The Radio Equalizer: Brian Maloney

15 October 2006

Air America Radio, Ed Schultz, Sam Seder, Al Franken

JOCKEYING FOR POSITION

One Host Defiant, Other Libs Worry About Fallout







In the aftermath of Air America Radio's bankruptcy announcement, surviving liberal radio hosts are utilizing various career self- preservation strategies, while working overtime to create the sense that "progressive" radio can yet succeed.

And while one talker took pains to distance himself from the failed network, another demonstrated continuing arrogance in the face of defeat. Meanwhile, a third well- known host seemed strangely silent about the whole mess.

Fargo- based libtalker Ed Shultz, who has never been associated with Air America, went so far as to put out a press release Friday making sure the public was clear on this point:


FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

October 13, 2006 Fargo, ND … Ed Schultz, host of America's fastest growing progressive talk radio program The Ed Schultz Show, today assured his listeners and fans that his show is independently owned, operated and in no danger of bankruptcy or other financial obstacles.

Schultz' assurances that all is well at The Ed Schultz Show and at Schultz's partner and co-owner Product 1st, the programming company owned by long-time radio executives Randy Michaels and Stu Krane, were sparked by news of bankruptcy filings at a liberal talk network in no way related to Schultz.

Said Schultz, "Our show is growing in ratings and audience share everyday. That's because we tell it straight from the heartland. And we're here to stay!"


Along with Stephanie Miller, another Jones MediaAmerica- syndicated host, Schultz has found moderate success as a middle- of- the- road talker with an upper- Midwest flavor. Beyond that, libtalk simply can't point to even modest success by almost anyone heard nationally, no matter how much spin is applied.

At the same time, Schultz and Miller have quietly toiled in the background as Al Franken, Randi Rhodes, Janeane Garofalo and others stole libtalk's mainstream media limelight. And they could never hope to make a fraction of what Franken and Rhodes have been paid.


Meanwhile, our friend Sam Seder is up to his old tricks again, demonstrating a delusional defiance in the face of clear defeat. The Worcester wannabe went so far as to claim that Air America's "success" has paved the way for other liberals to host radio shows, conveniently forgetting that dozens of others tried it before Franken & Co.

Blaming Air America's troubles entirely on its previous management, Seder also leaves out the unfortunate truth that the air talent (such as Sam himself!) somehow forgot to generate ratings while they were worrying about internal backstabbing and what conservative blogs were saying about them.

From a letter Seder wrote to liberal blogger DownWithTyranny:


Air America's parent company will enter into a Chapter 11 reorganization today. Frankly, this is good news. Because of a lack of capitalization and a clear business plan Air America has been behind the 8 ball since its launch. Despite these missteps AAR has, as a product, been wildly successful.

After only two and a half years, AAR continues to grow listenership, add affiliates and enhance our brand. With little fanfare, the Air America "Playbook", which was released Sept.18, hit number 14 on the times best seller list this past weekend. As of today, AAR currently produces 19 hours of original programming a day and is heard on 92 affiliates reaching 58 percent of the country. Air America affiliates reach 2.4 million listeners per week.

This reorganization will allow Air America to restructure itself and relationships it has had since its inception. It will also allow Air America to restructure these relationships to reflect its change in business model which took place September first of this year. At that time AAR essentially became a syndicator of progressive programming.

I have some general knowledge of Ch. 11 reorganization (my dad an attorney who specializes in this field). I know that to enter Ch.11 AAR will have to show a judge a reorganization plan and that there is operating funds to implement these plans.

I have spoken to our new CEO and am convinced there is at least a sensible and defined business plan to move forward. Sadly, it's the first time anyone here has articulated such a plan. It remains to be seen whether it will be properly executed but I am as encouraged about AAR's prospects as I have been in months.

People should keep in mind that while there is other liberal/progressive talkers distributed by other syndicators, AAR, by providing a turnkey format, has greatly contributed to their success. Ed Schultz, Stephanie Miller, Bill Press and others would never have enjoyed the success they have had over the past two and a half years were it not for AAR turning nearly 100 stations around the country into Progressive outlets.


Seder's statement further reveals a truly sad individual who remains defiant as the walls cave in around him. We could be sympathetic, but he doesn't deserve it, as he's been nothing but a jerk.

Sam, nobody believes your crazy claims about ratings growth, maintaining 92 affiliates, 58% of the country hearing the network, or having over two million listeners. Air America never came close to reaching the hundred station mark, even at its peak, and has lost quite a few of them since.


Finally, since the announcement Friday, Al Franken has been unusually quiet. We're no longer seeing his mainstream media quotes referencing flying United during its bankruptcy, as we did when rumors first surfaced. Instead, he has retreated into the background, not typical of Stuart in the past.

He has simply got to be worried.

So what will he do? Most likely, the Radio Equalizer figures he will continue his dull program at least until the election, all the while continuing to promote his new "moderate" image, just in time to run for the US Senate seat in Minnesota he's long been after.



FOR THE LATEST on key Massachusetts races, visit Bay State Showdown, our other site. ***Note: newly updated ***

ELSEWHERE: Hugh Hewitt has election updates.

Toilet image: David A Lunde

Your Amazon orders that begin with clicks here, regardless of what you ultimately purchase, greatly help to support this site's efforts. Thanks again!

Technorati tags:

49 Comments:

  • Haven't heard the radio shows by Miller or Press. Schultz's simple country boy routine gets old quickly.

    With the exception of Drudge's radio show and the Evil Liberal Propaganda Network, all talk radio is pretty much crap.

    By Blogger Elmonica, at 15 October, 2006 13:55  

  • Nobody ever thought the moron Schultz had a thing to do with AAR. He had his shot at respectability early on, and blew it anyway.

    Opinion was split on Miller. I personally don't think much more highly of her then I do Coulter or even Schlussel-Gelt, but at least she has a brain in her head and will forge something of a career for herself, eventually, as she grows.

    Malloy, Rhodes, and Seder ARE the true talent and spirit of progressive talk radio, along with Bennett and Samuels. Get 'em in one place away from moneychangers and under innovative, progressive management, and in two years, nobody will ever remember conservative radio ever existed.

    By Blogger hashfanatic, at 15 October, 2006 16:10  

  • The problem with Drudge is that he is an intriguing, likable young man, but you really cannot believe a word of what he says.....zero research skills.

    By Blogger hashfanatic, at 15 October, 2006 16:11  

  • Three points...

    Many Liberals, unlike most Conservatives, actually enjoy or are just curious to hear the Hate Radio morons. I'll confess. I do it too. We are actually curious to know what the "other side" thinks, does and says, and sometimes it's just fun to listen to the ranting and idiocy. Besides, it gets your blood up. It's like professional wrestling. Unfortunately, Liberal talk can just make you depressed. That's why the most popular Liberal talkers tend to do a lot less news and politics and just have fun - and it's they who get the bigger audiences. And so, as most Conservatives disdain listening to oppositional arguments, or trying anything new, or accepting anything at odds with there world view, it would stand to reason that Liberal talk radio will be at a loss for the broader audience of Conservative talk radio. This is common knowledge and common sense, and most liberals know it. Conservatives will tell you that the audience numbers are a measure of the message of Conservative talk radio, while it is the very lambaste and insanity of it that lures Liberal listeners.

    It could just be that the demographics of AM radio listeners are such that there simply isn't enough audience for a big, national, Liberal talk/"news," commercial radio syndicate. Liberals, preferring a little more maturity and responsibility in our real news talk, have had Pacifica and NPR for years now, and they're doing just fine. They are not commercial, which we like, as most Liberals, and certainly myself included, really, really, really hate commercials. So yes, they won't make the money of their commercial competitors, but they're still far, far, far better as far as Liberals are concerned. Also, commercials obviously mean a quid pro quo as far as the content goes. Would you buy a car based on what a radio host tells you right after he's done playing a commercial for that car? This is why Liberals buy their cars after reading non-commercial Consumer Reports, and Conservatives go with the likes of Car & Driver. Righties will tell you that the lack of commercial success is a measure of the failure of Liberal fare, while it's the very commerciality of most talk radio that precludes Liberal talk and audiences.

    But then, it may well be that Air America itself is the problem. Conservative talk radio has been around for a long time, slowly building its audiences, slowly developing its shtick. Air America toggled unto the cultural scene with a full-blown national network where none had been before and fared untested products into deeply entrenched demographics. Fox didn't become popular overnight. They lagged behind the Big Three for years before they finally built up a durable audience. And Fox had massive, international News Corporation, starring Rupert Murdoch, behind them. Air America was slapped together by a bunch of like-minded comedians and ex-pols. There are plenty of Liberal talk hosts out there in niche markets all over America. Some are popular over broader networks. John Stewart and Stephen Colbert are giants on the tube. And the country seems to be moving back to the Left these days anyway. Perhaps talk radio just can't sustain an Air America right now, or even ever. Conservatives will tell you that Liberal talk is wrong and so therefore it fails, while Conservatism itself utterly fails right before our very eyes.

    We Liberals don't need to be told all this. We already know what to think for ourselves.

    JMJ

    By Blogger Jersey McJones, at 15 October, 2006 16:41  

  • I try listening to liberal radio but most of it is poorly done. Franken is no Limbaugh. Harry Shearer's Le Show isn't bad, and I've heard Colmes and
    Steph Miller in the past. But if you have liberals sampling conservative radio more than vice versa, it's simply because most lefty radio is not as entertaining.

    By Blogger raccoonradio, at 15 October, 2006 18:22  

  • Dear Mr. Seder,

    If your book making #14 on the best-seller list is indicative proof of your radio sucess, what to make of Mr. O'Reilly's much-higher position on the list? I guess this means his radio show is kicking your a**. Right?!?

    By Blogger BF, at 15 October, 2006 19:25  

  • "Wildly successful." Bankrupt and corrupt, but wildly successful. Good luck with that one.

    By Blogger Darin, at 15 October, 2006 21:58  

  • I'm still amazed at how neocons hold by opinions strictly based on their alleged commercial success, especially in an age when the accuracy of sales totals, polls, and Nielsen/Arbitron ratings are taken seriously by no sane man.

    It simply reinforces my understanding that neocons really have no ideology, or sense of what's right or wrong. It's about power for them, and doing anything and everything to retain it.

    By Blogger hashfanatic, at 15 October, 2006 22:22  

  • Baloney,

    It's going to be a while before you get a hate talk show. It'll probably be in some suburb populated by Misters and Missuses Dori Monsons, i.e. paranoid, bigoted, know-it-all blowhards like you.

    By Blogger Dovish, at 15 October, 2006 22:23  

  • OK, let's summarize the pathetic excuses given by liberals for Air America's failure:

    1. Denial - Air America hasn't failed. This Chapter 11 filing is really a good thing, as it gets rid of all those pesky bills that have been piling up. It sure beats producing actual revenue to pay them.

    2. Karl Rove - He's behind everything else. Why not this?

    3. Liberals are too smart to listen to the radio - In fact, there hasn't been a task created by man that can adequately employ the massive intellects possessed by liberals.

    Feel free to add to this list.

    By Brett, at 13 October, 2006 18:17

    Jersey McJones giving us a fine example of excuse #3.

    By Blogger Brett, at 16 October, 2006 00:12  

  • Hash

    Mike who? HAHA

    By Blogger PF1, at 16 October, 2006 00:23  

  • You may be surprised, PF1.

    The mighty Mike Malloy may turn up on another network one day soon.

    No, no...please don't stop droning on about Franken, just on account of me...

    By Blogger hashfanatic, at 16 October, 2006 00:48  

  • Hash

    I'm glad to hear Mike is returning. I just wish they would give him a better time slot. I know alot of Dem's that are scared away from the democratic party by him.

    Maybe he will start with the Bush planned 911, or about our troops murdering innocent terrorist in Iraq, or Laura Bush being a killer. Truthseeker my ass.

    Oh yeah he's just great. Maybe you two can get together and smoke a little and solve the worlds problems.

    Remember this commercial. This is your brain. This is your brain on drugs. Dude Mike's brain is fried. You need to "Just say NO" or you will join him. Probably to late.

    By Blogger PF1, at 16 October, 2006 06:19  

  • I've heard Press, Miller, and others on KFI. They were nothing to brag about. Press got the nickname, "The Manure Spreader" from me on air during a cross with Hugh Hewitt. Bill Handel even made a promo for Press from a joke I told on Handel's "Gripe Nite" show, "Why can't Bill Press eat pickels? He can't get his head in the jar."

    By Blogger PCD, at 16 October, 2006 08:23  

  • What ABOUT the questions regarding the administration on 9/11, PedophiliacFreak1? What about the stand down order?

    What about Bush's war of choice, in which close to 3,000 of our soldiers, and 655,000 Iraqi citizens died, for a lie?

    Incidentally my screenname has nothing to do with drugs. How do YOU know so much about narcotics, dumbass?

    Oh, either you listen to Limpbowel all afternoon, or you post on moonbattery...

    Do ANY Republican nation-traitors have anything intelligent to say, anymore?

    P.S. LAURA Bush? Who cares who Georgie's beard is, anyway? The laziest First Lady since, uh, Babs..

    By Blogger hashfanatic, at 16 October, 2006 09:09  

  • PCD, blessedly, here in the New York market, I'm spared both of them.

    By Blogger hashfanatic, at 16 October, 2006 09:10  

  • Hash,

    first off, it wasn't "neocons" who equated book sales with overall success. It was mr. Seder.

    Second, I'm still amazed at how Democrats hold by opinions strictly based on poll results, especially in an age when the accuracy of said polls have been shown time and time again to be lacking.

    It simply reinforces my understanding that Democrats really have no ideology, or sense of what's right or wrong. It's about power for them, and doing anything and everything to reacquire it.

    By Blogger BF, at 16 October, 2006 09:36  

  • Well the Air America line-up can probably get jobs with al Jazeera who pretty much share their politics. Don't the left realise that its not just the opinions that matter but talent as well?

    By Blogger Lagwolf, at 16 October, 2006 09:39  

  • If Hannity were to become a frequent guest on Arutz Sheva, how popular do you believe HE would continue to be?

    By Blogger hashfanatic, at 16 October, 2006 10:00  

  • So Bush planned and executed 911 in eight months. He did this to get the American people behind him to go to war in Afghanistan. After invading Afghanistan he lied about WMD to invade Iraq. If he was the great mastermind behind all this do you not think he could have planted WMD in Iraq? Use your head does that make a bit of sense. Or is Mike Malloy full of crap.

    As for 655,000 Iraqi citizens died again use your head do some math. That would be about 625 a day. Don’t you just love the way guest for error America pull numbers out of their ass. . Look at what they say and see through the lies use some common sense. I heard that lady talking about the 655,000 deaths. She is full of it. I have a brother in Iraq and one that just returned home. They say she is full of crap also. With all of your short little comments you throw out expecting to be believed because you heard it on error America I don’t think so.

    I know my political party is not perfect Ex: drug benefit, border security. In fact I don’t trust any of them But I know that if Kerry would have been president. He would have raised my taxes and yours, which in turn would have killed the economy. Our economy is doing great considering 911 and, the worst hurricane in our countries history. So I chose the lesser of to evils. I question both side’s not just politicians but talk show host on both sides of the subject. Question everything and use common sense.

    As for your drug use, I was going by comments you made on this blog. That was my mistake you throw other lies out so maybe you were lying about using drugs for recreational purpose.

    By Blogger pf1, at 16 October, 2006 11:55  

  • No, I've never made comments about drug use, on this blog, simply because I'm not a drug user (duh...)

    The Bush Crime Family has failed in EVERY single challenge posed to it. We are considerably unsafer in terms of real terrorist threats, both from within and from outside. Companies have outsourced virtually all meaningful, profitable work to other countries, and illegal immigrants are being imported en masse, and the pure fact of the matter is companies are refusing to hire returned Iraq soldiers who've been stop-lossed two or three times, out of fear that they'll go "postal" and snap in their offices and warehouse floors. We are de facto puppets to the will of China, who control our home mortgages and public debt, and could call them at their whimsy. An entire American city was washed away, along with tens of thousands of its unaccounted residents, and one year later, no significant accomplishment in terms of rebuilding have been made. There is not even an attempt to justify "bringing democracy to Iraq" anymore-they are working to find yet another dictator that meets their needs, while hundreds of thousands of Iraqis flee to Syria and Jordan-hardly an ideal scenario for Israel's future security, and a lasting peace in the Middle East. Violent crime and open hatred between American citizens, aided by open borders and Bush-subsidized drug importation, have reached all-time highs, and there is no longer a free press to report on it (we listed 28th on a ranking of countries in this regard).

    To top it off, pedophilia is now completely an excusable offense.

    Come off it, PF1. Let your party go. They actually left you behind, a long time ago.

    By Blogger hashfanatic, at 16 October, 2006 15:09  

  • “An entire American city was washed away, along with tens of thousands of its unaccounted residents” pull some more numbers out of you ass. Well you are perfect for the Democratic Party. Believe whatever they tell you that way you do not have to think for yourself.

    By Blogger pf1, at 16 October, 2006 18:51  

  • Facts are facts, PF Flyer.

    An entire American city.

    How do you attempt to spin the physical realities of that little happenstance?

    I guess it must have been Carter's fault, now...

    By Blogger hashfanatic, at 16 October, 2006 20:24  

  • “An entire American city was washed away, along with tens of thousands of its unaccounted residents”

    Do you understand english. "entire city washed away" The city is still there not that that matters.

    Do you understand numbers. "tens of thousands of its unaccounted residents washed away". I guess you are right I saw them in the boat floating by the TV crew.

    I guess you believed that Bush blew up the levee also? Can you admit that this is a lie probably not?

    Think about what you write. Use some common sense.

    By Blogger pf1, at 16 October, 2006 21:02  

  • That's how the Bush Crime Family operates. Washed away, without a trace.

    By Blogger hashfanatic, at 17 October, 2006 01:54  

  • That’s the way you operate dumbass remarks with NO proof.

    By Blogger PF1, at 17 October, 2006 03:17  

  • That's funny hash. Just this Sunday, I saw the Saints playing in the Superdome. Care to revise your "without a trace" comments?

    By Blogger BF, at 17 October, 2006 08:24  

  • Hashfanatic... Better go take a few more tokes, mellow out, because this isn't going to be pretty...

    The Bush Crime Family has failed in EVERY single challenge posed to it. We are considerably unsafer in terms of real terrorist threats, both from within and from outside.
    Source, please? And don't quote the now-fully-revealed NIE report, since that was a case of selective reading on the part of the Democrats, and the reason it dropped from sight IMMEDIATELY after President Bush unclassified the entire thing...

    Companies have outsourced virtually all meaningful, profitable work to other countries,
    Yeah, because it didn't happen during the 1990s, right? Note that link is to a UC BERKELEY report! It notes that outsourcing dramatically increased in the 1990s, and has been an economic boon for the US.

    and illegal immigrants are being imported en masse,
    Imported? Source please? I know this president has not done enough to stop illegal immigration until recently (at least we're finally getting a border fence), but that's a far cry from importing!

    and the pure fact of the matter is companies are refusing to hire returned Iraq soldiers who've been stop-lossed two or three times, out of fear that they'll go "postal" and snap in their offices and warehouse floors.
    Source, please? I have a few friends and relatives who have returned from Iraq with nary a problem in securing employment.

    We are de facto puppets to the will of China, who control our home mortgages and public debt, and could call them at their whimsy.
    Source please? And you really think this is a fact? Never mind that our GDP under President Bush has grown by more than the entire GDP of China!

    And what if they were to call for those bonds to get paid, and we said no? That crushes them. China is more beholden to us than we are to China, simple economics. Who stands to lose more if you default on your mortgage? You walk away - no more money lost. The bank stands to lose money - they paid for the house, not you. THAT is why they charge interest - to compensate for the risk!


    An entire American city was washed away,
    Really? I know that 80% flooded, not the entire city and that the flooded parts were eventually dried. You know, we didn't cede any land to the ocean...

    along with tens of thousands of its unaccounted residents,
    Source please? Because that link right above puts the TOTAL death toll at 1,577, a long cry from tens of thousands...

    and one year later, no significant accomplishment in terms of rebuilding have been made.
    That's a federal issue? Funds are available; the State and City need to get their act together.

    There is not even an attempt to justify "bringing democracy to Iraq" anymore-they are working to find yet another dictator that meets their needs,
    Yeah, that's why we're actively transferring control of provinces to the Iraqi government, which itself is a Constitutionally elected government...

    while hundreds of thousands of Iraqis flee to Syria and Jordan-hardly an ideal scenario for Israel's future security, and a lasting peace in the Middle East.
    Source please?

    Violent crime and open hatred between American citizens, aided by open borders and Bush-subsidized drug importation, have reached all-time highs, and there is no longer a free press to report on it (we listed 28th on a ranking of countries in this regard).
    Source please? Because what I see is a drop in violent crimes, property crimes, firearm crimes and the like.

    So, other than some completely unsubstantiated claims, and several provably false claims (lies, I believe is what they are called?) you really haven't said anything of importance.

    By Blogger Lynnwood Rooster, at 17 October, 2006 09:53  

  • Lynnwood, (good God), how can there not be less crime in a city where most of the residents that were washed away belong to the same group of people who had the highest levels of criminality present?

    WHY do you think it was New Orleans, rather than Detroit or Baltimore, that was allowed to be devastated?

    Do you believe that information-technology professionals simply flap their arms and FLY here from St. Petersburg, Dublin, Tel Aviv, and Bangalore without assurances of legal amnesty and specific promises of employment? Can you really imagine that they uproot entire families and entrepreneurial structures of their own without some semblance of structure to arrive here to? Please stop invoking supposed "liberal-academic" sources and engaging in other such transparent smokescreens...it's boring and meaningless. One cannot politicize such a study, at any rate.

    Lynnwood, do you really expect ANY corporate managers or, especially, human-resources professionals who worship at an altar of political correctness and manufactured diversity to come out and ADMIT that they shun these returned vets? Surely you don't expect me to name them, do you? And I KNOW you don't expect the job-seeking vets themselves to speak critically of their experiences stateside, much less what they saw over there, that led them to this situation?

    I have absolutely no doubt that you know people who have profited enormously while under the employ of consultants and business interests during the Iraq war.

    Tell me, what is the typical ranking of your "few friends and relatives" that have returned and have had no problem in securing "employment"? Do they share a common ethnic or religious background? Have they fought in other, similarly-driven conflicts? Do they have allegiances to any other entity then the US?

    Obviously, I'm dubious about your claim, but not discounting it entirely...just wishing that any clarifying details might have been evident, when you asserted it.

    Your refutation of foreign domination of our national debt staggers me with your simple ignorance of basic concepts regarding debt instruments, foreign trade, and indeed the Federal Reserve Bank and their functions in our economy. I deeply implore you to learn more about the nasty little corner that your administration has painted the American middle class into.

    Is a city its land, or is it the people, and the commerce, and the culture, that it is made up of?

    You cannot POSSIBLY believe this garbage about Iraq. Even the ADMINISTRATION is publicly backpedaling from the idea that they can "install" democracy by force, and it is literally being acknowledged by the ADMINISTRATION that they are in search of just another benevolent authoritarian, if not dictator. The entire operation was a total FAILURE. You should tell your "friends and relatives" how successful they were....

    A source for the Iraqis fleeing? Uh, try every single network evening newscast on Sunday?? Again, this is not a secret, and indeed, is being watched with equal consternation by Israeli as well as Syrian, Egyptian, Iranian, Lebanese, and Jordanian authorities (why do you suppose Olmert had his nose up the butt of the Lebanese prime minister to reopen dialogue, with the very country he attempted to immolate less than two months ago?)

    Lynnwood, do you even follow the "MSM" network newscasts? Of any country? Do you ever read any newspaper? Do you ever do any research?

    Uh, to be fair: do ANY of you neocons?

    By Blogger hashfanatic, at 17 October, 2006 14:40  

  • Lynnwood, (good God), how can there not be less crime in a city where most of the residents that were washed away belong to the same group of people who had the highest levels of criminality present?

    Well, let's see... You claimed "washed away, along with tens of thousands of its unaccounted residents" and I posted a single link stating 1,577 dead. Yes that's terrible, nearly 1600 lives lost to the hurricane. Of course, that's a LONG way from tens of thousands.

    Oh, and about violent crime? I posted a link showing that violent crime is decreasing.

    Of course, you come back, rave about how I'm wrong, but provide ZERO factual backup.

    WHY do you think it was New Orleans, rather than Detroit or Baltimore, that was allowed to be devastated?

    Well, to start with, 1100 miles of America kind of makes it a moot point. And having the governor and mayor ignore warnings from the feds to evacuate until it was too late certainly didn't help.

    Could the feds have done better? Sure! You can ALWAYS do better. However, the FEMA plan calls for the states and local municipalities to be prepared to cover the first 48 hours. Which they weren't. The feds held up most of their end of the bargain; the state and city didn't.

    Do you believe that information-technology professionals simply flap their arms and FLY here from St. Petersburg, Dublin, Tel Aviv, and Bangalore without assurances of legal amnesty and specific promises of employment?

    Absolutely not! That's what the whole H1-B visa program is for! Bring the best and brightest from overseas. Of course, you talked about "illegal immigrants are being imported en masse" and the last time I checked the H1-B was fully legal. I know those here on an H1-B in my group at Microsoft are legal.

    So I assume you mean we're importing - en masse - illegal immigrants? From where? You made the claim, you back it up. Because I don't see us importing illegal immigrants. Bringing in workers LEGALLY yes; importing illegal aliens? Nope.

    Tell me, what is the typical ranking of your "few friends and relatives" that have returned and have had no problem in securing "employment"?

    One co-worker, lieutenant in the Army, now in reserves, back working here in the US working as a software tester. One cousin, just got out of the Marines as a sergeant after 8 years (aged 26), now working as an airline mechanic.

    Yeah, it's a sample of two. But from talking with them it seems they didn't have a problem and neither did their brothers in arms who also left the service after a tour or two.

    But you made the claim, so ANY backup at all? Or is this just something "everybody knows"? Just a link to this being an issue?

    Your refutation of foreign domination of our national debt staggers me with your simple ignorance of basic concepts regarding debt instruments, foreign trade, and indeed the Federal Reserve Bank and their functions in our economy.

    OK, how many times have you been to China? How often do you deal with them? See, I go over 3-4 times a year (yes, I offshore some production over there), and work with them quite a bit. They understand how we're indebted to them, and that it's our promise put up against their goods.

    So, if I promise to pay you back, will you loan me $100,000? Who has the bigger stake in the deal?

    This is really basic economics 101 - this is why people charge interest, to compensate for risk. Inherently the one charging interest has a greater risk in the exchange. No need to look at the World Bank, or any of the other things.

    Oh, and about President Bush painting us in the corner? It's been going on - EVERY YEAR - for the last 3 decades. Even when President Clinton supposedly had a "surplus" the national debt increased. Look for it yourself at http://www.publicdebt.treas.gov/opd/opdhisto4.htm - EVERY YEAR.

    Am I happy about the spending of President Bush? Absolutely not; I think he should have vetoed the budgets presented by the Congress. However, it's not just this administration, but EVERY administration and Congress since 1960.

    I'm just willing to admit it. Willing to blame Clinton for adding 40% more to the national debt? And admit that he never reduced the national debt?

    Is a city its land, or is it the people, and the commerce, and the culture, that it is made up of?

    Both. Without land, you don't have the others, and the city taxes the land. People are moving back, commerce is commencing (oil is flowing, football games are being played), culture is still there. So how can you claim it was wiped away? Hyperbole?

    You cannot POSSIBLY believe this garbage about Iraq. Even the ADMINISTRATION is publicly backpedaling from the idea that they can "install" democracy by force, and it is literally being acknowledged by the ADMINISTRATION that they are in search of just another benevolent authoritarian, if not dictator. The entire operation was a total FAILURE. You should tell your "friends and relatives" how successful they were....

    But we're not installing it by force; we're turning it over to the Iraqis who are VOTING on their own future, and starting to take control of their own country. Note we're withdrawing from Iraq faster than we're withdrawing from Germany and Japan! Both of which had the same approach in "installing democracy by force".

    And talking with friends and relatives who have done tours of Iraq - both in 1991 and currently - they seem to pretty much all agree that things are going quite well over there. Could they be better? Sure! But to a person they all agree the job is important, it needs to be done, and it's being done to the best of their abilities.

    Of course, when was the last time you heard of any reconstruction in Iraq? It's not covered in the media at all; check out http://www.mnf-iraq.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=6054&Itemid=109 for some information. I have a good friend in the Air Force right now who's right now rebuilding airports in Iraq. He's an electronics specialist responsible for new air traffic control systems, radio links, etc. and his report is that it's stinking hot, flat, bright, and going well.

    A source for the Iraqis fleeing? Uh, try every single network evening newscast on Sunday??

    Great! Then it should be easy for you to paste a SINGLE LINK documenting the "hundreds of thousands of Iraqis flee(ing) to Syria and Jordan", shouldn't it? Unless again it's that hyperbole and wishful thinking thing...

    Lynnwood, do you even follow the "MSM" network newscasts? Of any country?

    Why yes I do. CBS, because that's the channel I get on my rabbit ears (yep, no cable here).

    Do you ever read any newspaper?

    Seattle Times and Everett Herald, both delivered daily to my house.

    Do you ever do any research?

    Absolutely! Where do you think these links come from? Of course, I'd ask if you do any research at all, too, other than listening to Rhodes hate radio... Any links you can post to back up ANY claims you made? You know, basic research...

    See, I've shown HARD FACTS about the number dead in New Orleans. The true drop in violent crime. The increase in the national debt. And so on. You? Just "geez don't you read anything?"

    Apparently you can make claims and don't have to back it up, yet even when I post citations documenting my sources it's still wrong. A bit of hypocrisy there, don't you think?

    By Blogger Lynnwood Rooster, at 17 October, 2006 15:44  

  • So, if I promise to pay you back, will you loan me $100,000? Who has the bigger stake in the deal?

    This is really basic economics 101 - this is why people charge interest, to compensate for risk. Inherently the one charging interest has a greater risk in the exchange.


    Actually... Hash is correct. This fallacious analogy betrays a complete ignorance of public debt securities and US government bonds. Perhaps armed with your Economics 101 you can explain how the credit risk associated with mortgages/personal loans is somehow equally applicable to that of US Treasury securities which are generally regarded as being free of credit risk. This should be interesting...

    By Blogger HeadHunter, at 17 October, 2006 17:33  

  • Yeah, Microsoft. Uh, huh.

    Yeah, those highly trained elite forces really sound like they saw serious action in Iraq.

    You couldn't discern the fact that I AGREED with you regarding the fact that crime went down in New Orleans...you just didn't want to accept the reason why, when I pointed it out to you.

    Ask any New Yorker if crime is going down. Under Republican governance. Well, maybe you might want to try asking the SERVANTS of anyone you know in New York, that question.

    And you were too lazy to even look up the NBC Nightly News. On Sunday. I gave you the DATE. You just COULDN'T. Do you pay someone to wipe you, too?

    Oh, and Lynnwood...you are STILL not addressing the simple fact that I and the vast majority of the American people, simply do not BELIEVE your statistics to begin with! This is why nothing worthwhile ever gets accomplished in this country. This is the giant disconnect, between what people see on the ground, and the dog-and-pony show your cabal puts forth. Your goal is universal acceptance and compliance with your flawed and fraudulent outlook, and I'm putting forth a fundamental shift of values and a better way of operating. Both ideals directly contradict one another, and how can you even judge and interpret what I do when the information you purport to be from sources you use is simply invalid and improperly applied to begin with?

    Lynnwood, I'm not even sure what your mission here is, except just to try and prove you can win debates with the big boys. You've failed miserably on that score....why not simply admit your policies are a sham, you've been supporting a pack of liars, thieves, torturers, pedophiles, and military losers, regroup, and formulate a NEW political philosophy, one of your own, that at least you can back up with some integrity and conscience?

    By Blogger hashfanatic, at 17 October, 2006 17:38  

  • Headhunter,

    Yes, the US bonds are generally considered VERY low risk. But there's still risk, that's why we pay interest. If you're willing to gamble on the bonds, and the country defaults, who gets the short shrift?

    Bottom line: it's our word to repay versus their supply of tangible goods. They're as much controlled by our economy as we're controlled by them. And in fact, given that ours is 6 times LARGER than China, we really run the show.

    Hash,

    On violent crime, did you even LOOK at the link I provided? It was for nation-wide. Violent crimes are down. Ask the FBI - that's their link. You have a hypothetical "New Yorker", I have the hard, cold facts. Violent crime is down NATIONWIDE, opposite of your claim.

    As far as seeing action, well Kevin (the MS tester) was a main gunner in a Bradley fighting vehicle. He saw his share of action, he was shot at plenty of times.

    My cousin Kenny was mortared a few times, and also went on escort patrols facing the occasional hit-and-run sniper.

    Yeah, it's a dangerous job. Both signed up knowing the risks, and both served. If you want to denigrate them that's fine. Says a lot about what you think of our troops...

    And lastly, link to the CBS evening news story you're crowing about? You made the claim - back it up. I shouldn't have to do your work for you. If there's hundreds of thousands fleeing Iraq, it should be easy to verify.

    Or do I have to do your work for you, too? Already have shown several of your claims are outright lies... (New Orleans wiped away, violent crime up, etc).

    By Blogger Lynnwood Rooster, at 17 October, 2006 19:27  

  • No, it should be easy for YOU to verify.

    If it weren't have been for the Bush Crime Family and their interference in the affairs, "Kevin" and "Kenny" would never have been placed in such dangerous situations in the first place!

    I certainly didn't support it...

    Do you know what "Compstat" is? Do you believe its use is a uniquely New York phenomenon?

    You are saying that the city of New Orleans is still there? And its people?

    Well, then, what has happened to Houston, then?

    Stop parroting my words...use whatever imagination "Microsoft" (giggle) hasn't beaten out of your head. The burden is on YOU to verify! I've spoken my piece, on information commonly held....must I provide links to the moon landing and how a steam iron operates, as well?

    Truly, truly pathetic.

    By Blogger hashfanatic, at 17 October, 2006 20:04  

  • And there we have it... You make an unsubstantiated claim, and demand that those who counter your claim verify your words.

    Personally, I think you're lying, and that it can't be verified.

    But with the blinded, dogmatic Left it's the seriousness of the charge, not the accuracy that counts, right?

    Way to simply give up when you're shown to be outright wrong... And about New Orleans being there? Seems to be tens of thousands of people - and thousands of businesses - for all those New Orleans Saints home games so far. Oops, that's yet MORE proof you're simply wrong, simply a liar...

    By Blogger Lynnwood Rooster, at 18 October, 2006 00:45  

  • Well, as long as you can watch your football games, all those unmarked mass graves in Haley Barbour's Mississippi don't really matter after all...

    Oh, Sweet Mystery of Faith. NBC NIGHTLY NEWS, SUNDAY EVENING, 6:30-7:00 PM, EASTERN STANDARD TIME...

    Damn, "Microsofts" sure does have some dumbass janitors these days...

    By Blogger hashfanatic, at 18 October, 2006 01:06  

  • Well, as long as you can watch your football games, all those unmarked mass graves in Haley Barbour's Mississippi don't really matter after all...

    Now, I know it's been a while since my geography classes, but I always thought that New Orleans was in Louisiana, not Mississippi...

    Sorry, I guess I don't have your updated map of the US!

    By Blogger Lynnwood Rooster, at 18 October, 2006 03:02  

  • Do you possess the mental capability to read a map, at any rate? Could you find Abu Ghraib on a map of Iraq, or would that elude you as well?

    Maybe you could ask one of your crack military men for directions!

    By Blogger hashfanatic, at 18 October, 2006 05:46  

  • LR: Yes, the US bonds are generally considered VERY low risk. But there's still risk, that's why we pay interest. If you're willing to gamble on the bonds, and the country defaults, who gets the short shrift?

    Again, your ignorant words betray the fact that you have absolutely no idea about US public debt securities. US treasury securities carry next to ZERO credit risk despite your ignorant attempts to equate this neglible risk to the very real credit risk of mortgages. And this neglible risk is NOT the reason there is a yield on US bonds. To even suggest that the US treasury would default on these debt securities further confirms your desperate ignorance.

    Bottom line: it's our word to repay versus their supply of tangible goods. They're as much controlled by our economy as we're controlled by them. And in fact, given that ours is 6 times LARGER than China, we really run the show.

    This is unintelligible nonsense. You have no idea what you're talking about.

    By Blogger HeadHunter, at 18 October, 2006 11:44  

  • Well sure I can read a map! That's why I'm a bit confused... My maps show New Orleans in LA, not MS.

    I don't follow you...

    By Blogger Lynnwood Rooster, at 18 October, 2006 11:45  

  • HeadHunter,

    What secures US Treasury Bonds? Simple question...

    And once you answer that, understand that the Chinese are willing to accept that security in exchange for durable goods.

    So, answer the first question please, it's really easy!

    By Blogger Lynnwood Rooster, at 18 October, 2006 14:37  

  • LR: What secures US Treasury Bonds?

    WTF? You're asking me what "secures" public debt securities? Your inane question reveals your ignorance. US government bonds *are* security instruments which can be redeemed by the US Treasury by using existing tax surpluses (rare) or by simply printing more US dollars (much more common).

    And once you answer that, understand that the Chinese are willing to accept that security in exchange for durable goods.

    Again, you don't know what you're talking about. US security instruments are not traded in exchange for durable goods.

    But WTF is your point. Your ignorance was obvious when you equated the credit risk of US treasury bonds to that of mortgages, and then from that stupid invalid premise, you somehow conclude that China's massive US debt holdings give them no leverage over the US. And why? Just to defend the fiscal irresponsibility of an incompetent administration. Good for you, moron.

    By Blogger HeadHunter, at 18 October, 2006 17:05  

  • HeadHunter,

    I think I've made myself clear; what backs a US Treasury Bond - why ANYONE would buy one - is the word of the United States of America. The same thing that backs our currency.

    Perhaps you should go learn what a bond is. Here's a DIRECT QUOTE from this linked website:

    A bond is an IOU issued by a corporation, government, or governmental agency to cover money the bondholder has lent. If you own stock in a company, you are a part owner of the company. As a bondholder, you are a creditor.

    Essentially, ANYONE who buys a US Treasury Bond is buying an IOU. You don't own anything of the US; it's simply a promise that you own. It's secured only by the word of the US Government; there aren't any tangible assets securing the bond.

    Do you follow now? It's a pledge from the bond issuer (the US government) to pay back the bond bearer (China in this example) in the future some fixed amount of money (greater than the purchase price, the difference being the interest).

    The bond bearer gets interest because of the RISK TAKEN. It's a loan of tangible items or cash for a promise to pay in the future.

    If anything, my example of a mortgage was too generous. It's more like going to a bank, asking for $100,000 to use as you see fit, and promising them you'll pay them back at some future date. Like a signature loan.

    You see, if the bond defaults, what does each side get? We get the tangible items we've already brought into the US; it's not like China will send the UN after us as a repo man!

    And if the bond defaults, what does China get? Nothing.

    If we default, sure it's MUCH harder for us to sell bonds in the future. But that doesn't pay off China's defaulted bonds, and that doesn't return the tangible items we've received.

    So when liberals bemoan the fact that China is buying lots of bonds, they're simply lacking a basic, fundamental understanding of economics. China is trading HARD ASSETS - electronics, textiles, car parts, airplane parts, etc. - for a simple promise to pay in the future.

    If the payment doesn't come, it's a LOT worse for them than it is for us. It is in their best interest to make sure that we don't default, or all those promises - bonds - they received are worthless.

    Do you understand now? Can I make it any simpler? China doesn't own us in any real sense of the word; however they are completely dependent upon us because their economy is based on our promises, and our continued issuance of promises to them for their durable goods.

    By Blogger Lynnwood Rooster, at 18 October, 2006 17:23  

  • Oh, and HeadHunter, also from that link:

    Governments and governmental agencies also use bonds to raise money. U.S. Treasury Bonds are the most secure investments in the world because the U.S. Government backs them with its “full faith and credit.”

    It's just OUR WORD that we'll pay back the money lent.

    Who stands to lose more in that situation? Will you loan me $10,000 in exchange for an IOU of $15,000 payable in 12 months? I promise I'll pay it back. I won't put up any real assets as collateral, but I'll give you my full faith and credit that I'll pay it back...

    Not willing to do that? Why not?

    By Blogger Lynnwood Rooster, at 18 October, 2006 17:25  

  • Perhaps you should go learn what a bond is. Here's a DIRECT QUOTE from this linked website:

    Hilarious. In desperation, you go to about.com to finally learn a little about government bonds after demonstrating you haven't got a clue. What's next? Investing for Dummies?

    The bond bearer gets interest because of the RISK TAKEN.

    If anything, my example of a mortgage was too generous. It's more like going to a bank, asking for $100,000 to use as you see fit, and promising them you'll pay them back at some future date. Like a signature loan.

    HA HA HA You're now equating US government bonds to signature loans. Does your ignorance and stupidity have any bounds?

    OK, einstein. If your stupid mortgage example was too generous, why are interest rates on mortgages (and/or signature loans) higher than yields on bonds? Moron!

    So when liberals bemoan the fact that China is buying lots of bonds, they're simply lacking a basic, fundamental understanding of economics. China is trading HARD ASSETS - electronics, textiles, car parts, airplane parts, etc. - for a simple promise to pay in the future.

    I really had trouble stopping myself from laughing after I read this stupidity. Let me see if I have this straight... you're now equating depreciating assets to US government securities that return a yield at maturity. LOL. Please... stop... you're just embarassing yourself.

    Will you loan me $10,000 in exchange for an IOU of $15,000 payable in 12 months? I promise I'll pay it back. I won't put up any real assets as collateral, but I'll give you my full faith and credit that I'll pay it back...

    You're not the US government with a AAA credit rating. You're just a stupid wingnut who hasn't got a clue.

    If you want to continue believing in the delusion that China's US debt holdings are of no consequence to us here in the US, then go ahead. If nothing else, it's giving me a good laugh.

    By Blogger HeadHunter, at 18 October, 2006 19:00  

  • HeadHunter,

    From the very beginning I've been stating a bond is a government issued IOU. Backed by nothing but the word of the government.

    You have an issue with that? Do you not agree? Are you that much of a dolt?

    By Blogger Lynnwood Rooster, at 19 October, 2006 01:49  

  • LR, are you stuck on stupid? Haven't you embarrassed yourself enough? Obviously not.

    LR: From the very beginning I've been stating a bond is a government issued IOU. Backed by nothing but the word of the government.

    Oh really? Let's go see.

    And what if they were to call for those bonds to get paid, and we said no? That crushes them. China is more beholden to us than we are to China, simple economics. Who stands to lose more if you default on your mortgage? You walk away - no more money lost. The bank stands to lose money - they paid for the house, not you. THAT is why they charge interest - to compensate for the risk!

    Nope. No mention that a bond is a "government issued IOU"... "backed by nothing but the word of the government." Just an fallacious assertion ignorantly equating US public debt to that of a common home mortgage... where somehow in wingnut fantasy-land the creditor is more beholden to the debtor than vice-versa... and where defaulting on this public debt has absolutely no consequences to the US whatsoever.

    Then later, you ignorantly equated US bonds to a signature loan. That gave us a good laugh.

    Then to cap off a stellar display in wingnut ignorance, you go on to equate US bonds to depreciating assets. That was truly hilarious.

    So no... your "from the very beginning blah blah blah..." statement is demonstrably false. You're not only ignorant... you're also a typically mendacious wingnut dweeb who is stupid enough to think others won't catch you lying.

    But please don't stop. Your ignorance is providing immense entertainment to us here at my office.

    By Blogger HeadHunter, at 19 October, 2006 08:36  

  • Head,

    You're being dishonest, and you know it...

    1. I never said it was a mortgage. Go read the original posts. I said what if you walk away from your mortgage? The bank takes a risk, that's why they charge interest. Just like why bonds carry interest, because of the risk.

    2. I specifically posted as clarifying to the hashfanatic:

    They understand how we're indebted to them, and that it's our promise put up against their goods.

    Right from the start I'm stating it's just our promise to pay, no tangible assets securing the loan.

    3. You still haven't answered the question, because if you do you know you'll be shown for the fraud you are:

    What secures a US Treasury Bond?

    If it's anything OTHER than the guarantee and promise of the US Government, I'm flat-out wrong.

    If it's ONLY the guarantee and promise - just the word - of the US Government, then you simply are be argumentative because I'm right.

    Face it - it's only our word against their goods. As I originally posted (and you so wonderfully ignored, just like a liberal - ignore those facts that show you to be wrong).

    Bottom line: both you and hashfanatic have been shown to be outright liars, unwilling to back up any of your claims...

    By Blogger Lynnwood Rooster, at 19 October, 2006 10:31  

  • It is absolutely hilarious watching a stupid wingnut desperately squirming around when confronted with their own ignorance and medacity.

    Let's repeat your own stupid words again.

    And what if they were to call for those bonds to get paid, and we said no? That crushes them. China is more beholden to us than we are to China, simple economics. Who stands to lose more if you default on your mortgage? You walk away - no more money lost. The bank stands to lose money - they paid for the house, not you. THAT is why they charge interest - to compensate for the risk!

    Let's go through each ignorant statement one by one.

    And what if they were to call for those bonds to get paid, and we said no?

    US treasury bonds cannot be "called" to get paid. They are either redeemed upon maturity, or they are sold and bought on the secondary market. These words simply betray your ignorance of bonds and public debt securities.

    That crushes them. China is more beholden to us than we are to China, simple economics.

    You have absolutely no idea. If the US defaulted on it's public debt, we would be crushed; the US dollar would become worthless overnight, interest rates would treble, the banking system would completely shut down, and most people would be laid off within weeks without access to cash. To suggest that the US can simply default on it's public debt that is held by China whenever it wants is just a deluded wingnut's fantasy.

    Who stands to lose more if you default on your mortgage? You walk away - no more money lost.

    Walk away, huh? You would walk away with nothing. The bank would try to recover any losses by stripping you of any assets/wealth you have. And now it's harder to declare bankruptcy, it will be much harder to evade their claims.

    The bank stands to lose money - they paid for the house, not you.

    Through foreclosure the house will be sold at auction. The bank will try to recover market value for the property and any other losses from your hide. The bank will still be in business, you would be moving back in with mommy. If you still had a job, the bank would have your salary/wages garnished.

    THAT is why they charge interest - to compensate for the risk!

    Again, US government bonds carry neglible credit risk despite your delusional fantasy that there is a risk that the US government would default on it's debt.

    Despite your hilarious attempts to spin it otherwise, your original words plainly show that you ignorantly equated the defaulting on US public debt to that of defaulting on a common mortgage... that somehow a creditor is more beholden to the debtor... that there are no consequences to the US if it defaults on it's public debt. Your original words did NOT state "from the very beginning" that "bonds were an IOU"..."backed by nothing but the word of the US government" as you so mendaciously claimed.

    They understand how we're indebted to them, and that it's our promise put up against their goods.

    And again, this statement is unintelligible nonsense. Bonds are security instruments on loans to the US government. They are in no way connected to commercially traded goods.

    3. You still haven't answered the question, because if you do you know you'll be shown for the fraud you are:

    What secures a US Treasury Bond?

    =mindless blather snipped=


    A US treasury bond is a security instrument backed by the the credit-worthiness of the US government (current credit-rating AAA). It is NOT simply a matter of someone's word or promise.

    Face it - it's only our word against their goods.

    Again this statement is unintelligible. There is no connection between US government bonds and commercially traded goods.

    As I originally posted (and you so wonderfully ignored, just like a liberal - ignore those facts that show you to be wrong).

    Just like a typical wingnut, it is NOT a fact. It is nothing but ignorant nonsense.

    Bottom line: both you and hashfanatic have been shown to be outright liars, unwilling to back up any of your claims...

    Only according to your delusional wingnut logic.

    Any more ignorant blather to share?

    By Blogger HeadHunter, at 19 October, 2006 12:27  

Post a Comment

<< Home



 
Page Rank Checker

Powered by Blogger