Wednesday, June 27, 2007

Milwaukee's Mark Belling: Same-sex couples' decision to have children is "pure selfishness"

Media Matters picked up some wingnuttery from my favorite local boy, Mark Belling of WISN's The Mark Belling Late Afternoon Show (you can listen to the podcast of his show here)...

He was guest-hosting for Rush Limbaugh....

On the June 19 broadcast of Rush Limbaugh's nationally syndicated radio show, while discussing a recent custody battle stemming from a same-sex civil union in Vermont, guest host Mark Belling asked, "Can a baby have two mothers? It's a new concept for us. And I'm not sure it's an especially healthy one. First of all, it demeans the entire notion of fatherhood, implying that a father is an absolute irrelevancy, a concept that has destroyed many black families, the idea that we simply don't need have to have any male role model in the life whatsoever." Belling added that "the desire to have these kids is almost entirely premised on, 'I want to have a baby. We want to have a baby.' Not, 'Are we in the best situation to be able to raise a child?' And I think it comes down to just pure selfishness. And that's what it's all about."

In August 2006, the Vermont Supreme Court ruled that two women in a same-sex civil union, Lisa Miller and Janet Jenkins, were both legal parents of the child Miller had given birth to in 2002. On June 15, a Vermont family court judge dissolved their civil union, granting custody of the child to Miller and visitation rights to Jenkins. Belling suggested that the family court ruling would lead to recognition of parental rights "in a three-way relationship." He said, "[T]he larger point is, whether or not society needs to facilitate people's desires to raise children any way they feel like raising them. If we're going to sanction the parental rights of both people in a gay relationship, do we have to sanction the parental rights of a three-way relationship? Let's imagine that a woman and a man have a baby. And the woman later decides to hook up with a female partner. Do they all get rights?" He added, "[A]re we going to base every single decision on the basis of what these parents who are choosing alternative lifestyles want or are we going to start to think about what's in the best interest of the child?"

From the June 19 broadcast of Premiere Radio Networks' The Rush Limbaugh Show:

BELLING: And what happens when the relationship ends is you have a fight literally between two mothers. Can a baby have two mothers? It's a new concept for us. And I'm not sure it's an especially healthy one. First of all, it demeans the entire notion of fatherhood, implying that a father is an absolute irrelevancy, a concept that has destroyed many black families, the idea that we simply don't need to have any male role model in the life whatsoever. But more to the point, knowing the potential of what can happen when the relationship ends, and watching this particular case, I mean, there is a child here. There is a child who is going to have to decide which mother is her mother, or are they both their mothers? And the desire to have these kids is almost entirely premised on, "I want to have a baby. We want to have a baby." Not, "Are we in the best situation to be able to raise a child?" And I think it comes down to just pure selfishness. And that's what it's all about.

As for the decision to award visitation rights to the woman who didn't give birth, let's imagine the situation did not involve a couple of gays. A guy and a woman, unmarried, the woman is artificially inseminated and has a baby. It's not the biological child of her boyfriend. When they break up, does the boyfriend expect to have any kind of visitation rights? Well, what's the difference? Now, those who support gay marriage would argue that's exactly the point: It does not allow us to engage in relationships in which we can jointly be able to raise a child and have equal parental rights. Straight people have the ability to get married. If the guy wants to be able to be involved in the child's life when they split up, well, then he should have married her in the first place. Gays don't have the right to do that, so their argument goes.

But the larger point is, whether or not society needs to facilitate people's desires to raise children any way they feel like raising them. If we're going to sanction the parental rights of both people in a gay relationship, do we have to sanction the parental rights of a three-way relationship? Let's imagine that a woman and a man have a baby. And the woman later decides to hook up with a female partner. Do they all get rights? And are we going to base every single decision on the basis of what these parents who are choosing alternative lifestyles want or are we going to start to think about what's in the best interest of the child?

LINK: Limbaugh guest host Belling described same-sex couples' decision to have children as "pure selfishness"

Back in 2004, Belling got himself into a little trouble after he used the term "wetbacks" on the air. However, to his credit, I do listen to his show from time to time and I can honestly say I agree with a lot of his opinions on local issues. It when he gets into national and social issues that he becomes another talking head. Speaking of local Right-Wing radio talk show hosts, I know the son of Charlie Sykes (who is Milwaukee's #1 radio talk show host).

-Mr. Joseph

SiCKO: The Return of Michael Moore

I credit Fahrenhype 9/11 with spurring my interest in politics, so I am anxious to see the new film. Unlike F9/11, it is supposed to be much more unifying and less polarizing.

Regardless, the Health Care lobby, the mindless media, the talking heads, and anti-Moore crowd are up in arms and preparing for battle.

A letter from Mr. Moore...

Friends,

Would you like to go to a sneak preview of my new film, "Sicko," before it opens on June 29th? Well, if you live anywhere near the 32 cities listed below, this Saturday night, June 23rd, our movie studio is going to hold sneak screenings of "Sicko" in 43 theaters across the country. I'd love for you to be one of the first to see it so, if you'd like, you can click here and order tickets now. We'd love to see you there.

Also, if you live in the New York City area we are opening the film tomorrow (Friday, June 22) exclusively at one theater, the AMC Lincoln Square for a first week run. The interest in the film is very high and theaters have been asking us to open it as soon as possible. Alright, already! It opens tomorrow in NYC, the sneak previews are Saturday around the country, and we open nationwide next Friday, the 29th.

Last night we screened "Sicko" for the members of Congress and the Senate in Washington, D.C. Earlier in the day we testified during a briefing in Congress called by the Chairman of the Judiciary Committee, Rep. John Conyers, Jr. I brought with me some of the people who appear in the film to tell their stories -- and it was a powerful moment.

I will write again next week, before "Sicko" opens nationwide on the 29th. I'm so excited, after spending the last couple of years working on this film, that you all will finally be able to see it.

Yours,
Michael Moore
MichaelMoore.com

P.S. Catch the sneak preview of "Sicko" in these cities this Saturday night, June 23rd:

Phoenix, AZ
Sacramento, CA
San Diego, CA
...
Milwaukee, WI

Order tickets online here: http://www.michaelmoore.com/sicko/about/sneak/

LINK: 'SiCKO' Sneaks Across America This Saturday!

RELATED READING...
I saw it on Thursday and it is most excellent. I met Mark there and he posted his review earlier.

Go and see it and then make a bargain with yourself to get a friend to see it as well. Then make them do the same. Many Republicans have faced the horrors of HMO’s and health care issues so this will resonate much more broadly than his previous films have if they are being honest…The Circus Clowns will recite the lies of the lobbyists and politicians that do not want to fix our health care system so it should be an interesting few months…

LINK: C&L: Michael Moore is back!
Michael Moore recently put out newspaper advertisements inviting 900 health care industry lobbyists to a free screening of his new film SiCKO. But at the showing last week, only about 11 showed up. Before the screening, Moore held a Q&A with the lobbyists, explaining why he made the film and defending his arguments.
LINK: TP: Moore talks health care with industry lobbyists.
For the health insurance and pharmaceutical industries, Michael Moore’s film exposing their history and their misdeeds is a serious threat, and they have no shortage of funds to try to distort it.
LINK: TP: Health Insurance Industry, Big Pharmaceuticals Launch Michael Moore Smear Campaign
Yesterday, CNN proudly announced that it has scored the first post-jail interview with Paris Hilton. To make room for Paris on Wednesday, CNN canceled its interview with Michael Moore about his new health care documentary SiCKO:

Hotel heiress and reality TV star Paris Hilton will give her first post-jail interview on CNN’s “Larry King Live” on Wednesday, the show’s spokeswoman said on Saturday.

“She will be on for the hour,” Bridget Leininger told Reuters. “We had (filmmaker) Michael Moore originally scheduled for that time.”

LINK: TP: CNN Dumps Michael Moore For Paris Hilton

I fully intend to see SiCKO, but I will be seeing Live Free or Die Hard tonight!
-Mr. Joseph

Elizabeth Edwards Confronts Ann Coulter

Ann Coulter was visibly displeased...

Think Progress...

Elizabeth Edwards confronted right-wing pundit Ann Coulter during a live interview on MSNBC this afternoon, charging that Coulter’s “personal attacks” on former senator John Edwards and others were based on “the language of hate.”

Yesterday on ABC’s Good Morning America, Coulter said, “[I]f I’m gonna say anything about John Edwards in the future, I’ll just wish he had been killed in a terrorist assassination plot.” She has previously called Edwards a “faggot.” In 2003, she wrote a column claiming that John Edwards drove around with a bumper sticker saying “Ask me about my son’s death in a horrific car accident.”

During an hour-long interview with Coulter today on MSNBC, host Chris Matthews announced that Elizabeth Edwards was on the line. Edwards referenced the attacks above, saying, “I’m the mother of that boy who died. These young people behind you…you’re asking them to participate in a dialogue that is based on hatefulness and ugliness instead of on the issues, and I don’t think that’s serving them or this country very well.” The live audience cheered.

Responding to Edwards, Coulter first inexplicably claimed that she “didn’t say anything about [Edwards]” on the previous day. Then Coulter tried to claim that Edwards just wanted her to “stop speaking” and stop writing books, but Matthews rebutted her, saying, “No, she said you should stop being so negative to people individually.”

When her first two attempts to spin the situation faulted, Coulter then launched into another baseless, personal attack, accusing John Edwards of “bankrupting doctors by giving a shyster Las Vegas routine in front of juries…doing these psychic routines in front of illiterate juries to bankrupt doctors who now can’t deliver babies.”

Transcript:

MATTHEWS: You know who’s on the line? Someone to respond to what you said about Edwards yesterday morning. Elizabeth Edwards. She wanted to call in today, we said she could. Elizabeth Edwards, go on the line. You’re on the line with Ann Coulter.

E: Hello Chris.

M: Do you want to say something directly to the person who’s with me?

E: I’m calling — you know, in the south, when someone does something that displeases us, we want to ask them politely to stop doing it. I would like to ask Ann Coulter to — if she wants to debate on issues, on positions — we certainly disagree with nearly everything she said on your show today — but it is quite another matter for these personal attacks. The things that she has said over the years, not just about John but about other candidates, lowers our political dialogue precisely at the time that we need to raise it. So I want to use the opportunity, which I don’t get much because Ann and I don’t hang out with the same people…

C: I don’t have enough money.

E: …to ask her politely stop the personal attacks.

C: Okay, so I made a joke, let’s see, six months ago, and as you point out, they have been raising money off of it for six months since then.

M: But this is yesterday morning, what you said about him.

C: I didn’t say anything about him, actually, either time.

E: But that — Ann, Ann, you know that’s not true, and once more, this has been going on for some time.

C: And I don’t mind you trying to raise money. It’s better this than giving $50,000 speeches to the poor just to use my name on the webpages. But as for a debate with me, yeah, sure. Yeah, we’ll have a debate.

E: I’m asking you politely to stop, to stop personal attacks –

C: How about you stop raising money on your web page then? No, you don’t have to because I don’t mind.

E: I did not start with that. You had a column a number of years ago where you suggested — wait till I finish talking please…

C: Okay, the wife of a presidential candidate is calling in asking me to stop speaking.

M: Let her finish the point. Let her finish the point.

C: You’re asking me to stop speaking? “Stop writing your columns. Stop writing your books.”

M: Ann, please.

E: You had a column several years ago which made fun of the moment of Charlie Dean’s death and suggested that my husband had a bumper sticker on the back of his car saying, “Ask me about my dead son.” This is not legitimate political dialogue.

C: This is now three years ago.

E: It debases political dialogue. It drives people away from the process. We can’t have a debate about the issues.

C: Yeah, why isn’t John Edwards making this call?

M: Well, do you want to respond? We’ll end the conversation.

E: I haven’t talked to John about this call. I’m making the call as a mother. I’m the mother of that boy who died. My children participate — these young people behind you are the age of my children. You’re asking them to participate in a dialogue that is based on hatefulness and ugliness instead of on the issues, and I don’t think that’s serving them or this country very well.

[Applause]

M: Thank you very much Elizabeth. You wanna respond? You have all the time in the world to respond.

C: I think we heard all we need to hear. The wife of a presidential candidate is asking me to stop speaking. No.

M: No, she asked you to stop being so negative to people individually.

C: Right, as opposed to bankrupting doctors by giving a schyster Las Vegas routine in front of juries based on science — wait, you said I’d have as long as I would have, then you instantly interrupt me.

M: Go ahead, go ahead.

C: As I was saying, doing these psychic routines in front of illiterate juries to bankrupt doctors who now can’t deliver babies, and to charge a poverty group $50,000 for a speech. Don’t talk to me about how to use language.

M: Elizabeth?

E: …the language of hate, and I’m going to ask you again to politely stop using personal attacks as part of your dialogue.

C: Okay, I’ll stop writing books.

E: If you can’t write them without them, that is fine.

M: Why do you call out Hillary’s chubby legs in your book? Why do you — this may fall under the category of personal attacks, I don’t know, but why do you do that? Why do you talkabout Monica Lewinsky’s chubbiness? If she were skinny, would it have been okay?

C: Um, I don’t know, read the sentence.

E: I read the whole sentence. I couldn’t feel the context.

C: Well you have to give it to me and I could explain.

E: Why do you make fun of Hillary’s chubby legs?

C: I don’t know, you’re going to have to give me the sentence.

M: It’s in the afterword of your book, I just read it this morning.

C: Then read the sentence.

M: We’ll be back and read the entire sentence. We’ll come right back. I don’t know why we’re reading — the full intellectual context will be coming in just a moment.

LINK: Elizabeth Edwards Confronts Coulter During Live Television Appearance

This just made my day. It was so refreshing to see someone actually confront her.

RELATED READING...

LINK: MM: Coulter: "I do think anyone named B. Hussein Obama should avoid using 'hijack' and 'religion' in the same sentence"

LINK: MM: Good Morning America's Chris Cuomo interviews Coulter, promotes Godless

Why is she back in the spotlight? Oh yeah, she has another book to sell...

-Mr. Joseph

Link of the Day: MediaTransparency.org

I found this site from MakeThemAccountable...

It is a pretty good series of profiles of notable Neo-Conservatives...

LINK: MediaTransparency.org: Neo-Conning the Media

Check it out. Good research links...

Help them follow the money...

-Mr. Joseph

Beck to host CNN; Klein Dissappointed

Media Matters picked up this story about Glenn Beck...
On June 26, mediabistro.com's TVNewser weblog reported that CNN Headline News host Glenn Beck will fill in for Paula Zahn all next week on CNN's Paula Zahn Now beginning on July 2. TVNewser noted that Beck will also continue hosting his own show on CNN Headline News, which airs at 7 and 9 p.m. ET, meaning that for three consecutive hours, a CNN network will be broadcasting Beck. During the June 26 broadcast of his nationally syndicated radio program, Beck said that CNN will "allow me to design [Paula Zahn Now] on what I wanted to talk about," adding, "I have decided to do a theme all next week on both television shows of 'We the people declare our independence.' " Beck also said, "I thought it was a good place and a good time to bring my theory to CNN that America is changing, that we are not Republicans and Democrats."

More...
LINK: Despite pattern of inflammatory comments, Beck to guest host for CNN's Zahn

To which, Joe Klein said this...
The world is a bit of a mess right now and CNN gives us Glenn Beck? Please, Mr. Parsons, sir, is this any way to show respect for your--our--viewers? Can't we, like, try a week of smart? See how that works? Just asking. Your Devoted Employee, Joe Klein
LINK: I come home to this?

Quite a delightful burn. I wonder why CNN is giving Beck the job -- isn't he having a bit of a ratings problem?

-Mr. Joseph

UPDATE (7/31/07):
LINK: MM: How low (in the ratings) can Glenn Beck go?

Tuesday, June 19, 2007

Congress to Vote on School of the Americas this Wednesday

The Democratic Underground documents the news from SOA Watch...
Congress is expected to vote this week on an amendment to the Foreign Operations Appropriations bill that would cut funding to the controversial Western Hemisphere Institute for Security Cooperation (WHINSEC), formerly known as the School of the Americas (SOA). The amendment will be offered by Rep. Jim McGovern (D-MA).

The SOA/WHINSEC, a military training facility for Latin American military and police, has graduated at least 11 military dictators and over 60,000 soldiers, many of which have been linked to some of the worst human rights abuses committed in Central and South America. The school made headlines in 1996 when the Pentagon released training manuals used at the institution that advocated torture, extortion and execution. Despite this admission and hundreds of documented human rights abuses committed by soldiers trained at the school, no independent investigation into the facility has ever taken place.

Support for the former School of the Americas has significantly declined. In May, the Costa Rican government vowed to stop sending Costa Rican police to train at the Western Hemisphere Institute for Security Cooperation (WHINSEC). The Central American nation is the fourth country after Argentina, Uruguay and Venezuela to cut ties with the school, citing its history of military intervention and human rights abuses.

On June 9, 2006, Rep. Jim McGovern (D-MA) introduced an amendment to the Foreign Operations Appropriations Bill that would have cut funding for the SOA/WHINSEC. While the amendment failed by a 15 vote margin, 35 Representatives who opposed the amendment lost their seats in the 2006 mid-term elections.

Protests calling for the closure of the School of the Americas/WHINSEC have taken place at the gates of Fort Benning, Georgia every November since 1990. The annual vigil and nonviolent direct action coincides with the November 16 anniversary of the University of Central America massacre during which SOA graduates assassinated 14-year-old Celina Ramos, her mother Elba Ramos, and six Jesuit priests in San Salvador

Please Take Action and contact your Representative and urge her/him to support the McGovern amendment to cut funding for the SOA/WHINSEC - www.soaw.org/legislative

Find out more about the School of Americas at- www.soaw.org
LINK: Congress to Vote on School of the Americas this Wed

RELATED READING...
LINK: SOAW: Legislative Action Index

No Mas! No More!
Call you legislators!

-Mr. Joseph

P.S. I am currently working on a documentary regarding the School of the Americas. Please help to take action!

UPDATE (6/27/07):
Son of a bitch, we lost by six votes...
LINK: 203:214 = SOA/WHINSEC Survives Vote in Congress by a 6 Vote Margin

Saturday, June 02, 2007

Biden, Gravel, Kucinich To Attend CBC Debate On Fox

So, the three Democrats that are least likely to get the nomination are the only three that will show up on FOX's Democratic debate? Lame...

From Crooks and Liars...

Via Raw Story:

With the leading candidates for the Democratic nomination in 2008 shunning a presidential primary debate sponsored by Fox News and a thinktank associated with the Congressional Black Caucus, Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-OH), Senator Joseph Biden (D-DE), and former Alaska Senator Mike Gravel have announced their readiness to stand in a controversial spotlight.[..]

Rep. Kucinich, known primarily for his push to impeach Vice President Dick Cheney and his strong anti-war position, criticized his opponents who were unwilling to show up to the CBC/Fox debate. Read more…

Pretty disappointing to see Kucinich completely missing the point of why others declined to go on the Fox debate. James Rucker explains why Kucinich with his calling out the other candidates undermines black voters and supports Fox.

LINK: Biden, Gravel, Kucinich To Attend CBC Debate On Fox

It is very disappointing to watch Kucinich miss the point like that.
-Mr. Joseph

"Outspoken" Ingraham has a problem with CNN's description of her

From Crooks and Liars...
Conservative radio talkie, Laura Ingraham was discussing Bush's immigration plan and the attacks he's making on conservative vocal critics of it with John Roberts of CNN, when she weakly tried to play the CNN is liberal elite card on Roberts. John Roberts was like, "say, what?" Her proof? She was characterized as being "outspoken."

INGRAHAM: …But to insult his base, I mean, I hope he thinks he's going to be saved by the liberal elites at CNN, John, because if he is, then I'll be wrong about this. But I think it's kind of silly.

ROBERTS: Excuse me, what was that last comment?

INGRAHAM: By the way, John, how did you introduce me for this segment before the break. The outspoken Laura Ingraham. Do you guys introduce liberal commentators that way? I'm going to check.

ROBERTS: Yeah, we do actually.

That's a pretty tough depiction of her, wouldn't you agree. I guess I'd be bummed if I was called an outspoken blogger…The Nitpicker has more. "This post is dedicated to the memory of the Myth of the Liberal Media, born April 6, 1954, died October 24, 2006."

Then, this morning, Laura Ingraham made snide comments about the supposed liberal slant of CNN to American Morning host John Roberts. She even had proof from that very interview, in fact: John Roberts had called her outspoken. Never mind that Al Franken was called an "outspoken comedian and liberal" by CNN. Or that Hugo Chavez is an "outspoken leftist". Or that Cynthia McKinney, Michael Moore and Nancy Pelosi were all referred to as "outspoken liberal(s)." None of those things matter. In the minds of the Republican hothouse flowers, any word used to describe them–other than heroic or beloved–can be seen as an attack by the dastardly liberal media…read on

TRANSCRIPTS:

GEORGE W. BUSH, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: If you want to kill the bill, you don't want to do what's right for America, you can pick one little aspect out of it. You can use it to frighten people or you can show leadership and solve this problem once and for all.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

ROBERTS: What do you think about Laura, the fact that he says that opponents of this bill are opposed to what's right for America?

INGRAHAM: If one little aspect of the bill is the border, then I guess the president is right. But I think one little aspect is how you actually certify that the border is enforced. John, to certify that the border is enforced in this bill, which I hope the president has read, all you require, all it requires is that the president certify that the border's enforced, that the money has been allocated to hiring these new people and it's been allocated toward the border. George Will said it best, if that actually holds, then we should say that Iraq is democratized because we spent the money there.

ROBERTS: He seems to suggest that critics of the bill such as yourself are unpatriotic.

INGRAHAM: It's absurd. I think it was a bad, tactical decision for him to say that. The way to get people on your side is not to insult them, especially people in the conservative movement, who worked tirelessly to get him re-elected. The president has been consistent on supporting this. You have to give him credit on that. I've never questioned his motives in pushing for this type of comprehensive reform. But to insult his base, I mean, I hope he thinks he's going to be saved by the liberal elites at CNN, John, because if he is, then I'll be wrong about this. But I think it's kind of silly.

ROBERTS: Excuse me, what was that last comment?

INGRAHAM: By the way, John, how did you introduce me for this segment before the break. The outspoken Laura Ingraham. Do you guys introduce liberal commentators that way? I'm going to check.

ROBERTS: Yeah, we do actually.

INGRAHAM: OK, I'm going to check that.

ROBERTS: Are you denying that you're outspoken Laura?

INGRAHAM: No, why would you say that?

ROBERTS: I just think that we're appropriately characterizing you.

INGRAHAM: OK, got it.

ROBERTS: You're definitely outspoken. You were outspoken about immigration on Wednesday's show.

INGRAHAM: How about radio talk show host and author. That's quite effective.

ROBERTS: This isn't about a disagreement between you and I. This is about you and your views here. Mitt Romney's coming up on your show today.

LINK: Ingraham outraged by being called “outspoken”

I hate her.
-Mr. Joseph

O'Reilly: Immigration bill supporters want to "change the complexion" of America

Bill O'Reilly racist? Nawwwww...

From Media Matters...

On the May 29 edition of his nationally syndicated radio program, host Bill O'Reilly asserted that the proposed immigration reform bill is supported by "people who hate America, and they hate it because it's run primarily by white, Christian men. Let me repeat that. America is run primarily by white, Christian men, and there is a segment of our population who hates that, despises that power structure." He continued: "So they, under the guise of being compassionate, want to flood the country with foreign nationals, unlimited, unlimited, to change the complexion -- pardon the pun -- of America. Now, that's hatred, too." O'Reilly later asserted that The New York Times "want[s] to change the white, Christian male power structure" and later concluded: "So you've got racism on the anti-Latino front, and you have racism on the anti-Christian, white male front. Aha! Isn't that interesting?"

As Media Matters for America documented, O'Reilly has previously warned that pro-immigration activists want to alter the racial demographics of the United States. During the April 11, 2006, edition of Fox News' The O'Reilly Factor, O'Reilly said of New York City Councilman Charles Barron: "[T]he bottom line is Charles Barron said last night is there is a movement in this country to wipe out 'white privilege' and to have the browning of America." In the April 11 interview with O'Reilly on Westwood One's The Radio Factor, Barron at no point claimed that he and other advocates for immigrant rights are motivated by a desire to force white Americans into the minority -- despite O'Reilly's repeated efforts to provoke such an acknowledgment.

From the May 29 edition of Westwood One's The Radio Factor with Bill O'Reilly:

O'REILLY: OK, I think it's a small part, but I think it's there. On the other side, you have people who hate America, and they hate it because it's run primarily by white, Christian men. Let me repeat that. America is run primarily by white, Christian men, and there is a segment of our population who hates that, despises that power structure. So they, under the guise of being compassionate, want to flood the country with foreign nationals, unlimited, unlimited, to change the complexion -- pardon the pun -- of America. Now, that's hatred, too. It's a different kind of hatred, but it's hatred and best exemplified by The New York Times, which today says in its editorial, quote: "Those who want [the immigration] bill to be better are horribly conflicted by it. Their emotions still seem vastly overmatched by the ferocity of the opposition from the restrictionist right, with talk radio lighting up over 'amnesty,' callers spitting out the words with all the hate they can pour into it," unquote.

Now, this is a theme of The New York Times, that if you oppose the immigration bill that you hate Latinos. Now, there's a segment that does, but most oppose it on policy. They just think it's bad policy, rewarding bad behavior. Bad policy. But The New York Times, which is an open border, OK, let-everybody-in concern -- that's what they want, because they want a totally different power structure in America.

Number one, they realize that 40 million new citizens -- and that's, you know, probably the estimate that if you let all the illegal immigrants and all their extended families come here, which is what The New York Times want, would wipe out the two-party system. You'd only have a Democratic party, because new immigrants are probably gonna break 3-to-1 Democrat, and that's what The New York Times wants. But more than that, they want to change the white, Christian male power structure. That's what they want.

Now, these are hidden agendas. The New York Times would never cop to that, ever, but if you read consistently their editorials, they have no solution to border security. They don't want any sanctions on illegal aliens who come here and even commit crimes. They want criminal aliens to stay, and they don't want any sanctions on businesses who continue to hire illegal aliens even after the Z visa is issued. It's an open border, "Let them all in, anybody who wants to come here."

That's insane. We don't have America then. America disappears. That's where Pat Buchanan is right. You let that happen, there's no more United States of America. It's gone. You have United States of the World, because everybody comes here with no restrictions. So you've got racism on the anti-Latino front, and you have racism on the anti-Christian, white male front. Aha! Isn't that interesting?

LINK: O'Reilly: Immigration bill supporters want to "change the complexion" of America

RELATED READING:
LINK: C&L: Bill O’Reilly: The White, Christian, male power structure is in jeopardy…

"That's insane"
-Mr. Joseph

Glenn Beck's Ratings Are Extremely Low

This is my 300th post! I wanted to celebrate the 300th post with an analysis of all the current candidates for President, but because of the sheer number of candidates, the analysis isn't quite done yet.

However, we can celebrate with some good news!

My Two Sense
reports...
Glenn Beck's ratings for the week of May 21-25 were staggering in how low Beck's ratings have fallen. When you think his ratings have hit rock bottom, they manage to dig just a little lower.

These are the numbers are for the 7pm hour. The first number is the 25-54 demographic, the second number is the total number of viewers.

Monday - 44,000 / 211,000
Tuesday - 141,000 / 302,000
Wednesday - 73,000 / 172,000
Thursday - 62,000 / 192,000
Friday - 43,000 / 123,000

These numbers are quite low. On Monday and Friday, Beck's demographic number was the lowest in all of cable news from 5pm to midnight. In Beck's 7pm time slot, he lost every single day (except Tuesday, which seems to be an abberation) to all 3 of the other cable news shows in both the demographic and total viewers.

Here are Glenn Beck's numbers for his 9pm show :

Monday - 167,000 / 397,000
Tuesday - 87,000 / 231,000
Wednesday - 37,000 / 142,000
Thursday - 119,000 / 355,000
Friday - 75,000 / 209,000

Beck loses in his 9pm timeslot as well. The other 3 shows on at 9pm are Hannity and Colmes, Larry King Live, and Scarbourough Country. Beck loses to them every night, but it should be noted he manage to squeak out a victory over Scarbourough on Monday. In total viewers, he loses handily to both Larry King and Hannity and Colmes.

What does this all mean? Glenn Beck's ratings are extremely low. The "Glenn Beck experiment" that Headline News started over a year ago has failed. A year ago, Glenn Beck was heralded as some sort of new talk show host that would revolutionize cable news. Instead, he is another in a long line of right wing radio talk show hosts who has failed in television.

In fact, Glenn Beck's numbers for this week were LOWER then a year ago when he was just starting. A year's worth of programming, advertising, and everything else that CNN and Headline News has done to push Glenn Beck has not made a bit of difference.

Beck's numbers are the lowest in cable news, and he shows no signs of improving any time soon. My question is how long will Headline News, CNN, and Time Warner continue to put up with Beck's low numbers?
LINK: Glenn Beck Ratings Report (May 21-25)

I really hope they boot his show of the air -- it is just awful. I've watched it several times and there is nothing appealing about it. Glenn Beck has to be my least favorite media personality.

-Mr. Joseph

UPDATE (7/31/07):
LINK: MM: How low (in the ratings) can Glenn Beck go?