Friday, October 27, 2006

Please tell me I didn't just hear WWL's Garland Robinette say we should nuke Iraq!

"Low-level nukes," he said.

I couldn't get through on the phone to demand that WWL apologize, or fire Robinette.

It's the second time in a couple of weeks that he's suggested the United States should actually consider using nuclear weapons.

The first time was in a conversation a couple of weeks ago when Robinette asked a guest if bombing Iran with nuclear weapons was an option.

Robinette opened up the phone lines on Wednesday's "think tank" toilet tank to ask listeners what the United States should do about Iraq -- stay the course, win the war, or pull out.

In his little tirade -- using that phony, deep-throated radio voice he projects to feign a self-righteous, educated opinion -- Robinette asked ad nauseum why the United States wouldn't just do whatever it has to do to win the war.

He characterized Iraq, and the entire Arab world, as filled with Islamic-crazed terrorists, suggesting that the only way to defeat them, is to hit them hard, over and over again, and to keep pushing them back.

What he fails to recognize is that it is that very attitude which is used to recruit more terrorists. If there's anything we should know by now, it's that the United States can never win hearts and souls by bombing the shit out of poor brown people. What he fails to conjure in his feeble mind is the notion that a lot of those people he's talking about nuking aren't terrorists, but don't want the sort of "freedom" or death tradeoff the United States is offering at the end of a rifle. Maybe Iraqis question the intentions of the United States, since we are the reason why "freedom" wasn't an option for them for over thirty years while the United States propped up Saddam Hussein. Maybe we're the terrorists Mr. Robinette!

Bottom line: People who suggest that we "nuke" countries lack the education and restraint to host radio shows broadcast across the United States, and as Mr. Robinette likes to advertise, streamed on the internet around the world.

Part of the problem is that hate radio has been allowed now for almost twenty years, ever since Ronald Reagan killed the "Fairness Doctrine" in 1987.

The Fairness Doctrine was a quaint FCC policy which Ronald Reagan and the Republican Party argued was limiting debate. What they really meant, was that the Fairness Doctrine limited their radical, right-wing views from being aired, because they would be immediately challenged and lampooned.

Witness the rise of Rush Limbaugh since 1987. Has debate on issues increased? Of course, you'd have to know what broadcast debates were like before 1987, but we could still ask the question, do broadcasters present their views, minimally with objective facts to support their arguments, or do they just ram the American public with the day's talking points to achieve partisan goals? If we still had the Fairness Doctrine, for example, would any broadcaster have allowed unchallenged Rush Limbaugh's statement that Michael J. Fox was opportunistically faking his Parkinson's symptoms to promote stem cell research?

Is it any wonder why the American middle class doesn't feel like it's being represented in the public sphere when people like Rush Limbaugh occupy the public air waves with their hate-filled rants and inconsequential filthy partisan attacks?

It's people like Rush Limbaugh who have trained an entirely new generation of broadcasters to promote the view that public participation in politics is futile.

And exactly who is served by that view?

WWL's "Spud" McConnell is worse. He's just a fat redneck hick. He still seems to think that Iraq attacked us on 9/11, and he projects the view that if anyone criticizes (i.e., Rush Limbaugh's arch-rival, Ted Kennedy) the Bush administration's incompetence in the execution of the war in Iraq, it could only mean that those critics are playing into the hands of the terrorists, rather than that they're trying to save American soldiers' lives:

We can't just pull out. I'd rather it be there than here. When you're own political opponents in your country say things, and they are quoted by our enemies ... If I were Ted Kennedy, and they were quoting me ... we're still Americans. I don't know.

Shut your fat ass Spud! Idiot! And by the way, if "you'd" rather be there than here, why don't you enlist?

It's people like Rush Limbaugh, Spud McConnell, and Garland Robinette -- all on WWL -- who are dumbing down civic discussion in our country. That's WWL's secret -- that it promotes an image of professionalism, when in actuality broadcasts programs hosted by dim-witted partisan hacks.

In a conversation with Bobby Jindal the other day, rather than ask Jindal why his OCS revenue legislation failed, and why Mary Landrieu was more successful in promoting her legislation, WWL's Tommy Tucker suggested that Jindal was somehow impaired by the democratic process.

When Jindal conveniently bypassed talking about why critics in other coastal states don't like the fact that Jindal's legislation because it would open up their coasts to oil drilling, he suggested that the reality was that he wasn't going to listen to critics, but was going to do what was right for Louisiana.

"The key word is 'reality'" said Tucker, "the reality of Washington, rather than what you read in your civics books."

Right -- we should burn those civics books and give the Hitler salute!

Again, who is served by disparaging civic participation in our democratic process? Hint: It ain't middle America.

We need to reintroduce the expression "I rightfully disagree" into our vernacular. We need the Fairness Doctrine restored, and we need to confiscate the licenses of broadcasters who spew hatred over our airwaves.

I frequently tolerate WWL because, tragically, in a broad spectrum of radio licenses in New Orleans, there is no other alternative for talk radio where local newsmakers are heard.

I'm afraid that other people just give up on radio altogether, conceding a powerful medium of communication to the purveyors of stupidity and hatred.

We can't give up. We have to fight back.

There is no place for the purveyors of hate-filled speech to exclusively own the means of mass communication in our democracy.

Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting -- The Fairness Doctrine: How We Lost it, and Why We Need it Back

PBS' Now -- What Happened to Fairness?

Alternet -- Time for a Digital Fairness Doctrine

Tags: | | | | | Bush is a moron | Impeach Bush | George W Bush | Bush | Worst President Ever | Ray Nagin | Worst Mayor Ever | Recall Ray Nagin | | | Katrina Dissidents | Failure Is Not An Option | Katrina One Year Anniversary | media | Media Democracy | WWL


At 10/27/2006 08:03:00 AM, Blogger Zihuatanejo said...

Now is your chance:

It is ashamed that this country has lost focused on what is important during these election debates. On every major media source, on line, radio and TV talk shows, everyone is talking about the war this, or the war that.. I hardly anyone mention how screwed up FEMA was and how we need help in the south still. Here is what I am going to be posting at these sites:

"Some people might consider all this "stay the course" and other Iraq war talk debatable. But, when you look at how this administration handled Katrina and the Gulf coast it becomes very clear how incompetent they are at governing and taking care of the real important issues. The issues at home. More than 750,000 people lost their homes. Many of them still have no relief and the billions spent on recovery was mostly sucked up by Halliburton and other middle companies that were not from the devastated areas. Small businesses that were ruined in the disaster areas have not received the relief they were promised. Why should Halliburton and other cozy companies, receive the lion's share of relief dollars? Why were people left stranded for days?

The biggest thing these guys want to do right now is steer the national debates away from this foul up. lets not let them do this. You guys should go to these web-sites and help keep these important issues alive in these discussions. Speak up New Orleans! Call in on these national radio shows and ask the question "Why aren't we talking about Katrina, Fema, and Global warming?"

At 10/27/2006 11:19:00 AM, Blogger Dangle 24-7 said...

Exactly where in Jindal's legislation does it state that coastal states have no option or say so in drilling of their coast?

I want to see exactly what all this fear is about while we continue to support this country every day with oil and natural gas.

By the way, when Wal-Mart starts selling windmills and solar panels, then we shell know that such forms of energy will be cost effective.

Anyway....please e-mail me the links that state states will lose control over their coasts.

At 10/27/2006 12:10:00 PM, Blogger Schroeder said...

Jindal's legislation removes the federal ban on offshore oil drilling.

Lifting that ban would burden citizens in those states with the costs of defending the rights they currently enjoy to protect their coasts -- as they see fit.

Under current federal mandates, any state that chooses to lift the ban can do so by referendum.

If the ban is removed, citizens will have to raise organize and raise money to protect their interests from oil companies -- far better financed, and connected to this White House.

At 10/27/2006 12:50:00 PM, Blogger oyster said...

"What [G.R.] fails to recognize is that it is that very attitude which is used to recruit more terrorists."

Precisely. Robinette should only be permitted to talk about wetlands conservation.

At 10/27/2006 06:58:00 PM, Blogger Dangle 24-7 said...

You say: "Jindal's legislation removes the federal ban on offshore oil drilling.

Lifting that ban would burden citizens in those states with the costs of defending the rights they currently enjoy to protect their coasts -- as they see fit."

That is not my understanding. I may be wrong but if I am, why not share a "little inconvenience" with us in Louisiana. They certainly want to share our oil and gas!

At 10/27/2006 08:35:00 PM, Anonymous schroeder915 said...

That we in Louisiana are willing to put up with "a little inconvenience" doesn't have to mean that others should have to be so burdened. Furthermore, as we surely have learned here in Louisiana, oil drilling off of our coast has been anything *but* "a little inconvenience." That's not to say that it can't now be done better. Nevertheless, be realistic. As a practical matter, Jindal's legislation will *never* -- *NEVER* -- be passed as long as the other coastal states feel threatened. It's a non-starter to throw in ending the federal ban, which is why it's absolutely irresponsible not to question Jindal on this issue, and to continually give him a free ride in every interview.

At 10/27/2006 09:04:00 PM, Blogger bayoustjohndavid said...

"Robinette asked ad nauseum why the United States wouldn't just do whatever it has to do to win the war."

What kind of victory in Iraq could be acheived with nukes? I think most of the blowhard Bush supporters just need to be asked to define victory in Iraq.

I didn't he could be worse than DelGiorno, but he pulls it off; mainly because he seems so harmless. But he manages to work in his digs at Blanco and praise for Repubs every chance he gets. Actually, if it weren't for the reaction that I have to listening to WWL when I get I ready for work, I'd probably be a lot more critical of the governor.

At 10/28/2006 06:06:00 AM, Blogger Dangle 24-7 said...

Every site I have been on states to this effect:"

"The measure would remove all bans on new offshore oil and gas drilling more than 100 miles from shore. For areas between 50 and 100 miles from shore, leasing would be permitted unless the coastal state specifically blocks it. Areas within 50 miles would remain protected unless a state opts out of protection."

This ain't rocket science. The fact that dumb ass voters like us can change a constitution a gazillion times without questioning the validity of our constitution (Jesus, look up the word "constitution"!), it would appear that the savvy voter in the other states could handle this burden!

How about we start calling it the Charlie Melancon Bill? Would that make you happy?

Look, Mary Landrieu was on WWL and said there can be no compromise to the Senate version of this bill. I know and so do others that the Senate will bite at the 4 Billion dollar mark over 10 years. So she is setting herself up to be the hero in all this. Let this serve as a record – 4 Billion Dollars!

I also know that if we could get the 12 billion dollar house deal, with just a few Democrats, we can over ride a Bush veto and make him the bad guy while receiving enough money not only to rebuild our levees, to restore our coastline but to assist people with energy bills and increased insurance rates in the form of an Alaskan style rebate. These are the ills that must be resolved. The Senate bill is an insult!

But to sit there and complain about Jindal and the house bill and to defend the democrats for sticking it up our ass is reprehensible.


Post a Comment

<< Home