It's True Both Media Matters and Atrios have posts refuting the revisionist history regarding everybody's favorite drug addicts serious descent into paranoid lunacy regarding the Vince Foster rumors that took place during the 1990's (and that continuie to this day). As a listener to Limbaugh's radio show and a viewer of Limbaugh's TV show, I can attest to the fact that Limbaugh heavily engaged in rumor-mongering of the worst kind regarding Foster's death. I remember distinctly when a caller asked Limbaugh why Foster's wife wasn't saying anything, Limbaugh responded that she was afraid to because she knows what happens to people who speak up against the Clinton crowd. Last fall, I mentioned how Limbaugh was alluding to the Clintons and Fort Marcy Park.
See The Film The Hunting of the President As part of this year's Los Angeles Film Festival, there was a screening of The Hunting of the President. It's good that I didn't see my screening copy of The Hunting of the President. It was great to get the full impact of it on a movie screen. This film is about democracy and those who want to destroy it. Also, it was good to be with an audience; there were interesting reactions when certain people came on-screen (For the record, I let out the loudest "boo" in the audience when Howard Kurtz appeared on-screen; here's one of the reasons why). It was also great because the directors Nick Perry and Harry Thomason came out for a Q & A after the screening.
It's my hope that all the publicity surrounding Fahrenheit 9/11 won't leave THOTP with a smaller audience. Every American, especially those sitting on the fence--should see this film. There's so much that I can say about the film. It raised many important issues. One point it touched on was how the rubes slickers the big-city reporters--I am still incredulous about how many in the mainstream media were suckered by the transparent cons by yokels like Larry Nichols.
Here's what I'm asking you to do:
1. See the film.
2. Take a friend.
3. If you're a blogger, recommend the film.
Sweet!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! I'm at the Kinkos in Santa Monica. I had my doubts but I did it--more later. I knew it was going to be a good day--when I went to lunch at USC, on the adjacent sidewalk there were some followers of nut job and perennial presidential candidate Lyndon LaRouche. This gave me an opportunity to engage in some merciless mockery of these pitiful souls. For the record, mocking them is not only fun but it's potentially good for them.
Next was the main event: the world premiere of Spider-man 2. I didn't want to go to the screening but rather I wanted to crash the premiere after-party. I snuck into the original Spidey film two years ago and I wanted to go two for two. I had made some plans but I have to confess that my cockiness got to me (Alas, the sin of hubris). Security was very tight--they were like the Secret Service--and the security set-up had some new wrinkles that I had to deal with. In fact, it wasn't until the last moment that I felt I could gain entry into the party and even then it was iffy; the party was held in Santa Monica and I unnerved myself a bit--I had these visions of the Santa Monica PD frog-marching my party-crashing ass out of the event in full view of some hot babes.
Anyhoo, with a little luck and some big cajones, I was able to get in. It was at the amusement park on the Santa Monica Pier and it slammed. Plenty of good food and wicked women. Sweet! Tobey Maguire was making the rounds with his cute girlfriend and I went up to him and acted like I knew him and said "Great performance, Tobey." The only regret I had was that I missed Stan Lee; I wanted to ask him what he thought of Jack Chick.
Random notes: The Spider-Man 2 after-party wasn't as lavish as the original but it made up for it because party guests (this includes crashers) got gifts such as Spider-Man bobble head dolls--I feel guilty for keeping mine. . . I asked people at the party what they thought of the film. Without exception, people said it was better than the first. . . I didn't see Kirten Dunst at the party. I saw her a lot at the one two years ago. She's pretty without making guys think she's way out of their league. . . I look forward to seeing Alfred Molina. He did a great job in both Boogie Nights and Not Without My Daughter.
Woo Hoo! I didn't get invited to the premiere but I received a screening copy of The Hunting of the Presidentin the mail today. The only problem is that I don't have a VCR. If there are any hot women in the LA area who want to watch a free movie, email me. The Hunting crowd is at it with Kerry: read this.
Support This Site Last week, I started a fundraising drive for this site. I haven't set any records. In fact, the results have been rather anemic. Well, I've extended the fund drive until Monday; if you like the site and you have a few bucks, then click here and donate a few dollars. If you donate $10 or more, then you're entered in the raffle for the autographed Hef book (considering the few people who have entered, your chances of winning are very good). Hey, I'm going to confront Roger Ailes and airfare isn't cheap. On that topic, if there are any disgruntled Fox News people out there who can give me some info on where I can track down Roger-Dodger, email me--it will be strictly confidential.
How To Handle Nader Supporters If you meet a Naderite, especially one who talks a good game about how Ralph Nader will tap into the tens of millions of nonvoters, here is all you have to say: "I'll bet you $100 that Nader doesn't get ten percent of the vote." If the Naderite takes the bet, consider yourself $100 richer. If the Naderite doesn't bite, then you have every right to treat the person as a crank because any presidential candidate who can't get into the double digits is in the same class as Lyndon LaRouche, Pat Buchanan, or Lenora Fulani. It is your duty as an adult to mock and ridicule the person. That's all it takes.
Exclusive: Forthcoming Scoobie Davis Interview with Roger Ailes of Fox News Fox News chief Roger Ailes has a scoop. The problem is that nobody—not even his own fair and balanced news channel—wants to report it. Accordingly, I am stepping up to do a story on Ailes’ scoop (I agree with Skippy that blogs don’t do much actual reporting and I hope to start a trend).
Here’s the back story: Last fall, researchers from the University of Maryland's Program on International Policy Attitudes (PIPA) did a survey that found that people who watched Fox News were much more likely than those who got their news from other sources to be wrong about important questions about the Iraq war. What made me laugh about the study was that it found that the more people watched Fox News, the more likely it was that their perceptions about the war in Iraq were wrong.
Ailes and the Fox News gang were smarting from this study. There wasn’t much of a response until last week until last week when Ailes wrote an op-ed for—who else?—the Wall Street Journal’s editorial page. Here’s the money shot for me in Ailes’ diatribe: “[Los Angeles Times editor John S. Carroll] cites only Bill O'Reilly's opinions and an old push poll [Ailes is referring to the PIPA study] that purports to show that more Fox News viewers believed things that were not true about Iraq and the War on Terror than did viewers of other outlets.”
This is a serious accusation. According to the Disinfopedia, “a push poll is where, using the guise of opinion polling, disinformation about a candidate or issue is planted in the minds of those being 'surveyed'. Push-polls are designed to shape, rather than measure, public opinion.” Ailes is familiar with push polls since his friends Karl Rove and the late Lee Atwater were champions of this campaign tactic. If the PIPA engaged in this type of behavior, they would be guilty of serious academic misconduct. What’s more: if such crude partisan tactics were employed, it would be a major academic scandal because the study was published in Political Science Quarterly, a peer-reviewed academic journal.
On the other hand, if Ailes is full of shit, then it’s also a story. I suspect this is the case because peer-reviewed studies have methodologies that are open to examination. I’m sure that after it was published, Ailes got some hack from the Heritage Foundation or perhaps John Lott/Mary Roush to go over the study with a fine-toothed comb. If there were any ethical or methodological flaws with the study, we would have known about it by now.
I think Ailes should put up or shut up. That’s why I’m going to interview him. How? For those of you not familiar with me, I have developed ways to bypass sophisticated security details. In the past I have used my security breaching powers for the purposes of crashing some of the hottest Hollywood parties (favorite party: the Spider-Man premiere after-party). I have decided to use my powers to get an audience with Ailes in order to ask him for the basis of his accusation (I’ll bring a notepad and a mini-recorder). And you know what is great about this? There isn’t a damn thing that Ailes can do to stop me so he better be ready for my questions.
Addendum: Help me do this. Support this site: scroll down to Tuesday’s post.
D'Oh!!!! A few days ago, I was in the bookstore and flipped through Things Worth Fighting for: Collected Writings, the posthumously published book of essays by Michael Kelly (with an introduction by Ted Koppel). It's too bad Kelly wasn't around to edit it himself because it included "Farmer Al" which Kelly, unlike the book's editors, knew had been debunked as a fraud.
The Odd Couple: Tim Russert and Me Tim Russert came to the Barnes & Noble in the Fairfax District tonight for a discussion/signing of his new book and I had to go for two reasons: 1) during the Q & A, I wanted him to discuss the significance of blogs for the upcoming election (as well as any blogs he regularly reads); and 2) I wanted to see if television creates the optical illusion that Russert's head is shaped like a gourd (note to bloggers whose nickname for Russert is "Pumpkinhead": you're not far off the mark).
Russert receives a lot of flack from bloggers (e.g, today's Howler). I tend to focus on the rabid right commentators so Russert escapes my scrutiny--I watch him but I'm usually too busy switching channels to pay too much attention to him other than to notice the fact that his haberdashery is really lame-o.
I wanted to fit in with the crowd (which I expected to be whitebread--which it was but not as bad as Bill O'Reilly's recent crowd). This wasn't hard because I recently had a short haircut for an assignment and I had slacks and a polo shirt handy.
When I got there the crowd was about sixty mostly white people. Russert was longwinded and stodgy. (I am so glad I caught a buzz before I got there). He talked about the book and a little about politics--nothing notable enough for me to mention. There was a brief Q & A session but I didn't get a chance for my question. I stood in line for the signing even though I didn't have a book (I was thinking about getting one but I don't really like the guy). When I got to him I said I didn't have a book but asked him if he read any weblogs. He said he read a few each day but he didn't mention any names. I told him about my blog and he said he would check it out--which is kind of funny because basically this post is calling him an unhip tool with a funny-shaped head. Oh well, what's one more person who hates me?
Will Post Soon I had an illness. I will post over the weekend. BTW, when I got home, I heard the last part of a conversation between Ann Coulter and local radio talk show host Al Rantel. They were joking about the prisoner torture in Iraaq. What a laugh riot. It was almost as bad as her performance with Rantel a month ago.
Did John Kerry give the finger to a notorious conman? I don't know because I was in San Diego when it allegedly happened. The headline: "Kerry 'Flips Off' Vietnam Vet." The problems: 1) The aforementioned headline is from Christopher Ruddy's NewsMax; 2) The story reads: "Democratic senator - and certain presidential nominee - John F. Kerry gave the middle finger to a Vietnam veteran at the Vietnam Memorial Wall on Memorial Day morning, NewsMax.com has learned." Has learned? From whom? From Ted Sampley? If so, that's great because Ted Sampley is a credible guy. Ted Sampley is also a likeable guy; I don't know why anyone would badmouth him.
[North] returned to the U.S., where he spent as much as three weeks at Bethesda Naval Hospital for some deep-shrinking by psychiatrists. The episode is shrouded in mystery. North himself is vague about it in Under Fire, his autobiography published reports that parts of his medical record were expunged. Meanwhile, there have been published reports (which North never legally challenged) that provide details about the apparent nervous breakdown. In one account he ran around naked, babbling incoherently and waving a .45 pistol.
I asked him about his emotional problems on the radio and he did not want to talk about them. Voters in Virginia should ask him about this and demand to see his Marine medical record.[Note: Hackworth wrote this when North was running for the US Senate in 1994] Watch him say it's secret because of national security. Hell, he may believe it himself.