Daily Wisdom

April 11, 2007

'View From Above' Enters Third Year

Yesterday, April 10th was the second anniversary of the View From Above's premier debut. Well, I don't have anything profound to say. And, I'm too lazy to go back and pick out the best of the 'Second Year'. So, there's nothing for it then but to ask...

Which Cartoon Character Are You?

Hat-tip to Hankmeister for this one... I'm Tweety Pie, and proud of it! I'm sweet, lovable, youthful, intelligent, and recognizable when I speak ("I tawt I taw a Puddy Tat!"). Predators (aka, Sylvester) are no match for me. Some might confuse me for a "bird-brain", but I think "Hawkeye" is a better description.



Have fun y'all... oh, and thanks for 'Viewing'!

20 Comments:

At 4/12/2007 3:41 AM , Blogger camojack said...

I've always hated Tweety...I wish Sylvester had eaten him a long time ago.

I missed my second "blogiversary", but maybe I'll start posting again when I'm not working so much...

 
At 4/12/2007 8:27 AM , Anonymous AMY Proctor said...

Happy anniversary!

 
At 4/12/2007 6:47 PM , Blogger Beerme said...

Happy Blogiversary!

Hey, it turns out I'm Tweety, too! Not sure if I like that or not...

 
At 4/12/2007 9:43 PM , Blogger Hawkeye® said...

Camo,
How can you hate Tweety??! Small, defenseless, innocent... Well, OK... so that doesn't fit with your machismo image. But what I like about Tweety is the very fact that Sylvester HASN'T eaten him a long time ago. Even though he's the little guy, he don't take NO crap from big guy. He's David against Goliath. He's the pawn against the king. He's the individual against the State. He's the blogger against the MSM. He uses wit against brawn... and he triumphs. Gotta love it!

Oh yeah, and tell me about working so much. I'm putting in 6 days a week, 10-12 hours a day.

Best regards...

 
At 4/12/2007 9:46 PM , Blogger Hawkeye® said...

Amy,

THANKS! God Bless you. Keep up the good work over at your place!

(:D) Best regards...

 
At 4/12/2007 9:54 PM , Blogger Hawkeye® said...

Beerme,

I know... you just don't want to be associated with the likes of me, Conserve-a-tips, or Darthmeister (who were also "Tweetys", BTW).

Just kidding. Fly free my friend!

(:D) Best regards..

 
At 4/12/2007 10:17 PM , Anonymous Ms RightWing said...

Thre years! Wow, it has been three months since I last been to Shelly's Cafe

Keep up the good work

 
At 4/12/2007 11:10 PM , Blogger Hawkeye® said...

Ms RightWing,
Thanks! I'll do my very best!

(:D) Regards...

 
At 4/14/2007 3:16 AM , Anonymous Elroy said...

Gee Hawkeye, you bang on like a victim leftie! 'David against Goliath. He's the pawn against the king. He's the individual against the State. He's the blogger against the MSM. He uses wit against brawn... and he triumphs'. Sheesh! That's OUR rant! You are supposed to be IN FAVOUR of the status quo!

Anyhoo, I am Baloo the Bear – he knows which way is up, has great taste in music and subverts the dominant paradigm.

Cheers

Elroy

 
At 4/14/2007 4:35 PM , Blogger Hawkeye® said...

Elroy,
I won't presume to tell you how things are in Australia since I don't live there, don't follow the politics, and have never even been there.

I can however tell you about America, and my advice is that you don't listen to anything the Mainstream Media (CBS, NBC, ABC, MSNBC, CNN, NPR, PBS, BBC, NY Times, Washington Post, LA Times, etc.) tells you about America. Or as the old saying goes, "Don't believe anything you read or hear... and only half of what you see."

Those media outlets are strongly biased towards the Left and, with rare exception, act as the propaganda arm of Liberals and Democrats. The Liberal Democrats currently control Congress, and with a few RINOs (Republicans In Name Only) running around, Republicans and Conservatives are far from being the power block you continually suggest.

Likewise, although some inroads have been made during the GWB administration, the Judicial branch of government is still dominated by
Lliberals who want to "legislate from the bench" rather than strictly interpret the law as mandated by the Constitution.

Thus, we have two branches of the government dominated by Liberals who are supported in principle by the vast majority of those who control the media. That sounds more like "Goliath" than "David" to me.

If FoxNews and Talk Radio have great ratings, then that's because for many of us in the US, they are the ONLY breath of fresh air in the smog of a Liberal-dominated propagandist landscape. And if these outlets were to disappear tomorrow, Conservatives would be virtually "voiceless" in the Mainstream Media.

I don't know what it's like in Australia, but in the US, the Libs RANT just like you... but there is no truth behind the rant. They are largely in control, but cannot live in peaceful coexistence. They want COMPLETE domination. They are not statesmen or diplomats. They are vicious mongrel dogs. Come visit me sometime and I'll prove it to you.

Cheers.

 
At 4/15/2007 1:26 AM , Blogger camojack said...

I've been to Australia; nice place. I'd like to go back someday, and spend more time there. As 'twas, I've been to Sydney, Canberra, Brisbane, Coolongatta, Wooloomooloo, Hamilton Island and the Great Barrier Reef.

As for how things are the politically, you might like THIS.

Oh yeah:
ELEVENTEEN!!!

 
At 4/15/2007 5:06 PM , Anonymous Mrs. Hawkeye said...

Wel, Tweety Bird is married to Bugs Bunny. What does that mean?

 
At 4/15/2007 11:19 PM , Anonymous Elroy said...

What never occurs to conservatives is that they get bad press and court decisions as a direct result of their bad policy and general misbehavior. How can the press print 'good stories' if there aren't any?

Why should the WH get a free pass? They are in charge! They MUST be held accountable! If they do something wrong, why should we not hear about it?

God knows the media have ignored enough stories about Bush et al, but when an administration gets it as wrong as this one, why shouldn't we be told?

As for the courts, Rove has stacked them. It's no secret – he admits it! His acolytes, however, live in denial on this issue too, preferring instead to bleat about how it's 'No Fair!' that 'activist judges' 'legislate from the bench! Waaaaaaaaaaaaah! Boo hoo!'

The truth is that conservatives have benefitted very well from conservative activist judges, and that the constitution was MEANT to be interpreted. GWB has an interesting interpretation of the constitution: 'Stop throwing the constitution in my face' he once famously screamed, 'it's just a piece of g*d d**n paper!' Nice. Your beloved constitution is obvviously in safe hands.

For the party of 'personal responsibility' this constant adoption of victimhood is not a good look. Why can Republican conservatives not ever step up to the plate and accept some responsibilty for their actions instead whining and banging on about some VLWC? And that means responsibilty that does not come with a golden handshake, a congressional medal of honor, a massive pension, a book deal, a gig on FOX news, a spot on the speakig tour circuit and still maintain an office on Capitol Hill.

Like everything else, there are rules for Republicans and rules for the rest of us. Will Libby and the Hammer go to jail? Surely they deserve to, give that have been found guilty by a jury of their peers. Joe Six-pack doesn't have the luxury of petitioing the president for a pardon – he goes and does his time. The rule of law, remember?

Conservatives are equally confused on the democray issue. They are all for elections, just so long as they 'win', and when they do they make sure they govern for conservatives only. 'I would suggest that the president has a responsibilty to be true to the people that voted for him andd to put people in office who are sympathetic to his positions' opined John Bolton a week or two ago, 'Otherwise, what's the point in having elections?' A problem with democratic theory indeed.

In BushWorld, the judiciary and now, it seems, the entire justice department can be stacked with inept and unqualified ideolouges; just so long as they are 'loyal Bushies' the rest of the county can take a leap.

I don't know what that is (actually I do), but it ain't democracy. Really, if you guys ever want anotehr turn in the drivers' seat you aare going to have to get a spine and admit that you were so very, very wong on so many, many issues.

But as I can't see that happening, have a nice time in the wilderness.

Cheers

Elroy

 
At 4/15/2007 11:34 PM , Anonymous Elroy said...

I got my posts mixed up, but never mind. A little redundacy is a good thing, no? These are complicated times, and cannot be adequately diiscussed on a bumper sticker. But anyway...

From what I know about America, my advice is that you don't listen to anything the Mainstream Media (CBS, NBC, ABC, MSNBC, CNN, NPR, PBS, BBC, NY Times, Washington Post, LA Times, etc.) tells you about America. Or as the old saying goes, "Don't believe anything you read or hear... and only half of what you see."

Those media outlets are strongly biased towards the Right and, with rare exception, act as the propaganda arm of Consevatives and Reublicans. Conservative Republicans, up until November last year controled Congress, and with a few RINOs (Republicans In Name Only) running around, Republicans and Conservatives are indeed the power block I continually suggest.

Likewise, many inroads have been made during the GWB administration and the Judicial branch of government is dominated by conservatives who want to "legislate from the bench" rather than strictly interpret the law as mandated by the Constitution.

Thus you have had, for the past six years, three branches of the government dominated by conservatives who are supported in principle by the vast majority of those who control the media. That sounds more like "Goliath" than "David" to me.

If NBC and CBS have any ratings, then that's because for many of those in the US they are the ONLY breath of fresh air in the smog of a conservative-dominated propagandist landscape. And if these outlets were to disappear tomorrow, liberals would be virtually "voiceless" in the Mainstream Media.

In Australia, conservatives RANT just like you... but there is no truth behind the rant. They are largely in control, but cannot live in peaceful coexistence. They want COMPLETE domination. They are not statesmen or diplomats. They are vicious mongrel dogs. Come visit me sometime and I'll prove it to you.

Seriously, I’ve explained the corporate ownership structure beforre. Must I do it again? OK. Look, it could be argued that if we are both unhappy with the state of the media then they must be doing a good job, but not by me. The media is generally harder on those in power than the opposition, but maybe incumbents HAVE to be held to a higher standard of propriety; after all, they are the ones in power so their actions have a far greater effect on the governed than those of the opposition.

Republicans always think that scandals involving them are treated differently in the media to those implicating Democrats, but the truth is that the quality and quantity of recent Republican transgressions far outweigh those perpetrated by Democrats who, for all their faults, have not been able to come anywhere close to the Olympic standard of moral and ethical dereliction demonstrated by the current administration in recent months.

It should come as no great surprise that the media goes with the more salacious and, frankly, more relevant story; certainly, if Gore or Kerry had pulled the kind of stunts that Bush is pulling now, both the Right and the press would be having kittens, but I am curious to know why the Right is so sensitive about having the bright lights of public inquisition probe it machinations; to quote conservatives, if they have nothing to hide, what’s the problem?

The Right likes to hold their precious Fox News up as the gold standard of Fair And Balanced? journalism, but this belief is erroneous in the extreme. Fox is utterly and undeniably partisan, as anyone who has seen Outfoxed, or Fox itself, could attest, and it only includes the opposing point of view in order to lecture, harangue, ignore, ridicule and sideline it. Worse, by dint of its extreme positions it has made all reasonable media outfits look like instruments of Soviet propaganda by comparison.

Fox’s shrill harping has definitely had an effect on the way the media operates, but conservatives’ demands that the media should concentrate the same amount of time and effort revealing the alleged malfeasance of the Left as they do on the government ignore the reality that media space is a finite resource, and an expensive one at that, and that the media have to use that space wisely.

However, considering the wealth of WH scandals the media has had to choose from of late, it’s a wonder that those blamed MSN lefties have been as quiet as they have. Certainly O’Reilly and Hannity have been very neglectful of a number of issues of late, like the W11H-backed firings of U.S. Attorneys, the false GDP numbers, the FEC fining a Conservative 527, the Director of National Intelligence saying that Iraq is in trouble, the record numbers of US citizens living in severe poverty, Cheney’s pal and Republican donor being aiding terrorists, the partisan nature of Iraq reconstruction contracts awards, Pentagon pro-war propaganda, Halliburton’s contract fraud, soldiers and commanders in Iraq declaring the surge a lost cause, Walter Reed, Libby, the fired Attorneys affair, Rove’s missing emails, allegations that the US is funding Sunni fundamentalist groups in order to attack the Shia and whatall else. Margie Schoendinger? Never heard of her? What a surprise!

Not even your own team actually believe the ‘Liberal Media’ whine anymore. Look:

‘It was because of our coverage that it all happened. We've become so influential now that people watch us and they take their electoral cues from us. No one should doubt the influence of Fox News in these matters’ – Brit Hume.

‘The traditional liberal media monopoly doesn't exist anymore’– Rush Limbaugh

‘It's a better Senate than it was then [when Clarence Thomas was appointed] and we have the media now’. – Ann Coulter

They really shouldn’t give themselves away so easily.

In Australia, the media is held by a handful of corporations, the most prominent being Murdoch’s News Ltd. There are right-leaning papers and left leaning papers, as there should be in a functioning liberal democracy, but on the TV side the corporate media is in charge and very much on the Establishment’s side. However, we luckily have the Australian Broadcating Commission (ABC), and SBS, a channel given over to multicultural broadcasting, and an array of community radio stations which are able to report news without corporate bias.

Of course, this leads to screams of ‘Bias!’ from paranoid right-wing commentators and the currently conservative government who cannot sleep at night from the idea that ABC correspondents are being paid good tax dollars to bite the very hand that hands them out, but that’s to be expected – they don’t understand the imporatnce of an independent media. Or rather, they DO understand, which is why they are hell bent on eradicating it.

And eradicating it they are. The ABC is constantly being denied funding and scrutinised to within a nanosecond for evidence of ‘bias’, which means that the ABC managers, editors and journalists are ultra-scrupulous and often self-censor. They have also very recently changed the media ownership laws to ensure further concentration of proprietors. However, as our precious community radio stations are funded directly by their listeners on a subsriber basis they can say whatever they want, and boy, do they!

We’re as cursed by idiot shock jocks as anyone in Australia, although fortunately not in Melbourne. Sydney, however, has some right cretins such as Alan Jones, John Laws, Stan Zeminack and other donks. Check ‘em out! You might like ‘em! And there are plenty of right-wing columnists to keep us lefties spluttering into our ‘Lattes of mornnin such as Andrew Bolt, In Melbourne at any rate, shock

Anyhoo, the Judical benches are loaded and the WH knows it. Here’s Rove talking to the Federalist Society in 2005.

‘You've also thoroughly infiltrated the ranks of the White House. In fact, there are so many Federalists in the Administration that Andy Card, Chief of Staff, has asked me to say that there will be a special staff meeting in the back of the room, near the back doors, at the end of the dinner.’

‘In the last three years, we've served together on the judicial selection committee at the White House…if you like every one of the 200 judges that we've sent to forward to the U.S. Congress to be approved, in the last three years there hasn't been one of them who hasn't been researched, vetted, studied, analyzed, and recommended by my friend, Harriet Meyers -- legal council to the President.’

I can’t make this stuff up. Now, to some people this would indicate an agenda on Rove’s part to stack the benches with conservative ideolouges, but I doubt that you are some people. However, I would be interested to hear your interpretation of these remarks.

Cheers

Elroy

 
At 4/16/2007 7:52 PM , Blogger Hawkeye® said...

Elroy,
You are SO-OOOOOO boring, you put me to sleep before I can finish your rant.

 
At 4/19/2007 8:33 AM , Blogger Hawkeye® said...

Elroy,
My interpretation of those comments is as follows... Conservatives have finally made some inroads into ending judicial activism. That's a victory and I hope there are many more. Way to go Rove and Meyers!

 
At 4/19/2007 8:38 AM , Blogger Hawkeye® said...

Elroy,
BTW, please give me the citations for the quotes you attribute to Brit Hume, Rush Limbaugh and Ann Coulter. Thanks.

 
At 4/20/2007 1:20 AM , Anonymous Elroy said...

Hawkeye®

1. Let me offer my sincersest sympahies; I hear that Attention Deficit Disorder is a hard cross to bear. However, I am glad that I could be of some use in curing your insomnia.


2. The ‘inroads’ of which you speak are not ending judical activism, they are merely ensuring that and activism that is indulged in is conservative activism. There has always be ‘activism’ because the Constitution was designed to be interpreted, but what Rove and Meyers were trying to do is pervert the constitution by politicising not only the judiciary but also the entire justice department. The notion that the views of those who did not vote for Bush have a right to representation is, to the WH, is merely ‘quaint’, to paraphrase Gonzales. After all, the Constition is nothing but a ‘g*d d**m piece of paper. Rove et al will tolerate no dissent. It may be a ‘victory’ for the partisan forces of the Republican Party but it is cruel blow to democracy.

3. Sigh. Must I? What, do you think I’m lying or something? Why would I bother? Why would I paly into your hands like that? We’re all grown ups here; how about a little maturity, a little bit of trust? And anyway, you know where Google is – use it! And if you STILL can’t find them, THEN get back to me.

Cheers

Elroy

PS. And how DARE you not address each and every point I raised! I quote (ahem): 'I refuse therefore, to discuss the issue with someone who presents no evidence that he knows what he is talking about.'

Reconize those words? Huh?

 
At 4/20/2007 1:50 PM , Blogger Hawkeye® said...

The ‘inroads’ of which you speak are not ending judical activism, they are merely ensuring that and activism that is indulged in is conservative activism....

Incorrect. Conservative presidents such as Ronald Reagan and G.W. Bush have sought to appoint to the bench judges and justices who are "strict constructionists". Strict constructionism is the exact opposite of "judicial activism". Your statement implies the notion that if YOU were a conservative, YOU would want to appoint conservative activists. Do not attempt to cast others in the mold of your personal values.

After all, the Constition is nothing but a ‘g*d d**m piece of paper....

That is your opinion, and you can be assured that it is not shared by the majority of American citizens. The Constitution is much more than a piece of paper. It is an idea. It is an organizing principle. It is the basis for governing. It is a way of life. It is a sacred institution. It is in fact, that which "constitutes" America itself...

"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

But I guess your not being an American citizen explains your contempt.

Why would I bother? Why would I paly into your hands like that? We’re all grown ups here; how about a little maturity, a little bit of trust? And anyway, you know where Google is – use it! And if you STILL can’t find them, THEN get back to me....

You came to MY blog making bold statements that you are unwilling to cite... and I'm supposed to go wandering off attempting to prove that YOU are correct? C'mon! YOU made the claim... YOU prove it. And no, I have no reason to trust you. No, I have no reason at all to believe that you are "mature". In fact, quite the opposite.

And how DARE you not address each and every point I raised!...

I know you're trying to be humorous, but again... this is my blog. You came here. I didn't seek you out.

 
At 4/22/2007 11:27 PM , Anonymous elroy said...

Your dream of a ‘strict constructionist’ bench will never happen, and everyone but you knows it. Bush, that is to say Rove, wants conservative judges that will interpret the constitution from a right-wing perspective; constructionism is for the birds. Not that they’ll tell you that, of course – they’ll tell you want you want to hear, like the one about that ‘Office of Faith-Based Initiatives’ chimera, but it’s all just a sop to keep you guys quiet.

Scalia himself has said that he is ‘not a strict constructionist and no one ought to be’, and in that I agree with him. When will you guys ever come to terms with the fact that the United States is not the ad hoc gaggle of British agricultural colonies it was when the constitution was drafted? Why do you insist on living in the past?
Wake up! It’s the 21st Century! America is not longer the homogenous theocracy you think it once was – it is a pluralistic secular state and nothing you can ever do will change that.

And my statement implies no such thing. All I am saying is that if I were a hyper-partisan muscle-man hell-bent on retaining power at all costs, I would understand the advantage gained by stacking the judicial system with as many like-mined ideologues as I could corral, but as I‘m not I understand that such an act totally perverts the ‘democracy’ you purport to hold so dear.

The constitution may be a bit vague in some areas, some say intentionally, but it is very clear that the judiciary and the executive were intended to be independent of each other. Civics 101. Rove must have missed this class – other priorities, I assume.

‘After all, the Constitution is nothing but a ‘g*d d**m piece of paper...’

‘That is your opinion, and you can be assured that it is not shared by the majority of American citizens.’

No, that is the opinion of one G. W Bush. ‘Stop throwing the constitution in my face’ he screeched during a meeting in the Oval Office with Republican Congressional leaders in November 2005, ‘it’s just a piece of G*d d**m paper!’

The Constitution is may be much more than a piece of paper, but not to young Georgie. It may be an idea, but not one that GWB has yet fully grasped. It may be an organizing principle, but obviously one that can be ignored at will. It may be the basis for governing, but not one employed buy the current administration. It may be a way of life, but not for Georgie boy. It may be a sacred institution. It may be that which "constitutes" America itself, but not for much longer.

My not being an American citizen does not explain my contempt, for I have none. For my part I rather like the Constitution, and the Bill o’ Rights, and most of the amendments (all but 2nd, to be precise). I wish we had them down here. However, I’d suggest that your government treat them with a little more respect, or actually try implementing them sometime.

Now, for your information, to make you happy, to enable going forward and to prove my point, here is the information y’all requested.

Brit Hume spoke his piece to none other that the now famously defunct Don Imus on the nineteenth of November 2002. (http://dir.salon.com/story/politics/conason/2002/11/21/bush/index.html )

For Rush, try this: Conason, Joe. Big Lies: The Right-Wing Propaganda Machine and How It Distorts the Truth. New York, New York: Thomas Dunne Books, 2003, p.34

And the lovely Ann did said what she said to the equally delightful Sean Hannity in July, 2005 (http://www.democraticunderground.com/top10/05/208.html )

Now, you might not like these sources very much, but to say they are merely lying would be cheap, dishonest and lazy. They have not been disputed; I have looked very far and wide for any evidence that they are false and there is none. If they were false, it would not be hard to find out.

Here’s some more to chew on.

“The liberal media were never that powerful and the whole thing was often used as an excuse by conservatives for conservative failures.” ~Bill Kristol, conservative pundit

“I’ve gotten balanced coverage, and broad coverage--all we could have asked. For heaven sakes, we kid about the ‘liberal media,’ but every Republican on earth does that.” ~ Pat Buchanan, conservative pundit, Republican presidential candidate

“There’s been a massive change in media in this country over the last 15 years. Now it’s 2002 and the traditional liberal media monopoly doesn’t exist anymore.” Rush Limbaugh, Conservative talk radio host

“Fox News is obviously biased toward the right. It’s simply loopy to pretend otherwise. Ailes’ attempt to deny the bleeding obvious is pathetic… It’s embarrassing and undermines their credibility on everything else.” ~Andrew Sullivan, conservative writer.

I assure you that all the above are 100% accurate. You have my personal guarantee. If it turns out that I am wrong, I will prostrate myself before you and flagellate accordingly. But it’s not looking good for your pet theory, is it? Not quite so much the victim now, huh?


The only reason you have to trust me is that you have no reason not to. I have never lied to you, abused you, called you names, fed you false information, deliberately misled you, nothing. I wish I could say the same of you, but I still trust you to be, by and large, an honest agent. I don’t think you would mislead me deliberately; what, as I say, would be the point?

And no, I didn’t make any claim. I presented some quotes, quotes widely acknowledged as being accurate. I would have thought that, for the sake of time if nothing else, we can safely assume that attributed quotes posted by commenters are accurate, otherwise the whole thing becomes so very tiresome. I made sure those quotes were accurate. That would be the mature, grown-up, adult thing to do. Yet you think I lack maturity. ‘Quite the opposite’ is the phrase you used. Why is that? What have I done that is so immature apart from disagree with you? And why is that evidence of it? Hmmm?

And yes, that was humour; I was having a go at how you were outraged that I had supposedly avoided your question. I hadn’t, but I was struck by the irony that you avoid just about every question I chuck at you. And by the way, to the best of my recollection you DID seek me out, over at Righting America. I could be wrong, but that’s as I remember it. And anyway, what would you do without me?

Cheers

Elroy

 

Post a Comment

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]

<< Home