BlatherWatch holi-diddled in Canada, a foreign country that fails to celebrate Xmas with the religiou$ fervor that we all do. It's un-American, and we told them so. The laid-back Canucks are so calm about the holiday, the War on Xmas that threatens its very extinction around here, rages on unbeknownst to them. We got caught up in the torporific chaos and spent the Day of Days absorbing the spiritual seasonal vibes in the prone position in a medium hotel with maximum take-out from Vij's. Our favorite in the lavish gift exchange: an Uncle Booger's Bumper Dumper® to be used on one of our many hunting and camping trips.
~ Auld fave from the Blather Xmas song bucket: Ding Fries Are Done!
~ How much is a Duckworth? the price may be going down. Paul Duckworth, former KVI/KOMO Program Director, who takes some to the credit for making KVI what it was, is retiring- effective January 1- from DC's WMAL where's he's PD. He says he's "... always suspect of any radio guy who says that he's going to retire... I could never promise that, at some point, I won't re-surface somewhere in the biz ... right now the plan is to sleep a little later, spend more time with family and pursue a few things that I haven't been able to get to over the last 35 years." Sounds fishy...
~DID YOU KNOW??? "christmas ornaments fat naked people," if googled, gets you to... BlatherWatch!
~ Our Rachel Maddow (KPTK m-f, 3-5p) may not need the incredible shrinking Air America. They laid off her gifted writer, Kent Jones this month. But now the hot news is that all her time spent on MSNBC recently may fruition-up to a show of her own. TV Newser has leaked that she and Bill Wolff, who is the MSNBC prime time VP, a funny, funny, man (and married to BlatherWatch Best Friend and NPR host Alison Stewart) have done a pilot for a show that could replace the execrable rightwing toadie Tucker Carlson, or perhaps General Manager Dan Abrams' slot if he tires of it. Maybe we've got another heavy hitter like Keith Olbermann coming up on MSNBC.
Why talk radio is declining: Worst talk radio topic in a fortnight: "The War on Lawn Decorations." Frank Shiers. KIRO m-f, 7-10p).
~ Or, if you wanted to find Blatherwatch- you could Google "photos of killed squirrels;" "blowjob aruba," or "pictures of monkeys, group, feces, poop."
~ Who the hell is Gary Mantz, you ask? He's the New Age talker you might have heard on Boxing Day filling in for Frank Shiers. Gary's a KIRO producer (Lou Pate, Frank Shiers) and vet board op being given a shot on the other side of the mike by KIRO. Listen Tuesday, Jan.1st at 11p when Mantz will interview Elvis Decoded author Patrick Lacy and Elvis historian Cory Cooper.
~ Bryan Suits, blabbing from KJR studios will host LA's KFI, 7-10p for the rest of the week. Bryan is the recently separated KVI drivetime host who's not let much water flow neath his Mephistos since he became eliglible for unemployment benefits. Will Bryan get the coveted 7-10p job recently vacated by John Ziegler? SuperAgent Paul Anderson is reportedly working it hard and suits has been working the spot plenty lately as well as filling in for John & Ken. (Ziegler may be a tough act to follow for the Port Angeles libertarian: he was sued famously by a Louisville TV anchor he'd been dating after he described her physical attributes, underwear, and genital grooming during his show in 2003. He was found not liable for damages- the judge ruled no there was malice because what he said was true).
Hmm, another picture of Michele Malkin, I see.
So, your exotic getaway was Vancouver? You're a regular jet-setter, Michael.
I'll miss Rachel if she chooses to switch to the TV side. I wonder if she'd give up radio? I can't think of too many women I like to watch do news on TV. I always thought the best one was Charlayne Hunter Gault. Can't think of another that I like much.
Oh well. nice to have you back, Michael.
Posted by: joanie | December 27, 2007 at 04:38 AM
Former Pakistan Prime Minister Bhutto has been killed. While most will point the finger at Musharraf or his supporters, I wouldn't be surprised if more radical elements orchestrated this assassination in order to kill two birds with one stone.
Posted by: DT | December 27, 2007 at 05:56 AM
No matter what the topic, Frank Shiers is, by far, the worst talk radio host I have ever heard.
Posted by: Upton | December 27, 2007 at 07:10 AM
Paul Anderson doesn't know jack about talk radio. Didn't know KFI was interested in 1-share hosts.
Posted by: Sclub | December 27, 2007 at 09:13 AM
Hey Michael"--how bout those photos of killed squirrels?
Posted by: margolis | December 27, 2007 at 10:02 AM
I wouldnt be surprised if it turns out the CIA had something to do with Bhutto's assassination. It's not like we haven't tried it in other parts of the world.
Polls are showing that people are tiring of all things Iraq and so they need to be scared again...
Posted by: sparky | December 27, 2007 at 12:25 PM
thats an interesting slant do you have more conspiracy theories that you would like to perpetuate
Posted by: GReaper | December 27, 2007 at 12:35 PM
"War on lawn decorations?"
Well, at least it's not math reform. Right, Tommy?
DT, I thought this was a radio blog! :)
Posted by: joanie | December 27, 2007 at 12:35 PM
and we all know it was Bush's fault.
Posted by: GReaper | December 27, 2007 at 01:55 PM
Of course it was.
Posted by: joanie | December 27, 2007 at 02:08 PM
Ah, GReaper has the same reading comp. problem as Stevarino. I did not say it happened, I said i would not be surprised to learn it involved us in some way. Venezuela and Cuba would mostly likely concur.
Unfortunately, close proximity to Bush, or having Bush's blessing usually means that person is of questionable character. Bhutto was ousted twice from being Prime Minister for corruption. That Bush decided that she was the key to democracy in Pakistan probably meant a death sentence for her eventually. People in the Middle East HATE Bush. Sorry if you think that is a conspiracy. Bush's history backs me up in my observations.
Posted by: sparky | December 27, 2007 at 02:26 PM
The careers of Allen Prell, Rick Miller, Fred Ebert and Erin Hart must really be in the toilet. KIRO would rather put a board op named Mantz in front of a live mic than hire any of those 4 losers.
Posted by: abob | December 27, 2007 at 02:27 PM
I guess it's consoling to feel 'backed up' in your accusations and spreading of vile comments on the President of our country. And yet you apparently choose to live here, how sad you must be miserable.
Posted by: GReaper | December 27, 2007 at 02:36 PM
I guess it is consoling to be part of the 28% who likes to pretend that your President is doing a good job. I was raised to believe that respect is earned through deeds, not words, and not anoited upon someone because of financial status or family position.
And no, l am not at all miserable. Embarrassed for my country sometimes, but I am among those who are working to change things.
Posted by: sparky | December 27, 2007 at 02:49 PM
The pResident of our country is a idiot. He should leave the country as soon as his vile display of running a nation is over so the rest of us won't feel miserable.
Posted by: coiler and crew | December 27, 2007 at 02:50 PM
"If I'm so stupid how come I beat Al Gore and John Kerry in consecutive Presidential elections?"
-George Bush
Posted by: abob | December 27, 2007 at 03:25 PM
I'm not a fan of Pres Bush, but I respect him and his office. How do you suppose 'an idiot' got elected by such a wise populace and do you think that perception has only been held once in history. Of course I realize you know far more than our best intelligence because you read it in MSM or the blogs, and you can focus on the whole forest because you are intimate with the trees, how silly of me YOU ARE THE AUTHORITY for yourselves.
Posted by: GReaper | December 27, 2007 at 03:28 PM
That's really assuming a lot, since you mentioned trees. Criticizing the office is patriotic, not vile, just when your OX is Gore(d)does it hurt. Carry on...
Posted by: coiler | December 27, 2007 at 04:19 PM
"...got elected by such a wise populace..."
By whose evidence?
I love you guys who hide behind "I respect the office..." crap. In others words, "I'm a supporter of stupidity buy know better than to admit to it."
Posted by: joanie | December 27, 2007 at 04:37 PM
Can we just pay tribute to a brave woman who willingly gave her life to her country. She knew that the odds of her making it were slim and yet she chose to do so. I look upon Former Pakistan Prime Minister Bhutto with respect and awe.
May all of our leaders be so willing to operate in the face of death.
Posted by: PugetSound | December 27, 2007 at 04:37 PM
BTW, Repug Greaper, for the record, it's not "his office." It's the peoples' office and he's the current resident.
Resident Idiot Bush to be precise. And I'm always precise.
Posted by: joanie | December 27, 2007 at 04:42 PM
precisely inaccurate.
Posted by: chucks | December 27, 2007 at 05:11 PM
prove those words, buster...
Posted by: joanie | December 27, 2007 at 05:30 PM
BTW, chuck s., why didn't you respond to my evidence that faux news watchers were less informed...you asked for it and I provided it but no response. How come? Hmm?
You always do that. Make an allegation or ask for proof and then don't respond.
Posted by: joanie | December 27, 2007 at 05:32 PM
But, you are considering Obama...that's a plus. You may be learning your lessons after all. :)
Posted by: joanie | December 27, 2007 at 05:34 PM
And exactly what's inaccurate about calling Bush stupid? a "resident" of the White House? and anybody that supports him being a repug?
C'mon man of few words when challenged...let's hear it.
Posted by: joanie | December 27, 2007 at 05:37 PM
GR, first of all-- quit whining. Second of all, please don't hurt yourself making those giant leaps of assumption. I don't consider myself an expert on foreign policy. I was merely musing on what I have read over a period of years and expressing my opinion. (Ask Henry Kissinger when he plans on traveling to south america again..oh wait, he can't! They want to arrest and try him for being a war criminal.)
Yes, Puts, I can respect Ms. Bhutto's work and I am sorry she was killed.
All I am saying is that I hope down the line that evidence doesn't point to any involvement by us. We already have enough of the world pissed at us.
I am also dismayed at how the presidential candidates are using this as a chance to say "I have the better foreign policy." We are so tacky sometimes.
Posted by: sparky | December 27, 2007 at 05:59 PM
What makes for a good talk radio topic? What makes for a bad talk radio topic? Are all "light" topics bad? Are all topics that are silly or absurd bad? Are all topics that you disagree with bad? BM says the "Worst talk radio topic in a fortnight: "The War on Lawn Decorations." I disagree. This isn't me bashing BM again, rather, I am really wondering what makes for a bad talk radio topic? While I'm not a big Frank fan, I thought this was a good, albeit frivolous topic. BM himself said, it's hard to get people to call in. It seems to me that this was a good topic that people had strong opinions on, and it got people to call in. In other words, it was a good topic.
Posted by: DT | December 27, 2007 at 06:30 PM
Hmmm...Erin Hart talking about her dryer cord, that was bad radio.
That station in Sacramento that encouraged that woman to drink a lot of water and then hold it, and she died...that was bad radio.
Anytime Jill Pike speaks..that's bad radio.
The picture of Amy whatshername on the KIRO website a few years ago, tied up in ropes...that is really really bad radio.
All those progressive radio stations around the country that changed over to sports talk radio and totally killed their ratings into the negative numbers...unnecessary bad radio.
Anytime The Sty is on the air...that is truly bad radio.
Posted by: sparky | December 27, 2007 at 07:47 PM
Sparky, good points, but I still think fluff topics have their place, especially when strategically interspersed between serious topics.
That said, glad I missed dryer cord chat.
Posted by: DT | December 27, 2007 at 08:03 PM
Good review of Don Imus' new show over on the Radio Equalizer. Haven't heard the show, but after reading the reviews, he's pretty much been castrated, and is now more boring than ever.
Posted by: DT | December 27, 2007 at 08:24 PM
"I am also dismayed at how the presidential candidates are using this as a chance to say "I have the better foreign policy." We are so tacky sometimes.
Posted by: sparky | December 27, 2007 at 05:59 PM
I was also a little saddened by politicians -both sides- jumping into this fray when we should be speaking with one voice given the stakes involved. This isn't a differing view of tax policy or which gov't agency to disband. Keith Olberman wasted little time wearing his asshat again on his show. You could see Christopher Dodd trying to work to the middle saying stuff Olberman didn't expect to get. But Dodd gets it. This is real politic and I would wish both parties work for the common good. Right now, we have a Secretary of State and we should let her take the lead. In 2009 we will have a new group in charge and we'll be able to see how good they -albeit Repub or Demo- are when they no longer have the luxury of the 'woulda, coulda, shoulda.'
Posted by: PugetSound | December 27, 2007 at 09:02 PM
Why can't Bryan Styble let callers say more than two, and often only one sentence before he butts in? Why can't he let someone get to their point? Call after call, Bryan will interrupt after only one or two sentences, and he won't let the caller complete the point they were trying to make. It's like he can't focus or see the big picture. I can't listen to him anymore. Not even for a few seconds.
Posted by: DT | December 27, 2007 at 09:53 PM
Sorry to pat myself on the back, but the latest headline on CNN is "Al Qaeda claims responsibility for Bhutto killing."
And what did I post this morning at 5:56 AM?
And that's why I'm called Deep Thinker.
Now THAT'S my last really obnoxious post. I swear!
Posted by: DT | December 27, 2007 at 09:59 PM
We're glad you got to the bottom of this DT. Like Scientology, these are claims worth looking into.
Posted by: coiler | December 27, 2007 at 10:32 PM
Nice, but meaningless quip, Coiler. Now explain your thinking on the subject. Tell me your thoughts on the Bhutto assassination. I want to see what your intellect is made of. Something tells me you're not going to come back with much of anything. I'll bet you're just going to come back with a short little quip you think it witty. Prove me wrong.
Posted by: DT | December 27, 2007 at 10:51 PM
Actually, DT my favorite fluff was when Dori Monson had his Friday trivia contests. He would list 30 or so questions and then people would call up and guess the answers. He wasnt rude, he wasnt obnoxious or arrogant. It was fun to listen to, way back then.
Posted by: sparky | December 27, 2007 at 11:24 PM
Bhutto...tragic. Corruption? I don't know much about it. But, a complex situation much like Iraq was but more secular I understand with the exception of a small (30%??) of people. Musharraf - military dictator. Doing things the Bush way. Just like we did it in Iraq. I've only read a little on it but she was duly democratically elected. I heard an interview in which it was said she was the daughter of a Shia and a Sunni. She was working towards alleviating poverty and educational reform. In others words, she was a liberal. Well educated in comparative governments, economics, and other. (got that part from Wiki)
In just whose interest is it that she be assassinated?
Also, I find it interesting that Pakistan elected a woman. Puts Pakistan (along with India and England and others???) somewhat ahead of the democratic republic called the USA which seems to have trouble electing a woman.
America is in no position to offer guidance. Not with our history of making war to make change...
So sad.
Posted by: joanie | December 28, 2007 at 02:10 AM
DT, other than your quips about keeping this blog about talk radio, you have no quarter. Frankly, Bhutto could of been done in by anyone, an interview in Parade magazine HERE
"If Bhutto returns to power this week, Gauhar predicts the U.S. will finally get what Musharraf has refused it: “She will allow NATO boots on the ground in our tribal areas and a chance to neuter our nuclear weapons.” Yet President Bush remains reluctant to give up on Musharraf, despite the fact that two-thirds of Pakistanis want him to resign immediately. If the election is rigged, as expected, public outrage is likely to erupt. Bhutto says she won’t join an illegitimate government. But her niece, Fatima Bhutto, says, “She’ll work with anyone to get back into power.”
Musharraf suspended the constitution, imposed martial law, and placed Bhutto under house arrest for several days all just prior to the upcoming elections. Bhutto told David Frost in this 02 Nov interview @ 6mins 12 secsHERE that bin Laden is already dead. She was not well liked as a twice elected and defeated politician. Her legacy as a two-time prime minister is a legacy of gross corruption. She is estimated to have stolen $1.5 to $3 billion from the Pakistani treasury....
The Bush administration seems to have fucked up once again. I look for Musharraf, who has been propped up with US aid to stay in power. They must have brokered a deal and Bhutto was the plan B that was carried out.
Posted by: coiler | December 28, 2007 at 10:21 AM
So now Al Qaeda and Pres Bush are in bed together, and THEY execute plan B. Wow!
You are one SICK puppy!
Posted by: GReaper | December 28, 2007 at 10:27 AM
You didn't have time to read or watch either interview GReap, so go back to reading your Hot Rod magazine.
Posted by: coiler | December 28, 2007 at 10:35 AM
Joanie said: "In just whose interest is it that she be assassinated?"
Bingo. Now if our esteemed right wing colleagues could spend a bit of simple analysis on this point and not descend into spewing talking points, we can have a debate. There are two obvious motivations but only one true beneficiary. Militants would want to kill her for being a woman daring to talk about democracy. However, do they truly benefit with some tangible victory? It's all PR.
Musharaf and his cronies are the ones who really win by her death. Also who says it had to be one (Musharaf) or the other (militants)? It would not surprise me at all that Musharaf turned a blind eye or even aided in her assassination.
Recall the first bombing attempt when she initially returned to the country. Her security people noticed that all the street lights had been turned off along her route just before the bombers struck and there was next to no state security offered. Interesting.
Joanie said: "Also, I find it interesting that Pakistan elected a woman."
The most interesting part of this is that our right wingnutters here have consistently spewed that Islam is evil and backward...yet they chose to elect a woman? I guess we can chalk that up to selective reading and/or ignorance.
Posted by: cowpotpi3 | December 28, 2007 at 10:53 AM
Hi joannie
Sorry, but it was anniversary 18 yesterday, so my bride needed and deserved attention for putting up with me all this time.
Anyway, what needed a response?
Harvard, Yale, fighter pilot, Guvnor, POTUS. hardly and idiot. Just a right thinking individual instead of left (aka wrong).
FOX News watchers are less informed? Pure unadulterated BS twisted to meet somebody else's twisted agenda.
Repug= what an insane lefty calls Republicans.
Dhimocrap: what an insane rightly calls a Democrat. Did that need a response?
Posted by: chucks | December 28, 2007 at 10:57 AM
The electability of a 'woman' in that culture is aided by the fact that she was deemed 'royalty' and that trumpts 'being a woman'. If you would dig 'deeper' into her background you would discover that; but we mustn't expect too much now must we.
Posted by: andrews | December 28, 2007 at 11:23 AM
Actually, coiler, I read this morning that with all the fear and violence going on in Pakistan today, the situation is ripe for military take over with Musharaf being ousted. Dunno, though.
Meanwhile, today Uncle Perv said:
"...investigators had resolved the 'whole mystery' behind the opposition leader's killing and would give details at press conference later Friday."
Posted by: sparky | December 28, 2007 at 11:35 AM
Meet the new boss, same as the old boss.
Posted by: coiler | December 28, 2007 at 11:43 AM
Who cares what her roots are, Andrew. Take a look at her education before you start trashing her. Or are you just picking an argument here?
Smart. Savvy. Courageous. Elected.
Just what is it you don't get, Andrew?
And, chucks, regarding the evidence that faux news watchers are ignorant - not my polls, research or study. Sorry if it hurts.
Happy Anniversary. I like that you call her your bride after eighteen years. She's a lucky woman, I think.
Posted by: joanie | December 28, 2007 at 11:59 AM
exactly.
Posted by: sparky | December 28, 2007 at 12:09 PM
Smart. Savvy, Courageous, Elected.
Just what I have been saying about our current POTUS for the last seven years joannie. Glad to see you coming around.
The same could have been said about Bhutto. I think that she could have been a great ally for us.
Posted by: chucks | December 28, 2007 at 12:21 PM
Jesus, even when the Dems totally capitulate to Bush, he still isn't happy:
Citing concerns over possible lawsuits against the Iraqi government permitted under the latest defense authorization bill, President Bush announced today -- to the surprise of Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid -- that he will veto the measure, which contains quite a few "troop-supporting" provisions:
The defense policy bill also authorizes a pay raise for U.S. troops, expands the size of the U.S. Army and sets conditions on the Bush administration's plan to build a missile defense system in Europe.
The bill lays out a road map of military priorities, and directs weapons acquisition programs.
In a USA Today update to an original story, Democratic leaders are making it clear they had no clue about the administration’s position prior to today’s announcement:
Democrats are saying this is the first time they've heard of any administration objections. "The administration should have raised its objections earlier, when this issue could have been addressed without a veto," Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., said in a joint statement. "The American people will have every right to be disappointed if the president vetoes this legislation, needlessly delaying implementation of the troops' pay raise, the Wounded Warriors Act and other critical measures."
The White House is claiming that passage of the legislation "would imperil Iraqi assets held in the United States, including reconstruction and central bank funds," according to the USA Today article.
That's right, King Geroge. Get your priorities straight. Much more important to keep the Iraq "government" happy than to pay the troops.
Posted by: sparky | December 28, 2007 at 12:55 PM