Sunday, March 15, 2009

Squawk Radio Doing Itself In

For decades, squawkers on national and local levels, have been advocating for irresponsible economic policies. They had fully enjoined the call for the Iraq War and other irresponsible spending while demanding excessive tax cuts for the rich. They have systematically tried to destroy the middle class by trying to bust up unions. The squawkers have repeatedly pushed for all of the wealth to be in the hands of the few, hoping to be rewarded for their loyalty by getting some of these fortunes handed their way, like a dog begging at the dinner table.

Now it is all coming back to bite them in the microphone:
But for all the anti-tax swagger and the occasional stunts by personalities like KFI's John and Ken, the reality is that conservative talk radio in California is on the wane. The economy's downturn has depressed ad revenue at stations across the state, thinning the ranks of conservative broadcasters.

For that and other reasons, stations have dropped the shows of at least half a dozen radio personalities and scaled back others, in some cases replacing them with cheaper nationally syndicated programs.
And as James Rowen, who found this story, points out, these things tend to take time to work from the West to the East, it will be a only a matter of time until it reaches here. Remember, Clear Channel, which runs WISN-AM, recently announced a large amount of layoffs. And Journal Broadcasting Group, parent company of WTMJ-AM, tried to tell the unions that they would be laying off people, although that may have been a lie in trying to force an unfair contract on the unions.


  1. "...enjoined the call for the Iraq War..."

    There is no Iraq War. Instead there is a Global War on Terrorism and Operations in Iraq and Afganistan.

    The term Iraq War is a ploy to spin the war towards your own ends.

  2. Wow:

    Let me see...there is no Santa Claus, there is no Easter Bunny, there is no trickle down economic effect...but, there is no Iraq War? You mean a premptive war in and against Iraq when no link to terrorism against the United States existed is not an Iraq war?

    There were no weapons of mass destruction, but there is an Iraq War.

    Saying there is no Iraq war goes beyond spin into delusion. But I'll bite. There is no Iraq war. All dead Iraqi civilians may now stand up. This was just a demonstration, like a Civil War reinactment. Koolaide and donuts will be served by the pavilion.

  3. any mouse,

    It's just a fact. It's a Global War on Terrorism, with Operations in Traq and Afganistan.

    Hyperbole about the easter bunny etc... does not change the facts.

    I see the same doom and gloom that you do, but what you are describing are in fact Operations in Iraq.

  4. O.K. I'm going to agree with you. Capper's sentence should have been:

    "...enjoined the call for operations in the war on terror in Iraq, where the 911 terrorists did not live, and had no connection, interaction or proven affiliation..."

  5. "....where the 911 terrorists did not live, and had no connection, interaction or proven affiliation..."

    Better,,,,but Terrorism is not restricted to 9/11.

  6. So, why do we need the Fairness Doctrine or more regulation? If the market is working it's self out, what's the point? It's called the free market.

  7. Rich, I don't think our dead soldiers or the hundreds of thousands of dead Iraqis, or any of their loved ones, really give a rat's ass what the war is called.

  8. "Rich, I don't think our dead soldiers or the hundreds of thousands of dead Iraqis, or any of their loved ones, really give a rat's ass what the war is called."

    Actually, they do care because it is a fatal mistake to enter any war w/o the will to win it. And if spin Dr.s have their way, the American people will lose their grasp on what the fight is for and they will subsequently lose the will to win it. So, it does matter a great deal.

    In fact it is a Global War on Terrorism.

  9. Rich:

    If the Iraq war was a war on terrorism, than it was a terrible failure, because this preemptive strike against a sovereign nation spawned terrorists like a swamp breeds mosquitos. It also lowered the status of the United States throughout the world, multiplied our enemies, and shortened our list of friends.

    Please enlighten me then. You say this is NOT an Iraq war, but a global war on terror. Why didn't we attack Saudi Arabia, where the terrorists actually came from, and where W. has some friendly oil holdings? Saudi Arabia is on the globe.

    We certainly need to attack Iran, for there are terrorists there...why haven't we expanded this global war into Iran?

    What about Pakistan, seems to me terrorists pass back and forth over that border, lets attack!

    And when we are done doing all that, all we will have proven is that Osamba Bin Ladin was right all along. Bring down the towers, and America will destroy itself in response against an enemy that had no change to defeat it in a real war.

    By your theory we should still be slugging it out in Viet Nam, where many of my brothers died. Better that more and more people die than one politician say the words, "I made a mistake."

    Don't forget Dan, we were told we were fighting for "freedom" in Viet Nam, just like we are telling our soldiers now.

    No, it seems to me W. was happy to normalize trade relations with Viet Nam (where I assume we lost our freedom in 1974) while attacking Iraq (obstensibly to fight of the freedom we already lost in Vietnam), so that free trade could occur over soil stained with the blood of boys I knew. By your words we should have just had the "will to win" and let countless others spill their blood for no reason...I mean for "freedom."

    Let me get your reply to include an answer to one question, Dan. We were told we were fighting for freedom in Vietnam, and many boys died believing that. As I assume you believe we are still free, wasn't that a lie? I mean, isn't that simple linear logic? And if that was a lie, might not it also be so for the young men dying for "freedom" in Iraq?

    I note that all those who expound on the virtues of dying for "freedom" are all pretty much alive, and happy to let others do their fighting.

    The reason the war in Iraq is confined to the Iraqi borders is that it was a war against Sadam Hussein and Iraq. Your first comment chastized Capper for calling it an Iraq War, saying it is a "global war on terror." If that is true, we have many more countries yet to attack, to the inevitable destruction of our own country, just as Osama imagined our stupidity would lead us to do when he envisioned the twin towers attack. Oh, and Osama? They guy we actually should have gotten?
    Still kicking, last I heard.

    Reminds me of the man who lost a twenty dollar bill and was looking for it in his livingroom.

    "Where did you lose it?" His wife asked.

    "In the basement." The man replied.

    "Then why are you looking for it here?" His impatient wife demanded.

    "Because the light is better here."

  10. Any mouse,

    Nice rant. But it doesn't change the fact that this is a GWOT.

    However, your randomness does make a great arguement for staying focused.

    Which is likely the answer to the majority of your questions.

  11. You left out an adjective -- the bogus war on terrorism.

    The so-called GWOT is in reality a marketing device, designed to divert attention away from the corruption and ineptitude that is the Bush administration.

    What we are fighting is the aftermath of this eight years of colossal failure.

    The Obama administration is doing this thing right which is going after this problem with a combination of going after the perpetrators of acts of terrorism combined with economic development.

    I'm not so strongly behind a pullout in Afghanistan because many of those terrorists would be hiding out in that country and Pakistan. If Obama pursues this will both peacekeepers and economic development this could work.

    Fighting a "war" however will be counterproductive and only prolong the problem.

  12. And in a separate matter Dan, stop waving around the red herring of the fairness doctrine. No Democrat is pushing it so give this a well deserved rest.

  13. Oh, how I love the way conservatives try to spin things. They think that if they change the name, make it sound more grandiose, that will change the reality of it. If you thing the word "chair" isn't exciting enough, they will just call it a "luxursiton" or some other silly, made up term.

    The Iraq War is an unjust invasion of another country that presented no immediate threat. Meanwhile, the real bad guys were allowed to traipse off to Afghanistan and Pakistan until they regained their former strength.

    Rich is correct when he says if you do go to war, you have to go to win it. What he left out is that the war has to be just.

  14. "They think that if they change the name, make it sound more grandiose, that will change the reality of it."

    The fact is that it is you that keep changing the name.

    It is an Operation in Iraq; and a GWOT. Just a fact.

    You all have every right to your own opinions; but no right to make up your own facts.

  15. Rich, you are going to keep pounding your fists on the floor about the GWOT.

    This was an immature idea by an immature president who wanted to gussy up his lack of anything having to do with gravitas.

    Most of us weren't suckered by it.

  16. Facts are facts.

    I'm not arguing either way (here on this post) on the rightness or wrongness of the GWOT and the Operations in Iraq and Afghanistan.

    I'm merely saying that keeping the facts straight should be a goal.

    And that IMHO the term "Iraq War" is a ploy to spin the war towards your own ends.

    Yes I will pound my fists when facts are trashed, as everyone should.

    Arguing the merits of the GWOT and the Operations in Iraq and Afghanistan is a completely seperate issue.

  17. The fact is that there was no valid reason to invade and occupy Iraq.

    And another fact is that it is a war in Iraq, hence the name Iraq War.

    By calling it an operation is to try to minimize the atrocity of it, and is disrespectful to the soldiers that gave their lives for it and for all of the innocent civilians that died needlessly.

  18. You have every right to your opinions. In fact it's what makes this country GREAT! (our ability to express our opinions).

    But when you make up your own facts, it makes it difficult to take you seriously. It's like testifying before Congress wearing a clown custume. Pretty difficult to be taken seriously.

    You have every right to the OPINION that it could be called a war in Iraq. And I respect that OPINION. But the fact is that it is a GWOT. Just a fact.

    If you'd like me to list all of the official government documents referring to the GWOT and the Operations in Iraq and Afgahnistan. I can.

    But can you do the same for your term, "Iraq War"? Without that, it's just not a fact. And insisting that it is a fact, says allot about how seriously you should be taken.

    Man, I hate being harsh, but facts are facts.

  19. As my wife will tell you, since Rich had the last word, he won the debate. By this criteria my wife is the best debater in the entire world. I just get tired of responding.

    So, it's not the Iraq War, it is the GWOT...and waterboarding is not torture, it is an enhanced interrogation technique.

    ...and as George W. Bush one said, when he though we had won the GWOT
    (I guess that's what he thought back then, since there was no Iraq war)

    "Mission Accomplished!"