June 23, 2006
from - Buck
Take a look at this one from Boortz.
A senior al-Qaeda member has been captured in Iraq! Not a freshman, sophomore or junior but a SENIOR member! The insurgency is being crushed.
Now take a look at this one.
You tell me.
Baghdad is under curfew.
The only place in Iraq with any semblance of safety is the Olive Garden and we are still asked to believe that things are getting better instead of worse.
I can only hope that the current administration is assessing the situation more honestly in private than they are in public.
from - smijer
I looked for this early yesterday morning, but had to wait until today since Boortz posted late yesterday. Nevertheless, I knew it was coming, as soon as I saw that Rep. Hoestra had prevailed on John Negroponte to declassify "key points" of an intelligence report that echoed the findings of the 2004 Duefler report. Quoth Boortz:
Now a new report from the Pentagon sheds some light on just how many WMDs have been found, and it's a lot. We're not just talking an old Sarin shell here and there. No less than 500 chemical weapons have been found since 2003, according to a recently declassified defense department intelligence report. The weapons are of the mustard gas and Sarin nerve gas variety...nasty stuff.
So why isn't this major breaking news?
Because the WMDs are said to be manufactured before 1991....not in recent years. Therefore, the mainstream media and the Democrats don't count those. For some reason, they want WMDs made in recent years. Evidently the left likes their mustard gas just a little fresher. But that's not the point. This stuff can kill ... but to the left it's harmless.
All that matters is Saddam Hussein was lying when he said he got rid of all his WMDs. He clearly did not. Also, what do you suppose would have happened had Hussein sold some of these WMD's to Islamic terrorists? It wouldn't have been pretty. But this story will be ignored...and the leftist propaganda machine that says Saddam Hussein wasn't a threat will roll on.
Bearing in mind that the 500 munitions (read "shells") found were those buried by troops along the border with Iran during that war, degraded beyond functionality as artillery (though, yes, still chemically potent and therefore dangerous), and forgotten, and Bearing in mind that the Administration's Iraq Survey Group knew about them when issuing the finding that, "While a small number of old, abandoned chemical munitions have been discovered, ISG judges that Iraq unilaterally destroyed its undeclared chemical weapons stockpile in 1991. There are no credible indications that Baghdad resumed production of chemical munitions thereafter, a policy ISG attributes to Baghdad’s desire to see sanctions lifted, or rendered ineffectual, or its fear of force against it should WMD be discovered," and bearing in mind that Neal Boortz knows all of this, then my only question is:
Neal, why do you have to be such a liar?
June 19, 2006
from - Buck
Well, Neal has taken the "if you don't love it, leave it" angle concerning the Dixie Chicks.
People care about patriotism, Natalie, because they love their country.....Natalie --- you have the cash. If you live in a country you can't feel patriotic about, then you can move. Many entertainers have moved overseas. You won't be the first. In the words of my pal Ken Hamblin, pick a better country.
I was reminded of the words of the song "I am a patriot"
I am a patriot And I love my county Because my country is all I know I want to be with my family The people who understand me I've got nowhere else to go
I am not a big fan of patriotism in that it is usually just another word for nationalism and I think that is was Maines is referring to. There is great confusion when people talk about loving their country. If you love your country do you automatically love it's government? Do you automatically agree with all of the policies it enforces via the loaded gun?
Rabbi Sherwin Wine once said,
There are two visions of America. One precedes our founding fathers and finds its roots in the harshness of our puritan past. It is very suspicious of freedom, uncomfortable with diversity, hostile to science, unfriendly to reason, contemptuous of personal autonomy. It sees America as a religious nation. It views patriotism as allegiance to God. It secretly adores coercion and conformity. Despite our constitution, despite the legacy of the Enlightenment, it appeals to millions of Americans and threatens our freedom.
The other vision finds its roots in the spirit of our founding revolution and in the leaders of this nation who embraced the age of reason. It loves freedom, encourages diversity, embraces science and affirms the dignity and rights of every individual. It sees America as a moral nation, neither completely religious nor completely secular. It defines patriotism as love of country and of the people who make it strong. It defends all citizens against unjust coercion and irrational conformity.
This second vision is our vision. It is the vision of a free society. We must be bold enough to proclaim it and strong enough to defend it against all its enemies.
My hope is that free men and women who do not love the policies of our government will not leave the country. My hope is that they will stay and help to set it on the right course.
May 24, 2006
from - Buck
From The High Priest of The Church of the Painful Truth we get this
I come to you with bad news today. The Ditzy Twits have a new album out, and it's not doing all that well.
But if you make the mistake of actually reading the link he provides you get this
Regardless, the Chicks seem on the verge of more success. Taking the Long Way is the top seller on Amazon.com and the No. 1 download on ITunes. Reviews have been overwhelmingly positive, and the trio is launching a 43-city U.S. tour of major arenas, with a Sept. 30 date at Toyota Center.
I noticed on their website that the June 15th show in London is already sold out.
I think they will do just fine and I do not think either of the three will be relegated to eating Pork and Beans if they stop making music right now.
As for me I committed the ultimate act of treason yesterday by purchasing their new CD and it is fabulous all of the way through. You can hear "Not Ready to Make Nice" by going to their website.
My personal favorite is the last song entitled "I Hope"
So do I girls. So do I.
March 14, 2006
from - Buck
At some point we just have to cut them loose and find out. We can't spend the rest of the century holding their hands and occupying their country.
And then he says
So by 2007, we will have tossed them the keys and told them to make a go of it.
We'll check on that in about 9 months Neal.
January 11, 2006
from - smijer
“We don’t shy away from declaring that Islam is ready to rule the world”- Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.
Read the article - he's their Pat Robertson - wild-eyed, crazy, with dreams of rapture, or the Shi'ite equivalent. And, he's filled with nuclear ambition. Quite a sobering thought.
Hopefully, you are so scared at this point that you will see the wisdom of a heavy handed response to this sort of threat:
Here's an idea. Let's ignore him. Let's pull our troops out of the Middle East and allow Iraq to immediately fall under the control of Al Qaeda and other Islamo-fascist groups. Let's show Muslims around the world that we do not have the moral strength to stand up to Islamic despots. Let's take all of that money we've been spending trying to liberate Iraq and spend it on making life all comfy for Katrina deadbeats and on our hideous and beyond-salvaging government school system. While we're at it, let's engage in a year of self-flagellation over the treatment of Islamic prisoners and detainees. Let's work hard to strip the president of any executive powers he may have to fight Islamic terrorism. And while we're accomplishing all of these worthy goals, let's sit back and see just how much oomph Ahmadinejad can put into his dream of world domination.
Oh ... and one more thing. While we're at it, let's make sure we never identify the religion of Islam as the violent entity that it most assuredly is. Wouldn't want to offend someone, would we?
- Neal Boortz.
He's got a great point... we need to go off the deep end... the threat is too scary.
We must continue the war in Iraq - if we do not continue to fuel the insurgency with our presence and our gift of living targets, then it may win. If it wins, then the hope for an Iraq governed by pro-Iranian Shi'ites who share Ahmadinejad's ideologies is doomed.
We must give no thought to allowing Iraqis control over the money for reconstruction. That would be suicide.
We musn't trouble ourselves with the morality or decency of our own actions. If we do not become like them, we can never beat them.
We must not take care of our own people who have lost their homes in a natural disaster... that will make them deadbeats, and the Islamists will have won.
God forbid we follow Israel's lead, and lob a couple of patriots off a submarine when we see an active nuclear weapons program begin in Iran. That would only set them back a decade or two. We need total victory. That means having troops in Iraq, poised for a ground invasion.
Thanks, Neal Boortz, for clearing that up. My problem was that I was trying to think about the issues, instead of just getting real scared and doing whatever the Executive branch of the government said. You're right - we need the Executive to have more power... as it stands, all they can do is start wars, direct intelligence operations, and ignore the law. George Bush needs more than that... to protect our scared selves.
I'm so grateful to Neal for getting me back into a state of hysteria, that I read his next item, too:
Saddam Hussein was training Islamic terrorists before we removed him from power.
According to Stephen Hayes of The Weekly Standard, new documents captured from Iraq and newly-translated have shown that Saddam Hussein was, indeed, training Iraqi terrorists in Iraq, thousands of them. The training took place at training camps inside Iraq in the four years immediately preceding the invasion.
Now, don't look for any coverage of this revelation in the mainstream press. You have to go to The Weekly Standard website to get this information. Why? Because the news if favorable to Bush and supports his decision to get rid of Saddam Hussein. That makes the news simply unfit to print. So, you want more information? Good for you! Here's your link!
Actually, I have another theory that would explain why the mainstream media hasn't published this information - the White House hasn't fed it to them yet. Following the link, we find that there are (according to Weekly Standard) a large number of documents related to Iraq's pre-war relationship with Islamic terrorists that have yet to be "exploited." There is (according to the WS) a movement to translate them and make them public, for the press and hungry public to devour. Telling is this quote from Pentagon spokesman Larry DiRita:
The main worry, says DiRita, is that the mainstream press might cherry-pick documents and mischaracterize their meaning. "There is always the concern that people would be chasing a lot of information good or bad, and when the Times or the Post splashes a headline about some sensational-sounding document that would seem to 'prove' that sanctions were working, or that Saddam was just a misunderstood patriot, or some other nonsense, we'd spend a lot of time chasing around after it."
That's certainly a legitimate concern, and I salute the Pentagon for taking it into due consideration... But I say, hell - that's what we have Fox News for... while the Washington Post is cherry-picking the documents that downplay the pre-war threat from Iraq, Brit Hume can show us all the documents that (even though no-one was aware of it before the war) show why it was absolutely the smartest thing we've ever done to invade Iraq... after all Fox News is the most watched cable news network, right? ... unless there is no "there" there.
Personally, I really would like to know what's in all of those documents... I'm not really quite willing to take the Weekly Standard's word for it... but it would be interesting to actually know something from the inside about what Saddam was up to during the time that George Bush was studiously avoiding finding out.
That's it for now... have a blessed Wednesday.
December 19, 2005
from - Buck
Boortz, that great champion of libertarianism, today puts up what to me is probably the dumbest scenario I have ever seen put before the public:
OK .. before we get into this, let's explore a scenario. Some reports over the weekend have suggested that this scenario might be more fact than fiction. U.S. Intelligence agencies overseas discover the phone number of Osama bin Laden's satellite phone. Osama makes a satellite phone call to a U.S. citizen living outside of Chicago. Nobody's home. Intelligence operatives are certain that bin Laden will try to place the call again, but it may be from a different phone. They know that Osama changes phones frequently, so there is no time to waste in mining this resources. Their best chance to intercept bin Laden's next phone call is to place a tap on the U.S. citizen's phone. The next phone call may be in a matter of minutes, or hours. There is no time to go before a court to get a wiretap order. So ... what do you do? Do you put the wiretap in place immediately, or do you take the chance of missing the next phone call from Osama while trying to get a court order? Now, before you answer, imagine that this might have been a phone call from bin Laden to Mohammed Atta an hour before Atta was to board that American Airlines flight in Boston. The call was bin Laden giving Atta the final go-ahead for the attacks of 9/11. Without a court order you intercept the call, discover the plot, and save 3000 lives. Wait for a court order and the 9/11 attacks go forward.
What if cutting your mothers throat would have prevented 9/11 Neal? Surely you would have had no objections.
These people absolutely amaze me with their “what if” analogies that make other fairy tales pale in comparison.
Waiting on a call from Osama? Good God. Two-bit dealers in reefer know better than to run their operations via cell phones and I would be willing to bet that Osama Bin Laden hasn’t even seen a cell phone used in years much less used one himself.
There is nothing that cannot be justified in the minds of many. Over 80% of the respondents to Neal’s poll say that the President did not overstep his bounds by allowing the spying in question.
If you were to ask these people whether or not they thought the President had any bounds he could possibly overstep I would predict that their answer would be, “Not as long as we are expecting a call from Osama.”
December 13, 2005
from - Buck
He attributes his error to the fact that he did not take into consideration that it is “too cold in Los Angeles” for there to be riots. Maybe 66 degrees is too cool for those aspiring rappers and NBA stars to go out and steal flat-screen televisions.
Normally Boortz has a total disdain for the “majority” unless he happens to fall into that group. I have always gotten a kick out of his rantings about how incredibly stupid the majority of voters are without seeing the irony in the fact that his beloved Republicans have control over absolutely everything and were voted into office by a majority of these incredibly stupid voters.
By the way, did you know 3 states still offer hanging as the method of execution? You could put that on TV and give the money to the victims' families. Just a thought.
Ain't it a shame what it takes to sell radio advertisements these days?
It is too late for Tookie but it is not too late for Cory Maye.
While there may be honest disagreement concerning the fate of Tookie are there any other people in the United States who believe that Cory Maye should even be in prison much less on death row besides the jury that convicted him?
December 07, 2005
from - Buck
But you won't be hearing much about this poll....after all, it makes the Bush administration look good. Remember the template: any news that's interpreted as being good for George Bush is buried, while the bad news is covered on page one. Typical media bias.
Supposedly the “great news” that a majority of people think that torture is justified will be buried by the “liberal” media. Boortz got the story from everybody’s favorite underground news source, ABC News.
So much for the mainstream media burying a story.
So, the torture of suspects is okay. Hell, nowadays all you need is a beard and a swarthy complexion and you are a suspect.
When a green light for torture is great news for your President the problems in your country are legion.
November 15, 2005
from - smijer
Neal Boortz commented yesterday on Al Gore's long term risk assessment... You can go read it from the horse's ... uhh... oh yeah, mouth.
Did you read this line from Boortz?
Remember, though, that it wasn't all that many years ago when Gore-types were warning of global cooling.
If so, please bear in mind that he is, once again, full of it.
And, in case you missed the irony, Boortz characterizes Gore's assessment as representative of the "leftist" mind and as "anticapitalist" and "socialist"... forgetting for a brief moment that he is talking about a fella who was vice president of the most illustrious capitalist superpower in the world for eight years, and whose administration oversaw the biggest welfare reforms of the century as well as the enactment of the historic North American Free Trade agreeement.
But it all boils down to this: Boortz thinks that Gore's assessment is "really stupid". But who wins the battle of long term perspective between Gore and the Talk Master?
I say Gore - I agree that anthropogenic climate change is a bigger long-term problem than Islamic terrorism. In fact, if historical trends apply, a century or two from now, Islamic terrorism will be something that Islamic children read about in history books and for which challenged Islamic clerics will have to give embarrassed non-answers... just as happens now with the Christians and their witch hunts and their Inquisition.
We are already seeing the backlash that inevitably comes against those who use violence indiscriminately against whoever they perceive to be "the enemy"... People who are so in love with aggression are rarely rational, and can be depended on to destroy themselves long before they destroy their enemies.
On the other hand, anthropogenic climate change is scientifically well established (contra Boortz, who says his disagreement with the people who study it is that he doesn't believe climate change is "solely" due to human action... which of course it isn't... but human actions definitely have a profound impact on climate change). It's long term effects, though not fully understood yet, bear every indication of being extremely nasty - not just for Americans, but for the world - and the world economy.
Furthermore, climate change is a much more difficult problem to solve. It isn't a matter of ostracizing fanatics and creating strong cultural taboos against their actions... It's a matter of solving a whole host of economic and scientific problems.
Who do you think wins the battle of long-term perspective?
October 21, 2005
from - smijer
I'm way behind the curve... y'all understand why... I'm way behind on bringing ridicule to Neal Boortz "save the rich" rant (mp3 here if you missed it) It seems everybody has got a chunk out of him lately. Even his listeners... and it seems that Boortz has gone out of character and posted, unedited, some of the more blistering and even thoughtful listener responses...
They would be homeless if it were not for the contracters and the workers, who built the home for them to flop their lazy asses down. Personally I am disgusted at what you say, I am disgusted with them. Millions of fathers and mothers, including my own, work their hands to blisters to give a meaningful existance to their kids, and you have the guall to call them out and state that beacuae they don't make a couple million dollars a month they are not as good as someone that does? Let me tell you somthing dipweed, my father warks his ass off every day in the heat an/or cold, to provide for his family, I will guarantee that my dad is a better man than Donald Trump. Why don't you shout back, I would really enjoy hearing your pathetic point of veiw.
If we had to set priorities on who to save first, I would recommend medical and law enforcement personnel, teachers, and the more intelligent members of our society. Unfortunately, Neil, that would leave you on the outside looking in.
His friends at the country club will set up PO Boxes in tiny island nations in order to avoid paying the taxes that provide what made his company grow: infrastructure, security, and trained personnel.
They expect the rest of us to pay to clean up their messes (wouldn't want to bite into profits).
And then they send America's jobs to Communist countries where the work is done by slave labor, all so that a mega-retailer can undercut the prices of local entreprenuers.
After the wealthy squandered America's prosperity in the 20s, that prosperity was rebuilt in the 40s and 50s and 60s. It wasn't the rich who made things great that time around. It was the riff-raff and the returning GIs who got good educations, and invented our new world. They went from working poor to middle class to entreprenuer. Meanwhile, those with the burden of inherited wealth stagnated. Industries that didn't adapt rusted away.
Somewhere along the way - in the Reagan years - too many people decided that it was too much work to do the old-fashioned Horatio Alger thing. They looked for shortcuts. Then they built personal fortunes while stomping on the workers, the retirees, the investors: everyone who trusted the rich crooks.
Then there are those who use political connections to accumulate wealth. The list goes back into pre-history, but no one does it like today's Republicans. If you don't know who I mean, then read a newspaper.
The only thing I have to add is this: Is this the man you want re-writing the tax code? Probably -- if your name is Ken Lay.
September 08, 2005
from - Buck
His beloved President seems to be under constant attack and he feels it is his patriotic duty to defend him.
Did you hear about the St. Rita's nursing home near New Orleans? The staff abandoned the nursing home, leaving the patients behind. The patients tried to barricade the doors using anything they could get their hands on, including wheelchairs. Rescuers found 30 bodies in that nursing home yesterday. Bush's fault, wasn't it?
Of course not Neal. Anybody with half a brain knows it was Mayor Nagin’s fault.
And then he takes his obligatory jab at the “poor”.
Survival often depends on resourcefulness, self-reliance and the ability (or willingness) to make tough decisions -- traits that aren't exactly evident in those we call poor.
If there are any in our society that know plenty about resourcefulness, self-reliance and who are forced many times to make tough decisions it is the poor. The choices they are forced to make are a little tougher than choices such as steak or seafood or buy or sell or do I go to Florida or Colorado this weekend.
And my personal favorite
Speaking of irrational ... how many fools do we still have running around unsupervised spouting that absurd "war for oil" line ... other than Cindy Sheehan of course.
He is partially right. It was not a war for oil. It was a war for oil companies. And I think they are doing okay right now. Don’t ya’ll?
September 06, 2005
from - Buck
I pulled an old Boortz out of the archive today.
Neal's Islamophobia is clear but his denial of the situation on the ground in Louisiana, Mississippi and Alabama is stunning
what we are seeing in New Orleans today is nothing compared to what we might see if Islamic terrorists ever manage to realize their dream of bringing a nuclear device into this country. We're seeing tremendous losses and devastation in the wake of Hurricane Katrina. This is nothing compared to what you might see if the radical adherents of the wonderful, peaceful religion of Islam realize their dreams.
Can a suitcase nuke really devastate 90,000 square miles?
August 12, 2005
from - Buck
I always get a real kick out of Boortz as he assures his listeners that the price of gasoline is far, far below the highest it has ever been and that we should just all move along because there is nothing to see here when it comes to the price of gasoline.
Sometimes I try to imagine, using the Boortz logic, just how damned cheap gas must have really been before the oil barons took over the White house.
Neal assures us that before it can get as bad as it has ever historically been the price of gas will have to go to over $3.00 per gallon.
Well Neal. For some folks in this country it is officially as bad as it has ever historically been. The rest of us may not be that far behind.
If we reach a point when 58,000 Americans have been killed in Iraq and gas is selling at $4.50 per gallon I can’t help but wonder what excuses this libertarian will be making for his Republican party.
August 04, 2005
from - smijer
I wish I had gotten in on this a little earlier... it seems that yesterday, Neal Boortz went ballistic on an Amazon reader who had the temerity to place a negative review about Boortz' new book. Which is kind of funny in and of itself... that one negative review can get so firmly under his skin, when there have been critiques of the "Fair Tax" plan making the academic rounds, and posted on the internet, for years (for an amusingly contrarian review from a "starve-the-beast" Grover Norquist conservative, see here). But, let somebody make a critical remark on Amazon, and you'll see a tiny mushroom cloud over Atlanta.
Anyway, the reviewer has posted again (claiming that his original post was removed). Here's the product page. I can't link to the review, but since it's so juicy, and possibly apt to disappear, if Boortz' Dittoheads rate it down too much, I'll reproduce it here:
Amazing. I write a negative review about The FairTax Book on Amazon.com. Neal Boortz then trashes me the next day on his radio show and his website claiming I never read his book. I email Boortz and offer to debate him on the air, but he doesn't respond. Then my review gets mysteriously deleted off the Amazon site. All in the space of 24 hours. Like I said, amazing.
Well, I did read the book. (It's not exactly rocket science, it only takes about an hour.) What's more, I've followed the FairTax debate for about 10 years now and am constantly amazed at the lengths FairTax proponents will go to deceive the public that their plan is so wonderful. But I'm even more amazed at the number of ordinary people that will willingly allow themselves to be deceived without ever asking the most basic of questions.
I won't repeat my earlier critcisms of the book (since you can probably still find them on Neal Boortz's website, along with his rebuttals), but for you folks that REALLY WANT TO BELIEVE in the FairTax, please ask Boortz a few basic questions next time you call his show.
1. How did you come up with the 23% rate? The authors claim that our entire federal tax system can be abolished and replaced with a national retail FairTax of 23% (on, what they call a "tax inclusive" basis, which the rest of us would consider a 30% tax on a "tax exclusive basis) (see p. 153). Moreover, they claim that this rate will be revenue neutral -- that is, the FairTax will raise just as much revenue as our current system does.
Sounds great! The only problem is: They don't show one calculation or cite one source to show how they arrived at that rate. Think about that for a moment. They write an entire book claiming that this 23% tax will do all of these wonderful things, but DON'T CITE A SINGLE SOURCE to support that claim. The best they can do is say that a "group of Houston businessmen" hired a bunch of "researchers and analysts [that] concluded that we would need an inclusive sales tax rate of 23 percent." (p., 148). SO WHY DON'T YOU CITE ONE OF THEM SO THAT YOUR CLAIM CAN BE SUBSTANTIATED?
On the other hand, there are numerous sources out there that say the 23% rate is a crock. Look at William Gale's articles at the Brookings Institution website. He claims the rate would need to be 60% (on a tax exclusive basis.) Bruce Bartlett, writing for the National Review, said the Congress's Joint Committee on Taxation had calculated that the tax exclusive rate would be 57%. (Look up his Aug. 9, 2004 article on NRO.com.) I just found those studies today while surfing the web. I'm sure there are other studies, but you won't find ANY cited in The FairTax Book. Don't you wonder why?
2. How do they know retail prices will decline under the FairTax system? The crux of the authors' argument is that goods and services already contain an "imbedded tax" of about 22% which will magically disappear as soon as the FairTax system is put in place. So, amazingly, pre-tax prices for goods and services will drop by almost exactly the same amount as the new 23% tax rate. Thus, you won't be paying anymore for goods and services under the FairTax system than you currently are now.
How do they know this? Well, they devote an entire chapter (nine whole pages -- see Chapter 5) on this very issue. And they actually cite a study on this topic. The only problem is, the study is eight years old and was PAID FOR by the Americans for Fair Taxation (see, p. 59, fn. 1), which is the same group that advocates for the FairTax. Not exactly an impartial source. Let me ask you, if a university professor produced a report eight years ago stating that cigarette smoking was good for you, and that report happened to have been paid for by the tobacco companies, would you consider that report credible? Come on Boortz, can't you cite at least ONE NEUTRAL REPORT to back up your claims?
3. Is there such a thing as a free lunch? The authors claim that: (a) virtually everyone's income will rise (since we won't be paying any income taxes or payroll taxes); (b)we'll all get free money back from the government (i.e. "prebates" of around $6000/yr. for a family of four (p. 85)); (c) prices won't rise (they might even come down!); and (d) the government will still collect the same amount of tax revenue each year. Hallelujah! It's a MIRACLE! (It's also mathematically impossible.) Come on ye followers of the Church of the Painful Truth: You know already that there's no such thing as a free lunch.
4. Last question, and it's the real kicker: Who's taxes will go up under the FairTax system? Hmm. It won't be the poor; Boortz says their taxes will be eliminated (because of the "pre-bates"). It won't be the rich (because they tend to spend a smaller percentage of their incomes on taxable goods and services than everyone else, so their taxes will drop big time). So who's left to make up for the tax revenue lost from the poor and the rich? Oh yeah, the middle class. Shafted again! Who'd a thunk it?
Folks, before you start sending me hate-mail again, please ask Boortz or Congressman Linder these basic questions. And when they start spouting off that there are "numerous studies" that prove this and that, ask them WHY THEY DIDN'T PUT ANY IN THE BOOK SO THEIR CLAIMS COULD BE VERIFIED? Hey, we all want a simpler, fairer tax system - even us evil liberals want that. Unfortunately, the FairTax just isn't it.
Kind of rings a bell... I once said something very similar:
I've noticed something about Boortz. Sometimes, when his source is the Weekly Standard or World Net Daily, he will divulge to his audience where he got a piece of information. Other times, he won't tell. I've finally discovered the pattern. Can you guess? The times that he refuses to divulge his sources are the times when they include information he doesn't want you to find out about.
I cannot wait to see how this plays out. Buck, please let me know how hysterical Neal gets on the program today: I'll be unable to listen. And, though I have a very busy day ahead of me, I'll do my best to provide some further commentary on this little tempest as it develops, and as I have time to address the substantive points concerning the "Fair Tax" scheme.
August 03, 2005
from - smijer
Very nice discussion about intelligent design prompted by Bush's latest comments on the matter. Love him or hate him as President, you don't want him on your local school board. Links:
Pharyngula has a mega-roundup.
John Cole is outraged.Another Face of Terror Neal Boortz is promoting a new book on the "fair tax". Hippy Dave makes a good start toward an argument against a "fair" national sales tax. Here is what a tax that is fair might look like, at least in Tennessee. For now, at least, smijer's Podcasts have arrived. HTML Index, or RSS 2.0 feed. Enjoy... Or tell me to shut up. Either way.
More later, if time permits.
July 28, 2005
from - smijer
It's been a while since I even clicked over to read the Nuze... I know - I'm a slacker. It used to be kind of fun to check in to see what kind of new hysteria Boortz was peddling each day. Unfortunately, his repertoire doesn't go very deep. Soon, it was like watching Mama's Family.
But, since Buck brought it up, I read through today's column. I couldn't help but notice him giving high praise to British law enforcement for their work after the London bombings, sandwiched between his anti-Islamic raving:
In finding this car so quickly after the 7/7 bombings, the London cops seem to have stopped a second wave of attacks. This is the take-no-prisoners style of anti-terrorism policing the entire world could learn from. There's no appeasement going on in Britain these days, that's for sure.
Wow - such enthusiasm. So, is this a flip-flop? Or has Boortz just had a change of heart since he violently condemned the approach of using law enforcement to combat the terrorist threat?
And ... possibly most important of all ... we have a Democratic candidate who wants to treat Islamic terrorism as a law enforcement problem. Now war on terror ... just stepped-up law enforcement. That was the approach Bill Clinton used after the first attack on the World Trade Towers in 1993. We all know where that got us.
Just goes to show, for some folks, you do need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows...
June 07, 2005
from - smijer
How long has it been since I've really hurt your eyes with a Best of Boortz column? Not long enough? Huh... well, I've been working so hard on being nice lately, I need a few minutes where I can, in good conscience, just tear someone a new body cavity useful for the elimination of solid waste. And who has more solid waste stored up inside than Neal Boortz? Let's throw gentility to the wind and rake him over the coals, shall we?
The New York Times is reporting with great fanfare that the gap between the rich and the poor is rising. They seem aghast that the top .1 percent of income earners are raking in an average of $3 million a year. Furthermore, That's only about 145,000 taxpayers. So much money in the hands of so few..they must have stolen it!
Ok, so maybe he just doesn't understand the difference between opinion and news. Possible? According to him, only if he was educated in public schools. From September 29, 2004:
Meanwhile, my challenge stands. Write me an email ... give me a call ... send me some snail mail detailing any right wing bias in the reporting of the news on Fox News Channel. For those of you who went to government schools and who, accordingly, vote for the big-government party ... expressions of opinion by commentators is not considered to be "reporting the news."
Yeah... check those big letters just above the headline... the ones that say "Op-Ed Columnist". By the way, I have e-mailed one answer to Neal's "Fox News Challenge", which was never acknowledged. Of course, Boortz is preaching to a pretty out of touch choir, in any case. Everybody knows that every aspect of Fox News programming contains at least some right-wing bias. One would have to be blind from the Elephant Koolaid not to notice. Yet, in March of this year, Boortz lied outright and claimed that no one had met his challenge.
Anyway, back to the meat and potatoes, or in Boortz' case, the pâté de foi grois and crème broulee of this post. He rails against the New York times editorialist for pointing out that income disparity really does continue to rise. Sure, the Bush tax cuts have something to with that. How can they not? But Boortz doesn't buy it. He honestly (ha!) thinks that income disparity comes from the moral fibre of the rich and the degeneracy of the poor... No, really:
If rich people are getting richer, that means they're producing more profit or earning more money. We'll call them the achievers.[...]Poverty is a mental disease at worst and a behavioral disorder at best. The rich keep getting richer because they keep doing the things that make them rich. Ditto for the poor. Everyone is where they are in life as a direct result of the decisions they have made to put them there. If they've worked hard, they can be rich.
He closes with this unintentionally ironic twist: "Unless, of course, you're a Kennedy and get rich by default." ... hmmm... you mean you can be born rich? Maybe that's why Boortz campaigns against the estate tax, huh?
'Course, there are a lot of factors that figure into the income gap. As was pointed out not too long ago, it's expensive to be poor... especially in Tennessee. And then there is the pervasive corporate cronyism (pdf) which ensures executive salaries go up even when profits go down. So, no... it's not really that rich people are just great achievers and poor people are all bums. It's also the fact that wealth is power. It's the fact that work and achievement are among the least successful means of producing wealth available. So, when Boortz snorts that '[the poor] aren't going to make the sacrifices necessary to become rich like them', remember that his chief sacrifice is to sit on a comfortable chair in a studio and talk about things he knows next to nothing about.
If we can't lock them up indefinitely without charges or trial and abuse them in the meantime, we might as well let them go.
Quote number one:
Apparently Amnesty International doesn't know what real human rights abuses are. So why are they attacking us?
Ouch. Funny, a lot of people seem to think that exact thing. I suppose Boortz can be forgiven since he only got into this "freedom" and "human rights" thing fairly recently, when he needed a pom-pom to shake with his war cheers, but honestly... I suggest that Neal read up on Amnesty.
So, what to do with these 500 or so 'jihadists' that haven't already been returned to their home countries because of their innocence?
Senator Joe Biden says we should shut down the Gitmo prison. What would he have us do with the 500 or so jihadists we have imprisoned there? Perhaps we should put them all up for adoption? Send them around to live with liberals in a terrorist exchange program. Then people could learn the "root causes" of terrorism and try and reason with these bloodthirsty animals, which of course would never work.
No... we could never do that. I say we dig a hole under Camp X-Ray and dump them in there. Or, and I know this is going to sound radical, but what if we took them to a detention center where the Red Cross and Amnesty International were allowed to monitor their treatment. Then, we could charge them with war crimes, let them consult with their attorneys, and hold a trial. Ok, ok... I know that may sound kind of UnAmerican, but it could work!
I could go on, but I'll spare us both...
May 31, 2005
Taking Lessons from Bush on Amnesty's Condemnation Is Like Taking Lessons from Bush on the English Language
from - smijer
And you can do both, here.
I'm aware of the Amnesty International report, and it's absurd. It's an absurd allegation. The United States is a country that is -- promotes freedom around the world. When there's accusations made about certain actions by our people, they're fully investigated in a transparent way. It's just an absurd allegation.
On the English Language:
It seemed like to me they based some of their decisions on the word of -- and the allegations -- by people who were held in detention, people who hate America, people that had been trained in some instances to disassemble -- that means not tell the truth.
... People who hate America and went through the "extra-legal" internment camp, held without charge, even though many were innocent, and in the company of whom were over a hundred that died under interrogation... Sheesh... they should love America and quit "disassembling" about everything.
I get this via the Moderate Voice, who also criticizes the Amnesty report for not properly contextualizing American offenses against human rights. Well, I disagree. I think they are merely missing the context. The Soviet Gulag was a place for political prisoners who were held without charge by one of the most powerful superpowers on the planet. The context is America as superpower. Camp X-ray, Abu Ghraib, various detention facilities in Afghanistan and Uzbekistan (not to mention Syria, Iran)... these are abuses of Absolute Power. Stalin was vile when he purged the Party of dissenters. But the Stalag was not just Stalin's... it was an instrument of a burgeoning Soviet empire...
So, maybe America's offenses don't stack up numerically to those in Korea and in which Americans had no hand in Syria or Iran... yet. Amnesty is telling a hard truth about American abuse of power. We would do well to listen to them, instead of listening to Bush "catapult the propaganda".
That would go, also, for the propaganda you might hear from Dick Cheney or the Cheerleading Master.
Next week, see Bushco and Boortz go after the Red Cross. It seems there's Blues under every bed.
May 04, 2005
from - smijer
I haven't done my duty and fisked Neal Boortz lately. Part of that is just that he's gotten so looney, there's almost no reason to. It's said that you can't reason someone out of what they weren't reasoned into... and anyone who gives Boortz the least bit of credibility certainly wasn't reasoned into it. But I would be remiss if I didn't occasionally pop off about him.
Boortz complains that the "anti-Bush media" (most of whom appear to be on Bush's direct payroll) don't play up the positive angles enough, and keep doing realistic stories on what amounts to a reality that sucks in many ways. A humorous aside: he labels the November election as a "landslide victory" for Bush... Anyway, the real irony is that reality even sucks when Boortz has to talk about it, as evidenced by the fact that he follows this blurb that complains about negative reporting on the war in Iraq among other things with... get ready for this... his very own negative reporting on the war in Iraq, among other things. Specifically, the next point on his page is headlined U.S. MILITARY STRETCHED THIN. He follows up with AL-QAEDA STILL A THREAT AT HOME, and then moves on to a story about Abu Ghraib, featuring this uplifting scene:
Yes, Neal... you're officially a member of the anti-Bush media.
A further point... I do agree with Neal's suggestion that the military up its recruiting by paying soldiers the salaries they are worth. Unfortunately, this will never happen, because spoiled, rich Americans won't ever give up a penny in taxes where they can find a politician willing to cut them. And it is tax-dollars, after all, that have to be used to pay soldiers. With all of our credit cards maxed out already, Bush would have to give back some of those tax cuts for the rich to increase military paychecks significantly. Ain't gonna happen.
And, the fact that we are in this mess in the first place tells you that America and it's political leaders have their priorities sadly and badly out of order.
Us and Them
Educating Neal Boortz - Social Security and IOUs
Problem? What problem?
Help me with my unbelief
The Forest and the Trees - Our World
Good news from Iraq?
Low Comedy, Talk Show Style
Boortz and Me on ANWR
Nicola Calipari vs Martha Stewart
A stunning success
Truth about Consequences
My knees are knockin'
Just Bullet Points, I'm in a hurry....
I'll take that back
Fishers of Men
American Hubris in 20 Words or Less
Let Freedom Reign!
Conservative Commentator on Universal Suffrage
Why were we still lookin'?
DEMOCRATS MUCH CHANGE!
Might makes right?
Thinking About Dick
Predictions and such...
It Must Be Thursday
Stealing My Thunder
Back To Boortz
Grudgingly, Richard Clarke
Late Blogging Small Boortz
Boortz on Employment: a Study in Cynical Hubris
Maybe I'm Still Sleepy
Shorter Neal Boortz, Reprised
Shorter Neal Boortz
Debate Nite Short
Boycott Brazil Nuts
Damage Control and More
Help Me Out Here
Boortz: "Too Much Slime on My Hands"
They're Scared of Clark, Too
Oh yeah, and....
Good, Something is Wrong
Real Libertarians, Help!
Boortz Truth Watch
"Class Warfare" Revisited
Eat The Working People
Want Regime Change?
Go Read Oliver
Sir, Your Pants Are Ablaze
Welcome To The Boorg