My ten best and ten worst-Schnitt screws the pooch yet again

Olbermann does a great job publishing his nightly three best in the world and his three "Worst Person in the World" segment. I thought I'd do a quick and dirty version of my top ten's since I had not posted in a while. Here ya go in no particular order:

Ten Worst:

1. Pres. George Bush for the lies about the Iraq War, the way he has lessened the American "brand" and the way he has made politics an even more dirty game.
2. V.P. Dick Cheney (see above)
3. Mark Levine (obscure talk show host) has done to promote the American equivalent of fascism than anyone else I know
4. Rush Limbaugh. (Have a hard time putting him here because he is funny. I still don't know how anybody takes him seriously after his doctor-shopping drug issues)
5. Michelle Malkin (how can someone so hot-looking be so cold as a human being?)
6. Ann Coulter (possibly a viable number one for my top ten worst. Evil incarnate. Maybe the worst concentration of pure evil I have ever seen. Of course I never met Hitler, Stalin or Mussolini...but to me, she is right up there.)
7. Nancy Grace (I believe her voice and beliefs are primary causes of cancer)
8. Anyone that does a commercial for Big Oil. (Seen the latest ad campaign where they claim to be investing heavily in "alternative energies"? The only thing they mention that is true is that the vast majority of our oil comes from.... North America.. By the way, in second place is South America, with the Middle east coming in third.)
9. Anybody that does an ad for Big Pharma (This means you too Montel. We've become a drug culture, have you seen the ad for Zantac with a giant hand holding a Zantac pill that no only redecorates a man's entire apartment with better upgraded furniture, but the pill even "paints" him new friends and a hot girlfriend. OMFG!)
10. Insurance companies that lie to you. There's an ad that promises that "once your policy is approved, it can never be cancelled!" The ad preys upon fears that the "evil company" will cancel your policy. No my dears, it means just the opposite...it means YOU can never cancel, you are signed up for life.

I will do the top ten best later. But regular readers of this blog (ARE there ANY?) will recognize the special place in my heart I have for local (Tampa) buffoon Todd Schnitt and wonder why he is not on my list. He's just not that important,thats why. However, I love listening to his show because it is clear to me he does NO research at all (other than World News Daily, Google etc). yesterday and will often dogmatically declare the "truth" on a subject when he is completely wrong. I mean when you get a pompous fool with a podium that doesn't check his facts...its funny.

Yesterday was great...he went on and on about how Al Gore's energy bills went up 10% even after he did all of his alternative energy adjustments on his house. Schnitt went on to say that Gore's house uses the same amount of electricity that "20 houses use". The bit went on forever, making it even funnier when the Gore's actually produced their bill...and guess what? Overall energy use WENT DOWN 40 %! (You see Gore used gas for a lot of his energy use prior to the conversion. THAT bill went down 90%)

The truth is covered well here: http://www.tennessean.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080619/COLUMNIST0101/806190354/1008/OPINION01

"Those wacky pranksters at the innocuous-sounding Tennessee Center for Policy Research (the Tennessee Center for Attempted Gotcha is more like it) put out a press release this week similar to one they scored big with last year. Based on Gore's electric bill, his Belle Meade household used 10 percent MORE electricity than the previous year, the latest release said. Despite a major green retrofit of the Gores' 80-year-old mansion.

Gore's folks were quick to jump on the latest missive, saying his utility bills are actually DOWN by 40 percent. The group, Gore's spokeswoman said, didn't include the former vice president's gas bill in this round of press release claptrap, as it did last year.

That bill has gone down 90 percent, she said. And when the Gores do power up, they pay for renewable resources, like wind and solar power or methane gas.

The facts will not now, nor have they ever, stand in the way of the Gore-bashers of the world making great hay of this. Though really, hasn't Al — by far — had the last laugh at this point?"

Typically great work Schnitt. I expect nothing less of you...ever.

Todd Schnitt Global Warming Page DeBunked

In a prior post I mentioned a local talk radio host Todd. Schnitt. He has a web page on his radio site that purports to debunk the idea that global warming is real, and that people whom he has called "alarmists" are really just trying to make money off of global warming. He saves his special vitriol and hatred for Al Gore. I had also said I'd take a look at Schnitt's page and see how his science stacks up to fact.

What I found is what I had suspected: Schnitt merely puts links up to stories by people who are in the pocket of Big Oil or affiliated with the Republican Party. Lets talk about a few of his links so you get the idea of what Schnitt is using for "...one of the largest collections of articles and opinion pieces on the Internet, many written by respected scientists, climatologists, meteorologists and professors who dispute the apocalyptic "man-made" explanation of global warming. " One problem with this statement (there are many problems with the overall page) is that a meterology or geography degree does not qualify you as a Climatologist. There are Climatology degrees and Schnitts people quoted in the main do not have them. Schnitt implies it doesnt matter, following that simplistic line of reasoning I guess a a Chemist can do Biology, a Astronmer can do Nuclear Physics and an Antropologist is a geologist. Sigh...the world of infotainment...

One of Schnitt's primary touted experts is S. Fred Singer. (see his post # 214 for one example). Singer is actually connected to the American Petroleum Institute, and fact checker Mother Jones site details(great list here at http://www.motherjones.com/news/featurex/2005/05/exxon_chart.html) "S. FRED SINGER: A godfather of global warming denial, author of The Scientific Case Against the Global Climate Treaty and Hot Talk, Cold Science: Global Warming’s Unfinished Debate. Key quote: “There is no convincing evidence that the global climate is actually warming.” Connections to ExxonMobil-funded groups: at least seven."

Another big source for Schnitt is Iain Murray (#10, 146, 223). Here's what SourceWatch had to say about this guy: "Iain Murray is a frequent commentator on global warming and "sound science" who has repeatedly peddled various forms of discredited junk science, sometimes even after being informed that what he said was false. Competitive Enterprise Institute, Senior Fellow in International Policy (The CIE is a think tank funded by ideological conservatives, oil, and other corporations)...Tim Lambert has shown Iain Murray has continued to make incorrect statements, even after being informed that they are incorrect:
More Risky Business: Murray claims that epidemiologists believe risk factors less than two should be ignored. An epidemiologist writes in and corrects him. Afterwards, Murray repeats his claim in another forum. Iain Murray, at it again: Murray speculates about a cause of global warming that is easy to test. When tested, the cause proves not to be a factor. "

One common trend in Scnitt's scientists is their lack of expertise in climatology, instead they are expert in a completely unrelated field. he quotes Geoffrey P. Hunt who is an anthropologist and writes for the conservative rag American Thinker. Check his anti-Democratic party viewpoint at http://www.americanthinker.com/geoffrey_p_hunt/ by looking at his article. Unbiased? Sure Schnitt...

Let's look at the expertise of his other "experts" (wish I had room to do them all) : "Timothy Francis Ball, Ph.D., is a retired university professor and global warming skeptic. He heads the Natural Resources Stewardship Project and formerly headed the activist organization Friends of Science, which was funded by energy industries.[1] His expertise is in geography....and his impartiality was debunked here, http://www.thestar.com/printArticle/175673 referring to the work done by "The non-profit, pro-action Vancouver-based website DeSmogBlog has been analyzing the list of signatories. The site, which is devoted to combatting what it calls "a well-funded and highly organized public relations campaign" that's "poisoning" the climate change debate, was established in December 2005 by Jim Hoggan, president of the public relations firm James Hoggan & Associates and a board member of the David Suzuki Foundation."two groups supported by Big Oil.

So who else? Let's check with factcheck site ExxonSecrets.Org, to see others and their groups, quoted by Schnitt as unbiased experts. There's Marlo Lewis (# 19, 139, 141, 142, 143...notice the sequence? Think Schnitt was emailed as a package these or just discovered the CEI (Competitive Enterprise Institute)website and group, funded by ExxonMobil, see list below), Peter Worthington, (# 58) a Canadian jounalist for the Toronto Sun, "Worthington stepped down as editor of the Sun in order to enter politics in the 1982. He sought the nomination of the Progressive Conservative Party for a by-election in Toronto's Broadview—Greenwood riding, but was defeated in a hotly contested race (by a liberal Democrat)." Climate expert, indeed.

Schnitt though saves special reverance for Dr William Gray, formerly of the Weather Channel, a trained meteorologist, with only a degree in (again) geography. Schnitt has multiple links, audeo files and even video of Gray. Gray has some credence because of his years on The Weather Channel, i.e.. people know and recognize him, something Schnitt 'needs' for his side to counter the public recognition of Gore.

Gray is noted for hus hurricane prediction numbers each year (the predictions themselves have been the subjetc of criticism by peers as either junk science or as an example of carnival-sideshow pseudo-science/infotainment. Gray is also know as believing that Climate Change is being used to usher in a form of "world government", (see Achenbach, Joel The Tempest. The Washington Post. Retrieved on 2007-04-23.)

So, just how widespread is the funding of the anti-global warming groups? How involved in this debate is Big Oil? Check this list and you'll see DOZENS more spokespeople that Schnitt quotes as 'unbiased'. The fact is that Schnitt himself has done no research on thius subjectbefores he puts this up on the web as "proof". It's clear by this very limited debunking of his experts that he merely puts links up for his ideological position. Otherwise why would he continue to maintain and publicize a page that FactCheck, MotherJones, SourceWatch and other legimate monitors say are paid by Big Oil, or are strongly affiliated with the Republican Party? Why indeed?

The answer, IMHO, is that the raising of the alarm on Global Climate Change is strongly affiliated with Al Gore, a Democrat, a liberal and a possible candidate for President. Gore is Schnitt's real target, this is supposed to be about a global issue right? And yet Schnitt devotes page space to multiple articles about Gore' personal home...an individual house. He also attacks his use of airplanes when he flies around the world. Think about that...how would YOU get to Europe, South America, Asia or Australia from Tennessee? Swim, walk? Complaining about flying when your destination is thousands of miles away is asinine. Is Schnitt against ...er, travel???

He does this solely to diminish Gore's personal reputation and tries to portray him as a hypocrite. See posts: 9, 10, 17,20,21, 22,23,24,25,28,29. (ad nauseum) Of just the first 30 posts 11 attack Gore personally, in the title of the post. (Several others attack him in the body of the post). Overall a huge portion of this supposed list of other experts who are talking about serious rational alternatives about current climate chnage theory...merely are personally attacking Gore.

For your convenience, here is a list of the organizations funded by Big Oil. Take what they (or their their spokepeople) say with that knowledge in mind. And when you see them quoted on a web page by a Tampa talk radio show host, give it exactly the amount of scientific credence that page deserves.

None.

ORGANIZATIONS IN EXXON SECRETS DATABASE
Follow the links to see a factsheet containing information about funding from Exxon-Mobil and see their spokespeople.
60/Sixty Plus AssociationAccuracy in AcademiaAccuracy in MediaActon Institute for the Study of Religion and LibertyAfrica Fighting MalariaAir Quality Standards CoalitionALEC - American Legislative Exchange CouncilAlexis de Tocqueville InstitutionAlliance for Climate StrategiesAmerican Coal FoundationAmerican Conservative Union FoundationAmerican Council for Capital Formation Center for Policy ResearchAmerican Council on Science and HealthAmerican Enterprise Institute for Public Policy ResearchAmerican Enterprise Institute-Brookings Joint Center for Regulatory StudiesAmerican Friends of the Institute for Economic AffairsAmerican Petroleum InstituteAmerican Policy CenterAmerican Recreation CoalitionAmerican Spectator FoundationAmericans for Tax ReformAnnapolis Center for Science-Based Public PolicyArizona State University Office of CimatologyAspen InstituteAssociation of Concerned TaxpayersAtlantic Legal FoundationAtlas Economic Research FoundationBlue Ribbon CoalitionCapital Legal FoundationCapital Research Center and GreenwatchCato InstituteCenter for American and International LawCenter for Environmental Education ResearchCenter for Security PolicyCenter for Strategic and International StudiesCenter for the Defense of Free EnterpriseCenter for the New WestCenter for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global ChangeCentre for the New EuropeCFACT - Committee for a Constructive TomorrowChemical Education FoundationCitizens for A Sound Economy and CSE Educational FoundationCitizens for the Environment and CFE Action FundClean Water Industry CoalitionClimate Research JournalCommunications InstituteCompetitive Enterprise InstituteCongress of Racial EqualityConsumer AlertCooler Heads CoalitionCouncil for Solid Waste SolutionsDCI GroupDefenders of Property RightsEarthwatch InstituteECO or Environmental Conservation OrganizationEuropean Enterprise InstituteExxonMobil CorporationFederalist Society for Law and Public Policy StudiesFraser InstituteFREE - Foundation for Research on Economics and the EnvironmentFree Enterprise Action InstituteFree Enterprise Education InstituteFrontiers of Freedom Institute and FoundationGeorge C. Marshall InstituteGeorge Mason University, Law and Economics CenterGlobal Climate CoalitionGreat Plains Legal FoundationGreening Earth SocietyHarvard Center for Risk AnalysisHeartland InstituteHeritage FoundationHoover Institution on War, Revolution and Peace, Stanford UniversityHudson InstituteIllinois Policy InstituteIndependent Commission on Environmental EducationIndependent InstituteInstitute for Biospheric ResearchInstitute for Energy ResearchInstitute for Regulatory ScienceInstitute for Senior StudiesInstitute for the Study of Earth and ManInstitute of Humane Studies, George Mason UniversityInterfaith Stewardship AllianceInternational Climate Science CoalitionInternational Council for Capital FormationInternational Policy Network - North AmericaInternational Republican InstituteJames Madison InstituteJunkscience.comLandmark Legal FoundationLexington InstituteLindenwood UniversityMackinac CenterManhattan Institute for Policy ResearchMedia InstituteMedia Research CenterMercatus Center, George Mason UniversityMountain States Legal FoundationNational Association of NeighborhoodsNational Black Chamber of CommerceNational Center for Policy AnalysisNational Center for Public Policy ResearchNational Council for Environmental BalanceNational Environmental Policy InstituteNational Legal Center for the Public InterestNational Mining AssociationNational Policy ForumNational Wetlands CoalitionNational Wilderness InstituteNew England Legal FoundationNew Zealand Climate Science Coalition Pacific Legal FoundationPacific Research Institute for Public PolicyPeabody EnergyPERC - Property and Environment Research Center, formerly Political Economy Research CenterPublic Interest WatchReason FoundationReason Public Policy InstituteScience and Environmental Policy ProjectSeniors CoalitionShook, Hardy and Bacon LLPSmall Business Survival CommitteeSoutheastern Legal FoundationStanford University GCEPStatistical Assessment Service (STATS)Tech Central Science Foundation or Tech Central StationTexas Public Policy FoundationThe Advancement of Sound Science Center, Inc.The Advancement of Sound Science CoalitionThe Justice Foundation (formerly Texas Justice Foundation)The Locke InstituteUnited for JobsUniversity of Oklahoma Foundation, Inc.US Russia Business CouncilVirginia Institute for Public PolicyWashington Legal FoundationWeidenbaum Center on the Economy, Government, and Public PolicyWestern FuelsWorld Affairs Councils of AmericaWorld Climate Report

Why you should ALWAYS Vote Liberal (and, was I wrong about Al Gore?)

One of the more interesting discussions I have had recently was with some young people, about 18-24 years old, and eight of them. We talked a lot about societal influences on people, and ultimately what the "right way to live your life, the right way to think about things" was.

What we came up with was fairly simple, really even mundane. Our "answer" was that we should live our lives and think with "balance". Clearly this is not a new concept, its the "Ying and Yang" of many thought systems, ideologies and established religions. We took the conversation to politics and came to the conclusion that the very best way to take this philosophy of life was to always make sure to vote for the liberal.

How so? Well if you accept the premise, that "the best way to live life and to think is with middle of the road 'balance', and not to live life on the outliers of a bell curve of thought (i.e. progressive, reactionary, or more extreme: communist, fascist) then you have to determine what influences your adult thought, and on what part of the scale, left or right, these major 'influencers' are on.

So we discussed influences. We came up with the following 5 as the dominant ones: media, government, religion, economics-business and the military.

We questioned whether these influences were forces of change or forces of status quo, i.e. liberal or conservative. Clearly the military, and religious institutions (i.e. the Catholic Church et al) were ultra-conservative. Religion especially claims absolute unchanging "truth".

Business and the economic environment were also easily, and unanimously agreed on as a conservative influence. Pin-striped suits, white button-down starched shirts, wing tipped shoes, the "glass ceiling", and a myriad of other symbols show this, but anyone spending five minutes looking over the protections of corporation (legally considered a living entity) the financial campaign contribution histories towards conservative pro-business candidates are well known and accepted. Business=conservative.

We disagreed a little on media. The canard of "liberal media bias" was discussed and the main accepted contention that media was biased towards liberals was the point that most reporters and journalists vote liberal based upon one famous study. We accepted that point without much debate but agreed it was the editors and their bosses, the board, that really set editorial bias, and not the reporters. Only newsppaper columnists (the Maureen Dowds, Tom Friedmans etc.) really have much leeway to push their own personal agendas. We fully agreed that talk radio (the domain of Clear Channel) and cable tv news were largely conservative...certainly Fox, and even CNN with shows with Lou Dobbs, Glenn Beck et al. MSNBC has Keith Olbermann but counters with neo-cons like Scarborough, classic conservatives like Mathews and the absymal Dan Abrams. (How long will that show last?) However in the end, the corporate ownership of TV networks, newspaper conglomerates, talk radio and cable news swung us over. We agreed that modern-day media is mostly conservative, even if a few classic "liberal" sources (like the Boston Globe, NY Times) are hanging on, they are losing 20% readership each of the last 3 years. Only the blogosphere seems to have equal representation between libs and cons.

On the economic marketing side, we agreed that all advertising pushed consuming, i.e. capitalism, and thus as a government approved and business-designed economic system, is by nature a supporter of the status quo, and thus conservative. (Or have you recently heard of any corporation that wants to remove the stock market, the Fed, or even the idea of corporations themselves?)

So that leaves government. Elections, parties, candidates. Since we found that religion, the military, the American business climate, ie. the 'economy' and mass media are all conservative, and since we all agreed that as individuals we were powerless to change the inherent nature of these institutions and system (can you change the Church, the Army, the Stock Market?) ... that leaves only elections and government as a vehicle to provide balance. Remember we did agree that balance is the key to 'good' thought, the 'right or best' way to live or think.

Thus the only way to balance out all the other powerful forces that shape out adult thought is to always, only vote for liberals. Otherwise over time we become more and more conservative and an outlier on the curve of thought.

==============

My recent blog, "A Dark Day", assumed the possible scenario where Al Gore emerges from a brokered convention as the Democratic Party presidential nominee was dead due to Clinton's setbacks in North Carolina and even Indiana. I assumed that once she saw the intent of the people she would graciously step aside for the good of the party.

Talk about naive. She apparently is still pursuing the win at all costs policy. She should win the next two primaries in West Virgina and Kentucky, again hurting Obama and his reputation and continuing this charade...maybe I wrote Gore off too soon? I will keep the faith a little bit more then, thanks Hillary...thanks for considering yourself first.

A Dark Day

I think that for most Americans, today is a regular day like the one that preceded it and the one that will follow it. But for me it is a dark day, for today is the day I realize the truth that Al Gore will not be the next President of the United States.

I had wanted Al as POTUS since Bill Clinton looked me in the eye, waved his finger at me, and said "I did not have sexual relations with that woman, Miss Lewinsky". Well, to be accurate, I fully believed him that day. It was only on later days that I knew he looked me in the eye, and lied to me. That lie cost my support to all Clintons forever. The lie was so unnecessary. He could have been a man about it. He could have told the truth but he sacrificed it in the name of political expediency. You have to wonder if it was sacrified for his political future, or for hers.

All along I wanted Gore of course, and as the candidates faltered and dropped out it seemed we were left with just "the new guy that some whites would never support", and "the manipulative shrew who would step over the bodies of her family in her thirst to be president". I couldn't believe that once again we were left with inferior choices.

Two things happened though. Obama grew as a candidate, while "Billary" did their damnedest to destroy him. While Obama's narrative as a serene visionary became cemented in our consciousness, the Wright elitist vapid lightweight counter grew as we worried not about two wars, a recession, the price of gas, of foods and the loss of value in our homes...but about lapel pins and imaginary 3 am phone calls.

The give and take and the media's obsession with personality led us to the impression that Hillary could not "close the deal" and that Obama also couldn't close the deal. To a Gore fan there was hope that she was too polarizing to win, he was now too damaged. Well, if Clinton had won Indiana strongly (instead of 51-49%) and Obama had narrowly won North Carolina, (instead of 14%) then I'd say Gore still had a shot.

But, it didn't happen. Obama won the most delegates yesterday, and the race is now winding down. Obama has withstood the test, and has prevailed. Today and during the next two weeks the superdelegates will stream to his side. Hillary will run out of money and the race will be over.

I am truly sad. The country deserves a good President like the one I think Gore could be, but for now I am going to get behind Obama. I am going to take my advice, the advice I would give Clinton supporters now: look at the numbers of delegates, and tell how Obama won't get 2,025 ...and won't get our nomination now. Unless Obama has a major meltdown right now, the race is over and Hillary should get out.

I am alive again

Well I have been about as sick as I have ever been. This flu or whatever it really was, just knocked me out...bedridden for a week, dizzy, coughing, sneezing, backache...whine whine whine.

Anyway it is good to be back after such a very short start. I'll be posting regularly again (was this ever regular) starting tomorrow.

No News is...

I haven't posted the last week because I have been sick as a dog...more to come as soon as I feel better.

Todd Schnitt

One of the TV shows I watch fairly regularly is Keith Olbermann's. I don't necessarily agree with everything he says, or all of his viewpoints but I really do like his feature "Worst person in the World". If I had no nominate someone locally it would be DJ Todd Schnitt, who actually has two radio shows one for a FM station morning show, (where he is known as MJ Kelli) and one a right wing talk show on an affiliated AM station in the afternoon. This two-for is an example of how far talk radio has declined...there just are no training grounds for these hosts anymore, and to save money the conglomerates have these guys do double-duty, or network them so there are no local hosts anymore. This is an industry that is a shell of its former self, and now largely the purveyance of the angry, white uneducated male. NASCAR dad indeed.

Schnitt uses his last name as a running scatalogical joke...ad nauseum...with many comments like someone is "full of Schnitt", is a "Schnitt-head", etc etc. If you are over the age of four you probably get the double-entendre'. I mean...puh-leaze. Schnitt's web site also has an extensive list of anti-global warming sites, (he is very anti Al Gore.) I plan on reviewing some of his "experts" at a later date.

Schnitt replaced two more successful hosts in his afternoon slot. Glenn Beck parlayed his Tampa stint into a national radio network and runs a poorly-viewed TV show on CNN. Its eminently forgettable and "Glennie" is often on Olbermann's Worst Person list, many times at the top.

One prior host of this slot was Bob "Mad Dog" Lassiter, possibly the finest host ever heard in the Tampa Bay area. Bob was no liberal, conservative nor even a libertarian. He was Bob, and had his thought-out own opinions on everything and did not follow anyone else's thinking. His motto could have been "question everything".

The thing I really liked about Bob was that he would pretend to hold a very controversial position, that would get angry liberal and conservative listeners to both call complaining and then Lassiter would force them to defend their position, which often proved to be defenseless, rooted in bigotry, racism or group-think. Schnitt pretends to do the same (often claiming to be his own man, to not kow-tow to any party platform) but the fact is he is a conservative ideologue, and he doesn't even get his own joke. He's not popular enough to challenge Beck's success, nor is he thoughtful enough to ever challenge a mind like Lassiter's. (Bob died recently btw, and is sorely missed in both Tampa and Chicago the scenes of his two greatest successes. I miss him.)

So if you graded the last three hosts in this station's afternoon I'd give Lassiter an A, Beck a C-, and Schnitt an F-. Its a microcosm of just how far talk radio has fallen as time has passed.

So why talk about Schnitt today? Well he is suing another talk show host in the area, Bubba the Love Sponge for... wait for it... talking bad about him. Are you kidding?

He alleges Bubba (aka Clem) implied he was a child abuser, a liar, called his wife bad names and worst of all made jokes about Schnitt's physical appearance. For the record none of these allegations are proven true and may in fact all be false. Also, for the record, Schnitt is short, overweight and based upon classic stereotypes of beauty: physically unappealing. Lassiter's nickname for him was "The Demented Dwarf".

He apparently compensates for this by buying high powered sports and luxury cars, which he constantly references on his show. He also brings his wife on a lot, and often calls her during the show. In a way then she is part of the "schnitt schtick".

So the lawsuit. What is hysterical is that Schnitt has made a career out of attacking other people for their appearance and their personal missteps. He has mercilessly attacked Madeline Albright and Janet Reno for their appearance, will attack any celebrity who goes to detox as "all liquored up" and attacks any liberal or progressive politician out there. Gore is a liar, Pelosi blinks too much, Reid is a corpse...etc etc. No one on the "Democrat[sic] Party" escapes attack. Those of you who are sharp will recognize the purloined "democrat party" and not the proper "Democratic Party" designated taken from Rush Limbaugh.

I cannot stand Bubba the Love Sponge, he's just another example of the decline and near-death of talk radio. But you have to appreciate the irony of a Schnitt lawsuit about ungracious and gross things said. Its too funny. Here's hoping Olbermann learns of this. Perhaps Schnitt will finally claw his way up into neo-con stratosphere and displace Glenn Beck as Olbermann's Worst Person in the World.

...and rightfully so.

Who Are 1-800 Ask Gary 1-800 Ask Koby and 1-800 Ask-Jery?

One of the big issues in my local market, Tampa, Florida apparently is automobile accidents.

There are several "ambulance-chaser" type attorneys in the area and other more reputable ones that also do accident law. Morgan and Morgan is a big firm, formerly known as Morgan Collins & Gilbert and does Motorcycle accidents. Morgan left the firm supposedly because of ego issues and decided that a firm just known as John Morgan just wasn't impressive enough. The word I have heard is that he came up with Morgan and Morgan to indicate he had other folks behind him, but in reality its just John and no other senior partners. Reminds me of Ashton Tate the firm that had dbaseII.

Apparently there was no Ashton at all, just Tate and no first version, aka "dbase 1". Both were fabricated names to be more impresive and to make the firm's software seem more stable, see here for more info: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ashton-Tate

Anyway Morgan and Morgan seems to be playing the same marketing gambit.

What's far worse in my personal opinion though are the Koby and Gary ads. They purport to offer free legal help after accidents, but really are chiropractors in the main. They do have a lot of trial attorneys that they have business relations with, thus the "lawyer referral" part of their ads.

Gary Kompothecras, who's a Sarasota chiropractor, and runs Physicians Group LLC, 1st Health Inc. and Healthcare Management Enterprises, is the Gary of ASK Gary, and Holiday, Florida chiropractor Leonard "Lenny" Linardos and Linardos' company, West Coast Spine & Injury. Linardos is the 1-877-ASK-KOBY accident referral service, created in October 2004. The 1-800-ASK-JERY hot line, is really St. Petersburg chiropractic clinic Spinal Correction Centers Inc. A fourth hot line, 1-800-ASK-DAVE, is run by Lakeland-based law firm Burnetti P.A.

Is it big business? You bet. According to Red Orbit, there's even a lawsuit over it. http://www.redorbit.com/news/health/360937/1800askgary_asks_court_to_halt_similar_ads/ The commercials urge people to call Gary or "Mr. Gary" to find a lawyer, doctor or even a tow truck. The text below is from Red Orbit.

"In court documents, 1st Health spells out how much advertising it does: more than $4 million per year. The company makes its money largely by treating auto accident victims, many of whom are referred to 1st Health through the 1-800-ASK-GARY commercials.

The company's Web site lists 24 accident clinics, including nine in Hillsborough, Pinellas and Pasco counties. However, during a brief discussion last month, Kompothecras told the Tribune he has more than 42 facilities across Florida, from Naples to Jacksonville."

What's my complaint here? I think chiropractors have a right to run ads for their medical services, even if in Florida chiropractors are NOT considered medical doctors. See here: http://your-doctor.com/patient_info/alternative_remedies/various_therapy/chiropractic.html and here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chiropractic and even here: http://www.sptimes.com/2005/08/21/Columns/They_ve_got_our_back.shtml

But these ads mention legal services as one of the first and most prominent things in the ads, claiming expertise in finding you the right lawyer...and they are chiropractors, NOT a law firm! Isn't that deceptive? IMHO it is. A muscle/joint/bone doctor is not a trial attorney, which is why over the last couple of years they now always have their spokesperson start out with "I am not a lawyer, but..."

Second, most all ads feature either minorities or (and I am being charitable here) actors portrayed as low income, "scared and confused" whites. You can't help but see this approach as predatory and some would say it borders upon targetting uneducated minorities.

The nice thing is that it appears the Florida Bar is finally paying attention, http://www.heraldtribune.com/article/20070623/NEWS/706230536/-1/RSS01
and maybe something will be done to stop this type of stuff.

The other problem, the biggest offender is "Gary Kompothecras, a Sarasota chiropractor who is a close friend [and campiagn cntributor] of Gov. Charlie Crist.

Why this new blog?

Frankly I have had it. I am sick to death of "the way the world is today", to paraphrase Blues singer Tommy Castro.

I can't stomach the ignorance, the lack of intellectual curiosity of George Bush, the pablum that passes for news reporting, the superficial journalism and the glorification of mediocrity (are you listening Todd Schnitt, Glenn Beck and Sean Hannity?.)

I used to laugh at Limbaugh, to fully "get" the entertainment value of the ridiculousness that pours from his mouth. Surely anyone with a semblance of an education got the joke, right? I mean have you listened to Mark Levin for even five minutes? Are you serious?

Apparently not.

I start writing this blog today not with a liberal or progressive bent, but with some idea of talking about the insane things that exist today, that we accept ...without analysis at all. I guess I'll just vent a bit. Hope this is worthwhile and not some self-indulgence.

We'll see...