Friday, December 28, 2007
They have some takes of some of our local right wing squawk brigade. Here are some on Charlie:
Syked Out:“Away from his professional cronies … his books and his daily blows against the status quo, [WTMJ-AM radio host Charlie] Sykes is an isolated man.” (July 2000). “A man of immense talent and ambitions, yet unsure what to do next in life, a man who has gained the respect and fear of the power elite while failing to win the long-term loyalty of even a single friend.”
"Racine will be turned into a parling lot, which is okay.
--Charlie Sykes, January 1986
In 10 years Charlie [Sykes] will be more liberal than today.
--Public relations man Evan Zeppos, July 2000
His latest flub comes from trying to say that the Democratic tidal wave that occurred in 2006 was meaningless because the Republicans have been able to obstruct any forward movement offered by the Democrats. You know, real bad things. Like getting out of Iraq. Balancing the budget. Getting health care to needy kids.
He goes on to say it is because the Democrats were "reading the wrong message" when they gained all those seats. He ends his post with this:
They "got the wrong message from the election," our own Rep. Paul Ryan tells Blake. The 2006 result wasn't one of a "repudiation of conservative values," said Ryan. It was a call for "clean and transparent government." Had Dems stuck to centrist positions, they'd have run the place, says Ryan. They didn't.
Gee, I thought the Democrats won because they were sick of the Iraq War and the incompetence of Bush and the Republicans. But if he feels better by insisting it was because the wave was due tot he Republicans being corrupt and sneaky, well, then that is fine by us.
Thursday, December 27, 2007
All I know is that I just watched a movie in which the central character spent his wonderful life making dicey loans to subprime borrowers -- and he was unequivocally a hero for doing just that.
Not only does he seem to think that real life is like an old movie, he gets the facts of the movie wrong.
When I first read this post, my first idea was to write something along the lines of seeing a movie where the heroes fought the evil empire. The heroes were rebels, but still heroes, and not labeled liberals, progressives, moonbats, or any of the multitude of names the left side is given interchangeably.
That was my thought until I saw the comments. A person who is identified as Adam confronts McIlheran:
Seriously? You're comparing George Bailey to a corporate bank?
See, what made George Bailey a hero wasn't that he offered, essentially, subprime mortgages. No, he was a hero because when the market crashed, he refused to take the houses away from the people who couldn't quite make their payments. Show me some corporate banks that are doing that and I'll show you some hero businesses.
Furthermore, George Bailey never jacked up the adjustable interest rates on those subprime loans to 10-times the initial rate. In fact, he railed against an evil old man who wished to do just that.
Look, banks are well within their rights to jack up ARMs and to foreclose on delinquent borrowers. But good lord, don't try to tell me they're heroic for doing so.
I realized that there was no way to top the line, "He was a hero because when the market crashed, he refused to take the houses away from the people who couldn't quite make their payments" I guess there's one more holiday movie McIlheran won't be watching. Oh well, he still has his true hero to watch each year.
She has also repeatedly crowed about her husband, Paul, and how tough he is on crime. He even (ineffectively) prosecuted former Packer tight end Mark Chmura.
So one cannot help but be surprised by this story from MSJ:
A former girls varsity assistant basketball coach at Mukwonago High School accused in the sexual assault of a student failed to show up for his initial court appearance Wednesday, and a warrant was issued for his arrest.
But Waukesha County Circuit Court Commissioner Martin Binn said he would hold off on enforcing the warrant for the arrest of Todd J. Huth, 57, until Jan. 2, the new date Binn set for Huth to appear in court to face five felony counts of sexual assault of a student by school staff.
If Huth doesn't appear for the January court date, sheriff's deputies will seek to arrest him.
Huth's attorney, Paul Bucher, said Wednesday that Huth, of East Troy, was at a family gathering in Michigan. Bucher said he had sought earlier this month to have Huth's Wednesday's court appearance rescheduled, but the Waukesha County district attorney's office would not agree.
Perhaps this is why McBride hasn't posted anything for a while. Maybe she is trying to come up with an apology to some Milwaukee attorneys that she has badmouthed, repeatedly. After all, isn't this the kind of story that she would be bashing the defense attorney and the courts?
But what he doesn't tell you is how they do what they do that makes them so allegedly wonderful. Even a precursory scan of the agency's website does not reveal their secret to success. The closest I can figure it out, is that TFA does high pressure recruitment on some recent college graduates, gets them to commit for two years to teaching these at-risk kids, and burns them out. Then they replace them with fresh recruits. If it was a religion, it could be considered a cult.
No wonder McIlheran didn't want to say how it works. It might put another damper on his bid to privatize the world.
Wednesday, December 26, 2007
Oh, how he is pontificating and proselytizing, but not saying anything. Of course, he doesn't have the same qualification as Representative Wasserman who is an OB-GYN. McIlheran on the other hand, is a precocious hack who only incites the moral pose when it is convenient, and forgets it when its not.
When my car is need of repair, I consult a mechanic. When I am sick, I see my doctor. If I were to wonder about the female reproductive system, I would rely on the OB-GYN.
If I ever want to learn to be hypocritical, then I will consult with Father PaddyMac.
UPDATE: I forgot to mention that McIlheran proves that he knows he's losing by attacking Pundit Nation, not on the merits of the issue, but for the wording of this post. Typical conservative maneuver, if you can't win on the merits, attack the opponent.
Tuesday, December 25, 2007
First, McIlheran is now going against his church's teachings and positions when the pope came out against the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan:
Pope Benedict XVI issued a Christmas Day appeal Tuesday to political leaders around the globe to find the "wisdom and courage" to end bloody conflicts in Darfur, Iraq, Afghanistan and Congo.
To make things worse for McIlheran, the story continues:
He said he hoped Christmas would bring consolation to "those who are still denied their legitimate aspirations for a more secure existence, for health, education, stable employment, for fuller participation in civil and political responsibilities, free from oppression and protected from conditions that offend human dignity."
Poor Patrick. No war. No special education. Everyone given a chance at health care. And that part about "conditions that offend human dignity"? I do believe torture would fall into that category. Well, at least Patrick still has his ability to show disdain towards the global warming issue. Doh! Spoke too soon:
In a nod to his engagement with environmental concerns, the pontiff also noted that the number of migrants and displaced people was increasing around the globe because of "frequent natural disasters, often caused by environmental upheavals."
It will be interesting to see what McIlheran will do. He could be a good Catholic and start following the directions of the Pope. He could convert, although I don't know many religions that do go into torture, pollution, or war. Or he could just keep doing what he has been doing. Be a hypocrite.
To be fair, at least McIlheran dropped a tactful wish for his readers. Of course, like many others, he wrote:
Let heaven and nature sing. Peace be with you.
Gee-Peace be with you-doesn't that sound a lot like COEXIST?
Monday, December 24, 2007
Um, yeah, so what?
That would be like WMC awarding Annette Ziegler a "Judge of the Year Award."
For the want of $100, 000, Dan Vrakas, Waukesha County Executive, is willing to let this route disappear at the end of 2007.
James Rowen makes some clear, logical points on how and why this should be done, which I am sure would be lost on the right wing media, especially McIlheran.
But I like Gretchen Schuldt's suggestion as well. There is something appealing about the thought of knocking Scott Walker's and Dan Vrakas' heads together in an effort to knock some sense into them.
Sunday, December 23, 2007
Syndicated right-wing radio host Michael Savage—whose program is aired late at night on WTMJ radio—is suing those who complain about his lunatic rants about Muslims. (Here's one example: "I don't wanna hear one more word about Islam. Take your religion and shove it up your behind. I'm sick of you.") While the free speech advocate is "complaining about others quoting him" in his lawsuit, as The New York Times points out, the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) is asking for advertisers to pull their spots from Savage's show. But we've got to ask: Does WTMJ really want to create profits that are built on hatred? And does Milwaukee need bigots like Savage on our public airwaves?
Indeed, some good questions. Too bad they will never be answered.
- Of course, the top story would have to be the demise of McBride's talks show.
- The local right wing media's selective outrage as a defense strategy.
- Template retires (and we still miss him).
- The product of the greatest minds in the cheddarsphere-50+ Things You Won't Learn From Talk Radio
Did I miss anything?
There were a few highlights worth mentioning.
While they were all singing the praises of General David Patraeus, and they all credited him for not losing the war in Iraq, not one of them could or would say that we were winning.
They would all lament that David Clarke, nor anyone else was running against Barrett, and call Barrett the "missing mayor", but then praise his selection of Ed Flynn for police chief. If he was absent and doing nothing, how did he get this supposedly wonderful person (he hasn't started yet, so it's kinda hard to judge his performance) and why are there no challengers?
Even though we know Charlie reads Mike Mathias' work, so how did he miss the fact that waterboarding is torture?
Saturday, December 22, 2007
Illusory Tenant lets us see what McIlheran is fighting for, in a rather graphic way.
All we know, is that iT had better hope that McBride was honest for a change when she said that she doesn't bother to read lefty blogs, or else she will be accusing him of child pornography.
SIDENOTE: Pay attention to iT's banner for a great irreverent look at the holiday season.
Remember that McBride moderates her comments. She wouldn't let mine through. I bet she would let Tim Rock's through either. Or Illusory Tenants. Apparently she feels that we just don't have the same insight or writing skill as good old John. He really knows how to add meaning to a conversation.
Oprah is a creation of the media. Oprah is an extremely successful media on screen star.Oprah has maximized her star power in the media, and through talent, charisma, guidance, hard work, and through her hired peeeps, has become a mega-star and has become mega-rich.
So has Gene Simmons of KISS.
So has Bono (not Sonny) of U2.
So haD Britney Spears, Paris Hilton and Lindsey Lohan.
As Bruce Williams has so often said..."Never love something that can't love you back". Oprah is a crutch for many many fans and needy people. She is a media mogul Brett Favre. People name their children Brett, because of Brett Favre. I find that wierd. They don't name their child....Thomas or William, for their Father or Grandfather, rather they name their child after an athletic icon.
Well,Oprah doesn't even WIN ballgames. Oprah doesn't compete nor risk life nor limb. Oprah is a woman who got an education, had a checkered past, MADE IT, became a TV REPORTER, talking head in Baltimore I believe, and in Chicago, she got a chance and didn't waist it. What does that mean? It's charisma and a Prom queen-esque popularity thing. So Oprah has good instincts, charisma, good peeps/advisors, financial partners, and she builds her IMPRESSIVE MEDIA empire, and becomes a very very wealthy woman.
I admire that. But, how does that make her so important to millions of women?? Is it because she shows what people CAN achieve?? I admire that. But her talents made her RICH, they didn't make her part of my family nor did they make her values wants and needs MINE.
I mentioned Brett Favre. He too has CHECKERS in his past. And millions of people will wear WRANGLERS because he shills for WRANGLER. I admire Favre, just as I do admire Winfrey, BUT, if Oprah reads the Diary of Franke Ann, or if Brett Favre eats Cheetos, I'm not influenced.I am my sons role model. If I fail, if I succeed, at least I've lived as I believe. REMEMBER?
She even called the Hartland School System Superintendent, looking for that gotcha moment, but came away with this (emphasis mine):
I also spoke with Hartland Superintendent Craig Jefson. He’s only been in the position since July. It’s not clear who’s responsible for approving the externship, but it’s not Jefson. He spoke vaguely about "staff members."
The superintendent seemed a decent sort, partly because he called me immediately back (which us columnist types always appreciate because we have big egos), partly because he didn’t get defensive and mostly because he did the right thing fast. When he learned about the situation from talk radio, he found out that the grant hadn’t yet been paid. He ordered a stop to it.
So, to be acceptable to McBride, you just have to genuflect and pay homage. Too bad she doesn't have due cause to be so arrogant.
Now she is writing about the decision to revoke the license for Club Escape, which has had a number of incidents and at least one death related to it. She feels that revoking the license is unfair, and does offer some rational reasons for her beliefs. Unfortunately, she also writes this:
There's always something that's bugged me about clubs getting shut down because their customers act violently (or even employees). How is that the club owner's fault? What are they supposed to do? Start screening out thugs?
They'd get a bunch of EEOC complaints and nasty Eugene Kane columns about how racist they are if they tried to do that. When clubs have tried to implement dress codes to screen out thugs, so they won't be called racists, they get called racists too.
Why does she always assume that all shootings involve minorities? Is she going on odds, or is she just making an assumption based on stereotypes, or is there some other, underlying reason?
And why does she always refer to them as "thugs"? She doesn't do that for white criminals. Even murderers, like in the Crandon shootings or the other mass murders that have occurred.
Perhaps the racist nature of her stereotype-based assumptions are too subtle for her to pick up on, or just that type of attitude is so ingrained into her she doesn't notice it. And before she picks up the libel card, I do not believe she is an active racist or a KKK member, but she does definitely seem to be showing a pattern of passive racism.
She really does need to take a long look at herself.
Even though I increasingly just read the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel online, I'm still one of those types who favors the hard copy newspaper, displayed on my kitchen counter in the morning, while I drink a cup of coffee. (OK, so far.)
But I increasingly read it online. So, when my subscription expired recently, I didn't do anything about it for a couple weeks. Inevitably, I decided I missed having something to read with my coffee. So, I called the paper's circulation division and stated that I wanted to reorder the paper. I gave them my checking account information as payment. I still use their own credit union. Well, actually it just got bought out. But still. My checks still say 'Journal Credit Union.' (Procrastination is not a good thing for a journalist.)
A week went by. Every morning, I would trudge up the icy steps to the mailbox. But no paper. (In a house with a live-in trial lawyer, they have icy steps? Why, they could sue themselves!)
Annoyed when the Sunday paper wasn't there, either, I called them back a second time. They looked up my account and stated that they didn't know what I was talking about. No one had taken my order, the guy claimed! (Yeah, like he would lie about this.)
Perturbed, and having to do something else at that moment, I told the guy to figure out what happened and call me back if they decided they wanted my business. (Why not just redo the ordering? Or would that make too much sense?)
They never called back. So I've decided to forget them. I don't need the paper on my kitchen counter THAT badly. And by now I've gotten pretty used to not having it. I'll tell you what I won't do. Beg to get the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel. (That'll show them!! Harumph!)
These people really must be upset by their circulation declining.
Everyone loves Oprah.Heh. McBride wishes only 30% didn't like her. Heck, she probably wishes she had approval ratings as high as Cheney's.
Actually, one-third of people polled can't stand her.
How can anyone not like Oprah? Granted, she's gotten a bit sanctimonious. But, still...
On the other hand, you could take a poll about anyone and 30 percent wouldn't like them.
Shut your eyes if swear words offend you
I thought this was funny. I was on the website of the Rhinelander Daily News newspaper, and at the bottom of the story, they allow comments. But to post a comment, you have to type in the word verification thing to prove you're not a computer. This is the word they gave me to type in (I copied the .gif):
Sorry for offending anyone. But I thought that was pretty funny. Back to serious stuff.
Friday, December 21, 2007
Now, with a tip of the hat to Grumps, we find another possible "liberal hate site" in Letters In Bottles:
From Jessica McBride:
"Soglin's name was floated (not seriously) recently for UW Chancellor."
Ok? How did she determine it wasn't floated seriously? I know of three different posts beginning with my own that mentioned the idea of Soglin as UW-Madison Chancellor. And I don't know that any of them were made in jest.
Furthermore, why didn't she link to any of the posts that floated the idea?
Well, I'm sure if they read Whallah!, they would find the answers to their questions.
*Due to the solid evidence that there are grounds for reasonable doubt to her claim of being faculty at UWM, all future references will have to have an asterisk.
Jay Folkbum (aka Jay Bullock to you an me) has this to say:
Maybe it was a failed attempt at snark, maybe Patrick McIlheran really believes this deep down in the cockles of his being, I don't know. But in the two-plus years I've been doing the McIlheran Watch, this is perhaps the most offensive thing I have ead from the guy...
And his post spurred Emily Mills at The Lost Albatross to also express her feelings:
If an organization is getting most of its funding from public, governmental sources, then it ought to be beholden to the rules and mores codified in state and federal law. Otherwise all the arguments for "separation of church and state" being thrown around by opponents to the Plan B laws are rendered the hideously hypocritical bleats we've long suspected they were.
A hospital wishing to turn their noses up at the law should cease accepting public funding, period. Otherwise, there is simply no excuse for forcing a rape victim to jump through a series of hoops to get EC. It's about as uncharitable and uncaring as you can get.
Thursday, December 20, 2007
It will mean a little more work for us, but to tweak their already over-sized egos, it will be worth it. If the gentle reader feels the need to see the post for themselves, a link to their sites has been provided on the right side column. Sometimes linking will be inevitable, but I am sure that you, gentle reader, can understand what we are trying to do.
Here's your chance to dress for success in 2008!
By popular demand, we've made arrangements through the WTMJ store for you to purchase clothing bearing the unofficial motto of The Jeff Wagner Show (and Wagner's Rule of Life #1): "Life is tough, get a helmet"!
Be the envy of your friends and neighbors by being the first on your block to have a "Life is tough ..." sweatshirt.
Love the show and want to wear our colors? This is your opportunity!
Have a dyed-in-the-wool lefty friend who remains stuck in the 60s? What could be a better birthday gift?
Whether it's for you or for someone else, you can't go wrong with clothing that tells it like it is - just like we do every day on "The Department of Justice".
Happy New Year!
If you wear a shirt with this on it, you'd better wear a helmet. Because someone will probably want to beat the tar out of you.
However, Charlie doesn't necessarily believe that right extends beyond himself and maybe some of his best buddies.
So when Mike Mathias chooses to talk about childhood obesity and expresses his disappointment that Donald Driver, a hero to young and old here in Wisconsin, has a promotional relationship with McDonald's, well, that is enough to give Charlie conniptions. He ranted about it on the air. He ranted about it on his blogsite.
Apparently, Mr. Mathias isn't allowed to express his opinion. Charlie writes:
Listener asks: "When did ‘humorless’, ‘sanctimonious’, and ‘liberal’ become synonyms?"
and then goes on to link and quote from Mr. Mathias's post.
I didn't get a chance to see it myself, but apparently Charlie, the former journalist, the former Milwaukee Magazine editor, and the so-called "blogfather" was so upset that he couldn't even spell correctly.
Oh, and Charlie, just for your edification, even liberals have the right to free speech and are free to criticize. Despite the best efforts of you and your ilk, this is still a (relatively) free country.
What McIlheran apparently doesn't understand is that neither Patraeus or Ahmadenijad are true leaders. They are figureheads at best. Petraeus has to answer to Bush and do his bidding, else be removed from command. Likewise, Ahmadenijad doesn't hold the real power in his country either.
But given the fact that McIlheran himself rarely shows an original thought, he is probably more comfortable liking these mountebanks.
In my more-stuff post on emergency contraception the other day, I mentioned that
Catholic Bishop Robert Morlino of Madison had just this week come out in opposition to the bill that would order hospitals to pass out Plan B.
As was mentioned before, hospitals and doctors would not be ordered to pass out Plan B. They would be ordered to inform the patient of the options for medical treatment, which would be the ethical thing to do.
That means the patient would then be allowed to consult with the doctor and determine what course of treatment they would prefer. I guess freedom is just a liberal thing and Father McIlheran doesn't get it. But he should feel reassured by the bill, because the next time he gets raped and becomes impregnated, he can make the choice to keep the baby.
Our friend Kay has a few thoughts to share as well:
Also, any invasive surgery or medical treatment should not be forced or denied to any person. There are always two sides to every coin and when you start talking about denying medical treatment based on anything other than medical science then you have to look at the move towards forced medical procedures. A case in point would be my sister-in-law who had to have a planned pregnancy terminated due to both the inability of the fetus to survive as well as her own health. She had this done at a Catholic hospital in Milwaukee,( I won't post the name because of medical confidentiality). Now, what if the doctors would have thought that there was a chance of the survival of the baby at the risk of her life?
You can read the rest of the post here. For some reason, I think a woman would have a stronger understanding and argument in this matter than McIlheran.
Wednesday, December 19, 2007
This time we are talking about their stance about illegal immigration. Other Side Of My Mouth has found an interesting post regarding the Christian right and immigration, among other things. Other Side has already highlighted some of the key points, so make sure to read his post, but here are some excerpts that we agree are important:
SIDENOTE TO OTHER SIDE: Have you seen Tim Rock? I'm trying to find him.
But it's on their policies concerning immigrants where Republicans -- candidates and voters alike -- really run afoul of biblical writ. Not on immigration as such but on the treatment of immigrants who are already here. Consider: Christmas, after all, celebrates not just Jesus's birth but his family's flight from Herod's wrath into Egypt, a journey obviously undertaken without benefit of legal documentation. The Bible isn't big on immigrant documentation. "Thou shalt neither vex a stranger nor oppress him," Exodus says the Lord told Moses on Mount Sinai, "for ye were strangers in the land of Egypt."
We've seen this kind of Christianity before in America. It's more tribal than religious, and it surges at those times when our country is growing more diverse and economic opportunity is not abounding. At its height in the 1920s, the Ku Klux Klan was chiefly the political expression of nativist Protestants upset by the growing ranks of Catholics in their midst.
It's difficult today to imagine KKKers thinking of their mission as Christian, but millions of them did.
Today's Republican values voters don't really conflate their rage with their faith. Lou Dobbs is a purely secular figure. But nativist bigotry is strongest in the Old Time Religion precincts of the Republican Party, and woe betide the Republican candidate who doesn't embrace it, as John McCain, to his credit and his political misfortune, can attest.
Not all liberal bloggers are worth exposing, of course. For example, someone just emailed me the latest liberal blog attack on me. An anonymous liberal hate blog is now libelously claiming that I'm misrepresenting myself by terming myself a university "faculty member", which is a title the JMC department's chairman specifically told me that I was authorized to use before I used it. In fact, if these rocket scientists had bothered going on the department website, they'd see JMC labels all instructional staff part of faculty, including ad hocs, who are working journalists who teach 1 class. These guys might also remember that I am married to a lawyer. If they keep defaming me, there might come a day I decide enough's enough. For now, I don't find them relevant enough to take such a stance, and I only find out about their libel piecemeal from others.
First off, rather than going by labels on a departmental web site the Brawler went by the UW system chapter of the Wisconsin Administrative Code. And it's quite clear: A lecturer -- which this eponymous liberal basher is -- is not faculty.
That said, it does appear that department head told this eponymous blogger that she could use said designation. And it seems (and this was a designation that the Brawler must admit he was ignorant of before originally posting) that a lecturer can have faculty status without having a faculty appointment. Presumably -- and the Brawler does not know definitively -- this would be the basis for the former radio host's claim. Check out 1.01 (1) B of UWM policy and procedures.
The language says:
Faculty status means the right to participate in the faculty governance of the university. Faculty status does not confer rank or tenure or convert an academic
staff appointment into a faculty appointment.
So apparently you can be a faculty member even if you don't have a faculty appointment.
Don't conservatives typically oppose titles or honors that are meant to make people "feel good" rather than recognize actual achievement?
And the reality is that under the WAC, Jessica McBride is not part of the faculty. She's part of the academic staff.
And that ain't libel!
UPDATE: Interesting observations in comments on the ins and outs of faculty/academic staff.
Of course, McIlheran seems to be confused about giving information and mandating a specific treatment, but if he let a little thing like reality get in his way, he'd have nothing to write about.
One of the commenters at this post made a good point:
I'm a Catholic opposed to abortion. I'm also opposed to a doctor letting his/her faith interfere with treating a patient. Where does it end? Force-feeding a brain-dead patient against the power of attourney (sic) wishes. A Muslim doctor refusing to treat a patient who is alchohlic (sic). These situations have happened. Regular oral contraceptives can prevent a fertilized egg from planting into the uterus. So should a doctor refuse to provide oral contraception because it is against their faith?
And our friend Mike Mathias, at Pundit Nation, adds:
And, again, if your conscience won’t permit you to offer a minimum level of care to a rape victim, take a pass on entering the emergency medicine field.
There’s probably an opening somewhere pushing down elderly widows or taking bets at dog fights.
So much for the religion of tolerance.
For a more detailed look at the goings on up north, I would suggest Illusory Tenant's posts here, here and here. And Illusory Tenant is one of McBride's favorite bloggers, since she is always mentioning him, so you know it must be good reading.
Now someone can correct me if I'm wrong, but Jensen won't be punished "far more severely" than Chuck Chvala and Brian Burke, both of whom did the right thing by accepting responsibility for their roles in the same criminal behavior Jensen engaged in and accepting the punishments meted out. Apparently, Jess Bucher seems to think Jensen should be held to a lesser standard, making me wonder why that could be. However, I'm sure it has nothing to do with Jensen's political affiliation, because that'd expose Jess Bucher as nothing more than a conservative shill...oh wait, too late.
Why don't the conservatives let professional baseball players named in the steroid scandal get away with the "everyone did it" excuse, but use it avidly for Scott Jensen?
Tuesday, December 18, 2007
Anyway, here is the footage. Please be advised it may take a minute or two to fully download.
And please think kindly of the poor souls who were hurt and/or killed in its procurement.
In his second post to save the world, McIlheran talks about the supposed farce that personification of all things evil, the Kyoto Treaty. In his effort to vanquish his foe, he writes:
Between 1997, the year before the world achieved Kyoto Consciousness, and 2004, carbon dioxide worldwide rose 18 percent. Emissions from countries that signed the treaty increased 21 percent. Emissions from countries that didn't sign increased 10 percent. Emissions from the U.S. increased 6.6 percent.He makes a terrible (for him) flaw, and provides us with a table full of information. Oh, when will he ever learn. By giving people facts that they can look at, he always proves to be his own undoing.
You can do the math yourself off still more recent data: Download the figures here from the federal Department of Energy.
Now, if one would happen to look at the table he provides, you can see his numbers appear to be correct. But a more discerning eye (like one that is open) would discern that the "small change" in the U.S. level of pollution is greater than the entire amount of pollution currently being created in all of Africa or all of Central and Southern America.
What McIlheran is hoping for, is that no one would notice that when you have a country like ours that produces so much pollution, that even a small change would equal a large amount of toxins being pumped into the environment.
With heroes like him, it's a wonder we're still alive.
Anyway, at the end of her little snarkfest, she adds these lines:
By the way, where is Leo Burt? He's not Whallah, is he?And what should break in the news today, but this story:
Tip on UW bombing fugitive leads nowhere
A tip that investigators hoped would lead them to Leo Burt, a suspect in the bombing of the University of Wisconsin-Madison's Sterling Hall and a federal fugitive for more than 37 years, proved fruitless, authorities said.
"It proved to be nothing," FBI spokesman Leonard Peace said. "Leo Burt is not in custody.
"Robert Fassnacht, a 33-year-old graduate student, was killed in the Aug. 24, 1970, early morning bombing. Four others were injured. The fertilizer bomb in a van was so powerful that it damaged 26 other buildings. Pieces of the van were found on top of an eight-story building three blocks from Sterling Hall.
Burt, who according to the FBI is either 57 or 59, was accused of assisting three men in the bombing. Karl Armstrong; his brother, Dwight Armstrong; and David Fine were arrested, imprisoned and paroled decades ago.
But Burt has somehow eluded arrest.
There's more to the story, but you get the drift.
Whallah! is waiting for a copy of the police report. Until then, we will not comment on the speculation that McBride called the authorities on us.
He then asks McBride if she will admit that she is not a UWM faculty member.
Methinks that ol' Brawler is being a bit unfair. We have to first determine if she qualifies as a real journalist before we can determine if she is an ethical one.
One email that I don't think he will be posting is the one from Kristen Crowell of the Progressive Majority Wisconsin. Since Charlie won't, Whallah! will, so, whallah!:
I thought I would weigh in since the County Executive was speaking about a poll that we commissioned. This poll was conducted among spring voters and did not "steer" the answers towards Senator Taylor in any way. It was not a "push poll" as is alleged, more an accurate picture of the electorate.
The County Executive is nervous because this poll shows this picture of the voters today and this picture isn't pretty for him. The poll shows that voters want to replace Walker and will vote for Senator Lena Taylor, a Milwaukee native and resident running to unseat him.
Walker's charge that we are a liberal firm fronting for a liberal candidate is simply a smokescreen to distract your readers from the truth. The truth is that Walker never once got an approval rating over 50%, a terrible place for an incumbent to be only months before the election. We are a progressive organization, that much Walker gets correct, but in no way could this poll manipulate the minds and hearts of the residents of Milwaukee County. Residents, of whom only 31% strongly favor Walker, residents who 49% believe that Milwaukee County is headed in the wrong direction, and residents who will vote this spring.
Need I then bring up the 8th County Board seat? The seat that became vacant when Ryan McCue became the Mayor of Cudahy? The one where the Walker-endorsed candidate lost to Pat Jursik. That was in August, well before the campaign for County Executive started and even then voters weren't moved. Walker should be afraid, but he shouldn't be afraid of our poll, he should be afraid of the reality that he has created. Voters want someone new, he did that all by himself.
Gotta love it.
Am I reading you correctly that you believe Ann Coulter is in the realm of journalism or that the Fairness Doctrine could somehow discourage free speech?
November 23, 2007 10:32 PM
Ann Coulter is an opinion-maker, just like Maureen Dowd is. Are they journalists? They are not objective journalists. They are opinion writers.
Would the Fairness Doctrine restrict and chill free speech? Yes. It already has.
November 23, 2007 11:44 PM
However, in a more recent post, in which she asks some of Whallah!'s esteemed colleagues to join her on her blogtalkradio program, she writes this:
Even though some liberal bloggers have libeled me, and called me the "C" word, I decided it would be interesting to invite a few of the more intelligent ones to do an end-of-the-year blog talk radio show with me and a few conservatives (names TBA). I did this in all sincerity. I get sick of hearing liberals talking to liberals and conservatives talking to conservatives sometimes. I thought an end-of-the-year show mixing it up in a respectful manner would be interesting to people and inform the public debate.In other words, she was against the Fairness Doctrine before she was for it. There may be hope for her yet. (Plus she shows that she still can't let go of a grudge, but we already knew that.)
I found the responses laughable but also sort of disappointing. This is what passes for discourse in Wisconsin these days. Shouldn't the blogosphere strive for more? If this is all it's going to amount to, its influence will only wane. Rock's response was also pretty funny. He thinks I gain legitimacy by having liberals on my Internet show? I gain legitimacy with the people I respect by TRASHING liberals on my Internet show. Especially those like him. By the way, some blogger no one's ever heard of named "Tim Rock" is talking to ME about legitimacy?
So, she admits that she is writing an abuse/hate blog. Well, then, I guess she would have to admit that Whallah!, which she calls a lefty abuse/hate blog, is legitimate as well.
Not that we would ever look to McBride for validation. We would prefer to get the approval of someone who is reality-based.
Monday, December 17, 2007
She now has the brainstorm of doing an end-of-the-year show, and wanted to invite some liberal bloggers to join her. She reported that she sent out invitations to Xoff, Jay Folkbum (that would be Jay Bullock to you and me), and Paul Soglin. Unfortunately for McBride, Jay and Paul were both busy and Xoff had too much self-respect.
Well, Whallah! would like to help McBride out. She can email me at firstname.lastname@example.org and I would be glad to help. We could also get Illusory Tenant to help out too, since she seems to be having problems getting people. But something tells me she might ask Jim Rowen and Eugene Kane first.
SIDENOTE : Whoever this Tim Rock person is, please email me at the same address. I'd love to have you as a contributor to Whallah!
UPDATE: IT has checked his schedule. Unfortunately he is also busy. He said that he plans on celebrating Christmas by "burning down a church and eating a baby." (Yes, Jessica, that was a joke.) Oh well, maybe the Brawler would be available, although she would need a lot more conservatives than her and Paul to take us on.
Among those who could ID both candidates, Taylor led by more than 20 points. Walker's job performance was given a thumb's up by 42%, compared with 49% who gave him negative marks.
It does say something about Scott Walker that these two would defend him. And that something isn't a good thing.
Sunday, December 16, 2007
Which begs the question: What HAS Hillary accomplished? What idea has she wned? Don't say health care because failed projects aren't accomplishment.
Don't give me bio. That's not accomplishment....
This is coming from a woman who has her own "failed project" and has to pad her own biography to give her a false sense of gravitas. Which, again, raises the question: Why is she teaching journalism?
Anyway, she is still plugging for this. It is even more telling on who listens to it (emphasis mine):
The call in number for tomorrow night's Sunday Talk: (646) 378-1039. The show will start at 10 p.m. I'll have the topics posted by tonight or early tomorrow AM. I like to see if anything new develops before deciding.
Posted by Jessica McBride at 9:42 AM
WHat are tomorrow night topics?
15, 2007 1:27 PM
Either they can't read, or just really, really, really need to be told what to think.
As most people know, Madonna follows the teachings of Kabbalah, which honors Jewish tradition, thus they don't celebrate Christmas.
However, I am sure that Madonna is equally glad that she won't have to entertain McBride, whether for Christmas or for Channukah.
Two major Jewish and Muslim organizations unveiled an interfaith dialogue curriculum yesterday and are urging their hundreds of thousands of members to use it. Both sides say it is the broadest Jewish-Muslim interfaith effort in the continent's history.
Rabbi Eric H. Yoffie, president of the Union for Reform Judaism, North America's largest Jewish movement, announced the partnership with the Islamic Society of North America at his group's biennial convention in San Diego.
"As a once-persecuted minority in countries where anti-Semitism is still a force, we understand the plight of Muslims in North America today," Yoffie said yesterday. "We live in a world in which religion is manipulated to justify the most horrific acts, a world in which -- make no mistake -- Islamic extremists constitute a profound threat. For some, this is a reason to flee from dialogue, but in fact the opposite is true. When we are killing each other in the name of God, sensible religious people have an obligation to do something about it."
This summer Yoffie became the first major Jewish leader to address ISNA, the continent's largest Muslim organization with 30,000 attendants coming to its annual convention. ISNA President Ingrid Mattson will address the 980-congregation Jewish group today, the first leader of a major Muslim group to do so.
"There exists in our community a profound ignorance about Islam, along with a real desire to learn about what moves and motivates Muslims today. We must respond to this desire with serious programs of education," he said.
Both groups already have dialogue programs with various other faith groups, but on a much smaller scale.
Saturday, December 15, 2007
Ignorance of the law is no excuse, we're told. How about ignorance of the facts?
The latest, on a brewing scandal for Al Sharpton:
If Al Sharpton goes down over this, will fellow Democrats be tarnished for knowing him, like Republicans were tarnished for knowing Jack Abramoff? Will this be painted as symbolic of corruption in the Democratic party at large, like the Mark Foley scandal and the GOP?Lest we forget, Republicans (and even a few Dems) didn't get into trouble because they "knew" Jack Abramoff. They got into trouble because lobbyist Abramoff pretty much owned them lock, stock and barrel, buying them with boatloads of money, gifts, free trips, and more. In return, they did his bidding in the Congress.
It's been a little while, so here's a refresher on Abramoff's misdeeds.
There is, of course, no comparison to what Sharpton's accused of doing.
Friday, December 14, 2007
After reading this, and the comment thread, I almost felt sorry for her. So I thought I'd find a way to bolster her spirits, pick up her mood, and help her self-esteem. I thought, "Hey, none of us are her students, maybe she really is a good teacher, and just a bad blogger. Let's see what the kids think of her."
So I went to http://www.ratemyprofesser.com/ and looked up McBride. I found that she did have some students that had opinions to offer:
Its all about "me". This woman is has some real issues and needs to seek professional help. God help you if you if expose your moderate or left of center views
Boring, and she doesn't stop talking about herself!
Jessica tends to ramble about herself, her husband and child. She gets fixated on a few students. After taking her class, I don't know how UWM could give one biased a forum? I read a story in Milw Mag about how unfair she is. She herself admited that journalism wasn't fair. Huh? Perhaps she should teach creative writing. But she can't spell.
She teaches a class called itsallaboutme-ism
Biased **** beyond belief. Trashed the integrity of the entire department. She grades based on how hard you appear to laugh at her boring stories. I used to sit there and count off how many minutes she would be late, and then how many she'd talk about her boring kid, or her stupid life or her trouble finding parking... Generally 1/3 of classtime was wasted on her general blabber. It's a VERY easy A though, if you're willing to kiss her ass.
Hmmm...I guess that wasn't a good idea after all. Sorry, Jessica. But it still raises the question: Why is she teaching? And: If she has to teach, is journalism the best choice for her?
McIlheran posted one of his parrot pieces, supporting our other good friend, McBride. In the comments thread of said post, a liberal, apparently from Delafield, confronts old Pat on his gun-crazed illogic thought patterns. Pat responds thus:
Guns are no more the problem than are, say, kitchen knives. Three people have in the past few weeks been beaten by youths on buses in Baltimore. Buses are not the problem, either -- the hands that did the beating are, just as are the hands that wield guns to shoot people. It is the criminal, not the tool, that must be controlled.Well, I don't know about McIlheran, but I wouldn't want to be beaten or shot, but if I had to choose between only those two options, I would go with the beating. However, McIlheran defeats his own argument with using this example. The people that were beaten are still alive. How many of the people shot in the latest string of mass murders can say that? And as I pointed out, I haven't seen a story lately of someone going on a mass murder spree with a knife, much less a bus. Unless he's watched the movie Speed so much he thinks it's real.
Statistics clearly show that a person carrying a gun for defense is more likely to thwart an attack than is an unarmed person. We have lots of examples of the latter -- unarmed people, unresisting, attacked, robbed and killed nonetheless. So, no, pacifism won't make us safe -- simply look, further, at the statistics on people injured or killed in home invasion robberies in Britain vs. the United States.
As for states' prerogatives on guns and abortion, there's a straightforward difference. The right to keep and bear arms is in the constitution. Second amendment, in fact, up above the part about search and seizure. The right to abortion is nowhere in the constitution, having been entirely ginned up out of "penubras"(sic) and such in what is now widely regarded as one of the most egregious examples of jurisprudential nonsense in a century.
Then he starts with the statistics, but provides none. But even then, he fails to mention that there are less gun deaths per year in all of Europe than in one average American city.
McIlheran really shows why he is always linking to other people expressing their opinions instead of making his own arguments in the last paragraph. He can't keep a train of thought for more than two paragraphs and tries to compare the constitutionality of having the right to gun someone down versus abortion.
Some advise for Patrick. Just pick one topic per post and try to stay to that. It will confuse you and your reader a lot less.
Not only are they about to let out a bunch of crackheads, The state of Wisconsin will also be handing out Get of of jail free cards to ALL black people accused of a crime if Jim Doyle has his way.[my italics]
Ah, I get it now: crackhead = black people.
Would anyone with basic comprehension skills read that and sneeringly suggest we're winning in Afghanistan?
Would anyone with basic comprehension skills read a passage saying a troop shortage makes it "hard to consolidate military victories and bring security to government-controlled areas" -- and prevent suicide attacks killing civilians -- and translate it as "To be sure, NATO commanders in Afghanistan say they're short of troops at times and in places"?
After reading this, it's easier to understand why McIlheran thinks we're winning in Iraq.
The groundwork for this conclusion can be found here.
Thursday, December 13, 2007
Meanwhile, Tim Rock has a graphic presentation on how our own McBride has a propensity of going to absurd ends to try to make an irrational point seem rational. If you think he is being hyperbolic, just read this post of McBride's, in which she tries to deny she is pro-war.
But as the Brawler points out in some of the best investigative reporting ever seen in this city, this rash of abuse and fraud are so prevalent, when one of the people teaching the journalists of tomorrow is an abusive fraud herself.
In a post, we find Bellowing bellowing about, what else, taxes. Yawn. Anyway, he tries to prove his point using the Laffer Curve. Mark tries to use this curve as a tool to prove taxes are too hight and that is why the government is not maximizing tax revenues.
However, Paul Soglin at Waxing America, points out that he is not using the curve the correct way (emphasis mine):
If you believe in this hocus-pocus, at least get it right. Laffer argues that there is an optimal point were the tax rate will result in the greatest revenue for the government.
Set the tax rate too high, and revenues decline. Set the rate to low and revenues decline.
In other words, taxes might be too low.
More misinformation from right wing Milwaukee talk radio.
Yeah, Paul, tell us something we don't already know.
Two days ago, Mike Mathias points out that even the people that did the waterboarding of an al Qaeda leader admitted it was torture. Not only does Mathias show a prescient quality with this post, but enhances his uncanny ability by saying:
McIlheran and other torture advocates get upset when anyone points out that by torturing its detainees the United States is aligning itself with countries like Iraq, Syria, and Egypt of recent years and dictatorial governments of the past from the Soviet Union and Germany. Yet no one’s upset that a mentally ill man was tortured until he provided information about imaginary plots?
Long term, is it Al-Qaeda or people like McIlheran posing a threat to our democracy?
Today, McIlheran proves that he suffers from selective myopia, with a post using someone else's distortion of the story. Not only is McIlheran two days late, he still gets it wrong.
And I would be remiss, if I did not point out the comment on McIlheran's post, who points out the true definition of torture:
The U.S. government, in 1947, convicted a Japanese military officer of torture for waterboarding a U.S. citizen...and sentenced him to 15 years hard labor. Even if it gets these Islamic nihilists to talk, waterboarding is inhumane regardless of whether or not it "leaves a mark."
And what do you mean by "traditional understanding of torture?" Sixty years ago our government prosecuted a waterboarding case, calling it torture. Today there is supposedly a "debate" about whether this sadistic tactic constitutes torture? The real torture is trying to follow the logic of this argument that somehow we can behave like Huns while calling ourselves Americans.
Wednesday, December 12, 2007
I guess I should just be glad she has figured out how to change the colors of her words.
She must either be very tired, not very emotionally stable at the moment, really a teenager, or John, who also wrote this in the comment thread in another post of McBride's:
More guns means more violence.
Nobody is safer with MORE GUNS.
Concealed carry will lead to WILD WEST SHOOTOUTS!!
If the criminal with intention to kill as many as possible scares you liberals, shouldn't the armed, trained, brave WOMAN with the RIGHT and ability to SAVE lives be the ANTIDOTE???
Nah, you LIBERALS would rather allow more innocent citizens to die, than to empower GOOD PEOPLE to PROTECT themselves and us.
The best one still belongs to Whallah!'s founder, Template, who came up with McSykes.
Of course, McBride won't give credit where credit is due.
Now in the wake of that murder, she posts another inane item, this time calling for the courts to give Andres Vegas his gun back. As a reminder to the reader, Andres Vegas is another pizza delivery guy that was mugged twice, and had bought some guns to protect himself. After shooting someone, the police took his guns away.
McBride is demanding that Mr. Vegas get his gun back. Um, note to McBride, he already did, two weeks ago.
Not surprisingly, Sykes pupil Jessica McBride has a problem with her bonafides as well.
On her blog, Jessica has this to say about herself:
I am a journalism faculty member at the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee (Master's degree, Mass Communication, 2004), a Waukesha Freeman newspaper columnist, and a former Milwaukee Journal Sentinel reporter and talk radio host.
Unfortunately for Jessica, that bit bolded by the Brawler is factually untrue -- a killer error as the journalism kids call it. That's because Jessica is a lecturer at UW-M. And a lecturer, as defined by the UW System chapter of the Wisconsin Administrative Code, IS NOT considered faculty. Faculty consists of four classifications: professor, associate professor, assistant professor and instructor.
A lecturer like McBride is instead considered instructional academic staff.
(The classification of lecturer as instructional academic staff can be found on page 13 of this document.)
Now, obviously nothing is wrong with being a lecturer. In theory it's a noble activity. But, fairly or not, saying you're part of the "instructional academic staff" sounds a lot less impressive than saying you're part of the "faculty."
As far as the Brawler can see, Jessica misleads on her position at the university for one of two reasons:
- She doesn't know that a lecturer is not considered faculty.
- She knows a lecturer is not considered faculty but knows it'll sound more impressive to say she's on the faculty.
(One wonders if someone tried to set her straight on this ... obviously she knows people who know the distinction.)
So Jessica misidentifies herself either out of ignorance or outright deception.
Misrepresenting yourself -- with very few exceptions and this doesn't rise to that level -- is a big no-no in journalism. And it's certainly something that a journalism lecturer shouldn't be doing.
How soon will Jessica correct this misrepresentation?
And: Why is Jessica McBride teaching journalism?
UPDATE: Jessica responds.
Phelony Jones said...
I think we should scour the backgrounds of journalists and plaster them all over [insert media outlet].
What the h have they ever done.
Now, can you even imagine the stuff that would be flying out of the proverbial fan if someone were to really go into depth about the background histories of our local right-wing media?
ATTENTION: Please feel free to comment, but please don't write anything I'll have to delete. Keep it clean, keep it generic, and don't let it become personal. We don't need to stoop to their level.
McBride doesn't like this. The Minneapolis Star Tribune points out that the hero security guard was a former Minney cop who was fired after lying during an internal investigation of an incident in which she cussed out a bus driver. This irks McBride and her readers to no end.
There are also other things of relevance to the story that McBride isn't covering. These are covered by, ironically, one of her archenemies (she has so many) Illusory Tenant. They include the fact that the guard indeed did not kill the gunman, but he shot himself in the head and the cult-like atmosphere of the megachurch itself. She is probably waiting to figure out how to pin the blame for the tragedy on illegal immigrants, islamofacists, Democrats, hate/abuse blogs and/or Eugene Kane.
Ironically, she is upset that the media is doing their job in this tragedy and getting out the news about the players in this incident, but she is, at the same time, griping that there is no news about the players in the Crandon shootings.
The good point:
Although watching Tim Cuprisin trying to stick a plastic ruler in the snow is a lot more enjoyable than watching all the TV reporters who, with straight faces, stand there and "inform" us about what's going on outside our own windows. WE GET IT ALREADY!!!! IT'S SNOWING A LOT!!!!See, she gets one right once in a while (even if she uses too many exclamation points). Almost everyone can agree that the local TV stations get carried away with the report out in the blizzard, rainstorm, hurricane, etc. type of story.
But she can't leave well enough alone:
Oh, and note to radio talk show hosts: When we're stuck at home because of the snow, we would enjoy hearing you talk about the issues, since normally we don't get to listen during the day, rather than hear your endless commentary about the snow we're not driving in anyway. Snow just isn't that interesting!
Note to Jessica: Not all of us are overpaid, unqualified public employees sucking off the public teat and getting to stay home on a snow day. Those of us that take our work seriously and have to be out on the road want to know what's going on.
And besides, listening to how much snow they have in Cudahy versus how much snow they have in Germantown is much more interesting than anything any talk show host would have been saying anyway.