Excuses In Favor Of Distance

The Modern American Right simply can't comprehend the very simple concept that they claim is one of the pillars of their ideology - accountability.

In light of the many "controversial" moments during the seemingly endless GOP Presidential debates, the Right is in full-on defense mode because some audience members booed an active duty member of the American Military because he is gay and he disagrees with Don't Ask Don't Tell.

For examples, check Breitbarts frothy-mouthed minions here, here, and here.

The rusty lynch-pin of their defense is that "it was just a couple of people", that this is something that not everyone in the Modern American Right would accept. And while the Right wants to paint this as a smear by Liberals/Progressive, the reality is that those that did cast aspersions at this soldier were largely ignored. They faced no backlash, even though Liberals/Progressives that merely questioned the need to invade and remain in Iraq were labeled as un-American traitors.

So it was with little surprise that I watched Fox"News" do their best to run . But what Megyn Kelly did was such a distortion of reality that I'm shocked that a time-space paradox didn't manifest itself right there in the studio with her:



Is Kelly attempting to excuse the actions of these people in order to push the narrative that there must be a specific amount of vitriol hurled by a set amount of persons toward a group of people that the Modern American Right allegedly champions before it becomes wrong? It would certainly appear that way. Moreover, her laughably flaccid claim that it wasn't the soldier that was being booed, that it was his question, falls completely flat when one considers how the Modern American Right spends countless hours decrying Liberals/Progressives questioning a particular mission of the American Military but offering support of the troop that is put in harms way.

I've seen and heard many disgusting and revealing aspects of Right Wing posturing, but this has got to be one of the worst. Not only do these people use members of the American Military as props, but they are more than willing to completely ignore real hatred that is leveled at them.

I'm wondering how long it's going to take the folks at Fox"News" or any lunatic fringe wingnut to piece together some conspiracy theory that it was actually Liberal/Progressive infiltrators at the debate that did this.

Random Thoughts For The Day

- Seeing as how The Modern American Right are so excited over excessively long tirades about trains ( read: Atlas Shrugged ) I'm wondering why they are so against high-speed rail.

- Why does Fox"News" boast about how most Americans watch their network while crying about how the "mainstream media" is against them? Do they not know the definition of "mainstream"?

- Why does the Modern American Right lambaste Obama's Chicago ties as "thuggish" when Ronald Reagan's childhood home is in the same city?

- When I see and hear people like Glenn Beck preach the virtues of owning gold and then complain about the devaluing of the dollar, I'm wondering if they don't understand the far reaching implications of what they are essentially doing.

- If the Modern American Right don't think we have a direct impact on our environment, then can we build a coal-fired power plant and nuclear waste dump next to Rush Limbaugh's house?

- Have you ever noticed that since Obama took office that the Modern American Right have virtually celebrated every economic negative that they can find?

The Obama WH, Twitter, And Right Wing Pity Party Antics

The Modern American Right doesn't seem to understand that social networking is just that - social networking. You see someone or something you find interesting, you comment on it, link to it, remix it with some "keyboard cat", or simply just ignore it. And the one element that really sticks in their craw is that responding to them is apparently tantamount to taking a greasy, soft-serve, shit on the American Flag and then wiping your ass with no less than four pages of King James "scripture".

You think I'm kidding? Check these out:

When the White House named Jesse Lee as its Director of Progressive Media and Online Response to rebut criticisms on social-networking media, some people argued that the Obama administration had taken a big step toward becoming Big Brother. At the time, I argued that this was nonsense, and that the White House had a right to respond to criticism — but that Lee’s job was a task better left to the DNC, which traditionally served the role of political response. Instead of looking hip and timely, attacking Twitter users would make the Obama administration look petty and thin-skinned, and would diminish the seriousness and dignity of the Presidency. Punching below one’s weight is a strategy that never pays off.

Little did I know just how far below their weight the White House would punch. Heritage Foundation’s Rob Bluey analyzes Lee’s feed and discovers that 15% of all his rebuttals in the month since he took the job have been directed at one user, and it’s not Jake Tapper, Bret Baier, Chuck Todd, or even Rush Limbaugh or Glenn Beck. Instead, Lee has spent almost one-sixth of his twitter time rebutting … Kevin Eder.

President Obama's director of progressive media is obsessed with one particular conservative provocateur. Jesse Lee's duties at the White House include "online response" - and there has been no shortage of responses to one person who routinely communicates with him on Twitter.

Of the 267 tweets written by Lee in just over a month, a stunning 40 of them have been directed at Kevin Eder, a prolific Twitter user with more than 83,000 tweets to his credit. That means 15 percent of Lee's tweets - from an official White House account no less - have been with Eder.

One such example happened last week in a dispute over the budget.

Eder posted this tweet: "Hmm ... it can't be true that @SenateDems haven't passed a budget in 790 days and the only plan Obama has is a speech. Right, @jesseclee44?"

To which Lee responded: "@keder @SenateDems Plan is keep negotiating w/ Rs & Ds, not default & trash economy, not voucherize Medicare to fund more tax cuts for rich."

Lee's obsession has impressed Eder, even if he's a bit baffled by the White House's decision to engage with him so aggressively. (Obama to meet with congressional leadership to discuss debt ceiling)

The later screed is from none-other than a favorite "source" of Fox"Nation", the DailyCaller - the fringe Right online publication of none other than Tucker Carlson.

The source of the "story" aside, it's interesting to note that both Fox and Ed Morrissey are simultaneously panting Kevin Eder ( @keder as both a "no one" and a "powerhouse socio-political giant" all at once. After all, they have to keep their bases covered once they realize that this hack that happens to have internet access really isn't as bright as he boasts to be.

I've have had a few and witnessed many Twitter altercations with him before, so I can attest to his rank amateur status on several issues. But we'll save the fun stuff for later.

The question stands, really, as such: should Jesse Lee respond to or even marginally "call out" the obvious "trolling tactics" of a kid that displays about as much talking-point skill as Bernie Goldberg? I would actually offer yes, considering how the Modern American Right are want to "educate" the Left on their followers. What's good for the goose, you know.........

This, like a plurality of stories propagated by the likes of Morrissey and Fox"News", comes down to the concept of "framing". If the Obama White House doesn't respond, they are therefore scared of one random kid from the D.C. area. If they respond, they are "bullying". And the Left should respond to neither allegation, but focus purely on the so-called "merit" of what is presented to them - which they have.

As I tweeted to Eder earlier today, I'm starting to wonder when his first appearance as an "analyst" on Fox"News" will happen. After all, they do love to employ the unqualified.

Right Wing Entitlement Culture: Pt. II - The Media

UPDATE: Somehow I posted the unchecked, raw version of this post the other day without noticing it. So, in the spirit of showing you that I'm not a dithering buffoon who doesn't understand grammar, here's the version that should have been posted.

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

In the second installment of our series on Right Wing Entitlement Culture, we examine the singular aspect of the modern American landscape that the Right claims is largely against them - The Media.

While the Modern American Right continually blast the "Mainstream Media", it's interesting to note that they also love to blather endlessly about how Fox"News" enjoys a massive audience share that other outlets should be jealous of.

Admittedly, I do watch Fox"News" now and again, but not for the reasons that they claim most people do. More on that aspect of the Right and the media in America in a moment.

I thought I would start this off with what is likely the perfect example of Right Wing Entitlement machinations: a healthy dose of rank conjecture, conspiracy, and more than a sprinkling of insistence of victimhood.



Immediately Breitbart goes after his most prestigious foe - Media Matters. Not because they are explicitly wrong by using context and the precise and accurately accounted words of the Modern American Right and their Fox"News" masters, but because he has a metaphorical hard-on to see Eric Boehlert and company be proven false by any means necessary.

This is the first, and most shining example, of conservative framing - attack the messenger without merit.

In terms of O'Reilly's insistence that he and Fox"News" have proven that Media Matters is a sham operation funded almost exclusively by George Soros, he again references the demonstrably misleading chart of Soros's financial contributions to Media Matters - something Breitbart and Fox"News" have tried to do with NPR as well.

This is where Breitbart - accompanied by an easily convinced O'Reilly - start to make completely false connections with Media Matters, Daily Kos, and Anthony Weiner's staffers that is the perfect definition of "unfounded". What O'Reilly postulates is that simply because people question Breitbart's motives and sources, they are simply trying to "smear" him.

Here is where they actually got it wrong, though their instincts were right from the start.

Andrew Breitbart has been so eager to prove that his socio-political opposites are nothing but corrupt and immoral that he will distribute and champion material that he apparently doesn't properly vet. And for those that used this template as a rational for going after the story and it's credibility, they were wrong - this time.

Breitbart then tries to explain his specious and laughably poor "connections" by referencing the non-controversial Journolist story as if it were in any way controversial. But, to a Conservative or Libertarian, any way to besmirch media that you don't control automatically demands that you label it as controversial.

The pair then went full-on Beckian to insist that MSNBC, Media Matters, and the White House are in this together in order to attack Breitbart and Fox"News". Again, this is something that is not even provable or even in the realm of speculation. What Breitbart and O'Reilly are relying on is another piece of conservative framing - something that media outlets have decided to cover based on nothing more than the Right has said that it was true.

Certainly, Barack Obama has had meeting with bloggers and reporters that champion the Left, but he has be equally open to those on the Right. But, I suppose that O'Reilly and Breitbart think that since they have both not been invited to an exclusive "sit-down" with Obama that this means that there is some sinister plot to destroy them.

Immediately following, O'Reilly defends his network's easily probable track record - defending, championing, and even employing members of the Modern American Right - against attacks targeting them when Breitbart boasts it is simply "projection" by the Left. It's at this point in the "interview" that reality is completely turned on its head.

After Brietbart lambastes The Huffington Post for being a primary source for ensuring that conservative claims never see the light of day - something that simply doesn't happen - O'Reilly goes full on "you know they are going to try and kill you". And Breitbart is more than eager to embrace that meme. After all, conservative victimhood works to their advantage more often than most people are willing to admit.

With that said, I'm not going to state that people of any ideological stripe have not threatened Breitbart. But one has to question what those threats are and if they are real or just posturing. We have all seen where conservative rhetoric leads to.

So how does this "interview" express the very real aspect of Right Wing Entitlement Culture in relation to modern media?

Primarily, it demands that anyone within the Modern American Right never be accountable for their previous mistakes and favor a singular instance where they were correct. I'm reminded of the popular phrase that "a blind squirrel can find a nut every great once in a while".

Secondly, The Right demand on a daily basis that their framing be used as a primer for all media coverage. Unfortunately for those of Liberal/Progressive perspective, this is all too true - even though the opposition that makes these demands will never admit it. Just take a look at virtually all the Sunday Shows on all major networks and you will see this in action. The Modern American Right demand that all media push their narrative - regardless of its merit - again and again and again. This is where they get the term "Liberal Media Bias". If someone doesn't genuflect to their particular belief system then you are guilty of heresy of the highest order.

For classic examples of what Breitbart and O'Reilly are referencing, check here and here.

Let's get back to the notion that Fox"News" has such a large audience share because their "reporting" is accurate, yet they can't seem to embrace the idea that this would make them "mainstream".

I have stated many times that accurate reporting and ratings-share are mutually exclusive creatures and to state that one equals another is a complete fabrication. This equivocation is another form of Right Wing framing. If this were true, then it should cross over into all forms of communications to audiences: The film AVATAR would have been more factually accurate than The Hurt Locker, as more people saw the former at theatres than the later.

Also, employees of Fox"News" have also claimed that America is a nation that is "Center-Right", yet that flies in the face of the fact that a plurality oppose the views that Fox and their compatriots champion.

The job of the American Media is to report the events of the day. When those events are beginning to be largely shaped by Right Wing ideology - and the media doesn't accept that premise - those that are attempting to shape it consider themselves being attacked by those they are attempting to control. This is the very nature of Right Wing Entitlement culture in relation to media.

Essentially, they are spoiled children being told that they can't have all that they want all the time. The reality is that their socio-political opponents are not in control the way they are being presented as.

Pro Versus Anti-Honesty

Having had someone close to me be faced with the choice - and yes, it is a choice - of abortion or having her life or the life of her unborn child be put at risk, I find the continued drumbeat of Fox"News" and the Modern American Right that anyone of opposing political alignment is purely a "pro-abortion" party to be simply ridiculous.

But, they seem to have their hooks in their easily lead droogies, so why should they give it up?



What Fox and the Right are missing is the fact that the platform of "choice" is not about a woman sitting around at her house going "jeez, if only I could get pregnant just so I could have an abortion". Nor is their insistence that Planned Parenthood is nothing more than an "abortion mill" even remotely accurate.

The choice that a woman makes is hers, not that of an alleged "law-maker" that doesn't even know her or her situation. The choice of a woman is not taken lightly, as they would have you believe. The choice of a woman is all to often that of life and death - and not in the fashion that the Right would have many of us believe.

This, more than anything, is about control and regulation of the reproductive system of women all across America - regardless of what is written on their voter registration card. Sadly, the Modern American Right still view women as second class citizens, no matter how many times they shove Sarah Palin in our faces.

How Far Is "Far Left"?

That's a question I have been asking myself for quite a while now.

Every time you hear someone within the Modern American Right use the term "Far Left", you have to look at the person using it and then ask yourself what their metric is for "Centrist" first.

It's quite the dizzying experience, as there is no true metric for this at all - it's just a talking point that sounds great and apparently tests well with the viewing audience of Fox"News" and conservative talk radio and blogs.

It's with that in mind that I never use the term "Far Right", as that would make as much sense as my political adversaries using the alternate term. I have opted for the more honest and encompassing phrase "Modern American Right". And while some may claim that that term is far too "general", I would offer that it is both accurate and historic based on our current socio-political climate.

But back to the definition at hand...........

I first started considering how the Modern American Right would define this back when Bush was still occupying the White House while watching Bill O'Reilly - as he was want to use the term during literally every segment of his program, and still does to this day.

His style is so dry and predictably flaccid that it became apparent that he would even call my grandmother - at the time an 88 year old woman that new nothing but farm life in Western Kentucky who just happened changed her political alignment sometime after Reagan's re-election but to this day is still one of the more conservative women I have ever known - a member of the "Far Left".

Then there's Glenn Beck......

Honestly, I think he would call his own children "Far Left" if they even wanted him to rent "Where The Wild Things Are" on DVD.

So, what about Sean Hannity? Sarah Palin? Fox and Friends? Heck, Neil Cavuto?

The truth of the matter is that the Modern American Right can't define that term. But I can.

"Far Left" simply means that any person who does not think Fox"News" is a legitimate source of news, thinks that women have the right to choose, thinks that workers have the right to organize, thinks that healthcare is a right, thinks that..............well, you see where this is going, don't you.

Anyone that even modestly disagrees with the Modern American Right will be labeled as a fringe extremist that is obviously hell-bent on tossing the country into the ever burning abyss of fire and damnation. And that's putting it mildly.

Are their sub-classifications of both Left and Right political alignment? Of course, but you aren't going to get that from Fox or even from some Left/Progressive sources. The reason is that, all too often, we get enraptured with the idea that painting something as "extreme" will elevate our own point of view. And for the Modern American Right, they are champs at distorting whom their socio-political opposites are.

Decision Time

Fox"News" is practically beside themselves over Palin's upcoming "Hey, I'm On A Bus Again" show and how this likely means that she's running for President.





Let's not mince words on this - Palin loves her "celebrity stature" and will not give that up if she doesn't have to. And there are lots of things that Palin would have to give up if she won:

- No more "speaking engagements" where she gets paid above and beyond what anyone of her faux intellectual level should get paid.

- No more "campaigning"; since as we all know, the Modern American Right can't stand it when people "campaign all the time".

- No more "reality TV shows", because she'll have to be making important decisions now rather than trying to pretend that her and her family and just "normal, real, Americans".

- No longer can she be in the employ of Fox"News".

But wait, would she really be giving all that up if she did win? Do you think Fox"News", talk radio, and her drooling sychophants would let her?

I'm not going to convince myself that she isn't going to run, nor am I going to be afraid that she would win, since there are enough people within the Modern American Right that will realize that as the days draw closer to election day 2012, that they can't afford to have someone like Palin in the White House.

Sure, she won't be doing it alone - as all Presidents have various advisers and cabinet members - but at the end of the day, this is the woman that quit ( and yes, she quit ) when the political pressure got to her. Obama has had to endure more pressure and specious scandal than Palin could possibly imagine, and he hasn't quit.

As far as myself, I say bring her on. And when she does announce - and she will - we are going to see infighting within the Modern American Right the likes of which no one has seen in a generation - possibly ever.

Yes, He Did: Pt. IV - What Will Make Them Happy

When I watched clip last night over at the Right Wing "hate-site" Fox"Nation", it finally became clear to me that it's not Obama that's making the successful killing of Bin Laden about him, it's the Modern American Right that's making it all about Obama:



I'll get back to how this "breaking news" is more about Fox's/The Right's own agenda than about what actually happened that day in New York.

Moreover, I seriously question the validity of Debra Burlingame's version of her encounter with Obama, considering her personal disdain with our President.

And while some will say that it's not right to question a woman that lost so much on Sept. 11th 2001, I feel that it's only intellectually honest to do so based on her preconceived notions of who Obama is and what he has done. After all, he gave the "go-ahead" order that lead to the death of the man that was responsible for the death of her husband.

But more on that portion of the story later.

While the Modern American Right remains to be unmoved by the implications of what has happened over the course of the last two weeks - that Obama has proven has was born in America and has brought down the most wanted terrorist in the world - I have to ask what else he has to do that will make them understand that his presidency is more of a success than the Bush Administration.

Considering the metric by which the Modern American Right operate, the bar is set so high that no one - not even someone they have deified - would be able to claim such a title.

Not Palin, not Trump, not Bachmann, no anyone.

Why is that?

The truth, despite what the Modern American Right will insist upon reads as such:

Obama must be impeached or defeated in the General Election.

And while I am given pause to relate the third and final prerequisite for Right Wing happiness, it shouldn't be ignored that some within their ranks openly and unflinchingly pray for his own death.

Anyone remember the Death Prayer movement?

Again, what does this man have to do?

Walk on water?

Cure the sick with a touch of his hand?

Make NASCAR a more interesting event?

The metric for acceptability lies purely within the hand of the Modern American Right. And no matter what happens, it seems they won't have any of it until he accepts George W. Bush into his heart as his "personal savior".

Sad.

Of Family And Opportunities Not Wasted

I'll preface this post with the following:

Every time I see people within the Modern American Right speak about the need to find a "missing person" ( usually a white female as evidenced by multiple reports from Fox"News" over recent years ) there's a palatable undertone that is eventually coupled with a variety of "issues of the moment" - immigration, minority gangs, religion, media. The later two take center stage in this particular incident.

Malkin goes after NPR and Muslim comedian Maz Jabrini in an attempt to show that the public radio station and Muslims are "attacking her and her family":

If the obscure and has-been comedians who appear on National Public Radio want to mock conservatives and spread left-wing propaganda, they should do it on their own damned dime.

The government-sponsored radio conglomerate broadcasts a weekend show called “Wait Wait…Don’t Tell Me!” It leans heavily on laugh tracks to prop up the lame punchlines of the likes of liberal humorist Paula Poundstone and describes its purpose thusly: “Wait Wait… Don’t Tell Me! is NPR’s weekly hour-long quiz program. Each week on the radio you can test your knowledge against some of the best and brightest in the news and entertainment world while figuring out what’s real news and what’s made up.”

The “best and brightest” include a Muslim comedian named Maz Jabrani, whom NPR has been promoting as “the face of Middle Eastern humor in America today.”

Judging from his latest bit performed on this weekend’s show, the face of Middle Eastern humor looks a lot like the face of your typical CAIR mouthpiece. Tea Party-bashers Ron Schiller and Vivian Schiller may be gone and the House may have defunded the public radio enterprise, but the conservatives=racist smear narrative is alive and well at NPR.

There are just a few problems with Malkin's claims ( and I'm not just talking about her insistence that it's a "canned laugh track" used in the program - like the one Fox"News" used on their own short lived and teeth gnashingly poor Half Hour News Hour ) about the program. The primary of which is twofold: that this was a direct assault on her family and her missing cousin and the allusion that NPR is primarily funded by taxpayer dollars.

And while Malkin is want to use issues of race, culture, religious background - and just about anything "non-right-wing" about a person to elevate her own ideological failings - what she is missing is that this particular skit on NPR is predicated on the notion that some people are going to fall for a particular story simply based on it's sensational nature. How ironic.

All one has to do is take a listen to the audio provided by NPR ( which Malkin even linked, mind you ) to realize that the story was false, as even the hosts revealed. Jabrini was using the continued notion of "birtherism" - something still rampant within the Modern American Right - in satirical fashion simply because so many people actually believe it.

Does the fact that a member of a person's family is going through a potentially tragic moment in their life mean that the person, like Malkin, in question is now officially immune to criticism? No. But to justify that based on how members of the Modern American Right act wouldn't exactly be fair either.

People like Michelle Malkin don't listen to NPR unless they are provided with a "tip" that there was allegedly something said that could be construed as "inflammatory" towards the Right in America that just might make for a good soundbite or talking point on their particular blog or on a Fox"News" program. That's the reality of how this story - and virtually all stories Malkin and her ilk are formulating regarding NPR - is gaining traction.

And while just about everyone within the Modern American Right will go to bat for Malkin anytime she misinforms, distorts, and fabricates herself, there's even a popular Right Wing blog that can't even get the clear and readily apparent facts straight on Malkin's missing family member.

But this is to be expected, when they are just as much "concerned" with distorting and misinforming about NPR as they are about finding this young woman.

Do I hope that this young woman is found? Of course. But I don't think we should sit idly by while Malkin uses this incident as a stick to beat her ideological opponents with. That, despite what she claims about NPR, is something that is truly disgusting.

EXIT QUESTION: Could NPR or their guests have known about Malkin's cousin prior to the recording of this program? I'm sure that they could have - provided that you work up your material predicated on the fact that you specifically look for information on your subject based solely on a potentially tragic incident involving a "non-immediate" family member.

Free Market Ignorance

And I thought people like Fox"News" and the crazies they get some of their best material from were supposed to understand how "choice and competition" work.



Stupid doesn't burn much more than that.

Right Winger Says What?

In which Fox"News" cobbles together a panel designed to create the appearance of "balance" and "knowledge" only to have Micheal Scheuer come up with this whopper of a line at the 1:47 mark.



So, Americans hoping for a Democracy in a foreign country that is primarily Muslim are now labeled "Marxists"? Wait, the modern American Right are now Marxists because of what they wanted for Iraq and Afghanistan?

And this guy was allegedly some "terrorism expert"?

ASIDE: While Scheuer's laughable proclamation stands on it's own as a signifier of precisely how "buzzword crazy" the Right has gone in the last two years, it's almost equally as worthy to note how the modern American Right are worried about Egypt not being sufficiently "secular" while all but demanding Theocratic Rule here in America.

Contender Saturation Point

Has the modern American Right worked itself into such a frenzy over finding anyone to defeat Obama in the upcoming 2012 election cycle that they have already been defeated themselves?

That was my first thought after watching this?



And the Right are clearly not pleased when their overzealous nature in regards to "trumping" Obama's ability at a second term.

Just think about the names that are already in the contender pool: Palin, Bachman, Huckabee, Romney, Santorum, Gingrich, Paul, and Trump. Not one of them has the solid credentials that the modern American Right claim are required, save perhaps Romney. And as far as Trump is concerned, he's more of a "self-promoter" and is likely doing this simply to boost his own visibility.

This is the problematic nature of the Right's 2012 narrative - favoring the gimmick, the rhetoric, over solid policy for the country. It seems that with every news cycle, the current situation in Egypt for example, the Right is more concerned with speaking about how Obama is failing at handling it, while not offering examples of how it should be handled.

Make no mistake, the 2012 election cycle is now in full swing, and it's already getting quite interesting.

EXIT QUESTION: After Ron Paul swept the CPAC straw poll last year, and Fox"News" doing their best to spin it as a fluke, or that the Paulbots rigged the results, who do you think will win this year. Certainly not Palin, as this is the third year in a row she snubbed the convention.

The Airing Of Grievances

While the true face of Fox is celebrating the Palin/Santorum fight, there's always the morning damage control team to count on to provide the "context" needed.



It's not a surprise that Palin - the candidate that Fox"News" will ultimately back for President in 2012 - is tasked to challenge any and every high level GOP member just to see how the Right Wing voting populace will react. Once it looks like Palin has made sufficient headway, her target is then tasked with bowing out from the fight as gracefully as possible in order to save enough face with the modern American Right that they can continue to be seen as a relevant voice.

Their games are so transparent, aren't they......

It Wasn't A Boxing Match

That, however, doesn't stop Fox"News" from claiming that there should be a "winner" to talk about.

Really?




.....but it wasn't much of an interview either.



Granted, this was the first part of a multi-part interview in which O'Reilly was more concerned with ratings rather than conducing any type of hard-hitting Q&A session.

And right on schedule, the fine, patriotic, folks at Fox"Nation" are framing the interview in their predictable way - and allowing unblushing racism and calls for assassination to go unchallenged.

But what else would one expect from Fox and their audience.

Idiots On Both Sides

Naturally, Glenn Beck would weigh in on this in order to malign anyone within the liberal/progressive movement.



Funny how he is doing exactly what he told people NOT to do in reference to the Tea Baggers that have repeatedly been caught using racial divisiveness and blatant and unblushing racist language.

And while the reactionary Right in America are falling over themselves trying to show that it's really the Left that are the racists, there is one thing that separates what happened at the Koch's event and what happens each and every time a Tea Bagger is highlighted for their racial animus - the Left actually holds people accountable while clearly admitting that not everyone in attendance at any event is going to be a "perfect" person.

Common Cause, the group hosting the Florida even where Breitbart and his crew shot the video in question, has released this statement:

Common Cause condemns bigotry, hateful statements caught on film at rally

Common Cause’s 40 year history of holding power accountable has been marked by a commitment to decency and civility – in public and private. So we are of course outraged to find that a few of those attending the events around a gathering Common Cause helped to organize Sunday near Palm Springs voiced hateful, narrow-minded sentiments to an interviewer in the crowd.

We condemn bigotry and hate speech in every form, even when it comes from those who fancy themselves as our friends.

Anyone who has attended a public event has encountered people whose ideas or acts misrepresented, even embarrassed, the gathering. Every sporting event has its share of “fans” whose boorish behavior on the sidelines makes a mockery of good sportsmanship; every political gathering has a crude sign-painter or epithet-spewing heckler.

We organized the “Uncloak the Kochs” panel discussion and took part in the rally afterwards to call public attention to the political power of Koch Industries and other corporations, their focus on expanding that power, and the dangers it presents to our democracy.

We’re committed to staging other forums and public events in the coming months to continue that effort. We urge all Americans of good will to join us.

Those on tape who made these pointless and ridiculous statements are just as bad as the Tea Baggers that make equal claims against their opponents. They are both a pox on their respective movements and should be pointed out as such. However, the modern American Right are more intent on framing this as a failure of American popular media as well as a way to white-wash their own failures.

Once the initial claim broke that ALL within the Tea Bagger caliphate were racists, I knew that this would spell trouble for the Left in America - as it wasn't true. Certainly, there are more than enough racists in the modern American Right to have to deal with at any given "party gathering", but to paint the entire group with the same brush is dishonest. I think there are even some I would regard as my political opposition that just might be able to exercise the intellectual honesty to admit even as much.

The only problem is that a majority of Tea Bagger allies are more content to point the finger in the opposite direction - or even reinforce the Left's claims by trying to be clever - and cast aside accountability ( allegedly a cornerstone of conservative ideology ) in total.

The Left in this country would do well to speak out about this clip, but do so in an honest fashion that not only points out that racial animus can cross party lines but showcase how the modern American Right are continuing with the same debunked narrative - that it's not them.

Floating The Understudy

I noticed early on that Palin was already being used as a "comparison metric" for the incoming Tea Bagger class of Congressional Representatives, and now it seems like Fox"News" is pushing the American Right prerequisite of "you must be pretty" in order to be taken seriously.



Yeah, and I'm guessing that most people on Fox think that Micheal Bay films are great simply because there are lots of "special effects".

Here's an early prediction - Noem will be offered a show on Fox"News" before the next Congressional elections, or maybe as a result of.

Let's Talk About Me

It was a given that Palin would do this, because it's ultimately all about her anyway. And just a tip for Sean, it's hardly an "exclusive" when she's practically sitting in everyone's lap at Fox"News" on any given day.

So let's get started:



Just to get this out of the way, and as I've said it before, if conservatives don't want this to be about Palin, then they should stop pushing the narrative that it is about her. Also, the Left in America should also be prepared to listen to her clearly coached and couched responses in the metaphorical game of "T-Ball" that she is playing with Sean.

In classic form, and has been the Right Wing narrative du jour in light of what Loughner did in Tuscon, Palin has to make the equivalency argument. If anything is intellectually more dishonest than ignoring the fact that heated and even violent rhetoric - from any side - is without consequence, then that point of view absolutely is. But to follow that canted form of logic all the way through, you didn't hear anyone on the Left talking about "Second Amendment solutions", or have seen anyone from the Left take a gun to a political rally, or even talk about "the blood of tyrants". Those instances are true exclusivities for the modern American Right.

There is something that Palin said - which she initially mentioned in her "blood libel video sermon" - that it's about the message. But that was ultimately lost when she insisted that if her, or Rush, or Hannity were to go silent then America would surely fail because of the loss of "civil" debate. Civility and the modern American Right are mutually exclusive creatures, as anyone who has listened to the noise being vomited up by them can surely understand.



One of the most prominent traits of the modern American Right is that it's never about what they say, but about who does and who doesn't report on it in the fashion that they feel entitled to. Certainly, Palin has come out against violence - as virtually every big name within the Right Wing does when something like this happens - but those reasonable intonements are always drowned out by the bombast and platitudes that boil back up to the surface within days, or even hours, of an event like Tuscon being over.

More to the point, this really isn't about what Palin claims to want, or even what her mouth agape followers claim she believes; nor about what Olbermann, Maddow, O'Reilly, Hannity, or Beck report on, as it's about how Right Wing themes are processed and rationalized by a person as mentally unstable as Loughner. These types of violent actions never happen in a vacuum, something Palin either doesn't understand or isn't willing to admit.



Now we finally see where Palin is uncomfortable - as she rightly should be - when even lightly pressed about her misuse and historical ignorance of the term "blood libel". Rather than speak about why she - or her writing staff, actually - would use such a term, Palin fumbles straight into a diversionary tactic of talk about "timing", and Congress, and what this country "needs". The "timing" of her statement - to my knowledge - has never been an issue with the Left in America, as we are more focused on the message itself.

Moreover, it was apparent to many that Palin's handlers got the "blood libel" talking point directly from the Wall Street Journal - not exactly the bastion of liberalism that Palin seems to be hinting that it is.

Palin seemed less prepared toward the end of the interview. Did she know, or even consider, that Hannity would ask about the "blood libel" portion of her speech? He even read the part where Palin admitted that violent acts can be spurred by the catalyst of heated and violent rhetoric, but she wasn't at all troubled with that being repeated. But in the end, the goal was achieved - at least in reference to those who watched the interview for some sort of validation that Palin is somehow this morally incorruptible and superior creature. Conversely, if you watched this hoping that there would be some new revelation about Palin, her tainted socio-political history, and what will clearly be her future, you didn't get much of anything.

As an aside, I noticed that not once did either Palin or Hannity mention Glenn Beck - a fellow employee at Fox"News" who makes a considerable living doing the things that they claim that the modern American Right doesn't. Was this an unconscious act or do they know that Beck needs to be swept under the carpet right now so people don't pay that much attention to him?

At the end of the day, nothing has changed - not Hannity, not Rush, and most certainly not Palin. I don't want any of them to "sit down and shut up", as they are doing such a wonderful job of proving our points for us.

An Injection Of Race And Reagan

Call me insensitive, but I could care less that it's close to the 100th anniversary of Ronald Reagan. I'm sure that there will be more than enough Zombie Reagan deification on Fox"News" and their sister hate-site Fox"Nation" to satiate even the most ardent of Gipper-lovers. But this piece by Reagan's adopted child Micheal is a classic representation of the memes of the modern American Right - make Reagan look on par with Jesus and frame stories about Obama within the context of race.

the past two years have made one thing clear: Ronald Reagan was a far better friend to black Americans than Barack Obama has been. Just compare the Reagan and Obama records. Under Obama, black unemployment rose from 12.6 percent in January 2009 to 16.0 percent today. This means that black unemployment has increased by more than one-fourth since Obama took office.

And the Reagan record? African-American columnist Joseph Perkins has studied the effects of Reaganomics on black America. He found that, after the Reagan tax cuts gained traction, African-American unemployment fell from 19.5 percent in 1983 to 11.4 percent in 1989. Black-owned businesses saw income rise from $12.4 billion in 1982 to $18.1 billion in 1987-an annual average growth rate of 7.9 percent. The black middle class expanded by one-third during the Reagan years, from 3.6 million to 4.8 million.

Before he was elected, in speech after speech, my father said that his economic plan would improve the lives of African-Americans. In a February 1977 CPAC address, he said, "The time has come for Republicans to say to black voters: 'We offer principles that black Americans can and do support. We believe in jobs, real jobs; we believe in education that is really education; we believe in treating all Americans as individuals and not as stereotypes or voting blocs.'"

The first thing any reasonable reader will notice is the Michael is comparing almost the entire Reagan Era to one year of Obama's Presidency. The phrase "gaining traction" also leads one to understand that economic policies aren't ones that give instant gratification.

Aside from that, Michael's claims are grounded in ham-fisted representations of the realities of the 80s, relying on his citation of a "African-American" columnist to burnish his claims not on value, but on the fact that he is referencing a black man.

But moreover, this piece shows the bizarre set of standards that the modern American Right has when speaking of race, the American economy, and Presidents. Any mention of black and Obama - in regards to policy, proclamations, or initiatives - immediately results in people like Fox"News" and their talk radio allies shouting "Reparations", "Favoritism", or "White Slavery". And this piece also echoes Erik Rush's claim that Obama's "blackness" should be called into question.

At the end of the day, this is one of three things that the modern American Right only has in their rebuttal arsenal: Fear, Race, and Ignorance. While the first can work across all platforms and the later ultimately has a cure, the incessant prattling about Race from the Right will either be denied or amplified depending upon whether or not they can get any non-whites to agree with them.

Some Thoughts On The Loughner Timeline

Conservative are all in a twitchy rage that Jared Loughner became disgruntled with Gabby Giffords back in 2007 - before Palin and before the Tea Baggers.

Well, then why didn't he take after her then?

Seriously, what has transpired in the past 3+ years that would have amplified his already apparent rage?

- The rise of people like Palin and Beck who continually stoke the fires of anti-government sentiment

- The creation of the Tea Baggers ( funded/promoted in virtually exclusive fashion by conservative, corporate interests in order to stoke the aforementioned anti-government sentiment )

- Arizona becomes hot-bed of conservative rage in reference to immigration

- Fox"News" perpetuates specious claims about Democratic officials on a daily basis

- Conservative talk radio returns to Clinton era narratives and cranks up the volume to 11.

All this BEFORE the creation of Loughner's YouTube clips on a page that was created less than four months ago.

Is anyone else not noticing this or even talking about this?

This notion that recent events within the American socio-political landscape had nothing to do with Loughner's actions don't mesh with reality in the least.

A Tale Of Two Arizona Sheriffs

Strange that I haven't seen anyone mention this yet, but has anyone else noticed that the Right have embraced an Arizona Sheriff with noted Far-Right ties while attacking an Arizona Sheriff for claiming that Far-Right rhetoric is dangerous?

The current headline at Fox"Nation" - where a plurality of posts since Saturday have either been about protecting Palin or demonizing anyone that wants to look at how Right Wing violent language could be to blame - is about a call to have Sheriff Dupnik resign. Fox"News" is also on the beat, calling him a Far-Left Sheriff.

Odd that the same people that chastise this man for doing his job - that is to look into every possible option, even ones that don't sit well with some of the voting public - are openly defending Sheriff Joe Arpaio.

( Aside: while the links in question do book-end one another quite nicely, considering they are from the same sources, it would appear that O'Reilly is attempting to justify and excuse the actions of the Right - where like threats are certainly being leveled at Sheriff Dupnik - by saying "hey, the other side does this too". Equivalency is such a stupid game. )

Where's the logic in a Sheriff in Arizona that is linked with Neo-Nazis gets a pass from the Right and Fox"News" while Sheriff Dupnik gets bombarded by the Right for insisting that violent rhetoric has consequences?