I, Carly, Can't Fucking Stand You!

Oh, Charles and David, you refuse to see what you are doing. I would be embarrassed for you, probably, if I considered you human beings. It kills me how gullible you think Americans are. I wonder if your present Trump debacle will be the thing to make you finally reconsider your motives? Maybe it will be the miserable support found for the sheep in skins of color or the sheep in the skirt? I don't know but I feel confident that by the end of this week you will start to realize that the dynasty you have created built on a foundation of dog shit has finally been assessed at a fair market value.

Today Carly Fiorina is the one to earn my ire. She is hard to take seriously because I know that she will not be in the race much longer, but the fact that she is only out there because she is a woman is the thing I can't bear. Really? You think the government should be shut down if the Regressives don't get their way in defunding Planned Parenthood? You don't give a shit about fetuses. I'm sure you don't give a shit about children. Shut the fuck up.

The (not so) funny thing is, they hear confidence coming from a woman and determine she would be a great way to get votes for the GOP because they think that is what we little ladies are looking for. Of course, we are wiser than they give us credit for (and we can open our own pickle jars, too) and the confidence they hear is the condescension we receive.

As Ed O'Keefe, a commentator on the Fox cable channel with the word 'news' in its title tells us, Carly Fiorina is the perfect candidate to oppose Hillary Clinton. She can 'distinguish herself' because of qualities none of the others in the vast GOP field have. Apparently, the rest lack ovaries? And mammaries? I don't even know a single variant beyond that and O'Keefe doesn't offer any.

I knew and cared little about Fiorina until May when she went to South Carolina to hold a press event outside of a speech held by Secretary Clinton. I can't believe that her objective was to embarrass herself, but I also can't tell you what else she accomplished, either.  I won't call it a nasty tactic, because Clinton does it often. The difference is, of course, people actually want to hear what Clinton has to say. Who are the imbeciles that planned this catastrophe? Nevermind... Its the same ones who believe that we need to have a woman on the right in order to feel like we are respected over there, too (regardless of what comes out of the mouths of all on the right, including their women?).

While on her trip to South Carolina to prove her irrelevance, I saw her interview with Andrea Mitchell of MSNBC live and found myself screaming at the television telling Mitchell how to follow up. Fortunately, she heard me (wink). First Fiorina rambled on about how all of the candidates on the right had to answer the question about Iraq (remember the one Jeb fumbled over repeatedly?) and that no one bothered to ask Clinton that question. And she has avoided discussing Iraq. Dumbass.

Then, this woman whose hubris helps her fit comfortably into the 2016 candidate field, tells us that Secretary Clinton isn't qualified to run for President even though she has been a Senator and Secretary of State by offering us, "Titles are just titles and talk is just talk." This from a woman who reminds us about her having been a failed CEO (she doesn't remind of the 'failed' bit, of course) of a major Fortune 500 company.

See Interview Here

What, I can only assume, these people on the right don't understand, is the fact that a woman who blinks her eyes and bobs her head constantly while the other person in the conversation is speaking means that she is both not listening to what the other person is saying because she is impatiently waiting for them to shut up so she can counter whatever it is she thinks they will end up having said once they're through, and she has already assessed her superiority over that other person. As a woman, I won't try to speak for all of us but I am certainly better qualified to do so than any GOP strategist, I can tell you that when you put that on the television and ask me to get excited that I could have a chance at leadership by that type of woman, I will reply with a resounding, "Ummmm. No!," like most women, I'm sure. Again, that is only the intelligent among us. Those sheep you have wrangled on the right who thought Palin was a good idea because she was all 'mavericky' and shit, they might want to be talked down to, but I bet even they won't like her much, either.

Here, in an interview with Mika Brzezinski of Morning Joe, which I will startlingly give respect to Mika for actually being the hardass she should be, Fiorina explains her profound superiority over Clinton because of her 'track record.' She condemns Clinton for really having had no accomplishments and dismisses the fact that Fiorina, herself, was fired from Hewlett Packard and the stories surrounding that. Her contention was that she was a profound success there because, shit, I can't type the whole thing, she basically offered a lot of statistics and numbers of percentages of growth which were all in direct correlation to the fact that she fired 90,000 human beings to create those profits. David and Charles, I know that you sincerely do not understand the minds of those in America who aren't your sheep, but I will offer you a hint and hope you don't use it against my people in the future: We are not fucking idiots. We can listen to her prattle on about statistics and understand that it is all due to scores of thousands of people being unemployed. We are on the left. We are here because we actually give a shit about other people. You will not get any of us to vote for your side if you offer us your talking points in a skirt. Only your selected base lacks the capacity to crest that shallow depth.

Over the last few weeks I have heard countless pundits from the right opine as to the necessity of having Carly Fiorina in the debates (I can only assume that's why the ball licking lap dogs at the National Review gave her the cover last week) because otherwise Americans might be offended by the idea of a group of 10 men all attacking the left's leader, a woman, Secretary Clinton. God. Damn. We are still stuck on that female hysteria, huh? Roll in a fainting couch, get us our smelling salts and I'm sure we will get through it okay. In fact, I imagine she will still come out looking better than all of those doing the attacking because, regardless of whether or not anyone wants to acknowledge it, the country is growing more tired by the day of having unsubstantiated rumors come out and linger for years after having been disproved. Americans who are mindful of the absolute mess the Regressives have created and continue to manipulate are finding it hard to listen to them continue to blame President Obama, and Secretaries Kerry and Clinton for failings which clearly came from the right. As we continue to educate our brothers and sisters, you all on the right will have to start with some new tactics. 

Might I offer some suggestions? Start with giving us women to admire (I can't imagine there being one in a party that promotes and perpetuates patriarchy, but maybe you have some I haven't heard of.). Build your party out of politicians with actual ideas instead of threatening them to offer us yours because we actually know they are too afraid to say otherwise. It makes it hard to take any of them seriously when they just spent the weekend trying to win your favor. Find a platform that isn't necessarily from the left, but at least not as far right as one can go without actually starting to bring to mind the atrocities of those hardest right regimes of the last century. Never forget, the left will always be smarter than your lot. And unless you decide to veer farther right and try to amend that the way your predecessors on the far right have done, you will have to start behaving as if your opposition is going to catch on and foil your every move. It really is all falling apart for you now. And you created this. All of it. You built a movement built solely on hate. You allowed that movement to hijack the Republican party. You forced so many distractions as to negate many of the accomplishments of the right. And you created the long list of those they were supposed to hate out of all of the other people in the country, which alienated too many (Hitler, lets just say, took more time with the same plan and had many more people who fit in his 'collective'). Fucking progress! Goddamned melting pot! I know, guys, but take solace in this, you are both in your twilight years and will be gone soon. It always makes me feel better, anyway.

Kiss Kiss,

Mean Progressive

Dear Media: Rape Is A Thing

Fox has a right-wing cable channel with the word 'news' in its title and demands it has no political bias. This is laughable to every single person in the country who knows the definition of the word 'bias' (which obviously excludes their audience). The left has MSNBC. They never try to dismiss allegations that their commentary comes from the left, however they maintain credibility because they never contend to be something other than they are or make stories out of thin air to create and perpetuate hate or fear in their audience. For some reason, MSNBC feels the need to alienate their audience and offer us a regressive perspective for their morning show, Morning Joe. Its host, Joe Scarborough, is a former Congressman from Florida and his co-host, Mika Brzezinski, is supposed to offer us a perspective from the left.

Sadly, as with my previous condemnations of ABC, MSNBC has gone out of its way to offer American women an unhealthy representation of strong women. Brzezinski is adamant about being a leader for women. She recently wrote a book called "Know Your Value" and started a nationwide tour to teach American women just how to rise and be strong. Meanwhile, every morning she shows us a woman with no backbone who seems quite content with her place as the nodding head next to its superstar from the Regressive Party. She calls herself a feminist while giggling to the boys and literally defining women as the subordinate creatures we were meant to be in the 50s where the men on the show ignore her cutesy little remarks when she tries to speak about politics as if its adorable that she thinks she knows what is going on.

In July, in a long series of unsettling opportunities Brzezinski has taken to rally with the host and any guests about myriad unfounded (later proven to be untrue) rumors about Secretary Clinton, she gave a disgusted and dismissive start to a discussion about the recently released rape allegations against Donald Trump by the Daily Beast. She didn't want to hear about it.

The question of the rape, itself, was not relevant for discussion on Morning Joe. The story the crew offered us was about the reply from Trump's attorney where he literally said that "by the very definition, you can't rape your spouse." (I suppose in their dark world, when a man is married he can pretty much do whatever he wants to his wife and she has no say in it). He then threatened the author of the piece (a woman) in a manner so crude that no feminist or human being should consider lightly, and ended in a sentence which actually sounded like a threat of rape to her. The whole thing was ridiculous to Brzezinski. She passionately feigned disgust when the co-author and editor, Tim Mak of the Daily Beast, came on and then she rolled her eyes while shaking her head. Scarborough even pointed out that he would protect the editor from Mika, because she was so pissed about the fact that rape allegations would be offered about Trump.

Mak pointed out that the reply from Trumps attorney said that spousal rape isn't illegal and Brzezinski literally dismissed him and cut him off saying,"Great. Thank you." Hey Mika, kindly never tell your audience that you want women to know their value while you refuse to hear the story and refuse to take the opportunity to remind your audience that in fact, spousal rape is a thing. And that it is not only deplorable, but illegal. That discussion concluded with Scarborough explaining to America that the reason many good people don't run for political positions is because they are afraid of terrible lies like these coming out about them.

The Morning Joe team never even discussed the actual allegations of the story and why they are incredibly important for Americans to hear. Thankfully, MSNBC was good enough to offer its audience an interview with the author of the piece, Brandy Zadrozny, the night before where she explained the relevance of the story on The Last Word With Lawrence O'Donnell. O'Donnell was uncharacteristically offensive, however, because he was looking for reasons to remind his audience that the victim in the case, Ivana Trump, still has a friendship with Donald Trump all of these years later. He reminded us that when many marriages end the spouses can still get along for the sake of the children. Thanks for the reminder, Lawrence. That happens with a lot of survivors who are just glad to get out of the cross hairs of bullies. Trump has proudly offered us proof that he is a bully. He tells us that he goes out of his way to be nice to people who are nice to him. Exactly. Bullies often do that. They also, as Trump does, remind us about what happens when they are crossed. Trump makes sure we know that. He had a television show where the objective was for him to be a bully. No woman who left a man like that, with the status and power that he has, would dare speak out about him.

If Trump has shown us anything in the last several months it is that he will absolutely not abide any betrayal (either real or imagined) and if anyone spends a moment of their time thinking he wouldn't do whatever he could to bury this story, they are living in a world completely devoid of reality. Only the article, which no one seems interested in discussing, and O'Donnells show in July offered us insight into what that bully is capable of.

The only time that Ivana Trump testified under oath about the event she called it rape. The entire scene was violent. He yanked fistfuls of hair from her head. The testimony from her friends that O'Donnell couldn't even say on the air was "He tore off her clothes and unzipped his pants. 'Then he jams his penis inside her for the first time in more than sixteen months.'" When she later recanted (through Trumps attorney) this was the statement:

“During a deposition given by me in connection with my matrimonial case, I stated that my husband had raped me,” the Ivana Trump statement said. “[O]n one occasion during 1989, Mr. Trump and I had marital relations in which he behaved very differently toward me than he had during our marriage. As a woman, I felt violated, as the love and tenderness, which he normally exhibited towards me, was absent. I referred to this as a ‘rape,’ but I do not want my words to be interpreted in a literal or criminal sense.”

As with terrorism when the actor is neither foreign nor a Muslim, the media is really desperate to find new words to define rape. Both the word rape in the initial testimony and the account above is offensive and demands further scrutiny. If no one can admit that this updated account sounds like an attempt to minimize rape, they have no business calling themselves a journalist whose sole responsibility is to inform their audience, regardless of who is going to get pissed after you do. Finally, the divorce was granted on the grounds of Donald Trump's "cruel and inhuman treatment' of Ivana. That should trigger someone into thinking deeply about both his respect for women and the possibility of his being their President.

After the divorce, when she was finally away from him and was under a gag order, she changed her story to say that it was an emotional rape. And no one wants to discuss the fact that every single thing she said the week that the story broke in July to defend Trump had to actually be approved by him because of the gag order. What moron believes he, or the attorney above who would be the one to review it, would allow a response that would put the bully in a negative light?

Is it any wonder that the women's movement has been so unsuccessful? Is it remotely curious that in 2015 we still have not been able to get the ERA passed?

We allow for those in our media culture to negate accusations of 40+ women who give undeniably similar stories about Bill Cosby raping them. We allow them to do so even though we have evidence of his having admitted under oath to drugging them beforehand. But we accept a noted celebrity, Whoopi Goldberg, condemning us for believing these women. We have a self-proclaimed feminist on MSNBC refusing to hear an accusation of rape in a desperate attempt to protect the reputation of the man accused, who we all know to be a bully.

Again, I remind my reader, (for whites) there are two laws in our country where it is absolutely justifiable, and maybe even expected, to first be skeptical or dismiss allegations and, in turn, accept that the victim is lying. Those two laws are, of course, rape and domestic violence. If our media can't be held accountable for offering us perspectives in the dismissal of women and their obvious subjugation in the most extreme cases, what type of society are we accepting?

This is where we are in our women's movement: We have a very serious chance of getting our first female President. All news outlets, including the one which is supposed to lean left, offer supposition for every rumor that comes up (they've been giving us rumors for over 20 years now, has no one yet determined they should vet their sources before reporting?), but when serious allegations come out about the rage and danger of a man who is running for the same office, those allegations are dismissed with obvious and extreme prejudice. And the discussion about the dangers of spousal rape are minimized in order to literally promote the character of a bully.

In short, I guess we are fucked. That's where we are. And the media refuses to see their complicity in that fact.

Warning: Be Prepared for The Next Swift Boat

When I started becoming fascinated with the Tea Party spin earlier this year I started researching where their nonsense was coming from and how it was disseminated so quickly and effortlessly throughout their network. It was actually pretty easy to figure out once I found this jackass. His name is Jerome Corsi. He was the asshole that brought us Secretary Kerry's swiftboat conspiracy lies. He is also the one that created the story of President Obama being a Muslim. And that he is secretly married to his gay lover with Michelle Obama serving as his beard. 

I know that you, my readers, are intelligent people and you laugh when you hear this shit. I do, too. For a moment. I then realize that the problem with America is that we are a country which thrives on tabloid information and loves to talk shit about people. We have lost the capacity, as a collective, to ignore the bullshit and focus on things that are important. That is part of the success of the Tea Party and groups like them. They count on us to ignore it. And they count on morons to flock to this type of information because they are high on the excitement of it. 

Our ignoring it has failed us in the past. I honestly think, because of it, we have failed the President. The right is presently, sincerely, enjoying a rift within the Democratic Party because of the Bernie V Hillary fight we have raging among ourselves. I think the most disturbing part is the fact that some of the rumors going back and forth have actually been handed to us by the right. Regardless of which candidate you are most excited to support, please realize that if the rift continues you have not only furthered the cause of people who start rumors to ruin careers, but you will literally have handed them wins for the candidates they will be promoting next year; both in the White House and Congress. And ask yourself what our Supreme Court and our futures will look like then. Honestly. Have a quiet moments reflection on this.

I am asking ALL Democrats and Socialists and Progressives and Liberals to get behind shutting down this rumor whenever you hear it. Regardless of how you feel about any of the candidates on the left, it is the agenda of the left that will suffer, the entire agenda, if we allow them to give us more opportunities for division.

Corsi started spreading rumors about Secretary Clinton last week. The video and its implications are so vile as to say she was behind the Benghazi attacks, as was the President.

We need to get ahead of it this time.  Regardless of how incredibly ridiculous it was, remember that the rumors he started about President Obama are still discussed today. We need to laugh at the ridiculousness of this publicly and inform those around us before it makes its way into the backs of the minds of people who retain snippets of information, keep them in their mental 'negative' file and move on in life. Let them keep it in their 'negative GOP' file instead.

Their spin needs to be shut down. Period. As often as we can get in front of it we must. Please let us all work together to condemn the negative lies whenever they come out and make sure the Regressive Party understands that we see them coming and are not taking their shit.

And The Clowns Now Have a Ringleader!

I don't know. The GOP has never failed to leave me open jawed with a shaking head from the gaggle of goons they offer us every 4 years for the presidency. I consider myself a reasonable person. But I am also naive. Every time my naivete tells me that there is no way in hell [fill in the blank] will even make it through the primaries. Then every time I feel a little more detached from the country I love because it is, quite obviously, peopled with dupes and morons. This year is different, though. Somehow the GOP has managed to outdo themselves. This time the hopefuls have been repeatedly called a clown car. There is no better way to explain it.

We have Huckabee and his sincere hate for women. We have Ted Cruz who has promised to take us all back to the 12th century with both his fire and his brimstone. We are getting an opportunity to be reminded just how awful the Bush legacy is and, after six months, Jeb has finally decided that he would like to carry on those proud accomplishments. They are trying to give us Carly Fiorina because she has ovaries, I believe. And there's Ben Carson, a neurosurgeon who is the black man they will offer us this time because the GOP sincerely believes the rest of America is as stupid as their base. For the same reason, apparently, we are also getting a chance to consider Marco Rubio. He is of Cuban heritage and his parents came here to escape Fidel Castro. Except they didn't. Its all just so ridiculous. And, even though most have been running their campaigns for months now, so far we know about little more about them than a universal hatred for President Obama and Secretary Clinton, who have apparently ruined the country. Fabulous.

Today Donald Trump decided he would run, as well. He has fooled us before and tried to convince us that he was going to do it and then changed his mind. But he managed to get attention and I'm sure that is all he wanted. He has his own reality TV show for Christ's sake. He is a ridiculous human being who sincerely promoted the idea of President Obama having fooled us all with a fake birth certificate. He has managed to perpetuate the hateful narrative coming from the far right from a celebrity of his own egotistical creation having nothing to do with politics.

The only people who would actually consider him a viable candidate are the people he pays to support him and the teabaggers who will follow anyone who offers them a platform based solely on hate. Are we supposed to take seriously a man who wants to run our country and demands he can handle this economy he mocks after having filed bankruptcy four times? Or maybe we want our Commander In Chief to have nothing but pained aggression toward women who join the military and all but condone their being raped for having joined in the first place? Are we supposed to hope that the person who holds the veto pen to decide on the laws meant to protect our citizens to have spent many tens of thousands of dollars of his own money to advertise in the New York newspapers to have children be given the death penalty for a crime, it just so turns out, they had nothing to do with? This, the same man who had a public temper tantrum when those grown children finally won a settlement from the city who had abused their rights, with the help of his provocation.

I admit. I am one of those people who sits and whines every 4 years just thinking about what a tragic place we would all be in if whomever I hate most that time gets the job and I will have to end up leaving the country. I don't know how much I have ever really planned on doing it, though. This time my daughter is grown and on her own and my house is paid off. I honestly think that would be it for me. There are plenty of reasons to love my country, but if enough people come together to vote for him (while factoring in all of the bullshit that would have to happen at the polls) and he ends up leading this country, Im gone. I will take Mitt Romney's brilliant advice and self-deport. I'm thinking England. If I'm not mistaken, I'm destined to end up with Jason Statham. So I am going to go get started on making that happen. I'm sure he's been wondering where I am.


Kiss Kiss ... Mean Progressive

Dear Media: I Am Running for President!!

Dear Media:

I have decided to run for President and am inviting you to the kick-off announcement for my campaign. From what I gather in watching all of your coverage, it is a bad idea for a candidate from the left to have amassed any wealth. This is very encouraging for me. Not only am I not well off, but I live in a trailer park. I am hoping to kick my campaign off here this weekend. Although I do not ride a motorcycle like Scott Walker, the guy down the road, we call him Drunk Mike, has a motorcycle. I'll bet he would be glad to ride me through the park with a flag and maybe a bullhorn or something. Would you like to come cover that and ask the Americans who live here what they would like from a leader? Because you all spend so much time finding ways to discount positive economic news that comes out each month, I guess my neighborhood would be a true representation of an American community and its needs would be the perfect projection for your audience.

My neighbors have started a SuperPac to help me get started. They have already raised enough to pay for my internet through the election. I will be running the majority of my campaign online because I don't have a lot of money to pay for travel. You are all welcome to visit me here for interviews, though. Because my time and funds are so limited, however, I would like to get a few tips from you all before you come. I hope you don't mind taking the time to help me understand.

I guess its the campaigning itself that is confusing for me. I am a Democrat and I am a woman. I notice that all of the candidates on the right are men (aside from Fiorina who even you all don't seem to really be taking seriously) and are allowed to pretty much dictate which questions they answer. Will I be afforded that same courtesy? How does it work, exactly? It seems as if I just scowl and refuse to answer or change the subject you will back down. Or do I publicly condemn you for having a conservative bias and shame you into asking me the questions I want to answer? It seems kind of rude, honestly. I would really rather not have to do either. So if you could just stick with questions that are relevant to Americans, I think we would be fine.

Although the questions the candidates on the right seem to favor are those that they can turn into a tirade on Secretary Clinton, I would really rather you just focus on the issues I would like to tackle during my 4 or 8 years leading the country. I hope that you don't spend too much of our time together asking me to trash talk any of the other candidates. I could write you a book. Or a series of books, probably. Okay. I could actually write you a series of tomes, but the point is - if I have less than eighteen months to tell my fellow citizens how I envision our future, I would rather leave my diatribes for 2024.

I sincerely love my country. I guess that I am supposed to start there. From what you have reported to me, I am then supposed to tell America the reasons I love her. I should begin by defining my patriotism. Correct? Well, I do not believe in the idea of American Exceptionalism as those on the right keep defining it. I do hope that we can work toward being exceptional, however, and I have a lot of ideas about how to get us there. Frankly, it is hard to decide how to define my patriotism in a way that your audience will appreciate. It seems that everyone has been conditioned to believe that it is found in things I cannot understand. Please forgive my naivete if I do not come off patriotic. This is all new to me. So, this weekend you all reported that Secretary Clinton was condemned at a Joni Ernst fundraiser for having "Probably never ridden a John Deere," I have! So I am hoping you can report that to Americans for me. But, I am not sure if that experience is relevant as I have never walked to school in a downpour with Wonder Bread bags on my feet. Maybe we could get clarification before you report on that. I wouldn't want a cherished childhood memory of having steered the tractor from my granddady's lap to end up being maligned because my childhood had missed any other important milestones.

I believe that a lot of what Senator Sanders has been saying has been exactly what America needs to hear right now. The word 'socialist' has been bandied about, however, and that has been offered to us as a bad word. I certainly don't want any bad words attributed to me. Can we just stick with something like 'really really worried about taking care of all Americans' or something like that? It sounds a lot better, don't you think?

Of the many issues I am passionate about, the first that I would want to discuss is healthcare. People keep telling us that universal healthcare is a terrible thing. The only terrible things I would like to tell Americans are the horror stories of real people who are suffering because their state has decided to deny people coverage. I want them to know about how 850,000 Floridians have had their medical coverage taken away by their legislatures because they were deemed 'able bodied' even though the only way they can actually be so is by paying $4000/month to cover health costs to enable them to breathe. I am sure that, before Americans go to vote next year, they would want to know the very specific details about their candidates positions on this issue. Wouldn't you think so, as an American?

I am a proud feminist and would want to make women's issues a main focus of my campaign. I am concerned, however, because although I am aware of the rabid opinions those running on the right have espoused about women, I have never heard any in the media report on them. Are those the types of issues the media just doesn't like to cover? Unlike Mike Huckabee, I believe that women are quite capable of multi-tasking, even while on their periods. All of the candidates on the right have said they want to get rid of a woman's right to chose altogether. I would like to really have a discussion about that. Will you be willing to cover it? As yet, I have not heard the media cover any of their extreme ideas about women. It is hard to defend an argument when your audience hasn't even heard it. I hope you will understand this and start reporting on the things they say to their party so the rest of Americans can make an educated choice between my vision and theirs.

Like every other candidate on the left who has ever been interviewed, I believe that we should have laws to restrict gun use by those who have been deemed dangerous. Would you please make a point of specifically telling your audience that I am not interested in getting rid of the Second Amendment? In fact, I would even go a step farther and tell them that if they would stop the discourse about taking away the Constitutional rights of a woman to decide what to do with her own body, I would gladly see to it that they keep their Second Amendment. That seems fair. Then we could knock out two extreme conversations with one sentence and get back to things that the majority of Americans are actually concerned about.

I have been struggling to understand why there is so much coverage on Secretary Clinton in the media and so little on the many candidates on the right? Maybe because there are too many on the right you become overwhelmed and just focus on the left? I hope that my entry to the campaign doesn't create a field so large that it makes you decide to stop covering politics altogether. Information really is supposed to be the service that you give Americans and it would be a shame for you to give up before you even tried.

I lack the grace of President Obama and the experience of Secretary Clinton. I am easily frustrated and get quite defensive when I am dismissed or disrespected. I fear my campaign will end before it has a chance to really begin if you refuse to cover my campaign respectfully. You all are welcome to hours of commentary on what my platform is about. In fact, I would encourage that. Although my life will offer you more than enough truly tabloidesque moments to explore and exploit, I hope that you will keep that to a minimum. I think Americans would like to be able to discern my trustworthiness and intentions with little thought to whether or not I was a jackass as a teenager or took five years to get my two year college degree. My opinions are vastly different from those you have been offering to your audiences so I hope that will be enough to warrant your time and attention.

I'll see you this weekend!

Kiss kiss,

Mean Progressive

Dear Media: Is Fox Your Master?

For some reason, Americans are supposed to accept a biased report on all issues out of your fear of being condemned for being too liberal by people who, quite sincerely, have their own bias and their own media. The conservative media is an astounding conglomerate of groups who report the same misinformation to create conspiracies and encourage hate and fear. They have a cable television channel with the word 'news' in its title, they have a myriad of bloggers that right wing consumers accept as journalists, they have noted radio personalities and they have their hands in many of the nations largest newspapers. This is literally an entire market that, due to freedoms of the press and speech, Americans have to accept as being a part of our society and hope that the rest of Americans have enough sophistication to know the difference. However, we should not then be forced to accept that the rest of our media opt to follow them directly down the rabbit hole.

You are literally allowing them to direct the narrative in America. As a resource, I offer you this: every morning open this link and watch it on your way to work while reminding yourself that your sole responsibility as a journalist is to offer the country true journalism completely devoid of anything that would be found on a station which would air this in something other than a diatribe against what the worst of our society has to offer. (You are quite welcome).

I am amazed quite often at the times media are compelled to retract and apologize for inaccurate information. Recently several media outlets had to retract a story that had only been aired on Fox about a black man in Baltimore having been shot in the back by a police officer. How is it possible to have a cable television channel which has been discredited countless times not just for journalism in specific stories, but as a news outlet altogether, lead the narrative for any media that would want to be noted as creditworthy? No true journalist in America believes that the stories or opinions they offer are based on fact. Then how can anyone excitedly pick up their reporting and offer it to a respectable audience? Because you are lazy.

Your laziness has been on display lately as all news stations started reporting on the varied answers Jeb Bush has offered about whether or not he would've taken us into Iraq if he'd known then what we know now. I mean, it was such a triumph, right? Because he was changing his answer again and again. And you have been conditioned to know a 'flip-flop' when you hear one and pounce. Oh how exciting. In all of your excitement you missed the opportunity, as journalists, to ask yourselves, "So, if the 'hard-hitting' question that stumped him came from the Fox channel, should it be repeated to others or should I take a minute to analyze the question to at least make sure the facts are included in the question and any responses?" Instead, you repeated the question and allowed the answer to then direct or conclude the narrative with no contradiction. None of the candidates or pundits are being corrected when offering their denouncement of GW Bush to reply, "By the way, Hillary Clinton doesn't want to have to answer this question, either." She has already given us her answer. And no one is taking the time to remind us of that. Is fair journalism only a concern when attempting to deflect scorn from the right? Christ!

That has concluded every dialogue offered. And that pissed me off. I was so pissed off that I managed to miss the even bigger failure pointed out by Rachel Maddow last night (there is a reason one of us has a television show and the other has a blog (wink)). Once the generic slant is offered back to Secretary Clinton, it is then your responsibility to interrupt and inform your audience who may not be aware by inserting into the dialogue "To correct you quickly [fill in the blank with name of candidate or pundit], Secretary Clinton has already answered that question in her book. And she was not a member of the administration who commissioned the answer then offered to Congress." (You will be forgiven for finding a more respectful way of saying that, but not for omitting it altogether). The onus is on you, the journalist, whose job is to inform America, to remind us of the context of the questions and their answers. You cannot expect your newsmakers to give honest accounts. And you cannot expect your audience to know everything, otherwise, we wouldn't need you, would we?

This morning in an interview with Rand Paul on CNN, the candidate was asked about what he would do about ISIS. He delved into a discussion where he inserted a sentence, unchallenged even though this was obviously pre-recorded, saying that President Obama wasn't hard on terrorism because he called the attacks on Fort Hood 'workplace violence' instead of 'terrorism,' the word Paul, apparently, would prefer be used. This is a favorite talking point repeated in the right-wing media. But on CNN, this new idea to the thoughtful American audience was allowed to air without having been questioned. Of course, the interview was concluded by Alisyn Camerota asking about his curly hair and its maintenance. I guess we couldn't really be expected to find anything integral from that piece of journalism, so were we meant to discount the entire interview? In asking for so many contrived understandings, you are asking a lot of your audience.

In 2013, CBS apologized for misinformation offered in an interview of a source using an assumed name about Benghazi that ended up to have been proven false. It was not a live broadcast. The story offered was not vetted and was offered to America as fact. CBS bore a lot of criticism from many journalistic outfits for this failure and for the retraction which was insincere and offered no explanation for their profound neglect. Here is a way to avoid this in the future: If someone wants to use an assumed name, be damned sure you know that they are legit. Also, again, if the story is about something only the right wing is excitedly jumping all over, there is a very very good chance its bullshit.

We learned from tabloid print, and then tabloid television, that people get really excited when something negative happens or someone says something derogatory about another person in America. And those stories sell copy or ad space. And news outlets, at their core, are moneymaking businesses. I suppose Americans are just supposed to accept that you will run this type of content to make money? I don't accept it. I don't accept that because something is outrageous I should hear about it every hour on the 24/7 news channels. I don't accept that you compel your viewers to come back so you can tell them the same thing you told them the last hour. I don't accept that you are giving me garbage because you don't demand more of yourselves.

It is unfathomable that a man like Peter Schweitzer can publish a book and outlets which we are supposed to consider legitimate report on it. It is hardly newsworthy that he has written another book. New books are released every week. You might find it newsworthy that less reputable news outlets are reporting on an, as yet, unreleased book by a man who has been discredited at least 10 times. Otherwise, it is not newsworthy. Let the right wing media cover it. Let America see distinction in the media who don't cover the tabloidesque stories. I feel insulted when I hear these ridiculous stories coming from anyone other than right wing talking heads. It is as if those of us who are intelligent and genuinely want to know what is going on in the world are either irrelevant or expendable as an audience. Please give the rest of America the respect we are due and just ignore the stories that are, quite obviously, garbage.

The New York Times and Washington Post were contractually obligated to report on the book release. What kind of shit is that? So, before its release, they were "briefed on the books findings" along with major Republican candidates for the 2016 Presidential election, and, without having read a single word of the book, without having vetted a single contention, its conspiratorial information was reported to America. We were not offered information about the illegitimacy of his many past 'findings.' It is not journalism to assume your readership has such information. And it certainly isn't journalism to report on what is, quite obviously, slanderous nonsense meant to be released just as Secretary Clinton is beginning her campaign for the Presidency. The New York Times mentioned the fact that the book was published by a News Corp company, but neglected to tell its readers that News Corp is owned by Rupert Murdoch, the owner of the Fox cable channel with the word "news" in its name.

Upon its release (when people actually had read it and were able to vet the information they were reporting on), Amazon immediately released a message to buyers that significant changes had been made to the Kindle copies purchased. But, of course, the damage has been done. The negative associations attributed to Secretary Clinton that were all based on supposition are now ingrained in the minds of Americans. And that was the objective. And you did that.

That distinction is what would make you the legitimate media, at present you are not. You would actually prove your legitimacy by reporting on the discredited outlets who did report on it and then had to retract their contentions while holding yourself in esteem for having ignored it altogether. But when you end up adding your own retractions to the list, you become their equal. Ill bet that as a journalist or a media outlet, that thought just kind of made you queasy. If it were my career, it would certainly offer me a nauseated pause.

Deliberately neglecting to inform Americans about the goings on in the country is bias. The majority of Americans still support a woman's right to choose offered by Roe V Wade. However, a House Bill passed last week to limit those rights profoundly and Americans weren't informed of it by the major 3 (PBS did cover the story). This bill, if passed, would be cruel and potentially dangerous, as many birth defects are not detectible until after 20 weeks. Not only were Americans not made aware of the passing of this bill, but they were not offered the contradictory information where the Supreme Court found in Colautti V. Franklin:

Because this point [of viability] may differ with each pregnancy, neither the legislature nor the courts may proclaim one of the elements entering into the ascertainment of viability — be it weeks of gestation or fetal weight or any other single factor — as the determinant of when the State has a compelling interest in the life or health of the fetus.

I want to attribute these failings to laziness and not bias. Please prove me right. If you have been lazy in allowing the right to manipulate the narrative, take it upon yourselves to seek truth in your stories and objectively offer your audience all of the information they need to be sincerely informed. As with every political season, I believe that this is one of the most important election cycles in a long time. I think I might be right this time, however. The right wing voters have become noticeably more extreme and all of the present candidates are speaking only to those people. If their dialogue becomes imprinted in the American mind in the next year and a half and they all get the seats they need in DC with the Presidency, we are fucked. I think anyone who can see what is really going on would say the same.

The really cool thing about your job and your industry is that you get to direct the narrative of America. You get to determine what we need to hear and in what manner it should be delivered. That is a very heavy responsibility. How can you allow that responsibility to be dictated by the least credible sources in the industry? They have very overt biases. The rest should not.

We will quickly begin to see noticeable changes in journalism once a few adjustments are made. For instance, there will be little need for phrases like "a credible source has said." The sources credibility should either be clearly defined or be named and allow the audience to interpret their credibility. It should be a rare occasion when your source should require anonymity. And, it should never be necessary in reporting on politics. Politics are, by nature, biased, we have to believe your sources aren't. Likewise, when reporting on 'a study' please offer your audience the information on who performed the study and who commissioned it. I can offer you a study of what people in an apartment complex think about property taxes, but neither I nor my findings would be remotely credible. The right-wing media have their very own studies. They are not reputable and intelligent people realize that. We don't want to have to question your findings, too.

Americans are growing impatient for something they can believe and not have to immediately discount for fear of its being 'more of the same.' Imagine what kind of respect will be afforded the outlet which decides to step up and offer that to us. (Just tell your owners and VPs that means lots of ratings, which means lots of money!!)