The Marriage Cure
Read Katherine Boo's story about Oklahoma's "marriage cure" program.
Saturday, October 16, 2004
Contacting Sinclair Broadcasting
Two of the Sinclair Broadcasting Stations that have been ordered to air the anti-Kerry "documentary" Stolen Honor are in Oklahoma - in Oklahoma City. One is the WB affiliate and the other is the Foxxx TV affiliate. If you'd like to let them know what you think about the largest television chain in the US using our airwaves to present a partisan 90-minute commercial you can contact them at: comments@sbgi.net.
It would be just as egregious an abuse of the public airwaves if Sinclair aired Fahrenheit 911.
Two of the Sinclair Broadcasting Stations that have been ordered to air the anti-Kerry "documentary" Stolen Honor are in Oklahoma - in Oklahoma City. One is the WB affiliate and the other is the Foxxx TV affiliate. If you'd like to let them know what you think about the largest television chain in the US using our airwaves to present a partisan 90-minute commercial you can contact them at: comments@sbgi.net.
It would be just as egregious an abuse of the public airwaves if Sinclair aired Fahrenheit 911.
Class Action Coupons
The Center for Corporate Marketing (CCM) announced Friday that the Center is recommending that more of their corporate members solicit class action lawsuits against themselves. Speaking at the annual conference of CCM in Houston, Turpid Nordstrom said, "Jiffy Lube and Blockbuster have led the way in creating a new marketing tool and strategy for recovering business from agitated consumers. The savvy corporation can now gouge customers and still get them back with class action lawsuit coupons."
CCM spokesperson Smithfield Summers told conference attendees the key to success in the new strategy is "to shop around for a law firm willing to take a $3 or $4 million fee to settle for giving their class action clients nothing more than coupons which they must use at the corporation's stores. The stupid consumers are stuck with coupons which are useless to them unless they are willing to go crawling back to the store that ripped them off in the first place!"
The Center for Corporate Marketing (CCM) announced Friday that the Center is recommending that more of their corporate members solicit class action lawsuits against themselves. Speaking at the annual conference of CCM in Houston, Turpid Nordstrom said, "Jiffy Lube and Blockbuster have led the way in creating a new marketing tool and strategy for recovering business from agitated consumers. The savvy corporation can now gouge customers and still get them back with class action lawsuit coupons."
CCM spokesperson Smithfield Summers told conference attendees the key to success in the new strategy is "to shop around for a law firm willing to take a $3 or $4 million fee to settle for giving their class action clients nothing more than coupons which they must use at the corporation's stores. The stupid consumers are stuck with coupons which are useless to them unless they are willing to go crawling back to the store that ripped them off in the first place!"
Wednesday, October 13, 2004
Who's Trying to Buy a Senator?
The Tulsa World has an editorial today attacking an Oklahoma-based corporation's executives' effort to buy an election for extremist Tom Coburn. Tom Ward and Aubrey McClendon each gave $500,000 to Club for Growth.Net to buy smear ads against Coburn's Democrat opponent, Brad Carson. Here's the public company in question. It may be legal, but it shouldn't be and they should be ashamed.
Hope they wasted their money. You can let the company know what you think here.
The Tulsa World has an editorial today attacking an Oklahoma-based corporation's executives' effort to buy an election for extremist Tom Coburn. Tom Ward and Aubrey McClendon each gave $500,000 to Club for Growth.Net to buy smear ads against Coburn's Democrat opponent, Brad Carson. Here's the public company in question. It may be legal, but it shouldn't be and they should be ashamed.
Hope they wasted their money. You can let the company know what you think here.
Biblical Beasts
Among all the political brochures in the mail today I received this standout:
This appeal to the fear of evil beasts is not uncommon - the preachers usually tie such demons to social trends they don't agree with. When I was a kid I remember going to something like this - my parents let our neighbors take me - and it did scare the hell out of me but it wasn't the demons that scared me - it was the crazy adults! All I remember was the preacher breaking "rock n roll" records on the stage and demanding all the kids in the audience repent. I did, out of a fear of attracting more attention, all the while cursing (in my mind) the looney adults that surrounded me. I'm sure I was counted among the "saved" by the organizers of that event those many years ago - and I was - I was saved from ever being naive enough to go to one of these again.
Among all the political brochures in the mail today I received this standout:
This appeal to the fear of evil beasts is not uncommon - the preachers usually tie such demons to social trends they don't agree with. When I was a kid I remember going to something like this - my parents let our neighbors take me - and it did scare the hell out of me but it wasn't the demons that scared me - it was the crazy adults! All I remember was the preacher breaking "rock n roll" records on the stage and demanding all the kids in the audience repent. I did, out of a fear of attracting more attention, all the while cursing (in my mind) the looney adults that surrounded me. I'm sure I was counted among the "saved" by the organizers of that event those many years ago - and I was - I was saved from ever being naive enough to go to one of these again.
Tuesday, October 12, 2004
Red Thinking / Blue Thinking
Cognitive scientist George Lakoff argues that the red state/blue state division of America reflects different world-views and moral philosophies. NPR talked with Lakoff about the ways liberals and conservatives see the world. Listen to the interview. But what about Purple Thinkers?
Cognitive scientist George Lakoff argues that the red state/blue state division of America reflects different world-views and moral philosophies. NPR talked with Lakoff about the ways liberals and conservatives see the world. Listen to the interview. But what about Purple Thinkers?
TV Stations Happy, Lesbians Run Rampant
The TV stations in Oklahoma are grateful for the advertising cash flowing in from out-of-state special interest groups trying to influence the Carson vs Coburn fight for US Senate. With the presidential campaigns completely ignoring Oklabushhoma it must come as a relief to the stations that the fight over control of the US Senate means money in their pockets. The Club for Growth, and its offshoot, clubforgrowth.net, are pouring money into Oklahoma for anti-Carson ads. So is the National Republican Senatorial Committee. To a lesser extent, moveon.org spent money earlier on in the campaign for anti-Coburn ads.
Both sides in the Senate fight have used negative advertising but the pro-Coburn side has excelled at the silly namecalling and ridiculous claims. The Club for Growth ad for example claims Carson is "a bigger spender than John Kerry, Ted Kennedy and Hillary Clinton combined." Do they really think we are so stupid as to believe that one?
The Club for Growth must be on pins and needles hoping Coburn stop sticking his foot in his mouth. A report in the Tulsa World quotes people in Southeast Oklahoma saying that Coburn told a crowd that SE Oklahoma had a rampant lesbian problem - so much so that girls weren't allowed to go to the school bathrooms at the same time. Sources such as IOL cover the lesbian remarks in detail. It's hard to believe Coburn would be so out of touch with reality but he's said some pretty outlandish things before. One thing I'm sure of is Oklahoma doesn't need a Zell Millerish nutcase in DC bringing ridicule upon our already mistreated state.
The TV stations in Oklahoma are grateful for the advertising cash flowing in from out-of-state special interest groups trying to influence the Carson vs Coburn fight for US Senate. With the presidential campaigns completely ignoring Oklabushhoma it must come as a relief to the stations that the fight over control of the US Senate means money in their pockets. The Club for Growth, and its offshoot, clubforgrowth.net, are pouring money into Oklahoma for anti-Carson ads. So is the National Republican Senatorial Committee. To a lesser extent, moveon.org spent money earlier on in the campaign for anti-Coburn ads.
Both sides in the Senate fight have used negative advertising but the pro-Coburn side has excelled at the silly namecalling and ridiculous claims. The Club for Growth ad for example claims Carson is "a bigger spender than John Kerry, Ted Kennedy and Hillary Clinton combined." Do they really think we are so stupid as to believe that one?
The Club for Growth must be on pins and needles hoping Coburn stop sticking his foot in his mouth. A report in the Tulsa World quotes people in Southeast Oklahoma saying that Coburn told a crowd that SE Oklahoma had a rampant lesbian problem - so much so that girls weren't allowed to go to the school bathrooms at the same time. Sources such as IOL cover the lesbian remarks in detail. It's hard to believe Coburn would be so out of touch with reality but he's said some pretty outlandish things before. One thing I'm sure of is Oklahoma doesn't need a Zell Millerish nutcase in DC bringing ridicule upon our already mistreated state.
Monday, October 11, 2004
Rant-miester
If I start sounding like Dennis Miller would you promise to slap me up side the head with a tire tool? Tonight I suffered through a few minutes of his show on CNBC while he praised VP Cheney for being macho (like Dennis I guess). Watching Miller reminds me how lucky we are to have Jon Stewart around.
I have to admit that I don't agree with the acerbic Miller on much of anything but if he delivered his comedy with the style of Stewart I might be able to watch. Miller has published a book called "the Rant Zone" which nicely encapsulates his style - ranting.
Miller makes no bones about his political objectives for his show. About President Bush he says, "I like him, I'm going to give him a pass. I take care of my friends." Miller can talk to his friends all he wants - I'll be watching the Daily Show on Comedy Central.
If I start sounding like Dennis Miller would you promise to slap me up side the head with a tire tool? Tonight I suffered through a few minutes of his show on CNBC while he praised VP Cheney for being macho (like Dennis I guess). Watching Miller reminds me how lucky we are to have Jon Stewart around.
I have to admit that I don't agree with the acerbic Miller on much of anything but if he delivered his comedy with the style of Stewart I might be able to watch. Miller has published a book called "the Rant Zone" which nicely encapsulates his style - ranting.
Miller makes no bones about his political objectives for his show. About President Bush he says, "I like him, I'm going to give him a pass. I take care of my friends." Miller can talk to his friends all he wants - I'll be watching the Daily Show on Comedy Central.
Sunday, October 10, 2004
A Letter the Tulsa World Wouldn't Print
J. Williams of Tulsa couldn't get the Tulsa World to publish his letter to the editor so at his request, I'm pleased to print it here so his voice can be heard. It's based on an interesting premise, what if...:
Dear Editor,
What if the US and Britain had not invaded Iraq and toppled Saddam Hussein? If that war had not happened where would we be today?
First, Saddam Hussein would probably (though not assuredly) still be in power and still be a cruel dictator to his people. He would still be a local menace. There would still be no weapons of mass destruction to be found or used – especially if the inspectors were still there. Most importantly, the over 1,000 American soldiers who have given their lives in service to their country – would still be with us. Our country would still have the $200-400 billion dollars we have spent on the war and its aftermath in Iraq. We could have put that money in our pockets or spent it on our own infrastructure. Our economy would be stronger and our deficits less critical.
On the terrorism front we would undoubtedly have spent the last two years focused on rooting out the terrorists that actually attacked us and may well have found the real target, Osama bin Ladin. We would have focused on Afghanistan and Pakistan where the real problem is and might even have had time to deal with North Korea’s nuclear threat and the nascent nuclear threat of Iran. Iraq would not be the real hotbed of terrorist activity it has become.
Our standing in the world would not be at the all time low that it is now. Our businesses and products would be more welcome around the world. Our nation would still be unified in its war on terrorism and we would not have spent so much time and energy with the Iraq distraction.
This would be a different world altogether if this Administration had not been hell-bent on taking us into the quagmire and distraction of Iraq. The price we and others have paid were not even close to being worth the benefits. Yet our President feels everything is just fine. What better reason do we need to remove him from office?
J. Williams
Tulsa
J. Williams of Tulsa couldn't get the Tulsa World to publish his letter to the editor so at his request, I'm pleased to print it here so his voice can be heard. It's based on an interesting premise, what if...:
Dear Editor,
What if the US and Britain had not invaded Iraq and toppled Saddam Hussein? If that war had not happened where would we be today?
First, Saddam Hussein would probably (though not assuredly) still be in power and still be a cruel dictator to his people. He would still be a local menace. There would still be no weapons of mass destruction to be found or used – especially if the inspectors were still there. Most importantly, the over 1,000 American soldiers who have given their lives in service to their country – would still be with us. Our country would still have the $200-400 billion dollars we have spent on the war and its aftermath in Iraq. We could have put that money in our pockets or spent it on our own infrastructure. Our economy would be stronger and our deficits less critical.
On the terrorism front we would undoubtedly have spent the last two years focused on rooting out the terrorists that actually attacked us and may well have found the real target, Osama bin Ladin. We would have focused on Afghanistan and Pakistan where the real problem is and might even have had time to deal with North Korea’s nuclear threat and the nascent nuclear threat of Iran. Iraq would not be the real hotbed of terrorist activity it has become.
Our standing in the world would not be at the all time low that it is now. Our businesses and products would be more welcome around the world. Our nation would still be unified in its war on terrorism and we would not have spent so much time and energy with the Iraq distraction.
This would be a different world altogether if this Administration had not been hell-bent on taking us into the quagmire and distraction of Iraq. The price we and others have paid were not even close to being worth the benefits. Yet our President feels everything is just fine. What better reason do we need to remove him from office?
J. Williams
Tulsa
The Predictable Tulsa World
Today's Tulsa World carried an endorsement for George W. Bush for president. The endorsement would carry some weight were it not for its predictability. Those with a long memory know that the World hasn't endorsed a Democrat for president since Franklin Roosevelt ran for re-election in 1936.
Why would a newspaper that is often regarded by conservatives as a "Democrat newspaper" have such a predictable record of going for the likes of Nixon, Dole, and Goldwater? How could it be that a "balanced" newspaper has not found at least one Democrat in almost 70 years to be most suitable to lead the country?
I wish someone at the World would explain what's behind this partisan presidential predictability to me. Since 1936?
Today's Tulsa World carried an endorsement for George W. Bush for president. The endorsement would carry some weight were it not for its predictability. Those with a long memory know that the World hasn't endorsed a Democrat for president since Franklin Roosevelt ran for re-election in 1936.
Why would a newspaper that is often regarded by conservatives as a "Democrat newspaper" have such a predictable record of going for the likes of Nixon, Dole, and Goldwater? How could it be that a "balanced" newspaper has not found at least one Democrat in almost 70 years to be most suitable to lead the country?
I wish someone at the World would explain what's behind this partisan presidential predictability to me. Since 1936?