Please stop by!

ColoradoMac.blogspot.com
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

Mac
ColoradoMac.blogspot.com

After listening to the various conservative talk show hosts voice their dissatisfaction with the current crop of GOP presidential candidates, I've reached two conclusions.

First, I admire their purity and their consistency.  Laura Ingraham is holding on to her position on abortion like a hungry dog to a meaty bone.  She clearly will not let Rudy G off the hook on this issue, just as she won't let John McCain off the hook on the issues on which he does not toe GOP party line.

Second, I wonder how many Thank You cards the Democrats will be sending to these hosts after the 2008 elections.  At a time when the GOP is in great trouble, its members are fighting among themselves every single day.  They're rolling out the red carpet at the White House for Hillary or Barrack at the same time, by turning GOP voters off to their own candidates.

So Laura, congratulations on your purity.  You're holding on to your principles and your beliefs, and that is obviously a good thing.  Of course, many would-be Republican voters either stayed home or voted for another party in 2006, which contributed to the Democrats' victory.  Looks like history is going to repeat itself.

I hope your purity keeps you warm when we have a Marxist for a President in the White House. 

A pro-abortion President, by the way.

 I guess you just never can tell.

Little did Don Imus know when he arrived at work one morning a while back that he would be inadvertantly igniting a long-overdue national debate on a critical issue, while severely damaging his career at the same time.

I hosted entertainment-oriented morning radio shows for over a decade, and I know precisely how easy it is to let slip a comment (even if it's in jest) that can quickly come back to haunt you.  You utter millions of words over the course of four hours a day, five days a week, year after year.  And when you have enemies listening to every word, the clock is always ticking on your career.

However, Imus' dumb response to producer Bernie McGuirk's dumb comment on the women's basketball team (both protected by the First Amendment, lest the PC police cause us to forget) did much more than land a "shock jock" in career detention; it also motivated many to look at rap music, the hip-hop lifestyle and contemporary black culture with an understandably critical eye.  It has been the inspiration for countless television and radio debates on these topics, and has even led rap mega-producer Russell Simmons to publicly question hip-hop songs and lyrics.

As far as I'm concerned, the only negative to come from this (outside of the damage to the careers of a group of radio personalities I have long enjoyed and continue to support) has been the fact that Al Sharpton and his race-baiting ilk have scored a few points on the credibility scale.  The destructive Politics of Victimhood certainly was assisted here, hopefully only temporarily. 

American blacks will make their greatest strides when they're more likely to listen to Bill Cosby, Clarence Thomas and Juan Williams than to Sharpton, Jackson, et al.  At least this incident has increased that possibility.  Here's hoping.

So, thanks Mr. Imus.  I know you didn't mean to put yourself in this position, but you may have done your country a great service with your on-air mistake.  Best wishes for the future.  I remain a fan.

I enjoy Imus in the Morning.  I don't often get a chance to see it on MSNBC (Imus is not carried on Colorado Springs radio), but I certainly watch when I can.  I was in radio for about 20 years, including as host of entertainment-oriented morning radio shows, and his program is perfect for my tastes.

When and if Imus returns from suspension, I suspect he will continue to be contrite and apologetic.  He'll probably tone down the rhetoric on his show, and I'm guessing this change will be permanent.

What a shame.

In my dreams, this would be Imus' first comments upon his return:

"I've had some time to think about the firestorm that my stupid comments created.  I'll say it again: Stupid comments.

"I've decided that I'm a little pissed off.  It has occured to me that this isn't about a group of people being offended and victimized.  It's about a few people who can claim that they speak for people who have been offended and victimized.  It's also about some nice young ladies I insulted, and whether they will forgive me.  That's about it.

"I agree with the Reverends Sharpton and Jackson.  There's plenty of racism out there.  For example, there are racists who believe that blacks are inferior and helpless, and can only succeed with help from the government.  There are racists who actually profit - make a living - by keeping blacks angry at whites regardless of what whites say or do.  Those are the real racists in my book.

"What I said was stupid.  But I think I've apologized enough.  And to those people who have been screaming about my words, Reverends Sharpton and Jackson, perhaps we should take a look at some of the things you have said in the past.  You expected us to be tolerant and forgiving then, yet you refuse to extend me the same courtesy.  So you can take your hypocrisy and cram it.

"If my employers in radio and television think I've gone over the edge, again, then fire me.  I'll be able to spend more time with my family, and with the hundreds of children of all races who I help out at the Imus Ranch.

"To reiterate, cram it."

Ah, to dream...

 
I admit it, I was wrong. 

I spent roughly 20 years in "the media", and I know exactly what the environment is like.  Rush and the other conservative pundits are right - the media leans far to the left and it's reporting reflects its ideology.  As I've mentioned in a previous blog, there are many ways to skew a story to your agenda, and the press has always been more than willing to skew to the left.  This is a given, folks, and the left-wing denials are terribly transparent and frankly laughable.

And by the way, I'm an Independent.  I'm not a right-winger, flailing wildly at "the other guys".  For proof, read my other blogs, below.

So anyway, here's where I was wrong.

As conservative talk radio grew in size and stature, the press was exposed more and more.  First Rush, then Hannity, Medved, Hewitt, Prager, Bennett, Gallagher, Ingraham and the rest gave example after example of the obvious left-leaning bias of the media.  There are now polls that clearly indicate the public also realizes how far left the major media leans.

I truly thought that once the media was outted for its bias that it would pull back on its efforts to advance the left-wing agenda.  I really expected the press to ease up on the liberal throttle a bit and make a sincere effort to be more balanced in its reporting.

Instead, it's gone even further left, not even trying to hide its bias at this point.  There has been no mea culpa, no effort to be even-handed.  It's full speed ahead, the Left is Good and the Right is Evil.  I've been stunned as I've watched American Major Media become more and more biased, even after it was exposed as such.

Amazing.  I was wrong.

But heck, I've been married for 25 years, I'm pretty good at admitting I'm wrong...

After giving the issue a significant amount of careful thought, I have reached the conclusion that stock market investors are insane.

I toyed with individual stocks for a couple of months, and I recently went back to mutual funds.  I'm going to let my fund managers deal with it.  I did this after observing the behavior of the market.  That's where my theory of insanity was born.

Here are three examples of market insanity.  I will provide a news item, and I will follow it with two directions the market might take in reaction to the news item.  Both directions will make sense, but both are exact opposites.  I'm usually on www.MarketWatch.com in the mornings, but I'll jump around to different investing sites.  Each site has its own theories as to where the market is going, and why, and why the market went where it did.

The price of oil jumps
The market may go up, with the rationalization that higher oil prices will slow the economy and lead to interest rate reductions by the Fed.  OR, the market may go down, with the rationalization that the drag on the economy brought on by higher energy prices will damage corporate earnings.

Which way will the market go?  Who knows.

New Home Sales go Up
The market may go up, because real estate has been in the toilet and this is a good sign of an improving economy.  Or, the market may go down, because improvement in the real estate market means the Fed will freeze or even tighten interest rates in the short to mid term.

Which way will the market go?  Who knows.

Retail Sales slow
This is terrible news for the market, because it indicates a weakening economy and portends declining corporate earnings and possible layoffs.  Or, it's great news, because it means the economy will probably not overheat, leading to inflationary pressures and possible layoffs.

Which way will the market go?  Who knows.

I do know this.  You people are insane.  The market makes no sense.  Up is down, good is bad.  I've had it.  I'll let the guys at Vanguard, Janus and Loomis Sayles worry about my investments.  I'm going to put on a Jimmy Buffett CD.

I agree with the Democrats.  The gap between the "haves" and the "have nots" is widening every day.

And it's not difficult to identify some of the primary reasons.  For example, I'm reminded of the "gap" problem every time I hear "Press One for English, Press Two for Spanish" on the telephone.

How in the world can we expect immigrants to get good jobs in this country if they can barely communicate in English?  Why should I hire someone for a decent position if they can't represent my company effectively?

The Democrats have a brilliant schtick going, and it's showing no signs of slowing down.  It's a simple, two-step process:

First, push multiculturalism and demand that no immigrant group is required to learn English or assimilate into our culture in any way.  Allow them to remain separate from others in as many ways as possible.

Second, when this separation causes the group to be isolated from the rest of American society, both culturally and economically, complain that the group is being discriminated against and that the country needs the Democrats to penalize those who have more than this group to "make things fair".

The Soft Bigotry of Reduced Expectations is the New Racism, and the Democrats are getting away with it.

Admit it, this is a brilliant strategy, and we're watching unfold daily. 

What's the GOP going to do about it?

I admit it, I stoop to name calling.  One, that is.  "Sheep".

It's the one time I find myself calling names, and you'll find it used on this blog.  I suppose I call it my little calling card.

But that's it.

Michael Medved was calling Libertarians a wide variety of names (including the stunningly childish "loser-tarians") today, presumably because he disagrees with them on some issues.  Just as the Democrats did with Joe Lieberman.  Just as virtually every other talk show host does.  Dennis Prager may be one exception, but that's about it.  Sean Hannity is terrible in this department -- he'll start name-calling faster than anyone (well, maybe outside of Michael Savage, who gets so angry and so abusive so quickly he's in a league of his own).  The group at Air America isn't any better overall.

Such behavior is regularly exhibited by people who are so paralyzed by their ideology that they cannot fathom that anyone would disagree with them on anything.  Their minds are so closed that any view that challenges their own is alien and could only be produced by someone who is either stupid or evil.  And these are the people I refer to as "sheep".  Both ends of the political spectrum, sadly, are full of them.

It's not even good strategy.  When I see Person A repeatedly attacking and insulting Person B, I'm much more likely to doubt Person A.  Seems to me that the best way to get your point across, the best way to convince, is to use nothing but logic, maturity and reason.  Why do so many talk show hosts and other partisans act like children so quickly, so often?

Our problems will not be solved as long as we sound like a seventh-grade school yard.  Until we decide to treat each other with a fundamental respect, even if (imagine this) someone disagrees with us.

The mere fact that I disagree with you on a given topic does not make me stupid, dumb, idiotic, or a loser.  Even my EIGHT year old knows THAT.

We think we're so civilized, yet we jump on the attack when someone utters a thought that differs from our own.

We have a long way to go, and I'm not holding my breath.

I suspect liberals would have an easier time in certain debates if they'd stop playing games and just be honest.  Two examples:

Abortion.  I'm listening to an interview that Michael Medved is doing with an abortion proponent.  Rather than admitting that abortion is not a good thing, she's dancing around the question, trying to infer that abortions are neither good nor bad.  This is giving Medved a perfect opportunity to accuse her of obfuscation, making her look shifty.

One of the biggest problems with contemporary American politics is that ideologues on both sides are afraid to give an inch, unwilling to admit that their solutions are not perfect.  Of course, there are no perfect answers to difficult issues, but partisan sheep are afraid to admit it.

For someone who is considered "pro-choice", it seems to me that this would be a more intellectually honest, and more effective approach:

"Yes, it's fair to say that an embryo is human life.  It would be intellectually dishonest for me to say that such an organism, which is DNA-specific, is not.  However, it is my opinion that the first few weeks of a pregnancy are a reasonable time to end the pregnancy because embryo or fetus is not viable.  I would also argue that the best way for us to minimize abortions is to go after the real problem, which is demand.  Let's work together, let's mobilize our considerable passions and abilities, and reduce demand.  But let's not take away the ability for a woman to choose to terminate."

Gay Marriage.  This whole debate is simply absurd to me.  I'm an agnostic.  I admit to not having The Answer when it comes to why and how we are here.  I therefore can't relate to the argument that God doesn't want people to "be gay".  It's also quite clear to me that homosexuality is a regularly occuring physiological anomaly, a genetic mis-fire that happens now and then.

I'm afraid I don't look at gays as a symbol of the decline of our species.  Yet, at the same time, I don't agree with the way the gay lobby is pushing "gay marriage".  Is it not clear that many people hold a deep reverence for the term "marriage"?

(Quick sidenote:  The term "The Sanctity of Marriage" doesn't seem to hold a lot of water, what with a 40-50% divorce rate, but that's another issue)

Instead, the American Left tries to paint homosexuality as "perfectly normal" and won't give an inch about the term "marriage".  Why is this?

That's another example of the American Left fighting a reasonable battle unreasonably.  Here's a more intellectually honest approach:

"I admit that homosexuality is not the way the human species was built to function.  A quick look at the physical makeups of males and females makes that pretty clear.  However, homosexuality is not some kind of dangerous condition that causes people to act in ways that are dangerous to others.  Further, homosexuals are a fully functioning, perfectly valuable group in society and deserve to be treated accordingly.  Allowing a gay couple to be enrolled in a group health care plan will cause exactly zero damage to anyone else, anywhere.  Let's call it a Civil Union so that we can all get on with our lives."

Honesty is the best policy, folks.  Stop playing games and you may see better results.

I know this blog is on TownHall.com, and I suspect virtually everyone who may read it will disagree with several things I've posted.  This article, without a doubt.  But I'll keep trying to promote reasonable thought, behavior and communcation as long as I'm here.

I was listening to Jay Marvin, local (Denver) morning show host on Air America this morning (Aug 4). 

Jay was complaining that Colorado Governor Bill Owens had (supposedly) said that American Blacks had inferior work ethics than Asians and Jews, I believe.

Marvin is a partisan sheep, and therefore required to pretend that whatever the "other side" says are so foreign to common sense that he simply can't imagine why they would say it.  Of course, sheep on both sides of the political spectrum do this constantly.  They look around with this wide-eyed, open mouthed righteous indignation that would be amusing if it were not so transparent and counterproductive.

Jay, for the record, it's true.  American Blacks do, in general, have a lesser work ethic than Americans such as Asians and Jews.  And the obvious reason can be traced to the American Left. 

American Black "leaders" and the rest of the American Left have spent so much time and energy trying to convince Blacks that they're inferior, that they need extra help, that they can't do it on their own, that American Blacks now believe it.  They've been hearing it, and passing it down, for generations.  And you know it.

To quote a man I know you're ideologically obligated to hate -- your President -- it's the "Bigotry of Reduced Expectations".  And I know you're ideologically obligated to pretend you have no idea what I'm talking about.

Pretend all you want, Jay.  If you have school-age children, pretend that the parents of Asian, Jewish, Indian and other ethnicities don't make their kids study and work harder.  Pretend that those fathers aren't FAR more likely to just BE THERE.

I know your obligations.

I was listening to Laura Ingraham this morning (Aug 3) as she was predictably defending Mel Gibson and his hideous comments about Jews.  Her primary point was that we can't cast stones, so we should simply leave the poor guy alone.

I read a piece by Mona Charen that also essentially predictably defended Mel -- her tactic was to compare him to Micheal Moore.  "Moore is worse".

I wrote an email to Laura that asked her if she would be so tolerant if a liberal had said these terrible things.  Of course she wouldn't.

And Mona used the typical partisan sheep tactic of saying "yeah, okay, what our guy did was bad, but the OTHER side is even WORSE!!"  Gee, what a wonderful, inspirational argument.

This is just the latest example of the intellectually dishonest nature of partisan sheepism.  Had a liberal said what Mel said, both of these women would have been on him like ants on an ice cream bar.

And we're supposed to take partisans seriously?

Does anyone find the obsession that Keith Olbermann has with Bill O'Reilly a little creepy?  When I see Person A constantly attacking Person B, I tend to wonder more about Person A.  Keith, you're a winger just as he is, and deserve no more credibility, see my "Are You A Partisan Sheep?" test below.... 

At a time when our world appears to be exploding around us, we cannot stop exposing the left-leaning nature and agenda of the American media.  In fact, this effort is more critical now than ever. 

In a former life, I spent nearly 20 years in "the media". 

And as I watch today's mainstream media bend and shape the daily news to match their agenda, I'm stunned by the fact that they continue to do so even after being "outted" by Rush Limbaugh and the rest of the "new media".  Yet, they proudly continue.

As a former News Director, I can personally confirm the surveys that show roughly 85% of the media is liberal.  I can also attest that there are three primary variables when it comes to inserting your personal political agenda:

1. Whether you cover the story at all.  Agenda by omission.  Any News Director can choose to simply ignore a story which flies in the face of his agenda.  Good economic news today, or good news from Iraq, for example.

2. Placement.  It's easy to "bury" a story to decrease it's significance, or to place it in amongst other stories that negate its effect.

3. Omission.  Conservative talk show hosts have exposed this one.  When "researching" a story, it's easy to omit interviews with people whose information does not match your agenda.  This is one of the more sinister strategies used by the media.

4. Writing.  The easiest technique to detect, the way a story is written can change good news to bad, it can slant any information to match your agenda.

To see journalists deny their efforts to insert their agenda is terribly frustrating to us all, but even more so for those of us who have been there.

And now that our world is in such intense turmoil, the press is in a position  to weaken us as much as they would like.  It's all about getting Bush, regardless of the consequences.  The ends currently justify the means.

Keep your eyes on this, and don't stop exposing it.

Take this test!

Do you automatically take the side of your party, regardless of the evidence?  Do you then choose to ignore that evidence because it doesn't support your sheep-like argument?

Do you take every opportunity to spin good news to bad, or bad news to good, to match your political ideology?

Is the only time you criticize your party when they aren't going far enough in your political direction?  Do you then claim to be "open minded" and an "independent thinker" because you criticized them?

Do you lack the fundamental self-esteem required to honestly question your own beliefs, and that of your other partisan sheep friends?

Do you point the finger at sheep on the "other side" when they do precisely the same partisan sheep things that people on "your side" do?

Do you question the intelligence of anyone who disagrees with you ("you're dumb because you disagree with me"), not unlike an eight year old?

Do you automatially try to discredit someone who says something in opposition, trying desperately to deflect their point and change the subject?

Do you attack members of your party when they don't march in lockstep with other sheep?

Do you categorically deny doing the above, even though you know you do it?

If so, yes, you're a partisan sheep, and you have zero credibility.

As I watch the TV pundits, hear the radio talk show hosts and their guests, read the web sites, and visit the political chat rooms, I wonder -- are you people expecting to be taken seriously?  Do you not see how transparent it is when you stoop to spinning and partisan game-playing?

Contemporary American politics is nothing more than All Star Wrestling without the feather boas.  But this is no TV show, this is reality.  And people who engage in partisan sheepism are hurting us.  Partisan sheepism is wasteful and counter-productive.  Ideology has replaced reason, and it has put us in grave danger.

To partisan sheep everywhere, I'm begging you.  Please stop being paralyzed by your partisanship.  Open your mind.  Stop being afraid to give an inch.  You could at least begin by admitting that the "other side" has reasonable arguments, that you can understand why they feel the way they do.

The future of our country is at stake.  I assume you care.

We will not win the War on Terror until and unless we get some help from the 800 pound Gorilla.

The 800 pound Gorilla is the peaceful majority of Muslims who, to this point, have done precious little to literally and/or figuratively shout down their vicious brethren. 

Where are you?

Let's look at the numbers:  I understand there are roughly 1.2 billion (Billion!) Muslims in the world.  There are currently, let's say, 30,000 functioning terrorists in and around Iraq and/or waiting in "cells" in America to launch attacks.  We're told that roughly 10% of the 1.2 billion are sympathetic to the jihad's cause.  120 million.  Terrifying.

I admit I wasn't at the top of my class in math.  But if I'm seeing those numbers correctly, that leaves over one billion (Billion!) people who are watching as their jihadist Muslim brothers are causing great damage worldwide.  Watching as the world literally teeters on destruction as some of these jihadists are either close to developing nuclear bombs (Iran) or could get their hands on nuclear bombs that already exist (Pakistan, India, Russia).

Where are you?

There must be a reason this one billion has done little to help.  I certainly don't claim to know what the reason is, but I suppose I could make a list of wild guesses:

1. They think their help is not needed, that we can handle this
2. They're afraid for their lives, that they're simply too scared to act
3. They don't care what happens
4. They wouldn't mind seeing The West destroyed
5. They're waiting for when the time is right (I think I'm stretching, but I'm trying)

Any other ideas?

The silence from the peaceful majority of Muslims in the world is deafening, and it has gone on for so long that I now can't help but suspect it is by design.  What's going on here?

Where are you?