Jeff Richardson has a piece up about Schaeffer Cox’ vanity project…I mean militia. And it’s remarkable. Remarkable in that Richardson breathlessly repeats every batshit insane talking point that Cox and his pretend soldier friends scream out. Richardson points out that Cox has pleaded guilty to choking his wife and is facing charges for weapons misconduct, but otherwise let’s Cox and Co. spout their message without so much as a “Where are all the minorities in your militia?” And where are they? I mean look at these guys…
White as the new fallen snow
Not only are these jokers pigmentation-challenged, but c’mon…those are the stupidest looking uniforms this side of Hot Dog On A Stick. No offense to the employees of Hot Dog On A Stick, of course.
It’s one thing for a group to come together and play pretend. Hell, really these guys should just join a LARP or paintball club already. But when you’re banding together to make “sure no thugs [this is racist dogwhistle code for black people BTW] are out there doing stupid, lawless stuff” the fact is YOU are the stupid, lawless thug. And while the News-Miner might be content to give Schaeffer Cox a soapbox and a scrap of legitimacy, I am not.
Ah Alaska Pride. You stay classy, motherfucker. Here’s a noteworthy quote for those of you who don’t want to boost the bigot’s hitcount.
Already, the anti-militia sob sisters are piling on to the comments section of the News-Miner story, although they are effectively offset by some of Cox’s supporters.
For fun, and because I apparently have masochistic tendencies, I have decided to post from time to time on the stupid white supremacist twit who runs the Alaska Pride blog. If I prevent one, just one, outsider from taking that jackass seriously and thinking we’re all like him, I will have accomplished what I set out to.
Here’s another asinine post from the gay-bashing closet-case. It’s about how a proposed non-discrimination law for public schools will mean the GAYZ will take over. He even helpfully provides a pictures of gays in full gayness. What’s hilarious is that any one of those guys in that picture could probably kick his ass. I mean, those are some seriously hard bodies.
I for one salute our new banana-hammock-wearing overlords.
I know it’s been a while. Life, and writing for the Sun Star, has kept me busy. But I love blogging for as Citizen Sig so I’m going to do my best not to disappoint you, my faithful few readers.
Let’s kick things off with an interesting story. I was assigned by my editor to cover a panel being held by the UAF Women’s Center at the UAF Wood Center. The topic was Sarah Palin and one of the panelists was none other than Jeanne Devon, AKMuckraker. Now, I’ve written about Devon before on this blog. I like her, but I really feel like she’s ridden to fame of Sarah Palin’s coattails. She says that she uses those coattails to draw attention to issues that are important to Alaskans but obscure to her non-Alaskan readers.
So today while covering the panel, two of our photographers were confronted by a panel worker and told not to take pictures of the event. The public event being held in a public building that was advertised over the internet and throughout the UAF campus. Our photogs rightly said they had a First Amendment right and took the pictures anyway.
Now there’s a bit of confusion. The Women’s Center director Kayt Sunwood says that Devon had specifically requested no cameras, and that she had nearly backed out of the event because of it. Sunwood said Devon had received serious threats to her life. Devon says it was a big misunderstanding and that the panel workers were being well-meaning and over-protective.
Here’s the deal: regardless of which person is telling the truth we had every right to take those pictures. Period. First Amendment nuff said. But beyond that, I think this highlights another issue: anonymity in journalism. Now, Devon says she’s not a journalist. And she isn’t. But she has done some actual journalism on her blog. That’s in the public sphere now and she owns it, just like I must own every piece I write that gets published. And yet I, as a journalist, must put my name on the top of every thing I write. Until a lawmaker outed her a couple years ago, AKMuckraker happily hid behind her anonymity. I think that’s a major distinction between many citizen journalists and all actual journalists. One group gets to hide from the consequences of what they write and the other doesn’t.
Well I’m dusting off the hat and firing up Citizen Sig once more, and tonight I’m beginning with a special comment on the special election in Massachusetts.
Who’s we? The American people, that’s who. Massachusetts just elected a guy who has promised to be the 41st vote against healthcare reform. A guy who has spoken favorably about torture. A guy whose victory might very well signal a tidal wave of midterm defeats for democrats.
Now I could blame Massachusetts, I suppose. But I don’t. For one thing, they already have universal healthcare. Why the fuck should they care if neighboring New Hampshire or Utah or Alaska has it? They got theirs. For another thing, Coakley was the single dumbest, laziest, most worthless candidate to run since…John Kerry. What IS it with Massachusetts democrats choking in the general election? I mean, credit to Scott Brown for pounding pavement and putting the work in to get elected. But seriously, this election was Coakley’s to lose and SHE LOST IT. Did I mention she just lost Teddy “Liberal Lion of the Senate” Kennedy’s seat? Because she was too good to shake hands outside Fenway Park. She was too good to put in campaign appearances as her poll numbers tanked. Even Teddy had to work his ass off to keep that seat. But Coakley seems oblivious to such a concept. I hope she disappears like the embarrassment she is. Let Coakley go down in history as the term for having victory in your grasp and then pissing it away, e.g. “Man that promotion was his but he took it for granted and totally Coakley’ed it.”
But Coakley doesn’t get ALL of the blame. A lot of it, sure. But there’s blame a’plenty for the democratic party. Let’s see here…since June the democrats controlled the House, the Senate, and the White House. They had a majority in the House and a Super Majority in the Senate. Boy it sure is a good thing they used that super majority while they had it to try and get as much good done as possible! Like passing healthcare…wait…or dealing with cap and trade…no…what about repealing the Defense of Marriage Act and Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell? Not even on the agenda. Obama, Reid, and Pelosi had their majority and they did jack and shit with it. Instead of doing the things that people elected them to do, they tried to woo the republicans and play to the center. And didn’t they do such a fantastic job? Think of all those republican votes they got on….shit. The democrats got lazy, they assumed they had the will of the people and they let the republicans play Lucy with the football and they fell for it again, and again, and again.
When looked at from that perspective, tonight’s humiliating loss in Massachusetts is not all that grievous of one. Instead of being a spineless super majority of 60, the democrats (ok, and the caucusing independents Sanders and Lieberman) will be a spineless majority of 59. Just think of all the excuses they can pull now. They can claim that they’d LOVE to pass healthcare reform and climate change legislation but there just aren’t the votes, goshdarnit. We can look forward to 2 more years of even LESS accomplishment than we’ve seen thus far. Assuming of course that the dems don’t lose their senate majority. Because if the republicans get the Senate I’m sure we’ll see plenty of legislation. It will just all be terrible.
It’s been sorta quiet around here. Finals, family stuff, and a visit in California have made posting a little sparse lately. Needless to say, Citizen Sig is on a bit of a hiatus but rest assured in the new year we’ll be back and as good as ever. So sit back, enjoy a beverage of your choice, and enjoy whatever winter holiday you may or may not observe. See you in 2010!
Or maybe I’m just sick and fucking tired of stupid people yammering about birth certificates. First, Sarah Palin goes onto a conservative radio host’s talk show and calls the demands for Obama to produce a real birth certificate a “fair question.” Well there’s no surprise. At this point, very little about the ex-governor of Alaska could genuinely surprise me. She’s set the bar amazingly high.
I normally like Andrew Sullivan, and as I said in my open letter to Alaskan bloggers I really appreciated Gryphen’s coverage of the Anchorage anti-discrimination ordinance. But seriously, this shit needs to end yesterday. Your shrill cries for Palin to produce Trig’s birth certificate sound extremely similar to Orly Taitz’ Quixotic quest for Obama’s ‘real birth certificate’. Is that company you really want to keep? While you’re at it, why not join the 9/11 Truthers and the moon-landing deniers. If you’re going to make batshit insane assertions then you may as well go all out. Every time you post something about “babygate”, another shred of whatever credibility you might have left evaporates. Enough is enough. Shut the fuck up about birth certificates.
So Obama delivered a pretty speech today. That’s great, I’m sure he inspired a ton of people and stuff. But Afghanistan is called the Graveyard of Empires for a very good reason, and this “surge” that is being proposed is almost guaranteed not to work. Oh sure, they’ll probably clear the Taliban out of the urban areas and send them right back up into the mountains again. But then what? Or better yet, let’s have the Daily Show’s esteemed John Oliver explain it to us perfectly.
The title is a bit misleading. This is an open letter to the non-racist piece of shit bloggers, so Alaska Pride you can go away. No seriously, go away. Stop embarrassing the rest of us.
*ahem*
Alright Shannyn Moore, AKMuckraker, and Gryphen…I think we need to talk. I think it’s time that you consider a Palin embargo. Please don’t get upset, hear me out.
We get it. Seriously, we get it. By we, I certainly mean me and some unknown number of others. Palin sucks. Good God she was a terrible governor, a terrible choice for vice presidential nomination, and by the accounts of many, a terrible person in general. We’ve been there. We’ve done that. Now can we please talk about something else?
Shannyn, when I met you at the 2008 J-Week, you actually became something of an idol of mine. I thought, “My God, here’s a person who really took blogging and made a career of it. If she can, why not I?” You helped inspire me to get interested in Alaskan politics.
AKMuckraker and Gryphen, your coverage of the Anchorage assembly’s anti-discrimination ordinance and all that that entailed were a true credit to the cause and I deeply appreciate it.
Which is why I am asking, pleading really, that you quit beating the dead Palin horse and get back to what you need to be doing, covering the aspects of Alaska politics that don’t receive proper attention in the traditional media. Has there really been nothing newsworthy in Alaska since Palin resigned? Is she really the most important thing to talk about? Look, I know that Palin buttered your bread and helped to elevate you in prominence, but now it’s time for you to use that power where it is needed. Please. Governor Parnell, Palin’s ideological twin, is actually in power right now so why not talk about him? Why not cover the Pebble Mine ongoing fiasco? Bent Alaska’s been doing a good job covering LGBT news in the state, but that cause can always use more vocal help.
I’m not guiltless. I’ve done more than my fair share of Palin-bashing here at Citizen Sig. But I’m doing my best to cover Alaskan politics up here in Fairbanks and central Alaska, and I am asking…I am imploring you to do likewise. Palin was fun, but until she does something genuinely newsworthy I think it is time for us to let her go and deal with the very real, very day-to-day political battles being waged here in the 49th state.
We had an interesting discussion in class today regarding the future of journalism. In particular, is somebody like Keith Olbermann the face of journalism’s future?
Some disclaimers are in order right about now. One, I rather like Olbermann and Maddow. I think they represent voices that were conspicuously absent during the first George W. Bush administration, when we could’ve used them the most. I think that for years, conservatives have had an overpowering voice in the mainstream media with little in the way of contradiction. Alan Keyes, Joe Scarborough, Pat Buchanan, and even Michael Savage all got television shows on MSNBC. Out of those, Scarborough remains MSNBC’s morning anchor and Pat Buchanan may as well keep a cot at 30 Rock for how often he’s asked to come on various shows as a commentator. So I say that Maddow and Olbermann are a net good.
That said, I can certainly admit that Olbermann, Maddow, the guys at the Daily Show and Colbert Report are fallible. There’ve been times when they were wrong, or when they “conveniently” left out a salient detail of some sort. In class, we watched footage of The Daily Show, which in turn referenced Rachel Maddow, excoriating the 30 some republicans who voted against the Al Franken anti-rape bill. Both Ms. Maddow and Mr. Stewart left out that Barack Obama was actually against the bill as well, claiming it was too specific and too full of loopholes. This was an error.
But here’s where things get dangerous. You see, there’s a difference between leaving something out because it’s not funny enough or because it isn’t convenient to the point you’re making, and outright manipulation of facts and/or lying.
Example: When Rachel Maddow criticized tax-payer funded AIG for hiring the PR firm Burson-Marsteller to burnish their image, she left out the fact that they were the company that basically saved Tylenol after the huge cyanide scare in the 80′s. Sure, it might have humanized the firm for her to mention that before mentioning all the horrible human rights abusers that they either represent or have represented over the years, or the fact that they have worked as Blackwater’s PR firm. You know, the mercenaries who murdered 17 defenseless Iraqis and got away with it? But is it Maddow’s job to polish that turd? No. It doesn’t matter if they repaired Tylenol’s damaged reputation or if they gave a bus full of orphans free puppies, Burson Marsteller still represents some of the most despicable entities on the planet. It is perfectly acceptable that Maddow chose to omit the Tylenol story. Journalists do that all the time. Even journalists who call themselves unbiased reporters still pick and choose which facts, which statements, which details to write down and in what order. And then editors come in and change it even more. That’s what journalism does, so why are Maddow and Olbermann being held to some different standard?
You might not agree with the politics of Rachel Maddow or Keith Olbermann. That’s fine, I totally understand. But what really gets me going is when people try to claim that Keith Olbermann or Rachel Maddow are at all equivalent to Rush Limbaugh or Sean Hannity. For giggles, let’s take a look at some clips.
First, Keith Olbermann:
Now, Rachel Maddow:
Now compare those to this…
And this is the danger of false equivalency. Rachel Maddow has been wrong. Keith Olbermann has been wrong. But to equate them with Limbaugh or Savage or Pat Buchanan or any of the Fox News pundit pack is I believe disingenuous and misleading. Never…never have I seen Maddow or Olbermann make a comment as hateful, as racist, as homophobic, as outright wrong as those extreme pundits on the right have. To claim that they are the same is to be grossly misleading, intentional or not, all in the name of being non-biased. While I can respect the need for journalists to be as objective as possible, that objectivity should not come at the expense of facts, especially when that is the very claim you are leveling at Olbermann and Maddow.
On the dangers of false equivalency.
We had an interesting discussion in class today regarding the future of journalism. In particular, is somebody like Keith Olbermann the face of journalism’s future?
Some disclaimers are in order right about now. One, I rather like Olbermann and Maddow. I think they represent voices that were conspicuously absent during the first George W. Bush administration, when we could’ve used them the most. I think that for years, conservatives have had an overpowering voice in the mainstream media with little in the way of contradiction. Alan Keyes, Joe Scarborough, Pat Buchanan, and even Michael Savage all got television shows on MSNBC. Out of those, Scarborough remains MSNBC’s morning anchor and Pat Buchanan may as well keep a cot at 30 Rock for how often he’s asked to come on various shows as a commentator. So I say that Maddow and Olbermann are a net good.
That said, I can certainly admit that Olbermann, Maddow, the guys at the Daily Show and Colbert Report are fallible. There’ve been times when they were wrong, or when they “conveniently” left out a salient detail of some sort. In class, we watched footage of The Daily Show, which in turn referenced Rachel Maddow, excoriating the 30 some republicans who voted against the Al Franken anti-rape bill. Both Ms. Maddow and Mr. Stewart left out that Barack Obama was actually against the bill as well, claiming it was too specific and too full of loopholes. This was an error.
But here’s where things get dangerous. You see, there’s a difference between leaving something out because it’s not funny enough or because it isn’t convenient to the point you’re making, and outright manipulation of facts and/or lying.
Example: When Rachel Maddow criticized tax-payer funded AIG for hiring the PR firm Burson-Marsteller to burnish their image, she left out the fact that they were the company that basically saved Tylenol after the huge cyanide scare in the 80′s. Sure, it might have humanized the firm for her to mention that before mentioning all the horrible human rights abusers that they either represent or have represented over the years, or the fact that they have worked as Blackwater’s PR firm. You know, the mercenaries who murdered 17 defenseless Iraqis and got away with it? But is it Maddow’s job to polish that turd? No. It doesn’t matter if they repaired Tylenol’s damaged reputation or if they gave a bus full of orphans free puppies, Burson Marsteller still represents some of the most despicable entities on the planet. It is perfectly acceptable that Maddow chose to omit the Tylenol story. Journalists do that all the time. Even journalists who call themselves unbiased reporters still pick and choose which facts, which statements, which details to write down and in what order. And then editors come in and change it even more. That’s what journalism does, so why are Maddow and Olbermann being held to some different standard?
You might not agree with the politics of Rachel Maddow or Keith Olbermann. That’s fine, I totally understand. But what really gets me going is when people try to claim that Keith Olbermann or Rachel Maddow are at all equivalent to Rush Limbaugh or Sean Hannity. For giggles, let’s take a look at some clips.
First, Keith Olbermann:
Now, Rachel Maddow:
Now compare those to this…
And this is the danger of false equivalency. Rachel Maddow has been wrong. Keith Olbermann has been wrong. But to equate them with Limbaugh or Savage or Pat Buchanan or any of the Fox News pundit pack is I believe disingenuous and misleading. Never…never have I seen Maddow or Olbermann make a comment as hateful, as racist, as homophobic, as outright wrong as those extreme pundits on the right have. To claim that they are the same is to be grossly misleading, intentional or not, all in the name of being non-biased. While I can respect the need for journalists to be as objective as possible, that objectivity should not come at the expense of facts, especially when that is the very claim you are leveling at Olbermann and Maddow.