Liberals liberals liberal Liberals

July 31 Editorials

In a piece Today entitled "Jim bags: Inhofe statements drive some to shame" tells us that Jim Inhofe does some wacky things sometimes. This is ok, the writers rationalize, because we voted for him. In making their case, the words "liberal" or "liberals" appear 1.6% of the time amongst their 252 word essay. This is something Ann Coulter likes to do to fill space and rile-up her reader-folk.

This might not seem like a lot, until you read another one of Today's essays, once again the staff is ranting and raving about a new form of "socialized medicine" (note the current one socializes much of the research in State-Funded Universities and in foundations, and then hands the findings to big business who generates dazzling profits off of this research...a scenario where people should benefit from their tax-money, and not just big-business, is far too frightening.)

In this rant, they state "...While concessions announced this week are a step in the right direction, the overall bill is still an invitation to major deficit spending and a larger health care role for government. Trimming $100 billion from a $1.3 trillion proposal isn’t much of a haircut." But as Dean Baker recently noted (hey Oklahoman Editorial Staff, see how easy it is to say who said what!) the "huge" trillion-dollar price tag is equal to about 0.5% of projected GDP over the next decade. The Iraq War (which The Oklahoman overwhelmingly supported) at its peak cost more than 1% of GDP.

So, note that the HUGE figure to fix our disgraceful, embarrasing health care system is only one-third in size the number GDP-wise (over a decade) as is the percentage of times the Editorial staff said "liberal" or "liberals" in their piece explaining that Inhofe says funny things but we voted for him.

Yes, I know this is apples and roti, but what do we get from being told Inhofe can do as he pleases, and it is ok because we voted for him? What sense does that make? Isn't this the newspaper that constantly rants and raves about us being a Republic, not a Democracy? And therefore, shouldn't the fact that we voted for this man, and he is doing these zany things be something that should cause at least some alarm?

That is far too much to ask if first we can not even think to contemplate the massive costs of war compared to fixing our health care system.

Updates Coming Soon, New Address

July 7

The Oklahoman Editorial Watch is about to move to a new site, and I will be doing some more things along with the commentaries. Stay tuned.

The Reality Is Even Funnier!

June 26 Cartoon



I suggest the editors read this fine piece: As Smash-and-Grab Capitalism Collapses, the French Economy Shines

Lying Is Where The Money Is, Now More Than Ever

June 25 Editorial

Today the Editors have finally decided to be quiet on the Iran issue, not unlike their friend George W. Bush (and themselves) during Tehran's crackdown on student protesters in 2003 or about the crackdown on reformist candidates in 2004 that led to the election of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. Instead they've chosen to, brace yourself, rant and rave about Government spending (the kind that does not directly benefit rich guys, of course).

In today's piece Soft landing: Economic pain unequally shared they start off with the statement "...The U.S. House has approved an 8 percent increase in the budget for office expenses. Members will get an average of $1.5 million for the fiscal year that starts in October. The increase comes at a time when businesses and households are cutting budgets by 8 percent or more."

The article as you can probably guess continues with no mention of Goldman Sachs hot-shots being, as Reuters reports here, on pace this year for record bonuses, or perhaps bringing into question the salaries of Red-Prime Steakhouse frequenting Chesapeake execs in these rough-times, especially when they've destroyed $16b in shareholders wealth the prior year.

Mentioning such things would have been nice, but one thing that I think no question should have been brought up, if the editors for once could possibly sway from their constant "Blame the government" rhetoric, is that the Public Relations Industry is flourishing. And in a similar fashion as it was in the heyday of Edward Bernay's in the run-up to the great depression.

It makes perfect sense that the PR industry is doing so well (anyone who gets on Twitter sees the place flooded with PR folks promoting fancy lifestyles and whatnot), as these are no doubt times when disgraceful, unjustifiable things (like Goldman Sach's bonuses, or nice guys like Aubrey McClendon making over $100m for his part in erasing $16b of shareholders wealth) need to be justified by any means necessary.

But do not take my word for it regarding the propaganda industry, read this sickening piece from July '08 by The Oklahoman's good friend Renzi Stone , (note 2-12-10 page archived....actual story link on his site redirects to new page) head of local Public Relations group Saxum Communications. In it he discusses how well the industry is doing, and how it is important for them to do their best lying to ensure the status-quo is preserved. He states:

"According to a March 2008 report by M&A experts StevensGouldPincus, PR firms stand to gain ground this year. Highlights included 75 percent of firms under $3 million predict higher revenues and 83 percent say client budgets will increase. If the first two quarters of this year are any indication, we are in line with the industry, if not exceeding predictions. In a declining economy, PR will play an important role in helping businesses and issues...continue to move forward."

Pretty terrifying that our nations future is in the hands of these people who lie for a living, and it is especially troubling that our City's paper wont even discuss this stuff, primarily because they are a big part of such non-sensical, harmful things.

So again, these are the types of things we would hear about if we had a newspaper in our town with an editorial staff that pays attention in the many bible classes they attend, and therefore would at least attempt to tell the whole truth from time to time.

Her Name is Neda Agha-Soltan You Lunatics

June 24 Commentary

In the June 23 Editorial "Iran, North Korea putting Obama’s strategy to test" The editors write "...a young woman bleeding to death after being shot...graphically and intimately assigning a face to the uprising and deepening Obama’s dilemma..." Now, I am just one person with a not so remarkable income, rather than an entire news department with the backing of the Gaylord Empire...yet I am able to discover quite quickly that the woman's name is Neda Agha-Soltan.



The Editorial staff does not care about Neda. They do not care about Iran. They only care about partisanship, power, and control.

Early on in his presidency, when America was siding with the Iraqis, George Bush Sr. was questioned about the U.S. Navy warship Vincennes (also known as "Robo-cruiser" because of the extremely aggressive behavior of her commanding officer - Read Robert Fisk's increadible book "The Great War For Civilization" for more). It had recently fired missiles at Iran Air’s Flight 65, which was on a routine flight scheduled from Bandar-Abbas to Dubai. All 290 civilians on board died. “I will never apologize for the United States of America — I don’t care what the facts are.” was Bush’s reply.

Now that all the facts have come out, it was nothing short of an act of terrorism on the part of the Vincennes, and Bush and The Oklahoman just laughed it off.

How many Neda's were on that flight and what the hell did this sick newspaper, let alone what did their partisan buddy Bush care about these people? And now they think they can lecture us about what Obama should be doing, and even worse subtly blame him and everyone else who supports the way he is handling Iran for Neda's death? Why are people not out protesting in front of this sick, perverted newspaper? It is not as if it has zero influence over anything.

Consider more facts: As Stephen Kinzer notes "in the 1980s, the U.S. sided with Saddam Hussein in the Iran-Iraq war, providing him with military equipment and intelligence that helped make it possible for his army to kill hundreds of thousands of Iranians...Given this history, the moral credibility of the U.S. to pose as a promoter of democracy in Iran is close to nil."

And of course, the overthrow of the parliamentary elected Mohammed Mossadegh in 1953 which started this entire hell-disaster for the people of Iran. Why can The Oklahoman not acknowledge these things? It is pretty obvious that a paper that can not even say the name of Neda Agha-Soltan would never have the decency to acknowledge any of our disgraceful history in the region, especially the history of their party.

My good friend Arash Manzori helped put on a huge rally in Dallas today. Have a look at this column in the Star-Telegram about the rally. Also pay attention to the quote at the bottom from Charlie Bates II, 35, of Garland who was complaining to police inside city hall "..."I think it’s a pity," he said. "These people want to protest what’s going on in their country. If they don’t like it, they should move back over there and fight it." Sounds a lot like something The Oklahoman Editorial Staff would say, and perhaps they were down there trying to find one Iranian who could agree with their deeply perverted views after finding none here.

These Guys Are Getting Worse By The Day

June 23 Editorial

Today is one of those days where you have to wonder just how bad this paper can get. Have we reached the bottom, or is there worse things to come? No question reading things like Today's piece "Iran, North Korea putting Obama’s strategy to test" is one of those editorials where you really just wonder about these people. I certainly worry that my Mother reads this crap, it makes me sick knowing she's is exposed to this disgraceful garbage, it really just makes me sick.

The writer's state "The president’s defenders said criticizing Iran’s regime or even reaffirming democratic principles, such as the rights to self-determination and public assembly, would worsen things for the people in the streets. Besides, Iranians already know where America stands, they said." and fail to mention who the defenders are. It would not be good for them to mention some of them, people like Henry Kissinger, James Baker, Brent Scowcroft, Richard Lugar, George Will , Peggy Noonan, Pat Buchanan, the list goes on and on and on.

There can be little doubt The Oklahoman Editorial writers do not join these list of supporters for simple hard-core partisan reasons. And these are the games of children. In a barbaric fashion, they write "...Video of a young woman bleeding to death after being shot, allegedly by state authorities, is circulating on the Internet — graphically and intimately assigning a face to the uprising and deepening Obama’s dilemma..." pretending that this is his fault. This is the same editorial staff that never mentioned, amongst a countless number of things, that 14 year old Abeer Qassim Hamza al-Janabi was never brutally raped and set ablaze, along with her family by Pfc. Steven D. Green and friends. Mentioning such a thing might suggest that their hero George W. Bush and his crazed war in Iraq which played a hand in bringing about mahmoud ahmadinejad was something less than spectacular.

I will have more on The Oklahoman's sick coverage of the Iran issue in a couple of days....

Nevadas's Citadel, Texas' Clear Channel Promoting Anti Free-Market Legislation, Why No Oklahoman Commentary?

June 22 Commentary

Friday I was listening to San Antonio, TX based Clear Channel radio's 1340 AM KEBC - Sports Radio, and sandwiched in-between Ad Council spots were back-to-back ads on the so called "Local Radio Freedom Act" (S. Con. Res. 14, H. Con. Res. 49.)

I have been told the far right leaning, allegedly "pro free-markets" KTOK is running the ads as well, and an internet search verifies that Nevada run Citadel (The Sports Animal, The KATT, KQOB, KYIS, WKY) are running these ads as well.

This legislation was written in the last Congress, but did not come to a vote. However, it will this time. Essentially what it is, is that labels are showing an interest in charging a small fee for stations who play their music. The stations are against this, because in the interest of their shareholders (note that Citadel has gone down from around $15 a share in 2004 to 4.5 cents a share as of Friday, so no question they have reason to be upset!) do not want additional costs.

Oklahoma Reps who support regulation to prohibit labels rights to charge fees include a group that quite often claim interests in free markets, and they are: House Reps Mary Fallin, Dan Boren, Tom Cole, Frank Lucas, and John Sullivan. Inhofe and Coburn are not included in the 16 co-sponsers of S.Con.Res 14, however it is clear that Inhofe does as I obtained a letter he wrote to San Antonio based Clear Channel saying he supports the bill.

Inhofe specifically says he "Supports local broadcasters such as (Clear Channel)", not taking into consideration that San Antonio is in Texas, not Oklahoma therefore not a local station. Such details are irrelevant when trying to prop up folks who say nice things about you, I imagine was his justification but that is just speculation. I do not want to be cruel and say he is stupid and can not deduct these things, although most 2nd graders can tell you San Antonio is not in Oklahoma.

Now, my thing with this legislation is pretty simple. If labels want to charge fees, let them! Stations can simply say "no thanks" to their awful music, and go to other labels that choose not to charge a fee. These labels will surely across the board be independant labels who more often that not have good music, and many times have actual LOCAL music.

The Oklahoman Editorial Staff has yet to offer any comment on this matter, however I would be quite interested in their opinion on the matter.

Here is a very detailed (updated) video I put out last time this bill was proposed, and I highly recommend watching it, and considering what I lay out next time you hear one of these ads on so-called local radio, telling you that you need to call you Congressman to support this stupid legislation. I believe it is a no-brainer to not support it, especially if you claim to be a supporter of "letting the markets decide".

I welcome anyone who has any legitimate arguments supporting this bill. I also want to point out that a lot of the discussions put forward last year by Free Press last year about the coming non-sensical campaigns about the coming "Fairness Doctrine" (which Obama, FCC head Michael Copps, FCC Chair Jonathon Adelstein, and all the rest strongly oppose) where only out there to try and support things like the so-called "Local Radio Freedom Act" which huxsters are already ranting and raving about being a "Fairness Doctrine Lite" which makes no sense, whatsoever.

I could say much more, but here is the video: