Benham (MO) Clear Channel (TX) hello??!?!?!

May 26 Editorial

In "Boomer bus: Stimulus cash rolls onto Edmond streets "The Editorial writer states, regarding a new transit system being implemented in Edmond using stimulus money "...The new operator will be Texas-based McDonald Transit...Those who believe Americans shouldn’t buy Japanese autos because the profits go to Tokyo should take note that Edmond will be sending its transit dollars to north Fort Worth instead of downtown Oklahoma City."

I don't have a problem with this, however I wish The Oklahoman would have advocated for local businesses to benefit from the NBA situation, which we paid for to the tune of now $1/4b (Sales Tax, Quality Jobs $$$, Use tax...). Benham, who is doing the upgrades to the stadium is out of Missouri, and Clear Channel who got the radio broadcast rights (after I pleaded with city council to try and advocate for locally owned Perry to get the rights**) is out of Texas.

Sadly, the Editors will only stand up for something when it is convenient. Saying anything negative about something Clay Bennett, Aubrey McClendon and friends are doing would just be too much for these cowards.

**

Image and Reality of Netanyahu & Obama

May 22 Editorial Cartoon

The Oklahoman's disgraceful image of Netanyahu and Obama

and the reality

CJR on Gaza

-And don't forget peaceloving Avigdor Lieberman

Gaza cartoons by Carlos Latuff

Kill Kill kill !!!! Oh, wait....

May 19 Editorial Cartoon

At some point, I will do the academic endeavor of comparing the editorial cartoons of the early W Bush days to those of the early Obama days. The results will be no mystery, but still it will have some value.

I want to share something regarding the Tuesday cartoon, and let me make it perfectly clear I have no problem with folks at Notre Dame being upset over Obama's views on abortion (although it is worth noting they are similar to Clinton's, and abortion rates went down at a higher percentage under Clinton than under W Bush. And once again, I am no apologist for Clinton.)

This comes from Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting's website today, and is kind of interesting. They pointed out something Mark Howard had written, about how neither the protesters at Notre Dame nor the media had any problems when George W. Bush spoke there in '01 after receiving an honorary degree. Here is what he wrote, and thanks to FAIR for pointing this out:

Every good Catholic knows that the church is strictly opposed to capital punishment. Since Bush set records for carrying out death sentences when he was governor of Texas, you would think that the same guardians of virtue that are protesting Obama, who has never personally signed an abortion certificate, would have been out in force for a man who presided over 152 executions. But there was nary a peep. There were no bishops signing petitions opposing Bush's appearance. There were no protests on campus. There were no students refusing to participate in graduation ceremonies. And there were no cameras from national news networks circling like buzzards.

If these Catholic Crusaders are truly interested in demonstrating their piety without prejudice, they should immediately call for Notre Dame to revoke Bush's honorary degree. If the press is honestly endeavoring to be objective, they should pose this question to the protesters.

FAIR goes on to point out a poll showing a majority of Catholics supported Obama's invite to Notre Dame. Sadly for Obama, apparently Today is one of the days when their constant flip-flop between us being a Democracy not a Republic, or being a Republic not a Democracy does not come out in his favor.

Some Consistancy With Leaders Would Be Nice!

May 17th Editorial

A few years back I did a study, looking at the sixty days before and after the start of the current war in Iraq and what The Oklahoman had to say about the situation. Of all the editorials I looked at, not a single one had anything negative to say about the prospects or the actuality of the war (once it started), and some of the editorials said disgraceful things about individuals who were not for the war.

In the Sunday editorial "Guantanamo, other issues show leadership dilemma" the author points out that Obama has "flip-flopped" on the issues of closing Guantanamo and releasing torture photos (true), and asked "Why weren’t things more thoroughly thought out before policy declarations were made?"

The editorial goes on to quote Debra Burlingame, sister of 9-11 victim Charles "Chic” Burlingame III who stated "We’d been had,” when Binyam Mohamed was released and repatriated to Britain. This suggested that she'd been lied to by Obama who said he wouldn't let any "potential Jihadists" go.

While I do not disagree with The Oklahoman at all that we should hold Obama to his promises, and demand that he be the person he claims to be (appointing Summers, Rubin, Pritzker etc..??? What is this man thinking?!??!) I do think it would have been good if they'd held the previous administration to similar standards. I mentioned the Iraq War at the beginning, because I think "Why weren’t things more thoroughly thought out before policy declarations were made?" is something they could have asked in at least one of those radically pro-war 120 days I looked at, but weren't because the paper refused to be critical of Bush.

I also mention Debra Burlingame and The papers synthetic compassion for her, because I think if you compare it to what they write about people like Cindy Sheehan or Andrew Rice, you will discover that their sympathy for people who have lost loved ones is quite conditional.