This one has been reported to authorities as a threat against Rep. Betty McCullum (D) Minnesota who has suggested that if the Republicans are going to slash so many of the programs they deem unnecessary that maybe seven million bucks for a US Army sticker on a race car isn’t a priority. NASCAR fans have reacted very negatively, but it will be interesting to see how the debate gets framed. In the meantime, I’m putting the image of the message she received by facsimile this morning below the fold because it does contain some very offensive language.
TPM has the story. Click on the picture to enlarge.
27 comments
Comments feed for this article
February 17, 2011 at 4:42 pm
Randy
Ah, another inspiring message from the Family Values crowd.
February 17, 2011 at 6:48 pm
Neville Ross
Yes, as usual they prove how primitive some North Americans are (not that all fans of NASCAR are jerks like these: NASCAR has a worldwide fanbase.)
February 17, 2011 at 6:51 pm
Dave Kirby
Not just a sticker. For several teams in both NASCAR and the NHRA ( drag racing ) the National Guard and Army are their main sponsors. Which is a large dollar investment in P.R. to attract young males to the service.
February 17, 2011 at 8:31 pm
Tom Sebourn
This NASCAR fan is probably drunk, certainly a racist and cares more about an Army race car than working peoples lives and their well being. I would like to say that this narrows down the search a bit but that would be a silly thing to say.
February 17, 2011 at 8:46 pm
Eric Kirk
Dave – certainly, but it’s about priorities, right? From a conservative perspective, does the government really need to be in the NASCAR business, when we’re cutting back on public radio, the NEA, and pretty much everything else?
How about an analysis? Specifically, how many young men enter the military each year due to the endorsements? It should be fair game like anything else, or should we only consider cutbacks for programs of interest to people more likely to vote Democratic?
February 17, 2011 at 10:40 pm
Anonymous
NASCAR is the poor man’s sport. Coincidentally, poor and uneducated people are the military’s primary recruitment pool. If you want to maintain a well-staffed military, this is marketing money well spent.
February 17, 2011 at 11:53 pm
Mitch
What I really love about the graphic is the designer’s avoidance of the f-word by using an alternative spelling. It’s hard to guess what thought patterns were limply floating about in his brain, but my guess is he didn’t want to use a curse word, because he knows God said not to swear.
February 18, 2011 at 7:25 am
moviedad
Those who are helping the rich to destroy the working class are what? Those in support of turning American people into wage slaves while allowing the wealthy to gut our treasury are what?
Their flesh should burn when they wrap themselves in our flag. The proper flag for them would look like a Nascar Jacket.
February 18, 2011 at 8:03 am
Dave Kirby
Eric ..I don’t know how effective this type of advertising is but there are many big names from Home Depot to Dupont to Kelloggs Corn Flakes sponsoring teams in NASCAR. National Hot Rod Association teams tend to be more automotive minded like Castrol or Macco Tools. It seems to me that supporting the troops and patriotic display has become a feature of many sporting events while there are boots on the ground overseas. As for the graphic above there is no knowing if it is genuine or manufactured for sheer effect by a provocateur like many of the posts here in blogland.
February 18, 2011 at 8:15 am
Eric Kirk
Dave – well, those companies are not obligated to prioritize like a government which is in deficit. If it’s a choice between NPR and stock cars, I’m going to go with NPR every time, and I think the representative’s point is to argue that the same criteria for what is essential and non-essential should apply regardless of whose cultural priorities are at stake.
February 18, 2011 at 8:39 am
Dave Kirby
Eric.. I agree wholeheartedly although I don’t think propagandists like Amy Goodman deserve to be subsidized by the taxpayers. She is no more “fair and balanced” than Limbaugh.
February 18, 2011 at 8:44 am
Eric Kirk
I’m not sure that she is Dave. She is independently syndicated, formerly of Pacifica Radio, but never NPR to my knowledge. Pacifica has received specific grants for specific portions of their operations, but they aren’t funded the same way NPR is.
I guess you could say that she is indirectly benefiting in that her program airs on stations which receive such funding.
February 18, 2011 at 9:06 am
Bunny Wilder
I disagree with that. we have an ongoing discussion about this.
February 18, 2011 at 9:08 am
Bunny Wilder
To clarify, I disagree that Amy is like Rush.
February 18, 2011 at 9:52 am
Eric Kirk
I think she is more like Greta Van Sustern.
February 18, 2011 at 10:36 am
Dave Kirby
All I know is she has never interviewed anyone who has said anything remotely positive about the U.S..You may be right about her not being a creature of N.P.R. if so I am happy to hear that, I just assumed that her show on KMUD was N.P.R feed. I do know that her comments after 911 were so offensive that she was canned by her then broadcaster.
February 18, 2011 at 6:11 pm
Cristina Bauss
Care to elucidate on that? I don’t remember what she said after 9/11.
February 19, 2011 at 11:46 am
Dave Kirby
C.B. I don’t recall her exact words but she essentially said that we brought 911 on ourselves and that we got what we deserved. After that she was doing the “the war and peace report” from a new location. I just think she is a very sour person. I call her a propagandist because she only selects stories that support her preconceived agenda just as the right wing talking heads induce deductions from the bits and pieces that suit their slanted positions.
February 19, 2011 at 2:50 pm
moviedad
Amy Goodman is a great American. She risks her life to show a side of the news that Traitors are tying to keep hidden. “Propagandist”? Oh yeah, dare to let those affected by US imperialism abroad and dictatorship at home, have a couple of minutes before the mic. Amy has the love and respect of millions. Let them mess with Amy Goodman, and watch how quickly things change.
February 19, 2011 at 5:14 pm
Dave Kirby
Everything that Amy says is available from sources other than she. If your not to lazy to look. Propaganda is the one sided selection of information in order to attack or defend an idea, person or institution. She certainly qualifies.
February 20, 2011 at 9:53 am
moviedad
?
February 20, 2011 at 10:23 am
tra
Everything that Amy says is available from sources other than she.
In theory, yes. As a practical matter, no. I don’t have time to spend many hours a day tracking down the info presented on Democracy Now, but I can usually find time to listen to their broadcast (easier nowadays sice I can listen anytime on the internet at democracynow.org. If I’m too busy to spare the full hour, I try to at least listen to the headlines. And yes, I do get to hear views and analysis from DN that I don’t get from other sources. That doesn’t mean that I agree with everything I hear on DN, or that I accept their analysis uncritically. I don’t.
By the way, Democracy Now does not claim to present a totally neutral and objective version of the news. Their philosophy, articulated by Amy Goodman on many occasions, is that for many of the issues DN covers, the “other side” is already overrepresented in the mainstream media, not to mention in the right-wing media, notably Fox News. And while Amy Goodman is up-front about her leftish bias, Fox News makes the laughable claim that their coverage is “fair and balanced.”
February 20, 2011 at 10:37 am
Mitch
Dave,
What do you think of Bill Moyers? Here’s Mr. Moyers’ introduction to Amy Goodman’s recent book:
http://www.truth-out.org/1027098
Here are the first two sentences:
“You can learn more of the truth about Washington and the world from one week of Amy Goodman’s “Democracy Now!” than from a month of Sunday morning talk shows. Make that a year of Sunday morning talk shows.”
February 20, 2011 at 10:42 am
Eric Kirk
There are two concepts here which are distinct. A biased program can be very informative, but the capacity for informing is truly limited when you don’t get the full story. Amy is good at what she does, but as someone once wrote of Michael Moore’s audience, “it was reported that his audiences are giving his film a standing ovation at the end, but I would think that a movie maker would prefer that his audiences be arguing in the aisles.”
I heard a debate on NPR yesterday with two representatives of each side debating the motion: “Islam is a religion of peace.” Four very intelligent people engaged in thought provoking debate. You won’t find much of that on Pacifica. That’s not to say that Pacifica doesn’t have its value, because in it’s particular bias it will present information that is not made available on the MSM.
February 20, 2011 at 11:24 am
Mitch
Eric,
The reason people stand up and applaud at Michael Moore films is that they NEVER get to hear his — OUR — point of view presented by the Sabbath gasbags, at least not with passion and anger. Moore may make propaganda, but it’s needed and righteous propaganda, because we live in times when our nation is being assaulted by the greediest.
I wonder what Jesus thought of the people who warned him that loaves and fishes for all was a great idea in principle, but that it really needed to be thought through for another decade or two by economic analysts paid for by the Emperor, so that Rome could determine its fiscal impact on the Empire.
Here’s a quote from the JFK Library web site, which may come close:
“One of President Kennedy’s favorite quotations was based upon an interpretation of Dante’s Inferno. As Robert Kennedy explained in 1964, “President Kennedy’s favorite quote was really from Dante, ‘The hottest places in Hell are reserved for those who in time of moral crisis preserve their neutrality.’” This supposed quotation is not actually in Dante’s work, but is based upon a similiar one. “
February 20, 2011 at 11:26 am
tra
If your only sources of news and analysis were Democracy Now and similar sources, you’d end up with a biased and incomplete picture of events.
If your only sources of news and analysis were Fox News and similar sources, you’d end up with a biased and incomplete picture of events.
If your only source of news and analysis was NPR, you’d get a relatively unbiased, but still quite incomplete picture of events.
If you get your news and analysis from a variety of sources, and you think critically about all of what you see and hear, you’ve got the best chance of getting a reasonably clear view of events.
February 20, 2011 at 3:44 pm
Eric Kirk
I certainly agree that neutrality in the face of certain situations can be morally questionable, or even callous. But I’m talking about the process of even getting the information to pull out of neutrality.
But also think about the Pete Seeger and Phil Ochs songs on the subject, and as I said, Amy has her place to get a solid picture of part of the story.