News Roundup for 1/6/10

"Journalist"

-Headline of the day-
"'You Are a Bad, Bad, Bad Journalist'."

Stick with me here, because this one gets a little complicated. We'll start at Media Matters, where it was reported that right wing master of the blogosphere, Andrew Breitbart, had placed "a $1,000 bet challenging Media Matters and senior fellow Eric Boehlert for proof that Bertha E. Lewis -- whose name recently appeared on a White House guest list -- was not ACORN CEO Bertha Lewis."

Guess what? She wasn't. The first clue is that the ACORN lady is Bertha M. Lewis, which kind of suggests that maybe we're talking about a whole 'nother person here. No word on when Breitbart plans on paying up, but I'm guessing it'll be a couple weeks after hell freezes over. Anyway, Andy posted what MM called "begrudging semi-correction" his blog, after which he was subject to the widespread mockery and derision of the left. This was totally unfair because... Ummm... Well, because.

In an attempt to redeem himself somehow, he actually called ACORN's Bertha and apologized or something -- seriously, it's not the most focused post ever, so it's really not clear what he was trying to do. But he got her on the phone and they talked for a while. Andy said it was awkward and finally wound up accusing her of lying about something that had absolutely nothing to do with the topic on hand and Lewis said he was a "bad, bad, bad journalist," which Breitbart took as a badge of honor and made the title of his post.

I guess it's because she called him a "journalist," when he's so clearly just a clueless and classless dick. (Big Journalism)


-Some cliches are true-
Remember James von Brunn, the 89 year-old avowed racist who shot and killed a guard at the US Holocaust Museum in DC?

Yeah, he died in prison.

More proof that only the good die young. (Agence France-Presse)


-Bonus HotD-
"Steele: Bush Was 'Right' To Wait Six Days To Respond To Shoe Bomber, But Obama Was Still Too Slow."

Someone want to check and see if RNC head Michael Steele has an untreated head injury? I swear he's getting dumber as time goes on. In a week, he'll have reached Palinesque stupidity levels. (Think Progress, with video)

The Right, Waterboarding, and Superstitious Thinking

If the reaction we've seen on the right to Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab's crotchbomb attempt shows us anything, it's that even failed terrorist attacks work -- at least, among the cowardly. We have to start waterboarding again, some tell us. Others say we should strip search all Muslims at airports. It won't take much to get some idiot to demand we start waterboarding all Muslims at airports, just to be sure. And, when that inevitably fails to keep terrorists at bay, we'll just start waterboarding everyone.

There's a certain amount of superstitious thinking when it comes to the right and the question of torture. For them, it has the talismanic power, like crosses to vampires, and waterboarding in and of itself is an anti-terror tactic -- regardless of the circumstances. In this case, they call for waterboarding Abdulmutallab, because it has the magic power of warding off other terrorists.

They scoured the media for some reason to torture the crotchbomber and finally settled on one sentence from a Washington Post story to make their case; "Abdulmutallab remains in a Detroit area prison and, after initial debriefings by the FBI, has restricted his cooperation since securing a defense attorney, according to federal officials."

Case in point; James Kirchik in the New York Daily News, who wrote a piece titled, "Why shouldn't we waterboard Abdulmutallab? The ticking time bomb scenario is here." This is the big echo-chamber item of the moment in the right wing blogosphere.

I can give you the abridged version here. Abdulmutallab said that there were more bombings on the way, he's "clammed up," got a lawyer, and isn't talking. Therefore, we have to waterboard him, because waterboarding is magic and stops terrorists.

First off, let's deal with the "more bombs on the way" claim. Abdulmutallab is a terrorist. Look at that word; what do you think it means? I think it means "someone who's trying to scare you." So, by all means, let's believe everything he says. Clearly, he's the most trustworthy person in the United States at this moment.

Second, why on earth would you assume he knew anything? Al Qaeda sets him up to die (and that's an assumption at this point), so of course they tell him everything, like Goldfinger revealing the big plot to James Bond, because it's super-important that a low-level pawn who's about to be permanently removed from the board knows the whole big story. Even if waterboarding worked the way pro-torture nutjobs seem to think it does and turns him into a truth machine, we'd be sure to find out Abdulmutallab doesn't know jack.

Third, the single sentence mined out of the WaPo article contradicts what everyone else is reporting.


[Sam Stein, Huffington Post:]

The Obama administration said on Tuesday that it has gained "useful and actionable intelligence" from the would-be Christmas airplane bomber even as conservative critics slam the president for putting Umar Farouk Abdul Mutallab through the criminal justice system.

[...]

"The subject, as you know, was taken from a plane in Detroit. FBI interrogators spent quite some time with him. I don't want to get into all the specifics. But... I would say he has provided, in those interrogations, useful intelligence," said Gibbs. Pressed on what information was provided, he replied: "I'm not going to get into all of what he said, but, again, I think that the interrogators believe he has provided them with useful intelligence."


So, the question would be, what would be be waterboarding him for, exactly? Are we going to start torturing cooperative suspects too now? Because that doesn't seem to make a whole lot of sense.

But, then again, I'm forgetting that waterboarding and terrorism is like crosses and vampires. It's all magic, so it doesn't have to make any logical sense -- which explains why Sarah Palin has also taken up this argument. It's not about logic, it's about scaring you.

Which, I'm pretty sure, qualifies as terrorism.

-Wisco


Get updates via Twitter

News Roundup for 1/5/10

All about hatin' on America

-Headline of the day-
"Avatar arouses conservatives' ire."

James Cameron's scifi blockbuster Avatar has been catching some flack from a few on the left as being the typical paternalistic "white guys goes native, saves natives from white guys" movie. Personally, I don't have much of a problem with this since it's just a narrative tool -- as the outsider learns about the culture, so do we and, as we want to save the culture, so does the outsider. Not to belabor the title, but the word "avatar" is apt, since the character is a projection of ourselves as a way to pull us into the movie. None of that is very funny though, which is where the wingnuts come in.

Seems Avatar's big problem isn't that it's an update on the Dancing With Wolves theme. The problem is that it's Commie propaganda. The Weekly Standard's John Podhoretz, who it must be said is blitheringly stupid, says the film is "blitheringly stupid; indeed, it's among the dumbest movies I've ever seen." It's pro-environment, anti-corporate/military, and promotes "the notion that to be human is just way uncool" -- which, let's face it, is a really big problem out here in the real world. All those kids pretending they aren't human.

At the New York Times, Ross Douthat accuses Cameron of promoting pantheism, thereby making the movie -- I guess -- an insult to God or Jesus or whatever magical sky-daddy it is that Ross believes in. Anyway, see it and you're gonna go to hell, heathen.

In related news, syndicated columnist Jonah Goldberg writes that Avatar is just your normal liberal Hollywood elite garbage and isn't worth getting worked up over."What would have been controversial is if -- somehow -- Cameron had made a movie in which the good guys accepted Jesus Christ into their hearts," Jonah says.

Because that movie hasn't been made a bazillion times. That's what you like about conservatives; all those fresh, new ideas. (LA Times)


-Something new to freak out about-
Seems President Obama has picked Amanda Simpson to be a senior technical advisor to the Commerce Department. Remember the last time you gave a crap who was a senior technical advisor to the Commerce Department? That's right, it was never.

But this time, things are different. See, Simpson used to be a man, which officially makes this the worst thing ever.

"Is there going to be a transgender quota now in the Obama administration?" asks wingnut Pete LaBarbera. "How far does this politics of gay and transgender activism go? Clearly this is an administration that is pandering to the gay lobby."

Because, you see, it's totally impossible for someone who's transgendered to be qualified for anything, let alone as a senior technical advisor to the Commerce Department. What does a senior technical advisor to the Commerce Department actually do?

Don't ask Pete, he has no idea either. (Political Animal)


-Bonus HotD-
"Hume Decries Persecution By Critics, Reiterates It Would Be 'Magnificent' To 'Witness' Tigers Woods' Conversion [to Christianity]."

I'd like to see Brit Hume's conversion to something other than a bigoted asshole.

I guess we'll both just have to dream. (Think Progress)

Both Parties Handicapped in 2010

Hey look, it's 2010. Election year. The good news for Republicans is that Democrats have spent the last half of 2009 blowing it. The good news for Democrats is that voters don't seem to have forgotten that Republicans suck. Still, the GOP is poised to be the big winner in November, provided nothing much changes between now and then -- which is an impossible expectation. How big might the Republicans win be? Despite the hullabaloo about a "big Republican year," most give them a very slim chance of retaking the House of Representatives and no chance of retaking the Senate, meaning that -- in all likelihood -- dems will retain control of both Houses. My own personal take is that Blue Dogs will be the biggest losers in the Democratic caucus, which actually means that very little will actually change. The Democrats are almost certain to lose that "filibuster-proof" majority, but since that's proved to be entirely theoretical anyway, it's hard to get too worked up about it. In both chambers, it's easy to envision the same sort of legislation breaking down to the same number of votes for and against. Unlike the party, I have no interest in electing Democrats merely to elect Democrats. If you aren't going to actually do anything positive with those seats, don't let the door hit you in the ass on the way out. I won't miss Democrats who've voted with Republicans most of the time anyway.

Still, gloom and doom sells papers, so gloom and doom for Democrats in 2010 is what we get. The consequences of the wins or losses are superceded by horserace coverage in the best circumstances, let alone in cases like this, where the likely consequences are pretty minimal. It's "gloom and doom for Democrats" because any other take on the story is a ywan. If you're looking for good news here, Republican triumphalism is probably misplaced and will be followed quickly by disappointment. When the smoke clears, the Republican base will expect a lot their elected officials won't be able to deliver -- and the teabaggers, known neither for their patience nor their level-headedness, will tear them apart.

Still, it's not like Democrats don't have a strategy. It's a simple plan; remind voters that Republicans suck.


[Thomas Edsall, Huffington Post:]

So what should Democratic candidates do to survive 2010? A strong consensus has emerged among Democratic operatives, based on a strategy developed under the guidance of pollster Geoff Garin. Garin declined to be interviewed for this story, but other party strategists say the most crucial order of business in each contest is to prevent Republican challengers from turning the race into a referendum on the Democratic candidate, the Democratic Party, President Obama, or all three. Rather, they say, Democrats need to turn the public's attention to the failings of the Republican candidate and the national GOP.

Democratic pollster Celinda Lake says that as soon as her clients know who their opponents will be, her advice is "to get them [the Republican candidates] defined." Democratic candidates, Lake and others say, should pre-empt Republicans seeking to present a positive image to the public. Among the techniques to achieve this goal are floating negative stories in the press, taking full advantage of sympathetic bloggers to create a hostile portrait of the GOP opponent, and actively using "less visible" means of communication such as phone banks, direct mail, and canvassers.


Edsall says Democratic consultants have one bit of advice for Democrats this year; "Don't get on the defensive, don't allow [the Republican] to define you." Anyone who's paid attention the last couple of cycles will tell you that'd be a nice change of pace for Democrats, who always seem surprised to learn that their Republican opponents are shameless liars and conscienceless smear merchants. One consultant tells him the plan is not to pull punches. "[B]asically it comes down to one thing," his source tells him. "You've got to kick the shit out of somebody."

What Democrats seem to have trouble grasping is that Republicans go negative early because they know what their opponents don't -- it's a lot easier to get someone to vote against something than for something. And, with Republicans still seen as the greater of two evils, no Democrat should ever refer to his or her opponent without using the word "Republican." That's probably their greatest weakness.

Or maybe their second-greatest. Despite the "big Republican year" meme making its way around newsrooms, Republicans themselves seem less than sold on the idea.


[Politico:]

The National Republican Congressional Committee, the key cog in helping to finance GOP campaigns, has banked less than a third as much money as its Democratic counterpart and is ending the year with barely enough money to fully finance a single House race — no less the dozens that will be in play come 2010.

A big part of the problem, according to Republican strategists, is that GOP members themselves — the ones who stand the most to gain from large-scale House gains — haven’t chipped in accordingly, despite evidence of solid opportunities in at least 40 districts next year and with as many as 80 seats in play, according to the Cook Political Report’s estimates.


Democrats have $4 million from House members to spend on House races, while Republicans are saving their ammo for their own races and have only kicked in $2.1 million. "Republicans are already expressing concerns that they may not have enough resources to fully take advantage of the political climate," Politico reports, "which is shaping to be the most favorable for the GOP since the last time they took control of the House in 1994." And the GOP isn't doing any better in other fundraising efforts. In the last year, Democrats have outraised them by $18 million, with $15 million on hand. The Republican Congressional Committee has just $4.3 million, with $2 million in debt, "leaving it with just a pittance to fund the dozens of races it hopes to aggressively contest."

"Republicans have been through two cycles of psychological shell-shock. Their members’ first instinct is self-preservation, first and foremost," Republican consultant Phil Musser told Politico. "The fundraising environment for members in the minority isn’t what it is for members in the majority. It’s damn hard to raise the dough."

Of course, Politico overstates the GOP's problem somewhat, by ignoring the fact that Republicans are soft money kings. They'll get a lot of help from outside groups in the form of attack ads. Pro-gun, anti-abortion, anti-gay, and pro-corporate groups will pump money into races, but this isn't the same as the Republican Party spending the money themselves. The result will be a strategy-by-committee where the special interest's left hand doesn't know -- and, in many cases, doesn't care -- what the Republican's right hand is doing.

Democrats are going to take a haircut this year -- and mostly because they deserve it -- but the stories about them facing a scalping are grossly overstating the case.

-Wisco


Get updates via Twitter

News Roundup for 1/4/10

Union Member

-Headline of the day-
"Limbaugh's 'Dandy' Health Care Provided By Union Nurses."

Remember how talk radio blowhard Rush Limbaugh thought he was having a heart attack in Hawaii and then found out he wasn't, thus preserving a two decade run of being wrong about everything?

Seems he took his experience as a bazillionaire celebrity with what he thought was a health problem as typical of the sort of experience we all have. We could spend all day talking about what's wrong with this line of thinking, but let's not because it's so freakin' obvious, OK?

Let's instead focus on Hawaii's healthcare laws. Seems that Hawaii is everything that people like Limbaugh think is wrong with current healthcare reform plans. According to the report, "the state has previously passed a measure mandating that employers cover full-time employees, a provision that is similar to those being considered in Congress as part of comprehensive health care reform. SEIU's blog notes that some of the health care reform measures before Congress wouldn't even affect Hawaii..."

In addition to that, the anti-labor Limbaugh will be unhappy to learn that "Hawaii has one of the greatest percentages of organized workers of any state and also had the highest percentage of organized RNs."

So what did Limbaugh have to say about this anti-free market, socialist nightmare of a healthcare system? "The treatment I received here was the best that the world has to offer," he said.

There ya go. It's still unclear what actually happened to Rush, but the evidence shows it's turned him into a commie. (Think Progress)


-He picked the right network-
FOX News' Brit Hume is kind of a dick. While the network was discussing the hugely important Tiger Woods scandal, on which the fate of this very nation depends, Brit decided that Tiger has to become a Christian or people won't start liking him again.

See if you can follow this... this... Oh, what the hell, let's call it "reasoning":

Tiger Woods will recover as a golfer. Whether he can recover as a person, I think, is a very open question. And it's a tragic situation... But the Tiger Woods that emerges once the news value dies out of this scandal, the extent to which he can recover, seems to me to depend on his faith.

He's said to be a Buddhist. I don't think that faith offers the kind of forgiveness and redemption that is offered by the Christian faith. So my message to Tiger would be, "Tiger, turn to the Christian faith and you can make a total recovery and be a great example to the world."

So, Buddhism is just fine -- until you get into some sort of trouble, then you've got to switch to the Jesus-people. Because they believe in redemption... OK, so it's a different kind of redemption in an entirely different context, but let's not nitpick here. Hume thinks it's important for everyone to know that any religion but Christianity sucks.

Will Hume be forced to back down? "If this wasn't FOX News, I'd take 'Tomorrow, 2 pm' in the when-will-Hume-apologize pool," comments Media Matters' Jamison Foser. "But it is FOX, so 'the Fifth of Never' seems like a safer choice."

Good point, they've got O'Reilly, Hannity, and Beck saying crazy, offensive shit on a daily basis -- and that's just the short list. They probably figure no one will even notice the extra dose of crazy. (Politics Daily)


-Bonus HotD-
"Idaho Candidate Who Joked About Hunting Obama Now Says God Can Save Constitution."

Here's a fun quote:


To think that we can save the Constitution without God's help when the government of the United States is corrupt is absurdity. We are in America's second Revolutionary War to save our freedom, which we paid for with blood. We need God's help and I'm not ashamed to ask for it.


That's Idaho Republican gubernatorial candidate Rex Rammell, who some might remember as the fuckwit "joked" about hunting President Obama.

For the record, this is one dangerously crazy and stupid man.

Just sayin'. (Talking Points Memo)