She Teaches What?

This is a question from the Other Side of McBride, based on this:

Now I know that she is just writing on a blog. And I know she's probably writing bits and pieces between the times she spends with her daughter, or looking at the television, or scheming ways for her husband and herself to keep their name in the limelight (you know, like lawyering up for the Sheboygan One). But still, you would think she had a little more self-respect and would attempt to at least make some sense.

Read the rest of it here. His post is in regards to a post by McBride, critiquing a story in this morning MSJ about two police officers being shot on Milwaukee's south side.

In McBride's same post, she writes the following:

He also told WTMJ: "How do we deal with the drugs that are on the streets, and the violence that is associated with the drugs? And you have to ask yourself in the light of last night's shooting, where did the 15-year-old get this gun? That's a legitimate question and I know people don't want to ask it."

Answer: Don't release so-called "non-violent" drug offenders - AKA the Kathleen Falk/Journal Sentinel editorial board plan - into the community through diversionary programs. Remember that Falk wanted to release such inmates (read drug dealers, often with violent records) from state prisons. Hopefully, Barrett will use his soap box to oppose such plans next time they arise.

Her answer raises another question or two. Does she realize that her solution would cost a lot and would have to be paid for by taxpayers dollars? And will she keep this in mind next time she starts to complain about tax hikes?

This Is An Emergency!!!

Quick! Get the army! Get the navy! Get the air force! Get Dick Cheney and his shotgun!

We are facing a national crisis! (Or at least in McBride's world, we are.)

I just wonder if she will blame this on:

1. Democrats,
2. Islamofacist terrorists,
3. Illegal immigrants,
4. Hate/abuse blogsites, or
5. All of the above.

There Are Mandates, Then There Are Mandates

McBride, along with the rest of the right side of the blogosphere, is celebrating the failed refernda of various school systems. In her post, she cites a quote from the Hartford School Board President saying that they would have to come back at another time with another referendum. McBride responds to the quote with this:

Um, no, Ms. Carroll. The vote's a mandate to try something else - say cuts, efficiencies - not shove another referendum down people's throats.

Unfortunately, McBride's view of a mandate is rather myopic. She apparently forgets that last November, there was another mandate by the entire country. One that told the Bush misadministration that they should try something besides starting and perpetuating unjust wars, and not continuing to try to shove other wars down the people's throats.

Cut on the Bias

By Keith Schmitz

We should all be sick of the media bias charge that has been ground out by whiny conservatives over the past 15 years or so, because this is so disrespectful to a group of people who are just trying to do their job.

But not Jessica:

You could hook most MSM reporters up to a polygraph and, if they denied they have a liberal bias, they'd pass. There are, of course, exceptions, but liberal assumed truths are the starting point for many in newsrooms. Otherwise, we'd see many more stories about the economic cost of illegal immigration, among other things.

She teaches journalism doesn't she? What kind of person leads such a dual life where she is I think attempting to instill the ethics of the profession on young minds at UWM and then over on her blog treat her fans like rubes by claiming the media is made up of insincere people -- her students.

There are many professions -- law, the military, psychology, etc. -- where people tamp down their personal prejudices and act like professionals. They love what they do and treat it accordingly. Certainly conservatives have been cut enough slack by the media when balance is attempted in the case of evolution, global warming and other issues when they have no factual footing to stand on yet are given equal coverage for the sake of balance.

And this is the way the right wing pays the profession. Ingrates. This of course includes Charlie Sykes who was practically raised as a journalist and now turns on his brethren. Isn't there a 51st rule about such behavior?

Right wing talk radio of course came about because conservatives complained their were not treated fairly by the rational media. The problem is what these people want is to listen something that tells them soothing tales and essentially lies to them.

It's time we put a stop to this nonsense and stand up for journalists. Needless to say we have seen a none too subtle attack on freedom of the press.

Let's face it, there are certain professions that attract certain personalities. Journalists happen to be people who believe in passionately uncovering the truth, which constitutes news. They of course are human and sometimes their bias may poke through, but my bet is many who can't control that impulse get out of the business eventually.

And I have to be fooling my self to deny that people in the media don't fall prey to a number of other pressures including the so-called business side, but their supposed bias should be the least of our worries.

But as we all know, the truth has been especially hard on the right wing lately.

Impeachment -- Born on the 4th of July

By Keith Schmitz

Wait long enough and everyone does something you like as with Dennis Kucinich's proposal to open up impeachment proceedings to examine the behavior of Lord Dick Cheney. Jessica McBride is happy about this but of course for perverse reasons.

Jessica is delighted that despite efforts of spineless House Democrats trying to snuff out the proposal and the GOP being too clever by half in resurrecting the measure.

In an act of breathless clueless, she proclaims,

I'd love to have that debate. Bring it on. Let's debate it. Liberal readers, prove that Bush & Cheney "lied" or "misled" the country into war.

Um, guess Jessica has been too busy teaching news to read the news. Her glee should turn to gloom at the thought of the floor boards being yanked up to unearth Lord Cheney's largely secret deals for all to see during an election year, and the sweat pouring down the sweat of many GOP brows as whacks are taken at a man whose popularity rivals that of fried liver. This would be too easy.

I had the opportunity this 4th of July to hear the reading of the Declaration of Independence at the State House in Boston. Something seemed eerily familiar.

"WHEN, in the course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume, among the powers of the Earth, the separate and equal Station to which the Laws of Nature and of nature's God entitle them, a decent Respect to the Opinions of Mankind requires that they should declare the Causes which impel them to the Separation."

Among the many grievances listed against King George III were these:

"He has refused his assent to laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good."
"He has made judges dependent on his will alone, for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries."
"He has kept among us, in times of peace, standing armies, without the consent of our legislatures."
"He has affected to render the military independent of and superior to the civil power."
"He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his assent to their acts of pretended legislation."
"For depriving us, in many cases, of the benefits of trial by jury."
"For transporting us beyond seas to be tried for pretended offences."

A blog post from Jeffrey Kimball, professor of history at Miami University, indicates why:

"WHEREAS, George W. Bush and Richard B. Cheney conspired with others to defraud the United States of America by intentionally misleading Congress and the public regarding the threat from Iraq in order to justify a war in violation of Title 18 United States Code, Section 371; and

WHEREAS, George W. Bush has admitted to ordering the National Security Agency to conduct electronic surveillance of American civilians without seeking warrants from the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court of Review, duly constituted by Congress in 1978, in violation of Title 50 United States Code, Section 1805; and

WHEREAS, George W. Bush and Richard B. Cheney conspired to commit the torture of prisoners in violation of the 'Federal Torture Act'; Title 18 United States Code, Section 113C, the UN Torture Convention, and the Geneva Convention, which under Article VI of the Constitution are part of the 'supreme Law of the Land'; and

WHEREAS, George W. Bush and Richard B. Cheney acted to strip American citizens of their constitutional rights by ordering indefinite detention without access to legal counsel, without charge and without the opportunity to appear before a civil judicial officer to challenge the detention, based solely on the discretionary designation by the President of a U.S. citizen as an 'enemy combatant', all in subversion of law. ...

Be it resolved that George W. Bush and Richard B. Cheney, by such conduct, warrant impeachment and trial, and removal from office and disqualification to hold and enjoy any office of honor, trust or profit under the United States."

After the circus of vengeance known as the Clinton impeachment, you wonder where people in the GOP get the spheres to act like "nothing to look at here folks, let's move along."

Impeachment is not conviction, but the prospect of the spectacle of evidence that would be paraded before the American voters would not be pretty if you are a fan of Lord Cheney, and would very much ensure the GOP minority status for years to come. As John Nichols has pointed out many times, with the suspicion of wrong-doing on the part of this administration the Constitution calls out for the process to happen for the good of our system of government.

This is no mere firing of a government employee as in the case of Andrew Johnson or lying about a stained dress as with you know who, but the possibility of our rights as Americans being hijacked and our resources being wasted in one of the worst foreign policy moves in our history. Some GI can get time in the brig for willful destruction of government property in the hundreds of dollars so I think we have our standard.

I would not call this invasion of Iraq a mistake as some would, because there is strong evidence that Cheney cherry picked intelligence to get us into the Iraq quagmire. Even if we do gain a "victory" there, it has been at an outlandish cost far exceeding whatever protection TeamBush tries to tell us we attained.

Jessica knows this, and also knows that our so-called leadership in the House will find a way to quash this inquiry despite the demands of a large majority of the American people. They demand it and so does our form of government.

With Friends Like These, Who Needs Enemies?

On Sunday, McBride asked an inane question wondering if it was OK for Pakistan to be put under dictatorial control as opposed to having the opposite, like freedom. No one responded. (Where is John when you need him?)

Now she has a posting in which she offers a rebuttal to an editorial in the Milwaukee Sentinel Journal. Her post is classical McBride, with her unique view of reality through her special Neoconovision glasses, and her usual xenophobic rantings.

The part that particularly stands out is this:

I don't feel good about it, but Pakistan is a nuclear country. I'd rather have the country under the control of a pro-American, anti-terrorist Musharraf dictatorship than have our government pressure him into removing the iron fist that is preventing his government from falling, and see the country fall into the hands of extremist elements that align with terrorists instead.

It makes me recall two other leaders that were befriended by the ultimate Republican icon, Ronald Bonzo Reagan. One would be Osama bin Laden, who was fighting those mean old Russians in Afghanistan. He was doing what America supposedly wanted, and then blew up the Twin Towers. Now we are the ones fighting bin Laden in Afghanistan, when we aren't being distracted by having wars in oil-rich countries.

The other would be Saddam Hussein, who Reagan sold chemical weapons to, because he was making war on Iran. Unfortunately, Hussein was given enough chemicals, the he had enough left over that he could use on the Kurds. Of course, we know the rest of the story to that story.

So, if McBride, a conservative, says that she would rather have Musharraf run a dictatorship and keep the nuclear weapons, rather than allow terrorists, like judges and lawyers and citizens do radical things like have a constitution and free elections, I think we can all tell what the obvious choice would be. Let'em vote!

That's Dr. McBride To You

The Other Side again points out that McBride has an unique perspective of the world. Apparently, McBride has the power to render medical decisions about a case in England, just by reading a story on the Internet. Why is she teaching journalism, when she is such a darn good doctor?

There's No Radio Like Milwaukee Radio

When the state budget was finally being finished, McBride lamented that the Republicans who voted yes didn't know how to vote, because there was no talk radio to tell them what to do. This was, of course, easily refuted.

Now, McBride clarifies what she apparently meant. There is conservative talk radio in the state, it just not as important as Milwaukee's talk radio. So, in McBride's world, if the Republican legislators in upstate Wisconsin want to know what their constituents think, they need to listen to Milwaukee's talk radio, even though it may be several hundred miles away from their home base.

How To Tell When You're Losing A Debate

PaddyMac started out with an foolish post trying to justify the use of waterboarding, claiming it wasn't really torture. Later, he puts up another post, quoting a couple of other bloggers expressing their opinions, as validation for his own incorrect thinking.

This morning, Mike Mathias, at Pundit Nation, confronts PaddyMac's erroneous assertions regarding the whole waterboarding issue.

This afternoon, we see PaddyMac trying to make a retort to Mr. Mathias's arguments. The key word her is trying. PaddyMac tries to say that Mr. Mathias is losing his argument by making "an allusion" comparing PaddyMac to a Nazi. This is the first sign that PaddyMac is losing, when he makes false statements to distract from the true argument. What Mr. Mathias did say was

Am I saying that McIlheran is Eichmann? No, but I think he needs to examine which other countries have allowed torture and determine if they have governments he thinks the US wants to be associated with historically.

As one can see, Mr. Mathias actually goes out of his way to make sure that no one, except for PaddyMac apparently, would make that inference.

And if one would look at the wording Paddy uses in his first post, compared to his rebuttal to Mr. Mathias, an observant reader would notice that PaddyMac has gone from defending waterboarding as justified to calling it "debatable". Backpedalling is another sign of losing your argument.

But all that aside, I find it sad that PaddyMac, and many others on the right, try to justify the use of torture by citing the violence and atrocities committed by the terrorists. I don't think I would want to use a terrorist as a role model for my behaviors or the actions of my country, but then again, I know that I am above that. Apparently they don't.

UPDATE: Mike Mathias (or in PaddyMacese, Matthias) corrects PaddyMac's false assertions, and notes Paddy's own little tribute to adding to the Nazi rhetoric.

Equal Rights For Some

Last week, PaddyMac had a quick hit regarding the proposal to build a Walmart Supercenter in Cudahy. His post reads:

Is Wal-Mart really that bad?

Some 100 Cudahyans complained the other night that the rusting hulk of an abandoned ice arena might be replaced with . . . what, a toxic dump? A giant strip club? No, worse: a Wal-Mart Supercenter, the kind that sells groceries. Heaven forfend. "We do not need another outlet for cheap Chinese crap," said one guy who's apparently holding out for expensive Chinese crap. If you don't like Wal-Mart, don't shop there. If your neighbors do like it, who are you to get in the way, pal?

Apparently, to PaddyMac, people only have the right to an opinion if it matches his and/or his corporate buddies. Sorry, Paddy, but this is still America, not Amerika, and everyone can have their own opinion and the right to express it. And why should people that don't want WallyWorld moving into their neighborhood have it shoved down their throats, pal?

Selective Outrage

The right side of the blogosphere has itself in a tizzy about some conservative blogger in Sheboygan and her feud with the mayor of Sheboygan. Apparently, she has been going after the mayor for some time, and it is now boiling over when the mayor and city attorney sent her a cease and desist letter regarding her keeping a link to the Sheboygan Police Department's website. There have been some accusations going back and forth, regarding racism, strong arm tactics, and abuses of power. It is has become so prevalent that it garnered a post from Sykes, a series of posts from McBride, and some air time from Mark Belling.

Now, having only given the case at hand a preliminary examination, I think all would agree that the mayor was out of line with his actions. However, the right, especially McBride, are questioning why the left side of the blogosphere's haven't met their same level of frenzied outrage, and wonder if the left actually condones the mayor's actions.

Curiously, the right did not have the same outrage when former State Senator Tom Reynolds and friends tried to use strong arm tactics on lefty blogger Gretchen Schuldt of Milwaukee Rising, when she was being a citizen blogger and investigating possible campaign violations from Reynolds failed bid to be re-elected.

Nor do I remember the outrage at Milwaukee County Sheriff David Clarke when he abused his position and authority in trying to strong arm deputies who didn't agree with him, or actively opposed his actions, even though they did so on their own time.

In fact, instead of outrage, Clarke was praised as was Reynolds, who McBride actually called "untouchable".

The left might not have reached the fevered zeal of the right regarding the Sheboygan blogger, but at least they weren't as selective with their outrages.

UPDATE: According to various right-wing blogsites, the Sheboygan blogger is now receiving legal assistance in her case--the famous trial lawyer, Paul Bucher. One can only hope that he serves her better than he did the citizens of Waukesha County.

Mensa Members, They Ain't

Grumps at The Happy Circumstance has a couple of great posts showing why Mark Bellowing and Jessica McBride are not likely to become members of Mensa anytime in the near future.

Question Of The Day

If those that subjegate themselves to Rush Limbaugh's show call themselves "Dittoheads", would those that feed off of Charlie Sykes be known as "Chuckleheads"?

Anonymity

A couple of weeks ago, there was a bit of a to-do about Illusory Tenant and Jessica McBride and the use of a derogatory term. In the aftermath, Charlie Sykes criticized IT, Other Side and myself for choosing to use nom de blogs instead of our true names (even though Other Side does not keep his name a secret). He said that it added to the poor level of civility on the Internet and his followers echoed his sentiments in comment threads on this site and on IT's site. Ironically, most of the attacks for our maintaining our anonymity were from anonymous commentators.

It should not matter if we use our real names or pseudonyms. Many characters in history wrote under a nom de plume, and this was not considered to detract from the level of their work. Likewise, it should not affect the veritas of my writings or anyone else who chooses to remain anonymous. One will agree with what I write or not, whether they know my real name or not. Knowing my real name would not change their opinion.

Likewise, knowing one's name, doesn't necessarily add validity to what they write. Anyone who reads blogs could come up with a number of examples off the top of their head of a known blogger who is totally lacking in credibility and those who are anonymous that write honestly and intelligently.

But, for Charlie, a few recommendations. If my decision to remain anonymous upsets you, perhaps you should read a book called The End of Privacy: The Attack on Personal Rights at Home, at Work, On-Line, and in Court written by, oh yeah, Charlie Sykes. Or perhaps review your most recent book, especially the part about if you're offended, so what? Get over it.

But if Charlie really needs to have a moniker for me, perhaps he should just call me Liz Woodhouse.

Talk Radio Vs. The Leaf Blower

Well, I've been gone awhile, having the same sort of fun that every Wisconsin homeowner faces this time of year: blowing leaves, winterizing the house, blowing leaves, winterizing the cars, blowing leaves...well, you get the idea. As everyone knows, blowing and raking leaves is not the most intellectually stimulating or challenging job, and it does allow the mind to wander.

Some of the musings can be profound (Is there a God?) to the profrane (If there is a God, why the $%*!@ did he put all these $%&@* leaves in my &^#%@ yard?) and everywhere in between.

One of the things that crossed my mind was the comparison of my leaf blower to talk radio. There are some obvious similarities. They both exist only to constantly expel air, can drone on for hours, and if you listen to it long enough, it can make you insane.

One of the biggest differences is that at the end of the day, the leaf blower actually serves a constructive purpose. If used properly, the leaf blower will have been useful in clearing the yard of leaves. Talk radio serves no discernible purpose. At the end of the day, talk radio has done little, if anything, to alter the world around it. Those that listen and feed off of the tripe, will continue to believe it. Those that don't believe still won't.

Which leads back to one last similarity. Both the leaf blower and those that live off of talk radio are tools.