID and YOU accuse ME of calling you racist (whether I did or didn't) it suddenly makes ME look bad, and totally takes the attention of my argument. It's a perfect ad hominen result, except that you didn't actually attack me! You just accused me of attacking you! Brilliant! BULLSHIT, of course, but BRILLIANT all the same!

Now remember line 1 of the Nazi strategy? It ends with "until they call you out!" See, the more people did call them out, the weaker it got. THIS time around, it's different. If they get called outit makes THEM look even BETTER.

This time around, you've got a bunch of (let's face it) RACISTS. If I still need to prove that point, I'll simply refer you back to MMFA. But they're PREEMPTING the counter-attack by playing the VICTIM prematurely, saying how they can't speak freely because they're being accused of racism! Of course... they ARE making racist attacks, and they really don't have much of any substance to say about the actual issues anyway (what else is new?) and their claims of being attacked with the 'racist' card were (again) all BULLSHIT. Their glaring lack of any substantive evidence may have eventually taken the wind out that sail...

...Until President Jimmy Carter opened his big fat mouth, walked right into their trap, and CALLED THEM OUT on it! Now... normally I'd applaud some good old-fashioned truth-telling, especially from a politican. I'd like to think that's exactly what I'm doing here! I'd like to think there's a lot of that in those five websites I highlighted yesterday! But let's consider the result of President Carter's ill-timed honesty...

Until yesterday, the lies about being accused of racism were just that: LIES. NOW they have, on record, a prominent Democrat, arguably a Democratic Icon, doing exactly what they've been crying about falsely for the past month: He accused them of racism. NOW DON'T GET ME WRONG: I do believe that his statement was accurate! But that one statement will now give the Right all they ammo they need to play the victim, and distract public attention from the real issues from now until the mid-terms.

You may ask, "If they're going to lie anyway, what does it matter? Just call them out!" The problem with that is this: Before they were at least HAVING to lie! And they were plenty of moderates (you now, those people who actually WIN election for you?) who weren't buying it. NOW that stupid quote of President Carter's will be repeated ad nauseum and the left-leaning moderates will start to believe this bit of Right Wing bullshit, just like they swallowed the tripe about Liberal media Bias. Now, WE can't disagree with THEM because, if we do, that means we're calling them racists! As much as that may actually be the case, and as accurate as it may be, they've been playing the victim for several months now, and they're primed the pump of public sympathy. Suddenly WE'RE the ones who's arguments are being silenced!

I guess my overall point is this: President Obama was in a much better position BEFORE President Carter made his remarks. Now everyone will be talking about racism, sympathetically towards the right to boot, instead of the ISSUES. Which is what the Right want, because the Republicans CAN'T WIN on the issues. Never could. But oh boy, can they win on Bullshit! With Bullshit and a few video clips and/or quotes and smears and propaganda, they can take over the world.

(Or at least they could, if they had any competent leadership left! So there's hope yet... Palin/Bachman 2012! One only hopes! A chick-tick no woman will vote for!)

-------------------

I seriously hope I'm wrong here. I hope I'm just being paranoid. The trouble is? Whenever I'd be HAPPY to be wrong... I'm usually right!

Good night and good luck indeed!

There is no systematic liberal media bias!

Many of my friends over on MediaMatters already know this, but the single biggest myth, the single most disgustingly blatant lie that conservatives have infected the public consciousness with is the idea that our mainstream media possesses a systematic liberal bias. Most point to the fact that reporters tend to be Demcorats, ignoring the fact that editors, news room managers and the Corporate Boards that OWN all of the media outlets tend to be Republican. So do the majority of the Editorial Columnists in fact, even in reputed liberal newspapers such as the New York Times and the Washinton Post. Go take a look!

In reality this is a myth repeated ad nauseam by the like of Rush Limbaugh and the hosts on Fox News (Bill O'Rielly, Sean Hannity, Glenn Beck & others) in an effort to shield themselves from criticism should the mainstream media ever bother to point out how often these guys mislead, mis-quote, quote out of context (when it actually matters!), make up statistics, misinterpret polls, make up polls (!), host fringe elements as if they were maninstream, and more often than I can count, DEMONSTRABLY LIE. Of course, the mainstream media, being entirely corporate owned is not often wont to do this anyway, but given the commercial success of RUppert Murdoch's empire of right-wing propaganda, and the success that Fox and AM Talk Radio have had in gettig so many viewers and listeners to think they are more conservative than they actually are (I'll get to the 'America is a Right-Wing Country' myth in a future post) the last thing any media outlet wants is to be branded as "Liberally Biased." (Which Fox and Talk Radio will do anyway, so I don't know what they're so worried about!)

But the charge is baseless to the point of absurdity. All one has to do is to take an objective look at how the press (the MAIN STREAM press now, not just Fox) treats comparable topics. If anything, almost ALL media outlets outside of MSNBC lean HEAVILY conservative; And let's not forget: MSNBC gives former Republican Senator and staunch conservative Joe Scarborough his own shown. Find me the liberal counter-balance to Lou Dobbs on CNN, or ANY liberal with his own show on Fox! The one admittedly liberal-leaning outlet has more balance in their hosts than the relatively centrist CNN, or the "Fair and Balanced" Fox News. (Now if you'll excuse me, after have said "Fair and Balanced Fox News" I now need to go vomit...)

...OK, I'm back.

So here is my case that the mainstream media is CONSERVATIVELY biased, using several different stories and people as evidence.

Exhibit One: Al Gore (D-2000) versus Norm Coleman (R-2008)

When Al Gore retracted his concession in the 2000 presidential election, pending [the deciding state] Florida's official recount, as MANDATED BY STATE LAW, he was rounded branded as a sore loser, a whiner, someone who should just throw it in, someone who's "antics" were hurting the party. Virtually no media outlets at the time bothered to point out that the ruling in Bush v. Gore circumvented state law - I thought the Republicans were all about NOT interfering with states rights?! Or that most of the "brooks brothers" protesters were in fact Republican Staffers! (Many of them now organize these idiotc "grass roots" (vomit) tea parties!) Nor was it highlited very frequently that Gore in fact WON the popular vote and that the decision in Bush v Gore COULD ONLY have the effect of SUPPRESSING votes in Florida. So much for their priciple of making every vote count! Nope. Gore was a loser, and should go away. (This after the media privelidged lie after lie after lie about the former Vice President on the campaign trail. The media made him constantly defend himself for saying thing he never said and making exagerations he never made!)

Contrast that with the treatment Norm Coleman (R-MN) recieved in his hotly contested Senate reellection bid against Democratic challenger Al Franken in 2008. First the facts: Once the recount was done, overseen by a bipartisan commitee and approved by a bipartisan panel, Coleman lost by 312 votes. And while he made appeal after appeal after appeal, all of which were found to be baseless, and none of which were ever taken seriously by any court, did the press call him a sore loser? No sir. Were 'his antics hurting his party'? Are you kidding? He was hailed as being a savy politican! Apparently holding up the certification of an election to make it easier for Republkicans to filibuster pending legislation is savy. (Who knew? He sure seemed like a whiny little bitch to me!) No one in the press called Norm Coleman what he was: A partisan hack, an obstructionist and, most of all, a SORE LOSER WHO SHOULD JUST CONCEDE ALREADY!

Exhibit Two: Al Gore (D-former VP) versus Dick Cheney (R-former VP)

Last one on Gore, I promise! Do you rememebr how many television appearances Al Gore made in the months and year after Bush was elected? That would be almost none. Part of it was out of the traditional respect granted an incoming administration (where the hell did THAT go this time around, huh?) and part of it was NOBODY IN THE MEDIA CARED ABOUT HIM! No one wanted to talk to the former VP of the party that lost not only the presidential election, but most of their contested seats in congress! And remember, the Democrats lost, by a mere FIVE electoral votes, because of five right-wingers on the supreme court, not because of Clinton or of Gore himself. Gore won the popular vote after all, and if anything Clinton would have HELPED. Sadly they were stupid enough to believe that the media was still on their side, even as they portrayed Clinton like some kind of pariah, and Clinton kept a low profile.

Wow, how things have changed. In 2008, the Republican lost the presidential election by ONE-HUNDERED-SEVETY-THREE votes, and lost enough seats that the Democrats, after taking back contorl of congress two years earlier, now held supermajorities in both houses. And how many times have you seen Dick Cheney, former VP of the party that not only lost but got TROUNCED, on TV since President Obama was inaugurated? He's ALL OVER THE PLACE!!! The press can't get enough of him! And he's one of the big reasons McCain LOST! Well... his corruption and Bush's incompetence. Between the two of them, the "Republican" brand was an like an anchor around McCain's neck!

But should Cheney just disappear? Or refrain from criticising the new administrations for some traditional period of time? NO WAY!!! We NEED TO KNOW what this man has to say!!!

Exhibit Three: John Kerry (D-2004) versus John McCain (R-2008)

Much like Gore, Kerry was essentially told ot bug-off after he lost... by a mere 35 electoral votes, the smallest margin of victory in any re-election camapain in history. He was greeted with nothing but the media equivalent of awkward silences. John McCain loses by 173 votes, and he just keeps on truckin'! The media act like he never even ran! Like Sarah Palin was at the top of the ticket or something. Was he treated as shabbily as Kerry was after losing by almost FIVE TIMES the margin? No way! Even supposed liberals like MSNBC's Chris Mathews were as eager to hump McCain's leg as ever.

Exhibit Four: Democrats v. Alito vs. Republican v. Sotomayor

During now Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito's, Senate Democrats questioned him about his membership in the Concerned Alumni of Princeton, a group with definitively racist (and sexist) goals for the University. QUESTIONED him. ASKED HIM ABOUT IT. This was apparently enough to send his wife to tears and the media into a tizzy. HOW DARE the Democrats pursue this line of questioning... HOW DARE they imply that he might be racist (or sexist)? Where is their respect?

Fast forward to 2009, and the confirmation of now Justice Sonya Sotomayor. Because of a single remark, made years ago and both taken wildly out of context and blown wildly out of proportion, Republican Senators and their lackies in the press felt it was somehow now acceptable to come right out and CALL Justice Sotomayor a racist! Just like that! "She's a racist."

OK, so let me get this strait... Democrats can't ask a question about a nominee's membership in an openly racist organization, becasue it insinuates that the nomimee is racist.... but Republicans can come right out an CALL a nominee a racist and that's OK with the press. Wow.

Exhibit Four-A: Sotomayor vs. Altio on Ricci

And look at the Ricci case. Much was made of the fact that Justice Sotomayor found for the defendant. Somehow this showed her racial bias, even though some Latino firefighters would not recieve promotions they would have been otherwise entitled to as a result. But very little was said of Samuel Alito or Anotnin Scalia, both Italian Americans, finding for Ricci, an Italian American himself! Now, I'm not saying that they voted based on that fact alone, but both recalled their Italian heritiage, and the empathy they had for what the Italian immigrants faced when coming to this country, during their confirmation hearings. But you saw what happened when Justice Sotomayor spoke proudly of her latina heritage, or President Obama menitioned 'empathy' as one of the many qualities he was looking for in a judge. BTW? Clarence Thomas was also heralded for his empathy, during his confirmation hearings!

Exhibit Five: Nancy Pelosi (D-Speaker) vs. Newt Gingrich (R-former Speaker)

If I were to say "partisan," "divisive," "unpopular," "controverial," "extremist," or "out of touch" which of these people do you think I'm talking about? Well, if you're near the center politically, and think for yourself rather than listen to the media, you might say that it could describe either one. But Former Speaker Gingrich is granted repeated interviews, and treated like a serious analyst or comentator instead of (say it with me) an unpopular, divisive, controversial, partisan, extreme right-wing hack. Meanwhile these descriptors fly all the time with regards to Speaker Pelosi... and you can add "shrill" to the list as well! Now I'm not arguing that Nancy pelosi isn't any of those things: that can be debated. BUT: there is no doubt that Gingrich is at least as far to the Right as Pelosi is to the left, at least as 'controversial' (just not with conservatives), at least as 'divisive' (just not with conservatives) and according to polls taken at the height of Speaker Gingrich's popularity (about a week after he won) statistiaclly LESS popular with the Nation than Speaker Pelosi has EVER polled, based on approval rating.

But Pelosi is treated by the press like she has leprosy, while Gingrich is treated like he's the next Winston Churchill.

Exhibit Six: Reconciliation vs. The Nuclear Option

First of all, let's be clear on the facts. The "Nuclear Option" was a phrase coined by Republicans, but co-opted by Democrats when they found it polled badly, to describe the proposed RULES CHANGES by the majority Republicans at the time to prevent Senate Democrats from filibutsering President Bush's judicial nominees. While nominees are not commonly filibusted, the rules DO allow for it, and it is not without precident. (What's more, it's little different from all the Holds the Republican have put on President Obama's nominees for posts throughout the federal government. You want to know why so many leadership position are unfilled? Because it takes 60 votes to clear a Hold, just like a filibuster, and until Norm Coleman stopped being such a little cry baby, the Democrats didn't HAVE sixty votes. They still don't in fact, at least until a special election is held for the seat of the recently deceased Senator Kennedy. So you can blame the Rebulicans, and their baseless Holds, for so many ships being without a helmsman, even though the media won't.)

"Reconciliation," on the other hand, is a LONG ESTABLISHED procedure used to pass budgetary mesaures with a simple majority vote, rather than first requiring a vote of 60 for cloture. It's basically a procedural end-run around the filibuster, that can be used for budgetary items only. Now the Democrats have threatened to use it to pass their budget. The Republicans are crying foul, since their are things in the budget like items for health care. Since those would need to be paid for, I'm not exactly sure why they don't belong in the budget, but whatever. The fact is that Republicans used reconciliation to pass quite a bit of legislation that was tucked into their budgets over the first six years of the Bush administration. (The Bush tax cuts, for example.)

But the press is not only acting like the Democrats are playing unfair, and giving credability to the hypocritical claims of the Republicans, not to mention failing to point out the hypocrisy, but they have, on several occasions, actually called this the Democrat's "nuclear option!"

WTF?! Somehow the Democrats using a long established procedure repeatedly practice by both parties is the same as the Republicans changing the rules so that they can do whatever they want.

Final Exhibit: Anti-Iraq War Protesters vs. Tea-Baggers, Birthers and 9/12'ers

I'll make this short. In 2003, Iraq war protests that drew over 100,000 people were eighth page news, even in the "liberal" New York Times. They were described as "annoying" at best, and "traitorous" at worst. But Saturday's 9/12 rally that drew only a fraction of that amount was FRONT PAGE news! Tea-Parties? Birthers? The 9/12 protets? These people are serious news! You see... When CONSERVTIVES are angry, it's news. When LIBERALS are angry, it's annoying.

NOW...

Some of the more conservative readers may be looking at this and saying, "Well what's wrong with how the press treated these cases? I think they got it spot on!" Well, any of these things can certainly be debated, and you're certainly entitled to your opinion... But you can't logically hold that opinon, have the media agree with you, and then turn around and accuse the media of liberal bias now, can you?

There IS NO systematic liberal bias in the mainstream media. It is a complete myth. We have a CORPORATE media, owned by Boards that all lean consevative and vote Republican and the resulting conservative bias should be completely transparent to any objective observer.

...

One last bit. If anyone wants to call me out on any of the items I've mentioned here - to cite sources, give examples, etc... Let me know. Rest assured I can absolutely do that. It's just that I think fast, but type slow and this is a Blog, not a grad-school thesis, so I didn't feel like getting bogged down finding links and citing sources as I flew to get my ideas on the page. I may go back later and add some links, but at this point I think I'd rather move on to other topics. If anyone feels like calling shenanigans on me though, I'll make sure to answer your suspisions! I'm good that way!