Wednesday, October 28, 2009

Letter to the Editor

I feel compelled to respond to the opinion written by Bryan Baum in today's paper. He is correct in one regard, Longmont should have purchased the land that the Union group currently owns. The problem is his timeline. It should have been purchased under Pirnack's or Stoecker's administration. But neither cared about purchasing open space, just selling Longmont to the highest bidder. It was already purchased before the current administration took charge.

     Please do not forget about the petition which contained over 6000 signatures, that sought to either reverse the annexation or take it to a vote of the citizens of Longmont. I believe this was the major reason for the withdrawal of the annexation request. Mr. Baum, you belittle the citizens who signed that petition as inconsequential by not even acknowledging its existence.

     Our concern regarding the annexation was not building a church. Among our concerns were a) cost to the city after the municipal tax had expired; b) infrastructure costs; c) percent of tax-exempt property; and d) water.  When we asked for more information regarding these issues, we received none.

We all watched Julia at a council meeting call the online petition spam rather than show concern regarding the opinion of a large group of citizens. And Julia stating in the Times-Call Opinion that the citizens of Longmont were not smart enough to make decisions.

I urge people to vote for Roger Lange and not back the old regime that sold Longmont; which I believe Baum, Santos, and Witt would do. I believe that most people have already voted but please don't forget all the hard work that we did to have a voice in the direction of our city. It is our city and our voice and we are not for sale.

Doreen Petersen


Wednesday, October 21, 2009

Keep it Classy

A dear friend of mine gave me this advice:

"Keep it classy dude"

And I've been trying. Honest. I have. Sure, I may toss in an f-bomb now and then, but I can generally laugh at the sad little 'men' and spoiled little girls that are behind Longmont's SmearMachine2009... but this really requires a response:

From a Times-Call article comment stream:

Some analysis, Peggotty. You tree-hugging, prairie-dog- lovin radical leftists are the experts in "outside" campaign monies the $1.6 million Defenders of Wildlife (Virginia-based) put up to destroy the honorable Marilyn Musgrave last year.

(fake name redacted because they're a coward), Longmont, CO, 10/21/2009 7:08 PM

'The Honorable Marilyn Musgrave' ??

(Falls off chair laughing and wets pants)

...and I think that sums up my 'response'.

Sleep well my wingnuts, sleep well.

Graphical Representation

This graphic is just lovely and sums it up nicely.

Monday, October 12, 2009

I Love You Don Coulson, Wherever You Are

The following letter to the editor appeared in the Longmont Times-Call recently and I felt it deserved a spotlight:

Criticism limited to a few in the public

"E-mail should have been in public folder"

Oct. 1, Open Forum

Thursday's Open Forum supplied ample evidence that the only snide, unfounded, antagonistic and uncivil commentary in the forthcoming election is from certain members of the public. I have seen nothing from any candidate that even comes close to incivility, but there seems no shortage of hostility from some writers, in particular the individual who writes the "Wrongmont" blog and who took Ms. Karen Benker to task for perceived sins of omission falling just short of treason and corruption.

Interested in learning what's wrong with Longmont, I spent some time painfully reading through the blog, page after page of mind-boggling inanity and twisted grammatical structures which one might expect from a pre-schooler but hardly from a self-appointed scion of civic wisdom. Nit picking and a wild predilection to bring wrathful judgement upon anyone with a differing opinion are the hallmarks of this smarmy blog.

I saw not one single positive comment nor one suggestion as to how a perceived problem might be corrected. To paraphrase some timeless alliteration from the late William Safire, 'Wrongmont" is nothing but a niggling nest of nattering negativism.

Don Coulson


Hm. Apparently I'm not the only one in Longmont that doesn't enjoy Wrongmont. Careful there Mr. Coulson, I suspect he's a member of the 101st Fighting Keyboarders... you don't want to upset them... they can be... um... *yawn*

Charge of the Beckerheads

By Sheila Samples

I didn't know Van Jones. I didn't know Van Jones was a friend of mine -- at least not until the stench billowing from the Fox Hate Channel became so foul I was forced to take a closer look at this terrifying creature. No -- not Jones, whom President Obama wisely had hired as Special Advisor for Green Jobs at the Council on Environmental Quality -- but the sobbing, lying, deliriously insane Glenn Beck.

According to Beck, who began his assault on Jones in a July 23 disjointed rant, wherein he claimed Jones is not only "a communist-anarchist radical," but a former black nationalist, avowed communist-anarchist radical. Or something. Anyway, according to Beck, Jones is really really dangerous -- a racist just like Obama, who has a "deep-seated hatred for white folks" and whose entire agenda is restructuring America into a land of reparations, social justice and jobs for minorities.

The appalling thing about the intellectually challenged Beck, like the Limbaugh-loon he so desperately struggles to impersonate, is that he is given a podium from which to spew his hate. Even more appalling is that he is allowed -- encouraged -- to do so with no reservation, no regulation, and no repercussion. Unless, of course, you consider the multi-million-dollar salary he receives for telling lies and for whipping paranoid masses of gun-toting racists into glassy eyed fury, then it's easy to see Beck is hitting the repercussion jackpot -- over and over again.

As Alexander Zaitchik points out in his three-part Salon series on Beck's background, Beck has always been desperate for two things -- attention and ratings. And he learned early in his career that nothing works as quickly nor as well with the media as personal insults, public humiliation and character assassination.

With few exceptions, the mainstream media fawn over him, laugh at his blatant lies, his death threats and his fake tears. Beck has long been obsessed with destruction -- even murder. In March 2001, he fantasized about killing Rep. Charles Rangel (D-NY) with a shovel as well as lining up several others and shooting them in the head. On his May 17, 2005 Glenn Beck Program, he chortled...

"Hang on, let me just tell you what I'm thinking. I'm thinking about killing Michael Moore, and I'm wondering if I could kill him myself, or if I would need to hire somebody to do it. No, I think I could. I think he could be looking me in the eye, you know, and I could just be choking the life out -- is this wrong? I stopped wearing my What Would Jesus -- band -- Do, and I've lost all sense of right and wrong now. I used to be able to say, "Yeah, I'd kill Michael Moore," and then I'd see the little band: What Would Jesus Do? And then I'd realize, "Oh, you wouldn't kill Michael Moore. Or at least you wouldn't choke him to death." And you know, well, I'm not sure."
And more recently, on his Aug 6 Fox program, Beck regaled at least himself by giggling about putting poison in House Speaker Nancy Pelosi's wine....

Not a pretty picture. No -- not Beck, who should have the FBI nipping at his heels like other "homegrown terrorists" for threatening the lives of legislators and sowing dissent within the government -- but the media, going all Hunter Thompson on us, curled up at Beck's feet like so many chimps in a zoo cage, feverishly pumping out masturbatory praise for the low-class dirty trickster.

When Jones, rather than sink to Beck's level, resigned his position over the Labor Day weekend, some in the media were ecstatic. NBC Deputy Political Director Mark Murray whooped it up in his 8 Sep "First Read"...

"Van Jones resigns: Speaking of distractions, Glenn Beck got his man -- Van Jones, who resigned from the administration over the weekend. And judging by how Beck responded to the news of the resignation of the mid-level staffer, he won't be satisfied with this scalp. Beck made it sound like he might even have a list of "Who's next," which will embolden defenders of the administration to start focusing on Beck and others. [...] As for Jones, clearly, that 9/11 stuff made him indefensible and does call into question the White House's vetting process. The irony in all of this: Beck never lost his job for calling Obama a racist, but Jones did…"
Time Magazine, a partner of CNN, has led the charge to cover Beck's every move, every word, every teardrop in a desperate effort to get a piece of Beck's attention-and-ratings action. See here, here, here, here, here, and here.

Then, of course, there's Time's photo gallery" and the much-heralded Sep 17 cover story wherein author David Von Drehle takes 3,598 words to debunk his own headline, "Mad Man: Is Glenn Beck Bad for America?" and to paint Beck as nothing more than a feisty, lovable -- albeit controversial -- little whippersnapper...

"Glenn Beck: the pudgy, buzz-cut, weeping phenomenon of radio, TV and books . . . The old American mind-set that Richard Hofstadter famously called "the paranoid style" — the sense that Masons or the railroads or the Pope or the guys in black helicopters are in league to destroy the country — is aflame again, fanned from both right and left. [...] No one has a better feeling for this mood, and no one exploits it as well, as Beck. He is the hottest thing in the political-rant racket, left or right. A gifted entrepreneur of angst in a white-hot market.
Beck is 45, tireless, funny, self-deprecating, a recovering alcoholic, a convert to Mormonism, a libertarian and living with ADHD. He is a gifted storyteller with a knack for stitching seemingly unrelated data points into possible conspiracies — if he believed in conspiracies, which he doesn't, necessarily; he's just asking questions. He's just sayin'. In cheerful days of yore, he was a terrific host of a morning-zoo show on an FM Top 40 station. But these aren't cheerful times. For conservatives, these are times of economic uncertainty and political weakness, and Beck has emerged as a virtuoso on the strings of their discontent."
Not to be outfoxed by her peers, on Sep 22, CBS Evening News anchor Katie Couric premiered her new one-on-one high-profile online interview show "@katiecouric" with Beck, whom she introduced as a "one-man cottage industry." Beck fielded Couric's painfully shallow questions, such as, "Do you feel that you''re kind of being divisive?" with sly grins and winks. "Let me see, here," Beck said, giggling and rolling his eyes while tapping his forehead, "how can I answer that? You're just trying to make some news -- you just want me to give you a sound byte..."

But the most interesting -- and entertaining -- take on Beck comes from Fox News' Chief Beckerhead Chris Wallace, who boasts that he "is on the Glenn Beck bandwagon," and insists that "Beck is a meteor here at Fox News." Wallace was taking the irrepressible Shepard Smith to task for not giving Beck the proper respect; even accused Smith of being jealous of Beck's fame. "Oh no," Smith proclaimed, fighting back fake tears -- "We are here to celebrate, worship and adore..." You gotta watch this.

Most mainstream media -- if they acknowledge Beck's attacks -- present them as news, such as the czars fiasco, the fake Fox ACORN videos, etc. However, there are some, even on the right, who are concerned enough about the damage being done to sound the alarm. The New York Times' David Brooks writes, not only about Beck, but Limbaugh, Hannity and others whose lust for power (attention and ratings) knows no bounds...

"For no matter how often their hollowness is exposed, the jocks still reweave the myth of their own power. They still ride the airwaves claiming to speak for millions. They still confuse listeners with voters. And they are aided in this endeavor by their enablers. They are enabled by cynical Democrats, who love to claim that Rush Limbaugh controls the G.O.P. They are enabled by lazy pundits who find it easier to argue with showmen than with people whose opinions are based on knowledge. They are enabled by the slightly educated snobs who believe that Glenn Beck really is the voice of Middle America.

So the myth returns. Just months after the election and the humiliation, everyone is again convinced that Limbaugh, Beck, Hannity and the rest possess real power. And the saddest thing is that even Republican politicians come to believe it. They mistake media for reality. They pre-emptively surrender to armies that don’t exist.

They pay more attention to Rush’s imaginary millions than to the real voters down the street. The Republican Party is unpopular because it’s more interested in pleasing Rush’s ghosts than actual people. The party is leaderless right now because nobody has the guts to step outside the rigid parameters enforced by the radio jocks and create a new party identity. The party is losing because it has adopted a radio entertainer’s niche-building strategy, while abandoning the politician’s coalition-building strategy.

The rise of Beck, Hannity, Bill O’Reilly and the rest has correlated almost perfectly with the decline of the G.O.P. But it’s not because the talk jocks have real power. It’s because they have illusory power, because Republicans hear the media mythology and fall for it every time."

Like Chris Wallace says, they are all just meteors exploding across this nation's sky. Perhaps someone should remind Wallace and others in the media that the shining streak they're hanging onto is nothing but a trail of gas, and when it enters Truth's atmosphere, it will disintegrate -- taking the Beckerhead Bandwagon with it.

Sheila Samples is an Oklahoma writer and a former civilian US Army Public Information Officer. She is a regular contributor for a variety of Internet sites.

Here Come Da Money

Just got this in my mail today:
(click to enlarge images)

Paid for by

My bet is this is directly connected to LIFT, the CO GOP and Greg Burt.

Funny how they exclude Kaye Fissinger...

I guess they're terrified to give her ANY publicity at this point. Same for Van Dusen.

Think the Lifebridge pimps have given up? Think again.

Say no to the candidates behind this kind of bullshit, in my opinion they're the same ones behind the hate websites that have been screeching for months.

Friday, October 2, 2009

Ethical Standards, not so much

Bryan Baum is a member of Rotary. Lovely. Then perhaps he can put 'service above self' and admit that he knows who was running (and very likely behind the new anonymous attack sites) - especially in light of this public admission by his wife:

The opposition candidates have tried desperately to look the other way about this, but there it sits, like catshit on a linoleum floor. Admission of guilt.

I'm thinking the 'not wanting repercussions' had something to do with elections.

If someone's going to prate on about 'ethical standards' then they should try and live up to them.