Monday, January 02, 2006


I just wanted to take a moment to acknowledge the efforts of Iowans for Better Local Television, a group I was fortunate enough to be associated with when I was in Iowa City. Just a few days ago, IBLTV completed a petition to deny license renewal for Sinclair affiliate KGAN in Cedar Rapids, Iowa. The culminating event was the in-person delivery of this petition to the station manager at KGAN. You can read about this project and see the petition itself on IBLTV's website.

The petition itself was nearly a year in the making, comprising roughly 400 pages of affidavits (including one by yours truly), exhibits (such as evidence about the lack of coverage of local issues on KGAN), and a lengthy list of signatures on a supporting petition.

I can tell you from personal knowledge that the good folks at IBLTV have dedicated countless hours to putting this comprehensive document together because they believe in the cause. Their dedication and diligence is deserving of the gratitude of all of us who find Sinclair's brand of cut-rate, slanted journalism to be an afront to the very concept of "local news." Great work, folks!

Those of you who might be interested in taking action on the Sinclair issue in your own home towns should make a particular point of looking at the petition, since it serves as an excellent example of how to put together a comprehensive challenge.

Let's keep up the fight!



At 9:50 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

It's good to see citizen involvement. There needs to be SOME resistance to the "commercialization of everything" and the trend where government serves only lobbyists.

Let's hope that groups like that get the word out that a democracy needs an informed citizenry, before we all just become MallAutomatons.

At 10:57 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

IBLTV would be happy to help any media reform-minded citizens group anywhere get started. If you are thinking of challenging your station's license renewal, please feel free to contact us at or visit our website.

Trish Nelson
IBLTV member

At 11:11 PM, Anonymous Sickofspin said...

The Iowans for Better Local Television group is a group that intentionally misleads under the guise of 'fairness.' A quick look of their website shows an obvious slant to the left. Further, the group only pretends there is a lack of local coverage but the evidence is virtually non-existent. It boils down to the group wanting to force their agenda and preference for liberal news onto the TV screens of the viewing public. The petition is fit only for a garbage can.

Let's take a look at some of KGAN's (the local CBS affiliate) headlines for tonight shall we:

STEM CELL MACHINE: An Eastern Iowa Company has a new machine that could revolutionize stem cell research within the state.

That's not a local news item of interest?

SEN. GRASSLEY TO KEEP ABRAMOFF CONTRIBUTION: A string of high-profile Republicans in Congress announced they were returning campaign contributions from Jack Abramoff or his clients.

Hmmm, national issue, Grassley represents Iowa... seems like a reasonable news topic to me. I do find it interesting though that KGAN (a CBS affiliate remember)in mentioning the GOP notables possibly mixed up in the lobbying scandal, failed to mention prominent democrat notables, such as Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid, Byron Dorgan (D-ND), Carl Levin (D-MI), Debbie Stabeon (D-MI), former Senator John Breaux (D-LA), Mary Landrieu (D-LA) and a number of others.

That 'oversight' in bias now noted, that KGAN doesn't report on a variety of local issues as is claimed by Iowans for Better Liberal Television is absurd.

The fact is KGAN DOES in fact cover local issues. AS IF KGAN didn't report public power issue and vote in Iowa City? KGAN didn't cover local area stories such as the suspected shooting at a mall in Cedar Falls? KGAN didn't cover the former Iowa City prep football player going to jail? KGAN did not cover the Telecommunications issue and vote? KGAN didn't bring to our attention the Holiday Blanket Drive or the Cedar Rapids curbside leaf pickup? KGAN failed to talk to us about Johnson County sex offender tracking?

Iowans for Liberal TV is a joke.

At 11:31 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Sick Smear-o-Meter: FIFTEEN
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

This is now at least the FIFTHTEEN time Sick of Spin has refused to provide any evidence for his smear against Ted Remington (Sick claimed the Ted abused his academic position by politicizing his work.)

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

As Ronald Reagan might say, "Sick, there you go again".

It's not clear from my reading of IBLTV's website that it is slanted to the left. Doesn't read like Michael Moore. Heck, they include quotes of support from both sides of the political aisle. But Sick conveniently ignore inconvenient facts.

And besides, since when does a slant prevent a person or a group from having valid complaints? Of all people, Sick, you have absolutely no room for such faulty reasoning.

By your illogic, we should ignore everthing you say, given your slant toward supporting torture and other Soviet-like fantasies.

In a word, "Duh!"

I suspect IBLTV has done its homework. Or at least done more than cutting a pasting stuff from KGAN's website.

But why not let the right-leaning FCC decide?

Or should we not trust the FCC, as they are right-leaning?

(another "Duh" is in order).

Sick, I wish you Health in the new year!

At 11:50 AM, Anonymous Bradley said...

Here I am, violating a promise I made to myself. But one of Mike Thayer's lies is particularly galling this time, and no one's pointed it out yet.

Mike Thayer is claiming that Democrats are "possibly mixed up in" a "lobbying scandal." While it's true that I can't definitively prove that no Democrat is involved in any "lobbying scandal," I think it's important to note that in the Jack Abramhoff corruption case, there is no evidence to suggest wrongdoing on the part of any Democrat. Yes, it's true that Abramhoff made political contributions to both parties, but giving and receiving contributions is completely legal. It's when the "donor" attempts to "buy favors" from politicians that the law gets broken. So far, the evidence suggests that the only "quid pro quo" in this case involved Republican-- not Democratic-- politicians.

Here are excerpts from a Media Matters reports on this issue:

"Various media outlets reporting on Washington lobbyist Jack Abramoff's January 3 plea bargain with federal prosecutors conflated two categories of conduct, one legal and the other illegal, in casting the scandal as bipartisan. The baseless suggestion that any lawmaker who received contributions from Abramoff or his clients -- conduct that is, in and of itself, legal and ethical -- might be implicated in an investigation that is, in fact, focused on possible illegal conduct -- including the receipt of contributions in exchange for something -- allows the media to then characterize the scandal as bipartisan, since both Democrats and Republicans did in fact receive money from Abramoff's clients.

"In addition to misleadingly suggesting that recipients of legal campaign contributions from Abramoff are implicated in the scandal, news reports have also ignored the difference between legal and fully disclosed campaign contributions and the other ways in which Abramoff funneled money to lawmakers, which may have been neither legal nor properly disclosed. For example, Abramoff reportedly used a personal credit card to pay for plane tickets for former House Majority Leader Tom DeLay (R-TX), and may also have paid for a golfing trip for Rep. Bob Ney (R-OH) that was purportedly sponsored by a nonprofit organization. These payments for junkets for DeLay and Ney were apparent violations of House ethics rules and were apparently not accurately reported in their House ethics filings -- a far cry from the legal, and appropriately reported, campaign contributions news organizations have lumped them in with. As The Christian Science Monitor reported on January 4, 'not everyone who ever took Abramoff-related money or perks is guilty of wrongdoing...'

"In fact, only one elected official, Ney, has been officially implicated in the scandal. The indictment against Abramoff specifically noted that Ney received from Abramoff 'a stream of things of value,including a golf junket to Scotland, tickets to sporting events, meals at Abramoff's restaurant, and campaign contributions. (The indictment referred to Ney as "Representative #1,' but The Washington Post reported January 4 that 'Ney's spokesman confirmed that Ney is the 'Representative #1' repeatedly mentioned in court documents.')The indictment further noted that Abramoff, in exchange for these gifts, 'sought and received' Ney's 'agreement to perform a series of official acts to benefit defendant Abramoff's businesses, clients and others.'"

So, we can see that, so far, the only politicians who look somewhat (or even really) sketchy are, in fact, Republicans. Of course, the investigations is ongoing. Anything can happen. Perhaps we'll discover that all of the politicians who received contributions from Abramhoff-- even the really suspicious-looking ones-- conducted themselves honestly and honorably. Maybe we'll discover that this corruption does indeed reach "across the aisle," so to speak, and some Democrats will be indicted too. We don't know. All I do know is that Mike Thayer's baseless accusations indicate to me that he believes that the Congressional Republicans are in a lot of trouble, and he's looking to (surprise, surprise) spin this thing so that the innocent get punished along with the guilty.

Really, Mike. Why can't you deal with people honestly? You talk a good game about honor on your own blog, but the way you conduct yourself in your political arguments indicate to me that honor is not something you take very seriously.

Oh, speaking of honor... you've misspelled Debbie Stabenow of Michigan's name both on this blog and on your own; I suspect that whatever rightwing spin website you plagiarized your information from has it misspelled, and you didn't both to correct it when you copied and pasted. Just so you know.

At 1:02 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...



I'm glad!

I thought maybe you were injured by a collision with a bit of stray logic or something!

Glad to see you're logic shields are still at maximum!

At 2:42 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Sick again shows his ignorance.

Sick, you can't file a Petition to the FCC to, in any way, cause a station to become liberal. That's not what a petition does.

You obviously are clueless here.

Sick, why not try to actually have some FACTS handy, prior to one of your grand mal word seizures?

At 3:29 PM, Anonymous Sickofspin said...

RE: The Iowans for Liberal TV website.

A banner ad for Robert Greenwald's 'OutFoxed'... Nah, that's not liberal.

A link to Media Matters... Nah, that's not liberal.

A link to The Center For Public Integrity... Nah, that's not liberal.

John McCain is a Republican in name only.

A posted essay advocating the 'fairness doctrine' (a tool liberals are trying to regenerate in order to get more liberal programming on the air).

A link to this blog... Nah, that's not liberal.

Here's what distinguishes me from a site like Iowans for Liberal TV. I'm a Conservative, I make no bones about it. I don't hide under some guise of 'fairness' as a means to an end. I'm not afraid to tell you like it is from a Conservative point of view, in fact, I proclaim it! I don't pretend to be centrist, I don't pretend to be something I'm not. IB.S.TV does.

And no, slant does not prevent anyone from making a valid point - but that's just it, IB.S.TV doesn't have any valid complaints. They have an anti-Sinclair agenda, but no valid complaints. The local coverage of news and issues by KGAN is just fine.

At 3:43 PM, Anonymous Sickofspin said...

Bradley wrote:

"I think it's important to note that in the Jack Abramhoff corruption case, there is no evidence to suggest wrongdoing on the part of any Democrat."

Bradley wants us to think that this is somehow a GOP scandal, but democrats are wholly innocent. That's just hogwash. Both sides of the isle Bradley.....

And why are you looking the other way with Harry Reid? And if no democrats are wrapped up in this Abramoff issue than why are so many distancing themselves from the lobbyist?

RE: Abramhoff dealings with Reid, using the name/connection of then Interior Secretary Gale Norton and doing 'work' on the behalf of an Indian tribe:

Senate Democratic Leader Harry M. Reid (Nev.) sent a letter to Norton on March 5, 2002, also signed by Sen. John Ensign (R-Nev). The next day, the Coushatta Tribe of Louisiana issued a $5,000 check to Reid's tax-exempt political group, the Searchlight Leadership Fund. A second Abramoff tribe also sent $5,000 to Reid's group. Reid ultimately received more than $66,000 in Abramoff-related donations from 2001 to 2004.

Quid Pro Quo? Investigation will reveal. But please Bradley, don't pretend the democrats are so holy. People are most likely going to go down both GOP and dem. And like Media Matters is going to report objectively? Please.

At 4:31 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Sick Smear-o-Meter: SIXTEEN

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

This is now at least the SIXTEENTH time Sick of Spin has refused to provide any evidence for his smear against Ted Remington (Sick claimed the Ted abused his academic position by politicizing his work.)

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

There's a word for people like that.

At 4:33 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Hey, Sick,

So a link to this blog makes IBLTV liberal...

So by your illogical "guilt by association" tactic,

SICK is a Liberal!!!!

Geez, your reasoning skills are impaired.

At 4:38 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Let's see,

IBLTV has a 400 page document, a Petition to the FCC with facts to back it up, affidavits from public officials, etc., stating that KGAN is pretty pathetic.

Then we have SICKO, who say's "The local coverage of news and issues by KGAN is just fine."

Well, I guess that clear's that up.
Sick MUST be right. We can all go home now.

Thanks, Sick, for all your work.

Why not send your OPINION to the FCC. I'm sure that will tip the balance!

At 4:48 PM, Anonymous Mark E. Mark said...

Give our boy some love!

Tomorrow (Jan. 6) is his birthday!

Why not send an e-card directly to ?

Sure beats going by

P.S. Mike Thayer is a weenie who needs to get a life!

At 5:32 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Can non-partison groups advocating local interests beyond those that are corporate or profit-seeking be sincere? Is it possible for any group to put pressure on a corporation like Sinclair Broadcast Group and not be perceived as liberal?

In today's political climate it is nearly impossible for any individual or group to stand up for what it believes and not be accused of having a political agenda. Any judge that rules contrary to the interests of the ruling party is "activist". Any member of Congress who does not support policy of the ruling party is "obstructionist". Any citizen who dares criticize the methods being used in the so-called war on terror is "giving aid to the enemy".

Therefore it is seems impossible that one can have a legitimate complaint regarding local TV or the media in general. Doing so is inherently partisian or liberal. Just as our government is infallible, so are the Smith brothers at Sinclair. Some of us here in Eastern Iowa may not like it that a family in Baltimore owns our airwaves, but surely this is nothing to complain about.

Sickofspin would have you believe that one does not really have the right to speak freely unless it is in accordance with his own views. But any qualification on freedom of speech is not really freedom of speech.

Interesting that Media Matters, Free Press, and now IBLVT are perceived as leftist organizations. As if taking an interest in media consolidation or the way news is disseminated are inherently a liberal concerns.

Anthony Buhr
member IBLTV

At 5:49 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Tony makes an excellent point.

These days we debate whether or not torture is "okay".

We'll "support the troops" but won't countenance a per-gallon increase in gas tax to truly support the troops and control our consumption (which put us in Iraq in the first place).

I am very happy that there are groups like IBLTV and people like Tony to help fight the good fight.

For those like Mike, one can only feel sorry for them.

At 6:49 PM, Anonymous Bradley said...

Damn, Mike. Way to ignore my point. "Don't pretend the Democrats are so holy"? Sorry-- I never said anything like that. In fact, I believe I said that, when the truth comes out, some Democrats might turn out to be guilty. I also said that it's possible that no Republicans would be proven guilty. Go ahead-- read what I wrote. No, really read it, Mike. I know that logic, reason, and evidence usually take a backseat to your "feelings," but do try to pay attention anyway if you're going to try to argue with grown-ups.

The point of my post was not that "all Democrats are innocent." Rather, my point was that the Democrats are not guilty just because you say so. At this point, I realize I'm not going to change your mind-- for whatever reason, you're content to be a very hateful man who seems to get off on picking fights with people who are smarter than you. Fine. But you posted a lie here-- you suggested that there was evidence to suggest that Abramoff had bribed Democrats; there is no such evidence. I didn't see anyone else exposing your lie, so I stepped in.

Again, my point wasn't to defend Democrats; it was to expose you for the lying, dishonorable fraud you are, and to keep the discussion here honest. You make stuff up and post it on the web, and there's a chance that someone will believe you. The Abramoff case is pretty complicated, and it would be easy for someone to be confused by a small-minded liar like yourself.

You know, I really don't know how you sleep at night. You are so deeply unpleasant and so full of hate. Your ideology requires you to lie in every argument you make, which means that, deep down, you must not believe what you're saying. So why say it in the first place? Do you hate your fellow man that much? Or is just a cry for attention? I'm guessing the latter-- you're not really a bad person, you're just very, very sad. So, as rephensible as I find your outright lying and small-minded pettiness to be, I want you to know that I do understand, and that I hope things get better for you.

At 6:55 PM, Anonymous Sickofspin said...

Anthony Buhr wrote:

"Sickofspin would have you believe that one does not really have the right to speak freely unless it is in accordance with his own views. But any qualification on freedom of speech is not really freedom of speech."

Sorry dude, but that's exactly what you folks are guilty of with your twisted agenda in trying to force KGAN into doing programming as YOU see fit. You're liberal and you can't admit it. Why not? What are you afraid of? You push a liberal agenda under the guise of 'fairness' and what you're really up to is government intervention and censorship of KGAN because your idea for programming isn't what you'd like it to be and your views for programming obviously aren't competitive or desired.

Yours is the kind of rhetoric that gives you folks your liberal tag. Everyone has a right to speak freely Anthony, but don't pretend to be something you're not. You're not about being fair, you're about being liberal. That's fine, so why the guise? You and much of the choir here are afraid for whatever reason to acknowledge that you're liberals. You're not centrist, you're not fair, you're liberal, so act like it.

Oh, and ignoring the fact that Media Matters isn't liberal. Pretending they're something other than that is just silly.

At 7:09 PM, Anonymous Sickofspin said...


If anyone is lying here it's you. I made my initial response because people like you are pretending this is a GOP only scandal. It simply isn't. For you to say that evidence suggests only Republicans are guilty of quid pro quo is blantantly false. You've totally overlooked (I say intentionally) Harry Reid and others involved in dealings with Indian tribes. I've posted such references and you've blown them off, not because they don't have merit, but because God forbid, a liberal is guilty of wrong doing. To you Tom DeLay is inherently evil, but Harry Reid wears a halo. That's crap.

The difference between you and me is this:

I say that if Tom DeLay is guilty of wrongdoing, then he should be punished to the fullest extent of the law. I say the same for Harry Reid.

Because I'm calling you out, you won't acknowledge it, but you won't make such statements - you only do the partisan thing... Make political hay out of the opposition when opportunity presents itself, shut the closet door on our own skeletons.... "Scandal, what scandal?"

Your hypocrisy is obvious, your pseudo intelligence is pathetic. Yep, personal attack - you deserve it. Check your mirror before you respond.

At 7:39 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Sick Smear-o-Meter: EIGHTEEN
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

This is now at least the EIGHTEENTH time Sick of Spin has refused to provide any evidence for his smear against Ted Remington (Sick claimed the Ted abused his academic position by politicizing his work.)

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

Eighteen, Sick.

And you call other people pathetic?

Do your friends and family know that you play dirty?

At 7:43 PM, Anonymous Bradley said...


Nope. Sorry. For the third time, I'll say that it's entirely possible that we'll discover that Abramoff bribed Democrats. But we don't know yet. The fact that you think Harry Reid looks suspicious just isn't enough to convince me that he's guilty. Sorry. At this point, Tom DeLay and Bob Ney still look guiltier.

Again, though, because I know you'll try to pretend I didn't make this point-- we may very well find out that this is a bipartisan scandal.

Let me say it again, so we're clear-- we may very well find out that this is a bipartisan scandal.

And yes, I will actually say that any Democrat found to have exchanged political favors for money deserves to be punished to the fullest extent of the law. If Harry Reid and Tom DeLay both sold favors to Jack Abramoff, then I want to see them shackled together. working on a chain gang, in the middle of a heatwave. As I have said to you time and time again, I am not interested in partisan politics-- I'm interested in the truth. That's why I find liars like you so loathesome. Rest assured, if you started posting things like "Dick Cheney is an anti-semite" or "Tom DeLay killed a hooker," I would find your lies just as repugnant.

As far as personal attacks go... by all means, attack away, if it makes you feel better about yourself. I can understand why you'd have to resort to ad hominem attacks-- you certainly can't rely on facts or logical arguments.

At 8:11 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...


We've been without Sicko for awhile and perhaps we've forgotten his modus operandus. He attacks, attacks, and attacks. He does not respond to reasonable discourse.

He won't even come clean about smearing Ted on Ted's blog, where Sick loves to smear his ill will around.

So, all we can do is let him rant. Perhaps it prevents him from other ills he would visit upon others.

At 8:30 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...


Most of the people on this blog try mightily to be as reasonable to Sick as possible. Rants are typically answered by logic and attempts to reason with him. But with Sick, there is no way. He is just filled with anger toward just about all here.

It makes me wonder...

Sick (Mike Thayer) recently opened up a retail shop in Coralville, Iowa. He got a nice little story in a local Iowa paper (The Iowa City Press Citizen).

I wonder if, outside his hate-filled blog world, Mike is as mean spirited, unfair, and judgmental to his customers.

He's a strange guy. I wonder if he even realizes how nasty he comes across?

At 2:58 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

NSA to monitor chatter at Iowa hotspot market.

I read somewhere that more than two arab-types are congregating in one place in the Heartland of America.

Some place called Akdeniz Market in Coralville.

"It's a real diverse crowd," said the owner. "We've got a core group of Turkish folks, Lebanese, Iraqis, Arabians and many others."

Sounds suspicious to me. Thank God the Bush administration is on top of these "types", if you know what I mean.

At 3:35 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Right. Thank you Citizen, for the important TIP (as in Total Information Program).

After all...

..."Freedom isn't Free"

..."If you have nothing to hide, you shouldn't mind a little loss of privacy."

Hell no! We're not part of the "hate America crowd".

Only a sick-o lefty would let that sort of likely suspicious activity go unbugged.

Thanks for the tip.

And thank God for...

"enhanced interrogation techniques"
(uh, toture)

The rammed-through-congress Patriot (gotta love that name) Act, and the whole big brother thing.

Finally, to paraphrase Condi (love them shoes) Rice...

We wouldn't want our last warning to be in the form of an exploding falafel!

At 4:09 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Hey "Anonymous" who posted at 1:58.

You quoted the owner of this suspicious establishment as welcoming:

"a real diverse crowd...a core group of Turkish folks, Lebanese, Iraqis, Arabians..."



Is this owner allowing HORSES into his establishment?

This sounds like a violation of several sanitary codes! What IS going on at his shop?

Let's not stop at Homeland Security. Let's call up the Humane Society and the Public Health Department! Ethnic people are one thing... Horses, well, I've never!

At 4:21 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Another weird thing about our pal Mikey...

So, he opens up this store in Coralville, Iowa (which is a exburb of Iowa City, that terrible liberal nest that gave birth to that awful, lying, conniving, unAmerican IBLTV). Then Mikey says to his local newspaper:

"The diverse community in Iowa City makes this store work," Mike Thayer said.

Oh I see... It's okay to be diverse if your $hopping in his store, but God forbid if you have diverse opinions on non-food items...

Then you're just a goddam liar!

Is this guy selfish or what?

At 4:45 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

(one of the) Most assinine quotes from Sick (see above):

"You're not about being fair, you're about being liberal."

What a dorky statement. So, Mikey wants us to conclude what? ...that only torture-friendly Republicans (like himself) are "fair"?

Well, alright then!

If Mike Thayer is representative of the intellectual firepower of the Right, no wonder its decks are tilting at about a 60 degree angle.
(The Democrat ship is only tilting at about a 40 degree angle).

I agree, this guy has a pretty selfish agenda. Likes "diversity" when it walks in his store to buy stuff, excoriates it on this blog as an ungrateful guest.


At 4:59 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

From 1:58 p.m. anon to 2:35 p.m. anon: you're welcome, fellow Citizen. We must stay vigilant against those types who miss things from those jihadist states like in the Middle East, if you know what I mean.

To 3:09 p.m. anon.: Maybe the straw man who supposedly co-owns the non-Anglican-sounding named Akdeniz Market was a pal of someone that the NSA has idenfied as Hellavajob Brownie. I didn't coin the term "Arabian". Check our press-clipping file for yourself, Citizen:

My concern is that these peoples want to congregate in groups of more than two. They call it "diversity", I call it an unassimilated mob. Why take a chance? We're at war here, people!

A so-called food shop is not much different than, say, a mosque, if you know what I mean. Who's to say whether this shop also carries pamphlets and newspapers and books, if you know what I mean.

I'm so sick - SICK! - of whiny liberals and their moans of "civil liberties". We're at war here, and these limosine-driving L.A. types want to go soft on monitoring Arabians.

I say, stay the course and give the President his God-given right to keep a friendly eye on the denizens of the Akdeniz Market, if you know what I mean.

If we don't watch the Arabians, well, like Condi said, there could be a mushroom cloud over Heartland America sometime soon, if you know what I mean.

Stay vigilant, fellow patriotic Citizens!

At 5:14 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Sick: The problem here is that you do not take seriously the views of those with whom you disagree, which is tantamount to denying them the right to free speech. No one here is pretending not to be liberal, but that is truly not The Point™. The issues we are concerned with are not partisan issues. They only appear to be liberal to you because you have placed them under a particular label. A liberal agenda only exists to the extent that you define it as such. By your own logic, because you are conservative, you are automatically disqualified from being fair or balanced, which begs the question whether it possible for anyone to have a valid opinion. IBLTV is not so much concerned with the specifics of KGAN programming so long as it serves the public interest. In other words, does is offer reasonable programming that people can use to make informed decisions? If you believe that Sinclair does serve the public interest as opposed to its own profit margin, we invite you to read the entire petition and state your disagreements as you see fit. Otherwise, you must believe that the airwaves are not public at all but for sale to the highest bidder and open to no accountability or oversight. Is this what you believe?

And one more point, if you really are sick of spin, why do you engage in it?

Anthony Buhr

At 5:16 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

I am getting more and more frightened.

You're right, we ARE AT WAR. Our Enemies are still plotting.

We cannot give enough power to the Executive Branch. Screw this thread about mamsy-pamsy people who want "fairness" on the people's airwaves. We need to track our enemies and those who consort with "their kind".

God I love Dick Cheney!

I want to see someone get waterboarded! Now that's freedom and patriotism! Ahhhhhh! :)

At 5:17 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

I heard this on A.M radio this morning.

According to a linguist in NSA's covert op, Babel-Tap, the word "Akdeniz" is an Arabian codeword for where and when the Arab types plan on striking Heartland U.S.A.

Earlier they thought "akdeniz" roughly translated to "slay the Christian pork-eaters," but, you know, those Arabians are sly ones.

At 5:19 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...




At 5:27 PM, Anonymous Bradley said...

Not to be a wet blanket or anything, but it seems like talking about Mike's business and his relationship with his community here might be just a bit out-of-line. I realize that he's been degrading and insulting in his exchanges with those of us he's decided are ignorant liberals, but posting his personal information on a blog like this-- especially when it's not relevant to the discussion at hand-- seems overly mean-spirited, and something of a violation.

To put it another way-- there's no reason for us to pry into Mike's personal or professional lives. His postings on this blog give us plenty to talk about.

At 5:27 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Thanks, Tony,
For trying to reason with Sick.

I've given up. I want to join the Mob.


Sieg Heil! Sieg Heil! Sieg Heil!

At 5:34 PM, Anonymous Bradley said...

This apparently didn't show up when I went to post it before; if this appears twice, my apologies.

Not to be a wet blanket or anything, but it seems like talking about Mike's business and his relationship with his community here might be just a bit out-of-line. I realize that he's been degrading and insulting in his exchanges with those of us he's decided are ignorant liberals, but posting his personal information on a blog like this-- especially when it's not relevant to the discussion at hand-- seems overly mean-spirited, and something of a violation.

To put it another way-- there's no reason for us to pry into Mike's personal or professional lives. His postings on this blog give us plenty to talk about.

At 6:02 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...


I suppose it's not nice to speak in stinky ways. And maybe some lines were crossed.

However, I think there was a strongly legit point that was being made to Mike with regard to his business and his relationship to his community through it.

That is, wouldn't it be nice if he applied the same degree of tolerance to people on this blog as he presumably would to people who would venture into his store to spend money?

It was Mike who said (publicly) that his store's success depended on the "diversity" of people in Iowa City, a liberal town. It seems hypocritical for him to be lashing out at that diversity when it doesn't suit him. Particularly when he insults people on this blog.

So why can't he apply some modicum of respect to Ted (who he accused of academic malfeasance), Anthony (who he said couldn't be fair because he was "liberal") and you (who he said would be the "liar" on this blog).

Until Mike learns about fairness, he'll continue to be this blog's buffoon. I say that challenging him a little may (possibly) make him think beyond his constricted world-view of waterboarding and hating "liberals".

Funny, I wonder what Mike thinks about those who brought us the Bill of Rights? Seems like a bunch of liberal garbage.

At 6:24 PM, Anonymous Bradley said...

Dear Anonymous,

I'm in absolute agreement with you when you say that he's been very disrespectful and intolerant. And I agree that the lip-service he pays to diversity in the article does contradict the intolerance he's demonstrated here.

However, in most of my exchanges with Mike, I've tried really hard to put myself in his place and see things from his point-of-view (a gesture that, admittedly, he won't make when he deals with me). And when I imagined how I would feel if someone I disagreed with on a political blog posted a link that gave information about where I work, how many kids I have, and my wife's ethnicity-- not to mention a photograph of me with my wife-- well... I think I'd be pretty freaked out.

He's an ignorant irritant, to be sure. But somehow, I feel like there's something kinda menacing about publishing his personal information like that. I'm sure that wasn't the intent, but all the same... I think we'd do better to challenge Mike by pointing out how asinine his ideas are and by poking holes in his... ahem... "logic" than by making cracks about where he works.

At 7:43 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...


I agree with you. Sick's hypocrisy with regard his love/hate of diversity is fair game: those are statements he made publicly and conspicuously here and in a puff piece in an Iowa paper. And we should call him on the carpet when he accuses others of lying, politicizing on the job, etc. etc.

But, we should all leave his wife and kids alone and wish the best for them. Heck, we should hope the best for Mike Thayer. Life's too short and full of heartbreaks not to hope the best for all. (Oops, sorry for the liberal tripe!)

It would just be nice if Mike Thayer would play fair. He has amply demonstrated his difficulty with that notion. It would be really nice if he would argue IDEAS rather than disparage individuals for, say, wanting the return of the Fairness Doctrine, a doctrine that both liberal and conservative administrations made peace with for 40 years (until Reagan's buddies nixed it).

There's strong and important irony here. Here we are, debating how to confront and respect Mike. His voluminous writings indicate that he would not return the favor to those he disagrees with.

So then, which philosophy is better?

(But Bradley, you're point is good... we gotta keep honest here).

At 7:52 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Hey, Anon and Bradley,

Wait a minute... before too much hand-wringing!

The information about Mike Thayer and his business (and picture of his wife) were in a public newspaper that was a promo piece for Thayer's business. It's on the internet... it wasn't a paparazzi thing!

I don't see anyone here who's crossed a privacy line, have you?

And I loved the bit about Arabian horses in his shop! Maybe even Mike got a chuckle out of it (who knows?)

At 1:28 AM, Anonymous Bradley said...


You're absolutely right to point out that no one has really "exposed" Mike or anything like that. He has a blog that contains his personal information, and other personal information about him can be found elsewhere on the web; additionally, all of this personal information has been made public in an effort at self-promotion. All the same, though, I think we'd do well to try to rise above any type of ad hominem insults or personal attacks-- even when they're simply meant to be funny. We don't need to make jokes about Mike's business, and doing so tends to make "our side" look as bad as his vitriolic attacks make "his side" look. You know what I mean?

Plus, I have to admit that I think that Mike's one admirable quality is his willingness to attach his name to his opinions. As ridiculous as some of his ideas are, he doesn't try to hide his identity while he's expressing them. Not a whole lot of people do that (myself included). I suppose part of the reason this recent line of argument bothers me is the fact that the only reason we know anything about Mike's personal life is that he is upfront about it while most of us are not. In a sense, it feels like bringing his business and his family into the debate simply punishes him for (and I can't believe I'm paying him this compliment) having the courage of his convictions.

Please don't get me wrong-- I still find his opinions poorly thought-out and articulated, and his whole "anger of the enfranchised and empowered" schtick infuriates me. But I think the most effective way to address him is to point out how ineffective his own arguments are.

At 8:53 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Hey, Bradley,

It's good that you can give ol' SickOSpin a compliment.

Enough said. Let's get back to media reform.

In my lifetime, I've seen so much of our society tilt toward the very rich. You get on a phone to a business, and you're call becomes very important (i.e., you're on hold). Tickets to a baseball game are in the 20-50 buck range, making big-city game attendance look awfully "white" as poorer blacks can't afford it. And the media has been bought up by big corporations so that they are no longer independent from...just about anything.

So, I applaud IBLTV and its efforts to say "enough is enough". So what if it's liberal-minded people leading the charge? It's liberal minded people saying we need to get these damn lobbyists and elected officials out of bed. It's liberal-minded people who have questioned a questionable "war of choice".

Thank God for an opposition. Thank God for groups like IBLTV.

At 9:19 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...


Now you're the one acting like a weenie.

Sicko-spin/Mike Thayer can take care of himself, thank you very much.

I never "attacked" him when I posted about the NSA program. Far from it!

All I'm saying is that, under the bold, resolute leadership of Presidente Bush, we Citizens need to be vigillant in regard to suspicious types - most of whom come from the Middle East rather than, say, Middle America.

If I was a whiny liberal, like you, I'd have some ambivalence and queasiness about having my government monitor Arabians.

However, like my buddy sickospin, I'm proud - PROUD! - that the Arabian types congregating in groups more than 3 are being watched, uh, "for quality assurance purposes."

Like Michelle Malkin said about those Jap-Americans during WWII, that's the price of freedom or liberty.

Maybe I'm a bit of a craven coward, hiding behind an "anonymous" identity, but thank God we have folks like Mike Thayer who stand up and be counted for the little guy.

At 10:25 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Hey people,

Let's try to avoid the ad hominem attacks. It's one thing to label policies by pejorative words, another to call people names.

Almost all of the blogsite participants here are polite and attempt to advance ideas. I vote for that. Lets leave excessive negativity for other blogs.

At 3:13 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

This message is directed toward Sick of Spin, with regard to his characterization of IBLTV.

From reading their website, the group says that it is "non partisan", not neutral. Non partisan means the group doesn't have a party affiliation or such requirements, not that it doesn't have a point of view. It is for a cause, not a party.

I would think it would be clear to the most basic reader of that site that the group is interested in media reform. And in this day and age of deregulation, media reform logically means re-establishment of long-held federal regulations and oversight, such as the Fairness Doctrine, which many republicans (of the past) had supported.

Republicans of today profess to be 'hands off', 'states rights', limited government types. But as many have noted recently, republicans don't mind wieldy federal power when it suits their interests. Look at the explosion of "earmarks", the doubling of lobbyists. They'll stop a state's mandated vote recount, tell libraries that they have to snitch on patrons, go around FISA courts, etc., because those federal (or executive) intrusions suit their interests.

It's one thing to be Democrat or Rebublican, another to be Conservative or Liberal. Personally, I have a mix of conservative and liberal values. I'm not pro-abortion, but I'm also not pro-death penalty. I'm for conserving resources (that would be conservative!) and for regulating scarce strategic resources, such as uranium, oil, water, the air, etc. as part of that conservation. I'm for free enterprise (the engine of many inventions) and commercial rights, but I'm also concerned about individual rights. I would vote for John McCain over Hillary easily (and notwithstanding Sick's self-proclaimed re-definition, McCain IS a republican).

From my perspective, the presumed need to cling to labels is unfortunate -- and inaccurate.

Read some of the recent op-ed pieces of George Will or David Brooks and you'll see very pointed criticisms of the Republican party and how greedy and unprincipled they have become. They are making some of the very same critiques as those made by liberals!

According to the IBLTV website, even the staunch uber-conservative columnist William Safire, has spoken out against media consolidation, as has former Senator Bob Dole.

So, it would seem that media reform need not be a "liberal" issue. It only is these days because the Republicans have become the party of the corporations and big money: they are trying to protect their clients against others who might want to see "free speech" spread out a little more equally among the citizens.

So I say Amen to little grass roots groups that try to make a difference. I doubt if the IBLTV folks will put a dent in Sinclair's machine, but I applaud them for trying.

Sick, this country was founded on a Revolution, one in which more than words were at stake. Why disparage a group that is acting civilly and within the bounds of the law to effect change? Isn't that what you're trying to do with your blog?


Post a Comment

<< Home

Cost of the War in Iraq
(JavaScript Error)
To see more details, click here.