Sunday, January 29, 2006
1/29/06, After the Show
Lots of reaction to our caller Susan, and her kindred spirits who were featured in today’s Love Notes segment (who took me to task for the friendly nicknames I give some of the people I discuss on the air, such as Eddie Haskell for Dick Durbin). If you missed it, Susan asked “do you think that your nasal lisp gives you more credibility?” If my credibility is at issue, I would hope it’s about something other than the quality of my voice, or any of my many deficiencies, but sadly, when liberals attack, that’s all they’ve got. That’s the difference between my discussion of the many whoppers told by the likes of Michael Moore, while at the same time calling him “the Round Mound Whose Lies Astound,” “the Porky Prevaricator,” or “the Left’s Leading Lying Lardsack.” If the discussion ended with those monikers, I would agree with those who say that there is equivalency between people on the right and left. The fact is it doesn’t and there isn’t. In fairness to our liberal listeners, which you know we love, I’ve also gotten some very kind notes from listeners who agree with me, who suggest that I’m “too smart” to call Blago, “Governor Dumbass,” even though he is.
Yes, for comedic purposes, sometimes I point out the hideous physical characteristics of left-wing wackos, or dare to state the obvious (that the governor IS a dumbass!), but not without addressing the substantive reasons I take issue with their policy positions. In most cases, this feigned outrage over name-calling is yet another liberal smokescreen, IMO. (In the case of those who agree with me and say I’m “better” than that, I know they are kind and thoughtful people, and usually moms, who tell their kids not to call names, which is good advice in life, but not always in entertainment.) It’s yet another transparent red herring designed to avoid the obvious fact: that the Left has nothing BUT what I like to call the three stages of arguing with a liberal. First, mocking laughter, followed by feigned moral outrage, and eventually culminating in namecalling. By contrast, if we were left with only debating the facts and logical reasons when we oppose the left, we’d be just fine, but it wouldn’t be nearly as amusing.
One of today’s Love Note writers said that the reason that Dick Durbin won’t come on my show is that he doesn’t like being called “Eddie Haskell.” Now seriously, does anyone really believe that that is the reason, and not the requirement that he answer my questions, as well as questions from you, the listeners? PULEEZE! If so, you probably believe that Durbin is joining in tomorrow’s idiotic and pointless filibuster of Judge Sam Alito as an act of conscience, and not because his employers, Ralph Neas and Nan Aron, have demanded that he do so.
Speaking of Love Notes, I got an angry one after the show about my conversation with Judge Charles Pickering, who was lucky enough (and yes, I’m kidding) to be the first of President Bush’s judicial nominees to be on the receiving end of the Left’s smear campaign, demanded by the liberal interest groups and carried out by their democrat toadies in the Senate. I will address this listener’s comments at my personal blog, which you can find at http://www.teriobrien.com. Just go there, go to the header “All Things Teri” at the top of the home page, and select “Blog” from the pulldown menu.
Thanks for listening and for reading my scribbling! Have a great week!
Lots of reaction to our caller Susan, and her kindred spirits who were featured in today’s Love Notes segment (who took me to task for the friendly nicknames I give some of the people I discuss on the air, such as Eddie Haskell for Dick Durbin). If you missed it, Susan asked “do you think that your nasal lisp gives you more credibility?” If my credibility is at issue, I would hope it’s about something other than the quality of my voice, or any of my many deficiencies, but sadly, when liberals attack, that’s all they’ve got. That’s the difference between my discussion of the many whoppers told by the likes of Michael Moore, while at the same time calling him “the Round Mound Whose Lies Astound,” “the Porky Prevaricator,” or “the Left’s Leading Lying Lardsack.” If the discussion ended with those monikers, I would agree with those who say that there is equivalency between people on the right and left. The fact is it doesn’t and there isn’t. In fairness to our liberal listeners, which you know we love, I’ve also gotten some very kind notes from listeners who agree with me, who suggest that I’m “too smart” to call Blago, “Governor Dumbass,” even though he is.
Yes, for comedic purposes, sometimes I point out the hideous physical characteristics of left-wing wackos, or dare to state the obvious (that the governor IS a dumbass!), but not without addressing the substantive reasons I take issue with their policy positions. In most cases, this feigned outrage over name-calling is yet another liberal smokescreen, IMO. (In the case of those who agree with me and say I’m “better” than that, I know they are kind and thoughtful people, and usually moms, who tell their kids not to call names, which is good advice in life, but not always in entertainment.) It’s yet another transparent red herring designed to avoid the obvious fact: that the Left has nothing BUT what I like to call the three stages of arguing with a liberal. First, mocking laughter, followed by feigned moral outrage, and eventually culminating in namecalling. By contrast, if we were left with only debating the facts and logical reasons when we oppose the left, we’d be just fine, but it wouldn’t be nearly as amusing.
One of today’s Love Note writers said that the reason that Dick Durbin won’t come on my show is that he doesn’t like being called “Eddie Haskell.” Now seriously, does anyone really believe that that is the reason, and not the requirement that he answer my questions, as well as questions from you, the listeners? PULEEZE! If so, you probably believe that Durbin is joining in tomorrow’s idiotic and pointless filibuster of Judge Sam Alito as an act of conscience, and not because his employers, Ralph Neas and Nan Aron, have demanded that he do so.
Speaking of Love Notes, I got an angry one after the show about my conversation with Judge Charles Pickering, who was lucky enough (and yes, I’m kidding) to be the first of President Bush’s judicial nominees to be on the receiving end of the Left’s smear campaign, demanded by the liberal interest groups and carried out by their democrat toadies in the Senate. I will address this listener’s comments at my personal blog, which you can find at http://www.teriobrien.com. Just go there, go to the header “All Things Teri” at the top of the home page, and select “Blog” from the pulldown menu.
Thanks for listening and for reading my scribbling! Have a great week!
Sunday, January 22, 2006
Now are you convinced that the formerly MSM thinks this guy walks on water?
I refer, of course, to the embarrassingly reverent, heroic worker (think mural in Cuba) front-page photo of the Enlightened One Barack Obama on the front page of today’s (1/22/06) Chicago Sun-Times. Are they kidding with this stuff? I wish I could believe that this photo is part of some elaborate joke, but sadly, when I turned to the accompanying story inside, there was more cringe-inducing slobbering from one who has already given her share of tongue baths to our junior senator, the Sun-Times Lynn Sweet. The piece is illustrated with several more nauseating photos, including one of He Who Walks on Water with Eddie Haskell aka Dick Durbin from the 2004 democrat convention. Who can forget Obama’s salute to the pudgy huckster before his triumphant speech: “Thank you Dick Durbin. You make us proud.” Yeah right. Who can forget all the pride we citizens of Illinois felt after he compared our troops to Nazis and Pol Pot, or when he claimed that the president was out to get him? How about in December 2003 when we learned that we had always suspected was true, that he gets his marching orders from NARAL and People for American Way, who found Miguel Estrada especially “dangerous” because “he is Latino?” Those were proud moments, huh? There is also a gag-inducing photo of Obama, looking pensive, two fingers supporting his noble chin (see p. 12A, unless you’ve eaten recently).
I am completely mystified by the cult of the personality surrounding this guy. When I listen to him and break down the substance of what he says, it isn’t profound or particularly insightful. Usually, it sounds like typical politician double talk. What am I missing?
One more significant thing: the worshipful Ms. Sweet informs us that Barack and family reside in a $1.65 million 6199 square foot home with 3 fireplaces and 6.5 baths. Please remember that the next time he opposes your getting a tax cut.
I refer, of course, to the embarrassingly reverent, heroic worker (think mural in Cuba) front-page photo of the Enlightened One Barack Obama on the front page of today’s (1/22/06) Chicago Sun-Times. Are they kidding with this stuff? I wish I could believe that this photo is part of some elaborate joke, but sadly, when I turned to the accompanying story inside, there was more cringe-inducing slobbering from one who has already given her share of tongue baths to our junior senator, the Sun-Times Lynn Sweet. The piece is illustrated with several more nauseating photos, including one of He Who Walks on Water with Eddie Haskell aka Dick Durbin from the 2004 democrat convention. Who can forget Obama’s salute to the pudgy huckster before his triumphant speech: “Thank you Dick Durbin. You make us proud.” Yeah right. Who can forget all the pride we citizens of Illinois felt after he compared our troops to Nazis and Pol Pot, or when he claimed that the president was out to get him? How about in December 2003 when we learned that we had always suspected was true, that he gets his marching orders from NARAL and People for American Way, who found Miguel Estrada especially “dangerous” because “he is Latino?” Those were proud moments, huh? There is also a gag-inducing photo of Obama, looking pensive, two fingers supporting his noble chin (see p. 12A, unless you’ve eaten recently).
I am completely mystified by the cult of the personality surrounding this guy. When I listen to him and break down the substance of what he says, it isn’t profound or particularly insightful. Usually, it sounds like typical politician double talk. What am I missing?
One more significant thing: the worshipful Ms. Sweet informs us that Barack and family reside in a $1.65 million 6199 square foot home with 3 fireplaces and 6.5 baths. Please remember that the next time he opposes your getting a tax cut.
Tuesday, January 17, 2006
What a Shock! You Can’t Trust the Democrats in the Senate
Today’s (1/17/06) Chicago Sun-Times reports “Democrats Force Delay on Alito Vote.” The AP story explains “The hearings concluded last Friday, and Sen. Arlen Specter (R-Pa.), the committee chairman, said he intended to schedule a committee vote for this week on the nomination.
Democrats said at the time that they intended to object, and they did. Under the rules, any senator can force a delay in a vote for one week.”
So Patrick Leahy and his friends are upstanding people of their word who do what they say they are going to do? I don’t think so. Just two months ago, Patrick Leahy and Arlen Specter agreed that the hearings would begin January 9, 2006 and the committee vote would be held on 1/17/06. As the Washington Times reported today:
“Under the terms of the November arrangement presented to reporters by Judiciary Committee Chairman Arlen Specter and ranking Democrat Patrick J. Leahy, Republicans agreed to conduct the confirmation hearings after the holidays and Democrats agreed to allow a committee vote on the nomination today. The only conditions for violating the agreement mentioned at the time by Mr. Leahy was "if something extraordinary comes up that neither Senator Specter nor I anticipate or expect."
So why did Leahy and the dems reneg on their previous agreement? According to Leahy’s office, the November agreement was not binding—get this—because it was not in writing! Note to myself: when dealing with people who hang out with lots of lawyers, be sure to get everything in writing.
It’s pretty clear that the Abortion Party’s leadership realizes that it’s bad politics to prolong the inevitable, but what’s one week when you can whip up hysteria in the wackjob base and thereby encourage serious fundraising? That’s clearly what this delay is all about, wringing a few extra bucks out of the enraged and embittered left-wing bunch who have become the mainstream of the democrat party.
Note how the MSM conveniently distorts the truth by leaving out the fact that the dems did in fact reneg on an agreement made with the majority. In fact, the AP states that the dems did what they said they were going to do. It’s yet another example of a quaint practice that fortunately is no more; that is, the dems doing whatever is politically expedient, confident that the lap dog media will “report” whatever it is that makes them look good. Fear not, though: we’re here to give you, as legendary broadcaster Paul Harvey would say, the rest of the story.
Speaking of that, for links to these stories, please visit http://www.teriobrien.com
Today’s (1/17/06) Chicago Sun-Times reports “Democrats Force Delay on Alito Vote.” The AP story explains “The hearings concluded last Friday, and Sen. Arlen Specter (R-Pa.), the committee chairman, said he intended to schedule a committee vote for this week on the nomination.
Democrats said at the time that they intended to object, and they did. Under the rules, any senator can force a delay in a vote for one week.”
So Patrick Leahy and his friends are upstanding people of their word who do what they say they are going to do? I don’t think so. Just two months ago, Patrick Leahy and Arlen Specter agreed that the hearings would begin January 9, 2006 and the committee vote would be held on 1/17/06. As the Washington Times reported today:
“Under the terms of the November arrangement presented to reporters by Judiciary Committee Chairman Arlen Specter and ranking Democrat Patrick J. Leahy, Republicans agreed to conduct the confirmation hearings after the holidays and Democrats agreed to allow a committee vote on the nomination today. The only conditions for violating the agreement mentioned at the time by Mr. Leahy was "if something extraordinary comes up that neither Senator Specter nor I anticipate or expect."
So why did Leahy and the dems reneg on their previous agreement? According to Leahy’s office, the November agreement was not binding—get this—because it was not in writing! Note to myself: when dealing with people who hang out with lots of lawyers, be sure to get everything in writing.
It’s pretty clear that the Abortion Party’s leadership realizes that it’s bad politics to prolong the inevitable, but what’s one week when you can whip up hysteria in the wackjob base and thereby encourage serious fundraising? That’s clearly what this delay is all about, wringing a few extra bucks out of the enraged and embittered left-wing bunch who have become the mainstream of the democrat party.
Note how the MSM conveniently distorts the truth by leaving out the fact that the dems did in fact reneg on an agreement made with the majority. In fact, the AP states that the dems did what they said they were going to do. It’s yet another example of a quaint practice that fortunately is no more; that is, the dems doing whatever is politically expedient, confident that the lap dog media will “report” whatever it is that makes them look good. Fear not, though: we’re here to give you, as legendary broadcaster Paul Harvey would say, the rest of the story.
Speaking of that, for links to these stories, please visit http://www.teriobrien.com
Thursday, January 12, 2006
On Monday, When I Told People About This Story, They Thought I Was Making It Up
But I’m not. Ted Kennedy’s dog, a Portuguese Water Dog, is named Splash.
And, yes, as a friend asked me, I do believe this is typical liberal elitist arrogance, evidence that Ted is still living in that bubble, thinking that it’s 1975 when whatever liberals say or do will go unchallenged.
If you want to read the story, it's linked at http://www.teriobrien.com under "Recent Show Topics"
But I’m not. Ted Kennedy’s dog, a Portuguese Water Dog, is named Splash.
And, yes, as a friend asked me, I do believe this is typical liberal elitist arrogance, evidence that Ted is still living in that bubble, thinking that it’s 1975 when whatever liberals say or do will go unchallenged.
If you want to read the story, it's linked at http://www.teriobrien.com under "Recent Show Topics"
Monday, January 09, 2006
My Work is Never Done (but Sadly, Before We Know It The Show Always Is)
Yesterday’s (1/8/06) show was a perfect illustration of my frequently uttered assertion that my work is never done. For example, once again a liberal caller demonstrated their well-known, but still breathtaking, hostility to the U.S. Constitution by agreeing with Ted Kennedy that, even though the democrats are in the minority in Congress, they speak for more Americans. You know the argument: those boneheaded Founding Fathers decided to give each state two senators regardless of the population, which means the 45 democrat senators collectively represent more people. To which I say, liberals hate the Constitution for the same reason that bacteria hate antibiotics; that is, it keeps them from taking over and destroying the body politic, the country and our civilization.
Of course, our liberal friend didn’t call to talk about that. He wanted to bust me, and all conservatives, who claim to support an originalist interpretation of the U.S. Constitution. He was sure he had us dead to rights when he pointed out that at the time of the drafting of the Constitution, abortion was not illegal; therefore, if we really want to be on the side of the Founders, we should support legal abortion, too. If memory serves, that historical trivia, which may be true, was included in the Roe v. Wade opinion, and was used to justify the trashing of every state’s abortion laws. Why rely on that dumb Constitution when you can use a history book, especially when the result you want can’t be justified by the Constitution?
This argument made as much sense yesterday as it did when I read that case in law school. In fact, if abortion was legal in the 18th century and the Founders were aware of it, doesn’t the fact that they didn’t say one single word about it in the Constitution demonstrate that they intended to leave it to the states? So, our caller’s argument cuts in exactly the opposite direction he supposed, against the Founders wanting abortion to be legal, and in favor of the originalist argument that if it’s not in the text, structure, or history of the Constitution, activist liberal judges should butt out! The issue is not whether abortion should be legal. The issue is what the Constitution says.
As long as liberals are incapable of understanding not only most of the Constitution, but the difference between a judge and a legislator, my work is never done.
Another caller, SL Jack, who wrote a paper on the FISA court, thinks that it’s wrong to blame FISA judges for not issuing warrants requested by the FBI’s Phoenix and Minneapolis field offices. Do those cities sound familiar? Yes, agents in those offices were alarmed at activities that later turned out to involve some of the 9/11 terrorists. One of them, Colleen Rowley, even ended up on the cover of TIME for being a whistleblower. Jack said the problem was that the FISA court didn’t get enough information to issue the warrants and that it was the FBI dropped the ball. You’ve no doubt heard that the FISA court was a “rubber stamp,” but that’s only because the FBI had learned what the FISA court would buy and what they wouldn’t. If there was any chance that a request for a warrant would be denied, they didn’t even try. The very fact that we are arguing over the FISA courts’ probable cause requirement demonstrates how inane and dangerous it is to suggest that the President needs to get their permission before listening to phone calls involving known al Qaeda operatives, whether they end or originate in Islamabad or Des Moines. Hello? This is a war!
Speaking of this idiotic FISA argument, unfortunately time ran out on the air before I could address an e-mail from SL Lynn. He wrote “I forwarded your piece from the American Thinker (“Did the FISA Court Stop Us From Connecting the Dots Before 9/11?”) on Judge Lambert who stopped some FBI warrants prior to September 11th, to a friend, who asks: Why blame the judge, and not the FBI official "who was misrepresenting petitions for taps"? I can't answer him. Can you?” My American Thinker piece contains an excerpt from the Newsweek article “What Went Wrong” from May 2002. Specifically,
“In Washington, Royce Lamberth, chief judge of the special federal court that reviews national-security wiretaps, erupted in anger when he found that an FBI official was misrepresenting petitions for taps on terror suspects. Lamberth prodded Ashcroft to launch an investigation, which reverberated throughout the bureau. From the summer of 2000 on into the following year, sources said, the FBI was forced to shut down wiretaps of Qaeda-related suspects connected to the 1998 African embassy bombing investigation.”
Since the proceedings of the FISA court are classified, we’ll never know just what this supposed misrepresentation consisted of, but it appears to me that FBI agents may have been inclined to bend the rules to try to get these judges, some of whom frankly seem to act like high-maintenance girlfriends at time, frankly, to let them stop the bad guys from killing Americans. Do you blame them, particularly when we learn that pre 9/-11 requests for wiretaps from both the Phoenix and Minneapolis offices were denied? No, I don’t blame the FBI for trying to keep us safe. Of course, the real problem isn’t even one particular judge. That’s why my piece is entitled “Did the FISA court Stop Us From Connecting the Dots?” The problem is the ridiculous assertion by some that a 1970’s Congressional enactment, written by democrats euphoric about a disgraced president and drunk with their own power, should be permitted to emasculate the current president during time of war.
Yesterday’s (1/8/06) show was a perfect illustration of my frequently uttered assertion that my work is never done. For example, once again a liberal caller demonstrated their well-known, but still breathtaking, hostility to the U.S. Constitution by agreeing with Ted Kennedy that, even though the democrats are in the minority in Congress, they speak for more Americans. You know the argument: those boneheaded Founding Fathers decided to give each state two senators regardless of the population, which means the 45 democrat senators collectively represent more people. To which I say, liberals hate the Constitution for the same reason that bacteria hate antibiotics; that is, it keeps them from taking over and destroying the body politic, the country and our civilization.
Of course, our liberal friend didn’t call to talk about that. He wanted to bust me, and all conservatives, who claim to support an originalist interpretation of the U.S. Constitution. He was sure he had us dead to rights when he pointed out that at the time of the drafting of the Constitution, abortion was not illegal; therefore, if we really want to be on the side of the Founders, we should support legal abortion, too. If memory serves, that historical trivia, which may be true, was included in the Roe v. Wade opinion, and was used to justify the trashing of every state’s abortion laws. Why rely on that dumb Constitution when you can use a history book, especially when the result you want can’t be justified by the Constitution?
This argument made as much sense yesterday as it did when I read that case in law school. In fact, if abortion was legal in the 18th century and the Founders were aware of it, doesn’t the fact that they didn’t say one single word about it in the Constitution demonstrate that they intended to leave it to the states? So, our caller’s argument cuts in exactly the opposite direction he supposed, against the Founders wanting abortion to be legal, and in favor of the originalist argument that if it’s not in the text, structure, or history of the Constitution, activist liberal judges should butt out! The issue is not whether abortion should be legal. The issue is what the Constitution says.
As long as liberals are incapable of understanding not only most of the Constitution, but the difference between a judge and a legislator, my work is never done.
Another caller, SL Jack, who wrote a paper on the FISA court, thinks that it’s wrong to blame FISA judges for not issuing warrants requested by the FBI’s Phoenix and Minneapolis field offices. Do those cities sound familiar? Yes, agents in those offices were alarmed at activities that later turned out to involve some of the 9/11 terrorists. One of them, Colleen Rowley, even ended up on the cover of TIME for being a whistleblower. Jack said the problem was that the FISA court didn’t get enough information to issue the warrants and that it was the FBI dropped the ball. You’ve no doubt heard that the FISA court was a “rubber stamp,” but that’s only because the FBI had learned what the FISA court would buy and what they wouldn’t. If there was any chance that a request for a warrant would be denied, they didn’t even try. The very fact that we are arguing over the FISA courts’ probable cause requirement demonstrates how inane and dangerous it is to suggest that the President needs to get their permission before listening to phone calls involving known al Qaeda operatives, whether they end or originate in Islamabad or Des Moines. Hello? This is a war!
Speaking of this idiotic FISA argument, unfortunately time ran out on the air before I could address an e-mail from SL Lynn. He wrote “I forwarded your piece from the American Thinker (“Did the FISA Court Stop Us From Connecting the Dots Before 9/11?”) on Judge Lambert who stopped some FBI warrants prior to September 11th, to a friend, who asks: Why blame the judge, and not the FBI official "who was misrepresenting petitions for taps"? I can't answer him. Can you?” My American Thinker piece contains an excerpt from the Newsweek article “What Went Wrong” from May 2002. Specifically,
“In Washington, Royce Lamberth, chief judge of the special federal court that reviews national-security wiretaps, erupted in anger when he found that an FBI official was misrepresenting petitions for taps on terror suspects. Lamberth prodded Ashcroft to launch an investigation, which reverberated throughout the bureau. From the summer of 2000 on into the following year, sources said, the FBI was forced to shut down wiretaps of Qaeda-related suspects connected to the 1998 African embassy bombing investigation.”
Since the proceedings of the FISA court are classified, we’ll never know just what this supposed misrepresentation consisted of, but it appears to me that FBI agents may have been inclined to bend the rules to try to get these judges, some of whom frankly seem to act like high-maintenance girlfriends at time, frankly, to let them stop the bad guys from killing Americans. Do you blame them, particularly when we learn that pre 9/-11 requests for wiretaps from both the Phoenix and Minneapolis offices were denied? No, I don’t blame the FBI for trying to keep us safe. Of course, the real problem isn’t even one particular judge. That’s why my piece is entitled “Did the FISA court Stop Us From Connecting the Dots?” The problem is the ridiculous assertion by some that a 1970’s Congressional enactment, written by democrats euphoric about a disgraced president and drunk with their own power, should be permitted to emasculate the current president during time of war.
Wednesday, January 04, 2006
2005: The Year of ???
Thanks so much to all of you for checking in Sunday, January 1, 2006 with your suggestions for filling in the blank in the sentence “2005 was the year of _________________.” The purple finger? Katrina? Jumping the Couch? (for Tom Cruise, who should definitely be on the couch, but not in that cringe-inducing way he was on Oprah’s show) Cindy Sheehan? (OK, I don’t think this pathetic wackjob deserved any attention, but it gave us a chance to enjoy that great soundbite of MS-NBC’s own Screamer, Chris Matthews, asking her if she was going to run for Congress because she’s SOOO well-informed.) I love all of those ideas, and I loved many of yours, such as SL’s* Paul’s “Year of the Economic Boom,” SL’s Bob’s “Year of Congressional Treason,” SL Bob’s (not the same guy) “Year of Media BS,” SL Paul’s (once again, different guy, same first name) “Year of American Power,” and even SL William’s “Year the Evil Cabal Took Over” (remember, we love hearing from liberals!)
*”SL” on our show = “Smart Listener,” which we know is redundant, but we enjoy saying it
I never got around to completing the blank myself—how unusual! We didn’t finish something on the show—but I will do so on my personal blog (http://teriobrien.webloggin.com/)
I also enjoyed your suggestions for phrases we need to ban in the new year. To the ones we mentioned on Sunday:
“at this point in time” (how about “now?”)
“out of the mainstream” (read: not a far left elitist)
“going forward if we plan ahead from this time forward”
“long time listener, first time caller” (does anyone really say this anymore?)
I’d like to add the following:
“rise to the level” (a vestige of the Clinton impeachment, used to try to help him escape the inevitable)
“hate speech” (anything a liberal disagrees with)
“diversity” anything (as in “diversity book bag”)
“lookism” (please get serious)
If you have any other suggestions, things that have occurred to you since Sunday, please feel free to drop me an e-mail, and please put the word “BAN THIS WORD/PHRASE!) in the reference line just so I don’t miss it.
Finally, I don’t want to let this new year get too old before I say again how much I have appreciated all of your great ideas (both by phone and e-mail), on-air contributions, encouragement and support these last three years of the Teri O’Brien Show. As you know, our motto is “Do all you can, and then do a little more,” and knowing that you’re out there makes that not only easy, but a pleasure for me, Jo Wheeler, V.G. Lossano, Brian Jones, Brian Altheimer and all of the other folks who help contribute to making the show the best it can be. We’ll continue to strive to make it even better in 2006, and with your help and backing, we know we’ll achieve that goal. We look forward to lots more laughs, serious discussions and wacky stories in the year to come, and we can’t wait!
Happy New Year to you and yours!
Thanks so much to all of you for checking in Sunday, January 1, 2006 with your suggestions for filling in the blank in the sentence “2005 was the year of _________________.” The purple finger? Katrina? Jumping the Couch? (for Tom Cruise, who should definitely be on the couch, but not in that cringe-inducing way he was on Oprah’s show) Cindy Sheehan? (OK, I don’t think this pathetic wackjob deserved any attention, but it gave us a chance to enjoy that great soundbite of MS-NBC’s own Screamer, Chris Matthews, asking her if she was going to run for Congress because she’s SOOO well-informed.) I love all of those ideas, and I loved many of yours, such as SL’s* Paul’s “Year of the Economic Boom,” SL’s Bob’s “Year of Congressional Treason,” SL Bob’s (not the same guy) “Year of Media BS,” SL Paul’s (once again, different guy, same first name) “Year of American Power,” and even SL William’s “Year the Evil Cabal Took Over” (remember, we love hearing from liberals!)
*”SL” on our show = “Smart Listener,” which we know is redundant, but we enjoy saying it
I never got around to completing the blank myself—how unusual! We didn’t finish something on the show—but I will do so on my personal blog (http://teriobrien.webloggin.com/)
I also enjoyed your suggestions for phrases we need to ban in the new year. To the ones we mentioned on Sunday:
“at this point in time” (how about “now?”)
“out of the mainstream” (read: not a far left elitist)
“going forward if we plan ahead from this time forward”
“long time listener, first time caller” (does anyone really say this anymore?)
I’d like to add the following:
“rise to the level” (a vestige of the Clinton impeachment, used to try to help him escape the inevitable)
“hate speech” (anything a liberal disagrees with)
“diversity” anything (as in “diversity book bag”)
“lookism” (please get serious)
If you have any other suggestions, things that have occurred to you since Sunday, please feel free to drop me an e-mail, and please put the word “BAN THIS WORD/PHRASE!) in the reference line just so I don’t miss it.
Finally, I don’t want to let this new year get too old before I say again how much I have appreciated all of your great ideas (both by phone and e-mail), on-air contributions, encouragement and support these last three years of the Teri O’Brien Show. As you know, our motto is “Do all you can, and then do a little more,” and knowing that you’re out there makes that not only easy, but a pleasure for me, Jo Wheeler, V.G. Lossano, Brian Jones, Brian Altheimer and all of the other folks who help contribute to making the show the best it can be. We’ll continue to strive to make it even better in 2006, and with your help and backing, we know we’ll achieve that goal. We look forward to lots more laughs, serious discussions and wacky stories in the year to come, and we can’t wait!
Happy New Year to you and yours!