Category Archives: KLBJ AM

Conservative? Liberal?

Posted originally here. I will personally drink a celebratory toast, when Rush Limbaugh finally goes off the air.  Not that I’ve posted on the subject of Limbaugh Lies before, or anything like that.


I live in the middle of a very angry red conservative state; by design, in the chill blue liberal heart of it. I find it funny when people from outside say “they”, and then misattribute what it is that “they” think.

I’m drowning in conservative (and religious) expression around here. You can’t escape it. What is going on is really rural vs. city life clashing; the reality of the fact that large groups of people working near each other can achieve more than a single person working on his own. The rural insight, the midwestern work ethic, is that you have to work hard to get ahead. Everything must be struggled for, including basic needs like shelter and food. The idea that something as complex as healthcare could ever be provided without cost to the end-user is as foreign a concept to them as having crops harvest themselves and bring themselves to market. It just doesn’t happen in the experience of your average ‘red state’ person. They are convinced that the poor get something that they aren’t entitled to, since they don’t have to work to get it. All forms of assistance are cheating (as a disabled person, I see this virtually every time I admit that I don’t work) because someone has to pay for that, and you didn’t earn it.

They are angry, and conservative outlets like Fox news and Limbaugh tell them that their anger is justified.

But it really is just manipulation. Of the top 1% who control 95% of the country’s wealth, how many of them go out and earn a days wage? Let’s go further down the food chain, though. Amongst the angry ‘red’ crowd, how many of you actually get out and sweat in the sun all day earning a living?

Some of the angriest people I know only have time to be angry, because they aren’t doing a job they are happy with and it doesn’t occupy them. But they get to stay indoors out of the sun. By contrast, some of the happiest people I ever worked with worked in the sun all day (oddly, a good portion of them would probably be deported by the angry people) actually doing the work that angry conservatives think they do themselves. The angriest conservatives are city people with a rural attitude that no longer reflects the reality of the lives they lead. Were they not sermonized to, at every opportunity, about the evils of the lazy immigrant and the poor, they might actually come to this realization themselves.

…and that’s the crux of the problem. When I point out to people (as I’ve done a few times) that you cannot know personally that every person involved in creating the products that you use has been fairly compensated for their work, and so consequently you cannot know whether the assistance beneficiary paid their ‘fair share’ and are simply receiving the benefits of someone who worked honestly to get it, they go through the roof in anger. It contradicts the worldview of the average conservative, that getting something without paying a fee for it directly is always going to be cheating the system. Before you disagree with me, ask yourself; if someone sues an insurance company and wins a big check, do you feel happy for them? How about if they don’t have to sue, but get a nice big payout anyway? Do you doubt they earned that payout? Really?

Is a liberal worldview better? No. Most liberals I know (and I am a liberal. Have been one all my life) have no clue how things get done. They just expect things to happen when they want it, and couldn’t begin to explain how the systems around them work. In my experience, the group effort’s resultant extra payout is in large part squandered by the ‘middle managers’ who really are the lazy people in the equation. They’re the ones who don’t want to do the front line grunt work, and don’t want the attention that upper management gets. It’s why groups like Romney’s company will slash that part of the workforce first. At worst upper management will have to deal with the front line directly for awhile (this is how you get a fiscal conservative like Romney running as a Republican. Strange bedfellows) a liberal sees these actions as detrimental, because they only see the loss of paid positions. Ask stockholders if they think cost cutting is a bad idea, though.

In the end, both sides of the spectrum are wrong; and they are wrong for the wrong reasons. The conservatives are convinced that a return to our roots is required (as if that’s even vaguely possible) and talk about morals and religion as if that’s the work ethic enshrined; it’s not. The liberals talk about safety nets and the rich, as if the rich didn’t get where they were by crafting their own safety net; as if they could simply print money until everyone has enough. There really does need to be a work ethic, and there really is enough wealth in this country that we can afford to keep people from dying on the streets (and don’t tell me it doesn’t happen. Happens all the time) I just wish the hate would stop. Tired of the stupid people hating. Bad for the heart, you’ll end up a burden on society.

Ol’ Joey gets 400 mil

The news that Limbaugh, or Ol’ Joey as I like to think of him, has signed a contract worth 400 million really comes as no surprise. It’s hard to argue with success. AM radio was relatively ignored as a media outlet before Limbaugh re-invented talk radio. Populated by largely local call-in shows during the day, and low-budget national call-in shows in the evening and overnight, the idea that one person might be able to do a three hour monologue on a daily basis was probably considered crazy when he proposed it.

That I listened to the content that Limbaugh replaced, the level-headed local content that actually reflected the opinions of the people being broadcast to, probably explains why I rejected Limbaugh’s intrusion on my airwaves. His strident rabble-rousing has never played well in my household.

His views are no more the views of the people who listen to his show, any more than any other entertainer’s audience agrees with him. Limbaugh can strut around and pretend otherwise, but an entertainer is what he is, and an entertainer is all he will ever be.

Now he is an over-payed, drug abusing entertainer. He’s hardly the first.

Gas at the Price Advertised

I don’t know about North Carolina, but in Texas if you advertise a price, you have to sell for that price.

Drivers Flood Station for 35 Cent Gas

WILMINGTON, N.C. (AP) — Traffic was backed up and police were called to control the crowd after a Wilmington gas station accidentally set the pump price at 35 cents a gallon.

The Wilmington Star-News reported Friday that hundreds of drivers flooded a BP station for the cheap gas after the price dropped around 9 a.m. Thursday.

Station employee Shane Weller said the price for premium gasoline was supposed to be $3.35 a gallon. He complained that customers paid the cheaper price all day without saying a word.

It was all the extra traffic that led station employees to the mistake around 6 p.m. They found it after calling their district manager, looking for permission to changing the price as a way of stemming the flow of customers.

Information from: The Star-News, http://starnewsonline.com

Jeff Ward, Austin’s local talk show deity…

[Deity because he was credited with being omnipotent in the same hour this discussion took place; he apparently canceled the Olympics, tax day, and a number of other things just by saying it was so. I never knew he had that kind of power]

…took calls on the subject for most of this afternoon. I especially like the caller who said he would not only fill up his car, but come back with his RV and his cigarette boat and top them off as well.

Would I fill up the tank? Sure, if I didn’t have to wait in line. Seeing the line, I would have gone somewhere else. Unlike the customers of that store, however, I would have stuck my head in after filling up and let the clerks know that the price was probably wrong on the pump. There is no crime involved in paying the advertised price for something.

That they didn’t notice the error till the end of the day speaks more to the relative intelligence of the store operators than it does to the morals of their customers.

FFrF Radio: Susan Jacoby & Rita Swan

Podcast Link.
March 29, 2008Special Guest: Author Susan Jacoby

The show starts with excerpts from Richard Dawkin’s television special The Root of All Evil(?)
A title Dawkins goes to great lengths to disavow every time the subject comes up. His words? “Religion is the root of a great many evils, but it’s not the root of all evil.” I think I’m quoting accurately. The program can be purchased from the FFRF online store; this was announced three weeks ago during the broadcast of Dawkins’ interview on Freethought Radio.

The Pagan pulpit deals with Bible passages that slander the unbelievers. Sticks and stones…

Susan Jacoby is a very engaging speaker. She was interviewed concerning her latest book, The Age of American Unreason. Her opinion is one that I generally find interesting, even if I don’t agree with it. The same mass media that she decries, I find very useful for informing myself. It’s all in what you watch and listen to, and how you filter it (for instance, if you think Rush Limbaugh is a news source, you’re one of the problems; if you would rather watch Dancing With the Stars instead of Dirty Jobs, you are also one of the problems) I was listening to infotainment on my Treo when I was listening to the Freethought Radio podcast while out on my walk. Yes, the dumbing down of America is disturbing. Yes, media has something to answer for in this. No, denying children access to television and their iPods is not going to remedy this situation.

[The Montessori school that my children first attended had a hang up when it came to technology. They were certain that children should not be exposed to screens. Television screens. Computer screens. It was a constant point of controversy between myself and the school. I have a word for people who are irrationally afraid of technology. I call them Luddites. This, of course, did not go over well at the school]

Her example of the attacks on Barack Obama by Clinton and others because he “speaks too good” are very telling points when it comes to the dumbing down of America (I blame the government schools) what to do about it remains an open question.


“Sacred cows make the tastiest hamburger.” -Abbie Hoffman

2007 Archive episode.

March 31, 2007Religious Dogma that Kills Kids

Rita Swan was the guest. Children’s Healthcare Is a Legal Duty is her advocacy group. Over 40 states have laws on the books that give exemptions to parents and religious advisers who allow children to suffer and die because of religious belief.

Rita Swan’s story of why she is involved in this issue is worth the 40 minutes of time it takes to listen to this podcast.

The episode of Babylon 5 named Believers took up this issue several years ago. I bring this up because the subject is not nearly as clear cut as one might think. It’s related to many other issues surrounding the subject of children, and it really amounts to “how do you protect children from their own parents without turning the state into everyones parent?” I think the route suggested by Rita Swan is probably the proper middle way approach. Hold the parents accountable for a child’s death due to medical neglect. Render unto Caesar applies to these situations; whether your child dies because of your imperfect faith, or because diseases really do exist, your failure to do you duty by your child should be your responsibility.

Dan’s Sunday Morning Blues rounds up the episode on a lighter note, and Freethinkers Almanac brings it to a close.

2008 Democratic Debates

I’d just like to point out that I didn’t blog on the subject of the Democratic debates, even though they were in Austin, and even though I watched some of the program, and I didn’t blog on it for several very good reasons.

First off, that wasn’t a debate. It was a town hall meeting. I’ll talk about these things when we actually see a debate again. Secondly, Barack Obama cleaned the floor with Hillary Clinton from my perspective, and there was little need to talk about it during the viewing. Third, I still don’t like Hillary Clinton as a politician. I don’t trust her after her husband’s presidency and I don’t like political dynasties of any stripe. The trend is downward when you get on that course. So it was just a chance to see Obama shine one more time, not that I’m planning on voting for him in the general, mind you.

The best coverage on the non-debate could be found on KLBJ AM; specifically the lampooning they got on Jeff Ward’s show. You can still get Thursday’s and Friday’s episodes on i-Tunes for a bit longer. Thursday’s show featured an interview with Kinky Friedman. Friday’s postmortem ended with an hour long tribute to this stunning endorsement of Obama:

Can we not all just agree that, not only were the wrong Kennedy’s assassinated, but that the wrong person climbed out of the Chappaquiddick that cold night in 1969? The video at least asks that question.


Mea culpa review 2017. I just experienced another moment of existential pain in leaving that joke on this post. Oh, My. God. I think to myself, and I’m not even religious to start with, how crass can I get? In addition to leaving that atrocious joke in the entry, I took out the thought bubble below and instead listed the beliefs I held at the time. Beliefs I had for my hatred of Hillary Clinton. It’s not that I thought about anything that deeply then other than World of Warcraft and finding a new purpose in life, but I did have my reasons and I still don’t like her.

However. I started to delete the following thought I had imposed in the middle of the article, but then I realized I needed to save this most of all. I needed to preserve it as an example of just how blind the average person can be to their own biases.

Hillary’s mouth opens, fast forward till it closes. Listen to Barack Obama talk. Repeat process. The ‘debate’ was a remarkably one sided victory for Obama when viewed that way

This. This is misogyny in a nutshell, and I would have told you at the time that I didn’t hate Hillary Clinton because she was a woman. That is how subtle this crap is in our heads. Just more food for thought and one more post in the errata label series.

What about the Losers?

Originally titled Austin, the Portland wannabe, this entry has morphed into an In Related News type column (with a tip of the hat to Dan Carlin) because Common Sense 113, What about the Losers asks the same questions that were being asked by Jeff Ward when he interviewed Austin Mayor Will Winn on Our Little Show a few months ago.

At the time, I was screaming at the radio “It’s because Austin desperately wants to be Portland!” but I think the answer will take more explaining than that. Probably quite a bit more.

First, let’s deal with Dan’s assertion that we live in a capitalist system. This is important because Dan’s point is quite valid; in a capitalist system the growth of the markets should be robust enough that even the least ambitious, least able to compete amongst us can be provided for charitably from the fat left on the table. The problem is, we don’t live in that system.

Ask any economist and they’ll hem and haw and finally explain that we live in a managed market system, a hybrid market managed from the top down with central controls placed there by government to ostensibly protect the investors/users/general population from the dangers of an uncontrolled market.

What those dangers are is anyones guess, because hindsight has shown that the failures of the stock market can generally be traced back to interference in the market by the Federal government, or by it’s monetary arm, the Federal Reserve (before the Federal Reserve the fluctuations in markets were probably an offshoot of the legalized theft that is Fractional Reserve Banking. I’m leaving that discussion for another time because this thing is almost a book already) Most of the other markets haven’t so much failed, as they were never allowed to fully bloom before being stifled by state and local controls placed on whatever resource or talent the market formed around.

But the controls do serve the purpose of keeping the markets in check (whether the controls are professional licensing, health inspection, zoning and planning, or just the good old Securities and Exchange Commission) Keeping the markets in check being indistinguishable from slowing growth.

So we don’t really live in a capitalist system, and it’s been getting less and less so for more than a hundred years now. We do still live in what is largely a meritocracy (which is better than the alternatives) but it’s a far cry from the kind of capitalism that most laissez-faire capitalists dream about, and the profit margins are getting leaner all the time.

If there’s limited profit (what it means to be lean) then there’s limited fat to provide for those marginal types on the fringe of society. And no amount of exhortation to buckle down and provide for them from outside is ever going to result in their getting more of what they need. Like a parent telling a child to be good and share, if there’s only one toy, the toy’s owner gets to play with it.

Globalization (Dan’s second point) was occurring whether we drafted and joined GATT, NAFTA, CAFTA, et al, or not. I would actually offer up the observation that the agreements appear to have been drafted to favor the staid multi-national corporations after the wilderness had been tracked by more nimble entrepreneurs.

[much like the stock tech bubble was burst just in time for established corporations to wade in and take over newly created tech industries. But it would be very black helicopter of me to say that, wouldn’t it?]

So blaming the state of affairs on these agreements suits me just fine. I just wouldn’t waste time kicking the scapegoat of Globalization (whatever that means) for the fact that you can’t make $30 bucks an hour doing tech support for (insert giant corporation’s name here) anymore. As Dan rightly points out “they have smart people in India too” and they’ll work for much less. Any corporation bent on reducing costs is going to outsource work in those sorts of circumstances, globalization incentives in place or not.

It’s not globalization’s fault, because that’s only part of the big picture. There’s also the consistent devaluation of the dollar (generally referred to as inflation) by spend-happy congressmen bent on buying their way into re-election at the top end of the government chain (not to mention crusading Presidents with Foreign Dragons to Slay) These actions reduce the purchasing power of the dollars you have left after your job was outsourced to India.

On the other end of the government chain, you have cities (like Austin) that have activist governments bent on achieving various goals, either for the enrichment of the powerful within the city, or to satisfy the security/comfort demands of the citizens, or both. In Austin, the government has used zoning, licensing, and control of the water/wastewater and road system, as well as what’s known as an Extra Territorial Jurisdiction (ETJ) to limit growth and prevent what city planners refer to with distaste as sprawl. The predictable results have been growth outside of city controlled areas (leading to congestion and a mad dash to toll all roads that lead into Austin) and a steep climb in real estate values within city boundaries.

I say predictable, because this is the same formula that Portland and other cities modeled after Portland have used to limit growth and encourage compact city centers. The problems with this model have been documented in CATO studies, which I have perused often enough that I end up in a screaming match with my radio when the Mayor is interviewed.

Traffic congestion, homelessness and poverty. All of these are attributable side effects of limiting road construction, driving up the cost of housing, and diverting public funds to programs (such as light rail and subsidized housing) that do not produce the benefits promised. When you couple that with multi-national corporations outsourcing employment to countries where three generations of a family live under the same (small) roof; and the devaluation of the wages that remain, you have the recipe for the near unavoidable disaster which looms on the horizon.

Hello, interesting times. The ancient Chinese guy I was just talking to mentioned you.


So, what about the losers? What’s the solution? A lot less government, and a lot less government interference. It’s what will occur whether we head that way voluntarily or not. We might as well plan for it.

On the local end it’s going to mean relaxing building restrictions at the city level and perhaps relying upon the licensed professionals to do their job without the city looking over their shoulder (an architect can dream, can’t he?) it means privatizing road ownership (road construction, contrary to popular belief, is already mostly private) so that real maintenance costs can be established and funded. Privatized mass transit systems (London’s seems to work just fine)

On the Federal end, who knows? Can Washington be reasoned with? Considering the battle in California over medical Marijuana (a clear states rights issue if I’ve ever seen one) I’d have to say it looks like no. Can the out of control bureaucracy be brought to heal? That remains to be seen, but also doubtful.

[I’d be interested to see what would happen if the states insisted on payment of federal debts in Constitutional money; precious metal coinage. I think the Fed would have a hard time winning that battle in court]

So the real question is “will the Federal government survive the collapse of the dollar?” (which appears to be underway right now. It’s been slow so far, let’s see how long that lasts. And yes, I’m being serious. When have you ever seen the USD trade at parity with CAD? I’ve never seen it, till now) I don’t think it can be avoided. If, by some machination of events beyond the average persons comprehension collapse is avoided, and the federal government continues, there’s no telling what it will look like. Better to not worry about events beyond our control.

As for the plight of the losers, I’ve been rolling this idea around in my head for years now. Since we don’t use real money anyway these days, and since the banks can create money out of thin air when they need it, why can’t we do the same thing for that portion of society that would do without necessities if they aren’t extended the equivalent of credit.

There would need to be a standardization or nationalization of accounts, so that each person would have one account (and only one account) into which his electronic funds are transferred when he works, and from which funds are drawn when purchases are made. But rather than having a lower point at which no more funds are available, as in today’s bank accounts, the loser hits the point where the cash card becomes a charity card. Businesses would be given direct tax write offs for extending charity, and charity would be limited to strictly defined necessities (such as utilities, food, etc.) If you want a large screen TV, sorry you’ll have to do without. If you became productive again, then after a set period of time your charity card would once again convert to a cash card, and you could purchase whatever you wanted with it.

Not a libertarian solution, but a solution all the same.


I can see several of my AnCap acquaintances bristling from all the way over here. So, why should I care if the losers do without necessities? If I don’t want to give them charity, I don’t have to. And that’s true, as far as it goes. This post is already too long, but I thought I’d touch on the issue of haves and have-nots (or winners and losers) because it’s the have-not / have quotient (and the correlative societal highs and lows of money and status) that defines whether a society can continue to function peacefully or not.

Too high a number and the have-nots are emboldened to take what they want from the haves; and not all of us are or want to be Joe Horn. Too low a number, and human nature takes over correcting the trend turning haves into have-nots through natural laziness.

So obviously, it’s in the haves best interest to act in advance of the outset of violence, by not allowing the number to get too high; and the easiest way to do this is to keep the low end of the have-nots from falling too low. Put whatever conditions you want on the charity that makes you happy (after all, this is an exercise in “what if?”) Sterilization of the lowest portions of society so as to prevent a blossoming of their ranks through reproduction, in the event that they go on charity status. Repayment of charity before cash status is returned. Whatever.

Just remember that the more draconian the penalties, the less effective the charity will be at mediating violence. Which is the point of offering it in the first place, if human decency isn’t enough of an appeal to move you.

Who’s a Libertarian?

A post I circulated during the mini-tempest concerning the speaker at the 2004 Libertarian convention. This was the beginning of my dissatisfaction with sharing air with Anarchists.


The tempest in a teapot concerning Boortz speaking at the National Conference isn’t about Boortz; It isn’t even about war vs. antiwar. If you go back and read all of T.L. Knapp’s “Life of the Party” series, it becomes plainly clear that the issue goes much deeper than that. It’s why the “Boot Boortz” camp have the audacity to suggest that those in agreement with Boortz should “…be shown the door”.

The issue ladies and gentlemen is this: is gov’t necessary or not? Does the structure we call gov’t serve a legitimate function in a truly libertarian society; or is each individual capable of governing themselves sufficiently to render gov’t as we know it useless? Let me explain why IMO, this is what is being argued about.

Libertarians don’t agree on whether or not gov’t should exist. On the one hand you have those who believe that gov’t is not necessary, and they offer suggestions for it’s eventual replacement by voluntary structures. Generally those that offer these types of arguments are known as ‘anarchists’. On the other hand you have Objectivists, and others who believe that gov’t serves a vital albiet limited function, and it should be maintained in some minimal fashion so as to preserve liberty. The label that has been generally applied to these types is ‘minarchist’. Not everyone accepts the above labels, and the current LP membership includes views, like those of Constitutionalists, that don’t fit in either camp.

The anarchist/minarchist schism has existed within the party nearly since it’s inception. There have been various attempts to settle disputes between the factions, none of them very successful. The most successful was the “Dallas Accord” in which the libertarians of the time agreed that they would not discuss whether or not gov’t was necessary, and focus on the more important issue of personal liberty. The agreement has worked until recently.

So, what’s changed? 9/11, that is what has changed. The foriegn policy blunders that the federal gov’t has committed for the last hundred years have come home to roost with a vengence. The ‘terrorists’ have declared war on us, and we are under threat. We are now faced with a situation that must be dealt with, and all of the effective options involve the use of gov’t power. The problem is this: If you acknowledge that gov’t has a reason to exist, then that reason will most likely include defensive measures designed to secure us from the agressive actions of others. No matter how you slice it, 9/11 comes under “attacks against the territory of the United States”, and we have the obligation to make sure that any more threats of that type are dealt with, and the guilty parties that conspired to conduct the attacks are hunted down and exterminated.

To further extend the logic chain, one can extrapolate several strategic reasons for a large ground force in the area that the attackers called home (the Middle East) and the benefit of soundly defeating the ‘biggest bully on the block’. Whether you agree with the strategy or not, it makes sense from a military standpoint… If you acknowledge that gov’t has a reason to exist.

However, if you don’t believe that gov’t should exist, then any action of the gov’t is damnable from the outset; and any action which benefits the gov’t directly (such as a war) is the worst kind of evil imaginable, and therefore must be denounced in the strongest possible terms.

…and that ladies and gentlemen is why the disagreement over Boortz speaking has taken on a life of it’s own. He has had the audacity to apply logic to the situation and determine from his own perspective that the threat posed by the ‘terrorists’ is sufficient to require actions against other countries. …and to further determine that the largest most vocal segment of the antiwar movement are also anti-american. To add insult to injury he speaks his mind about his beliefs to an audience of thousands, and categorizes himself a libertarian. As others have pointed out, on every other issue other than the war, Boortz is solidly libertarian. But because of this one issue, his belief that gov’t has a reason to exist, he can’t be a libertarian.

Now the anarchists are regretting ever ‘letting’ non-anarchists into their club; and some of them would like to institute a purity test so that the membership can be limited to those who profess correct beliefs. To hell with them. This is the reason why everyone who has an interest in furthering the LP NEEDS to go to the convention and actively participate in the sessions. The core of the party has been controlled by too few for too long. If we are going to succeed in changing the policies of the current gov’t, we are going to have to include more people, and gain influence. You don’t do that by kicking out those you disagree with.

For my part, I wouldn’t mind if they asked Rush Limbaugh to speak at the convention; it might make for some interesting conversation. It doesn’t even offend me when Bill Maher calls himself a ‘libertarian’. He just makes himself look like a fool to those who know better. To take exception to Neal Boortz speaking at the convention is more than a waste of time; it is the equivalent of picking the scab off of a festering sore. It will only delay the time it takes for the underlying disagreements to recede into the background where they belong…

-RAnthony

“It is not the strongest of the species that survive, nor the most
intelligent, but the one most responsive to change.”
– Charles Darwin

Goodbye to the BBS forum on KLBJ

Just went by the KLBJ website and discovered that they have removed the forums from their website. It would be sad, except that the moderators killed the forum ages ago.

I was one of the last of the “Old timers” there. My profile said I had 795 posts (although you could only find about 10 of them towards the end) and that I had been a member since 1997. I joined and dropped out because of overactive moderators, and then revisited the site a few years later because a friend of mine was getting active on the boards there. He, and most of the active members of the time, were eventually banned from the site by the same moderators…

[It’s kind of ironic that one of the other oldtimers, an anonymous user with the name TTLMS was one of the few people left the last time I checked the memberlists; and I would have had him banned, if not brought up on civil charges, for some of his activity on the boards there. But they banned the other users for being too vocal. Go figure]

…who then went on to reformat the forums, deleting 7 out of 10 forums completely.

For the last year or so the place has been a virtual ghost town, with me being one of the few posters (other than the spammers) that even visited the place anymore. It’s not surprising that they finally completely closed it down. Another gravestone (albeit a virtual one) that can be attributed to the control freaks of the world.

It’s probably a disturbing sign of the times ahead, although I’d rather chalk it up to coincidence. So long Freedom of speech. We hardly knew you.



It’s worth noting that a business, a radio station for example, cannot censor. Only governments can do that. It is a misconception to accuse a radio station of curtailing free speech when what it really wants is for internet trolls to go to another website and clog their bandwidth with irrelevant arguments that prove no real points.  Not that I feel like defending the local AM station that still carries Rush Limbaugh. Feel free to take random potshots at them whenever and wherever the opportunity presents itself.

I appear to have run afoul of a bot or something with this post. I have reverted it to draft, kept it offline for a month and then re-posted it, and it still gets hit again and again and again. 9 hits today after a month offline,  6574 hits over the course of years (today is 2/18/2015, and I don’t even listen to this station anymore. Even Jeff Ward alienated me finally) the highest number of hits for any post I’ve ever written.  Weird what comes up when you start checking stats.

If you are a person reading this, why?  Here is the main page link. Here is the link to my page on Emergent Principles of Human Nature.  Here is a link to my page on Me, Architecture and Meniere’s. No really, go read something else, please.

I’m thinking of appending random links just to throw off the bots.  I’ll have to think of some really malware infested porn sites to send them to.

2017. Here are the stats today;

Going to try a different tack, duplication of the post in a new post with no hits. Same everything. See if it attracts traffic again. It says 7012 hits as I press the delete button. 44 more hits on the reposted one, trying altering the default link with a name change.

Limbaugh Lies: Hoof in Mouth

So, on top of kicking a cripple, attacking Micheal J. Fox over his bipartisan support for stem cell research, Limbaugh can add admitting personal stupidity to his list of fumbles for the week.

In his morning soundbite today, he is once again kicking John Kerry for “calling the troops stupid”, as if he and the president didn’t beat that dead horse enough a few days ago.

However, if you didn’t rely on the president’s spin on what was said (and why not? He’s always been truthful when dealing with Kerry in the past, right?) and in fact listened to the entire speech leading up to the statement in question, it becomes quite obvious that Kerry is calling Bush stupid, not the troops. Keith Olbermann has been making great hay with these facts, every day that the White House has chosen to bring this subject up, including asking very pointed questions concerning when Bush was going to apologize to the troops.

It’s been amazing watching how many people want to pile into that camp, and all admit that they are just as stupid as Bush. Average citizens, concerned parents of Iraq veterans, Tony Snow (he used to sub for Limbaugh on occasion. He was an idiot then too) and the rest of the White House staff. Most of the media just parroted the White House insistence that the troops were being insulted, adding their names to the list of “also stupid”.

Limbaugh, as the premiere conservative media propagandist, has also added his name to the list, and now underscored it by continuing to bring it up, days after the story had any legs. I found Kerry’s admission to be quite straightforward. If Limbaugh has a problem with it, it’s because he’s still calling the president (and those who side with him) stupid.

I’m no fan of Kerry’s, and his creating this tempest in a teapot with his botched joke has me wondering if he’s still playing at being Bush’s fall guy. Still, stupid is as stupid does, and the stupid conservatives have completely botched the last 6 years that they’ve held power, and Limbaugh has been their cheerleader throughout. He probably shouldn’t have abused OxyCodone. It seems to have affected his brain as well as his hearing.

Time for the next group of stupid people to enter Washington. They’ll most likely be Democrats (I predicted it several months ago) no matter what desperate measures Limbaugh and the rest of the conservative propagandists will go to.

Try not to soil the furniture, we (your bosses, the taxpayers) have to pay for all that.

The Best Enemy Money Can Buy

Listening to ol’ Joey today, and I heard the Great Fat One bragging about how he predicted that we were going to ‘deal with’ Iran two years ago, and how this was now about to happen.

The day Bush named Iraq as the next target in the ‘War on Terror’, it was clear to me that the Joint Cheifs wanted to establish a ‘beachhead’ in the Middle East, a place from which to stage the pacification of the entire region, as needed. Obviously, Iran would be the follow-on target. That was a bit more than two years ago. If ol’ Joey only figured it out two years ago, then he must be slipping in his old age.

…The real question is, are the Iranian’s engaging in nuclear weapons research in anticipation of this event, and do we really want a nuclear Iran? I think the answer to the second question is “no”, but are we prepared for the consequences of that answer?

We’ve handed these people our money, hand over fist, for 4o years now. We’ve built up their infrastructure and taught them how to drill for oil. Sold them our weapons and trained them in their use. As always, we’ve gotten the best enemy money can buy. I wonder when we’ll learn to quit doing that?