IN the blogosphere and on air WBSM host Ken Pittman has propagated a core lie about Al Sharpton and the Don Imus controversy. Pittman's column and comments claim that Sharpton disingenuously sought an apology from Don Imus and , after duping Imus into appearing on the Sharpton radio show, responded to Imus's apology by calling for his ouster from CBS/MSNBC.
However, like a stage managed trip to the Shawmut diner by a Globe reporter, it's all complete nonsense. From the break of the Imus story, Al Sharpton has been nothing if not consistent and unswerving in his call for Imus to be fired.
On March 7th, Sharpton pledged to picket if Imus wasn't fired. On March 9th, before the above mentioned radio broadcast ( where, Pittman tells us, Imus had to actually pass black students in the hallways) Sharpton confirmed that he wanted Imus fired. ON that very morning Sharpton described how Imus came to appear on the Sharpton show:
He said, “Come on my show.” I said, “I would never try to get listeners to your show.” He said, “I’ll come to yours.”
According to the Pittman version, Sharpton had "asked for the apology" and Imus went to perform that very act. Where is this Sharpton request? I can't find it. If this call for contrition does exist, does it negate his easy to find call for Imus to be fired from day one?
We should also note that the fact that some eeevil liberal website recorded and repeated the Imus comments is also considered deeply unfair ( this from a guy who claims conservative talk radio succeeds through its dynamic and uninterrupted exchange of ideas). Imus and McGuirk have committed to boosting their ratings through racist and misogynistic "humor" for years but it is political correctness to be offended by this? This from a person who gets offended when a store clerk doesn't say the right combination of merry and xmas at a certain point in the year ( see more on that here ) ; from a radio station that stirs up Saturday morning callers's defense of American's values by claiming that Tiverton school district banned Easter ( it didn't, of course).
Please note that Imus had and continues to have free speech. MSNBC and CBS have determined that this brand of "humor" is not quite marketable right now. However, his fellow travelers in WMAR ( white male angst radio) have decided that it is African Americans who are far too loud and uppity in practicing their right to free speech ( like Emmet Till , I guess). How dare Rutgers hold a press conference and complain says Limbaugh. No host or caller to WMAR/WBSM whines about anything, right? How dare Sharpton use free speech to express his position and stick to it. In WMAR world, this is hypocrisy.
Tuesday, April 24, 2007
Wednesday, December 6, 2006
Lying About Target
WBSM and Citadel broadcasting call for Target boycott
During today’s 3-4pm broadcast , WBSM’s host launched a broadside against retailer Target and recommended that shoppers not frequent the chain’s stores as it “refuses to honor” Christmas.
Apparently, the absence of the Salvation Army’s bell ringing kettle collectors – a long time xmas tradition- is clear evidence that Target is a part of the War on Christmas inc. – a dastardly campaign by so called Seculars to abolish the holiday and all its traditions. The host promised the WBSM listeners that he would continue to “let people know” who was and was not part of this heinous plot against “American values.”
In truth, concerned with prohibiting all solicitation at its stores while permitting kettle collections, Target had worked with the Salvation army to find a suitable replacement. A trip to Target.com or the Salvation army’s web site reveals the result: a Salvation army sponsored campaign to raise one million dollars via Target’s stores and web site – including the sale of sterling silver angel jewelry – a strange position for a Secular fanatic chain to take .
Those of us outside of the right-talk radio echo chamber are well aware of crazy email campaigns - particularly those against Target which have claimed that the chain does not support veterans or Christian charities. In truth, Target is ranked by Forbes as probably the largest charitable contributor in the retail industry – in particular in education and veteran support- and has this year lent its philanthropic expertise to a Salvation army campaign that will likely exceed all kettle collections by other chains.
It’s just a shame that a local broadcaster wants to boycott this effort.
During today’s 3-4pm broadcast , WBSM’s host launched a broadside against retailer Target and recommended that shoppers not frequent the chain’s stores as it “refuses to honor” Christmas.
Apparently, the absence of the Salvation Army’s bell ringing kettle collectors – a long time xmas tradition- is clear evidence that Target is a part of the War on Christmas inc. – a dastardly campaign by so called Seculars to abolish the holiday and all its traditions. The host promised the WBSM listeners that he would continue to “let people know” who was and was not part of this heinous plot against “American values.”
In truth, concerned with prohibiting all solicitation at its stores while permitting kettle collections, Target had worked with the Salvation army to find a suitable replacement. A trip to Target.com or the Salvation army’s web site reveals the result: a Salvation army sponsored campaign to raise one million dollars via Target’s stores and web site – including the sale of sterling silver angel jewelry – a strange position for a Secular fanatic chain to take .
Those of us outside of the right-talk radio echo chamber are well aware of crazy email campaigns - particularly those against Target which have claimed that the chain does not support veterans or Christian charities. In truth, Target is ranked by Forbes as probably the largest charitable contributor in the retail industry – in particular in education and veteran support- and has this year lent its philanthropic expertise to a Salvation army campaign that will likely exceed all kettle collections by other chains.
It’s just a shame that a local broadcaster wants to boycott this effort.
Tuesday, November 7, 2006
Host Lying about Josef Vissarionovich Dzhugashvili
A recent assertion on local radio has been that the Reagan and Bush 41 administrations's wide ranging support for Saddam Hussein is irrelevant given FDR's alleged support for a monster like Joe Stalin in WW2.
While one could dismiss this as an unsurprising ignorance of WW2, the insult to the veterans of that war should not be ignored.
In WW2, the US and UK undertook to send 30 months of Arctic convoys to a USSR suffering starvation, genocide, atrocities, and pillage at the hands of the Wermacht. How this act of heroism by the thousands of sailors who risked treacherous conditions, losing thousands of colleagues, is called support for the brutal reign and actions of Josef Stalin is hard to discern.
In contrast, the support of Reagan and Bush for the brutal reign and actions of Saddam Hussein came at the height of his crimes. Reagan and Bush offered this vital support not when Saddam was defending his people from invasion , but while he was pursuing policies of starvation, genocide, atrocities, and pillage against Iranians.
Please review the facts below to determine if it is appropriate to insult the vets of WW2 to cover up Reagan and Bush's support for Saddam:
The Reagan administration pursued a deliberate policy aimed at ensuring an Iraqi victory after their invasion of Iran. In February 1982 the State Department removed Iraq from its list of states supporting international terrorism despite the fact that Iraq support for Lebanese groups like Hezbollah only increased from this period.
It is recognized that US support was vital in prolonging the Iranian invasion through extensive and unusually generous loans and credits.
At the same time as Saddam ordered the murder of 150 Shiites from the city of Dujail in 1982 ( the sole crime for which he has been prosecuted,)Reagan issued various National security directives to begin an explicit policy of military and intelligence support. Released documents reveal extensive US knowledge of daily Iraqi use of chemical weapons in the invasion of Iran and battles against northern Kurdish insurgents. However, when the State department commented on this, Donald Rumsfled was quickly dispatched to Baghdad specifically to reassure the Iraq leader of US support. Indeed, Rumsfeld went so far as to offer Israeli assistance which was rejected. Also, despite formal prohibitions on the sale of military equipment before 1984, the administration repeatedly turned a blind eye to the sale of military helicopters and other vehicles. By 1984, this policy of support was advanced to the point that even support for Saddam's nuclear program was touted.
Around this period, when Iran tried to raise the chemical warfare issue at the UN, the US lead the charge in smothering the motion. Similarly, in the years following the killing of over 200 marines by Hezbollah, when the US House passed a bill to place Iraq back on the list of terror sponsors, the administration intervened.
By 1988, with the almost unprecedented use of chemical weapons by Iraq, the Iran invasion stalemated and wound down. Saddam Hussein's biggest concern was Kurdish rebellion in the north where Kurds had joined with Iranian forces. on March 16 and 17, 1988, Iraq attacked Halabja with 36 straight hours of poison gas shelling of VX, sarin, mustard gas, and other toxins ( reportedly also using the same helicopters mentioned above).
The initial Administration response was to blame the attack on the Iranians. Nonetheless, the US Senate passed, in September 1988 , a resolution condemning Iraq and cutting off vital financial support. Again, the Reagan administration intervenes and the bill dies.
By October 1989, when all international banks had cut off loans to Iraq, President Bush signed National Security Directive (NSD) 26 mandating closer links with Iraq and $1 billion in agricultural loan guarantees. In order to assure Saddam that this support would continue despite rising domestic and international disgust for Saddam, Bob Dole visited Iraq with a senatorial group in April 1990, months before the Kuwait invasion. As was the case throughout the 1980s, international sanctions on dual use technology and domestic protocols to prevent the export of sensitive materials relative to national security were to be continually overlooked or surmounted in the case of Saddam Hussein.
While one could dismiss this as an unsurprising ignorance of WW2, the insult to the veterans of that war should not be ignored.
In WW2, the US and UK undertook to send 30 months of Arctic convoys to a USSR suffering starvation, genocide, atrocities, and pillage at the hands of the Wermacht. How this act of heroism by the thousands of sailors who risked treacherous conditions, losing thousands of colleagues, is called support for the brutal reign and actions of Josef Stalin is hard to discern.
In contrast, the support of Reagan and Bush for the brutal reign and actions of Saddam Hussein came at the height of his crimes. Reagan and Bush offered this vital support not when Saddam was defending his people from invasion , but while he was pursuing policies of starvation, genocide, atrocities, and pillage against Iranians.
Please review the facts below to determine if it is appropriate to insult the vets of WW2 to cover up Reagan and Bush's support for Saddam:
The Reagan administration pursued a deliberate policy aimed at ensuring an Iraqi victory after their invasion of Iran. In February 1982 the State Department removed Iraq from its list of states supporting international terrorism despite the fact that Iraq support for Lebanese groups like Hezbollah only increased from this period.
It is recognized that US support was vital in prolonging the Iranian invasion through extensive and unusually generous loans and credits.
At the same time as Saddam ordered the murder of 150 Shiites from the city of Dujail in 1982 ( the sole crime for which he has been prosecuted,)Reagan issued various National security directives to begin an explicit policy of military and intelligence support. Released documents reveal extensive US knowledge of daily Iraqi use of chemical weapons in the invasion of Iran and battles against northern Kurdish insurgents. However, when the State department commented on this, Donald Rumsfled was quickly dispatched to Baghdad specifically to reassure the Iraq leader of US support. Indeed, Rumsfeld went so far as to offer Israeli assistance which was rejected. Also, despite formal prohibitions on the sale of military equipment before 1984, the administration repeatedly turned a blind eye to the sale of military helicopters and other vehicles. By 1984, this policy of support was advanced to the point that even support for Saddam's nuclear program was touted.
Around this period, when Iran tried to raise the chemical warfare issue at the UN, the US lead the charge in smothering the motion. Similarly, in the years following the killing of over 200 marines by Hezbollah, when the US House passed a bill to place Iraq back on the list of terror sponsors, the administration intervened.
By 1988, with the almost unprecedented use of chemical weapons by Iraq, the Iran invasion stalemated and wound down. Saddam Hussein's biggest concern was Kurdish rebellion in the north where Kurds had joined with Iranian forces. on March 16 and 17, 1988, Iraq attacked Halabja with 36 straight hours of poison gas shelling of VX, sarin, mustard gas, and other toxins ( reportedly also using the same helicopters mentioned above).
The initial Administration response was to blame the attack on the Iranians. Nonetheless, the US Senate passed, in September 1988 , a resolution condemning Iraq and cutting off vital financial support. Again, the Reagan administration intervenes and the bill dies.
By October 1989, when all international banks had cut off loans to Iraq, President Bush signed National Security Directive (NSD) 26 mandating closer links with Iraq and $1 billion in agricultural loan guarantees. In order to assure Saddam that this support would continue despite rising domestic and international disgust for Saddam, Bob Dole visited Iraq with a senatorial group in April 1990, months before the Kuwait invasion. As was the case throughout the 1980s, international sanctions on dual use technology and domestic protocols to prevent the export of sensitive materials relative to national security were to be continually overlooked or surmounted in the case of Saddam Hussein.
Friday, November 3, 2006
Pittman lies to UMass kids about taxation
During a recent debate between Umass Dartmouth College Republicans and Democrats, our WBSM host asked the democratic students how they could justify a redistributive form of taxation when the sixteenth amendment "states that all taxes should be uniform." The students, obviously a little perplexed, responded that a progressive form of taxation is justified and worthwhile.
In effect, the host had forced the erroneous assumption ( lie?) that the constitution mandated a flat, uniform, tax and that the progressive form of taxation, where the tax burden increases with income, is unconstitutional.
In truth, the constitution asserts that all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States . Hence, in an era where state's rights were a highly sensitive topic, the burden of the public treasury would not fall more heavily on some states ( not individuals ..states!!!).
Then, at the turn of the 20th C, the actual 16th Amendment to the United States Constitution stated something approximating the oppositite of what the WBSM host asserted:Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration.
So, in truth the Sixteenth amendment laid the groundwork for a progressive form of taxation and does not undermine it.
Tell me again how talk radio is superior????
In effect, the host had forced the erroneous assumption ( lie?) that the constitution mandated a flat, uniform, tax and that the progressive form of taxation, where the tax burden increases with income, is unconstitutional.
In truth, the constitution asserts that all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States . Hence, in an era where state's rights were a highly sensitive topic, the burden of the public treasury would not fall more heavily on some states ( not individuals ..states!!!).
Then, at the turn of the 20th C, the actual 16th Amendment to the United States Constitution stated something approximating the oppositite of what the WBSM host asserted:Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration.
So, in truth the Sixteenth amendment laid the groundwork for a progressive form of taxation and does not undermine it.
Tell me again how talk radio is superior????
Monday, October 23, 2006
Guess who lied about slavery
In recent days WBSM listeners have, again, been exposed to a number of falsehoods and historical manglings that obscure the facts of the gay marriage debate. The keystone assertion has been that "The Supreme Judicial Court upheld slavery which was only then defeated by the opposition of the people."
The line is aimed to undercut the argument that the SJC is a worthy arbiter of civil rights. The SJC has, gay marriage advocates claim, defended the fundamental civil rights of same sex couples. However, the SJC is hardly a final arbiter of civil rights if it is that very court which upheld slavery - an odious institution allegedly toppled by the "will of the people."
The trouble with this assertion is, firstly, that it is a barefaced lie and second that the announcer quickly adds that numerous courts in many states have rejected the gay marriage rights argument. It is curious indeed that you would claim a court cannot best determine civil rights and then claim that, anyway, so many other courts have already determined the viability of the rights in question.
Perhaps it is best to console ourselves with some truth from elementary level social studies : A constitution guarantees fundamental rights for all and limits the power of the government. The judiciary interprets the constitution and is the final arbiter of fundamental rights. It is recognized that judicial support for slavery ( especially the Dred Scott decision) erroneously judged the property rights of one group of individuals as more valuable than the civil rights of others – a failing common to 19th C judicial decisions. This failing was not overly common in the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court which ruled in Roberts vs. The City of Boston (1849) that :
Slavery was abolished in Massachusetts, by virtue of the declaration of rights in our constitution, without any specific words of abolition in that instrument, or in any subsequent legislation.
Clearly, then, the true legacy of slavery in Massachusetts is that the SJC has the track record and the remit to exclusively decide what the rights of Mass. residents are or are not. I guess that local rep. hit the nail squarely on the head after all.
The line is aimed to undercut the argument that the SJC is a worthy arbiter of civil rights. The SJC has, gay marriage advocates claim, defended the fundamental civil rights of same sex couples. However, the SJC is hardly a final arbiter of civil rights if it is that very court which upheld slavery - an odious institution allegedly toppled by the "will of the people."
The trouble with this assertion is, firstly, that it is a barefaced lie and second that the announcer quickly adds that numerous courts in many states have rejected the gay marriage rights argument. It is curious indeed that you would claim a court cannot best determine civil rights and then claim that, anyway, so many other courts have already determined the viability of the rights in question.
Perhaps it is best to console ourselves with some truth from elementary level social studies : A constitution guarantees fundamental rights for all and limits the power of the government. The judiciary interprets the constitution and is the final arbiter of fundamental rights. It is recognized that judicial support for slavery ( especially the Dred Scott decision) erroneously judged the property rights of one group of individuals as more valuable than the civil rights of others – a failing common to 19th C judicial decisions. This failing was not overly common in the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court which ruled in Roberts vs. The City of Boston (1849) that :
Slavery was abolished in Massachusetts, by virtue of the declaration of rights in our constitution, without any specific words of abolition in that instrument, or in any subsequent legislation.
Clearly, then, the true legacy of slavery in Massachusetts is that the SJC has the track record and the remit to exclusively decide what the rights of Mass. residents are or are not. I guess that local rep. hit the nail squarely on the head after all.
Saturday, October 14, 2006
Lying about the GOP
Isn't it a wonder that the high caliber, POPULAR, right-talk radio shows don't talk about the 109th Congress's efforts to remove the right to sue for methyl tertiary-butyl ether pollution, defend billion-dollar companies from middle aged blue collar men afflicted with asbestosis and pleural plaques, or protect Pharmas from free market competition by evil chronically ill seniors, and cut health care benefits for army amputees that the president might jog with?
Perhaps they are too busy discussing flags, abortion, the "gay agenda", etc etc. Barry Goldwater, the founder of modern conservatism would laugh harder than I do. On yesterday's WBSM, our host, Ken Pittman said that Kerry Healy is "not a republican" because she is pro-choice. In fact, by the Goldwater standard, KP is no republican.
Perhaps they are too busy discussing flags, abortion, the "gay agenda", etc etc. Barry Goldwater, the founder of modern conservatism would laugh harder than I do. On yesterday's WBSM, our host, Ken Pittman said that Kerry Healy is "not a republican" because she is pro-choice. In fact, by the Goldwater standard, KP is no republican.
Thursday, October 5, 2006
Pittman: Lying about Foleygate
It's getting weirder and weirder over at 1420 WBSM 2-6 daily.
In fairness to Ken, on this issue he has openly admitted (come out of the closet) that he is going to be rabidly partisan.
While discussing ( who else?? ) Gary Studds ( Rep. Gerry Studds) our host continues to diminish the Foley scandal and hype the 33 year old relationship between Studds and a 17 year old page - a relationship that took place in 1973. This involves more than a few lies, including the assertion that, in 1983, Studds was "cheered by Democrats" as he "came to the microphone with his seventeen year old page." Of course, this never happened.
While continuing to make the Foley scandal all about the democrats, Pittman cannot find a single democrat who said a thing he cares to contest.
Struggling for evidence he is compelled to lie about ( who else?? ) Barney Frank, asserting that Frank said " it's the Republican environment” that "made Mark Foley engage in this behavior" adding that Frank said that it "forces this sort of behavior."
If any of the conspiracy theorists are still following the real scandal, there's more: "Friends of the page were "enticing” Foley, Democrats "hacked into" the instant messages and George Soros "kept the messages."
There you have it. The real Axis of Evil : Teenage IMers, mysterious Democrat hackers, and George Soros pulling the strings.
In fairness to Ken, on this issue he has openly admitted (come out of the closet) that he is going to be rabidly partisan.
While discussing ( who else?? ) Gary Studds ( Rep. Gerry Studds) our host continues to diminish the Foley scandal and hype the 33 year old relationship between Studds and a 17 year old page - a relationship that took place in 1973. This involves more than a few lies, including the assertion that, in 1983, Studds was "cheered by Democrats" as he "came to the microphone with his seventeen year old page." Of course, this never happened.
While continuing to make the Foley scandal all about the democrats, Pittman cannot find a single democrat who said a thing he cares to contest.
Struggling for evidence he is compelled to lie about ( who else?? ) Barney Frank, asserting that Frank said " it's the Republican environment” that "made Mark Foley engage in this behavior" adding that Frank said that it "forces this sort of behavior."
If any of the conspiracy theorists are still following the real scandal, there's more: "Friends of the page were "enticing” Foley, Democrats "hacked into" the instant messages and George Soros "kept the messages."
There you have it. The real Axis of Evil : Teenage IMers, mysterious Democrat hackers, and George Soros pulling the strings.
Friday, September 15, 2006
Pittman, Arthur & Parrots
Yesterday's show had "Arthur" offering his seasoned opinions on torture of suspects, advocating "doing things" to a guy to make him "talk like a parrot."
One recalls Arthur's reaction to the foiled UK airlines plot where, in advocating bombing of civillian areas, he effectively justified the plot and previous Al Queda ops like 9-11.
Subliminal torture fantasies aside, perhaps he should listen more closely to the Prez he admires and defends so much:
"We do not condone torture. I have never ordered torture. I will never order torture. The values of this country are such that torture is not a part of our soul and our being."
One recalls Arthur's reaction to the foiled UK airlines plot where, in advocating bombing of civillian areas, he effectively justified the plot and previous Al Queda ops like 9-11.
Subliminal torture fantasies aside, perhaps he should listen more closely to the Prez he admires and defends so much:
"We do not condone torture. I have never ordered torture. I will never order torture. The values of this country are such that torture is not a part of our soul and our being."
Wednesday, September 13, 2006
Pittman: Just enough troops in Iraq
Last week, our host chastised frequent Talk News network guest Ellen for claiming that inadequate resources were applied to both the Iraq and Afghan wars.
As 2006 nears its end, we have the right amount of troops in Iraq, Ken said. Afterall, Tommy Franks said so in his July 2003 book 'American Soldier'. Ken said we should not, as many Democrats hawks say, send more troops to aid the stabilization of the country as this would expose more American troops to our enemies. However we should not withdraw troops as, by taking on the "enemy" over there with large numbers of troops, we are keeping them from our shores. Get it??
Like the Zarqawi foolishness, the lauding of the swap of four Canadians for two hundred alleged Taliban, "Al Queda in Bagdhad” , the ABC “Saddam Tapes” nonsense, it is clear that our host is inclined to defend the administration from it critics regardless of the administration’s own statements, or even the truth.
The Ken Pittman show runs daily on WBSM 1420am from 3-5 pm. No podcasts as yet.
As 2006 nears its end, we have the right amount of troops in Iraq, Ken said. Afterall, Tommy Franks said so in his July 2003 book 'American Soldier'. Ken said we should not, as many Democrats hawks say, send more troops to aid the stabilization of the country as this would expose more American troops to our enemies. However we should not withdraw troops as, by taking on the "enemy" over there with large numbers of troops, we are keeping them from our shores. Get it??
Like the Zarqawi foolishness, the lauding of the swap of four Canadians for two hundred alleged Taliban, "Al Queda in Bagdhad” , the ABC “Saddam Tapes” nonsense, it is clear that our host is inclined to defend the administration from it critics regardless of the administration’s own statements, or even the truth.
The Ken Pittman show runs daily on WBSM 1420am from 3-5 pm. No podcasts as yet.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
