Friday Mashup (2/5/10)

(Note: I'm having a weird Blogger/browser issue during the day, which is why these posts are late.)

I believe this year’s Oscars are about a month away, but that hasn’t stopped Fix Noise from vying for its own coveted nod of Most Outrageous Right Wing Motion Picture Wankery.

As noted here, James Pinkerton sings the praises of the supposedly pro-war film “The Hurt Locker,” which Christine Flowers also scribbled about today in the Philadelphia Daily News. And Pinkerton lists all of the Iraq War movies that haven’t achieved the big box office desired by their backers, though he conveniently leaves out Brian De Palma’s “Redacted,” which won the Venice Film Festival award and is “a fictional story based on true events” (this is the only Iraq War film I’ve seen to date, and it is truly a harrowing experience).

Pinkerton also tells us the following…

Hollywood was on the wrong side of the public. The public was by no means unanimous in its support of the war, but ticket-buyers did not want to see the military trashed. To be sure, Hollywoodites would say that these movies weren’t anti-military, only anti-war, but that’s too fine a distinction to make. To most people, to be loudly anti-war was to be at least quietly anti-military.

And so, the Dixie Chicks, for example, were toast after their lead singer, Natalie Maines, attacked then-President George W. Bush in March 2003, on the eve of Operation Iraqi Freedom.

This tells us that The Dixie Chicks “(have) sold 30.5 million albums in the United States through August 2009” and “won 13 Grammy Awards, with 5 of them earned in 2007 including the coveted Grammy Award for Album of the Year for Taking The Long Way”

Sounds like somebody was “on the wrong side of the public” all right (though, as noted here, Pinkerton has been wrong about Iraq, among other topics, for years).

CNN’s Ruben Navarrette, Jr. opined as follows today, taking shots at President Obama and the congressional Dems, of course (here)…

…when the issue turns to immigration reform -- oops, better make that, if the debate turns to immigration reform, since it doesn't look like Obama is ready to "man up" on that front and keep his promise to deliver a plan -- we're likely to hear again from these Blue Dogs, who find it easier to oppose what they call "amnesty" than to take on the businesses that create the problem by hiring illegal immigrants. What profiles in courage.

As noted here from last July…

The Department of Homeland Security is changing the way it tackles illegal immigration, in many cases remaking or rescinding Bush administration policies.

The changes put heavier emphasis on employers, including more investigations of hiring records and fines for violations, says John Morton, assistant secretary for Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) in DHS.

"We have to come to grips with the market for illegal labor," he says. "To get there, we have to move beyond individual cases."

And as the New York Times tells us here (from July ’08, with a Democratic congress in charge of course)…

Under pressure from the toughest crackdown on illegal immigration in two decades, employers across the country are fighting back in state legislatures, the federal courts and city halls.

Business groups have resisted measures that would revoke the licenses of employers of illegal immigrants. They are proposing alternatives that would revise federal rules for verifying the identity documents of new hires and would expand programs to bring legal immigrant laborers.

Though the pushback is coming from both Democrats and Republicans, in many places it is reopening the rift over immigration that troubled the Republican Party last year. Businesses, generally Republican stalwarts, are standing up to others within the party who accuse them of undercutting border enforcement and jeopardizing American jobs by hiring illegal immigrants as cheap labor.

So instead of using his column space to name particular companies fined by the Obama Administration for violations of immigration law, Navarrette decides to offer a blanket indictment of the Democrats only on this matter, even though the Repugs had years to resolve the issue of immigration when they ran Congress, but failed to do so.

What a “profile in courage.”

And finally, the Bucks County Courier Times offered a “Thumbs Up” to the all-but-named Repug candidate to oppose Patrick Murphy for the PA-08 U.S. House seat (and former seat holder himself, of course) Mikey Fitzpatrick here due to his promise to limit his term in office were he to win election again in the fall.

Putting aside the brass behind such a claim (typical of the arrogance that also brought us this), please allow me to point out other Republican politicians who promised to limit their term in office, only to rescind that promise after they were elected.

One is the House rep who held the PA-08 seat before Mikey was elected, and that would be Jim Greenwood. Another would be a U.S. House rep who ignored that pledge and continues to serve (assuming you could call what he does “providing constituent service”), and that would be Joe Pitts of PA-16.

It amazes me how gullible people can be, particularly those in our media who we entrust with the “gate keeping” function of filtering out partisan BS on all sides – though they often end up failing miserably at that function – in their duty to educate and inform.

(And by the way, Courier Times, that "Vent" feature of yours is just "the bomb." Gee, how many MORE times will I have to read Bill O'Neill of Northampton, PA bitch about not much in particular, with O'Neill being the guy who supposedly hates government, though that never seems to stop him from seeking elected office every two years or so?)

And while I’m on the subject of the Courier Times, I should note the paper’s “Thumbs Down” citation to our incumbent House rep Patrick Murphy here (see, Patrick had the temerity to question the paper’s coverage of him, which may be a bit of sour grapes I’ll admit, though the paper’s editorial board use this as an excuse to pillory him for not returning their calls personally).

OK, enough is enough.

Ever since he won election to the U.S. House about three and a half years ago, Patrick Murphy has been the subject of almost continual ridicule and (I believe) slander on the pages of the Courier Times. I don’t know how the paper has covered prior Democratic politicians – I didn’t live in Bucks when the House rep was Peter Kostmayer, so I can’t say anything on that subject for comparison purposes. But the attacks on Murphy are something unparalleled in my experience (and I grew up in Philadelphia, where politics is definitely not a spectator sport for the faint of heart).

On an almost daily basis any more, Patrick Murphy’s voting record is misrepresented and he is attacked for his personal beliefs. And to prove my point, a letter today claimed that “Mr. Murphy, during his three-plus years in Congress, has voted in lock step with Nancy Pelosi on every piece of legislation she has rammed through the House” (the Courier Times apparently never requires substantiation for such charges against a Democrat when they appear in letters or opinion columns).

Here is a partial list of Patrick Murphy’s votes in opposition to those of the Democratic Party, dating back to July 2009 (from here):

Vote 991, H R 2847: Making Appropriations for the Departments of Commerce and Justice, and Science, and Related Agencies for the Fiscal Year Ending September 30, 2010, and for Other Purposes

Vote 967, H.R. 4173: To provide for financial regulatory reform, to protect consumers and investors, to enhance Federal understanding of insurance issues, to regulate the over-the-counter derivatives markets, and for other purposes.

Vote 958, H.R. 4173: (See above)

Vote 746: H R 2892: Making Appropriations for Homeland Security Fy 2010

Vote 700: H RES 317: Recognizing the Region From Manhattan, Kansas, to Columbia, Missouri, As the Kansas City Animal Health Corridor, and for Other Purposes

Vote 663: H R 3326: Making appropriations for the Department of Defense for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2010, and for other purposes.

Vote 644: H R 3293: Making appropriations for the Departments of Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education, and related agencies for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2010, and for other purposes.

Vote 636: H R 3288: Making Appropriations for the Departments of Transportation, Hud, and Related Agencies for Fy 2010

Vote 623: H R 3288: (See above)

Vote 580: H R 3183: Making appropriations for energy and water development and related agencies for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2010, and for other purposes.

All of this is damning commentary against a partisan rag which has clearly staked out its position in what it anticipates as a bellwether congressional election this fall in which its beloved “prodigal son” Mike Fitzpatrick will be returned to Washington. But this is also a commentary of the kittenish response by Democrats and progressives in this district to the tidal wave of right-wing garbage that infests this newspaper with very little protest on our part.

We can’t stop it, but we can sure as hell try to slow it down. And the time to do that grows shorter with each passing day.