HOME
NEXT PAGE
ARCHIVES
SUBSCRIBE

Thursday, February 08, 2007

Sam Eagle: Impeach Pelosi

Ladies and Gentleman,

I am pleased to be talking with you once again although the circumstances are most unpleasant. It has come to my attention that our madame speaker of the house has requested the use of a giant airplane.

The size is of the most ridiculous and unconservative proportion. No doubt it will cost the USA millions and put us on the path to fiscal irresponsibility. I warned Americans many times that these swine will destroy this great nation! This is just the beginning.

Spend, spend, spend! Raise taxes! Fly around in a jumbo jet like a rock star on the taxpayer's dime! All this silliness is hard for an American red blooded blue eagle to comprehend. How could this happen?

The liberal media has overlooked this creature's questionable behavior. This is unfathomable to me. There most certainly is a media bias in this country, which I hope to address in future columns.

I hold Pelosi in low regard. Much lower than the frog! The frog at least has several redeeming qualities: hard working, counts me as a friend, and believes in heterosexual monogamous relationships albeit beastial ones.

This woman on the other hand represents a constituency riddled with socially immoral behavior. She in fact claims that she is proud to represent her community. Great Lincoln's ghost! Do my ears deceive me?

We must impeach this woman before it is too late! She will bankrupt this great nation with her liberal spending habits. As we all know girls like to spend money and Nancy is no different. What's next a wardrobe paid by Joe American? We can't take the risk! Impeach her now! Impeach her today!

Thank you and Good Night,

Sam "Preston" Eagle

This article was reprinted with much silliness from Real Clear Politics, a conservative political opinion web site.

Tags:
* * * * * * * * *
* * * * * * *
* * * * * *
* * * * * *
* * * * * * *
*

19 Comments:

Anonymous Joe said...

You seem to be ridiculing the notion of 'liberal bias' in the media. I find this an interesting question, and so, in all seriousness, I'd appreciate it if you'd answer the following questions:

(1) Do you think the newsmedia is generally objective, or is there often evidence of a clear political bias (either left or right)?

(2) If you find the news is often biased, do you think the bias is just as likley to be leftward as rightward, or does it tend to be in one direction (which?)

(3) Most would agree that Fox News ia slanted to the right. Do you believe there is any TV network news is slanted to the left? What major newspapers do you think are slanted to the right? Do you think any are slanted to the left?

(4) Are you conflating pundits and with reporters? For example, Op-ed columnists in newspapers and commentators on TV (ie. conservatives like Bill O'Reilly, liberals like Al Franklin) address the issues with an openly admitted and obvious slant - this is not biased 'reporting'. Only reporters and editors can be guilty of biased reportage. An example of rightwing bias at Fox would be when their reporters present Intelligent Design and Darwinian evolution as though they have equal standing in the eyes of science (obviously they do not- the vast majority of credentialed scientists accept evolution and laugh at ID). Bill O'Reilly talking points are not examples of biased reportage. Similarly, a left leaning NY Times OpEd piece is not evidence of left wing bias in reporting at the NY Times, while the their practice of only mentioning the race of white criminal suspects is an example of liberal bias.


Thank you...

2/08/2007 02:49:00 PM  
Blogger Tom G said...

Yes daddy, I'll make sure Mike does your book report, umm..(eyes rolling)

It's called satire ya moron. Mike is poking fun at conservatives and their arguments. Comedy 101 teaches you to heighten and expand a point. If you thought he was exaggerating the conservative bitchiness against liberal bias, you're probably right brainiac. let me guess - he also took it out to a more extreme and goofy POV. Dear God, someone help me but I believe that's called satire.

Get a life!

2/08/2007 03:39:00 PM  
Blogger Tom G said...

Typo - should be heighten and explore

Let's see, Mike could either answer your questions (which you'd just tell him he was wrong) or write about something he wants to write about. Hmmm, my guess is on the latter.

2/08/2007 03:56:00 PM  
Anonymous Joe said...

Gee, Tom sounds like he's fallen out of love with life.

I think he's still smarting from my calling him a condescending, guilty white liberal. Geez, get over it (I think he thinks I'm mean). Some of my best friends are condescending, guilty white liberals.

In any event, its clear Mike was tryng to be funny etc. Sometimes he succeeds, though I've never found the Sam Eagle stuff particualrly amusing.

Anyway, sure, I'd tell Mike he was wrong if I thought he was wrong, butI am genuinely curious as to what either of you would respond to the aforementined questions.

2/08/2007 04:15:00 PM  
Blogger Mike K said...

I should be more careful Tom. Satire can get me killed. :-P

Joe,
I will answer your questions regarding bias. I'm sure you will just refute it.

Bias depends on the medium. To be fair I will eliminate editorials from the equation since it does not technically qualify as news. Based on that definition Fox News is a running editorial, not news.

Written news (Internet and newspaper) is mostly objective. If a bias exists, it is based on the selection and promotion process. Most stories will make it in a paper, but they might be buried.

Televised news has fewer stories, so the selection and promotion process is more pivotal. Time is premium and most stories do not get aired.

I believe that the Republican party has an influential role in the selection and promotion process. I can think of two examples:

Example 1:
Release bad news on a Friday afternoon. This almost guarantees low coverage. The Bush administration is notorious for doing this.

Example 2:
Submit Republican talking points to the media. The media reports on it and accepts it as fact. Nancy Pelosi demands a jumbo jet big enough to accomodate her donors, family, and friends. Is it true? Yeah she wanted a jet. For those reasons? No. Yet that is the way that it was reported. I wonder how the media got that story.

Traditionally most reporters are liberal, but their bosses and the companies they work for are not. The selection and promotion process is more skewed towards conservative than it is liberal.

2/08/2007 04:23:00 PM  
Blogger Tom G said...

Joe,

Huh? Hate life, what? Sorry to break the news to you but you have no impact on my life. I wasn't even aware you wrote those things about me. Sorry.

I basically agree with Mike but have 3 points to add. First, our point is never to claim conservative media bias. It's to refute the so-called liberal bias. It's become conventional wisdom that is not true. And for those keeping score at home, I do not think there is an overall media bias per se (more later). Bias varies by vehicle and outlet. Radio is decidedly slanted right. NY Times is slanted left. With the exception of Fox News and Washington Times (propaganda in my opinion), I understand these biases when I get my news.

Second, the lines between straight news and straight punditry as so blurred that to discount them is like discounting a RB getting 123 yards and saying he only had 33 when you remove his 90 yard run. Believe it or not, a lot of people actually get their news from Bill O'Reilly (no spin zone and all). And sure many of those people realize it's biased but that has become their primary news source. Even broadcast news has commentary (CBS Free Speech segment). And those are extreme ends of the continuum. Cable news where the moderators go back and force between reporting and punditry makes it even harder. While not perfect, punditry gives a view into the types of views valued by a station. Is it a coincidence that Fox News has no real progressive show? The other alternative would be to gain access into a station so you could examine what they put on and off and get inside their minds to understand intent. Otherwise you're subjectiveness is involved when watching the news yourself for bias. And good luck with spending all that time on detecting bias.

Finally, one of the biggest issues is the lack of journalism. Most news has become he said/she said. And unfortunately the Republicans have figured this out and just flat out lie. It's only a matter of time before the Democrats do the same thing (no, I don't think Democrats are better - they just haven't sunken as low in the make believe department yet as the Republicans).

2/08/2007 05:47:00 PM  
Anonymous Joe said...

Tom-
I agree with most of what you said above, though I don't see how you could conclude there is no liberal bias in the media. I mean, for crisakes, by your own concession the NY Times is at least. WHatever.

Mike-

I agree with some of what you've said, disagree with some, and would add some.

Bias is generally manifest in story selection and promotion, as you say. Bias can also be manifest in what is emphasized or de-emphasized.

Story selection is primarily a decision of editors, who are overwhelmingly former reporters and tend to be liberal politically, at least in the most influential major media markets. In part this is a consequence of the fact that major urban areas tend to be more liberal politically, and their papers tend to be more influential. Yet there are right leaning papers in major cities as well, of course.

As far as media moguls go, they are stereotyped as being generally conservative, and certainly many are, though not all. A reasonable suspicion and probably one well worth manintaining, though even the most cynical leftwing reporter would likely laugh at the suggestion that the owners tell them what to write. Perhaps there have been cases where the owner's interests have influenced news content but I have never seen it documented (wouldn't be surprised though).

There have been cases where oped columnsts were paid to promote a particular political agenda (eg. syndicated rightwing columnists Maggie Gallagher and Armstrong Lewis are known to have received money from the RNC to promote their views).

So far as a liberal bias is concerned, I think it's not so much a matter of reporters favoring Democrats over Republicans (though you might see that occassionally) as it is that the media tend to be very PC, especially when it comes to stories involving race. Stories involving white racism are promoted far more aggressively than stories involving black racism, which are generally soft pedaled if reported at all. A white guy with Al Sharpton's past could never run for president - he'd be a social pariah. A white preacher who spewed the hate that so regularly comes forth from Louis Farrakhan and other members of his Nation of Islam would be described as a hatemonger in the news, not as merely 'controversial' (the NY Times recently described this racist asshole as a 'luminary').

Like Tom said, bias varies from source to source. Talk radio is definitely rightward. In terms of the most influential newspapers, most would agree that The NY Times, Washington Post, and LA Times are slanted to the left, while The Washington Times and Wall Street journal are slanted rightward. Most TV news (except Fox) is, in my oinion, to various degrees slanted leftward when it is slanted, though I don't see a ubiquitous slant.

Anyway, gotta go.

2/08/2007 06:41:00 PM  
Blogger Tom G said...

Joe,

Ummm, David Duke ran for President in the last 10 years and had the same general support Sharpton did.

2/09/2007 09:18:00 AM  
Anonymous Joe said...

Tom,

No way dude. David Duke has always been treated as a pariah and his campaign went nowhere. It would be a career killer for anyone to openly associate with him. He was not invited to any debate and was officially renounced by the RNC.

By contrast, Sharpton was invited to speak at the last Democratic convention, participated in debates with mainstream candidates (despite miserable showings at the polls), has hosted SNL, his own reality TV show, and on and on. He's been given a PC pass by the media, admit it.

The sad and frustrating irony is, the reason he is treated with kid's gloves is because they think it's a conciliatory gesture to 'the black community', when in fact it only serves to drive the wedge between the races further by legitimizing such a divisive voice. Imagine a black guy trying to impress a whites by making a show of respect for David Duke? I for one would be deeply offended.

I was really disturbed by the recent specatacle of the likely Democrat presidential candidates meeting with Al to seek his approval of their views (including - curiously - Barack Obama). In a nation where Barack Obama can be the front runner - a very healthy sign in my opinion - why the hell should anyone need to pander to a divisive creep like Sharpton? The Dems need to get over this white guilt thing (or in Barrack's case, the need to prove his ethnic 'authenticity').

It's like they're oblivious to the marvelous sign of progress that Barack represents and continue to pander like it's 1972 - drive me nuts...

2/09/2007 01:48:00 PM  
Blogger Tom G said...

Pat Robertson, met Al Sharpton. Al Sharpton, meet Pat Robertson.

Dude, you obviously got some anger towards Sharpton and the media's treatment of him. I don't care. Mike doesn't care. I don't agree with him. He means absolutely nothing to me. Your infatuation with him is like something I've never seen before. How you manage to somehow inject him in discussions that never approach him is beyond me.

Please do us a favor and stop it. Just stop it. As I said, I could care less about Sharpton. Or Robertson. Or any other extreme loony. While they might pander to the extreme elements (both sides so), it's not like Dems actually follow his lead. That's what angers me about the Republicans. Not that they pander to the religious right (they are trying to get votes and you can't pass legislation without winning elections). It's that they actually try to pass legislation they want.

Crapateers, I promise this is the last I ever mention Sharpton.

2/09/2007 02:10:00 PM  
Anonymous Joe said...

Tom:Sharpton::RNC:Global Warming
(ie. " Nah-nah I can't hear you").

Denying unpleasant facts, whether they be the evidence of global warming or the influence of a demagogue like Sharpton in the Democratic party, doesn't make the go away. Whether you like to hear it or nor, the Democrats do indeed try to pass legislation demanded by Sharpton (and others of his ilk). It is a major factor in the Democrats inability to move beyond divisive, color conscious policies such as affirmative action, contract set asides, and so forth.

If you don't want to talk about Sharpton on your blog, I'll respect your wishes (hey, its your blog). But don't delude yourself that he doesn't have any influence - he does. And sure, the Republicans have their Sharpton's (Whether their's are named Roberston or Falwell or Haggard etc) as well. Again, my broken record refrain - they both suck.

2/11/2007 04:52:00 PM  
Blogger Tom G said...

Please enlighten me of these legislations and policies you refer to. For I could be wrong. The only thing I recall in the last 10 years are liberal organizations supporting affirmative action court cases. I can't recall anything about Sharpton or any of his policies being discussed.

I think it's time to move on or give examples - what are these policies that anger you so much? For I could hammer Republicans for being against the civil rights movement but how does that apply to current Republicans?

2/12/2007 09:34:00 AM  
Anonymous Joe said...

Sharpton is a key factor in mobilizing support for those Affirmative Action cases, as well a s a host of other divisive, color conscious policies supported by the Democrats (government contract set asides, race based scholarships, etc.):

http://www.gwu.edu/~action/2004/sharpton/sharp031504.html

"After a one-hour, face-to-face meeting with Senator Kerry, Reverend Al Sharpton, accompanied by Ed Lewis, CEO of Essence Communications representing a group of prominent black entrepreneurs supporting Sharpton, and senior advisors announced today that he will campaign for Kerry in the fall while Senator John Kerry has agreed to a series of meetings with Sharpton to review and implement Sharpton’s Urban Agenda...."

"...Sharpton and Kerry agreed to a series of meetings to develop and promote an agenda to rally support among minority voters in America’s urban centers by developing a platform that embraces Affirmative Action, and cracks down on police brutality, improves schools in minority districts, increases minority access to health care, and bolsters programs to create jobs for minorities. "

Some googling produced the following interesting tidbit:

http://www.post-gazette.com/election/20031214sharptonprofile1214p2.asp
"In a 30-year career as a professional activist, Sharpton has worked with Koch on legislation, Mario Cuomo on state appointments."

Both of the above are actually Sharpton friendly sources by the way (the latter mentions the fact that Al wore a wire for the FBI as though it was an act of public service - in fact he'd been caught consorting with mobsters and wor ethe wire to avoid criminal prosecution - talk about liberal slant ;))

As for the civil rights era, Actually, the Dixiecrats (southern democrats) actualy provided the bulk of the opposition to the civil rights movement. However Goldwater Republicans (the original modern 'conservatives') also cynically and shamefully opposed civil rights legislation under the guise of supporting states rights (ie. the state's right to enact racist legislation). Championing state sovereignty over the federal government may be consistent generally with libertarian or conservative philosophy, but supporting the power of state government over individual liberty was of course a disgusting and hypocritical contradiction of the libertarian spirit that is supposed to inform conservatism. Yeah, both sides of the aisle have stank for quite awhile. But I digress...

2/12/2007 01:31:00 PM  
Blogger Tom G said...

You are so full of shit.

Dixiecrats are Democrats who left the Democratic Party to start the Dixiecrat party because they disagreed with civil rights. When Dixiecrats as a party dissolved they almost all went to the Republican party. Stop trying to rewrite history.

BTW, none of your examples mention anything more than consult. I asked for examples of legislation. Also funny you include this:

"...Sharpton and Kerry agreed to a series of meetings to develop and promote an agenda to rally support among minority voters in America’s urban centers by developing a platform that embraces Affirmative Action, and cracks down on police brutality, improves schools in minority districts, increases minority access to health care, and bolsters programs to create jobs for minorities. "

Are you against efforts made to stem police brutality, improve minority education, increase minority access to health care?

I'm done with you. You lost every ounce of respect I had with your blatant Dixiecrat lie. Bye Bye!

2/12/2007 01:53:00 PM  
Anonymous Joe said...

Tom,

Methinks you doth protest too much.

Note that I spent a good portion of my response detailing the Goldwater Republican connection to segregation, yet you somehow see this post as a revisionist attack on the democrats (ie. a 'Dixiecrat lie').

Dude, it is common knowledge that the southern democrats created and were the primary supporters of the Jim Crow south legislation (and the northern dems did little to counteract it. This didn't start to change until the 60s, with JFK and then LBJ. For future reference, "Reagan democrats", "southern democrats", and "dixiecrats" (with a small D, if you like) are often used interchangably. You're a tad paranoid

There was of course an actual party called 'The Dixiecrats', associated with Strom Thurmond's presidential campaign in 48 more than anything else, that splintered off of the Democrats over segregation. But the term is ALSO COMMONLY applied to the sizeable segregation supporting bloc within the Democratic party that did not split and vigoruously defended Jim Crow. This is not anti-Dem propaganda, it's a fact.

You do know that Democrat Senator Robert Byrd is a fomer card carrying member of the KKK, right?

Secondly, I presented the quotes above as is, with the context making it clear that the main issues I had contention with were affirmative action (and any other color conscious policy). Surely you are not so dense that you cannot appreciate that there is considerable euphimistic langugae in the document. No one is for police brutality, obviously. However, in Sharpton speak, going after police brutality is a euphimism for implementing things like so called "civilian complaint review boards" such as were implemented on his instigation during NYCs Dinkins administration. These are committees of professional race agitators who cry "racism!" every time a cop breathes.

Similarly, I am obviously not opposed to minority access to health care (who is, the Klan?). However, the very suggestion that minorties are DON'T have adequate 'access' (ie. that they are somehow being debied equal access to health care by whiteracism) is classic provocative, Sharptonesque hyperbole.

Don't be so damn naive. Geez, use a few pleasant sounding code words and they've got you hook, line , siker and filet.

In any event I clearly documented Sharpton's considerable influence on the Democratic party.

Are you like losing it or something? In case you haven;t noticed, I;ve been extremely civil towards you, even a syuo have been nasty, in virtual all of my posts, yet you continue to react like a man whose been poked in the eye. Can you not tolerate any dissent? Geez...

2/12/2007 03:23:00 PM  
Blogger Tom G said...

Whatever man. You have a warped worldview and I wish you good luck dealing with your issues. We hope you continue to read and feel free to comment. Just don't expect me to respond. For I'll put up with dissent or arguments or whatever. When I feel someone's been dishonest or submitting lies, then the discussions over. At that point there can be no discussions.

BTW, your quotes above only show Sharpton consulted with Kerry. That was never in dispute. But what influence did those meetings have? Where any of those topics mentioned by Kerry? Has any of these issues been introduced in legislation lately. Try to pay attention - comprehension is not that hard.

Keep on Truckin'

2/12/2007 03:52:00 PM  
Anonymous Joe said...

Tom,

What part of "Senator John Kerry has agreed to a series of meetings with Sharpton to review and implement Sharpton’s Urban Agenda" don't you comprehend? This is not mere consultation, it is a pedge to implemement a very specific agenda.

If you're expecting me to produce a particular piece of legislation labeled "SHARPTON", I'll produce it when you produce one labaled "ROBERTSON". Tahts not the way it works. Nevertheless, we both know that the respective parties are indebted to the constituencies represented by these dirtbags and it is a key reason why they support the idiotic policies they demand (whether it be in the form of amicus briefs or other legal support in the judiciary, in the form of legislation, or simply solid PR to uphold or immplement any number of social policie sthat do not necessarily call for a specific legislative act).

By the way ,the Democrats have filed amicus briefs to help defeat reviews of affirmative action in the courts. By comparison, it was a conservative Republican Bush or Reagan appointee who made the critical Dover decsion AGAINST intelligent design, not a democrat or a liberal. What democrats are opposed to and/or have taken action against racial preferences, or have the intestinal fortitude to stand up to a demagogue like Sharpton? If you really are concerned about race relations and would like to see the country move beyond race, then you have to be concerned about a divisive demagogue like Sharpton (and others like him) having such influence in the Democratic party. Similarly, if you are concerned about science being given equal time with religious creation myths, or Rapture nihilists influencing US foreign policy, you need to be concerned about folks like Falwell et al.

PS- You get upset WAY too easily. I know I have in the past as well, but damned if you're not worse.

Peace.......

2/12/2007 04:41:00 PM  
Blogger Tom G said...

Ummm, I've never been upset or angered by your comments. In fact, I think I've been more than fair in answering your questions which generally veer way off the initial topic. If I felt any emotion, I wouldn't respond. Apparently my style seems angry to you. So be it. I'm not changing for you. And I sincerely hope you get whatever you are looking for. Sorry I couldn't be more help but I don't share you're worldview. I'm tired of the lies and I'm tired of your same 2 points. I swear this will be my last response.

BTW, I assume your civility extends to calling us racists on multiple occasions?

2/12/2007 05:20:00 PM  
Anonymous Joe said...

I don't believe I ever called Mike K a racist. I did call you racist, but I also said I thought you were well intentioned ("you're heart is in the right place in some sense" were my words, I believe). I certainly don't think you hate anyone on the basis of ethnicity. However, when you say you can't imagine how anyone could've found Ice Cube's Death Certificate lyrics controversial (eg. "Oriental one penny motherfuckers" etc. - come on dude, its a BLATANTLY racist album), you're being a phony. It's an awkward attempt to make a show of how "not racist" you are (you like Ice Cube!). Its almost George Costanza-ish. And then you call liberal Joe Biden a bigot for some innocuous gaffes that even Jesse and Al overlooked. Does that not suggest that you hold whotes to a higher moral standard than blacks? Compare Cube's lyrics to Biden's remarks.

Anyway, I don't really think you're a racist (obviously). I just wanted to get you to see ho wyour remarks might be regarded as condescending towards blacks (the opposite no doubt of your intention).

Oh well, you may do as you will with your blog here. The truth is I hold no animous towards you whatsoever, even if it might seem that I do. If I did I wouldn't post to your blog; I simply enjoy arguing with you for some reason. You're a good guy, just a tad PC.

Au Revoir

2/12/2007 05:48:00 PM  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Main

Life is Crap: A blog covering: humor, news, politics, music, movies, tv, sports, and other things.
Questions? Comments? Death Threats? Suggestions? Contact us: thecrapspot@yahoo.com
(Home) (Archives) (Next page) (Subscribe to Life is Crap)