What is Melanie Morgan's email address?

Planning to write Melanie Morgan and complain about her calling for the hanging of editors? Be advised she really doesn't care what you think. (audio link)

Here is Melanie Morgan's email address: melaniemorgan @ abc-sf.com

Since she said most of her emails are from liberal nuts, copy ol' Spocko and I'll publish a few here, I doubt you are all nuts, maybe just her supporters. spockosemail @ gmail.com

And don't bother to write Jack Swanson, the Operations Director at KSFO either. He is her husband. You probably won't have any luck writing KSFO's President, Michael "Mickey" Luckoff either. He developed the KSFO Hot Talk Format and protected and supported Michael Savage during his reign at KSFO.

You might want to write John Hare at ABC Radio, but since he hasn't fired Brian Sussman for calling for the death of 10 million Muslims, demanding a caller "Say Allah is a whore" or discussing cutting off an Iraqi's finger and then their penis, you might not have much luck with him either. I guess they are waiting for something REALLY offensive or someone REALLY important to complain.

IF you do write ABC Radio (currently owned by Disney) here are some emails.

John Hare, President ABC Radio
john . hare @ abc . com

Mike Connolly, SVP sales
Michael . t. connolly @ abc . com

John Rosso, SVP Affiliate Relations and Business Administration
john . rosso @ abc . com

I do encourage you to write the advertisers at KSFO. I've been writing the advertisers on Brian Sussman's show (Morgan's sometimes co-host in the morning) to point out his outrageous statements.

A FEW POSITIVE WORDS

Quite a few smart advertisers don't want to support this kind of speech once they are aware of it. It just doesn't match their view of themselves. Of special note as a GREAT former advertiser is Bank of America. After hearing what Sussman was saying they pulled ALL their advertising from KSFO. Good for them. Most recently Mastercard pulled their ads from Sussman's show. I also want to acknowledge the good people at Borders Books, and Wendi Friesen at wendi.com the wonderful clinical hypnotherapist who doesn't like to be associated with this kind of talk either. Maybe Morgan should listen to some of her anger management tapes!

I don't track all the advertisers on Morgan's show, but here are two to get you started that I know about because another of Morgan's co-hosts, Officer Vic, read the ads on the air.

Chase Visa. Write Visa International. Write the people in charge of advertising.

Write Chevrolet not only about Morgan, but because they mock Chevy.

What is astonishing is not only do the hosts call for the death of editors and Muslims, they also MOCK THEIR OWN ADVERTISERS.

Now maybe it's just me, but when one of the hosts calls the cars that Chevy makes SHITTY, ON THE AIR, (audio link) I would think twice about advertising on that show. All morning they were calling the Spare the Air program "Scare the Air" and talking about activities to pollute the environment. Sussman of course mocks Chevrolet/GMs environmental goals by lumping them in with polluting leaf blowers. I'm sure Elizabeth A. Lowery, GM Vice President, Environment and Energy really doesn't appreciate her cars being categorized as polluters.

Ed Peper -- Chevrolet general manager

ed . peper @ gm . com

Brent Dewar -- GM North America Vice President, Field Sales Service and Parts

w. w. brent.dewar @ gm . com

Roderick D. Gillum -- GM Vice President, Corporate Responsibility and Diversity

roderick . d. gillum @ gm . com

Elizabeth A. Lowery -- GM Vice President, Environment and Energy

elizabeth . a. lowery @ gm . com

Steven J. Harris -- GM Vice President, Global Communications

steven . j. harris @ gm . com

Michael A. Jackson -- GM North America Vice President, Marketing and Advertising

michael . a . jackson @ gm . com

Megan Stooke-- Director, Advertising & Sales Promotion Chevrolet

megan . stooke @ gm . com


(Hey, the "Chevy = Shitty" audio clip during the WSJ segment is a twofer! Write the FCC about this one! Especially Pat who emailed Morgan and was mocked by Morgan for what she said in the paper. This will be one way to wipe that smug grin off her face as she ridicules you for being offended by her comments.)

Please copy ol' Spocko with your letters at spockosemail @ gmail.com


My guess is ABC won't care until the revenue drops by 70%. Why? Because then it might impact the selling price that Citadel pays for buying the station. If I was Farid Suleman I'd demand a discount on a station that isn't performing.

Oh, and ABC folks, I've told you time and time again that you need to reign in or fire these people and that it will cost you if you don't.

Remember those new FCC rules and fines that the Republican congress just passed and that Bush signed into law? Well Officer Vic isn't going to have to pay the potential $315,000 fine for swearing. YOU ARE. Now I'm guessing that he won't get a $315,000 fine, but since there are never any consequences for the hosts, they don't care if they put a dent in your bottom line with future fines.

BTW, I just heard what "getting into trouble" is for the hosts. Sussman is referring to the email he gets! Well NOW I understand. I guess that means, no written warnings from his co-host's husband, no financial hits from Mickey Luckoff. So clearly they have no incentive to change as long as the ratings comes in the door. It must be those Unions that Sussman hates so much that are protecting him. He should get on his knees and thank that vengeful gun toting god he has created for his union contract lawyer!

Finally, since none of these people have "gotten into trouble" for their transgressions, you have no one to blame but yourselves when advertisers leave or fines come. Sorry, I tried to warn you. Don't blame the messenger. (But I know you will, it's what you do.)

Bush chose not to stop the publication of the Times story

I found this comment in Greg Sargent's column in the Huffington Post very interesting.

The administration had been in discussions with Keller trying to persuade the Times not to run the story. Before it was published, Keller declined and gave them advance warning. They did nothing.

If the administration thought the story would truly hurt the nation's security, they would have gone to court to enjoin its publication. If they actually thought they could succeed in court.

The fact is that they knew there was nothing illegal about what the Times did, and all the screeching about prosecuting Keller and the paper is bs. What the MSM should do is tell the administration to put up or shut up, and explain why they took no legal action to prevent publication of this story. By: NewtonMinnow on June 30, 2006 at 12:56pm

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/greg-sargent/right-wing-talk-show-host_b_24125.html

Think about it. Given the power that Bush has claimed (and given) time and time again under the Patriot And the ability to go to court to block this, why didn't they?

Because when it ran they could blame the media. I think that would be a good question from the press to Tony Snow.

"You were in discussions with the NY Times (and the WSJ and the LA Times) about this story. If it was so dangerous why didn't you just go to court and block it under your powers of the Patriot Act?"

Greg Sargent's current story about Morgan's call for Keller's death is here

When the Vulcan's Away, the Hosts will Play (but never Pay)

So I take a trip to Vulcan for a few days and when I come back I see the new PR person and program director for KSFO has gotten busy with promotion of the station and their talk radio hosts. Good for you!

I heard that while I was away the PR person got Sussman back on TV! I heard that Fox 2 KTVU and NBC 11 came by to film the "controversial" Sussman as the voice of "sane conservative reason" to those crazy Berkeley folks. I'm sorry I missed it. And of course the PR person must have counted on KTVU and NBC doing no research on Sussman and his other "sane" views like wanting to kill 10 million Muslims, his pro-torture views or even his greatest hit, demanding that a caller say, "Allah is a whore." Way to go PR person! You know that controversy sells! TV loves it! Advertisers, not so much.

Frankly I was getting tired of doing all the heavy lifting promoting your shows. I mean Michael Black said that I was getting him all sorts of juicy contacts so now I don't have to feel bad about writing the advertisers to alert them to Sussman's incitement of violence toward Muslims. So since I have his blessing, I'll continue to alert the advertisers while you promote Sussman and the rest of the programs.

Maybe you would like it if I thought bigger? I mean Michael Black's doppelganger said I should fry bigger fish. I'll start alerting advertisers about Melanie Morgan's calling for the death of Bill Keller if you like. Maybe I should write the New York Times like I did the LA Times when she claimed they doctored their photos. (BTW, did she ever do an on air correction? Like the LA
Times requested?)

Plus the "elite team" of sales professionals has to make so many new contacts to replace the dozen or so advertisers that have left that I'm sure they appreciate getting KSFO's hosts out there beyond the blogosphere. Just a quick tip though, be careful of who you promote to whom. If you want coverage in the LA Times, NY Times or Wall Street Journal they might not take to kindly to Melanie Morgan saying "Hang 'em". (audio link) But other than that, go crazy!

I mean I think that the big story for the WSJ would be "Right Wing Host loses a Dozen Advertisers Over Hate Speech." but that's just my opinion. That's the boring "financial consequences of hate speech" story. Yawn. Besides, you don't want to point out to people the REASONS why the advertisers pulled their ads. But hey, you guys are good at spinning I'm sure you could turn it to your benefit.

Because it's all about ratings baby! Promote that hate speech! Cash in on the rants of a man calling for the torture of an Iraqis by cutting off their fingers and then their penises! Hey I understand. You might not know how to Google key phrases. To use a favorite line of Rice and Cheney, "There is no way we could have anticipated" Sussman or Morgan would say terrible things (even though I've been writing about them for months)! When they say the next terrible thing while KTVU is in the studio or when you lose the next advertiser, or get an FCC fine remember, it isn't about YOU. You are JUST PROMOTING them. YOU didn't actually say it.


Like Black, you can tell yourself that you are just supporting "the conservative agenda." Or if you can't wrap your mind around that, you are supporting what you think is free speech. Or maybe you will use the new catch all phrase of the right, "We are at war! Terrible things happen in war!" Right, that totally justifies your hosts suggesting atrocities and promoting murder. (Even the ARMY doesn't think that war crimes are a good thing, but what does the Army know?). And when calling for the death of 10 million Muslims isn't enough, time to get specific and call for the death of American journalists as Melanie Morgan did this week. On the radio she just said, "Hang 'em!" (once again, the audio link)

Because as we have seen there are NO consequences to calling for the death of one person, a group of people or millions on KSFO. (And it appears the hosts never feel the consequences of losing advertisers, according to Black it is just the poor hourly employees and the sales people. I guess that the hosts hate them too since they don't care if what they say costs them advertisers.)

Now of course in the newspaper (SF Chronicle Joe Garofoli, Chronicle Staff Writer
Thursday, June 29, 2006) she qualified her statement:

San Francisco talk show host Melanie Morgan believes that Times editor Bill Keller should be jailed for treason for approving the publication.

The maximum penalty for treason is death.

"If he were to be tried and convicted of treason, yes, I would have no problem with him being sent to the gas chamber," Morgan, whose show airs on KSFO-AM, told The Chronicle on Wednesday. "It is about revealing classified secrets in the time of war. And the media has got to take responsibility for revealing classified information that is putting American lives at risk."

Morgan of course was busy trying to smoke a stogie on the beach in Hawaii and probably didn't remember that her President has been promoting these programs since 2001. Nothing like ignoring the facts to get in the way of a nice juicy sound bite. As Morgan said on Hardball when Matthews pointed out that terrorists knew about this a long time ago, (as reported in WSJ reporter Ron Suskind's book.) "That doesn't matter to me."

Oh, and Melanie, if people who disclose this are guilty of treason does that mean Bush is too?

That terrorist organizations would be aware of international efforts to track their finances is not surprising, as Bush administration officials have publicly touted the government's capability to do so for years. For instance, shortly after 9-11, Bush heralded the establishment of a "foreign terrorist asset tracking center at the Department of the Treasury to identify and investigate the financial infrastructure of the international terrorist networks."

On November 7, 2001, then-Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill announced
that the United States, along with an "international coalition," had begun "to
block assets, to seize books, records and evidence, and to follow audit trails
to track terrorist cells poised to do violence to our common interests." In a
September 10, 2004, statement, the Treasury Department disclosed "some of the many weapons used against terrorist networks," which included "following money trails to previously unknown terrorist cells." An April 2006 Treasury Department report similarly noted that the department "follows the terrorists' money trails
aggressively, exploits them for intelligence, and severs links where we can."

Even SWIFT's cooperation in these efforts was a matter of public knowledge. Indeed, a United Nations working group learned years ago of the Treasury Department's use of SWIFT and noted the tactic in a December 2002 report. The consortium's own website notes its "history of cooperating in good faith with authorities such as central banks, treasury departments, law enforcement agencies and appropriate international organizations, such as the Financial Action Task Force (FATF), in their efforts to combat abuse of the financial system for illegal activities."

The Bush administration has repeatedly touted its role as one of the 29 nations working with the FATF "to deny terrorist access to the world financial system."

(Media Matters)

As is typical with this administration, when in doubt go after the messenger. And the right wing radio programs are happy to help.

On Hardball Morgan said, "There are certain responsibilities that comes with being a journalist." But as she knows, at KSFO there are NO responsibilities that come with being a radio host.

It appears that at the commercially supported broadcast radio station KSFO, owned by ABC/Disney, it is quite acceptable to call for the hanging death of Bill Keller and other journalists at the LA Times and the Wall Street Journal for writing about a program that the administration had promoted since 2001.

You are nothing but a "Chameleon Lemon-headed Coward Terrorist Pussy!"

This is for my Friday Funny Video, sorry I'm late but I try only to include videos so funny that they make you cry.

The video is funny, but be sure to read the comments at You Tube, they really add to your video enjoyment experience.

Olbermann video exposes Santorum's faulty Logic

From Keith O and the good people at http://www.santorumexposed.com/pages/video/Countdown.php
And thanks to Betmo for keeping on top of this nut. I have smaller fish to fry.

Defense to Santorum “not the WMD’s for which this country went to war.”

Not that anyone goes to Fox News or Brian Sussman for the facts or anything but those WMDs Rick "man on dog" Santorum was talking about?

Defense Department Disavows Santorum’s WMD Claims

Glen Greenwald has more here and how they are spinning this on the right(link)

Of course if they are really that hot, then let's get Bush out there spinning them up! I would think he would WELCOME the chance to trumpet some GOOD NEWS from Iraq!

Unless of course it is bullshit so huge even they can't sell it.

Why did you use that reason?

There was a great article in April 10th issue of the New Yorker. It was by Malcolm Gladwell (of Tipping Point fame) and it was about Columbia University scholar Charles Tilly’s book “Why?”.

It’s a fascinating article.

“Tilly sets out to make sense of our reasons for giving reasons. Tilly postulates that we rely on four general categories of reasons. "
1) Conventions –conventionally accepted explanations
2) Stories –what distinguishes a story is a very specific account of cause and effect
3) Codes –high-level conventions, formulas that invoke sometimes recondite procedural rules and categories
4) Technical accounts: stories informed by specialized knowledge and authority.


It has a nice analysis of the types of reasons that were given following Dick Cheney shooting Harry Whittingon in the face. What is interesting is that people don't always use the same types of reasons. It depends of our relation to the person we are talking to. "Reason -giving Telly says, reflects, establishes, repairs and negotiates relationships."

http://www.newyorker.com/critics/content/articles/060410cr_books

Friday Funny Video: Stephen Colbert Asks Congressman Westmoreland: "What are the Ten Commandments?"

Studies have shown that you can tell people's true feelings in "micro-expressions" that flash across a face for less than a 15th of a second.

"These expressions tend to be very extreme and very fast," said Paul Ekman, professor of psychology at the University of California, San Francisco, School of Medicine and an expert in the physiology of emotion and nonverbal communication. "Eighty to 90 percent of people we tested don't see them." (link)

Here are a few microexpressions captured in this video where Stephen "I've got Balls!" Colbert interviews Congressman Lynn Westmoreland. (click on any photo to see the video. Total time: 4:26, Windows video) See if you spotted all Westmoreland's microexpressions.

First the "George W. Bush" Smug smirk. The "You can't touch me" look.



Next the "Here's my cute little answer for you." Mr. Fake TV Reporter



Then Colbert asks him to name the ten commandments, after all he co-sponsored a bill that would have requiring display of the ten commandment in the house of representatives and the senate.


I didn't quite catch the widening of the eyes, the fear that flashed across his face, but this frame is close.




Colbert holds up his fingers to mark the successful recitation of each one.




Looking up and to the left, this is where most people's eyes go when they are trying to recall something or are making something up (or just plain lying). A good reporter looks for these expressions when talking to politicians.




Now notice how he gets two of the big ones, and is hoping the teacher will cut him some slack for trying and let him off the hook. Maybe even lead him into the "right" answer with a leading question. Of course most "good" MSM reporters would have done this almost unconsciously. It is part of the timid script they are expected to follow in their quest for "balance". They would never do what Colbert did. Why make him look like an idiot? You might need access to him again some day because you HAVE to keep coming back to him. It is your job. Not exposing the idiot. Just getting his quote.

People have an OLD idea of how the press does their job with politicians based on the days of beating up Clinton. They don't do it for Republicans because they will get harassed for it and punished with loss of access. See Eric Boehlert's great book, Lapdogs for documentation of this.






He gets one! "Don't Murder."




He gets another, "Don't lie." Good one for a Congressman to know and follow.




Still searching his brain, hoping the teacher will excuse him and ask one of the other boys.




He gets a third, "Don't steal." Yet another one good for a Republican Congressman (or any party for that matter) to remember.



That's it. That's all he can remember. Clearly this shows just WHY they should be up in the halls of Congress. That is why he co-sponsored his bill. (See, I'm helping him out with his spin here, just like a good main stream reporter or talk show host.)

And I especially love his "What do you expect of me? I'm an idiot!" look.


I hope you enjoyed this quick tour of microexpressions of politicians. I'd like to thank Crooks and Liars for hosting the video and Paul Ekman for his groundbreaking work on documenting how observant people can tell when they are being lied to.

What is especially interesting about Ekman's work is how many people CAN'T figure this out. People THINK they are a good judge of this, but most aren't. If you have seen his videos you can train yourself to better spot these microexpressions.

And finally, a brief Vulcan hand sign to a friend who is away from home but is still checking in on Spocko's Brain. Glad you are checking in and hope you can see the video.

You can't spell Evolution without Love

Rhythm Of Life [Album: Motion Picture Soundtrack: Sweet Charity (Decca Broadway)]
Cy Coleman

Commercial for Guiness created by Abbott Mead Vickers BBDO
Click on the photo for the Quicktime version or the click on the button below for the windows video media below. And because I want to acknowledge the creators and animators behind this:
Agency Producer Yvonne Chalkley
Creatives Ian Heartfield, Matt Doman
Production Company Kleinman Productions
Director Daniel Kleinman
Production Company Producer Johnnie Frankel
Editor Steve Gandolfi

VFX Framestore CFC
Telecine Framestore CFC
Post Producer Scott Griffin

3 commit Suicide at Gitmo

3 prisoners hang selves at U.S. navy's Guantanamo camp

Now I'm sure that the right wing radio hosts will be searching diligently for people on the left who aren't sufficiently filled with glee over this new development. Okay ya got me. I just can't get up joyful blood lust over people hanging themselves with bedsheets.

After al-Zarqawi was killed, the right wing radio hosts were on the look out for people not showing sufficient excitement and glee over his death. Everyone should have been holding giant foam fingers over their heads canting "We're number one!" while smearing al-Zarqawi's blood on their face like demented fans at a high school football game.

And they truly went wild over Michael Berg's comments. (Audio interview from the Ed Schultz show. MP3 format 14 minutes.) They couldn't understand how anyone, especially someone who was actually personally impacted by al-Zarqawi violence, wouldn't want to whoop it up upon hearing of al-Zarqawi's death.

And if someone, like Richard Clarke, they guy who was RIGHT ABOUT WHO WAS BEHIND 9/11, points out a simple fact like despite his international infamy, Zarqawi controlled only one of 14 major insurgent groups. They really lose it.

"Zarqawi had several hundred foreign fighters out of somewhere between 20,000
and 40,000 insurgents," Clarke said.

Clarke conceded that al-Zarqawi's death will not hasten the end of the war in Iraq.

"Unfortunately for the loved ones of troops over in Iraq, this is not going to mean a big difference," said Clarke.

I DON'T WANT TO HEAR THAT! Please don't mess up my narrative fantasy. I do NOT want to read:

Car Bombings Continue
But any hopes the Jordanian-born terror leader's death would help stem the violence in Iraq were dimmed hours later when a car bomb exploded in a Baghdad market, killing 12 and wounding 65

So speaking about stuff people don't want to hear, who was/is in Gitmo and why? We have a little info about the men who hanged themselves. But here is a question for you: How many of these people who supposedly were there for being "enemy combatants" were released because they were incorrectly rounded up? Or they were of such low value they should have never gone there in the first place?

Answer?
In a letter to Diane Feinstein Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense Matthew Waxman reportedly wrote that, as of April 2005, "167 [Guantánamo] prisoners had been released and 67 had been transferred to the custody of other countries." The 167 detainees released were presumably found not to be terrorists, as in the cases of Abdul Rahim and Mamdouh Habib. Both men were captured in Pakistan following September 11, 2001. The U.S. later transferred them to Guantánamo, where they remained for more than two years, accused -- but never charged -- of involvement in terrorist activities. In 2005, the United States released them without charge.
-- Media Matters

I agree with Michael Hampton over at Homeland Stupidity:

Don’t mistake my position: anyone who is a terrorist actively engaged in plotting or executing a terrorist attack against us should be rounded up, held, and tried.

But some of these people DIDN'T belong there. We have hard numbers from Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense Matthew Waxman that some where not a threat. I'm not making that up. We never hear about the ones released. What was the deal with them? We may never know. On purpose. And yes, I know that at least seven were found to be involved in terrorist related program activities after they were released, but it raises the question, were they a terrorist now BECAUSE of Gitmo?

It appears the three that hung themselves were terrorists. But the according to the number of people released and wrongly held, they could just as easily have been people who weren't terrorists and had fallen in to a despair so deep that suicide seemed like the only way out. And that's really nothing to cheer about.

Lerner: Resisting the Assault on Homosexuals

“We realize that many Americans are legitimately concerned about the increase in selfishness, looking out for number one, materialism and extreme individualism that make it hard for people to sustain loving relationships. When people are only looking out for number one, families lose their sense of shared purpose and many people feel scared that the family, the only institution in our whole society that has the official goal of providing you with safety and security, is actually collapsing around us. Those fears are legitimate—but they are not caused by gays and lesbians who themselves are wanting to build strong families and would do so if the laws gave them the right to marry and build lasting families. People learn the selfishness and materialism because the work all day in an economy, often in huge corporations, that teach them that the “real world” is governed by a Bottom Line of money and power, and that your worth in the world depends on how much you can show your boss that directly or indirectly you will contribute to this materialistic bottom line.

“Do this year after year, learning to see others primarily in terms of how they can be of use for you so that you can maximize your own well-being, and no wonder that people come home each day believing that what is rational is just to look out for number one. And that makes love and commitment very difficult to sustain. So if we want strong families, we are not going to get them by attacking gays and lesbians or denying them the right to families—in fact, we’re all better off when they themselves want families instead of staying in the marketplace of relationships and playing around. We should want them to have families, just as we want our heterosexual friends to have the benefits of families.

“But to sustain families, we need something totally different: we need A New Bottom Line in America so that institutions and corporations and government practices and laws get judged to be efficient and productive and rational not just because they maximize money or power, but also to the extent that they maximize love and caring, kindness and generosity, ethical and ecological sensitivity. Lets build a society that encourages us to see every other person as an embodiment of the sacred, and encourages us to respond to the grandeur of the universe with awe, gratitude and radical amazement.

“First step: oppose restrictions on gay and lesbian rights, and vote out of office people who are trying to divert your attention from the real struggle against selfishness and materialism to the phony struggle against gays and lesbians. Whatever political party they happen to be in.


"This public service message comes to you from the Network of Spiritual Progressives. We are a non-partisan force that seeks a world of love, generosity and kindness. Join us, and read our Spiritual Covenant with America on line at www.spiritualprogressives.org. We are the real pro-family voice in America.”

--Rabbi Michael Lerner
National chair of the NSP. Co-chairs: Cornel West and Benedictine Sister Joan Chittister



But of course Bush needs to keep that Gay Hatery™ coming. (Trademark Holden, First Draft)

Chittister: It's not about same sex marriage

Joan Chittister: From Where I Stand

According to the Republicans, at least, the single most important issue in the United States right now is same-sex marriage. In a society where more people seem to be trying to get out of marriage than they are trying to get into it.

Or, closer to the truth, maybe, the most important thing for the party in power is its ability to manipulate this issue to the forefront of the electoral agenda. If that can be done, of course, it will be possible to divert attention from other issues here like U.S. integrity in Guantanamo Bay, secret torture centers, military massacres of Iraqi civilians, the over-extension of presidential power, the moral necessity of the continuous deaths and wounding of U.S. soldiers, and the underlying question of what we are doing in Iraq in the first place.

[snip]
Morality is certainly a major issue in the United States today. But what morality? All of it or only some of it?

From where I stand, the issue of same-sex marriage is not at the base of U.S. decline today. At the base of U.S. moral deterioration today is political oligarchy, corporate greed and the complete breakdown of the kind of morality that is not only social but civil and Christian. That kind of morality, unfortunately, we haven’t seen for years, even from some of our moralists

(Emphasis added)

I've been a fan of Sister Joan ever since I saw her on Now (one of the best programs on PBS) Check out the whole column here (link)

You might also want to read the book, Just War, Lasting Peace: What Christian Tradition Can Teach Us (Orbis). Sister Joan was part of the symposium on which the book is based.

Yet another Pepsi Memto's video

Kids DON'T try this at home! Do it outside at the very least. Seriously, those of you in positions of responsibility for children, really don't do this. Don't even attempt it. I'm not kidding.

Jon Stewart and Bill Bennett discuss Gay Marriage

For my friend who likes videos, here is an interesting one.

I appreciate Jon's view of the natural progression of the human condition. And of course coming from a union of a Vulcan and a human (They said it would never work! Sarak is an ALIEN! Amanda is a HUMAN! Luckily people were more enlightened about these things on my planet, unlike here.)

kudos to Candleblog for finding the clip.

Advertise on KSFO? On Sussman's show? Not MasterCard anymore!

Good news! Yet another fine corporation has determined that the Brian Sussman show doesn't reflect favorably on their brand image. A big Vulcan hand sign to one of Spocko's Brain surgeons for his work on this one.

Good for you MasterCard! Thanks to Washington Mutual for passing on this info to MasterCard and thanks to the Vice President of Communications of MasterCard for not supporting hate speech. You will be pleased to know that by stopping your advertising on this program you were able to avoid Sussman's gay bashing on today's program. So your decision has already paid off in goodwill by not pissing off the gay community in San Francisco.

MasterCard has said, "we have no future plans to air advertising on this program. " Of course based on what we heard from Mr. Black's doppelganger, the only people this will effect are the poor hourly workers at KSFO. That's sad. But that is the Neocon way.
They stir the pot, get their cash or cash for their cronies and let the little people take the financial hits.

At some point you would think that Higher Ups at ABC radio would notice, but maybe since the ad rates on the Sussman show are going at such fire sale prices, losing MasterCard as an advertiser won't be noticed on any spreadsheets.

Someone is subsidising this show, or using the revenue from Hannity and Rush to cover for it. I guess this is just another case of the "WingNut Welfare" that we have heard so much about. When Sussman gets his project funded by ExxonMobil's front group, the Competitive Enterprise Institute or some such shady organization maybe he can hire some of the little people to help him, seeing as his hating ways might have cost them their jobs.

Oh and in further good news. I welcome Pope Bandar bin Turtle as my 23 reader! Enjoy the show!

Video Dark Side of the Moon Dancing in Closet

Ernesto vs Bastian: Dark Side of the Moon


In honor of George W. Bush trying to push Gays back in the closet, here is a cool video of a couple of girls dancing in a closet.

Gay marriage. Good for Gays. Good for Straights. Good for Americans.

Get off the DAMN SHED! Friday Funny Video

I woke up with the phrase "GET OFF THE SHED!" in my ears. I don't why, but I think it was a sign. From who, I have no idea.

Thanks to "The Travisty" for hosting the video"
Will Ferrell andChristine Baranski on SNL