OnePlusYou Quizzes and Widgets

Created by OnePlusYou - Free Dating Sites

Saturday, May 30, 2009

Weekend College Radio Classics feat. Information Society

This is what happens when you blend a classic Gary Numan track with a seminal band from the 80s.



Quite possibly one of the greatest suprises from my years at WWHR while I attended Western Kentucky University - playing loud, obnoxious, forward-thinking music to the masses of Bowling Green, Ky.

Those days, our operating wattage was literally not better than the highest output light-bulb that you could buy at Wal-Mart.

But, we played loud, often, and offered a host of music that no other staton within a two-state radius would dare touch.

While your at it, check out The Dead Weather's version of this - quite interestig and unique.

Friday, May 29, 2009

Sourcing The Enemy

Michelle Malkin, in all her purse-lipped fury, now asks if liberal/progressive bloggers were scammed by Mancow.

Last week, liberal blogs went ga-ga over radio talk show host Mancow’s waterboarding stunt.

...Time for B.S. detector tune-ups, people. Next time, libs, don’t be so eager to hype a veteran radio entertainer crying “torture.”

You’re the ones who end up all wet.


Malkin's source for her jubulant little dance of joy? Turns out that it's Gawker, the website that she loves to loathe.

Gawker references three people involved to somehow "prove" that this was "fake"

-The first is a Chicago-based publicist named Linda Shafran whose clients include the Jerry Springer and Steve Wilkos shows, in addition to Erich "Mancow" Muller. In describing Shafran our tipster added:

"Linda Shafran is Springer's current publicist until the show starts shooting in CT. Since Springer is her primary source of income, she's now trying to help promote Mancow nationally as a shock jock alternative to Howard Stern."

-The second person involved in this is a man named David Kupcinet. He runs a Chicago-based foundation for veterans called Kup's Purple Heart Foundation. He is the grandson of Irv Kupcinet, a somewhat legendary Chicago gossip columnist who wrote a column for the Chicago Sun Times for over 60 years. At the behest of a friend, Linda Shafran contacted Kupcinet on Thursday hoping that his relationships with Chicago-area veterans and military personnel could help her find a replacement waterboarder.

-The third person involved here, to a much lesser degree, is another Chicago-based publicist named Kathy Posner. According to our tipster, Posner is Jerry Springer's former flack and a friend of both Linda Shafran and Erich "Mancow" Muller. According to one of the emails we were forwarded, it was Posner who suggested that Shafran contact David Kupcinet to find a replacement waterboarder.


Gawker goes on to claim that the person that performed the water-boarding didn't really know what they were doing and was actually in on the hoax.

The only trouble with this, is that the bulk of the information is quotes that would have to be verified. And, considering the source, it would appear that these people would be willing to lie simply to protect themselves from admitting that "Mancow" was honestly freaking out about being water-boarded.

To a point, this all comes down to an arguement in semantics. Certainly, we aren't to believe that this is the "only way" that water-boarding is done. Anyone that has seen videos online of it being done to people can "simulate" it as well. The "marine" that performed it on "Mancow" himwself claims to have learned it that way. Even if it was done incorrectly, it could hurt a person, much in the same way that it can be dangerous to do any number of things "incorrectly".

More to the point - that Malkin is laughing because she thinks she's gone one-up on people - is that I think Malkin is full of it. She's so eager to prove that she is right that she is willing to reference a website that she has lambasted many times as a "smear machine".

From my point of view, I think that "Mancow" got so caught up in the moment, thinking it would be a "hoax", that when he got scared and his buddies ( like Sean Hannity ) called him out on it, he decided to still run with it like it was a gag.

I Know A Guy Who Knows A Guy

Once again, let us witness the bold-face lies of "Turd-Blossum"



We know from her record on the 2nd Court of Appeals that she's not a particularly effective colleague. I first got wind of this when Sam Alito, who was her colleague on the court while we were reviewing his record, it -- you know, people who were familiar with the workings of the court said that she was combative, opinionated, argumentative, and as a result, was not able to sort of help create a consensus opinion on important issues.


Sonia Sotomayor served on the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals, Alito served on the 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals.

I don't have a degree in Math, but the most rudimentary knowledge of such tells me that 2 and 3 aren't the same.

Well, I'm not going to comment on what he said about her, because I didn't hear him say anything specifically about her, but when I was talking to people about the 2nd Court of Appeals -- for example, look, as you know, justices circulate opinions and -- to their colleagues to get their feedback and to act as, you know, sort of a prompt for discussions when they meet in chambers.

Well -- in conference, excuse me -- what she would do is she would mark them up like she was your English school teacher and -- with your typos and misspellings and other words that she wanted to have changed, and send them back to her colleagues -- not exactly the best way to ingratiate yourself with your colleagues.


Of course he's not going to comment on this, he's making it up as he goes along.

To approach this topic from the perspective of the use of "anonymous sources", one has to also look at what other pundits, writers, and reporters have said in their various columns, blogs, and on-air reports that have also come from "anonymous sources".

From my perspective, the use of "anonymous sources" to create the bulk of your thesis statement tends to make readers less likely to believe your claims, unless you have a counterbalance of facts backed-up with "open" sources that can be verified by your readers.

Also, if the author has crediblity outside of the article where he/she is usging "anonymous" sources, the likelihood that their readership is going to believe what they read is increased.

However, with the continued onset of fierce, ideological, voices that are bent on pushing a "message" rather than facts, the use of "anonymous sources" by people like Karl Rove increases the likelihood that their subject matter is extremely by an exponentially large degree.

It is for this reason that any and all that read anything written by Rove or see an interview with him where he cites "anonymous sources" should question each and every point he makes. The problem is that so many have become numb to the use of unverifiable sources that they now lack that ability to question them. Also, if the reader has their own ideological bent to push, then facts be damned.

More from Media Matters

More from Media Matters.

Just A Walk Through Paris



( h/t to Tice )

Fighting Healthcare Disinformation

From Politico:

The group Conservatives for Patients Rights will air a long-form, documentary-style attack on Obama's heath care reform plans on national cable and on broadcast television in Washington, starting tomorrow, the group said.

The ad will air on A&E the History Channel, as well as on the D.C. NBC affiliate after "Meet the Press" on Sunday.

The title: "End of Patient’s Rights — The Human Consequences of Government-Run Health Care."

Scott will star in the documentary, which follows him to Europe and Canada.


SEIU has also been urging NBC to reconsider airing this blatantly misleading documentary.

Rick Scott has a track record of deceit. Scott's previous ads contained blatantly false statements and misleading excerpts of interviews with health care professionals. Join us in telling NBC not to run this phony "documentary" this Sunday.

If Scott's 30-minute "documentary" contains any falsehoods, NBC could very well find themselves with an FCC violation. Furthermore, Meet the Press needs to know that they're being used by Rick Scott, and will be tarnished by his swiftboating


Media Matters Action Network has a "fact-check" video sponsored by Conservatives For Patients' Rights



Below is a clip that is going to be included in Scott's "documentary".



You can let NBC know that you don't agree with their decision to air this misleading programming. Click here.

More from Think Progress.

Clueless Rant Of The Day

Further proof that the fringe-conservative Right just doens't get it

I get mighty annoyed by the unspoken implication in a lot of commentary that anyone not a member of a Protected Minority must have grown up in a twelve-bedroom lakeside mansion and been chauffered off to prep school with a silver spoon in his mouth. Judge Sotomayor was raised in public housing? So was I. Her mother was a nurse working late shifts? So was mine. When did white working poor people disappear off the face of the earth? Where are the eager listeners to their "compelling stories"?


John "Help, Help, I'm Being Repressed" Derbyshire.

What our good friend from the NRO doesn't quite understand is the very real fact that for as long as their have been "minorities" in the United States, they have have to work harder, prove more, and struggle in ways that the "average white girl from Montana" could not possibly comprehend.

Also, it should be pointed out that it has only been within the lifetime of my oldest sister that minorities have been able to rise to the positions that they currently reside in - but this is becuase they fought to get there. Simply because you don't see racism, bigotry, and sexual-discrimination on a daily basis doesn't mean that it isn't there.

And isn't this a classic example of what it means to be a white, conservative, male? They see no racial significance if it is the "white man" that is in power, yet they whinge and squeal when a qualified, Hispanic, woman ( whom has worked tirelessly to get where she is, no matter the obsticles ) is in a position of power or has the opportunity to.

And, deeper still, it is the opportunity for a minority ( especially a woman ) to have a seat at the table that troubles white men like Derbyshire.

No one has said that there aren't struggles for "white" people. This is simply a way for Derbyshire to mask his own willfull ignorance of race, and how it is viewed in the socio-political realm, so that he can complain that someone that isn't white has actually accomplished something.

John Derbyshire might not be a racist, but he is most certainly an ignorant buffoon.

Another Conspiracy Theory That's Too Silly To Believe

Well, unless you're Michelle Malkin, Allahpundit, Reliapundit, Ace Of Spades, Jim Hoft, Jillian Bandes at Townhall.com, The Fox"Nation", Fox"News" Talk Radio, Fox"News", The Washington Examiner, MacRanger, Patterico, Free Republic, and a host of other twitching, reactionary, tin-foil-hooded conservatives.

Granted, some of these people have softened there rhetoric within their own accusations to allow them room to wiggle away from saying Obama is absolutley orchestrating the closings, but the mere fact that they are giving credence to such a laughable claim is richly deserving of our mockery.

Early Morning Conservative Conspiracy Theory

This morning, the Fox"Nation" has a headline that reads "Was Reporter Dragged from Press Pool for Supporting Traditional Marriage?".

It seems that the bulk of the reactionary drones that frequent that site in order to gather their talking-points for the day seem to think that the Secret Service removed her simply because she wanted to give Obama a letter about upholding traditional marriage.

The problem is that the Secret Service have a duty to protect the President. This woman, who also alleges that she is a Roman Catholic Preistess, wanted to personally hand Obama a letter and insisted on waiting for him. That is a classic trigger for the Secret Service to act, and remove whomever makes such a claim.

This is on par with the "Obama is closing Republican Chrysler car dealerships".

speaking of......

Thursday, May 28, 2009

Ignorant, Conservative, Quote Of The Day

While the next two to four months of maneuverings and hearings may provide more insights into the views of Mr. Obama's pick, barring an unforeseen development -- not unheard of in Supreme Court nominations -- Judge Sotomayor will become the second Hispanic (Benjamin Cardozo was Sephardic) and third woman confirmed to the Supreme Court. Democrats will win the vote, but Republicans can win the argument by making a clear case against the judicial activism she represents.


Karl "I'm Really Spending More Time With My Family, Really I Am" Rove in an article from the Rupert Murdock owned Wall Street Journal.

There's a problem with this though, Benjamin Cardozo was a Jew who's ancestry was traced back to Portugal. Portugal is not considered a Hispanic country.

It can, and has, been argued that what is at issue is not that Portugal is normally considered a Hispanic country, but the very real fact that people like Rove use ethnic terminology in order to seem more educated than those they are attempting to inform or represent - if they be an elected official, which Rove was thankfully not.

It is likely that this line of thinking, that one particular race has held a particular position in government, will be used against the next African American that runs for the Presidency.

Cap, Trade, And Spin

Recently, the RNC unleashed misleading info on Obama's proposed Cap-And-Trade program:

President Obama and the Democrats are planning to jack up energy prices and pass the cost on to you and your family...[C]an you and your family afford an additional $3,100 in higher energy taxes a year...if Obama and his liberal Democrat cohorts get their way, you and your family will be paying an additional $260 a month in energy taxes thanks to the Democrats' outrageous Cap & Trade legislation. That's $260 a month that you and your family should be allowed to spend, save or invest anyway you see fit.


The root problem with this misleading email is that the dollar figure is around

The information that the GOP is manipulating comes from a study done by MIT Joint Program on the Science and Policy of Global Change in 2007.

The study estimated that a cap-and-trade market for 2015 would be worth $366 billion in revenue. Republicans, figuring that that amount would be passed from the energy companies to consumers, calculated the average cost per household by dividing $366 billion by 117 million households (a population of 300 million divided into households of 2.56 persons) to get $3,128, or roughly $3,100.


The GOP has always had issues with science, and their interpretation of scientific studies is just as shining of an example of their inherent ignorance.

On April 1st, John Reilly ( Associate Director for Research at the MIT Joint Program on the Science and Policy of Global Change ) sent a letter to House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-Ohio) stating that their findings had:

...been misrepresented in recent press releases distributed by the National Republican Congressional Committee.


The GOP email, as well as the current round of talking-points being diseminated, did not reflect Obama's proposed plan of a rebate to comsumers to cushion the effect of any increased prices.

[M]any of the proposals currently being considered by Congress and as proposed by the Administration have been designed to offset the energy cost impacts on middle and lower income households and so it is simplistic and misleading to only look at the impact on energy prices of these proposals as a measure of their impact on the average household.


In follow-up communication with Boehner, Associate Director Reilly showed that the actual, annual, increase in cost to consumers was estimated at around $800. This, however, did not stop the GOP from continuing with the thouroughly debunked line of "$3100 per year" in increased energy costs.

Boehner's website posted an "alert" that read in part:

An MIT professor has questions about the $3,100 figure but his letter makes assumptions that are factually inaccurate...[W]e all know that Democrats have no intention of using a cap-and-trade system to deliver rebates to consumers; they want the tax revenue to fund more government spending.


In this, anyone that read the "alert" was left with a choice - believe John Boehner or an Associate Director of Research @ MIT. The choice, to myself at least, is clear.

In stark contrast to Boehner's claims, one has but to read the proposed 2010 Budget to see where, in fact, the money from Cap-And-Trade is going to go.

[T]his program will fund vital investments in a clean energy future totaling $150 billion over 10 years, starting in Fy 2012. The balance of the auction revenues will be returned to the people, especially vulnerable families, communities, and businesses to help the transition to a clean energy economy.


However, the study done by MIT was 2 years ago and the Obama Adminstration's Budget Proposal for Fiscal 2010 was just this year.

We could not anticipate what he would propose, and frankly the details of any current proposal are not completely specified and will change as things go through the Congress.


Still, Director Reilly was able to respond to Boehner's outrageous claims and correct them. So, the fact that the study was done 2 years ago poses little to no inherent issues.

An alternate Cap-And-Trade program ( H.R.2454 ) introduced by Reps. Henry Waxman (D-Calif.) and Edward Markey (D-Mass.) has recently passed in the House Committee on Energy and Commerce by a vote of 33 to 25.

More from Fact Check.

A Case For Spontaneous, Genetic Duplication

( h/t to Chez @ Deus Ex Malcontent )

I often find myself stunned with the simularities between people that I see here in my small town in Western Kentucky and those that I have known from my old college-town of Bowling Green, KY and Nashville, TN.

Whether it be at a local supermarket, the pizza joint across town, or at Wal-Mart late on a Friday night, I often see someone that looks amazingly like someone else that I know.

Considering the very real and verifiable fact that many within this region of the US tend to stay "close to home" as they settle-down and make a family, I have developed this hypothesis - the genetic code ( as it relates to our facial features ) is becoming more and more "simular" within each new generation. In other words, we aren't increasing the size of the gene pool, but just barely maintaining it.

This is not to postulate that there is an abundance of pseudo-incestual relationships within the boarders of Kentucky, Missouri, Illinois, Indiana, and Tennessee, but there is a definate genetic imprint that is echoed within each of the states. Hence, people looking alike.

But, I'm not a genetic engineer so I can't be for certain. Who's to know.

That's being said, here's Micheal Steele and "Humpty" from Digital Underground.

Your AOL Hot Hotseat Poll

Judicial Quote Of The Day

Antonin Scalia, in his written majority opinon to the "Republican Party of Minnesota v. White" case.

....the judges of inferior courts often "make law," since the precedent of the highest court does not cover every situation, and not every case is reviewed.


The complete, in context, quote appears in footnote 12 of the written decision:

Although Justice [John Paul] Stevens at times appears to agree with Justice [Ruth Bader] Ginsburg's premise that the judiciary is completely separated from the enterprise of representative government, post, at 3 ("[E]very good judge is fully aware of the distinction between the law and a personal point of view"), he eventually appears to concede that the separation does not hold true for many judges who sit on courts of last resort, post, at 3 ("If he is not a judge on the highest court in the State, he has an obligation to follow the precedent of that court, not his personal views or public opinion polls"); post, at 3, n. 2. Even if the policy making capacity of judges were limited to courts of last resort, that would only prove that the announce clause fails strict scrutiny. "[I]f announcing one's views in the context of a campaign for the State Supreme Court might be" protected speech, post, at 3, n. 2, then-even if announcing one's views in the context of a campaign for a lower court were not protected speech, ibid.-the announce clause would not be narrowly tailored, since it applies to high- and low-court candidates alike. In fact, however, the judges of inferior courts often "make law," since the precedent of the highest court does not cover every situation, and not every case is reviewed. Justice Stevens has repeatedly expressed the view that a settled course of lower court opinions binds the highest court. See, e.g., Reves v. Ernst & Young, 494 U.S. 56, 74 (1990) (concurring opinion); McNally v. United States, 483 U.S. 350, 376--377 (1987) (dissenting opinion).


More from The Huffington Post

Apparently Alito Has Feelings

During his confirmation, Samuel Alito was asked - point blank - by Republican Senator Tom Coburn ( OK ) about his "feelings".



Senator, I tried to in my opening statement, I tried to provide a little picture of who I am as a human being and how my background and my experiences have shaped me and brought me to this point....


With regards to the "feelings" of a sitting Justice, it should be pointed out that Chief Justice John Roberts apparently has "feelings" that align him with ruling class whites, as he has sided consistently with conservative ideology when making decisions on cases that reach the SCOTUS.

Wednesday, May 27, 2009

Under The Guise Of "Reporting"

Even though the video is entitled the "race to the bottom", I think they've been there for quite a long time. There's trying to see who can remain at the top of the pile the longest.



And isn't that quite the appropo image, Coulter, Limbaugh, Beck, and all their seething compatriots undulating and slithering around in a collective pile of excrenment and saliva.

But they feel safe in that steaming pile-up of flesh and talking-points. They feel as if they can't be touched in calling a woman who isn't white a racist because she takes pride in her heritage. To them, that is tantamount to deficating on the American Flag and then selling it on EBay for a quarter.

Having pride in yourself, your heritage, and your accomplishments, to the fringe-conservatives in America, is reserved only for whites that vote Republican. Then it isn't called pride anymore, it's not cloaked in a word that some religious groups consider a sin. To them, it's patriotism, even if they are the ones with truly racist intentions.

You Remember Alberto Gonzales, Don't You?

Seems that it was perfectly fine for Orrin Hatch to note Gonzales' Hispanic roots before he was confirmed as the Attorney General.

Early this morning, I talked about Judge Gonzales's inspirational personal background. I talked about his educational and professional qualifications, and they are many. I talked about all the awards he has won from so many civic organizations. I talked about many of the numerous organizations, individuals, and entities that support his nomination--virtually
most strong Hispanic organizations, including the District Attorneys Association and the FBI Agents Association, and others, as well.


But don't you dare mention that Sotomayor is Hispanic. That's identiy politics. RABBLE RABBLE RABBLE!!!

I just love archival footage from CSPAN.

The Identity Politics Of Conservative's "Jesus"

With the continued and obnoxious diefication of Ronald Reagan comes a healthy dose of ignorance surrounding the man and his past actions.



Don't you just love Conservative hypocrisy.

Sotomayor's Cyberspace Knowledge

Presented here without comment is some very interesting information on Sonya Sotomayor and experience that no other Supreme Court Justice has.

In 2002, Sotomayor wrote a decision (.pdf) nullifying Netscape’s online click-wrap agreement, which demanded binding arbitration of disputes between Netscape and its customers. The “free download” button for Netscape’s browser software was high on the web page, with the user-agreement well below.

“We conclude that in circumstances such as these, where consumers are urged to download free software at the immediate click of a button, a reference to the existence of license terms on a submerged screen is not sufficient to place consumers on inquiry or constructive notice of those terms,” Sotomayor wrote.

Consumers sued Netscape claiming browser “cookies” amounted to illegal eavesdropping. Netscape claimed the click-wrap agreement demanded out-of-court arbitration. As we all know, it turned out that “cookies” are lawful and mostly harmless.

In a December case, Sotomayor joined in a unanimous appellate decision on the 2001 Patriot Act. The ruling limited the application of the automatic gag orders that bind ISPs that receive an FBI “national security letter” — a type of self-issued subpoena demanding information on a customer.

“If confirmed, she will be the first justice who has written cyberlaw-related opinions before joining the court,” the TechLaw blog wrote.


More from Wired.

Of Quotes And Scary Labels

On of the set pieces on the Fox"Nation" website takes a small snippit from an article by Pittsburg's KDKA reporter Jon Delano. In it, Delano highlights what Sonya Sotomayor's former classmates have to say about her.

But the "Nation" could care less about what former classmates have to say about Judge Sotomayor. Their headline reads "Soto Quotes Socialist Leader On Yearbook Page"

Here's the quote referenced.

I am not a champion of lost causes but of causes not yet won.


It's a rather nice quote. It speaks of standing up for what you believe in, standing up for those that are kept down, of making yourself and your country better.

However, once you attach the word "Socialist", there's a new element to the story. No longer is the quote seen for what it really is, as it has been turned into something anti-American, something dangerous, something that conservatives can use. It's become a weapon of fear - fear of the unknown.

So, who is the Socialist "Leader" anyway?

Was it François Mitterrand of France? No.

The dreaded Hugo Chávez? No.

It's not Friedrich Engels, Karl Marx, or even Lenin.

Have you ever heard of a man named Norman Thomas? Neither had I until I read this article.

The quote can also be found on a plaque located in the Norman Thomas 1905 Library at Forbes College Princeton University.

Make no mistake about it, Fox - in all its various forms and faces - have used the word "socialism" ( as well as "fascism" ) to such an obscene extent that they no longer hold the original definitions with which they are intended to be used. They are put in place of more accurate descriptors.

Rather than being intellectually honest with their audience and say that they simply disagree with a person, be it Sonya Sotomayor or anyone else, they use words like "socialist" to provoke fear.

This is what the Conservative movement thrives off of, promoting fear, ignorance, and the mass distribution of misinformation.

Quote Of The Day

18 years ago.....

I have followed this man's career for some time, and he has excelled in everything that he has attempted. He is a delightful and warm, intelligent person, who has great empathy and a wonderful sense of humor. He's also a fiercely independent thinker with an excellent legal mind who believes passionately in equal opportunity for all Americans. He will approach the cases that come before the Court with a commitment to deciding them fairly, as the facts and the law require.


That's then Pres. George H.W. Bush, speaking about Judge Clarence Thomas' nomination to the Supreme Court in 1991.

Hannity, Rush, O'Reilly, Beck, we're waiting for comment.


Hannity Hyperbole

When I watched this last night, all I could do was laugh.



The first thing in Hannity's show, as in most, is it's acceptance of willful ignorance. Pat Robertson is a perfect example of such.

He knows nothing of judicial practice, law, and rarely - if ever - speaks any truth to power about the religious sect that he claims to represent. And, in that respect, he is a perfect candidate for a guest on Sean Hannity's program.

But the part that really gave Hannity a tickle in his pants was the court case he cited last night. This case was also part of an "investigation" by on of the Fox"News" beauty-queen-reporters. The only problem with Hannity's commentary and the "investigation" of the firemen who were not promoted was the direct relation to Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

From Newshounds:

As the New Haven Independent reported, the NAACP, the ACLU and the International Association of Black Professional Firefighters have come out in favor of the city, citing concerns that the case threatens to eviscerate laws — particularly Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 — that afford opportunities for African-Americans to advance. The vast majority of New Haven firefighters are white. The black firefighters union wants the city to “re-examine the promotional process and the results of the test” under the guidelines of Title VII. They point to an earlier federal ruling which noted that firefighting ability, not the ability to pass a test, is the most important factor in evaluating a firefighter's job performance.


Nothing piques Hannity's interest more than the hint that "the white man" is being picked on. So, what does Hannity do? He calls her a racist, of course.

But, who are these "mainstream Americans" that Hannity mentions in the opening of his program? Do they think as he does, that Judge Sotomayor is "racist", that she's this alleged "radical"? Are they Fox"News" viewers? Are they predominantly white? The later two are almost a guaranteed yes. The former is only likely should they not be able to make up their own minds and rely on people like Sean Hannity for their information.

Later in the program, Hannity had on two guests ( Ed Gillespie and Lanny Davis ) to discuss the "racial/sexual component" as it relates to Sotomayor's ability ( or from Hannity's perspective, her lack thereof ) to be a fair-minded member of the Supreme Court.



Never one to be able to accept or even attempt to understand a rational and honest answer like the one Lanny Davis gave, Hannity does his "throwing the hands up and whining" schtick.

The reality of the situation is that no one, no matter who it may be, that is nominated or offered a job by a Democrat will pass muster with people like Sean Hannity. They whine and cry about how they want to bring America together, but offer no plans to back these claims up. They speak about "mainstream Americans" but this general discription obviously doesn't include blacks, latinos, or any other ethnic group which conservatives claim to accept, they just aren't allowed to mention their heritage.

Sonya Sotomayor will be confirmed. Not simply because the Democrats have a 12 to 7 advantage on the Judiciary Committee, but because Sotomayor has a very moderate record. Her statements about "policy" as it relates to the Appelate courts are accurate and have been shown to not be controversial to anyone except those that are attempting to cast her in the roll as "radical", "racist", or "dangerous".

More from Media Matters and Newshounds.

Tuesday, May 26, 2009

Riding The Edge Of Racially Divisive Dialogue

Glenn Beck teeters on the edge of a full-blown conspiratorial breakdown at any given moment during the day. Watching his "Civilist Of Wars" show over the weekend, I got the feeling that his head would explode at some point - just like that scene in Scanners.



I'm starting to wonder if Beck drinks before he does his shows.

---------------------------------------------------------

Rush Limbaugh loves to use the "reverse racism" meme as often as he can.

Seeing as he can't come out and call Sonya Sotomayor a "wetback", and you just know he wants to, he uses her race against her differently.

Limbaugh had this to say of Sotomayor on his radio program today:



She ruled against the white firefighter Ricci and other white firefighters just on the basis that she thought women and minorities should be given a preference because of their skin color and because of the history of discrimination in the past. The law was totally disregarded. That's what I mean when I refer to her as a reverse racist. Obama himself is one, the chip on his shoulder that he brings to office. If people just listen to what he said over the course of his career, it's unmistakable. I know the media is going to harp on this reverse-racist stuff, and I just want all of you to know that I am perfectly willing to back it up and I'm proud that I said it. It happens to be true.



Of course he wants her to "fail". You shouldn't even have to ask.



For Rush, it's a given that he has issues with women in power. He has problems with people that aren't white. He simply has problems dealing with the very real fact that his party loses so many arguements, by and large, because he and they can't accept the fact that Americans come in all shades and colors, all opinions, all backgrounds, and nothing they do will ever be able to erase that.

Am I asking Rush to be tolerant of people of alternate ethnicity? Absolutely not. To do so would be such a futile exercise that it is beyond laughable.

Glenn Beck is a totally different animal all together. He says and does things not simply because they fit into his canted view of the world, he says them because he knows that it will make him more money, get him more spots on various Fox"News" shows, knows that it will cause people to disagree with him. His problems lie within the very real fact that he is utterly clueless. Well, clueless to anything except how many zeros he has to the left of the decimal-point in his bank account.

To put it another way, he has lost the plot. This isn't just simply ignorance that we are dealing with, it is rank stupidity on a level not seen since Steven Spielberg decided it would be a good idea to re-edit E.T..

Although both these poor excuses of men - who actually give credence to the theory that we are descended from apes - are from two areas of the racially-ignorant spectrum, they are shining examples of why many/most of the Republicans in this country are seen as racist or supportive of racist actions.

The trick is, give yourself enough room to get out of being called a racist. That's why Limbaugh uses the "reverse-racism" line. He can get out of it if he talks fast enough and ties together completely divergent subjects in one mass of cholesterol and cigar smoke filled rant.

Beck is simply just crazy enough to say things like "nigger", "wop", or "spic". He'll just deny saying it, have some sort of crying spell on his Fox"News" show, and have Jonah Goldberg explain how it's "Liberal Fascists" that made him do it, and then demand an apology from Whoopie and Barbara Walters.

More from Media Matters

Favorite Movie Scenes Pt. VII feat. The Fifth Element

Because interstellar-crackheads make for great comedy.



There are so many fantastic moments from this movie, but this one is tops. In college, my friends and I were known to recite, at random, lines from this junkie with a cool-ass weapon.

Good times.

Awesome

OnePlusYou Quizzes and Widgets

Created by OnePlusYou - Free Dating Sites




I got my rating from three words

TORTURE DICK PORN

Sweet.

Riders On The Storm

If you would like to join Stormy Daniel's team and help her Senate bid, just click the link.



And to all detractors that say that she is simply making a mockery of the electoral process and the history and tradition of the U.S. Senate, let me remind you that David Vitter ( R - Huggies ) - the man she is seriously considering running against - used to cheat on his wife and dress-up in diapers when he was diddling hookers.

( h/t to The Spork for the "Huggies" bit. Classic )

The Reactions Of A Demagogue

Not suprisingly, the conservative fringe-Right have set off on their "any smear that sticks" campaign against Obama's nominee for the Supreme Court, Sonya Sotomayor.

They are using this 35 second clip of Sotomayor making comment on policy and the court of appeals:



To which, our example - Hot Air's court jester Ed Morrissey - reacts as one might think he would:

Not only do we have Sotomayor essentially admitting that she sees lawmaking as the purview of courts, but a speech given in 2001 makes Sotomayor sound like the kind of identity-politics hack that most people saw in Lani Guinier when her appointment in the Clinton administration went down to defeat.

If she’s that erudite in front of the Senate Judiciary Committee when answering this question, the Republicans won’t have to push hard to bounce Sotomayor out of the Supreme Court. She knew she’d overreached and couldn’t even explain herself in front of a friendly audience, who realized quite well that her backpedaling was entirely self-serving and incoherent.


The only problem with Morrissey's statement that this is somehow "controversial" is that it, in point of fact, isn't.

Stoney Brook University law professor Jefferey Segal sees Sotomayor's statement as completely within the bounds of the truth.

....the law is not always clear. And in clarifying those laws, the courts make policy.


Segal's statements are echoed by Hofstra University law professor Eric Freedman.

It is not a controversial proposition at all that the overwhelming quantity of law making work in the federal system is done by the court of appeals... It is thoroughly uncontroversial to anyone other than a determined demagogue.

One element of judging, obviously, is issuing precedent...But if the thing were squarely disposed of by existing precedent they probably wouldn't go to the court of appeals for it. Their lawyers would say, forget it... So this is where you get clarification for cases without precedent.

I would be surprised if you got a different opinion from a fair-minded observer in the legal world.


The conservative Right, as well as the whole of the GOP, could seriously shoot themselves in the foot if they attempt to block Sotomayor's appointment simply on the grounds that they can. The reason being, is that they greatly need the vote of the Hispanic community. But, Sotomayor shouldn't be accepted simply because of her ethic heritage. Considering we are speaking of a very reactionary group of politicos, I'm not going to be holding my breath waiting for them to ask honest questions during her confirmation.

Michelle Malkin takes a slightly different road, as she casts Sotormayor as an angry Hispanic prone to outbursts.

Substantial questions also persist regarding Judge Sotomayor’s temperament and disposition to be a Supreme Court justice. Lawyers who have appeared before her have described her as a “bully” who “does not have a very good temperament,” and who “abuses lawyers” with “inappropriate outbursts.


Malkin, as well as her equally reactionary compatriots, are citing a case in which a panel that Sotomayor sat on affirmed a dismisal of claims by white firefighters. This, coupled with the "angry latino" meme that Malkin is using, is used to further construct the point ( albeit flacid ) that Sotomayor will side against "whites".

At issue, claims that Sotomayor is dismissive and utterly inexperienced, are a bit to flimsy to actually take hold.

Tom Goldstein, of SCOTUSBLOG writes of the conservative-Right's claims, in particular the Ricci v. DeStefano case they are addressing:

The public neither understands nor cares about the publication practices of the courts of appeals. It also is easily able to accept a judge’s recognition of the lawmaking effects of her decisions and the influences of her background. There just isn’t any remotely persuasive evidence that Judge Sotomayor acts lawlessly or anything of the sort.


The "angry hispanic prone to outbrursts that doesn't like white people" meme falls completely apart even with the most minimal of review efforts.

Fox"News" and conservative pundits have been on the offensive against Sotomayor even before she was chosen.



Matt Yglesias at Think Progress points out that, as is standard with conservatives, many on the Right seem to have a problem with a woman in power.

I recall a lot of issues being raised during the Samuel Alito confirmation fight, but at that time I don’t remember anyone raising questions about the intelligence of a Princeton/Yale Law graduate who’d done time on an Appeals Court.


And if you're looking for some "bottom-of-the-barrel" reaction to Sotomayor's pick, look no further than the place where people believe in the United States of America and its ideals.

I'm not going to fall over myself praising Obama for this pick, but her record is perfectly in line with other "liberal" judges that have served on the SCOTUS. There is little, if any, information that shows that she is going to be this alleged "radical" that the conservative Right is claiming she is. However, unless someone were to the Right or equal to Ronald Reagan, there is no satisfying anyone within the conservative movement.

When we are attempting to discuss something seriously, it's almost too much to ask them for even a shred of intellectual honesty.


General "Betray-Them"?

And this, from the man that conservatives were falling over themselves to call the REAL "Man Of The Year" back in 2007.

"I think, on balance, that those moves help [us]," said the chief of U.S. Central Command. "In fact, I have long been on record as having testified and also in helping write doctrine for interrogation techniques that are completely in line with the Geneva Convention. And as a division commander in Iraq in the early days, we put out guidance very early on to make sure that our soldiers, in fact, knew that we needed to stay within those guidelines.

"With respect to Guantanamo," Petraeus added, "I think that the closure in a responsible manner, obviously one that is certainly being worked out now by the Department of Justice -- I talked to the Attorney General the other day [and] they have a very intensive effort ongoing to determine, indeed, what to do with the detainees who are left, how to deal with them in a legal way, and if continued incarceration is necessary -- again, how to take that forward. But doing that in a responsible manner, I think, sends an important message to the world, as does the commitment of the United States to observe the Geneva Convention when it comes to the treatment of detainees."


Gen. Petraeus has just delt a crushing blow to the Republican party as well as the entire conservative movement. The lynch-pin of their arguments have been that GITMO must stay open and that "enchanced" methods of interrogation have kept the country safe.

So, conservatives will take one of two paths. They will either completely ignore tha statements of the man they once showered adoration upon or they will attempt to distance themselves from Petraeus' comments by claiming they were taken "out of context" - a favorite tactic of conservatives when they are faced with facts that show their glaring irrelavency.

And now, we sit back and watch the hypocrisy fly.


A Hack Bested By Hack With Silly Name

While some conservative bloggers are now using the term harrowing in place of torture, when I saw this clip last week of conservative radio-pundit "Mancow", I realized that Sean Hannity had been bested.



Even though Olbermann kept his promise of a donation should Hannity back up his nonsensical blathering, the thing that keeps resonating in my head are the voices of fringe conservatives that talk about the information that has been gleened from water-boarding.

Conservatives aren't going to be able to take away any sort of lesson in ethics from a grown man that calls himself "Mancow", not unless they are able to reframe the debate around water-boarding. No longer are they concerned with the very real fact that it is torture, that we have prosecuted people for using the technique, or are willing to ask the very real questions surrounding a single person being waterboarded nearly 200 times. Because there is a very clear line between attempting to gather information and blatant, sadistic, torture.

Sure, some will cite the "in the box with caterpillars" meme, but these are two completely divergent tactics.

Honestly, I'm a bit upset that it had to be "Mancow" that did this, that this whole discussion has brought him this much attention. Attention that, in my opinion, he really doesn't deserve. Because, in the end, this isn't about him at all. But, he's screwed it all up for the rest of us.

This is the equivalent of Pat Boone covering metal songs and then us discussing the merits and flaws of an older generation attempting to interpret modern music.

Why did it have to be this hack?

The only people who actually consider this clown has an ounce of credibility are those employeed by Fox"News".

What I'm attempting to say is that he's dumbed-down the debate.

That being said, I suppose I'm just as much at fault for giving this guy a platform as any. But why couldn't it have been Hannity? Perhaps the conservative movement wouldn't be able to see one of their star-players completely doing a 180 and calling water-boarding what it really is.

Monday, May 25, 2009

Weekend College Radio Classic feat. Skinny Puppy

The Process, Skinny Puppy's final LP ( as the original line-up ) in 1996 had Key, Ogre, and Gottel venturing into a more mainstream format in some aspects than at any other time in their career. However, this did not stop them from venturig into areas that many others within the genre would not have thought of.

Candle, the debut single, was a prime example. Still, the unique tones, noise, and lyrics are unique to Puppy. Sadly, D.R. Gottel died of a heroine overdose just months before release of The Process.



Interesting to note are the connections with other bands around the name The Process.

Completely Clueless Quote Of The Year?

Here's a gem from Sam Schulman of The Weekly Standard.

Gay spouses have none of our guilt about sex-before-marriage. They have no tedious obligations towards in-laws, need never worry about Oedipus or Electra, won't have to face a menacing set of brothers or aunts should they betray their spouse. But without these obligations--why marry? Gay marriage is as good as no marriage at all.


Not only is it blatantly obvious that Mr. Shulman has never met a gay couple, but it should be pointed out that he has been married three times. Guess he doesn't know so much about "traditional" marriage either.

As it is quite likely that Sam picks and chooses his citations from the Bible, maybe he ought to realize that divorce is a "sin":

Matt. 19:9

And I say to you, whoever divorces his wife, except for immorality, and marries another woman commits adultery

Breitbart, Beck, and Basketball

You can generally tell when someone has gone off the deepend with their conspiratorial nonsense. Some people continue with the meme that the Bush administration orchestrated the attacks of Sept. 11th 2001. Some think that Pearl Harbor and the Gulf of Tonkin were all set-ups as well.

Then there's Andrew Breitbart. He has managed to convince himself that Oprah Winfrey is controlling the Obama presidency.

And what better dithering nut-job to host one of his own than Glenn Beck.



That's right, Glenn Beck is concerned, perhaps disurbed or even "afraid", that the White House made a video of the UConn Women's Basketball team and their visit to the White House. Certainly, this is proof of a massive, libera-media cover-up of the highest order. It's a video post card!

Certainly, Beck is now willing to examine the "Barney Christmas Videos" that the Bush Administration made for years. Surely, there are secrets contained within them. Then again, Beck might go all "Son Of Sam" on us if he listened to Barney too much, if he hasn't already.

Beck idiocy not to be outdone, Andrew Breitbart's claim of the Oprah/Obama connection is beyond laughable. While this is a far cry from him saying "DEAR GOD, THERE'S A BLACK MAN IN THE WHITEHOUSE", its equally stupid and should be ridiculed.

More from Media Matters.

Friday, May 22, 2009

A Bit Late To His Party's Game

It appears that Micheal Steele is a bit late to be a party of the Sean Hannity school of finge-conservative ideology.




The problem that we have with this president is that we don’t know [Obama]. He was not vetted, folks. … He was not vetted, because the press fell in love with the black man running for the office. “Oh gee, wouldn’t it be neat to do that? Gee, wouldn’t it make all of our liberal guilt just go away? We can continue to ride around in our limousines and feel so lucky to live in an America with a black president.” Okay that’s wonderful, great scenario, nice backdrop. But what does he stand for? What does he believe? … So we don’t know. We just don’t know.


Yawn.

Steele also stated recently that it "the end of the era of Republicans looking barckward".

Good luck on him convincing Sean Hannity that he's not allowed to mentioned Reagan anymore.

I Kick Ass For The Lord

Ten points to the person who can name that movie quote.

( h/t to Josh James at The Sanity Project )

I've seen some crazy preachers in my day. There's a Holiness Church across the street from my mothers house in rural Western Kentucky where they have marathon blood-boiling shout, shriek, and wail sessions on Friday nights. I'm pretty sure they do the who "dancing with snakes" too.

It's Snakes On A Mutha-Fuckin Pew!!!!



He's not joking either.



Seems that NIGHTLINE caught up with Mr. Bentley not long ago.



So, what's worse? The man who prays on people's ignorance and desire to feel touched by "God", or those that cover-up for his blatant lies?

But then there's the people that "believe". This is part of the evangelical movement ( and religion in genreal ) that I have never been able to understand. People "believing" in something so outrageous that it boarders on science-fiction. They know that The Easter Bunny, Santa Claus, and The Tooth Fairy aren't real, but they are willing to believe that God - this invisible man in the sky - has imbued within a select few people the ability to heal.

Yet, in the face of contradictory evidence, people still continue to flock to people like Todd Bentley.

Judith Miller Knows Jailtime b/w Classic AC/DC Track

Judith Miller, a central figure in the Valerie Plame affair, and whom had a film made about her story, claims that the US knows how to house terrorists outside Guantanamo.

Her response was a reply to the dicussion on Fox And Friends about FBI Director Robert Mueller's statements to Congress:

...Mueller was asked what concerns the FBI has about the release of Guantanamo detainees.

"The concerns we have about individuals who may support terrorism being in the United States run from concerns about providing financing, radicalizing others," Mueller said, as well as "the potential for individuals undertaking attacks in the United States."

"All of those are relevant concerns," Mueller said.




More from Raw Story and Think Progress.

The "radicalization" arguement seems to be a bit far reaching. What of gang members that recruit other gang members during their time in jail?

And now, a little musical interlude that seems to fit the reactionary Right's "fears" of terrorists being housed in Supermax prisons.




Ignorance As A Weapon Of Domestic Terrorism?

Sure, it's a stronge statement, but let's take a look at what we are talking about here.

The reason that "terrorism" works is because the attacker(s) only hav to succeed once. That's it. Once they have, all they have to do is sit back and watch their victim(s) - it's the U.S. in this case - start destroying themselves from the inside.

Conservative misinformation is a perfect weapon to continue to, in essense, aid terrorism in America.

Here's some examples.



Quinn seems to be forgetting that US tax dollars have been footing the bill for Guantanamo since its opening. The issue with prisons in the US has little to do with "shoring up security" as one of the primary problems are overcrowding, lack of basic maintenance on the buildings, and lack of qualified personel to run the prison system.

Also, known terrorists are already housed in US Supermax prisons.

Detained in the supermax facility in Colorado are Ramzi Yousef, who headed the group that carried out the first bombing of the World Trade Center in February 1993; Zacarias Moussaoui, convicted of conspiring in the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001; Ahmed Ressam, of the Dec. 31, 1999, Los Angeles airport millennium attack plots; Ahmed Omar Abu Ali, conspirator in several plots, including one to assassinate President George W. Bush; and Wadih el-Hage, convicted of the 1998 bombing of the U.S. Embassy in Kenya.


I haven't heard anyone complaining that they are afriad that these men are being detained in the US.



Buchanan seems to accept the line of thinking that suspected terrorist detainees are going to enjoy luxuries when/if they are transfered to Supermax prisons in the US. Again, taxpayer money has has always funded prisons in the US. This talk of "bail" and "when they get out" is rabid hyperbole that lacks any pretense of intelligent discourse. It's fair to say that Pat just might agree with Newt Gingrich's wild assumption that when/if these detainees are released, that they will receive welfare.



Then why hasn't this happened to those terrorists that we already have housed in the US?

Bob Cesca has an interesting take on this clip:

Yeah, what if we put a terrorist in a prison (sort of like the dozens of terrorists currently in our domestic prison system) and then the ghost of Saddam Hussein appears as a gigantic marshamallow man and bashes a hole in the prison wall, releasing a mutated 100-foot-tall "Mr. Jingles" mouse into nearby neighborhoods where it devours YOUR CHILDREN.


Despite the very real fact that no one has ever escaped from a Supermax facility, Halperin seems to be having visions of a mash-up between Con-Air and escape from New York.



And, as always, the Conservative media mouthpiece that is Fox"News" perpetuates this faulty line of thinking.

....the administration has consistently maintained that terrorists will not be released into the United States. At a January 27 hearing before the House Armed Services Committee, Gates responded to a comment by Rep. John McHugh (R-NY) about the administration's detainee policy by saying, "I can't imagine a situation in which detainees at Guantanamo who were considered a danger to the people of the United States would simply be released here."

Similarly, during a May 7 hearing of the Senate Appropriations Subcommittee on Commerce, Justice and Science, Sen. Richard Shelby (R-AL) asked Attorney General Eric Holder: "Do you have the authority under the law to do this, to bring terrorists into this country and bring them into the community?" Holder responded, "[W]ith regard to those who you would describe as terrorists, we would not bring them into this country and release them, anybody who we consider to be a terrorist, as I think you're using the word."

Nevertheless, Fox News hosts and contributors have repeatedly advanced the baseless Republican charge that the administration intends to release terrorists held at Guantánamo Bay into the United States...




Sean Hannity, one of the loudest voices in the lunatic-fringe conservative movement, seems to take great joy in his misinformation.

The Director of National Intelligence, as Hannity stated at the start of the clip, was referring only to the 17 Chinese Uighur. What is more interesting about this point is that George W. Bush's administration was fine with releasing them.

...Blair was answering a specific question about detainees belonging to the Uighur ethnic group from western China. As Media Matters for America has noted, the Bush administration told the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia in September 2008 that the 17 Uighur detainees "will be treated as if they are no longer enemy combatants."


The level of misinformation and blatant lies that have become so ingrained in the national dialogue is staggering.

One of the basic definitions of "terrorism" is this:

The act of terrorizing, or state of being terrorized.


By it's very nature, the conservative movement, their media arm, as well as the pundits, writers, and radio personalities that abide by their doctrine of fear and misinformation are perpetuating a level of terrorism in this country that is growing to such a state that it is becoming such an ingrained portion of common conversation that many people aren't able to discern between the lies and the truth.


"9" - Official Movie Trailer

This filim is going to be worth the wait.



This isn't he first "9" film. Director Shane Acker was nominated for an Academy Award ( Animated Short ) in 2005.

What A Difference A New Administration Makes

All this twitching and shrieking about Pelosi claiming the CIA mislead her is starting to sound a bit disingenuous.

Newt Gingrich at the 2007 CPAC



House Minority Leader John Boehner, in an interview regarding his own questioning of the intelligence communities motives:

QUESTION: [I]n 2007 — I just looked at the transcript — you had accused the intelligence community of greatly misleading the nation by changing their national intelligence assessment about the…

BOEHNER: We’re mixing apples — we’re mixing apples and oranges here.

QUESTION: Why is that different?

BOEHNER: Because when the National Intelligence Estimate came out with regard to Iran, it — it contradicted most everything that I had been told in the six months leading up to it. … I was questioning how this National Intelligence Estimate could — could vary and contradict a lot of information that I’d been told for the six months coming up to it.


Rep. Pete Hoekstra wrote a letter to George W. Bush in 2006 accusing the intelligence agencies from misleading Congress.



And this is not the first time Hoekstra has accused the intelligence agencies in America of misleading him and Congress.

Rush Limbaugh even had some choice words for the CIA in regards to the 2007 NIE on Iran's nuclear program.

Now, say it with me....

Hypocrisy.

That's right.

Thursday, May 21, 2009

Barack Obama's Speech On National Security

Kind Of Like "Left Behind", Only Less Clever

Seems that Sarah Palin needs a religious flare to her "memoir".

After last week’s announcement that Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin would pen a memoir to set the record straight about her personal and political life, HarperCollins revealed Thursday that WORLD Magazine Features Editor Lynn Vincent has been signed on as Palin’s collaborator.



The book, not yet titled, will be co-published by HarperCollins imprint Harper and HarperCollins-owned Zondervan and is scheduled for release in the spring of 2010.

During her 10 years as a senior writer and features editor for WORLD, Vincent has covered politics, culture, and hot-button social issues such as abortion for the biweekly news magazine. She has also specialized in narrative journalism.


But what will the title of the book be?

Will it be a pop-up book with lots of pretty colors. Just imagine the page with the helicopter and the wolves.

How about a picture book. Maybe it will look like those little religious "tracts" that the fundies put under your windshield wipers at the mall and leave in your storm-door when you aren't home. You know, those cheesy Christian comics that tell you about the perils of dancing, holding hands, and listening to Barry Manilow. And you'll surely burn in Hell if you kiss on the first date or, God forbid, dance!

Whatever it turns out to be, I'm going to bet my money that Lynn Vincent is going to be penning most of this book. Sure, Palin will be in the room, running through ideas of what to talk about, but this book will be primarily written by Vincent.

Writing a book is difficult work. But, when you're in a position to have someone essentially be the "ghost-writer" and it's about your "real" life outside the glare of the media spotlight, you can pretty much just make it up as you go along.

Be on the look-out for chapters on how Sarah was able to prevent anyone in her family from getting The Gout with the help of a Witch Doctor and how she can make the perfect Freedom Toast ( because France is no go, doncha know ) just by praying for three minutes.

Seriously, this book will debut at #1 on teh NYT List just by conservative think-tanks and blogs ( and probably Harper Collins ) buying them up in bulk to give away.


Not Just An Apology, A "Damn" Apology

Beck is like the mythical loaves and fishes. The more you break him down the more he comes back - lies increasing exponentially.



Glenn Beck is still missing the point. The confrontation on The View was about Beck creating this tale about "reserved seats" and his inability to park his ass where he wanted. It was never about who said "hi" to who first. Oh, and his wife is pissed now too.

How much do you want to bet he's going to cry about it on TV tonight?

If They Weren't Confused Before, They Certainly Are Now

Another fine example of ignorance in advertising from the fine folks at NOM.



You remember when you were a kid and you played at school with ALL the kids, no matter what sociological background, what ethnicity, how rich or how poor their families were? Kids can clearly see past all that and know what is important in life.

The willfully ingorant controlling the words of children is not only scary, but shows the depth of dishonesty which they are willing to go.

Suddenly, I'm reminded of the mouth-agapes grunt from seething, wing-nut, prattle-heads about children being used in the debate over SCHIP.

Is this alright with you guys?


And Now For Something Completely Different

An ideological curmudgeon in a wheelchair set to funny music.



( h/t to The Hegemon )

Conservative Phone-Stagging

Just watch this. It's from the Breitbart.tv show called "The B-Cast". I laughed the whole time.



Wow.

Are we expected to believe that AMTRAK actually called this guy back?

You know how someone will "phone-stage" in order to get out of a situation or to make an excuse for something, perhaps make that clever get-away from your one-night-stand's house when you realize that you made a HUGE mistake. This is a classic example.

"Oh, we know you couldn't hear what the person on the other line was saying so we're just going to make this all up in order to save face for Glenn Beck."

Wow.


Shorter People Magazine

Cover Girl



Bristol may only be 18, just graduated high-school, and is apparently a staunch advocate of "abstinence", but she's smoking hot and we're putting her on the cover! Yay for teens poppin-out babies!

Palin's Office Did Not Return A Call Seeking Comment

Remember the news of the Tennessee college student that allegedly "hacked" Sarah Palin's email account and posted a non-personal email and some photos on 4chan.org?

Seems that his lawyers are going to not only fight to remove the felony charge, but have some of the charges dropped. Their defense is rather compelling.

Wade Davies, David Kernell defense lawyer, is approaching this from the angle that the email that was lifted and posted online was a matter of "public record" and should have been made a part of the open record. He's siting a suit filed in an Alaskan court where a judge ultimated ruled that Palin's "on-the-job" correspondance using her personal email had to be preserved.

Tennessee, he says, only recognizes an invasion of privacy when the invasion exposes something that is inherently private, and the victim was placed in a false light by the invasion. But Palin wasn’t placed in a false light by the alleged hack, and her privacy wasn’t invaded since “an Alaska court has issued an order requiring Ms. Palin to preserve the correspondence in her private e-mail accounts on the grounds that the e-mails are public records.”

Davies is referring to litigation that was filed by an Alaskan activist before the alleged hack occurred. That lawsuit sought Palin’s private e-mail. The activist charged that Palin used her Yahoo accounts to conduct official government business and therefore e-mail in the accounts was part of the public record and should be disclosed under Alaska’s public records statute. A judge ruled, after news of the hack broke, that Palin was required to preserve the correspondence in her private accounts until the lawsuit was resolved.

Davies implies in his motion to dismiss that there are reasonable grounds to conclude that Palin’s Yahoo correspondence was a public record, and cites case law showing that information that already appears on the public record can’t be considered private.


Once the "privacy" issue is taken off the table, the government has no felony case at all.

But what of the photos?

As for photos of Palin and family members that Kernell allegedly obtained from the account, Davies says there’s no expectation of privacy for the images, because the people depicted in the photos “continue to regularly and voluntarily appear in the national media.”


Sarah and Todd are more than willing to shove the family in front of the cameras at any given moment. They are hardly a "private' bunch of folks. Sarah even convinced her daughter to openly advocate for abstinence in the face of her own "out of wedlock" pregnancy.

Then there's the obviously trumped-up charges of "wire-fraud".

Aside from the computer fraud and privacy charge, Davies also took issue with a wire fraud charge alleging that his client deprived Palin of property by accessing her e-mail. Davies argues that the charge isn’t valid because e-mails constitute “ethereal” property, not “traditional property” as defined by the law. Kernell, he wrote, “was not trying to steal from Sarah Palin.


More from Wired

Conservative bloggers had a field day with this story, as they do with any and all stories that revolve around Sarah Palin.

Michelle Malkin led the charge right out of the gate.

Hacking e-mail is a federal crime. A TV anchor who broke into his colleague’s e-mail account recently pleaded guilty and faces a maximum five years in prison.

The law will catch up to the hackers, but what about the lowlifes who are now gleefully splashing the alleged contents of Palin’s private e-mail account all over the Internet?

The Gawker smear machine — see here for all the background you need — has posted private family photos of Palin’s children that were apparently stolen from the e-mail account.

They have used Bristol Palin’s illegally obtained private cell phone number from her mom’s private account, recorded her voicemail message, and posted it on their website.


Malkin is apparently referencing this recording of Bristol's "outgoing" VM message. There is even the contact list from Palin's email account published on Gawker. From my perspective, I find it less-than upsetting that a person's private email account was published, reguardless of who that might be. There are thousands of websites that require you to list you email account when signing up to comment on various topics.

That being said, hacking is still a crime. But, the fact that Sarah Palin's email account is technically nothing more than "ethereal" property and not "traditional" property, the likelihood that a jury will allow the wire-fraud charges to stand is kind of up in the air right now.

Was Palin in any danger of having money/property stolen or extorted from her? Likely not. But that is ultimately up to the courts to decide.

Malkin's aligations that this was a group of "infamous hackers" was thoroughly debunked by a person that monitors the site where originally published - /b/ - who apparently sent an email to Malkin to clear the air on a few points.

There are several misconceptions and errors in most accounts of this story, including your post. Most significantly, the perpetrator(s) were not members of an infamous group of hackers. I don’t blame you for misunderstanding this, because in all the media coverage regarding the war with Scientology the media has completely failed to explain what Anonymous is.

Anonymous is not exactly a group. It is people using the umbrella of a web discussion board for cover to be as offensive, funny, strange, or whatever as they want.


None of this will absolve the very real fact that David Kernell is accused of hacking into Sarah Palin's email and posting screen-caps of a message a several photos. What this case will ultimately show is that the charges leveled against Kernell were severely inflated and the resulting conservative reaction increase exponentially simply due to the fact that it was Sarah Palin's email.


The Playlist Of Doom



Get a playlist! Standalone player Get Ringtones

Blog Archive