Liberal Media Bias: AP's Alan Fram and Eileen Putman & ABC News

When BizzyBlog owner and NewsBusters.com contributor Tom Blumer dubbed a certain Saturday AP article the “Worst. AP. ‘Report.’ Ever,” even he might not have realized how right he was.

The article in question is a thoroughly slanted and emotional piece of crap by Alan Fram and Eileen Putman, passed off as an objective news report.

Fasten your seat belts. This could very well be the most egregious example of liberal media bias ever.

For starters, even the title and subheading are loaded with subjectivity:

Everything Seemingly Is Spinning out of Control / Out-of-control weather, gas prices, economy chip away at American self-confidence

Are you effing kidding me??? First of all, I’m no journalism major, but how can you use a word like “seemingly” in the body, let alone title, of an objective news story?

Second, I’ll admit that gas prices and the economy are fair game, but out-of-control weather? The only way weather could be considered a political issue is if you are an anti-capitalist (read: anti-Republican) shill for the man-made global warming hysteria crowd.

My argument is bolstered further by the authors’ ridiculous description of the weather as “out-of-control.” They would have you believe that until eight years ago, when a certain Republican became President of the United States, the country had never experienced hurricanes, tornadoes, extremely high and low temperatures, and floods. The weather has been calm for the billions of years of the earth’s existence and then suddenly, boom! The weather’s out of control. AND we can make the weather not be out of control (i.e., if we elect a certain Democrat president.)

Here’s the first paragraph of the “report.” It reads like a litany of lefty grievances repeated by virtually every Dem since McGovern.

Midwestern levees are bursting. Polar bears are adrift. Gas prices are skyrocketing. Home values are abysmal. Air fares, college tuition and health care border on unaffordable. Wars without end rage in Iraq, Afghanistan and against terrorism.

OK, let’s, as MC Hammer would say, break it down:

Midwestern levees are bursting. This is the current, Republican government’s fault? And if so, how is a new Democrat presidency is going to remedy that? The same way they folded to radical environmentalists in the 1970’s, which resulted in the inadequate levees in New Orleans?

Polar bears are adrift. Global warming alarmist crap. What the hell does “adrift” mean? It seems the authors are trying to give us the impression that as we speak hundreds of stranded polar bears are floating around the ocean on melting ice floes. There is absolutely no substantiation to this politically-motivated lie. The authors are probably referring to the only “adrift” polar bears they’ve ever seen: (1) the ones made famous by the U.K. Daily Mail in February 2007 and (2) the computer-animated clip of drowning polar bears in Al Gore’s movie.

Gas prices are skyrocketing. This is the current, Republican government’s fault? And if so, how is a new Democrat presidency is going to remedy that? They aren’t, as long as they continue to kiss the rear ends of the enviro-wacko movement.

Home values are abysmal. Air fares, college tuition and health care border on unaffordable. But all of these things (with the possible exception of health care) are neither the government’s fault, nor their responsibility to rectify. Or, maybe what the authors are trying to say is that these are areas where the free market system has failed “the people,” and the only way to rescue them is with a Democrat-led government takeover. However one interprets it, it’s clear these authors are hardcore socialists through and through.

Wars without end rage in Iraq, Afghanistan and against terrorism. This one is my favorite. Watch the wording now, people: Iraq. Check. Afghanistan. Check. AND against terrorism. Their point: Both the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are not part of the war on terror, but rather Bush-concocted distractions from the real war. All lefty Dem propaganda; no basis in actual fact.

Also, there isn’t much “raging” these days, people. Notice how there isn’t much news about the war in the MSM? That’s because it’s going quite well. Until the occurrence of some roadside bomb casualties this weekend, Afghanistan hadn’t been mentioned in the mainstream press for quite a while.

* * * * *

Are you tired yet? ‘Cause so far we’ve just covered the headline, subheading, and introductory paragraph. Now grab your shovel. There’s lots more bull crap to come as we dig deeper into the body:

The can-do, bootstrap approach embedded in the American psyche is under assault.

Perhaps. But according to what facts/data? And if so, whose fault is it? The government’s? And whose responsibility is it to rectify it? The government’s?

Eroding it is a dour powerlessness that is chipping away at the country’s sturdy conviction that destiny can be commanded with sheer courage and perseverance.

The sense of helplessness is even reflected in this year’s presidential election. Each contender offers a sense of order—and hope. Republican John McCain promises an experienced hand in a frightening time. Democrat Barack Obama promises bright and shiny change, and his large crowds believe his exhortation, “Yes, we can.”

Whoa, hold the phone. Are the authors giving both Obama and McCain equally fair treatment in this article? “Experienced hand” is quite a compliment, albeit again a subjective opinion and not a fact-based assessment that belongs in an objective news article. But if you were thinking this lets the authors off the hook from being accused of being Democrat shills, here’s a subsequent paragraph:

American University historian Allan J. Lichtman notes that the U.S. has endured comparable periods and worse, including the economic stagflation (stagnant growth combined with inflation) and Iran hostage crisis of 1980; the dawn of the Cold War, the Korean War and the hysterical hunts for domestic Communists in the late 1940s and early 1950s; and the Depression of the 1930s ...

Each period also was followed by a change in the party controlling the White House.

It’s that last sentence that stuck out for Blumer, and rightfully so. The authors’ message: Party change in Washington will solve our nation’s ills.

Oh, and about those hysterical hunts for Communists? First, I would consider the word “hysterical” to be just as fitting in an objective news story as “seemingly.” But at this point, would we expect anything less from these two? Second, regarding the hunts themselves, Blumer points out:

... [T]hose familiar with the Venona Papers and the work of M. Stanton Evans know that there is a better word to describe the “hunts for domestic Communists in the late 1940s and early 1950s.” The word is “necessary.”

Exactly. In addition, it turns out two of Prof. Lichtman’s three examples involve a party change from Democrat to Republican:

• The issues of Communism, the Cold War, and the Korean War led to Republican Eisenhower ending two decades of Democrat rule.
• Republican Reagan beat Democrat Carter after stagflation and the Iran hostage crisis.

• The only exception was the Depression, which greatly contributed to the defeat of Republican Herbert Hoover by Democrat FDR.

*   *   *   *   *

By the way, who is this Allan Lichtman, whom the authors simply describe as “American University historian?” I myself didn’t know, so I did a little Wikipedia search on him. What came up was, well, enlightening to say the least:

Lichtman has testified as an expert witness on civil rights in more than 70 cases for the U.S. Department of Justice and for civil rights groups such as the NAACP, the Mexican-American and Puerto Rican American Legal Defense and Education Funds, and the Southern Poverty Law Center. He also consulted for Vice President Al Gore and Senator Edward Kennedy. He assisted the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights investigation into voting irregularities in Florida during the 2000 election[1], submitting an extensive report of his statistical analysis of balloting problems. Lichtman concluded "there were major racial disparities in ballot rejection rates".[2] [...]

On September 28, 2005, Lichtman formally announced his candidacy for the United States Senate from Maryland. He ran as a progressive, opposing the War in Iraq and calling for an immediate and safe withdrawal of U.S. troops ... When he and other candidates were not invited by the League of Women Voters to a debate, Lichtman went to the Maryland Public Television studio and protested; he, his wife, and campaign volunteer Gail Dobson were arrested.[3][4] On October 19th, 2006, the three were found Not Guilty on all charges.

“American University historian” my ass. This guy is a hard-core radical leftist with a truckload of political axes to grind against Republicans!

• Consultant to the likes of Al Gore and Ted Kennedy?
• Expert witness for several far-left groups like the NAACP?

• An ideologue of the Republicans-are-racist variety who was involved in the 2000 election investigation?

• Ran for Senate in Maryland on a "progressive" platform that makes Barack Obama look like Pat Buchanan?

No wonder he calls the hunting of Communists in the 1940’s and 50’s “hysterical.” His peeps were being “persecuted” by the evil Joe McCarthy.

Now, for Fram and Putman to cite this ideologue as an objective source is criminal in itself, but for them not to even label this guy at least as a "liberal" warrants a complete revocation of their journalism degrees. Could you imagine them citing a source just a smidgeon to the right of center without the qualifier “conservative” or “right wing”? I can’t either.

This is journalistic malpractice of the highest order, plain and simple.

*   *   *   *   *

But wait! There’s more! What would a biased MSM article be without some global warming crap stuck in there for good measure? And so the authors blame the Midwest floods on global warming with a level of audacity that hasn’t been seen since the detestable Al Gore went on TV last month to blame GW for the deadly cyclone in Burma:

Floods engulf Midwestern river towns. Is it global warming, the gradual degradation of a planet’s weather that man seems powerless to stop or just a freakish late-spring deluge?

Oh, gee, I don’t know, guys. Why don’t you tell us which one you think it is ... Your question is so open-ended.

First, what’s with "gradual degradation of a planet’s weather that man seems powerless to stop"? Are you implying that we’ve never had a flood before in this country? And second, what do you mean “seems”? These enviro-fanatics really do think that man can control the weather!

It gets even better. Y’see, if Fram and Putman’s “vote-for-Obama” message didn’t hit you over the head hard enough, go view their story online at ABC News. Each page of the three-page story has a picture. Page one is a montage of all the disasters the authors mention at the beginning of the story—flooded Midwestern towns, a gas station price marquee, and my favorite: a polar bear hanging out on an ice floe. How tasteful.

What pictures are posted on page two and three? A shot of Barack Obama and John McCain? No, two pictures of a smiling Michelle Obama appearing with the four cackling hens—also smiling—on The View. Talk about subtle!

Actually it’s quite clever: ABC gets to endorse Barack Obama and one of their TV shows. For a group of people who claim to detest capitalism, they can be quite good at it.

*   *   *   *   *

Really, this article is an absolute embarrassment in every way. A DNC press release couldn’t be more biased. There is positively nothing the least bit objective about this article. It’s a string of hysterical—yes, I can use it—unsubstantiated Democrat talking points.

The only thing spinning right now is the crap these Democrat shills try to pass off as news. Thanks, AP and ABC News, for delivering another textbook example of liberal media bias.

Comments

[Richard Rhodes]

You can always tell even though this was written in June and the disaster of Obama has happened that an article is completely true. Nut case liberals just spend all their time scanning the internet looking to attack anything whatsoever might not be liberal. There are now close to 40,000 scientists that don't agree with the global warming theory who have signed a large petition. Even Al's mentor who he learned everything about global warming from has changed his mind now that more evidence has come in. So give it up liberals. It is amazing that the truth never means a thing to you idiots. The truth is always what you demand it to be.

[mark anderson]

HMMM, latest article by Alan Fram says McCain has "lopsided support" from whites. Implication is that white racism is somehow lurking. wonder why taht term never used to describe Obama's support from blacks? I wonder if there are not any racist blacks around? cant find Fram's email or home address to point out the descepancy, anyone know it?

[EricTheRed]

Dear Andy,Thanks for writing. You make lots of points, some worth discussing, others plain silly or just mean-spirited. So here goes. Sorry if you feel I'm "reading between the lines" too much and not accepting what you're calling a "reality check." It's not a reality check. It's a bitch and moan fest disguised as objective journalism.

If it was a reality check, than the authors whould have cited other people than the 64-year-old who's currently in a slump in his life and a radical left-winger with direct political ties to the Democrat Party, which the "objective" authors failed to mention.

Also, try finding an article like this written during a Democrat presidency. To the media, the Clinton 90's was a Golden Age for America, even though unemployment was higher, terrorists were plotting attacks against us and our allies while we were oblivious. College and health care costs were skyrocketing just as much during those years than now. The weather was just as "out of control" then as it supposedly is now.

About the global warming points (which are only tangentially related to the original article), you and Tori and I will just have to agree to disagree. You believe your sources; I believe mine. If you believe that humans are "killing the atmosphere" as you say, and that it will really take a mere $20 per household to rectify the problem, you keep going on thinking that. (By the way, when was the last time $20 per household solved ANY problem the government promised to fix?) And I know about the 180-300ppm going up to 380ppm. But that's parts per million: CO2 has gone from 0.00018% of the atmosphere to 0.00038%. Both the amount and the change of CO2 are negligible. PLUS, only 2.75 of that 0.00038 is manmade. As Dr. Joseph D'Aleo, the first director of meteorology at the Weather Channel describes it, if the climate were a 100-story building, we're obsessing about the linoleum on the first floor.

Back to the article. Accuse me all you want about "reading between the lines." As a right-leaning consumer of mainstream news, it's what ya gotta do. A cleverly worded "Bush sucks" editorial, followed by an "objective" scholar's prediction about a "change of political party." Yes, the authors have no control over the View photos on the ABC website, but you know who does? ABC. That's why I pointed the finger at them as well.

Love, -ETR

P.S. I have a hunch you and Tori already know each other. Nice way to tag-team the blogger.

[Dan the Myth]

Yeah, I have a problem with your comment that "The James Hansen / Al Gore theory of man-made global warming is BS, with NO basis in fact. Every indication that the earth is warming at a catastrophic rate and that it's humans' fault has been found to be completely false or severely exaggerated." This goes along with my previous comments about Creationists' quibbles with Evolutionary Theory - they feel that since the evidence isn't conclusive, the theory must therefore be completely unfounded. I really highly doubt that Gore's GW theory was so highly politically influential that it swayed thousands of scientists to his cause. And just because another few thousand scientists don't buy it doesn't mean it's a complete myth.

Remember, Galileo was condemned for claiming the Earth revolved around the Sun. I guess there just wasn't enough evidence.

[andy]

Just because this "Tori" character is calling global warming a crisis, does not mean she is ignoring genocide in Sudan, horrible wars in impoverished countries and so forth. Yes, those are all very horrible, but global warming is a crisis in it's own right.

Scientific fact? Are you crazy? There's plenty of scientific fact! Right on the immediate "no brainer" side is the fact that cutting down trees and burning fossil fuels kills the atmosphere. Yes I know, there are plenty of natural elements that destroy the atmosphere, and has been doing so for hundreds of thousands of years. Consider though, that over the past 650,000 years, natural amounds of CO2 has varied from 180-300 parts per million. Today, our CO2 output is at 380 ppm, 25% more than it has been. And of course, this extra CO2 causes higher temperatures. (for more details, ch-ch-check it out at: http://www.edf.org/page.cfm?tagID=1011)

Finally, there shouldn't be anything political about global warming. It's conservatives like you that make it political, and if everyone stops being so damn lazy and puts in a little bit of time and money, big "expensive" plans really could only cost around $20 per household. Also, many huge companies have actually found that cutting pollution saves money.

By the way, since you were so quick in responding to Tori's post, I'd like you to go ahead and respond to my previous one. I'll keep this up all summer, I'm going nowhere.

-Andy

P.S.

"lay off the kool-aid??" come on, you can do better than that

[EricTheRed]

I'm trying to comprehend the disbelief of global warming's scientific basis.

Tori - Simple: The James Hansen / Al Gore theory of man-made global warming is BS, with NO basis in fact. Every indication that the earth is warming at a catastrophic rate and that it's humans' fault has been found to be completely false or severely exaggerated.

You complain that putman and fram are spewing out liberal propaganda, while they simply are enumerating facts and making observations about our nation and our world in crisis. yes CRISIS! in mindlessly berating these fine, intelligent, thoughtful and scholarly journalists, you whine about how they are spouting nonsense just to promote the democratic presidential candidate.

Tori, your (and Putman and Fram's) idea of what "crisis" is is a crime against what real crises are - genocide in Sudan, most of Africa living with malaria and no electricity or modern amenities, the brutal oppression of women in the Muslim world. These are real problems.

you claim that some of this nonsense includes the exponential increase of the melting of our polar ice caps due to a shameful negligence of the fragile state of our environment. um, hello! what is "politically motivated" about wanting protect the f-ing planet?

Oh come on, Tori. You're smarter than that. There's nothing political about protecting the planet per se. It's how to protect it. When EVERY solution involves sucking more and more $ out of taxpayers, dragging oil CEO's before Congress, and call for the imprisonment of non-believers, THEN it's all political.

i'm actually looking for a response, how could one possibly gain from rejecting science that, if is continued to be ignored, reveals an increasing threat that will eventually no longer be a question of fact or theory SINCE WE WILL THEN ALL BE UNDERWATER.

Pullease. You need to lay off the Kool-Aid. Not even the IPCC thinks we’re going to be “underwater.”

[Tori]

I'm trying to comprehend the disbelief of global warming's scientific basis. You complain that putman and fram are spewing out liberal propaganda, while they simply are enumerating facts and making observations about our nation and our world in crisis. yes CRISIS! in mindlessly berating these fine, intelligent, thoughtful and scholarly journalists, you whine about how they are spouting nonsense just to promote the democratic presidential candidate. you claim that some of this nonsense includes the exponential increase of the melting of our polar ice caps due to a shameful negligence of the fragile state of our environment. um, hello! what is "politically motivated" about wanting protect the f-ing planet? i'm actually looking for a response, how could one possibly gain from rejecting science that, if is continued to be ignored, reveals an increasing threat that will eventually no longer be a question of fact or theory SINCE WE WILL THEN ALL BE UNDERWATER.

and hey, yo, lay off fram and putman. they are the journalists who actually present the news. who wants to pick up a newspaper to read about watered-down, sunny, bull poopy that says "why yes, some children and their parents with embarassing dog-like devotion to our joke of a president hunted for some friggin easter eggs at the white house today"? hmm, i don't. and honestly, that would be the only true reporting that you would be able to read without flipping some flap jacks on the street screaming "LOOK AT THIS CRAP". you need a reality check, and if this article made your blood boil so much, i can't imagine what you would do if got a hold of a report of the goings on in the white house. i can just see it now -- "all lies, an attempt to portray conservatives as incompetent and counterproductive just to promote the liberal candidate". hmm. just chill out, learn to accept that you actually can believe what you read in the papers sometimes.

right on andy, putman, fram. (teehee)

[andy]

All right! Let's get right to it and debunk those fairytales flying through your head. Put down the crack pipe and "fasten your seat belt", as you might say because it's about to get bumpy as hell.

First of all, nowhere in this article are they blaming the government. It clearly isn't talking only about political problems but problems in our world as a whole. Jesus Christ, the article mentions Barry Bonds and Roger Clemens. How can you possibly think Fram and Putman are blaming the government for steroids in baseball!? (Sidenote: I also know for a fact that Fram is a huge New York Yankees fan. By mentioning him in an article about what's wrong with the world, he is being completly unbiased in his reporting and I applaud that)

Second of all, why do you assume this article has to be purely political? Oh yeah that's right! The newspaper ONLY has articles about politics and nothing else. Traffic, local news, deaths, the weather, and the comics don't get published in papers because the paper only covers politics. Silly me! Fram and Putman don't open with "These are all political problems and now we're gonna blame the government for them." If you read between the lines without your silly conservative antics getting in they way, you'll realize that this article is simply a reality check.

Now that we've just put about half of your arguments to rest, let's get on to the finer points.

Polar bears being adrift does not literally mean hundreds of polar bears are stranded on floating ice burgs with little bambi eyes staring at you making you feel so guilty that your insides even start to burn about that oh-so-tasty cookie you stole two weeks ago even though you knew your 4 year old sister wanted it. This is a literary device called a "metaphor". Say it with us kids! "met-uh-blaarggablaahhhh". Using your main cerebral organ, (often called a brain) you can deduce that the metaphor in this adorable teddy bear image is that global warming causes ice to melt, which kills off the natural habitat of the polar bear. Most people already know that...Wuhzam!

The wars in Afghanistan and Iraq: All that is said is "wars rage without end in Iraq, Afghanistan, and against terror." That's it! That's all that is said about the middle east. I don't know what bias you think is in there but there are literally 10 words in the whole article about that and you just read them!

The "can-do approach": You really need data to know American beliefs and mindsets? When they say, that "the can-do, bootstrap approach embedded in the American psyche is under assault," they mean that our mentality that Americans can beat anything and accomplish anything, is really being tested with all the load of bad stuff that's been happening. Wham bam Jammina!

Oh no! They used the word "seems" in an article! Whatever shall we do?! "...Man seems powerless to stop [it]". That means that we had our flood and bad weather, and we do not, unfortunatly, have super water-bending powers to psychically move the water away from our towns. Nor could we stop it in any other way. Therefore, it SEEMS as if we can't stop the floods.

All Allan Lichtman does is talk about our American history and say that so far, each horrible period in U.S. history has been followed by a time of economic growth and optimism. If you don't know this without him having to say it then go back to 9th grade history. Liberal as he might be, he offers no biased comment. All he says is, something might happen or it might not. If anything, that is a perfectly fair comment, easily explaining two outcomes to a situation. Besides, it doesn't matter if a source isn't objective. You think newspapers only interview people who have absolutely no political stand-points? The only thing that matters is WHAT they say and Lichtman says a very unbiased thing. (By the way, "journalistic malpractice of the highest order" as you so lovingly put it, would probably be more along the lines of reporters cutting up their editors and turning them into lampshades)

The "vote-for-Obama" campaign that Fram and Putman are apparently preaching? Forgetting that the journalists don't choose the pictures that go with the article,..Wow, they showed a picture of Obama's wife. If that's going to convince people to vote for him then I don't think those people should vote in the first place. AND, while we're at it, let's take a look at that oh-so-crucial last page, where Fram and Putman, in this same article about everything "spinning ouf of control" talk about conflict within democrats, and the Obama/Clinton duel. Yes that's definitely promoting democrats in a good light.

Finally, yes, I think a majority of the population is well educated enough to know that hurricanes and tornados were not just invented eight years ago and that they have, in fact, occured throughout history. However, by using the transitive property (If A=B, and B=C, then A=C) We realize that these events have gotten worse, and global warming and enviornmental problems have also increased. (A and B) By using occasionaly helpful tools such as "science" and "data" (C) we can assume that maybe the two might be kinda sorta possibly related? i dunno, just a thought.

Final thoughts:

Yes, the article does say that the goverment has record-low approval ratings. First off, this is not biased this is true. Bush is a horrible president, and that is no longer an opinion. If you're illiterate, then yes, Fram and Putman say "We think Bush sucks". However, rf you're LITERATE, the article says "Bush barely gets the approval rating of 3 in 10 people," and "views of their current leaders are near rock bottom," This is based on statistic and the "their" that Fram and Putman are talking about refers to the American people, meaning you guys who are reading this.

There is nothing clear or biased about what Fram and Putman are "trying to say" (although I know how much you conservatives love to try and crack the code...you'll never figure us out...wahaha) As a psycho-conservative nutjob, you are interpreting it to be mongo liberal before you even read it just to discredit us and the media. People do this all the time and it doesn't mean that they're right. Think about how if you hate someone, you then start to hate everything they do, even if it wouldn't normally annoy you if it was anyone else. Trust me, I hated my roommate in college, it pissed me off even if he said "Andy you're the coolest guy ever."

Oh I almost forgot: Speaking of "textbook examples", you should crack open one.

P.S.

Great job referencing MC Hammer. That really makes your arguement seem more convincing, plus gives a heads up to people so they don't have to go through the trouble of getting to know you before they realize they hate you.

Much love,

Andy

[EricTheRed]

Vaquero - Thanks for the compliment, but I can't take the credit. The quote is from Tom Blumer's BizzyBlog.

One of my first books before "crossing over to the other side" was Venona: Decoding Soviet Espionage in America by John Haynes and Harvey Klehr. Scared the crap outa me. -ETR

[Vaquero]

Vocal M you are my hero of the day for mentioning the Blacklisted by History and the Venona Papers...anyone can read these 2 books and find the answers to our current failure of leadership and outright lying by the Moron Media. It is the over whelming growth of government abetted by the continuing infestation of collectivist aka Communist in the halls of power.
"[T]hose familiar with the Venona Papers and the work of M. Stanton Evans know that there is a better word to describe the “hunts for domestic Communists in the late 1940s and early 1950s.” The word is “necessary.”

[velvel in decatur, georgia]

The article is puerile pap written for no good reason other than to kill a few trees and spew a bit of ink.
Fram knows that the reason things seem spinning is that we have been blessed with twenty years of nitwittery in Deecee and excusemaking elsewhere. Our friends in Congress and the White House and the agencies have done zippo about the petrol problem other than whine since the first embargo. Yes, it is 43's fault, along with Willy, 41, Ronnie, and Jeeeemy. They did nothing to lead and never acted as if they had advisors who knew anything.
It it Congress' fault. They have been playing games and plastering their names on ill-built tombstones all over the country.
It is the automakers' fault. They have done nothing to deal with the problem and want subsidies where they should have innovated and made lots of money.
It is the newspapers and magazines' fault because they have consistently written at a third or fourth grade level and now they are surprised that the semiliterate high schoolers don't want their product. Or can read the product.
It is the teevee and radio stations' fault. They demanded that the FCC do away with any responsibility for public service (like literate news for a half hour maybe). We get Entertainment Tonight and its ilk...so they have helped make it possible for nitwits to be more likely to know who won American Idol and less likely who their Senators are.
It is the schools' fault, public and private, who, in cahoots with the pols and the unions and the universities, turn out illiterate clowns who would rather get knocked up with some ne'er do well's misbegotten child than learn to read and cipher.
It is the parents' fault for not demanding better for their kids and demanding better of their kids.
Oh, and it is our fault for putting up with this crap.

But Fram and Putman (and Velvel Blitzer, Anderson Cooper, Chris Matthews, Katie Couric, Billo OReilly, Squash Limbergers, Baby Jesus Hanniepie, and the rest of you whiney babies who suck up to celebrities): you don't report; you don't analyse; you don't propose anything to improve things.

Damn you all.

Sheldon Harnick 1953 The Merry Little Minuet
Kingston Trio

They're rioting in Africa.
They're starving in Spain.
There's hurricanes in Florida,
and Texas needs rain.
The whole world is festering with unhappy souls.
The French hate the Germans,
the Germans hate the Poles.
Italians hate Yugoslavs,
South Africans hate the Dutch.
And I don't like anybody very much!
But we can be tranquil and thankful and proud,
for man's been endowed with a mushroom-shaped cloud.
And we know for certain that some lovely day,
someone will set the spark off... and we will all be blown away.
They're rioting in Africa.
There's strife in Iran.
What nature doesn't do to us...
will be done by our fellow man.

[Dan the Myth®]

I won't get into all the details, but I will say I agree that this is some pretty ridiculous alarmist crap. Things may not be going well in America, but it's no one person/party's fault and no one person/party is going to fix it. The economy is cyclical, and so are home values and inflation. Gas prices are India and China's fault, not Cheney's. Plenty of people see links between the economy and international instability today and the world of the 1970s under Ford and Carter. It just so happens that the cure to those ills in the 80s was Reagan and the conservative movement. For all we know, maybe any change in Washington will help. Maybe not.

One thing I have heard is that when things are going well inside the US (ie 1996-2000), we elect a Republican paternal figure to keep it that way, and when things aren't (1972-76, 1991-92) we elect a warm and fuzzy maternal Democrat to make us feel better. No matter how you feel about the Dems, you have to admit the atmosphere is right for America to elect one.

[Kirk]

Wow, thank you for breaking this one down; now I just have to get this emailed out...I read that piece, linked on DrudgeReport, and thought, "What a load of BS!"...the absolute WORST kind of liberal trash...I don't have to guess what's wrong with the USA...its the liberal Democrats, like Obama, Pelosi, Kennedy, Reid, and friends...no guesswork required!

[EricTheRed]

Tom - Noted and fixed. Thanks. - ETR

[Tom at BizzyBlog]

Great catch. Updated both posts.

Check the spelling of Eileen's last name.