Conservative talk radio called in all their chips to demand loyalists' support for 1/2 Hour News Hour, the Fox News Channel's "answer to The Daily Show," whose pilot, as we reported, aired Sunday night.
Limbaugh, who did a cameo appearance with Ann Coulter in a lead-in sketch, told the Ditto Heads: "The key is that it needs an audience."
It's the latest right-wing cause: " Korny Konservative Komedy: you vill vatch it." They've determined that what the right needs is a comedy show to promote their issues (the götterdämmerung of the Bush administration isn't funny enough, apparently).
Comedy has been working for liberals because comedians are writing with the comedy premise to be funny, not to promote something.
Keith Olbermann: "If you start out saying, ...this is going to be conservative comedy, or this is going to be liberal comedy, aren't you guaranteeing it‘s not going to be funny, because you‘re selling something, rather than trying to be funny? "
The whoremasters sounded desperate- pulling up his top, and flashing his ample orbs, Rush told his tricks: "I‘m going to be blatant here. ... in order for this show to have a chance of success, for these two pilots to be picked up and actually made into a regular series, with some substantive production values, and so forth, it needs an audience."
Michael Medved was pretty hard on most of the material, but defended the show as a mission, referring to it as a "cause."
"No, The 1/2 Hour News Hour doesn't count," Medved wrote in his blog, "as dazzling, deathless television, but if it fails -- particularly after the collapse of the Dennis Miller Show -- it will be a long, long time before right-wingers get another shot at entertaining our own troops via TV and demonstrating that conservatives do, after all, possess a sense of humor." (The italics are ours to show how the always-practical conservatives must justify this little piece of fluff not only as a political tool, but as a patriotically correct TV distraction for the troops).
After all that help, the heavily-promoted show did pretty well for Sunday night cable- way better than the preceding, Sean Hannity‘s Amerika. Known around Fox Plaza as .5HNH, the show drew just under a million and a half viewers- about a third of which was in the money demo, aged 25 to 54.
Unfortunately, getting the horse to the Konservative Komedy Korner couldn't make him stick around long enough to drink.
The audience peaked 11 minutes into the show. There were 648,000 younger viewers at 11 minutes after, and went straight down from there, reaching a nadir of 340,000 at the 27 minute mark, which doesn't bode well for getting that audience back next week.
Conservative flame blog Hog On Ice wrote: "Even in a world where the media are dominated by the left wing, you do NOT get twelve bad reviews to two good reviews just because you made fun of Hillary Clinton. This show SUCKS. You can't force your listeners to fill their eyes and ears with diarrhea every week until .5HNH becomes a success.
...it's coming into focus now
Posted by: Duffman | February 23, 2007 at 05:24 PM
You admit we had it better, easier and with more tools in our toolkits so why are you so hard on people who can't seem to make it now?
And, Duffman, if you can't think of anything intelligent to offer, keep it to yourself.
Posted by: joanie | February 23, 2007 at 05:30 PM
..you see the solution is to have the WEA 'mentor' our corporations so that proper decisions will be made..ha
by posting here I feel I am keeping it to myself...remember 'ignore'
Posted by: Duffman | February 23, 2007 at 05:34 PM
Well, Duff, with nonsense like that you deserve to be ignored. Another post like that will fade into the ether . . .
Posted by: joanie | February 23, 2007 at 05:37 PM
I'm sorry I guess I forgot to ask whether I was 'deserving' or not before I dared post...
Posted by: Duffman | February 23, 2007 at 05:43 PM
"You are a mean-spirited group of people. With your way of thinking, we'll have 50% poverty pretty soon. I wonder when it will stop, chucks."
Hey JOANIE Broadstokes
We can assume then that you rent out the MIL unit attached to your house for free to that school teacher and the place you have up in Birch Bay is also used by someone less fortunate than you?
Posted by: Pugetsound | February 23, 2007 at 05:43 PM
Pooling money and managing it over time. That sounds like the way social security should work. But does it?
Screw corp ceos who mismanage companies. They get no defense from me. Not all corps are mismanaged though. I can not understand golden parachutes for piss poor managers. That is an issue for the stockholders (unions, state and municipal pensions, individuals).
Posted by: chucks | February 23, 2007 at 05:51 PM
you are correct puts
Posted by: joanie | February 23, 2007 at 05:52 PM
You talk around it well, chucks, but I guess the only ones you are personally capable of holding accountable are the average joes and their kids who have it worse that you . . . so go for it.
I prefer to help the people like me rather than the people at the top.
Must be a left thing.
Posted by: joanie | February 23, 2007 at 05:54 PM
"you are correct puts"
we'll take you at your web-word joanie.
Posted by: Pugetsound | February 23, 2007 at 06:00 PM
Don't know what that was all about (& probably don't want to know...pretty loud silence)...'Must be a left thing.'
Posted by: Duffman | February 23, 2007 at 06:17 PM
Joannie
Ok, so we give the downtrodden free housing. For how long?
So we feed them. For how long?
So we educate them. Grade school, ok we do that.
Middle school, ok, we do that. High School, ok, we do that. Community college, ok, we do that.
University, masters, Doctorate? Small business loans. When does one finally get a job and support thier family?
How come the Korean commnity can do it? How about the Indian community can do it?
Why the heck do we have third and forth generation families still receiving guvmnt assistance?
I am as passionate about helping someone get started as you are. I just believe in getting them started. Not carrying them through life.
Can't keep this up. Dinners not going to cook itself. Thanks for the debate.
Good night and have a good weekend.
I gotta work both days.
Posted by: chucks | February 23, 2007 at 06:28 PM
"I prefer to help the people like me rather than the people at the top."
So what do you mean by 'person like me?'
Your fairly well off with a full belly, well educated, a primary residence with a couple rental units, and secure in a job that commands -at least from me- a lot of respect. Certainly through hard work and a little luck by most standards your doing pretty darn well.
So why not deed your trailer over to a less fortunate person. I am sure you must have some empty bedrooms in your home. Why not give those over to some less fortunate types?
Over at 2nd and Pine their is a great little Needle Exchange Point that has some individuals that could use a roof over their head without fear of being hassled. Or a Foster Family?
You seem to have no problem telling others what to do with their property why not set the example Joanie?
Posted by: Pugetsound | February 23, 2007 at 07:33 PM
I feel the same way about Mike! Mc Gavick. He should shelter people with that largess he got from safeco! You know, there is probably some poor slob that needs shelter who got kicked out of GOP headquarters for sleeping in Uncle Mark Foley's Log Cabin.
Posted by: coiler | February 23, 2007 at 07:41 PM
Sorry puts but I'm just not in the mood to suffer fools tonight.
Posted by: joanie | February 23, 2007 at 08:32 PM
"Just for your Duff . . . (I went to her website and got her source which makes two sources for . . . keeping track?
"U.S. economy leaving record numbers in severe poverty"
Hmm, do I have to research everything I pass on? If I tell you where I got it, shouldn't that be enough? It is certainly more than you give me. . . :)"
Joanie, have you read that McClatchy Newspaper article you linked above about Randi's "We have more people living in poverty today than in the last 32 years." remark. That link offers no proof of the fact. It would be something in line with what Merci would call a "Information Black Hole". Looks like you have two sources without a source.
Posted by: Steve | February 23, 2007 at 08:41 PM
A McClatchy Newspapers analysis of 2005 census figures, the latest available,
from the article, Steve. Works for me.
Course, you being a pa-tri-ot and all, I'm sure the only source you believe is one working for your lying decider.
Can you prove McClatchey wrong? If not, quit wasting my time.
Posted by: joanie | February 23, 2007 at 08:50 PM
"Sorry puts but I'm just not in the mood to suffer fools tonight."
that's okay joanie broadstrokes.
just don't look too closely in the mirror. :)
Posted by: Pugetsound | February 23, 2007 at 08:56 PM
"I feel the same way about Mike! Mc Gavick. He should shelter people with that largess he got from safeco! You know, there is probably some poor slob that needs shelter who got kicked out of GOP headquarters for sleeping in Uncle Mark Foley's Log Cabin."
Coiler, I am glad that you and I are in agreement about Joanie being a hypocrite (sic)
Since we can't contact Mike how bout asking Joanie why she says one thing but lives another...
Posted by: Pugetsound | February 23, 2007 at 08:59 PM
Puts, it was irony, don't you get it?
Posted by: coiler | February 23, 2007 at 09:15 PM
"uts, it was irony, don't you get it?"
actually coiler, i was the one being ironic...try and keep up pumpkin.
Posted by: Pugetsound | February 23, 2007 at 09:27 PM
Read the article Joanie, its about people going into deep and extreme poverty, not people going into poverty. Although it does say millions are getting close, is that what you mean.
Posted by: Steve | February 23, 2007 at 10:36 PM
Seems Poverty stabilized in 2005 Joanie.
2005 census on poverty
Posted by: Steve | February 23, 2007 at 10:51 PM
Maybe you need new reliable sources.
Posted by: Steve | February 23, 2007 at 10:51 PM
"Maybe you need new reliable sources."
But don't you know Steve, she uses Randi Rhodes. LOL!
And lets not forget Keith 'Special Comment' Olberman doing his Howard Beal 'I am Mad as hell and I am not gonna take it anymore' rants. I watch him for laughs as I also watch O'reilly for laughs.
But clearly, some of the best comedy out there is ol Keither doing his 'special comment' complete with mock seriousness, those priceless 'chair pivots' and that fake looking tan in the can stuff he uses to achieve the 'bronze god' look. And yes, the rolling up the paper into a ball at the end and tossing it at the screen never gets old...if your like 7!
Posted by: Pugetsound | February 23, 2007 at 11:05 PM
Steve, I agree that poverty has been more or less stable but as the middle class disappears where will they go? Into poverty. And those in poverty are getting poorer . . .
"That was the exact opposite of what we anticipated when we began," said Dr. Steven Woolf of Virginia Commonwealth University, who co-authored the study. "We're not seeing as much moderate poverty as a proportion of the population. What we're seeing is a dramatic growth of severe poverty. . . "
" Over the last two decades, America has had the highest or near-highest poverty rates for children, individual adults and families among 31 developed countries, according to the Luxembourg Income Study, a 23-year project that compares poverty and income data from 31 industrial nations.
"It's shameful," said Timothy Smeeding . . . "We've been the worst performer every year since we've been doing this study."
With the exception of Mexico and Russia, the U.S. devotes the smallest portion of its gross domestic product to federal anti-poverty programs, and those programs are among the least effective at reducing poverty, the study found. Again, only Russia and Mexico do worse jobs.
Thanks for reading the article, Steve. It is nice to discuss it with someone who takes the time to read the links . . . don't have to agree but being informed is important.
So, what do you think of this?
Posted by: joanie | February 23, 2007 at 11:30 PM
What do I think? It's disturbing but...
Posted by: Steve | February 24, 2007 at 12:19 AM
OT- do any New Yorkers here or just travelers know what the Brooklyn Heights, Brooklyn neighborhood is like and how much a cab ride would be from midcity Manhattan to there would be? I may have to fly to New York to see the new David Lynch movie at a Brooklyn Heights theatre- one of four theatres in the nation where the movie is still playing.
Posted by: Tommy008 | February 24, 2007 at 04:03 AM
"Pensions were not the downfall of business. Poor management and including pensions as assets of a corporation were their downfall. All corporate decisions."
Joanie, it wasn't that before pensions were solid per se. They were hidden and could be passed along. The problem for businesses and pensions is that before they were 'off balance sheet' and could be the true liability/cost could be hidden. Once GAAP made this inpermissable and it (the costs present and future) had to be put on the balance sheet it started to impact the way businesses were valued by investors. Moreover, pension costs are based on actuarial tables/estimates which can fluxuate widly with new estimates based on the workforce, life expectancy, etc.
It's why 401 k's are a better deal for both the business (fixed costs) and the worker (the latter is a post Enron protection if he can get it in non company stock).
Posted by: Pugetsound | February 24, 2007 at 08:05 AM
Now I get it...Duh! 'Sources' can be anything...doesn't necessarily have to be 'reliable'...glad that finally came to light...
Posted by: Duffman | February 24, 2007 at 08:47 AM
Good post PS...(btw: sources could include FASB Statements #87, #88, #106, #132 and #158-a
Posted by: Duffman | February 24, 2007 at 09:06 AM
"A dog is not reckoned good because he barks well, and a man is not reckoned wise because he speaks skillfully."
Source: Chuang-Tzu
Posted by: Duffman | February 24, 2007 at 09:14 AM
"Good post PS...(btw: sources could include FASB Statements #87, #88, #106, #132 and #158-a"
Spot on Duff!
But judging by the earlier posts of Joannie, Snarky, et al i didn't want to go into too much detail.
Posted by: Pugetsound | February 24, 2007 at 09:27 AM
U.S. economy leaving record numbers in severe poverty
Posted by: coiler | February 24, 2007 at 10:52 AM
http://www.rawstory.com/showarticle.php?src=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.bradenton.com%2Fmld%2Fbradenton%2Fnews%2Fpolitics%2F16760637.htm
Posted by: coiler | February 24, 2007 at 10:53 AM
Considering that I have not weighed in at all on your poverty discussion, PutS, I can only assume you just want to stir things up so I will jump in and try to argue with you. sorry...busy.
Posted by: sparky | February 24, 2007 at 11:40 AM
"U.S. economy leaving record numbers in severe poverty"
IMHO:
Reading this piece and concluding that the 'U.S. economy' is 'exclusively' to blame is sort of like drinking the 'Ritter' Kool-Aid and considering 'his conclusions' gospel.
Posted by: Duffman | February 24, 2007 at 11:58 AM
"Considering that I have not weighed in at all on your poverty discussion, PutS, I can only assume you just want to stir things up so I will jump in and try to argue with you. sorry...busy."
so you weigh in there Snarky to say your not gonna weigh in. :)
yer probably too busy laughing at one of randi's presidential assassination jokes. if you want real funny, catch the HBO special on Air America. the part where Randi rushes up to Michael Moore and introduces herself only to have him brush her off. as she walks off she realizes that he had no freakin who the hell she was.
Posted by: Pugetsound | February 24, 2007 at 12:02 PM
Still pulling it out of your ass, Duff . . . have you no pride at all.
Puts . . . are those the same GAAPs that served Enron so well?
The last figures I've seen, CEO's could make up the differences in some of those retirement deficiencies.
And pensions should be and could be honored. Companies have with the help of government have been manipulating those principles for years to benefit management and employees lose.
We had this conversation some time ago and we left off with you asserting that business equals management vs. my assertion that business equals management and employees.
So, we know where your heart lies.
Screw the little guy. Well, you've done it very well.
Posted by: joanie | February 24, 2007 at 12:39 PM
..probably as good (or better) than any of your 'so called' sources..
Posted by: Duffman | February 24, 2007 at 12:56 PM
Well, since you have no sources, we'll never know will we?
Posted by: joanie | February 24, 2007 at 01:08 PM
..Oh I think we know a lot now...things have recently become quite evident for every blatherer...ha
Posted by: Duffman | February 24, 2007 at 01:12 PM
you're a dullard, Duff.
Posted by: joanie | February 24, 2007 at 01:16 PM
Now why would someone as 'apparently' intelligent and articulate as you resort to name calling...I thought you 'cared' for the less enlightened and slower to comprehend...? - must be a left thing...
Posted by: Duffman | February 24, 2007 at 01:24 PM
You know I kid you and poke at you but I enjoy your posts; you are obviously a thinker. Did I pick up along the way that you were a teacher...I can imagine a good one at that...probably deserve merit pay.
Posted by: Duffman | February 24, 2007 at 01:43 PM
alls forgiven, duff . . .till the next time. (LOL) :)
(You just keeping reading my links and learning . . . )
Posted by: joanie | February 24, 2007 at 01:53 PM
I will...and I do! (Smiling)
Posted by: Duffman | February 24, 2007 at 01:56 PM
hello?
Posted by: not a blathermouth | February 24, 2007 at 10:59 PM
Duff burps:
Now why would someone as 'apparently' intelligent and articulate as you resort to name calling...I thought you 'cared' for the less enlightened and slower to comprehend...? - must be a left thing...
No name calling here Duff. We're just giving conclusions and backing them up with evidence. Some day you'll figure it out.
Conclusion:
"you're a dullard, Duff"
Evidence:
"If you study his comments in some relative depth, you will see that while he was somewhat accurate in his recall of facts, he was prone to drawing incomplete and 'inaccurate' conclusions."
Posted by: mercifurious | February 25, 2007 at 01:40 AM
"record numbers in severe poverty" -this is right on track with W's longing to return to the Gilded Age of the U.S. economy, as betrayed by his old college prof.
Posted by: Tommy008 | February 25, 2007 at 05:46 AM