Roman Around

combating liberalism and other childish notions

Archive for the ‘Media’ Category


Posted by Andrew Roman on June 16, 2010

There was no plan. He didn’t try to sell anything – except how exceptional the feds’ reaction to the Gulf oil spill has been. He offered no solutions, presented no direction, said nothing specific, and even left the heart of the lib media scratching their collective scalps.

MSNBC’s Chris Matthews said, “I don’t sense executive command.”

His vinegary cohort, Keith Olbermann, ached, “I don’t think he aimed low, I don’t think he aimed at all. It’s startling.”

It was a brief – and frankly embarrassing – excursion into platitudinal hell. It was, in short, the worst speech ever given by President Barack Obama.

And it may be the worst speech ever delivered by a President from the Oval Office.

It is not possible to overstate it.

“Empty” doesn’t cover it. To say it was “lame” is an affront to the word.

And while Americans waited to hear something – anything – about how the disastrous oil spill in the Gulf would be tended to, what we got instead was wandering blather about clean energy, green jobs, energy-efficient windows, more federal commissions, higher taxes and his pledge to bully big oil. He promised an expansion of the federal government, yet again, and put forth the cockeyed message that the pain and suffering being felt by Americans in the Gulf region will be relieved with higher energy costs and a loss of jobs.

To begin with, thousands of oil rig jobs – along with the onshore jobs that support them – will remain “offline” because President Obama did not lift the moratorium on oil drilling. The policy will stay in effect until he hears a panel’s recommendations on how to improve worker safety and environmental protections.

Oh, goody.

The obvious result will be that the United States becomes increasingly more dependant on foreign oil at a time when this country needs oil the most. Ultimately, rig operators will have no choice but to move to friendlier waters.

How exactly this is better for the United States is unclear.

Secondly, President Obama vowed to “make BP pay” – something I’m sure he thought would knock it out of the park with the American people.

Nice try.

Despite his cartoonish posturing, the Bully-In-Chief cannot actually order a private company (British Petroleum, in this case) to put money into an escrow account, or tell them they cannot pay out dividends. That’s not exactly constitutional.

However, the President can – and certainly will – employ some creatively persuasive methods (i.e., big government intimidation) in his new domestic contingency operation against oil companies.

And although Obama never actually tried to peddle “Cap And Trade” or a “carbon tax” during the speech – as many had expected – he certainly did hit each of the anti-oil, big-windmill talking points we’ve all heard many times before.

He also talked about moving into the future, and creating the kind of America we want for our children, but then said he hadn’t any idea how it was going to happen or what it was going to look like.

Such clarity. Such leadership.

I am loathe to quote the regularly detestable Keith Olbermann, but he summed up the Obama performance this way: “It was a great speech if you were on another planet for the last 57 days.”
wordpress statistics


Posted in Media, Obama Bonehead | Tagged: , , | Leave a Comment »


Posted by Andrew Roman on June 11, 2010

CNN's curmudgeon, Jack Cafferty

CNN’s Jack Cafferty is wondering why President Barack Obama seems to have lost his touch.

Assuming the President ever had a “touch” that wasn’t the result of well-placed teleprompters and a hypnotized lamestream media, what is hurting him (aside from his leftist agenda) is the realization that campaigning and leadership are not synonymous. The President – with a resume that would qualify him for little more than Assistant Slushee Machine Operator at 7-11 – has been in stuck in campaign mode for three years. That may be great for t-shirt manufacturers, button makers and Chris Matthews’ leg, but not very helpful otherwise.

America is still waiting for him to act like a President.

From using hanging-out-in-front-of-the-bodega language on national television to bowing to foreign heads of state, Barack Obama is the least presidential big cheese any of us has ever seen.

Said Cafferty:

Like it or not, there are times when a President is called upon to be a father figure to the nation: to sympathize, comfort and reassure us when things are bad. It’s what made Reagan and Clinton so very popular. Whatever happened to that firebrand charismatic speaker who made a thrill go up Chris Matthews’ leg?

The President’s in trouble.

As Barack Obama marks five-hundred days in office, a new average of polls shows only 48% of the public approves of the job he’s doing. And those numbers aren’t good enough if he plans to spend more than four years running this country.

Here’s the question: Why does President Obama seem to have lost his touch?

I’m not sure I necessarily agree that the President needs to be a “father figure” per se, although I appreciate the point he is trying to make.

I, for one, don’t look for a “daddy” in a Commander-In-Chief. I look for strength and conviction. I look for someone who will preserve, protect and defend the Constitution. I look for someone not to coddle the citizenry, but to advance the values of rugged individualism, personal responsibility, community and liberty. I look for someone to stand up for the values that have made America the greatest nation the world has ever known.

You don’t need to be a “daddy” to accomplish that; just a leader.

Given the choice, I’ll take an effective distant cousin over an ineffective father any day to lead the United States – man, woman, black, white, Christian, Jew, no matter … so long as his or her value system is in line with the American value system as brilliantly defined by talk show host Dennis Prager as the “American Trinity”: Liberty, In God We Trust and E Pluribus Unum.

Still, as Proof at the great Proof Positive blog says, “Jack Cafferty has become my favorite CNN commentator.”

I agree.

He is the only thing on the network that has become “must see TV.”

Posted in Media | Tagged: , , , , | Leave a Comment »


Posted by Andrew Roman on June 8, 2010

Helen Thomas

I spent as many as eleven or twelve seconds yesterday afternoon  contemplating what the future would hold for newly-retired White House correspondent – and Hamas-talking point propogandist – Helen Thomas. Of course, at least five of those seconds were spent wondering what the hell I was doing wasting the other six on her. Still, it did briefly enter my mind.

As I heard the news that the matriarch of journalistic derangement was calling it quits following her spewing of the most disturbing drek to be heard publicly since Bob Dylan’s Christmas album, a part of me couldn’t help but wonder if it isn’t, in fact, best to have our dippy loons on the left doing what they do in the glow of the spotlight. After all, the best thing – the only thing – to come out of the Obama presidency has been the gift of exposure: unabashed, card-carrying, campus-nurtured, big-government unapologetic leftism on full display for all to see.

In that spirit, maybe having a world-class wacko-lefty moonbat center-stage is good for our side.

But what has been most striking about the media coverage of the entire Helen Thomas affair is that most of the focus has been on anti-Semitism. Very few have attacked this story based on the sheer stupidity of her claims. Indeed, she’s had a long, long career of foot-sucking ignorance that has been as embarrassing and disgusting as it has been amusing. But, if Helen Thomas is an anti-Semite – and who am I to say she’s not – I really couldn’t care less.

I mean that.

As a Jew, let me say clearly – emphatically – that I don’t care what’s in her heart. I really don’t. I care about her deeds. If her actions are anti-Semetic, then it matters to me a great deal. She’s always been a joke to me, in that “let’s visit Great Aunt Gladys at the asylum” sort of way. Whether or not she thinks all Jews need to “get the hell out of Palestine” – to quote her eloquent assessment of the ongoing turmoil in the Middle East – is irrelevant to me.

Instead, I’m more interested in the fact that the content and accuracy of Thomas’ comments on how the Jews are occupying land that is not rightfully theirs – and her comments on how to rectify the problem – are all but being ignored by the lamestream media. I’m not surprised, mind you … just fascinated. Where, pray tell, are all the wanna-be Woodward and Bernsteins out there? Where is Johnny Fact-Checker? And how is it that this “journalist” was able to keep her job for so many years when it’s clear she can’t even manage to get the most basic of information correct?

Helen Thomas is a colossally ill-informed, ignorant cartoon character, and unfortunately, not a lot of people seem to be touching on that.

THOMAS: Remember, these people (Palestinians) are occupied, and it’s their land. It’s not German. It’s not Poland.

REPORTER: So, where should they (Jews) go? What should they do?

THOMAS: They can go home.

REPORTER: Where’s home?

THOMAS: Poland. Germany.

REPORTER: So, you think Jews should go back to Poland and Germany?

THOMAS: And America and everywhere else.

Of course, the problem with the Helen Thomas Middle East Peace Plan is the pesky little fact that two million Israeli Jews are either descended from, or come directly from, Islamic countries, like Morocco, Egypt, Iraq and Yemen. And let’s not forget about the hundreds of thousand of Jews that came from the Soviet Union.  And Ethiopia.

Israel was not created as a result of the relocation of German and Polish Jews. Israel’s very being has nothing – repeat nothing – to do with Germany and Poland. If, as Thomas suggests, the Jews need to “go back home,” they would overwhelmingly have to “return” to despotic nations like Syria and Libya.

The modern Zionist movement began in the late 19th Century. From around 1880, Jews began migrating to “Palestine” – part of the Ottoman Empire – in earnest, and many began purchasing land there. (Keep in mind that from the time of Joshua, Jews have always lived in the land that is now Israel, and at no time was there ever an official nation called Palestine – ever). During the early years of the Zionist movement, no Arabs were kicked off their land, forced the leave, placed in exile, persecuted, victimized or cheated. Jews were legally – repeat legally – buying up parcels of land. (And remember that Jews were already living there, along with Arabs).

And it wasn’t as if prime real estate was being gobbled up by these relocating Jews. In those days, most of what is Israel today was devoid of population and vegetation.

In 1867, Mark Twain visited the Land of Milk and Honey and wrote:

A desolate country whose soil is rich enough, but is given over wholly to weeds… a silent mournful expanse…. a desolation…. we never saw a human being on the whole route…. hardly a tree or shrub anywhere. Even the olive tree and the cactus, those fast friends of a worthless soil, had almost deserted the country.

The city of Jerusalem was a small and sparsely populated .

A fast walker could go outside the walls of Jerusalem and walk entirely around the city in an hour. I do not know how else to make one understand how small it is.”

The point that is lost on most is the reality that while Jews were migrating to the Holy Land in terrific numbers during that period – from 1918 to 1948 – the Arab population actually grew faster than the Jewish population.

At the time of the Balfour Declaration in 1917, there actually were Arab leaders willing to accept the existence of a Jewish State in “Palestine” if the rest of the Middle East could be placed under Arab control. However, Arabs in “Palestine” were vehemently against Jewish immigration and the existence of a Jewish State of any kind.

The modern Palestinian movement was born.

And when the British finally left in May, 1948 – and the tiny little partition that was alotted for the Jews declared themselves an independent nation – all of the Arab nations simultaneously attacked her. It was the Arabs who would not accept that in the vast expanse of the Middle East a small area could be designated as a Jewish State.

Israel miraculously defeated her Arab enemies – and have done so in every Arab-Israeli conflict since.


I’m sure these things simply slipped Thomas’ mind, constipated professional she is.

And I’m certain someone in the lamestream media would have pointed these things out at some point.
wordpress statistics

Posted in Antisemitism, Media, Moral Clarity | Tagged: , , , | Leave a Comment »


Posted by Andrew Roman on June 4, 2010

At times, I still find myself surprised by some of the things I come across. For instance, did you know that Newsweek magazine is still around?

Who knew?

I thought they went the way of hoop skirts and coherent liberals. I couldn’t believe Newsweek still had a pulse. And it didn’t take long to discover that they are still as vapid as they ever were.

Take a recent article posted at their blog, “The Gaggle.”

The headline alone speaks for itself.

Does Killing Terrorists Actually Prevent Terrorism?

As tempting as it is to pull that plum off the tree and woof it down, the real fruit of the post in inside.

Chasing terrorists in Waziristan with missiles clearly is not going to end, or definitively win, the “War on Terrorism,” and whether we should think about a diplomatic rapprochement with these groups instead of fighting an endless war with them is a legitimate question. If the U.S. could avoid war with the Soviet Union, a.k.a. the “Evil Empire,” why not Al Qaeda or the Taliban?

To begin with, the headline asks the wrong question.

Killing terrorists clearly – definitionally – prevents terrorism. But it doesn’t prevent all terrorism. No one ever said it did. And the fact that all terrorists will not be eliminated by this country’s continuing efforts to wipe out as many of these thugs as possible doesn’t mean that it’s time to scrap that approach and invite Al Qaeda to lunch for a heaping helping of falafel and tea.

Should the police quit doing their job because there will always be criminals? Should law enforcement sit down and try to come to mutual understandings with child rapists and cold-blooded murderers?

We continue to fight the war – on all fronts – because we must. And that includes killing as many of the enemy as possible.

That’s because the only way to stop those who idealize and pray for death is to give them exactly what they want before they can take any innocents with them.

Second, the United States avoided direct war with the Soviet Union because the Reds did not crave death as do the followers of radical Islam. The USSR was not a suicidal regime. The Soviets truly wanted to expand their evil empire and sphere of influence. They were a genuine nation with borders, a constitution, a standing army and a leader. And they believed that an all out nuclear war with United States would result in mutually assured destruction. They certainly didn’t want that. They wanted to survive; not find ways to make it to the afterlife for a cabana full of virgins.

Third, whereas throughout all of human existence nations who have been defeated in war surrender to the victor, the current battle against Islamo-fascism is unlike any we have ever fought. There is no nation of Islamo-Fascist-Land with defined borders, a constitution and a standing uniformed army who will wave a white flag when handed a major military setback (like the killing of a terrorist leader). Islamo-facists exist in all countries. They live in caves as well as inner-cities. They exist in terrorist training camps and among us. They can be our neighbors or those charged to defend this country. They fight on the battlefield and shelter themselves in civilian neighborhoods. They target innocents and do not compromise. And because they don’t fear death – they revere it – they have an advantage no enemy of the United States has ever had.

That anyone can honestly ask the question, given the endless amount of examples of the nature of Islamo-terrorism, why Al Qaeda and the Taliban cannot be reasoned with is still astounding.



wordpress statistics

Posted in Liberalism, Media, Media Bias, Values, War on Terror | Tagged: , | Leave a Comment »


Posted by Andrew Roman on April 28, 2010

From the “Did You Know Water Is Wet” file …

Some things need a bit of a setup, while others fall into that delicious “speaks-for-itself” category. And although this is one of those instances where the latter is more than sufficient, anyone who reads this blog with any degree of regularity knows that it is my wont to go with the former.

It’s more fun that way.

For those consumers of mainstream media news who find the question “What color was George Washington’s white horse” somewhat of a brain-bender, and have a hard time pinning down the name of the person buried in Grant’s tomb, there is MSNBC. It is where the vapid go to mingle; where the merely-obvious makes way for the exceedingly-obvious; where digging deep means more than just shoving a finger in your nostril when no one is around. It is the home of hardcore analysis, if by hardcore you mean inane.

During Monday’s lunch hour on MSNBC, with Contessa Brewer at the anchor desk leading the discussion on Arizona’s new illegal immigrant enforcement law, the on-screen headline read: “Law Makes it a Crime to be Illegal Immigrant.”

Honestly, it did.

The network of Huntley, Brinkley and Chancellor literally flashed what many are saying could be a potential Pulitzer Prize winner: “Law Makes it a Crime to be Illegal Immigrant.”

MSNBC is clearly the thinking person’s news source.

Nothing gets past the MSNBC News Room.

Kyle Drennen at NewsBusters writes:

Brewer discussed the issue with Democratic Congresswoman Loretta Sanchez and wondered: “Is this an effective way to deal with the problem?” In response, Sanchez declared: “to stop people and say, ‘I think you look like an illegal immigrant’ and then drag them off to jail is not the way to deal with this issue.”

Brewer followed up by quoting current Homeland Security Secretary and former Arizona Governor Janet Napolitano: “she would veto these kinds of bills because she said – she thought it was important for police to be doing actual police work, that they are not immigration enforcement officers.” As Brewer made that argument, the headline “Law Makes it a Crime to be Illegal Immigrant” flashed on screen.

Note how MSNBC cleverly managed to round up a congresswoman with an Hispanic last name for her opinion on the matter. That’s because only the opinions of liberal Hispanics and race-baiting wastes of space like Al Sharpton matter on the issue of border control.

Besides, as everyone is now aware, the new law specifically states that all Hispanic or vaguely-Hispanic looking people within the borders of the State of Arizona must be targeted and harassed by state law enforcement officials. It also states that people of Hispanic ancestry are good-for-nothing stinkers and must be made examples of for the amusement of Arizona Caucasians. (Blacks and Orientals are not allowed to be amused).

The crack staff here at Roman Around is diligently combing through the MSNBC archive tapes to confirm that their news team has broken the following stories:

“Gravity Makes Stuff Fall.”

“Sunday Makes Up The Second Half Of The Weekend.”

“Horny Heterosexual Men Like Boobs.”

All seven of MSNBC’s viewers are defending the network, saying the MSNBC logo is more colorful and aesthetically pleasing than CNN’s or Fox’s.

wordpress statistics

Posted in Media, Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , , | Leave a Comment »


Posted by Andrew Roman on March 31, 2010

It’s probably a stunner (or a conspiracy) to many that only one news network saw their ratings increase during the first quarter of 2010 – The Fox News Channel. Perhaps perplexed leftists could make the argument that more KKK clubhouses are equipped with cable television these days, or that an increasing number of Young Republican clubs have gotten satellite dishes, but the fact of the matter is that only Fox’s numbers have gone up. The rest have taken a statistical dump. CNN, in fact, has lost half its viewers over the past year.

Take an “ouch” out of petty cash.

And it isn’t as if there hasn’t been enough news to keep people’s interest:

The stimulus bill, the omnibus package, TARP, Obamacare, Iran’s pursuit of nuclear weapons, Cap and Trade, the Nobel Peace Prize, the International Olympic Committee, ClimateGate, North Korea, the takeover of banks, the takeover of automobile companies, Haiti, alienating our allies, the Henry Louis Gates fiasco, teleprompters, bowing to foreign heads of state, and those ridiculous looking WWE Championship-like belts Michelle Obama wears.

There’s been plenty to keep the lefty media complex busy.

Bill Carter of the New York Times (of all places) writes:

The trend in news ratings for the first three months of this year is all up for one network, the Fox News Channel, which enjoyed its best quarter ever in ratings, and down for both MSNBC and CNN.

CNN had a slightly worse quarter in the fourth quarter of 2009, but the last three months have included compelling news events, like the earthquake in Haiti and the battle over health care, and CNN, which emphasizes its hard news coverage, was apparently unable to benefit.

The losses at CNN continued a pattern in place for much of the last year, as the network trailed its competitors in every prime-time hour. (CNN still easily beats MSNBC in the daytime hours, but those are less lucrative in advertising money, and both networks are far behind Fox News at all hours.)

And not that they should – because, after all, I believe in the free market and everyone’s right to fail – but CNN bigwigs say they will “not change their approach to prime-time programs, which are led by hosts not aligned with any partisan point of view.”

(insert pause)

Here’s the real scoop: CNN hosts are crushingly uninteresting and their perspectives are unmistakably liberal. Has their been a more disastrous combination since the pairing of Chevy Chase and the late-night talk-show desk?

Of course, MSNBC – with the likes of Chris Matthews, Keith Olbermann and Rachel Maddow – don’t do much better number-wise in prime time, but at least their evening docket is a tad more interesting than the likes of the phlegm juggling Larry King and the exceedingly metrosexual Anderson Cooper. The problem with MSNBC’s lineup is that after about four minutes, the mouth-foaming and vein-splitting get to be too much. Liberalism is already impossible to peddle to thinking people based on its merits. Hysterical ideologues hurling saliva at the camera through tirades, lies and tantrums shouldn’t come as a surprise to anyone.

Unfortunately, Americans aren’t buying that either.

Zip, at the great Weasel Zippers blog, says, “… Proving once again, pumping out lefty propaganda is not a viable business model…”


wordpress statistics

Posted in Media | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »


Posted by Andrew Roman on March 15, 2010

A tip of the chapeau is in order for NBC’s ever-zealous, nitty-gritty, down-to-the-bone political dynamo, Andrea Mitchell. In the spirit of clarity over agreement (as talk show host Dennis Prager is wont to say)  – and at the risk of sounding as if someone spiked my Sunny D with weapons grade narcotics – I believe Mitchell is worthy of some conservative respect.

(insert the sound of eyebrows crinkling here)

No, I am not insane.

No, my little red wagon has not gone chug-chug-chugging around the bend.  

I truly believe she is deserving.


Too often, journalists claim to be objective, straight-down-the-middle, impartial disseminators of information, reporting the news in an unbiased and fair way.

Unfortunately, reality refutes this fairy tale. The mainstream news media, save for a couple of far-and-few-between outlets, is infected with liberalism. Like dirt in an open blood blister – or Nancy Pelosi speaking in front of any microphone anywhere in the world – it is a pervasively ugly reality.

But that isn’t what irritates me.

The fact that the news media is liberal is not what is so frustrating. That would be like being angry that water is wet. What annoys me are lib journalists (redundant, I know) claiming to be objective and impartial when they clearly aren’t.

That’s why Andrea Mitchell gets my “attaboy” award – or “attachick,” rather – for removing all doubt as to where her political allegiance lies.

She’s hiding nothing … and for that, she deserves a little respect.

Speaking with Congressman Elijah Cmmings on MSNBC late last week, Mitchell said the following:

Bottom line, what happens if you don’t get health care for this president – this is really all-or-nothing for the sense of his power, for his legacy, he’s invested so much in this, in this first year. You’ve got to get this for him.

Cummings said he agreed with her a million percent.

If Mitchell could have said anything that was more pro-Obamacare in that context, I don’t know what it could have been – other than, “Have my love child, you health care God!”

Remember, the issue isn’t whether or not the mainstreamies lean left. The matter at hand isn’t whether or not “journalists” from the alphabets are unabashed libs.

This is about a flaming lib letting her leftism bust through without concern for how she would be perceived. 

This is about a lib journalist looking America in the eye and saying, “Yes, I’m leftist. Yes, I want ObamaCare to pass. No, I won’t hide it any longer. No, I am not objective, and I’m okay with that.”

This is about coming clean.

This is about  Andrea Mitchell breaking down a huge barrier the likes of which Walter Cronkite, Peter Jennings, Dan Rather and Tom Brokaw never had the courage to.

This is about hoping all non-opinion mainstream news media types will step out of their confining charades and declare, “We’re journalists! We’re leftists! And we’re in your face!”

It is in this context, that I tip my cap to Andrea Mitchell. 

Of course, after all of that, if she still believes she is a down-the-middle, unbiased, straight-shooter who doesn’t let her leftism creep into her “objective journalism,” I take it all back.

wordpress statistics

Posted in Liberalism, Media, Media Bias | Tagged: , , , , | Leave a Comment »


Posted by Andrew Roman on February 20, 2010

After the destruction of the Space Shuttle Challenger on January 28, 1986, and the terror attacks of September 11, 2001, it was questionable whether of not there would ever be another date that would, for me, forever live in infamy – a date that marked an event so profound that I would remember exactly where I was when it happened. I wasn’t alive when Pearl Harbor was attacked, or when President John F. Kennedy was murdered, so their impact on me is purely historical in nature. But after yesterday, I knew February 19, 2010 would become one of those dates – one I would tell my grandchildren about.

It was the day I said, “Enough with Tiger Woods already.”

And so it was … yesterday morning, as the planet waited with bated breath to hear what the world’s most famous philanderer would say after a long silence that I made my way into the living room, ready for what I knew I had to do. Would he apologize? Would he cry? Would he share photographs?

As Tiger Woods prepared to face the world – with millions of eyes and ears ready to lock on him and hang on his every word – I equipped myself.

As Tiger finally approached the podium to speak, I began.

With rag and can of lemon Pledge in hand, I switched off the television and began to dust the coffee table in the living room. It really needed it.

It took a couple of minutes to get that luster I was aiming for, but I got it.

I then made my way to the bathroom and pulled out a wad of hair from the drain in the bathroom tub.

The water goes down much faster now.

I followed this by folding some t-shirts and straightening out the forks in the silverware drawer. I hate it when the butter knives spill over into the fork compartment.

Indeed, it was shaping up to be a morning to remember – a date that I would not soon forget.

February 19th would also be the day I found the cap to the shaving cream can, took all the garbage out, and drove my wife to her colonoscopy appointment. I also managed to squeeze in about ten hours of work.

And I did it all without hearing a single word that came out of the mouth of Tiger Woods – the most important human being on planet Earth, apparently – on a date that will obviously live on in perpetuity, February 19, 2010.

I shan’t forget it.

Let me just say this …

If there is a story I could care less about, or a name that I could go another four decades without hearing in any context, it’s Tiger Woods and his “I banged ninety women because I have an addiction” story. Who cares? I couldn’t give a monkey’s colon who he slept with, how many broads he banged, or how he feels about it. That’s between Tiger Woods, his family, and his harem. To me, his story is the most uninteresting, tedious, irrelevant piece of nothingness this side of Keanu Reeves.

I beg humanity to move on.

Elton John’s claim that Jesus was gay was more noteworthy.

Of course, I’m making note of the Tiger thing right now, so maybe I just ought to shut the hell up, too.

I understand that I am clearly in the minority on this one, but other people’s personal problems simply don’t interest me. I don’t find such matters newsworthy.

And don’t get me started on this whole “sex addiction” thing.

One fraud at a time, please.

wordpress statistics

Posted in Everything Else, Media, Sports | Tagged: | Leave a Comment »


Posted by Andrew Roman on February 17, 2010

The approach here is akin to pushing down on the mound of overflowing garbage in the kitchen trash can to avoid having to take it out. With only slight manipulation, everything suddenly looks better … even though nothing has changed. Of course, that’s all that matters to today’s liberal: how things look.

Think of it as typical Democrat strategizing.

Keep this in mind as you read about the White House’s latest plan of action.

Earlier today, Salem Radio Network (SRN) News reported the following:

RICH THOMASON, ANCHOR: And with the President’s poll numbers down, and his agenda in trouble, the White House is fine tuning its media strategy.

GREG KLUSTON, REPORTER: White House aides say they’re adopting a more aggressive, more streamlined approach to getting out the President’s message. The strategy includes a faster, more direct response to criticism, and more events at which the President speaks directly to the public without the filter of the news media, such as town hall meetings and online discussions.

This is the same thinking that gives birth to the notion that if the word “cripple” is replaced with the phrase “physically challenged,” the reality somehow changes.

There are a multitude of reasons to fall over in fits of uncontrollable laughter over this story.

Leave it to leftists to once again believe that the rejection of liberal ideas is rooted in the fact that they’re either not getting their message out adequately, or a vast right-wing conspiracy is at play, diabolically deflecting the truth from the citizenry.

Here’s a little reality check: the President’s poll numbers are down – some would say subterranean – precisely because his message is coming through loud and clear to the American people.

Naturally, Barack Obama’s response to his failing presidency is to get more aggressive – to do more to get his Leftopia agenda out there to the people.

That, in and of itself, is mind boggling.

How such a thing could be physically possible is beyond human comprehension. This president is so overexposed – except, of course, when terrorists try to blow up airplanes in Detroit – that it is inconceivable he could actually become more aggressive.

God help us all if he does.

This is the man who once appeared on five Sunday shows on the same day to hawk his Marxist visions. This is the man who could single-handedly neutralize the national debt if he had a dollar for every time he used the word “I” and “me” in any given speech – including his now infamous commentary on the fall of the Berlin Wall last November, which he had nothing to do with, but managed to make himself the focal point of.

More aggressive?

How exactly?

Keep in mind that the President has specified that he will do so without the “filter” of the news media diluting his message of hope and change. He’s going to win back the love he’s lost by circumventing the traitorous fourth estate and return to his community organizing roots (i.e., staying in full campaign mode).

The news media, liberal to their core, clearly are not be distributing the Obamacrat Kool-Aid packets effectively enough for Bam’s liking. They’ve obviously stumbled in his eyes. They’ve dropped the ball. Thus, he’s decided to sidestep them so that his message can really be heard – finally. To him, it’s been thirteen months of distortions, obstructionism and half-truths. How can he possibly get anything done if he can’t get his message out there?

He will be putting on his campaign trail shoes in the hopes of coming back down off the cross to dazzle the masses. It’ll be done through town hall meetings – which apparently are great vehicles for getting one’s message across (providing they’re leftist messages), unlike those blasted Tea Party types who are only interested in causing trouble – and online discussions.   

And speaking of “online,” perhaps the White House might try a revamped version of their failed tattletale website from last year.

Remember that one? When the President asked citizens to snitch on other citizens who might have had dissenting opinions about ObamaCare?

If at first you don’t succeed …

Does the President realize how all of this sounds? Does he realize he is sticking a knife into the guts of the very saliva-dripping lapdogs who made him the Messiah he truly believes he is?

Again, in the eyes of Obamacrats, leftist policies are not the problem with the American people; it’s a noncompliant, unfair news media bending and twisting the realities of what the president is trying to do, coupled with a battalion of powerful right-wing, negro-haters who will obfuscate the truth to keep Obama from enjoying any successes whatsoever.

Dems are almost adorable when they try to do stuff.

Yeah, this’ll work fine.

wordpress statistics

Posted in leftism, Liberalism, Media, Obama Bonehead, Obamacrats | Tagged: , , , , , | Leave a Comment »


Posted by Andrew Roman on February 3, 2010

Scott Brown was not elected to the Senate because of health care. It was, as Howard Dean put it, a message being sent to Democrats that they were not being leftist enough on the issue.

You probably didn’t know that.

Collapsing poll numbers and recent Democrat election losses are no indication whatsoever that Americans are rejecting modern liberalism. Rather, it’s simply a matter of intolerant, obstructionist right-wingers spoiling the messianic transformation with their assorted variety of “isms” and “phobes.”

Were you aware of that?

You were probably also unaware that the steadily decreasing viewership of Keith Olbermann’s MSNBC Countdown program has nothing to do with his intellectually putrid, angry-middle-aged, over-the-top, lying-sack-of-crap approach to political commentary.

It’s true.

His disappearing ratings are completely unrelated to his tired, ill-informed, painully tedious, hard-left daily tantrums.

It is not because he hosts a very bad television program that people don’t want to watch.

Instead, it can be blamed on the new cycle.

The boss at MSNBC says so.

Jeff Bercovici at the Daily Finance writes:

Ratings for Olbermann’s Countdown have been soft recently, and the 8 p.m. shows on CNN and HLN have narrowed the gap. In the important demographic of adults 25 to 54 — the group advertisers are looking to reach — Countdown was down 44% year-over-year in January. It averaged 268,000 viewers in that demo, only 3,000 more than Nancy Grace’s show on HLN, and 12,000 more than CNN’s Campbell Brown. Fox News’s O’Reilly Factor dominated the hour with 964,000 viewers age 25 to 54, and was the only cable news show in the time period to increase its audience, by 55%.

(Network President Phil) Griffin, not surprisingly, says he doesn’t believe Olbermann’s recent hiccups are part of any larger trend. “Keith has been our tentpole,” he says. “I watch the show every night. It’s a great show. It’s as smart and clever and fun as any out there, and I’m pleased with where we are.”

He attributes Olbermann’s January ratings slip to a news cycle in which international news, rather than domestic politics, was the No. 1 story. “On big, breaking international news, CNN tends to do better than us. They did a great job in Haiti, and I tip my hat to them,” he says. “We’re the place for politics, and there are times when politics does great, and there are times when it doesn’t.” With primaries in the midterm elections already looming, he says, “I think we’ll get our momentum back.”

Keith is a pole, all right …

What a disingenuous assessment. If MSNBC is the place for politics, as Mr. Griffin suggets, that network’s numbers should have gone through the roof in recent times. What news story has engaged America more than health care reform talk? Like it or not, it is still the defining story of Obama’s stumbling presidency. At the same time, the entire month of January was one non-stop “Obama – One Year Later” newsfest. Isn’t that the kind of stuff that MSNBC lives for? What was a bigger political story in January than Scott Brown’s election in Massachusetts? What about all the “terror trial” news in recent days? If that’s not a political issue, what is? And didn’t President Obama give a State of the Union address last month?

What in the name of Mrs. Columbo is Griffin talking about?

MSNBC should be making out like bandits in the rating race – using his criterion.

So, it was breaking international news every night at 8PM that caused Olbermann’s numbers to take a dive. Why didn’t I think of that?

Of course, both CNN and MSNBC lag far behind Fox News.

wordpress statistics

Posted in Keith Olbermann, leftism, Liberalism, Media, Television | Tagged: , , , , , | 2 Comments »


Posted by Andrew Roman on January 28, 2010

I know I shouldn’t laugh at this. It’s not like I’m personally invested. It isn’t as if I’m receiving any residual checks in the mail every time Fox News finishes ahead of the other cable networks. (I do, however, receive big fat direct Paypal deposits from the offices of the vast Right Wing Conspiracy on a rolling basis).

I really shouldn’t get such a charge out of this … but I can’t help it. I find it incredibly amusing.

Poor Keith Olbermann.

In the cable news ratings race for Tuesday, January 26th, The Big O finished behind that broadcasting mahatma, Joy Behar.

That’s right … Joy Behar beat Keith Olbermann in the ratings.

That’s like saying Chrone’s Disease edged out Ulcerative Colitis in the Irritable Bowel Sweepstakes.

I can’t be the only one who gets a charge out of this.

Of course, Behar received less than half of what Fox News’ lowest rated afternoon/evening program received – Shep Smith’s Fox Report, which hauled in over two million viewers – but she did also beat out ever-floundering Rachel Maddow.

MSNBC needs a hug.

While Bill O’Riley, Glenn Beck and Sean Hannity each pulled in over three million viewers, there wasn’t a single host on CNN that even got one million.

Both of their viewers could not be reached for comment.


H/T Drudge Report

wordpress statistics

Posted in Media, Television | Tagged: , , , | Leave a Comment »


Posted by Andrew Roman on January 19, 2010

No, he didn’t say that a totalitarian dictator was among his favorite philosophers, as did his predecessor, Anita Dunn.

He wasn’t quite that colorful.

In fact, he was a bit disappointing, if not unoriginal. At least Anita Dunn, the former White House Communications Director, was interesting. Dan Pfeiffer (her replacement), on the other hand, was a yawn-inspiring, painfully predictable, obedient little Obamacrat. The page he took from the Bam-Bam playbook has been so referenced by now that only lint and frazzled fragments are left in its place.

Yet another shot has been fired by the White House – the post-partisan, unifying, free-speech-loving White House – at the Fox News Channel. Not only did the well-spoken Mr. Pfeiffer say that Fox News was not a traditional news organization, but that it would not be treated as equal to other news networks.

That’s right … a spokesman for the White House (i.e., the President of the United States) has openly declared that they will treat a free-market, free-press news organization differently from others because it doesn’t adhere to this administration’s concept of a “traditional news” outfit.

David A. Patten at NewsMax writes:

The remarks by Dan Pfeiffer, who recently replaced Anita Dunn as the White House communications director, indicate that the administration has no plans to back off its strident anti-Fox News rhetoric.

Pfeiffer told The New York Times: “They have a point of view; that point of view pervades the entire network.”

He added that the Obama administration has no intention of treating Fox News equally.

“We don’t feel the obligation to treat them like we would treat a CNN, or an ABC, or an NBC, or a traditional news organization, but there are times when we believe it makes sense to communicate with them,” Pfeiffer told the Times.

Pfeiffer confirmed that the confrontational approach favored by Dunn, who labeled Fox News a “wing of the Republican Party,” will continue.

In response, a Fox News spokesperson told The “Obviously new to his position, Dan seems to be intent upon repeating the mistakes of his predecessor … and we all remember how well that turned out.”

And if, for instance, Fox News were Obama ankle-grabbers, like MSNBC, would this even be an issue?

Remember, MSNBC is the home of Rachel Maddow, Chris Matthews and Keith Olbermann – not exactly right-of-center traditionalists. If Fox News rolled over and played slut for this administration, like the New York Times, would anyone in the White House care how “traditional” the organization was?

It is the height of arrogance, the depths of treachery, the reality of the totalitarian instinct inherent in leftist thought that defines the power-grabbing Obamacrat regime. From their middle-of-the-night, break-neck congressional votes on unread legislation, to their behind-closed-doors, phony “transparency,” Dems are demonstrating why liberalism and liberty don’t mix.

Think about this … this is the White House, and thus the President – the man charged with preserving, protecting and defending the Constitution of the United States – waging war on an American news organization that does not tow the Leftocrat line.

Imagine a Republican White House pulling the same stunt against the liberal media. Think of the outrage that would ensue.

Of course, they’d be at war with the entirety of the mainstream media news complex at that point.

This anti-Fox News posture has been an ongoing thing since the dawn of the Messianic Age.

Frankly, the White House needs better material.


H/T to Weasel Zippers.

wordpress statistics

Posted in Media, Media Bias | Tagged: , , , , , | Leave a Comment »


Posted by Andrew Roman on January 4, 2010

For me, it was a good night.

A very good night.

As a lifelong New York Jets fan still reveling in the gift given to this team last week by the Indianapolis Colts, I was as pleased as a mosquito at a nudist’s convention to see them not only win last night’s season finale, but obliterate the visiting Cincinnati Bengals, 37-0, to earn a trip to the playoffs.

It was a delicious thrashing.

They finished the regular season with a 9-7 record and will face the Bengals again next Saturday in the first playoff game of the year, only this time in Cincinnati.

I highly doubt next week’s game will look anything like last night’s shellacking, but I’ll not worry about that now. For the moment – the morning after – I’m thoroughly enjoying a win that was decidedly not an example of the “Same Old Jets.”

However, there was one thing that kept last night from being the perfect football night. There was one dark spot on an otherwise splendid evening of Gang Green football.

As excited as I was in the hours leading up to the game last night – snack platters at the ready, texting with friends, putting on my handy-dandy Joe Namath Mitchell-and-Ness home jersey, etc – the NBC pregame show was like a puss-filled blister on an otherwise smooth and silky complexion. It was a game-changer, a buzzkill, a stopper. Within seconds of hearing that voice, I had to turn the channel. The acids in my stomach started to churn. The house supply of Pepto Bismol was soon gone.


Two words: Keith Olbermann.

Yeah, yeah, I know. I’ve written about this before.

Repugnance knows no limit. That I’m revisiting the topic makes it no less valid.

Why it is that NBC still utilizes the contemptible and always nauseating lefty mudslinger on their Sunday night NFL pregame show is beyond me. Why it is that this lying, disgusting excuse for a broadcaster is brought in to comment on professional football is more than perplexing. Why it is that someone so polarizing, so controversial, so sleazy, so leftist, is asked to speak on the air in a a non-Marxist, non-socialist context puzzles me. I don’t give a damn what he did in OnceUpon-A-Time-Land. I don’t care how “witty” people thought he was a billion years ago. He has long since traded in his scores-and-highlights hat for an angry, radical, left-wing shirt and tie. Frankly, no one really gives a rat’s nipple what he thinks about the NFL anymore, and it isn’t as if his “football perspective,” whatever it may be, is so brilliantly unique that his presence is required to make Sunday Night Football watchable.

Is there no one else in all of broadcasting – someone not a controversial scumbag – around to comment on football?

No one?


Back on September 14, 2009, in my post Keith-O Has Got To Go, I wrote:

Sure, I knew Olbermann used to be a sports guy in a previous life, but that train has long since been dismantled. He doesn’t do sports anymore. He makes his bones as a raging lunatic leftist kook. Despite what he used to do in his early days, he is currently synonymous with far left politics. He long ago ditched his sardonic sports desk persona to become an angry liberal windbag who throws things at the camera and calls it witty analysis. Like toe jam, ear wax, and that thing that’s been in back of the refrigerator since Saint Swithin’s last birthday, it is incalculably disgusting that such a dreadful little man – who is as hateful as he is uninteresting – is an NFL commentator with NBC.

He is one of the most detestable human beings in media today – not just controversial or provocative – but a mudslinging, unintelligent boob; and the fact that he is given the opportunity to show his mug on NBC’s Sunday Night Football is literally enough for me to turn the channel and not bother coming back until I know the game has started.

I know I am not alone.

(Advertisers need to pay close attention here).

Olbermann is not just your garden variety, Obama-is-our-savior, big-government liberal – like Bob Costas, for instance. Rather, Olbermann is a lying dirt bag of a man who constantly spews outright slanderous nonsense about those he doesn’t like. He is not a journalist in any sense of the word. He doesn’t substantiate his bogus claims and he lives on personal attacks. He is a spoiled brat, angry, liberal ass-kissing cowardly smear-merchant who will never debate those who oppose him. His ratings on MSNBC’s Countdown are horrific, his reasonability is nonexistent, and his clever Dennis-Miller-wannabe “smart guy” shtick is tired and tedious.

Yeah, what I said …

And Go Jets!

wordpress statistics

Posted in Media, Media Bias, New York Jets, Sports | Tagged: , , , , | 2 Comments »


Posted by Andrew Roman on November 21, 2009

Someone ought to get MSNBC’S Chris Matthews a towel … or a cigarette. His incessant gushing over everything the President does and says is going to leave a nasty stain on the carpet. Perhaps a sedative, or one of Keith Olbermann’s famous back rubs, would help. That Matthews’ legs have not been rendered lame from all of the thrills running up them is, in a word, miraculous. If he hasn’t already had an accident on the set, it’s only a matter of time.

Indeed, his viewership may be the only thing dropping quicker than the President’s poll numbers – or the New York Jets’ season – but every once in a while, Matthews can offer a unique touch of insight.

And so it was that on his show Hardball – yes, it is still on the air – Chris Matthews offered an actual criticism of Barack Obama.

Sort of.

With the President’s poll numbers falling off the table, Matthews asked his viewer(s) to consider the possibility that President Obama is just too smart for his own good.

President Obama has his chin out there on just about every hot issue out there: health care, terror trials, job losses, even the breast cancer report. He’s exposed and vulnerable. His poll numbers are dropping. Is he just too darned intellectual? Too much the egghead? Why did he bow to that Japanese Emperor? Why did he pick Tim Geithner to be his economic front man? Why all this dithering over Afghanistan? Who thought it was a wonderful idea to bring the killers of 9/11 to New York City?

Yes, of course.

It should have been obvious, but I chose not to see it. My ideological blinders have kept me from weighing the possibility that the rest of us are simply not cerebral enough to keep up with him.

He is that He is.

Barack Obama is too much of an intellectual. It is his “eggheadedness” that has caused his numbers to slip. You can hardly blame him for not being able to mingle academically with the non-water walkers of America.

Matthews, again, leads the way.


Incidentally, the answers to Matthews’ questions are, in order:

– Not in your wildest dreams.

– Only if he dips his face into a quiche.

– Because, as a liberal, his goal is to present America as weak and vulnerable.

– Because his ability to pick friends, mentors and associates of character is on par with his ability speak coherently free of teleprompters.

– Because once he does, he owns it, and he can’t use George W. Bush as an excuse any longer – although, he will.

– Only those people who can never, ever, ever, ever, ever be trusted with national security – liberals.


wordpress statistics

Posted in Media, Media Bias, Obama Bonehead, politics | Tagged: , , , , , , | 2 Comments »


Posted by Andrew Roman on November 9, 2009

FBI Arrests

Daniel Patrick Boyd

Remember Daniel Patrick Boyd? You may recall he was the North Carolina contractor who, along with a group of others (including two sons), was planning a “violent jihad,” which included an attack on the Quantico Marine Base. He was a Muslim convert who was also involved in planning a series of terror attacks internationally.

If his name doesn’t ring a bell, don’t feel too bad. He wasn’t an angry Christian targeting an abortion clinic, so the story had a shelf life of maybe eighteen seconds.

How about the name Abdulhakim Mujahid Muhammad? If not (which is quite likely), perhaps you will recall the incident associated with him. In June of this year he shot up a Little Rock, Arkansas recruiting office, killing an American soldier. Afterwards, he claimed he was justified because of what Americans were doing to Muslims in the Middle East.

Since he wasn’t an angry American white man setting off a bomb somewhere, the chances that this story would snag more than a day’s worth of coverage was slim-to-none.

Abdulhakim Mujahid Muhammad

Abdulhakim Mujahid Muhammad

Remember the story of the Bronx, New York terror plot – the one where four home grown Muslim terrorists planned on shooting down military planes and were arrested as they planted what they thought were bombs at two synagogues? How long did that story stick around with the mainstream media?

Since there was no way to cloak the role of Islam in that particular terrorist scheme, it isn’t surprising that after a day or two, it became a page twenty-five afterthought, lest the Muslim community be insulted or provoked.

Certainly many will recollect the Fort Dix terror plot. That should have been, by anyone’s measure, a huge story – particularly when three Muslim immigrant brothers, Dritan, Shain and Eljvir Duka, were convicted of planning an al-Qaida-inspired attack meant to kill hundreds of American soldiers on the New Jersey military installation.

It wasn’t.

It went away in short order as newspapers filled with stories of how screwed up Afghanistan was thanks to George W. Bush.

Ask anyone with even an elementary knowledge of current events to recall any of these domestic terror plots and, more likely than not, you won’t elicit many responses.

Sadly, they’re buried way below the fold of America’s collective consciousness.

But now, with thirteen people dead and twenty-nine injured at Fort Hood, Texas – and every indication in the world that the murderer, Nidal Malik Hasan, acted as a radical Islamic terrorist – the morally weak, fainthearted American media (in conjunction with the American Leftocracy) cannot sweep the details of this horrific incident away under the rug as they would like. Thus, as long as the news cycle demands that this story be covered, they will continue to avoid the obvious as long as humanly possible – that radical Islam almost certainly played the defining role in the Fort Hood mass murder.

Fox News’ Geraldo Rivera, for example, went as far as saying that, for all we know, it could have been a bad headache that made the terrorist, Hassan, kill.

Yes, he really said that.

And no, he doesn’t believe that for a second.

However, Rivera is one the overwhelming majority of journalists who live in a world where clarity is routinely sacrificed for being inoffensive.

(I wonder how many throbbing-headed individuals in human history have actually resorted to mass murder. I’ve found that, generally speaking, bad headaches are debilitating).

On his radio program today, Dennis Prager played a clip from MSNBC’s show Hardball that aired Friday, where host Chris Matthews introduced a segment with Nihad Awad from the Council of American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) this way:

Welcome back to Hardball. The investigation into that massacre at Fort Hood yesterday is still ongoing and it’s unclear if religion was a factor in this shooting.

What motivated this killing yesterday? And we may not know that ever.


So, in light of every stitch of evidence available to him, in light of every report pointing in that direction, Mr. Matthews believes we may never ever know what motivated these murders?

I guess this Hasan is a real puzzle.

If everything that is known right now about Hasan – including the fact that, for years, he has been making anti-American comments in public; that he has openly professed to being pro-terrorist; that he has posted commentary online in support of suicide bombings; that he has incontestable ties to radical Islam; that he has likely had contact with terrorists; that he has been heard to say on numerous occasions that he is a Muslim first and an American second; that he was heard to shout “Allahu Akbar!” (God Is Great) before slaughtering innocents – is not enough to suggest that religion might have been some sort of factor in what happened at Fort Hood, what exactly would be?

What other “clues” would need to be in place for the murderer, Hasan, to be seen by the gutless American media as an Islamic terrorist?

A t-shirt?

Even Anwar Aulaqi – the radical imam, now in Yemen, who preached at the Virginia mosque where Hasan was known to have attended – posted the following at his website:

Nidal Hassan is a hero. He is a man of conscience who could not bear living the contradiction of being a Muslim and serving in an army that is fighting against his own people.

Obviously, Aulaqi believes that Hasan’s shooting spree had something to do with religion. Why else would he praise Hasan if this was not a terrorist attack in the name of Islam? When, pray tell, will Chris Matthews criticize Aulaqi for jumping to conclusions?

Somehow, in the flummoxed brains of the American leftist, to accept the reality that there are radical Muslims who commit atrocities such as the Fort Hood massacre – and do so in the name of Islam – is to say that all Muslims are terrorists. It’s how they think. It’s a charge the Left makes against conservatives regularly – that we on the right believe all Muslims are terrorists. But no one on my side of the aisle has ever said it, nor do we believe it. It isn’t an issue. Rather it is they on the Left who avoid the topic all together in fear of offending Muslims, even when the Qur’an is slapping them repeatedly across the chops.

Of course, lefties often go on and on about white racism in America – especially where the opposition of Barack Obama’s policies are concerned – but never once have any fear of offending all whites, or lumping all Caucasians together.

Funny how that works.

wordpress statistics

Posted in Evil, Islam, Liberalism, Media, military, Political Correctness, religion, terrorism, War on Terror | Tagged: , , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »


Posted by Andrew Roman on November 6, 2009

the murderer

Nidal Malik Hasan, Murderer

Assuming for a moment I were elected King of the World, the first edict issued would be to ban the use of the word “tragedy” in describing the horrific murders that took place at Fort Hood yesterday afternoon.

If ever there was a misuse of the word, this is it.

This was not a mudslide or an earthquake. It wasn’t a tornado or a typhoon. There was no twenty car pileup on a blizzard-ravaged road.

It was a murderous shooting spree that cost thirteen innocents their lives and injured as many as thirty. It was a ghastly execution of wickedness from a very bad man.

It was an act of evil.

Second, with emerging reports of the murderer as a man increasingly disgruntled with America’s involvement in both Iraq and Afghanistan – and one whose name is said to have appeared on several radical internet postings about suicide bombings – it is not unreasonable to look into the man’s connection with radical Islam.

Third, with reports that the murderer shouted out the love call of the suicide bomber, “Allahu Akbar!” (God is Great) before unleashing his terror on innocents, it is not unreasonable to pursue the angle that yesterday’s deadly rampage was an act of terrorism.

However, ours is a world where a cold blooded killer, such as the human debris who committed these murders, is referred to as a “shooter” or “gunman” – not a “murderer,” or even a “killer.”

It is a world where people are called upon to begin “healing” long before they’ve finished grieving.

It is an age where the “circumstances” that drive the evil-doer to commit the crime are explored at length, while the innocent dead are counted before being discounted.

We live in an era where there exists a pervasive unwillingness (or fear) to label the evils of our time.

It is both frightening and sickening.

Incidentally, the Fort Hood mass-murderer’s name is Nidal Malik Hasan. Many news outlets didn’t even bother to report that for several hours, even after it was confirmed.

He is also a Muslim.

Had Mr. Hasan been called Bobby Ray Jones or Thomas Alan Smith (or something equally Anglo), and was wearing a “Jesus Is Lord” t-shirt when he shouted “Praise Jesus!” before shooting up an abortion clinic or a Planned Parenthood office, there wouldn’t be enough fiber-optics in all the cable television lines in all the world to handle the coverage it would be given. A new channel would have to be created. Additional satellites would have to be launched to accomodate the load. The murderer would have become a household name by the time Keith Olbermann hit the screen at 8:00PM.

Definitionally, how is yesterday’s mass-killing not an act of terrorism?

wordpress statistics

Posted in Evil, Media, terrorism, Values | Tagged: , , , , , | 1 Comment »


Posted by Andrew Roman on September 23, 2009

bush_hitler_1When leftists take to the streets to protest, it is not only newsworthy, it is also (we are told) noble, meritorious and rooted in genuine concern for some great issue affecting humanity.

When conscientious young skulls of leftist mush demonstrated against Ronald Reagan in the 1980s, convinced he would lead the world into World War III and foreordained nuclear devastation, they did so with the world’s media gazing upon them in awe. Protestors were showered with accolades, praised not only for their highborn cause, but their willingness to get involved and stand up for their beliefs.

Protests – even riots – against George W. Bush (complete with calls for his impeachment, routine comparisons to Adolf Hitler, and publications hopeful for his eventual assassination) were met with reckonable commentary focusing on the deep concerns of the American citizenry, the anxiousness of a troubled electorate, and the blessings of a society that affords its people the opportunity to redress their grievances.

By contrast, when liberals are in power, protests against them are never based on the genuine concerns of the public. Those who speak out against leftists at the helm are never noble or admirable. The beauty of a society where the citizens can redress their grievances suddenly becomes irrelevant. Whatever anxiousness there may be among those protesting liberal power is rooted in selfishness and even bigotry. Thus the motivations of those who oppose liberal policies are engrained not in presenting a viable alternative, but in achieving a diabolical and sinister goal – whatever that might be.

It seems perfectly reasonable, doesn’t it?

Remember, whereas conservative bigotry divides, liberal bigotry fosters unity.

Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi can accuse those who oppose ObamaCare of being swastika carriers, and no one is particularly outraged. She can tearfully warn against conservative protestors potentially resorting to the kind of violence that took the lives of San Francisco Mayor George Moscone and Supervisor Harvey Milk in 1978, and no one blinks an eye. Corrupt Congressman Charles Rangel of New York can say that racism is behind the widespread opposition to Obama’s leftist policies, and it all seems to make sense. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid can call Town-Hall protesters “evil mongers,” and his words are taken seriously. Reid can also call President Bush a liar, and no one as much as lifts an eyebrow; but when Congressman Joe Wilson accuses President Obama of lying, America pauses in gapped-mouthed amazement at the lack of civility. Dissenters to the Obamacratic vision for America can be called kooks, fringies, right-wing nutcases, gun-happy bigots, Kool-Aid drinkers, racists, or whatever pejorative fits the bill for the moment, and never are the validities of their dissent analyzed the same way “Bush=Hitler” protestors were.

Liberal anger is patriotic.

Conservative anger is dangerous.

On yesterday’s edition of Hardball on sparsely viewed MSNBC, the ever-vexatious and never-delightful Chris Matthews said the following:

“ … the activists on radio are not afraid because they’re not afraid of anything. But at some point if we have violence in this country against our president of any form or attempt, people are gonna pay for it, the people who have encouraged the craziness. And I get the feeling, at some point, the responsible grown ups like people who have [been] elected 20 or 30 years, who know what it means to be responsible officeholders, must be saying to themselves, ‘I don’t want to be one of the people responsible if one of these Looney Tunes gets a gun and does something.’ “

chris matthews on hardball“People are gonna pay for it?”

“Looney Tunes?”

Civility, thy name is Matthews.

What exactly is he talking about? Angry, sign-waving, expletive-shouting, rock-throwing, anti-war, Amerika-with-a-k, Bush-lied-people-died fanatics were nothing to concern ourselves with, but conservative dissent somehow translates into the frightening prospect of violence?

Funny how that works.

Matthews also said that all of the “anti-government” talk wasn’t improving anyone’s life and that the “clown show” was over. (Of course, Obama has at least three more years to serve, so the “clown show” regrettably goes on).

Note how Matthews unabashedly reveals the core belief of his political creed: that only government can improve anyone’s life.

It goes without saying (or it should) that anyone with any sense of what this country has always been about understands that one’s liberty is directly proportional to the amount of power the government has over its citizens. As talk show host Dennis Prager often says, “The bigger the government, the smaller the citizen.”


This kind of thinking, of course, creates ulcers in the collective colon of liberal America. To them, it’s only about government.

The so-called “lack of civility” on the right – fuelled by talk radio haters and angry cable news channel gabbers, they say – has become all the rage in trying to explain why there is so much opposition to the Obamacratic transformation of America. It isn’t possible in Liberal-Land to legitimately oppose an expansion of government, or speak out against it, because in the world of Chris Matthews (and his fun-loving leftist brethren), only government can make the boo-boo all better. Thus, the motive for the dissent must rest elsewhere – perhaps in racist inclinations, deep-rooted anger in the multiculturalization of the country, greed, selfishness, sexism, whatever. There is no genuine compassion on the right – only self-centeredness. There is no tolerance on the right – only bitterness. There is no civility on the right – only anger.

Yesterday, Transportation Secretary Ray Lahood – a Republican – broke out his own slice of civility by lashing out against conservative talk show radio hosts and cable new network talking heads, saying “they have eroded civility and impeded the nation’s ability to solve big problems.”

Joe Hallett of the Columbus Dispatch writes:

Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood told The Dispatch that the level of “harsh discourse in Washington has probably reached an all-time high,” and he partly blamed it on “all of this trash talk about the process and about politicians 24/7” on cable television and talk radio.

LaHood referred to criticism Obama received for appearing Sunday on five television news shows to promote his health-care overhaul. The secretary also indicated that even the president’s bully pulpit is no match for the cacophony over the airwaves from the political right.

“He can’t even compete with all this stuff that people are saying about him, so the idea that he did five interviews on Sunday, that’s just minuscule compared to the kind of trash talk that goes on all week prior to that,” LaHood said.

“All of this background, all of this trash talk in the background, it does not contribute to civil discourse, and it does not contribute to the government or the country’s ability to solve big issues.”

Absolute nonsense.

What Mr. Hallett really means is that conservative talk-show hosts and cable news channel kibbitzers are helping to make it impossible for the federal government to do whatever the hell it wants without a meddling constituency sticking their noses in things. What Mr. Hallett is bothered by is the fact that Americans are not just rolling over and taking whatever they’re told to take by the big boys in charge. What disturbs the Transportation Secretary is the reality that taxpayers will not accept that their elected officials can be trusted.

It is precisely conservative talk-radio, right-leaning cable news channel pundits, and the explosion of coast-to-coast Tea Parties – in conjunction with a very well-informed electorate – that have enabled the current debate on health care reform to flourish and continue.

It is not trash talk, despite what Hallett the Rino says.

As I have alluded to before – and still worth repeating – it makes one wonder exactly what acceptable discourse and dissent actually sounds like in the eyes of panicked leftists.

Posted in health care, Liberalism, Media, Media Bias, politics | Tagged: , , , , , , , , | 2 Comments »


Posted by Andrew Roman on September 14, 2009

OlbermannWith the New York Mets being the unmitigated disaster they have been this year, the bulk of my sporting life attention has shifted to football. Thus, on a personal level, yesterday was nothing short of a wonderful day for a variety of reasons, not the least of which was the opening of the National Football League season (Thursday’s game not withstanding). My wife and I spent the entire afternoon watching both New York teams walk away with victories. We relaxed, snacked, screamed at the TV when necessary, and thoroughly enjoyed ourselves. It was a lot of fun, to be sure – although I’m not sure what in the world possessed me to pick Miami over Atlanta. (That’s a separate issue).

Anyway, as a fitting nightcap to an already splendid day of laziness, chicken wings and delicious violence, we thought we would tune in and watch the Sunday night game on NBC. It featured the game’s all-time rivalry, the Green Bay Packers and the Chicago Bears – a tradition that is eclipsed only by the time-space continuum itself.

However, what had been a glorious Sunday of gridiron goodness almost immediately descended into the depths of broadcasting hell the moment we landed on NBC.

Like unexpectedly hearing the voice of Nancy Pelosi, or being diagnosed with a severe intestinal blockage, it ambushed us.

Like a passing afternoon Florida thunderstorm, or liberal sensibility, it came from nowhere, and we were wholly unprepared.

It was both frightening and spellbinding.

It was … Keith Olbermann.

(cue scary music, thunder)

My wife looked at me as if her bungee chord has just snapped.

I immediately grabbed the first thing I could find when his snarky voice assaulted my ears, although I’m not sure why.

Confusion took hold.

We couldn’t help but shudder in those first moments when our senses and coherence were thrown into transitory chaos. Time seemed to freeze for a moment. A heavy darkness descended upon our little living room on Staten Island’s South Shore like an anvil hones in on a Warner Brothers cartoon character.

When I finally regained my equilibrium, with Olbermann’s voice still seeping from my TV’s speakers. my instincts commanded me to save my family. I hastily prepared to remove my children from the home and gather essentials. I even glanced at the phone in a panic, deciding whether or not to call 9-1-1. Throwing something large and heavy through the TV screen somehow seemed appropriate for a fleeting instant.

Fortunately, I managed to find the “channel up” button on my remote before our lives were turned upside-down.

Things slowly returned to normal.

Keith had been removed.

Once oxygen levels had stabilized in my blood stream – and my wife had gone to bed tremendously distressed – I decided I needed to sit myself down and comment on the fact that this former-sports-yacker-turned-liberal-nutbag was on my TV screen in my house talking football. Sure, I knew Olbermann used to be a sports guy in a previous life, but that train has long since been dismantled. He doesn’t do sports anymore. He makes his bones as a raging lunatic leftist kook. Despite what he used to do in his early days, he is currently synonymous with far left politics. He long ago ditched his sardonic sports desk persona to become an angry liberal windbag who throws things at the camera and calls it witty analysis. Like toe jam, ear wax, and that thing that’s been in back of the refrigerator since Saint Swithin’s last birthday, it is incalculably disgusting that such a dreadful little man – who is as hateful as he is uninteresting – is an NFL commentator with NBC.

He is one of the most detestable human beings in media today – not just controversial or provocative – but a mudslinging, unintelligent boob; and the fact that he is given the opportunity to show his mug on NBC’s Sunday Night Football is literally enough for me to turn the channel and not bother coming back until I know the game has started.

I know I am not alone.

(Advertisers need to pay close attention here).

Olbermann is not just your garden variety, Obama-is-our-savior, big-government liberal – like Bob Costas, for instance. Rather, Olbermann is a lying dirt bag of a man who constantly spews outright slanderous nonsense about those he doesn’t like. He is not a journalist in any sense of the word. He doesn’t substantiate his bogus claims and he lives on personal attacks. He is a spoiled brat, angry, liberal ass-kissing cowardly smear-merchant who will never debate those who oppose him. His ratings on MSNBC’s Countdown are horrific, his reasonability is nonexistent, and his clever Dennis-Miller-wannabe “smart guy” shtick is tired and tedious.

He needs to leave the NFL behind. NBC needs to boot him from Sunday Night Football.

Obviously, I don’t want him censored. Only government can censor.

Rather, NBC needs to know that there are many Americans who want this serial basher of conservatives (perhaps half of their market share, if not more) off the air.

There are plenty of uncontroversial football kibitzers who can do his job on NBC’s Sunday night pre-game and halftime shows – and far better.

Contact NBC.

Let them know.

Via E-Mail, write:

By snail mail, write:
National Broadcasting Company, Inc.
30 Rockefeller Plaza
New York, NY

Let the countdown to dismissal begin.

Back to the MSNBC troll nook with him.

Posted in Media, Sports | Tagged: , | Leave a Comment »


Posted by Andrew Roman on November 7, 2008

To the ears of babes and other underdeveloped thinkers – let’s call them liberals – what could possibly be wrong with anything that employs the word “fair” or promotes “equality?” It is language so scrumptious, so sensible, so reasonable, who else but callous, cold-blooded, Reagan-loving, daisy-smashing, kitten kickers, lacking even a jot of civility, could find any fault with them? It’s somewhat reminiscent of a girl I knew years ago who went by the saintly name of “Angel” – she could have ripped the chrome off a jeep with her eye teeth. She also had a tendency to growl when she breathed. The name was, obviously, a smidgen deceptive.

This is the case with the potential abdominal ulcer to the First Amendment known inoffensively enough as the “Fairness Doctrine” (sounds delightfully benign, doesn’t it?) – in actuality, a wholly unfair and hostile assault on the Constitution of the United States. I sincerely believe that every advocate of this machete to the gut of freedom is not only missing the point entirely, but is probably still, to this day, attributing the demise of Mario Cuomo’s talk radio program to a right-wing, back-room, illuminati-financed conspiracy.

Michael Medved

Michael Medved

Listening Thursday to the Michael Medved radio program, it was astounding – nay, breathtaking – to hear the measure of incompetence, ignorance and downright inanity that many on the Left exhibit when attempting – I say attempting – to defend this brick-to-the-head of First Amendment rights. The idea that the “Fairness Doctrine” appeals to many American Leftocrats – and the fact that it must be “fair” because it is, after all, in its name (not unlike “yellow fever” must be wonderful because sunflowers and Sugar Corn Pops are yellow) – is the perfect illustration of the divide between conservatives and liberals. One side believes in the free market, the other side throws their unending faith behind the – *cough* – government.

Imagine, if you would, owning a little candy store somewhere (or a “bodega” in today’s Brooklyn-speak) and being told by an all-powerful, intimidating supplier that you had no choice whatsoever but to stock a particularly unpopular item – let’s say garlic-basil flavored ice cream – and that you had to purchase a very specific amount of that item and keep it in on the shelves at all times, even though you knew the product would never sell. Due to a vigorous garlic lobby that somehow felt slighted (and oppressed) in an ice-cream market controlled by an implacable chocolate monopoly, you were told it was the only fair thing to do – despite the fact that garlic was doing extraordinarily well in so many other areas. Eventually, you could either try to convince the supplier that, perhaps, ketchup-flavored sugar cookies might be a better choice – or you could simply close up shop due to the inability to generate profits.

Most would go by way of the latter.

This is the essence of the “Fairness Doctrine” – to force (via the federal government) politically liberal points of view onto market-driven, conservative-dominated, terrestrial talk-radio in equal time.

Like so many stuck-in-the-mud libbies who stamp their feet, wring their hands and stammer around in dumb perplexity trying to figure out why the hell they cannot crack the talk-radio genre, there are those who defiantly choose to dismiss in totality the idea that market forces are actually at work in determining what goes on the air – that the talk-radio listening public are simply uninterested in hearing shrill, emotionally unhinged, arid leftists yammer on and on with no sense of craft or creativity, tearing down the institutions and traditions of this great country. These angry-at-everybody compassionates do not accept that liberal talk radio does not sell.

It doesn’t.

That bears repeating … liberal talk radio does not sell. Save for a few exceptions, there is no real market for it.


Instead, incredulous leftist legislators, fixated talk-show-callers and skull-dead pundits – i.e. the gatekeepers of liberalism’s most important value, equality over liberty – are collectively convinced that heavy hands from the shadows are at work in successfully stifling reasonable alternative opinion coming from the liberal end of the spectrum – that a veritable cabal of racist-sympathizing, corporate-friendly, broadcasting fat-cats are cunningly conspiring to shut out any and all opposing views at all costs. Therefore, government intrusion becomes a logical and absolute necessity – because without television, motion pictures, newspapers, music, magazines, the internet, public schools, universities and Alan Colmes, no one would have a clue about liberalism.

fairness_doctrineSorry. That’s not how it works.

Advertisers are not disposed to invest their hard-earned dollars in radio programming that overwhelmingly goes unheard and is about as compelling as a big-toe blood blister. I can assure you, if there was a call for liberal talk radio, and there was money to be made, currency-loving entrepreneurial types would be steamrolling their wheelchair-bound grandmothers to cop a piece of that pie. Besides, it is not – repeat not – the function of the federal government to drive a given industry into unprofitability by forcing the proprietors of privately owned entities to market unmarketable products. The fact of the matter is, even in havens of political blue – like New York City and San Francisco – liberal talk radio does not thrive.

Another important point almost always lost on big-government, anti-free market liberals is that capitalism, in all of its wonder and glory, forces people to actually take the wants and needs of others into consideration.

Say it with me …”Capitalism means caring.”

Still, liberals cherish equality more than they do liberty, not understanding that the two are in no way synonymous. (I am refrring to equality of outcome, not equality of opportunity. That’s for you, Keith Olbermann).

One caller to Michael Medved’s show on Thursday, who was particularly smitten with radio liberal-yacker (and MSNBC host) Rachel Maddow, commented:

With Rachel’s programming versus the right-wing programming, it’s one versus – what – fifty? How many right wing shows are there versus how many liberal shows are there? And I live in Texas, which is very red, in Dallas, which has nothing besides, up and down the AM dial, right-wing talking points.

Here’s a friendly suggestion to those on the Left who long for more allocation along the radio dial … how about figuring out a way to create a product that the money-spending public-at-large actually wants to hear? A radical concept, I grant – as fanatical and contumacious as wishing to preserve the millennia-old definition of marriage.

Posted in Media, Media Bias | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »