Showing posts with label truth. Show all posts
Showing posts with label truth. Show all posts

Thursday, February 9, 2017

Trump Spokesman Sean Spicer on SNL

photo 7b2115a0-1b70-4ed9-aa46-aeb97726dbca.jpg

Trump has the worst spokespeople in the known world, but especially Press Secretary Sean Spicer, who is a nervous wreck who raises his voice and can't seem to tell the truth. But last weekend Saturday Night Live took care of him. In a skit for the ages, Melissa McCarthy lampooned the dimwit shrieking at reporters and even attacking them with his podium.

Spicer accused SNL of being "mean" to him, while Trump was appalled that a woman played one of his cronies. The truth is, Spicer deserves every joke told about him. When you watch his actual press conferences and interviews, SNL hardly had to exaggerate reality to make him look ridiculous. Now there is talk of Rosie O'Donnell playing Steve Bannon and we can't wait to see it!













What the Real Spicer is Like - Can You Tell the Difference?











Posted by at No comments:
Labels: , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Kellyanne Conway Invents Fake Bowling Green Massacre

photo Bowling Green 2.jpg

In order to justify the Muslim Ban, Trump spokesperson Kellyanne Conway invented a hoax terrorist attack and talked about it on national TV. "The Bowling Green Massacre" took over both the airwaves and social media as people tried to fathom why we need fake attacks when there have been plenty of home-grown attacks.

But oh well - nothing has to make sense anymore, right?



photo 6a0361bf-430f-4474-b7a0-29d0c5c782fe.jpg
























Posted by at No comments:
Labels: , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Thursday, February 2, 2017

Trump Vs. Our National Parks

photo national park service.jpg

The Trumpies are wasting no time in trying to sell-off our National Park System to the highest bidder. It seems very similar to the "Sovereign Citizen" movement that led to the Oregon Standoff at Malheur Wildlife Refuge. Trump and several yokels in Congress who are like kissing cousins to the Bundy clan think they get to decide what happens to protected land that belongs to the American taxpayers.

John Muir and Teddy Roosevelt are turning over in their graves.











Last week, Trump showed his dictatorial attitude when he made a priority of shutting down discussions of climate change within various government agencies.

From Fortune
Employees at several federal agencies including the Department of Agriculture have been barred by the Trump administration from making any statements, or providing any documents to the public or journalists, according to published reports.
The Environmental Protection Agency and the Department of Health and Human Services are also impacted by the orders, which were reportedly handed down this week, and include a prohibition against some of the agencies posting on social media.
...A memo sent to EPA staff said that there should be no press releases sent to "external audiences" and that "no social media will be going out," according to a report by The Hill. The memo also says that a digital strategist will be coming in to oversee the agency's social-media policies, and that "existing, individually controlled social-media accounts may become more centrally controlled."

Trump particularly targeted the National Park System Twitter accounts. Why? Because Trump was furious that the Park Service retweeted an article in the New York Times about his small inaugural crowd compared with Obama's in 2009.

From CNN
After the retweet began to get attention, a career staffer at the Interior Department instructed employees that the "new administration has said that the department and all bureau are not supposed to tweet this weekend and wait for guidance until Monday."
The message continued, "Please make sure that any scheduled tweets are no longer scheduled," and referred all questions to another career staffer at the department.
On Saturday, the National Park Service called Friday's retweets "mistaken."



But the folks at Badlands National Monument went rogue and caused a stir:

From Vanity Fair
On Tuesday, the Twitter account for South Dakota’s Badlands National Park—a subsidiary of the National Park Service—began tweeting out climate change facts, in apparent defiance of the gag order. Someone working for the national park’s social media team went rogue and started posting climate change facts from the National Wildlife Federation’s Web site in 140-character bursts. (Trump, who can generously be described as a climate change skeptic, has previously called called climate change a “hoax” engineered by the Chinese.)
The National Park’s tweets were retweeted thousands of times before they were suddenly deleted later Tuesday afternoon.











Posted by at No comments:
Labels: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Monday, June 15, 2015

Melissa Harris-Perry Loses Her Mind Over Rachel Dolezal

photo MHP.png

Previous Related Posts:
Twitter Mocks Rachel Dolezal
Rachel Dolezal: Con Artist Passing as Black Causes Confusion

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

It's a strange thing that sometimes people will agree with a notorious person as long as their philosophies or narratives somehow mesh. I guess that's what is meant by "strange bedfellows" in politics.

In the case of Rachel Dolezal, a white woman posing as a black woman, things are more muddled than that.

For some reason, Melissa Harris-Perry of MSNBC (#nerdland) decided to defend Dolezal in an very hypothetical and even nonsensical way, using the analogy of transexuals who seek to find their "real" identity. What she avoided was any semblance of a news story with facts.

From The Root

On Saturday, MSNBC host Melissa Harris-Perry met the ire of social media after seemingly asserting that Dolezal could actually be black, despite the fact that Dolezal’s parents have said that their background was everything but black—Czech, Swedish and German.
“Is it possible that she might actually be black?” Harris-Perry questioned.
“I want to be very careful here, because I don’t want to say it’s the equivalent of the transgender experience,” she said. “But there is a useful language in ‘trans’ and ‘cis,’ which is just to say some of us are born cisgendered and some of us are born transgendered.”



Okay, now first of all, while Harris-Perry believes that "race is a social construct," it is clearly different from judging someone's gender identity - how they perceive themselves sexually in a subjective personal way. Dolezal is by all accounts objectively lying about facts and details of her life, travels and resume. Facts are facts in the real world, and not everything is conjecture. Her real white parents know who they are. Her adopted black brother knows who she is. Other people did not know the reality of Dolezal's life, and her own spin has simply been dishonest on many levels.

What infuriated Harris-Perry's viewers was that she seemed to breeze right past the idea that Dolezal is a rampant liar, as if that wasn't relevant to the story. Harris-Perry mainly wanted to make some larger point about racial identity being a personal choice. And maybe that's true for anyone who isn't a public figure. But the fact is, Rachel Dolezal has chosen to become a public figure, a university professor, and the head of the Spokane NAACP. Someone can "pass" as anything but a public figure has to bear scrutiny by the public, and cannot just keep lying to the point of being delusional.

The real world isn't make-believe.

The following day, Harris-Perry did another segment defending her first piece, defending herself while admitting that Twitter reaction was nearly unanimous - that it was "inherently problematic" to ask if Dolezal could actually be truly black. But she kept referring to "race being policed" because it is perceived as "fixed," and that shows she was missing the point again.

Trans-activist Cherno Biko made the important point that "Dolezal made a decision to start acting, while trans-folk need to stop acting."  But Harris-Perry then had another "derp" moment:

What if she (Dolezal) is not pretending? And not Rachel in particular . . . Is it possble to be born into a body that is not an authentic expression of your racial identity? And what words that might look like?

Her panel seemed dumbfounded and stared in disbelief, and no one responded because they could tell the crazy train had left the station. When Jamelle Bouie pointed out that some racial identity is imposed, then Harris-Perry asked whether gender identity wasn't also "imposed," which is also nutty considering several people on the set with her were transexuals who had "chosen" to find their "real" identities. Truly one of the most awkward moments on a talk show I've seen in my 55 years.



~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
























Posted by at No comments:
Labels: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Sunday, June 1, 2014

Questions Remain about the #Snowden Interview

photo Corbis-42-15205872.jpg

The Inside Snowden interview on NBC didn't put anything to rest so the debate continues about whether the man is a Heroic Patriot, a conniving Putin-Loving traiter or merely a naive Wikileaks dupe. We may never know the whole truth, but interviewer Brian Williams didn't help shed any light because he avoided hard questions such as "Did Glenn Greenwald first suggest that you should steal documents? and "How many lies did you tell in order to get hired at Booz Allen?"

Instead, Williams let his subject ramble on about his sad life as an exile trapped in a foreign land by the United States, as if Joe Biden put him on that plane to Moscow and buckled his seatbelt for him. If you read the quotations below, it is clear that Snowden isn't really "trapped" in Russia.

So Snowden got to say whatever he felt like saying, and the Snowdenistas thought that was just wonderful, as their tweets of support display. But to most people who have followed this story from the beginning, as well as some who knew nothing about him, Snowden's behavior and statements seemed overly rehearsed, slightly arrogant, possibly dishonest, naive (or faux-naive), and maybe just a little crazy.

My previous post about #InsideSnowden:
Snowden Jumps the Shark with NBC Interview

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Snowden said he didn't hurt anyone with his release of documents, and many took him to task for that, since obviously Snowden's actions have reverberated around the globe. But the U.S. can hardly give a public list admitting the damage done to their intelligence capabilities, and Snowden knows this.

Michael Leiter, a former director of the National Counterterrorism Center, on NBC

I find it naive and pretty gravely mistaken, this belief that what has already come out, (Snowden) can't identify a single individual who was hurt, hence there's been no harm. I think the way the U.S. intercepts information about Syria and Iraq, these terrorist groups in Syria and Iraq, how the U.S. intercepts information about the Syrian military, the Russian military, the way the U.S. protects its spies overseas from operating and not being covered by foreign powers - I can't give you the names of people who have been harmed by that, but I think it's really hard if not impossible to say that there hasn't been harm. I think he's both mistaken and naive.

Former National Security Agency director Michael Hayden on CBS "Face the Nation"
"Unquestionable, irreparable, irreversible harm," Hayden said Sunday morning, responding to an interview that Snowden did last week — the former NSA contractor's first in the year since he leaked the documents.
. . . "There is no way that the United States can reveal — without creating far greater harm — what it is we have lost," Hayden said. "What is it he wants us to do? To go out publicly with a list of all of the terrorist targets now that we're no longer covering because of the information that he revealed?"

One of Snowden's casualties might be the security service TrueCrypt that he used for his documents, starting with the so-called "Crypto-Party" in Hawaii before he fled to Taiwan. As of yesterday the website had stopped working all of a sudden. The CIA is probably deconstructing the whole operation:
Forbes: Encryption Tool Endorsed by Snowden Abruptly Shuts Down
TrueCrypt has, for more than a decade, been the program of choice for many security-conscious people, even Edward Snowden. In December 2012, Snowden organized an event – called a CryptoParty – in Hawaii where he talked about how one can use TrueCrypt to keep information safe from prying eyes; a business traveler might use TrueCrypt to protect sensitive files when traveling to make sure that if the computer gets stolen, someone can’t go through their files without the password to unlock them. Today’s advisory comes as a shock to the security community, though no one has been able to confirm its authenticity so far.
. . . The user interface has a similar warning added to it; “WARNING: Using TrueCrypt is not secure.” A quick analysis of the software did not reveal any malicious behavior, though a deeper dive could perhaps provide different results. Older versions of the software would ask users to consider making a donation at the end of the installation process, but this request has since been removed. Additionally, the user manual is no longer included with the software. It seems this new version can only be used to decrypt data and migrate existing encrypted storage volumes, not create new ones.

Snowden insisted to Brian Williams that he was "trained as a spy" in the interview, and indeed he has called himself a spy before in a Guardian UK article, but
National Security Adviser Susan Rice says Snowden was NOT a spy
"He was not trained as a spy," Rice said. "We have no idea where that assertion comes from. And has Edward Snowden done damage? He's done immense damage to the national security of the United States in ways that I wish I could describe in public but I cannot. But indeed the revelations, the illegal unauthorized revelations of Snowden have given our enemies, particularly terrorists, including al-Qaeda, insights into how we gain information and intelligence on them that have enabled them to change the way they operate and be much more difficult to track. That's just one example."

And someone with even more knowledge chimed in to debunk Snowden - a real spy:
Actual Spy Blows Snowden's Bullshit Cover Story
Actual former spy Lindsay Moran (also author of the book Blowing My Cover: My Life as a CIA Spy), who has actually supported Snowden's actions felt compelled enough by the stink of Snowden's attempt to hitch his wagon to true American heroes that she came out to call him out.
I think he's really, unfortunately giving amunition to his detractors and his critics here, because to me this reads as this kind of typical spy-wannabe claims. For sure he didn't go through the tradecraft training and paramilitary operations training that everybody who's in the clandestine service which is the operative branch of the CIA did.
. . . His claim that he used aliases, I find that very dubious. He wasn't in the Directorate of Operations, he wasn't a human collector of intelligence, and I have never before heard of someone who was in an IT or analyst position using aliases that way or operating the way that actual spies did.
. . . The kind of training that you receive to become a spy is very specific. It's tradecraft training, it takes place at the CIA's top secret training facility, and it's not offered to analysts and certainly not to IT specialists.
(Author of the article for The People's View, Spandan Chakrabarti, adds: If all it takes for him to go off the deep end like this is someone calling him a low-level hacker - that is, if his skin is this thin - just exactly how easy is he to manipulate? And was Snowden - motivated by ego, spotlight and revenge - manipulated by Glenn Greenwald and Laura Poitras and the gang to steal the information he later revealed? Was there more than just information falling into "journalists' " laps? I think you have to ask that question.

Snowden also said he had "no contact" with the Russian government and he is "not a spy" - meaning, I presume, "their spy" given his insistence that he is, indeed, some kind of spy. On the other hand, Snowden isn't in much of a hurry to leave Russia, which is a bothersome detail. His story is that he is stuck there, the victim of the United States Government which revoked his passport. But wait . . .

Michael McFaul, former Ambassador to Russia, via NBC
Why Moscow, why was he there? I note the passive tense, the structure of the sentence, right? "I was stopped in Moscow." But he wasn't stopped in Hong Kong with the same status of passport, I remember that very vividly. So when he (Snowden) is saying "Ask the State Department," well I used to work for the State Department when he showed up in Moscow so I found that very mysterious. If they let him get on the plane in Hong Kong without a valid passport, then why was he forbidden from going on, and who was forbidding him? Right?
Russia's a sovereign country, let me tell you, (after) two years of living there as an Ambassador - they do things their own way. They abide by their own rules and their own laws, and if they want to give him the ability to fly on to Havana they most certainly could have done that. So that was the first piece that struck me.
The second piece was his discussion of his relationship with the government... "I have no relationship to the Russian Government." Well, that's just not true. You don't get to go on a call-in show with the President of Russia and have no relationship with the Russian Government. And by the way, just to remind you, on that call-in show, he asked somewhat naively, "Mr. Putin, do you listen in to telephone conversations of Russian citizens?" But (Snowden) told (NBC) "I know they have a very professional service." So that's rather strange to say you have no relationship to the government yet that kind of interaction happened.
. . . And I would just remind the viewers that his lawyer, when he arrived - Kucherena is his name - somebody well-known to us, is very close to the Russian Government.









Bob Cesca found "13 Bizarre Things in the Snowden Interview" among them this gem:
NSA can observe people drafting a document online and "watch their thoughts form as they type." Let's assume for a second this is true. Reading your thoughts (IEEEEE!!!) is a hyperbolic internet-age method of essentially describing a wire-tap. A police detective can get a court order to have a suspect's phone tapped and listen to that suspect forming thoughts on the phone, too. But to call it a "wire-tap" is too ordinary and familiar, so Ed went with mind-reading.
and more importantly this:
Snowden said he destroyed his documents before going to Russia. This is really strange. I have no idea whether he really destroyed his NSA files, but he did in fact meet with Russian officials in Hong Kong, when he reportedly celebrated his birthday at the Russian consulate. Did he still have his documents at that point?
Earlier, he said his goal was to fly to Latin America, so why did he anticipate being in Russia to the point where he destroyed his documents to prevent Russians from acquiring them? These are all follow-up questions that a journalist who was informed about the details of Snowden's timeline would've asked. Williams was not and therefore did not.

From Benjamin Wittes on Lawfare:
Snowden—earnestness and all—utterly failed to explain certain stubborn, inconvenient facts that make it hard to accept him as the figure he claims to be. Some of these facts he did not challenge at all, as they are too clearly true to brook contest. Some he challenged only weakly. And some Williams did not bother to ask him about at all. The result is a haze over the noble portrait the fugitive paints of himself.
. . . You see, Snowden explains in the interview, the law he violated doesn’t allow the defense he would want to put on. So he’d likely be convicted and serve a very long prison sentence—to which we learn he is not quite so eager to subject himself as Greenwald once admiringly thought. Snowden, of course, explains that he has an entirely selfless reason for not wanting to spend decades in prison. It’s not that he fears it, you understand. But it might scare other whistleblowers out of following his example. Whatever the reason, when push came to shove, Snowden chose not to martyr himself but to flee.
And where did flee? He ran to Moscow. On this point, Snowden’s explanation is particularly obtuse. Ask the State Department why he’s there, Snowden suggests. He was just trying to transit through Russia. It wasn’t his fault that he got stuck in Moscow; this happened because the U.S. government revoked his passport.
The passport revocation is not, in fact, why Snowden is stuck in Moscow. For one thing, the government revoked Snowden’s passport before he ever left Hong Kong. Moreover, it does not mean that he must stay in Moscow. It’s at most the reason why he has a choice between remaining in Moscow and coming back to the United States and facing arrest and lacks the option of finding non-Russian safe haven. He chooses, in other words, to remain in Moscow because he prefers the protection of the dictator there to trial at the hands of his own government.

But WHY did he want to go to Russia in the first place? Iceland and other countries were begging him to be their guest. Well, maybe his relationship with Russia goes back further than he will admit. That's the interesting question posed by John Schindler of 20Committee:
When did Snowden go over to the Russians? by John Schindler
. . . What can be dismissed out of hand is the notion that, while staying in Hong Kong a year ago, Ed met with Russian spies – sorry, “diplomats” – at their consulate there and, all of a sudden, decided to hop a flight to Moscow. Espionage simply does not work that way, folks. We can only guess at what was on Ed’s mind, but those who know the Russian “special services” understand that such a scenario is so implausible that it can be ruled out altogether. The Russian Foreign Intelligence Service (SVR) simply does not allow American intelligence personnel they’ve just met to jump on a flight to Mother Russia. That never happens.
. . . Letting Edward Snowden move to Moscow was a major decision for the Kremlin, one with huge political ramifications. We can be certain that such a decision was not made by a mid-grade SVR officer in Hong Kong, neither was such a choice made quickly by the Russians, particularly under a president who understands counterintelligence very well. The reality is that Edward Snowden’s relationship with Russian intelligence, whatever it exactly is, predated his arrival in Moscow on June 23, 2013, probably by a considerable margin. It did not begin in Hong Kong, but before, possibly long before. It cannot be ruled out that the SVR (or possibly GRU, Russian military intelligence, which is a formidable espionage service its own) initially dealt with Ed in a false-flag operation, masking their true identity for a time, but experts who are acquainted with Russia’s “special services” understand that the Official Narrative, that Ed just up and moved to Moscow, cannot be true.

While Snowden tried to exude an air of honesty, he failed on several counts:
From Nick Morgan, a body language expert, via Business Insider:
"As a body-language expert, I'd say this is a disingenuous performance, which surprised me."
. . . The pitch of Snowden's natural voice is probably a tenor, Morgan said, "and the pitch [during the interview] is lower to sound more authoritative. The result, to me, is fake ... manufactured."
. . . A particularly telling moment came when Brian Williams asked Snowden, "What is your relationship with the host government?" Morgan, who didn't previously know that Snowden's Moscow lawyer is a Putin loyalist linked to the FSB, was struck by Snowden's lack of eye contact and the slowing of his voice as he denied having any relationship with the Kremlin.
"He was obviously lying," Morgan said.
. . . "I wouldn't trust anything the man said," Morgan told Business Insider. "There is something else going on here."

But you don't have to be an expert to see through Snowden's facade:
From "Edward Snowden: Hipster Whistleblower" by Christine Sisto
I could not shake the feeling that Snowden is pretty pleased with himself. And I do not mean “pleased” in the way he intends when he says that he is “comfortable” because he can “sleep at night” knowing he did the right thing for his country. He seems pleased with himself in a pompous way. He reminds me of a hipster traipsing around Brooklyn, superbly proud of himself for having a dictionary-like knowledge of the different varieties of kale, knowledge he obtained in college while seeking a degree in women’s studies.
. . . In conclusion, to those who herald Edward Snowden as a whistleblower-god among men, I would say, be careful about what you believe from this guy.

Snowden's attention-seeking and avoidance of consequences are all we need to know according to James E. Lukaszewski of the Minneapolis Star-Tribune
. . . rather than find ways to safely return to the United States and face the consequences of his actions, he has become a media celebrity, complete with advocates, defenders and even co-conspirators who are all in the public view.
Snowden’s NBC interview with Brian Williams is one more step in the Snowden Effect, canonizing the conspirator and minimizing the damage done, while expanding his image as a patriot.
At this writing, the country seems split on the patriot-vs.-traitor question. Neither view can be confirmed until he shows up to face his fate here in the United States.
Two things come to mind. What would a real patriot do (“WWRPD” on a bright red wrist band)? And the example set by Nathan Hale, who was executed as a U.S. spy by the British during our Revolutionary War. “I only regret,” he famously said, “that I have but one life to lose for my country.”
In Snowden’s case, his reframing language is on blaming, demeaning and insulting the United States as the causal factors for what he did. Frankly, I would prefer a little regret from him and his zealous America-hating supporters.


Posted by at No comments:
Labels: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Tuesday, October 22, 2013

Media False Equivalence Fails During Shutdown

photo lk052312dAPR-500.jpg

The American people think they're a bunch of kids playing in a sand box and neither side is covering itself in glory. I must say this whole business of "I won't negotiate with a gun to your head" is - actually, I'd rather negotiate with a gun to my head than to have somebody shoot me, and I think that's where they could end up if they don't sit down and talk. So both sides really do need it.
~ Cokie Roberts on ABC This Week, via Sam Seder on YouTube

Let's parse what Cokie Roberts said . . . who is the "they" in that analogy? Who is the "they?" It's the Republican Party. She has conceded they are holding a weapon to the head. And who is the person who has the gun to their head? It's not President Obama in this scenario. It's not the Democrats. The Democrats don't lose particularly if the Republicans refuse to stop the government shutdown. They don't lose particularly if the debt ceiling is not raised. It's the American people who lose! They are the ones with a gun to their head! Not the Democrats, not the President.
Under her analogy, the people with the gun to their heads is the American public. And they're not in a position to negotiate with the Republicans. If this is just about winning for Cokie Roberts, then the Democrats and the White House have absolutely no incentive to do this. Because if the Republicans "shoot" the American people in the head, I imagine to the extent that there are benefits, it's going to acrue to the Democrats. Because Americans don't like to be shot in the head. It hurts when you get shot in the head.
. . . We should all remember Green Eggs and Ham (read by Ted Cruz during his filibuster). Maybe if you get shot in the head, you'll like it!
~ Sam Seder, Majority Report



Legendary journalist Carl Bernstein on MSNBC's Morning Joe
This is about the Republican Party and what it's going to be. Is it going to conduct a fact-based, philosophical argument in our political system or is it going to be a nihilistic, hateful, asymmetrical in terms of facts and the truth part of the party, as in Joe McCarthy.
This is about media as well. These poll numbers are about a totally different media culture than we've had in the past.
. . . we need to start covering this story not 50/50 — this much on this side, that on the other — we need to cover it factually. Because there are facts here that will show what this event is about. And where, in fact, is this anger, hatred of Obama coming from? What is the root of this?
. . . It's about truth. It's about fact. It's about a wing in [the GOP] that has no interest in truth or governing or fact and it's bringing the country down. It might not bring the party down. Like McCarthy, it might work. That's the terrible thing.



From Eric Boehlert on Media Matters
CNN often rallied around the GOP talking point that Obama ought to "negotiate" with Republicans because give-and-take is what politics (and compromise) is all about. "Why won't the president come to the negotiating table?" Candy Crowley wondered, while CNN's Carol Costello asked "Why doesn't the president pick up the phone and call John Boehner?"
On the surface that sounds like a reasonable question, and no doubt it represented the centrist position CNN felt comfortable championing, as it hyped its watchdog role of holding both parties accountable. But the query only worked if CNN anchors and reporters completely disregarded the facts of the unfolding shutdown and flushed all the context down the memory hole.
. . . Viewed in full context, the Republican demand was utterly extremist and without precedent in modern Congressional history. Too often though, CNN ignored that defining fact. Instead, CNN offered up a more simplistic, blame-both-sides version where Obama starred as an obstinate protagonist who arrogantly refused to deal with his Republican counterparts.

. . . journalists have been suckered into embracing "balance" and "neutrality" at all costs, and the consequences of their choice in an era of political extremism will only get worse and worse.
. . . Blaming everyone — Congress, both sides, Washington — is simply the path of least resistance for today's political reporters. It's a way of avoiding conflict rather than taking the risk that the public — or their editors — will accuse them of being unprofessionally partisan.
. . . So, no, the shutdown is not generalized dysfunction or gridlock or stalemate. It is aberrational behavior by a political party that is willing to take extreme and potentially damaging action to get its way. And by not calling it what it is, the political press is enabling it.
~ Dan Froomkin on Al-Jazeera

As a matter of journalism, any story that presents the disagreements as a "standoff," a "showdown," a "failure of leadership," a sign of "partisan gridlock," or any of the other usual terms for political disagreement, represents a failure of journalism*** and an inability to see or describe what is going on....
. . . This isn't "gridlock." It is a ferocious struggle within one party, between its traditionalists and its radical factions, with results that unfortunately can harm all the rest of us -- and, should there be a debt default, could harm the rest of the world too.
~ James Fallows, The Atlantic

Posted by at No comments:
Labels: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Thursday, September 19, 2013

Chuck Todd Admits that Truth Isn't Part of His Job Description

photo widom_zps1958ba42.jpg

On ACA Obamacare:
Republicans have successfully messaged against it. They don't repeat the other stuff because they haven't even heard the Democratic message.
What I always love is people say, ‘Well, it’s your folks’ fault in the media.’ No, it’s the President of the United States’ fault for not selling it.
~ Chuck Todd of MSNBC on Morning Joe

Chuck Todd: It's Not Media's Job To Correct GOP's Obamacare Falsehoods
. . . During a segment on "Morning Joe," former Pennsylvania Gov. Ed Rendell (D) speculated that most opponents of the Affordable Care Act have been fed erroneous information about the law. Todd said that Republicans "have successfully messaged against it" but he disagrees with those who argue that the media should educate the public on the law. According to Todd, that's President Barack Obama's job.
~ Talking Points Memo

Walter Cronkite, Chet Huntley and Edward R Murrow turn in their graves.
~ JosephE. on TPM

So, Rocky the Flying Squirrel believes he should just repeat whatever the Teabaggers tell him. Got it.
~ Trippin on TPM

What a disgusting and scathing indictment of the Press by Chuck Todd. The media has no intention of ever doing their job, let alone reporting on the truth! Yet we knew all this already. That's why the media's number's are just slightly above those of Congress.
~ DocRock on TPM

It's sad that NBC's White House correspondent thinks his job is merely to convey politicians pronouncements, with no care about whether they are true or false. In fact, scrutinize claims, particularly those from powerful officials, is an essential part of journalism. It's embarrassing to have to cite elementary principles to one the nation's most influential reporters, but Todd should consider reviewing the Society of Professional Journalists' Code of Ethics, where, under the heading "Seek Truth and Report It," the very first tenet implores journalists to "test the accuracy of information from all sources."
~ Steve Rendall on Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting

Truly: Todd’s quote reads to these eyes like a resignation letter. If you can’t rouse yourself to meet the minimum requirement of a cub reporter covering a school council meeting — ask if that thing Councilmember Doe just said, was, you know, actually true? — then perhaps you should take a bit more time with your family.
Or rather:
Yo! Chuck: you’re stealing paychecks from the Peacock and wasting everyone else’s time. Go home.
~ Tom Levenson on Balloon Juice

Todd’s point is that he is only here to let each side put their message out there, and the best message wins. What Todd described isn’t journalistic neutrality. It’s laziness and indifference to factual reporting.
. . . Todd is the political director for NBC News. His attitude about the letting Republican lies slide guides the political coverage at NBC News.
~ Jason Easley on PoliticusUSA

It’s true that it’s not the press’s job to “sell” White House initiatives, but it absolutely is the job of the press to separate fact from fiction and communicate the truth of any matter as opposed to simply being a dutiful stenographer who reports, word-for-word, each side’s spin and calls it objectivity.
~Chez Pazienza on The Daily Banter

Holy mother of mercy, is my man Chuck Todd really saying if a lie is unusually successful, it must eventually be accepted as something like the truth, and that the job of journalism is to stand by and let that happen? (Someone should write a book.) If he is actually saying that, then my man Chuck Todd should be fired because he doesn't know sweet fk-all about journalism....
~ Charles P. Pierce on Esquire

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~























~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~



















































photo 5f3ee659-39b2-4707-8cea-0cc2f5e47bce.jpg
Posted by at No comments:
Labels: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Tuesday, January 15, 2013

Colin Powell Speaks Truth, GOP Shoots the Messenger


Photobucket

Transcript: Meet the Press, January 13, 2013
I think what the Republican Party needs to do now is take a very hard look at itself and understand that the country has changed. The country is changing demographically. And if the Republican Party does not change along with that demographic, they’re going to be in trouble. And so, when we see that in one more generation, the minorities of America, African-Americans, Hispanic Americans, and Asian Americans will be the majority of the country, you can’t go around saying we don’t want to have a solid immigration policy. We’re going to dismiss the 47 percent. We are going to make it hard for these minorities to vote as they did in the last election. What did that produce? The court struck most of that down and most importantly, it caused people to turn out and stand in line because these Republicans were trying to keep us from voting.

There’s also a dark-- a dark vein of intolerance in some parts of the Party. What I do mean by that? I mean by that is they still sort of look down on minorities. How can I evidence that? When I see a former governor say that the president is shuckin’ and jivin’, that’s a racial era slave term. When I see another former governor after the president’s first debate where he didn’t do very well, says that the president was lazy. He didn’t say he was slow, he was tired, he didn’t do well, he said he was lazy. Now, it may not mean anything to most Americans but to those of us who are African-Americans, the second word is shiftless and then there’s a third word that goes along with it Birther, the whole Birther Movement. Why do senior Republican leaders tolerate this kind of discussion within the Party?

I think the Party has to take a look at itself. It has to take a look at its responsibilities for health care. It has to take a look at immigration. It has to take a look at those less fortunate than us. The Party has gathered unto itself a reputation that it is the party of the rich. It is the party of lower taxes. But there are a lot of people who are lower down the food chain, the economic chain, who are also paying lots of taxes relative to their income and they need help. We need more education work being done in this country. We need a solid immigration policy. We have to look at climate change. There are a lot of things that the American people are expecting and the Republican Party, as they get ready for the next election, really has to focus on some of these issues and not ignore them.

Everybody wants to talk about who’s going to be the candidate. You better think first about what’s the party they’re actually going to represent. If it’s just going to represent the far right-wing of the political spectrum, I think the Party is in difficulty.

~~~~~~~~~~


Pow! Right in the kisser!
Yesterday a day of infamy for the Republican Party. General Colin Powell told the vivid nasty truth. He blasted his party, especially its leaders, for engaging in what he called flagrant race baiting. . . . The indictment has now been made by this country's most celebrated African American Republican.
~ Chris Matthews on Hardball

My question after that interview, which was really incendiary and a line in the sand, is when will a Republican Party admit they have a problem? Because every time something like this happens, there is a doubling down, there is a deep defense, there is an attack on the messenger.
~ Alex Wagner on Hardball

(Powell) went directly to the most common liberal meme these days in defending a radical left president: Republicans are racist. It’s a bully tactic that has become all the rage these days – Republicans don’t oppose Obama on policy, and they don’t have a good rationale for standing against liberalism. It’s just that they secretly hate black people.
. . . Powell labels it racist because it serves his political ends.
Is the word “lazy” racist? If so, half the media hates white folks, because presidents going back to Dwight D. Eisenhower have routinely been labeled lazy.
As for the birthers, nobody in the mainstream of the Republican Party has ever given credibility to them. Only in Colin Powell’s opportunistic mind is the GOP linked with birtherism.
~ Ben Shapiro on Breitbart

The idea that the Republican Party’s problem is that the party is inherently racist, or led by racists, or has a core of racists in it, is just patently absurd.
~ Conservative Talk Show Host, Laura Ingraham

If Republicans Have a ‘Deep Vein’ of Intolerance in Them, You Couldn’t Prove It By His Career
~ Brit Hume on Fox News

. . . he’s really quite the schmuck. I’m just being honest with you. He’s an egomaniac. He was a terrible secretary of state. But I would ask Mr. Powell this question: Ronald Reagan plucked you from obscurity, specifically [former Secretary of Defense Caspar] ‘Cap’ Weinberger did, Mr. Powell. What do you think ‘Cap’ Weinberger would think of what’s happening to the United States Navy, in general the United States Armed Forces, Mr. Powell? ‘Cap’ Weinberger, who was behind the 600-ship navy, that is just now going to be under 300? What do you think about that, Mr. Powell?
Ronald Reagan would be repulsed by Obama, by his conduct in the Oval Office, by the way he campaigns, by the way he lies, by his philosophy, by his policies, by what he’s done to this nation and the private sector, Mr. Powell. So why did you endorse Barack Obama, Mr. Powell?
. . . I think nobody gives a damn what you think.
. . . You know what you are? You’re a partisan hack. Get out of my party.
~ Radio Host Mark Levin, via Daily Caller

I disagree with General Powell’s assessment of the Republican Party today. The Republican Party is the party that [has] placed two Hispanics in the U.S. Senate, and we have an African-American senator in the United States Senate.
~ Senator Marco Rubio of Florida

I mean, you've got Colin Powell on TV yesterday saying Republicans did not use to be this way. The GOP looks down on blacks, minorities. Look at the Senate. The only black senator is a Republican. The only two Hispanic senators are Republicans, but here's Colin Powell saying Republicans look down on minorities. And they're racists, and they're using code, dog whistle language now. The titular head of the Republican Party. The Republican that everybody in the media says we all should emulate, Colin Powell, that's what he went on TV to say yesterday.
~ Rush Limbaugh

How can a serious interviewer let a comment like that, so sweeping and so egregious, slip by?
It is a serious and deeply wrongheaded comment. Gregory could have pressed Powell in any number of ways. Didn’t some Democrats accuse Obama of being lazy (on MSNBC, no less) ? Who else is a racist in the GOP? Is there anyone in the U.S. Senate? Wasn’t it an ex- governor (Sarah Palin) who holds no office whom he quoted? Does he think everything MSNBC hosts say is reflective of the Democratic Party? Is a single ex-governor the best he can do?
Was the George W. Bush administration intolerant? Are House Republicans intolerant? Has he ever met Sen.Tim Scott (R-S.C.)? Are the 48 percent of Americans who voted for Mitt Romney intolerant?
I suspect Gregory let it slide with no hint of disagreement because he saw nothing objectionable to labeling the GOP (or “some parts” — which ones?) as racist. It is such an accepted part of the liberal media group think that it doesn’t even merit notice, it seems. It is interesting, isn’t it, that Hagel, who has an entire record of utterances, gets a pass, yet Powell is ready to indict the entire GOP on the basis of such scrawny evidence?
~ Jennifer Rubin on Washington Post

The Republican Party is not listening to General Colin Powell, or anyone else who deviates from the party line. Instead, their response to him is a doubling-down of their viciousness against opponents and to frantically restructure the way they communicate their toxic message to their base. From their "conservative" media echo chamber, including first and foremost Rush Limbaugh, Mark Levin, Laura Ingraham to actual Republican officeholders like Sen. Rubio (R-Fla.), Sen. McCain (R-Ariz.), etc., etc., the message is the same: Powell is a tool of the "Democrat Party." He has, they tell themselves, once again played the race card, and in doing so, he betrayed them just one time too many.
This is a classic example of "shoot the messenger."
It is also the beginning of the end of the Republican Party. It is in its death throes now; and it is sad to witness the demise of this once great party.
~ Herbert Dyer, Jr. on AllVoices


~~~~~~~~~~~~
















Posted by at No comments:
Labels: , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Sunday, September 23, 2012

Reince Priebus Has Oozing Eyeballs, Can't See the Truth

priebusABC-lorre

pic by snark amendment

I'll tell you about specifics. First of all, Mitt Romney talks about, all the time, about reducing the GDP spending from 25 cents on the dollar down to 20, reducing small business taxes from 35 to 25, reducing income taxes across the board by 20 percent.

I mean, for crying out loud, we’ve got Paul Ryan on the ticketAs far as specifics go, we're the only ones talking about how to save Medicare. The president's the one that raided Medicare by $700 billion.

I mean, we've got specifics coming out of our eyeballs.

We need to keep pounding away on those specifics and keep talking about those specifics so that the American people know.
~ Reince Priebus, Chairman of the Republican National Committee, on ABC News This Week

Talking About Romney's "Hell Week" beginning with the Secret 47% Video and ending with releasing one tax return that was still controversial, plus having a tantrum on Univision, Reince told George Stephanopoulos of ABC News:
I think that we had a good week last week, I think in retrospect, in that we were able to frame up the debate last week in the sense of, what future do we want,” Priebus said this morning on “This Week.”

“I think we can look back at last week as a campaign in a couple months and say, this was the defining week in both campaigns,” Priebus said earlier, “where I think both campaigns are crystallizing around a central theme, which is going to be, what kind of future do we want for our kids and grandkids? What type of America do we want for this country?”

. . . he conceded that last week was not the “best” of the campaign for Romney.

“I think Governor Romney’s been pretty clear, it probably wasn’t the best-said moment in the campaign and probably not the best week in the campaign,” Priebus said.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~


I don’t know what prism he’s looking through. I don’t think anybody else would define it as a good week. But it was an enlightening week. The week began with Governor Romney basically slandering 47 percent of America, saying that they were, you know, hooked on dependency, didn’t pay their taxes, and so on.
~ Obama Adviser David Axelrod on ABC's This Week

Not only did Priebus sound like he was hung over from a bad night on Ambien, but he also carried on Team Romney’s tradition of spouting blatant hypocrisy and provable lies.
~ GottaLaff on Political Carnival

Take out the vowels in this dude's name and it spells
RNC BS
~ comment by Watcher from Outside on Huffington Post

Specifics Coming Out Of Their Eyeballs? Too bad their policies come out of their a$$e$.
~ comment by Whogivesafox on Huffington Post

"These are not the droids you are looking for"
~ comment by Handypants2 on RawStory

Of course you have specifics. "Forty-seven percent of Americans are parasites, and they'll all vote for their free meal ticket." How much more specific can you get?
~ comment by RobertX on RawStory

Did anyone catch Priebus comment lamenting the "good old days" growing up as the son of a UNION electrical worker? They've go something coming out of their eyeballs, but it's certainly not specifics. It's the hypocrisy, stupid.
~ comment by shoes4industry on RawStory

The Lyan budget is the reason Ro-money is in trouble.
~ comment by nyupstater on RawStory

One of the best things about an Obama victory will be never having to see or hear Rinse Pubes again.
~ comment by Marie B. on Mediaite

Reince makes Michael Steele look like a genius by comparison.
~ comment by Mencius on Mediaite





















Posted by at No comments:
Labels: , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)