mikemcgann.org

So, I did my first MeanMcMikey PowerHour Internet Radio Show today and to be blunt, it sucked.

Aside from the fact that I rambled, a lot, there was a 10-minute plus zone of dead air, due to my misunderstanding out the whole setup worked. The second half of the show went better, especially when people called in, but it was nothing Marconi-worthy.

Still, if you are glutton for punishment, you can listen to it by clicking on the little play button up there at the upper left. And yes, I wrote and recorded the theme music.

I’m still thinking about some of the topics for next week, so if you have a suggestion, feel free to comment (and these ought to be, uh, interesting to read).

One of the cool things about the Internet is how it is changing traditional media. We all get blogging (and millions of people do it, including the couple of dozen or do it well – sorry cheap professional writer joke there) but as I expected, the next generation, talkradio, is here now. While a number of companies have offered the ability to stream your live audio on the net, generally from my experience it has cost about $300 a month (I co-hosted a show on baseball like that, which had all of six listeners).

At noon, on Tuesday, you’ll be able to hear my live, uncensored debut on BlogTalkRadio and my new show, The MeanMcMikey PowerHour.

Better yet, you’ll be able to call in at (646) 652-4985 and join me on the air (’Net, Audioblogosphere, something)  with your questions and comments. Archived versions of the show will be available here in case you can’t listen in live.

Will anyone listen?

I don’t much care if people think I’m a mean, nasty person, so once again, I’ve pulled out the mean stick. Again.

This is why people don’t take liberals seriously. Oooh. Don’t spank your kids, it’s all mean, and stuff. Oh, and this is so reasonable these folks won’t even allow comments or debate — because, you know, they’re right. I’m a liberal, as you know, but reading this site makes me want to join the NRA. That’s mostly because it continues the errant perception that Liberals are Morons. Most of us aren’t. But monkeys, and there goes that word again, monkeys like this are just killing us.

Because of people like this, we’re at war in Iraq, lack proper healthcare and are seeing our jobs vaporize to India and elsewhere.

Anyone who has actually parented children know this: you cannot negotiate with a two-year-old. It’s not going to happen. Ever. Hell, there are some adults I know that you can’t negotiate with, so why do we think it’s okay to sit little little Johnny down and say: "Johnny, it was very, very bad to flush your baby sister in the toilet. I think you should think about it and maybe write a 5,000-word essay about it."

Johnny’s response: "(toddler giggle) Cookie!" Afterwhich, he immediately flushes your Rolex down the loo.

As someone who knows from abuse — my father beat the crap out of me when I was a  kid — I hate spanking kids because of it. I also know it needs to happen once in a while — but that doesn’t make me any less glad that my kids are old enough now to benefit from other forms of punishment, such as time outs, extra chores, loss of TV and so on and spanking might finally be something in the past.

But it’s clear these folks can’t be talked to, yet they want to run my life and tell me how to raise my children. Ironic when we on the left complain so much about wanting "hands off" when it comes to abortion, medical marijuana, and other issues. In my opinion, the authoritarian left is worse than the authoritarian right, because at least the right makes no pretense about being fascist, where these psuedo Maoists want to impose their ideas of peace and love (such as they are) on everyone else.

So once again, I am forced to support spanking this monkey. Unless, of course, they enjoy it.

I wrote a piece today about DirecTV’s alleged deal with Major League Baseball for exclusive rights, and in my usual, low-key subtle way, I suggested that both companies were run by monkeys.

A friend, reading this, suggested some might take this as being racist — in light of comments made by the late Howard Cosell a couple of decades back, I think, about Lionel Manuel (correction, actually, Alvin Garrett — d’oh), a small, African-American wide out.

And while it was the fashion for a long time for white people to claim that black people — or anyone they wanted to exploit, for that matter — were really "less evolved" than white people, and really more like monkeys than people. This justified all kinds of neato things such a slavery, and well, pretty everything that happened in the Belgian Congo at the end of the 19th century (look in the dictionary under "horrific" for details).

But let’s be honest, and I’m not really specifically talking about the chimp, uhm, decider in chief (who is clearly so devolved that one-celled animals won’t return his calls), but the more common, MBA-holding, Hummer-driving, white male. Monkeys. Sure, they look like humans, with their expensive suits and $200 haircuts, but inside there, in the brain pan: all monkey. Like their cousins in the wild, they eat all the bananas today (and throw the rest around like toys) and don’t worry about tomorrow.

Hence, why the non-monkey portion of the economy is struggling and once-solid companies are in the tank.

Eventually, the rest of us will figure out how to lure all the monkeys (see, George, and you were worried you’d have nothing to do after 2008) to the island from "Lost" with kegs of Miller Lite (beer for monkeys), Hummers and the chick from the Vonage commercial who wants to go swimming with the "dolphins."

I talk to NBC10’s Harry Hairston and his handling of a story about a New Jersey school district showing third graders a video that dared to mention families with gay parents.

http://www.ihateitall.com/bm/media/breaking-news-philly-tv-station-handles-tough-issu.shtml

I was worried about some aspects of the story, but after a talk with Hairston — a really nice guy — I have a better handle on how the story went down and was surprised, albeit pleasantly, by his enthusiasm for the story.

I find it interesting how easily people are willing to throw other people’s lives away.

Sure, about 70 percent of people in the U.S oppose sending more troops to Iraq, or starting a new war with Syria and/or Iran. But that means about 90 million Americans fall into the pro-surge category. Sorting out children, old people and the infirm, that means there’s somewhere between 10 and 20 million Americans of military age should be available for military service.

Yet, I note no "surge" in enlistments. How can this be?

During World War II, people lied, cheated and scammed their way into the military — underage, with health issues — because they believed in the mission. Hitler was evil and World War II was probably the closest thing to a "just war" in the 20th Century. So where are those who believe in the Iraq mission? Granted, some number of them are in uniform, fighting and maybe even dying, so God bless them.

But since we know the full military these days is only a little more than a million, where is everyone else? I see a lot of right-wing bloggers busy rousting up posts. I don’t see them putting of the uniform and deploying to Baghdad.

And I think that tells you a lot. My time in politics taught me a couple of things, the most important being to judge people only by what they do, not what they say. Talk is cheap. If I believed in this war, which I’ve opposed since the fall of 2002, you can be damn sure I’d be doing something to support it. I’m too old, fat and banged up to serve in uniform, you can bet I’d find a way to have a role, much as my grandfather did in World War II: he served on a New York City defense council having been rejected for military service because of age.

So where are all you guys?

Belief isn’t allowing someone else or someone else’s son or daughter die for your cause, it’s being willing to die or allowing your son or daughter to die for it.

Nothing is more cynical than supporting a war as long as only other people die or other people’s kids die.

I used to laugh at the prospect of impeachment, thinking it was the goal of far-flung lunatic-fringe groups like the folks at democrats.com (not the party, mind you). I thought it would be bad for the left to pursue such a measure, equally pathetic as it was when the Republicans went after Bill Clinton over a minor, stupid issue.

But now, it seems like it might happen. Congress is dead-set against adding more troops to Iraq, with good reason. Bush won’t compromise and had spent the better part of the last six years usurping the power of the Congress with things like "signing statements" and so on. While the previous lapdog Congresses had little choice but to shut up and take it, this Congress doesn’t. With Bush a lame duck and the Congress controlled by the Democrats, we could be headed for a Constitutional crisis, as both branches fight over separation of powers.

Bush and his people seem accustomed to fighting against people unwilling to fight back (see: media, the) and seem confused that recent attempts to cow the Congress and Federal Judges seem to be backfiring. Instead of compromise, they dig their heels in deeper.

That’s where I see a crisis starting to build. Congress is prepared to fight over the surge and can tie the pursestrings of the president (which was intended by the framers to prevent any president from having dictatorial power) to stop the troop surge and force a gradual withdrawl. Furthermore, there might be enough votes in Congress to deauthorize the war in Iraq, which could then provoke a Constitutional crisis, as it is plainly spelled out that only Congress has to power to declare war.

I do think there is broad and popular support for the war to end. Anger at Bush and his unwillingness to face facts is growing among average people (I’m praying that the Secret Service has increased its protection of the man by a factor of 10, only because I’m very worried that some nut job will make an attempt — and while I very much disagree with him, I do not want to see anything happen to the man outside the legal system) so Congress, Democrats and Republicans, will feel emboldened to stand its ground and fight the president on the grounds of separation of powers and ultimately, as with Andrew Johnson, be willing to impeach him for ignoring the will of the Congress.

I fear very much for that and the impact it will have on our nation, but it seems almost inevitable.

I was tipped off to Wonkette’s abuse of Rep. David Wu (D-Washington) and to me, this was a perfect moment of blogging. A chick I wouldn’t have hired to write obits back in my newspaper days goes to great length to show how little she gets it by making fun of some relatively cogent comments by Wu on the house floor.

If you’ve missed the video which can be seen here, Wu talked about the "Vulcans" (the self-styled name of some of the let’s-invade-Iraq-for-fun-and-profit NeoCons in the White House, including the lovable Condi Rice). And suggested that instead these Neo-Cons are a bit more like  Klingons, because they are so blood thirsty. Yeah, a bit of a stretch, granted, but considering how boring and pointless most house speeches are, give the guy credit for reaching out. Wonky can’t help herself but run off the "we’re too cool for school" type of riff that makes people love folks inside the beltway so much.

OK, a bit of good-natured ribbing might be in order, if only because Klingons, as portrayed in the Star Trek universe had honor after a fashion, which the Neo-Cons do not, and technically, those Vulcans weren’t the pointy-eared variety like Mr. Spock (although there has been some debate about that, as a number of members of the original group saw themselves as logical), the official story claims that the name comes from a statue in Birmingham, Ala. (Rice’s hometown).

But here’s the problem, Wonkette gets all high and mighty and then proves she doesn’t know what the hell she’s talking about.  She tries to explain the Klingons as representing the Vietcong on TV, wanders through some vaguely anti-semitic remarks and largely makes herself look stupid.

C’mon Wonky. Ever heard of Wikipedia? The Romulans represented China, while the Klingons were supposed to be Soviet Russia. If you’re going to be smart-ass and snarky, do a little fact-checking.

See, this is problem with self-styled journalists becoming famous bloggers. What we’ve created here is the media version of the high school cafeteria cool kids table where’s it’s more important to have the cool put down than to get the facts right.

Edit: I failed to add a link to the original post out of, well, snarkiness. However, it was pointed out that this is probably poor form. So have at it.

Nothing startling here, but….over on NYBaseball Central, I have a new column about the media patting itself on the back for keeping Mark McGwire out of the Hall of Fame, this while missing (and sometimes actively preventing investigation in to steroid use in baseball) — and continuing to cheer on G.W. Bush’s death march through Iraq, and now maybe Iran.

The column can be found here. Feel free to comment on it here, or on my all-purpose forum, I hate it all.

I‘ve been surprised and delighted how my screed about striking for peace seems to be popping out around the Internet and that most of the reaction has been positive.

Of course, in strolling around the blogosphere (a dangerous thing for a professionally trained journalist to do) I see there are some people blindly supporting the president’s recommendations to escalate (yeah, Condi, like it or not, that’s what you’re doing) the war.

Let me spend a few moments of time then, to enrage you right-wing, Kool Aid ™ drinking fascists (which, by the way, is what I usually do to my fellow Democrats, who continue to lack a spine and/or morals in all too many cases). And no, I’m not speaking to the vast majority of Republicans, many of whom are just as disturbed about what’s going on. No, I’m speaking to the few of you who religiously still watch Fox News Channel (which has even added a political twist to the weather reports).

George W. Bush is a criminal.

I put it big, red type, because I know how much you like that and it makes it easier for you to understand and all.

In fairness, though, I probably shouldn’t have written it that way. To be accurate, it’s more like:

George W. Bush is a criminal, who is either delusional, moronic or suffering from an extreme chemical dependency.

See, isn’t that better?

Sorry folks, but Bush makes Nixon look like a piker. The guy is responsible for the deaths of thousands of people for no good reason. None. The guy flat-out lied repeatedly. And now he plans to kill some more and we’re supposed to line America’s streets and hold a parade or something, right?

Look at the guy….tell me he’s not drinking again. His face was flushed, he was slurring words…it wasn’t pretty.

He continues to ignore Congress, not just on the war, but with these pithy signing statements that are a clear violation of the U.S. Constitution and the separation of powers. If he doesn’t like legislation, he has a constitutional method to make a "statement." It’s called a veto.

But the question we all need to ask is this: Why does George W. Bush hate America? Why does he hate our fighting men and women? And why aren’t we doing something about it?