The Right-Wing Parasociety

I don't think I've expressed this better since I posted this on Salon's "TableTalk" forum. Lately on pandagon and steve gilliard's blogs, they've talked extensively about the lack of infrastructure on the Left, and the abundance of it on the Right. I think we underestimate that difference by an order of magnitude unless we look at the whole thing, all in one place. I also think we forget just how weird it is. David Brock is invaluable on both counts, for example.

Marion Delgado - 01:50 pm Pacific Time - Oct 27, 2004 - #53 of 112

The estate tax drives compassionate conservative and faith-based private spending. In order to make the gleaming palaces of the useless heirs shine just a little brighter, the Republicans are going to snuff a thousand points of light.

Carmel, that #2 thing is something Hannity's been claiming for a long time - it's bogus, but no doubt he has some odd statistical trick to pretend it isn't.

I have seen the same numbers for Stern and Limbaugh - 20 million listeners - but remember, even Stern has fewer listeners than that, because that's based on 15 minutes a day, I believe, and I bet he averages more like a half hour. Limbaugh listeners listen at least an hour a day, so you can cut that to 5 million actual humans (at least a quarter million of them Rush haters listening to take him down or get a laugh out of his dope-addled antics).

It doesn't help that people pay attention to "Talkers" Magazine, a ward of the ultra-right Heritage Foundation, I think. It's difficult to get actual data on radio, as Air America Radio is finding out.

The basic answer is as follows: you get stations with the best signal distribution for their wattage you can find (Rush wins that one in NYC), you get as high a ratings as you can, then you declare a listenership that's not bigger than 4 x your best guess as to your listenership, and make the other guys prove you wrong.

For a while, the show I was on, Experiment Alpha, had the best ratings in Fairbanks in our time slots (Friday, then Saturday night 9-midnite), but I imagine someone could have picked a different overlap or standard and cut us out of that. it wasnt a talk show, more like a firesign theater show, and a hit at parties and with cabbies :)

Basically, the right wing owns talk radio, not competitively but literally. They own the damn stations! So, of course, the distribution of their thug-boys is universal.

It's all part of the parasocialist world of the far right:

You go to college on the Heritage Foundation dime, join groups funded by the American Enterprise Institute. The RNC funds the College Republicans. You work for pay on campaigns, work for pay on RW books, etc. You graduate to a job with a RW foundation. Then you run for office or are perhaps an aide or something. Finally, you drop out of politics, and RW handlers get you a job doing nothing but exploiting your government connections or being a figurehead. Then you go back into government as a businessman who knows what he's talking about, etc.

You spend your days with Christians who would have crucified Christ, Republicans who would have assassinated Lincoln, Daughters of the American Revolution who would have turned Jefferson, Madison, Paine and Franklin over to the King to be hanged, fellow foundation capitalists like yourself, many of them tax funded, politicians who've spent a life on the teat of the government they describe as one of the 7 plagues of the apocalypse. Meet Black Republican groups run by white Republicans and cliques of cruel, self-loathing closeted gays keeping one step ahead of the party's morality police. Somewhere along the line you can probably lure or pressure a young Republican like yourself into various illicit sexual liaisons, building a future for your wife-shopping affairs as you go through spouses 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 .... each time picking your next one from the pool of interns and babysitters. And you'll ostensibly join a far-right church you'll never attend even a single day, and practice screaming at the moral turpitude of Democrats and liberals.

Then you die, never having worked an honest day in your life, nor having had to compete even once in the free market, or say an honest prayer, or ever help another human being, or ever defend your country. You will probably have violated the law twice as often as the average Democrat, and you'll probably never have seen the inside of a courtroom. "He stood for what was right, for decency, morality, and the rule of law," a Dixiecrat will intone at your memorial ceremony.

My letter to Michael Kinsley of the LA Times

Excerpt: "I'm getting so sick and tired of lazy and sycophantic journalism. That my friends and I now have to turn to foreign sources to find out what is REALLY going on, what the TRUTH is, is a testimony to the lack of journalistic integrity in the corporate controlled media now. You and your fellow press corp that indulge in such shenanigans should be ashamed of yourself. You have abandoned your duty to be the 4th estate, your journalistic reputation, and your dedication to the TRUTH."

more

Punch the Peacenik: A Response and a response from "Glock Talk," Believe it or Not

We all remember this (although it was somewhat milder as a web item than as a chain mail):
Punch the Peacenik: A Response

"FUN AT THE PEACE RALLY

When you meet a peacenik...

1. Approach ignorant moron talking about 'peace' and saying that there should be 'no retaliation'.
2. Engage in brief conversation; ask if military force is appropriate.
3. When he says 'No,' ask, 'Why not?'
4. Wait until he says something to the effect of, 'Because this would just cause a vicious circle of more innocent deaths, which would be awful and we should not cause more violence.'
5. When he's in mid sentence, punch him in the face as hard as you can.
6. When he is about to punch you back, point out that it would be a serious mistake and contrary to his values to strike you, because that would 'be awful and he should not cause more violence.'
7. Wait until he agrees that he has pledged not to commit additional violence.
8. Punch him in the face again, harder this time. Repeat steps 5 through 8 until he understands that sometimes it is necessary to punch back.

This message is meant in part to be funny -- haw, haw, punched the commie peacenik! But in no small part it is also meant to be a serious argument against the anti-war message. The biggest problem with the argument made above is that it sets up what's known as a 'straw man.' A 'straw man' is a misrepresentation of one's opponent in ludicrous terms that makes him easy to prevail against [notice the target's a guy here - I guess the author doesn't intend to hit women or kids - don't they need to be taught a lesson, too?].

What makes the protester character in this posting a 'straw man?' All too conveniently, the peace protester does exactly what serves the author's purpose. First, the protester moves to land a punch of his own in an apparently hypocritical move. Bad, silly, inconsistent peace protester! Second, eventually the protester conveniently 'understands that sometimes it is necessary to punch back.' Wow, you convinced him! Third, the protester is mostly mute, only getting sentence fragments of statements out, while the person confronting the protester gets to do quite a bit of talking with his or her fists.

As anyone who's spent any time listening to (rather than punching) peace protesters knows, there are actually a number of types of peace protesters with a number of belief systems who would react in a number of different ways to someone trying this "punch a peacenik" strategy out. Perhaps the author of this chain e-mail is simply ignorant and hasn't actually ever talked to a "peacenik." And we also know that peace protesters are talky sorts (sometimes even too talky), not blank and mute slates.

Let's remedy those problems, shall we? First, we'll imagine the encounter repeatedly, each time with a peace protester harboring a different motivation. Second, we'll listen in a bit more on what each protester might actually say during the encounter. Third, we'll let the protesters' motivations inform what actually happens at the end. Ready?....Roll'em! "


And here I have a little intermission from "Glock Talk"

Glock Talk

How to deal with War Activists:

1. Listen to their points carefully, noting that they are under the impression that simply because you oppose wasting American lives, you are a pacifist, and unarmed.

2. Explain to them that you are sure they are hiding a gun and might someday use it on you.

3. Cold-draw and plug them.

4. Explain the doctrine of "pre-emptive defense" to them before they bleed to death.

Now back to:

Punch the Peacenik: A Response

FUN AT THE PEACE RALLY: PUNCHING THE PRAGMATIC PEACENIK

When you meet a pragmatic peacenik...

1. Approach "ignorant moron" talking about "peace" and saying that there should be "no retaliation".
2. Engage in brief conversation; ask if military force is appropriate.
3. When he says "No," ask, "Why not?"
4. Wait until he says something to the effect of, "Because this would just cause a vicious cycle of more innocent deaths, which would piss off a huge number of poor, desperate young people, who would form the next generation of terrorists to attack us all over again."
5. When he's in mid sentence, punch him in the face as hard as you can.
6. When he is about to punch you back, point out that it would be a serious mistake and contrary to his values to strike you, because that would "be awful and he should not cause more violence."
7. Wait for him to pledge not to commit additional violence.
8. React with surprise when he says, "I'm not a pacifist, you turd! Sometimes retributive violence is appropriate. But bombing an already-bombed out country is just plain stupid if it results in even more violence inflicted upon us over the next 30 years. Following a path to justice through diplomacy, economic development, police action and criminal trial will probably achieve our goals more efficiently in the long run."
9. Cry like a baby when he and his pragmatic peacenik (but not pacifist) pals wrestle you to the ground, call the police and charge you with assault.

FUN AT THE PEACE RALLY: PUNCHING THE PESKY ANARCHIST

When you meet a pesky anarchist...

1. Approach "ignorant moron" talking about "stopping the war" and saying that there should be "no U.S. military action."
2. Engage in brief conversation; ask if military force is appropriate.
3. When he says "Not now," ask, "Why not?"
4. Wait until he says something to the effect of, "Because the U.S. military stands for multi-national corporate greed that stands in opposition to human needs..."
5. When he's in mid sentence, punch him in the face as hard as you can.
6. When he is about to punch you back, point out that it would be a serious mistake and contrary to his values to strike you, because that would "be awful and he should not cause more violence."
7. Wait for him to pledge not to commit additional violence.
8. React with surprise when he punches you right back in the face instead, screaming: "You weren't listening, were you, you blithering idiot! Who the hell do you think I am, some namby-pamby pacifist? I'm not going to let you get away with your fascist bullshit..."
9. As you move to punch him in the face again, harder this time, watch fellow anarchists approaching you with bricks.
10. Feel brick hit your face, hard.
11. Repeat step 10 until you cry "uncle" and understand that a) the anti-war movement is not completely composed of peace-loving hippies, b) regardless of one's intentions, violence tends to breed more violence.

FUN AT THE PEACE RALLY: PUNCHING THE PRINCIPLED PACIFIST

When you meet a principled pacifist...

1. Approach "ignorant moron" talking about "peace" and saying that there should be "no retaliation".
2. Engage in brief conversation; ask if military force is appropriate.
3. When he says "No," ask, "Why not?"
4. Wait until he says something to the effect of, "Because this would just cause a vicious circle of more awful violence. I do not believe in committing acts of violence, and I do not want any more committed in my name."
5. When he's in mid sentence, punch him in the face as hard as you can.
6. React with surprise when he doesn't move to strike you back.
7. Point out that it would be a serious mistake and contrary to his values to strike you, because that would "be awful and he should not cause more violence."
8. React with further surprise when he agrees, saying: "I do not believe in committing acts of violence. I accept the risk of being a victim of violence in this world and choose to live with hope. We're all going to eventually die anyway..."
9. When he's in mid sentence, punch him in the face again to "teach him a lesson."
10. Listen as he staggers to his feet and asks, "Why are you doing this? I'm not harming you, I'm just using my right of free speech to express what I believe. You're the one who's acting like a terrorist..."
11. Again, punch him in the face as hard as you can, harder this time. Come on, teach him that lesson.
12. Listen carefully as he crouches on the ground and gasps, "All right, you got me. But I'm not going to hit you. All you can do to me is hit me again. Look at yourself. Is this the kind of person you want to be?"
13. Punch him again and again, waiting for him to understand that sometimes it is necessary to punch back. Keep punching as he refuses to hit you back. When he is reduced to a pulp and collapses into silent unconsciousness, wipe your bloody knuckles on his shirt and walk away, hoping nobody saw what you did, knowing you had to be right

WaPo Gets latest poll context totally wrong - Milbank goofs

Poll: Most feel U.S. not safer since Iraq war

	Poll: Most feel U.S. not safer since Iraq war Pessimism regarding conflict is high, survey finds Wednesday, June 08, 2005 By Dana Milbank and Claudia Deane, The Washington Post WASHINGTON -- For the first time since the war in Iraq began, more than half of the American public believes that the fight there has not made the United States safer, according to a new Washington Post-ABC News poll. While the focus in Washington has shifted from the Iraq conflict to Social Security and other domestic matters, the survey found that Americans continue to rank Iraq second only to the economy in importance -- and that many are losing patience with the enterprise. Nearly three quarters of Americans say the number of casualties in Iraq is unacceptable, while two-thirds say the U.S. military there is bogged down, and nearly 6 in 10 say the war was not worth fighting -- in all three cases matching or exceeding the highest levels of pessimism yet recorded. More than 4 in 10 believe the U.S. presence in Iraq is becoming analogous to the experience in Vietnam. Perhaps most ominous for President Bush, 52 percent said war in Iraq has not contributed to the long-term security of the United States, while 47 percent said it did. It was the first time a majority of Americans disagreed with the central notion that Bush has offered to build support for war: that the fight there will make Americans safer from terrorists at home. In late 2003, 62 percent thought the Iraq war aided U.S. security, and just three months ago, 52 percent thought so. Overall, more than half -- 52 percent -- disapprove of how Bush is handling his job, the highest of his presidency. A somewhat-larger majority -- 56 percent -- disapproved of Republicans in Congress and an identical proportion disapproved of Democrats. There were signs, however, that Bush and Republicans in Congress were receiving more of the blame for the recent standoffs over such issues as Bush's judicial nominees and Social Security. Six in 10 respondents said Bush and GOP leaders are not making good progress on the nation's problems; of those, 67 percent blamed the president and Republicans, while 13 percent blamed congressional Democrats. For the first time, a majority, 55 percent, also said Bush has done more to divide the country than to unite it.
	Poll: Sending troops to Iraq a mistake
	Poll: Sending troops to Iraq a mistake Presidential contest a tie among likely voters Friday, June 25, 2004 Posted: 1258 GMT (2058 HKT) THE MORNING GRIND Weekdays: CNN.com's exclusive take on the election more videoVIDEO CNN's Bill Schneider on results of the newly released poll. premium contentPLAY VIDEO CNN's Brent Sadler on simultaneous attacks in Iraq. premium contentPLAY VIDEO CNN's Susan Candiotti on an anti-Bush group's use of felons in a voter registration drive. premium contentPLAY VIDEO RELATED Interactive: Poll questions • Bush: War not inciting terrorists • Bush's Turkey visit caps thaw • Kerry calls Bush divisive • Bush touts AIDS response YOUR E-MAIL ALERTS Iraq John F. Kerry George W. Bush or Create your own Manage alerts | What is this? WASHINGTON (CNN) -- For the first time since the start of the war in Iraq, a majority of Americans surveyed in a CNN/USA Today/Gallup poll say the United States made a mistake in sending troops to that country. Fifty-four percent of those polled said it was a mistake to send U.S. troops to Iraq, compared with 41 percent who expressed that sentiment in early June. Most respondents to the poll, 55 percent, also said they don't believe the war has made the United States safer from terrorism -- rejecting an argument that President Bush has repeatedly advanced in his rationale for the war. Yet the poll, results of which were released Thursday, also found that Sen. John Kerry, the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee, has made little headway among respondents on the issue of Iraq, which has figured prominently on the campaign trail. Kerry, a four-term U.S. senator from Massachusetts, and Bush are essentially tied when poll respondents are asked who would better handle the situation in Iraq. Forty-seven percent said Bush would do a better job on Iraq, compared with 46 percent who picked Kerry. Commander in chief And while six in 10 of those polled said they believe Kerry could handle the job of commander-in-chief, most indicated that they trust Bush more in that role, 51 percent to 43 percent. The poll, based on interviews with 1,005 Americans -- including 521 likely voters -- was conducted by telephone June 21-23. The margin of error varied by question, from a low of 3 percentage points to 4.5 percentage points. The poll was released on the same day that a wave of attacks on Iraqis and coalition forces left more than 90 dead. (U.S. could send more troops to Iraq) The impact of the attacks on opinion recorded in the poll was not a factor since the survey was taken earlier this week.

Downing Street Memo: Kerry Joins in Asking for Inquiry

Even though I think Kerry wimped out in terms of the election, now that he is functioning as a Senator and not trying to win a campaign, his actions on Capital Hill have been pretty good lately. He objected to Gonzales, he is objecting to Bolton, and he has joined Boxer on issues regarding election fraud, and he refused to vote for the cloture motion that would have shut down the filibuster option and cleared the way for Owen's confirmation.

Lately he has joined a number of representives in the house in wanting an Resolution of Inquiry into the Downing Street Memo:

More

Can Bush be Impeached?

Apparently, all this blogging we've been doing about the "Downing Street Memo" is starting to have an effect in major newspapers. Today, in the Media Beat Section of the San Francisco Bay Guardian, Norman Solomon has written an article entitled, "Can Bush be Impeached?"

Well it's not the front page, and it is an oped, but that's the first time I've seen this speculation in the semi-MSM. This may actually end up being a lot more like Watergate, but this time it is we, the bloggers, who are going to end up as Woodward and Bernstein, since there are no more journalists anymore. Anyway it's an interesting read.