<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><!-- generator="wordpress/1.5.1-alpha" -->
<rss version="2.0" 
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/">
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Get a real job, Howard</title>
	<link>http://pandagon.blogsome.com/2007/10/20/get-a-real-job-howard/</link>
	<description>Just another WordPress weblog</description>
	<pubDate>Mon, 09 Nov 2009 19:19:50 +0000</pubDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=1.5.1-alpha</generator>

	<item>
		<title>by: MikeEss</title>
		<link>http://pandagon.blogsome.com/2007/10/20/get-a-real-job-howard/#comment-460822</link>
		<pubDate>Mon, 22 Oct 2007 22:41:03 +0100</pubDate>
		<guid>http://pandagon.blogsome.com/2007/10/20/get-a-real-job-howard/#comment-460822</guid>
					<description>&lt;i&gt;&quot;Exactly which part was a “smear”?&quot;&lt;/i&gt;

...I swear just I heard the sad sound of somebody's mental faculties dying and expelling a last rattling breath of air...

..sad...</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[	<p><i>&#8220;Exactly which part was a “smear”?&#8221;</i></p>
	<p>&#8230;I swear just I heard the sad sound of somebody&#8217;s mental faculties dying and expelling a last rattling breath of air&#8230;</p>
	<p>..sad&#8230;
</p>
]]></content:encoded>
				</item>
	<item>
		<title>by: sharon</title>
		<link>http://pandagon.blogsome.com/2007/10/20/get-a-real-job-howard/#comment-460817</link>
		<pubDate>Mon, 22 Oct 2007 22:34:17 +0100</pubDate>
		<guid>http://pandagon.blogsome.com/2007/10/20/get-a-real-job-howard/#comment-460817</guid>
					<description>Exactly which part was a &quot;smear&quot;? That neither Frost held a full-time job? That they were already coverd by S-CHIP and, therefore, extending it wouldn't affect them? That they own several vehicles and properties? That their state's program doesn't consider assets but only wages?

It's amazing the lengths you people go to to keep the meme alive. It's a smear! It's a smear! Yes, I suppose when the truth hurts, it must be a smear.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[	<p>Exactly which part was a &#8220;smear&#8221;? That neither Frost held a full-time job? That they were already coverd by S-CHIP and, therefore, extending it wouldn&#8217;t affect them? That they own several vehicles and properties? That their state&#8217;s program doesn&#8217;t consider assets but only wages?</p>
	<p>It&#8217;s amazing the lengths you people go to to keep the meme alive. It&#8217;s a smear! It&#8217;s a smear! Yes, I suppose when the truth hurts, it must be a smear.
</p>
]]></content:encoded>
				</item>
	<item>
		<title>by: Mark Foxwell</title>
		<link>http://pandagon.blogsome.com/2007/10/20/get-a-real-job-howard/#comment-460487</link>
		<pubDate>Mon, 22 Oct 2007 06:19:15 +0100</pubDate>
		<guid>http://pandagon.blogsome.com/2007/10/20/get-a-real-job-howard/#comment-460487</guid>
					<description>I lose track of which Commandment has which number, but the one about lying actually is translated as being specifically against &lt;em&gt;bearing false witness&lt;/em&gt;.

As for instance, perpetuating lies about the Frost family after they have been proven to be lies--it's not just the falsehood of the statements but that the statements are intended to influence a judgement away from truth and hence away from justice.

Another example might be, oh, I dunno, pretending the government has good reason to believe some nation overseas has stockpiles of dangerous weapons when they have none to speak of and this is well-known to the actual intelligence experts, when said &quot;error&quot; is intended to influence a nation to attack the one overseas.

False &lt;em&gt;witness&lt;/em&gt;.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[	<p>I lose track of which Commandment has which number, but the one about lying actually is translated as being specifically against <em>bearing false witness</em>.</p>
	<p>As for instance, perpetuating lies about the Frost family after they have been proven to be lies&#8211;it&#8217;s not just the falsehood of the statements but that the statements are intended to influence a judgement away from truth and hence away from justice.</p>
	<p>Another example might be, oh, I dunno, pretending the government has good reason to believe some nation overseas has stockpiles of dangerous weapons when they have none to speak of and this is well-known to the actual intelligence experts, when said &#8220;error&#8221; is intended to influence a nation to attack the one overseas.</p>
	<p>False <em>witness</em>.
</p>
]]></content:encoded>
				</item>
	<item>
		<title>by: Amanda Marcotte</title>
		<link>http://pandagon.blogsome.com/2007/10/20/get-a-real-job-howard/#comment-460367</link>
		<pubDate>Sun, 21 Oct 2007 20:23:58 +0100</pubDate>
		<guid>http://pandagon.blogsome.com/2007/10/20/get-a-real-job-howard/#comment-460367</guid>
					<description>Huh, Sharon, if he was saying what you want him to have said, why didn't he say that instead of what he did say?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[	<p>Huh, Sharon, if he was saying what you want him to have said, why didn&#8217;t he say that instead of what he did say?
</p>
]]></content:encoded>
				</item>
	<item>
		<title>by: mnemosyne</title>
		<link>http://pandagon.blogsome.com/2007/10/20/get-a-real-job-howard/#comment-460233</link>
		<pubDate>Sun, 21 Oct 2007 12:04:02 +0100</pubDate>
		<guid>http://pandagon.blogsome.com/2007/10/20/get-a-real-job-howard/#comment-460233</guid>
					<description>Sharon seems to have no idea that the Frosts' story was, in fact, proved true in every detail.  So to continue to claim that they're liars is -- guess what? -- a smear.

Nice to know that Sharon still sees nothing wrong with continually breaking the Ninth Commandment.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[	<p>Sharon seems to have no idea that the Frosts&#8217; story was, in fact, proved true in every detail.  So to continue to claim that they&#8217;re liars is &#8212; guess what? &#8212; a smear.</p>
	<p>Nice to know that Sharon still sees nothing wrong with continually breaking the Ninth Commandment.
</p>
]]></content:encoded>
				</item>
	<item>
		<title>by: MikeEss</title>
		<link>http://pandagon.blogsome.com/2007/10/20/get-a-real-job-howard/#comment-460228</link>
		<pubDate>Sun, 21 Oct 2007 11:22:15 +0100</pubDate>
		<guid>http://pandagon.blogsome.com/2007/10/20/get-a-real-job-howard/#comment-460228</guid>
					<description>&lt;i&gt;&quot;The point was that the Left is decrying any skepticism about the Frosts as “smearing a 12-year-old” by pointing out that Democrats are not beyond “smearing” (or investigating, take your pick) Republicans.&quot;&lt;/i&gt;

Sharon, deary, do you really see no difference between the concept of &quot;smearing&quot; - which implies that whatever is being promoted is either untrue, greatly exagerated beyond reasonable proportion, or presented in such a way as to imply that it's a totally unique situation when it isn't -  and &quot;investigating&quot;?

I know (and you know) this one of the standard Reichwing talking points (&quot;Well, you know how it is, they ALL do it...&quot;) to deflate the seriousness of charges against the Right while inflating charges against the Left.

That's exactly why it's presented in a way that implies Hillary's cleavage, Edward's hair, Obama's parentage, etc., are topics that are either just as serious, or just as trivial, as whether GWB finished his stint in TANG, whether he was a coke user, whether he had a DUI, whether Cheney covered up details of his &quot;accidental&quot; shooting of a hunting buddy, whether phone taps began months before 9/11, whether we knew there were no WMD in Iraq before invading, whether we were/are/continue to torture people, etc., etc., etc. 

Ultimately, all this is just another way to divert attention away from the magician's other hand while he uses it to pick our pockets yet again.

Sad to see you falling into their trap again sharon.  Doesn't being a puppet of the Right ever get old to you?...</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[	<p><i>&#8220;The point was that the Left is decrying any skepticism about the Frosts as “smearing a 12-year-old” by pointing out that Democrats are not beyond “smearing” (or investigating, take your pick) Republicans.&#8221;</i></p>
	<p>Sharon, deary, do you really see no difference between the concept of &#8220;smearing&#8221; - which implies that whatever is being promoted is either untrue, greatly exagerated beyond reasonable proportion, or presented in such a way as to imply that it&#8217;s a totally unique situation when it isn&#8217;t -  and &#8220;investigating&#8221;?</p>
	<p>I know (and you know) this one of the standard Reichwing talking points (&#8221;Well, you know how it is, they ALL do it&#8230;&#8221;) to deflate the seriousness of charges against the Right while inflating charges against the Left.</p>
	<p>That&#8217;s exactly why it&#8217;s presented in a way that implies Hillary&#8217;s cleavage, Edward&#8217;s hair, Obama&#8217;s parentage, etc., are topics that are either just as serious, or just as trivial, as whether GWB finished his stint in TANG, whether he was a coke user, whether he had a DUI, whether Cheney covered up details of his &#8220;accidental&#8221; shooting of a hunting buddy, whether phone taps began months before 9/11, whether we knew there were no WMD in Iraq before invading, whether we were/are/continue to torture people, etc., etc., etc. </p>
	<p>Ultimately, all this is just another way to divert attention away from the magician&#8217;s other hand while he uses it to pick our pockets yet again.</p>
	<p>Sad to see you falling into their trap again sharon.  Doesn&#8217;t being a puppet of the Right ever get old to you?&#8230;
</p>
]]></content:encoded>
				</item>
	<item>
		<title>by: sharon</title>
		<link>http://pandagon.blogsome.com/2007/10/20/get-a-real-job-howard/#comment-460223</link>
		<pubDate>Sun, 21 Oct 2007 11:01:23 +0100</pubDate>
		<guid>http://pandagon.blogsome.com/2007/10/20/get-a-real-job-howard/#comment-460223</guid>
					<description>Howard Kurtz wasn't talking about hair or boobs. He was talking about the mantra of the left that it was unfair to actually question the Frosts' ability to provide their own insurance. If you actually read Kurtz's column, you'd know that.

The point was that the Left is decrying any skepticism about the Frosts as &quot;smearing a 12-year-old&quot; by pointing out that Democrats are not beyond &quot;smearing&quot; (or investigating, take your pick) Republicans. In other words, smearing one's political opponents is an equal opportunity occupation.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[	<p>Howard Kurtz wasn&#8217;t talking about hair or boobs. He was talking about the mantra of the left that it was unfair to actually question the Frosts&#8217; ability to provide their own insurance. If you actually read Kurtz&#8217;s column, you&#8217;d know that.</p>
	<p>The point was that the Left is decrying any skepticism about the Frosts as &#8220;smearing a 12-year-old&#8221; by pointing out that Democrats are not beyond &#8220;smearing&#8221; (or investigating, take your pick) Republicans. In other words, smearing one&#8217;s political opponents is an equal opportunity occupation.
</p>
]]></content:encoded>
				</item>
	<item>
		<title>by: Samantha Vimes</title>
		<link>http://pandagon.blogsome.com/2007/10/20/get-a-real-job-howard/#comment-460172</link>
		<pubDate>Sat, 20 Oct 2007 23:22:54 +0100</pubDate>
		<guid>http://pandagon.blogsome.com/2007/10/20/get-a-real-job-howard/#comment-460172</guid>
					<description>You would think in a media and celebrity obsessed culture, the ordinary person *would* understand that people on TV are given expensive stylings, including the politicians. </description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[	<p>You would think in a media and celebrity obsessed culture, the ordinary person *would* understand that people on TV are given expensive stylings, including the politicians.
</p>
]]></content:encoded>
				</item>
	<item>
		<title>by: ChrisR</title>
		<link>http://pandagon.blogsome.com/2007/10/20/get-a-real-job-howard/#comment-460169</link>
		<pubDate>Sat, 20 Oct 2007 23:12:38 +0100</pubDate>
		<guid>http://pandagon.blogsome.com/2007/10/20/get-a-real-job-howard/#comment-460169</guid>
					<description>Hey! Stop criticizing &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.tinyrevolution.com/mt/archives/001795.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;The Greatest Media Critic in American History&lt;/a&gt;!</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[	<p>Hey! Stop criticizing <a href="http://www.tinyrevolution.com/mt/archives/001795.html" rel="nofollow">The Greatest Media Critic in American History</a>!
</p>
]]></content:encoded>
				</item>
	<item>
		<title>by: Ellie</title>
		<link>http://pandagon.blogsome.com/2007/10/20/get-a-real-job-howard/#comment-460147</link>
		<pubDate>Sat, 20 Oct 2007 21:18:16 +0100</pubDate>
		<guid>http://pandagon.blogsome.com/2007/10/20/get-a-real-job-howard/#comment-460147</guid>
					<description>It's too difficult to choose whether Kurtz an idiot or a lying sack of shit in this case. Fortunately, his own words and activities clearly indicate that he's both.

&lt;blockquote&gt;Liberal bloggers are saying that either a) Edwards is getting a bum rap; b) the media are to blame, or c) Edwards should have known better.

&lt;b&gt;I have no particular expertise in this matter&lt;/b&gt;, since my neighborhood place charges only $14. But I've gotten a lot of haircuts in my life--some even as much as $30! (Kurtz, Washington Post, &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/blog/2007/04/24/BL2007042400478.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;04/23/2007&lt;/a&gt;)&lt;/blockquote&gt;

As a TV professional as well as a dork, Kurtz should know that the weed whacker neighborhood  rate he pays for the dork look is nowhere near what  it costs to have TV / film hair and makeup professionals get him ready for his appearances on CNN.

Anyone on TV who catapults the Republican propaganda to invent a smear narrative about Edwards and his hair is as as direct and knowing a slimy participant in a drive by smear job as McConnell was when feeding regurgitated Drudge chewed cud to CNN's John Roberts -- a regular right wing shill apparently.

This bullshit that only Dems get professionally styled for the camera is as nonsensical as the fiction that only Dems are &quot;partisan&quot; (or &quot;playing politics&quot; or pulling a political &quot;stunt&quot;).

Republicans are outright lying when they pretend that they've never been styled for the camera. Not surprisingly, they use two sets of math on par with their usual double standard and unlevel in the extreme playing field to gin up the statistic.

Kurtz, Wolf Blitzer, John Roberts, Kiran Chetney (sp?) -- smirking and snarfling along with the hyenas that feed them this rancid rotten &quot;insider&quot; crap -- dutifully repeat it after just having the &lt;b&gt;same fucking neck towels removed when going to the camera to catapult the nonsense like the fraudulent buffoon squad they are&lt;/b&gt;. They are simply a disgrace to their profession.

They get precisely the same kind of TV hair, makeup and wardrobe service &lt;b&gt;routinely&lt;/b&gt; that would easily cost as much or more (fairly factoring in overhead, equipment, product, materials, shift worked, onsite transportation and of course, skilled labor.)

Shame on them for pretending otherwise and willfuly lying to their audiences this way.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[	<p>It&#8217;s too difficult to choose whether Kurtz an idiot or a lying sack of shit in this case. Fortunately, his own words and activities clearly indicate that he&#8217;s both.</p>
	<blockquote><p>Liberal bloggers are saying that either a) Edwards is getting a bum rap; b) the media are to blame, or c) Edwards should have known better.</p>
	<p><b>I have no particular expertise in this matter</b>, since my neighborhood place charges only $14. But I&#8217;ve gotten a lot of haircuts in my life&#8211;some even as much as $30! (Kurtz, Washington Post, <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/blog/2007/04/24/BL2007042400478.html" rel="nofollow">04/23/2007</a>)</p></blockquote>
	<p>As a TV professional as well as a dork, Kurtz should know that the weed whacker neighborhood  rate he pays for the dork look is nowhere near what  it costs to have TV / film hair and makeup professionals get him ready for his appearances on CNN.</p>
	<p>Anyone on TV who catapults the Republican propaganda to invent a smear narrative about Edwards and his hair is as as direct and knowing a slimy participant in a drive by smear job as McConnell was when feeding regurgitated Drudge chewed cud to CNN&#8217;s John Roberts &#8212; a regular right wing shill apparently.</p>
	<p>This bullshit that only Dems get professionally styled for the camera is as nonsensical as the fiction that only Dems are &#8220;partisan&#8221; (or &#8220;playing politics&#8221; or pulling a political &#8220;stunt&#8221;).</p>
	<p>Republicans are outright lying when they pretend that they&#8217;ve never been styled for the camera. Not surprisingly, they use two sets of math on par with their usual double standard and unlevel in the extreme playing field to gin up the statistic.</p>
	<p>Kurtz, Wolf Blitzer, John Roberts, Kiran Chetney (sp?) &#8212; smirking and snarfling along with the hyenas that feed them this rancid rotten &#8220;insider&#8221; crap &#8212; dutifully repeat it after just having the <b>same fucking neck towels removed when going to the camera to catapult the nonsense like the fraudulent buffoon squad they are</b>. They are simply a disgrace to their profession.</p>
	<p>They get precisely the same kind of TV hair, makeup and wardrobe service <b>routinely</b> that would easily cost as much or more (fairly factoring in overhead, equipment, product, materials, shift worked, onsite transportation and of course, skilled labor.)</p>
	<p>Shame on them for pretending otherwise and willfuly lying to their audiences this way.
</p>
]]></content:encoded>
				</item>
</channel>
</rss>
