So, Does This Mean That's She's "In The Tank" Now?

It appears that Jenna Bush-Hager, the former party-girl, secret-service dodging hooligan, and daughter of W is going to be working for the network that her father's administration was none to fond of.

NBC's "Today" show has hired someone with White House experience as a new correspondent – former first daughter Jenna Hager.

The daughter of former President George W. Bush will contribute stories about once a month on issues like education to television's top-rated morning news show, said Jim Bell, its executive producer.

Hager, a 27-year-old teacher in Baltimore, said she has always wanted to be a teacher and a writer, and has already authored two books. But she was intrigued by the idea of getting into television when Bell contacted her.

One can but wonder why she wasn't offered a job @ Fox; or if she even was.

Look What I Can Do!!!!

(m)Ann Coulter's on air antics and inane ramblings remind me of the Stewart character from Mad TV. She never answers a question directly, never does what she's asked, and don't even think about questioning her or getting to close to her. And the two are the greatest attention-whores ever. The sad part is, Coulter is a real person



On Hannity and Colmes, (m)Ann wasn't so much pimping her latest bundle of sophomoric nonsense as she was complaining about being a "victim". Interestingly enough, her book is about victimhood. Gee, how ironic.

*****For some reason, the Fox"News" embed isn't working. So, check out the great coverage from Newshounds for boths parts of the interview and further insight.*****

The best part of the whole interview is when Ann talks about how the left "hate" marriage and Colmes said "If you love marriage, you'd be married by now, wouldn't you?”. Classic.

Coulter was falling all over herself when speaking to Harry Smith on CBS - who, btw, did a far better job at letting Coulter what he really thought:


Watch CBS Videos Online

I don't think she was prepared for most of what Smith said to her.

Then, there was the inevitable interview with NBC.

While Matt Lauer made a rather poor attempt at holding Coulter's cloven-hoof to the fire, he honestly tried to validate her ham-fisted commentary about "single-motherhood".

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy

I'm still trying to wrap my head around Coulter's assertion that Matt Drudge is somehow a shining example of journalistic integrity. Perhaps the one, and only, reason that his site has never had to retract anything is that the only people that give him any creedance, and shread of validity, are people like (m)Ann Coulter.

The one thing that people should take away from this, in yet another line of seemingly endless Coulter manufactured controversies, is that she needs the alleged "liberal press" that she so loves to loathe. It is her, not her detractors, that is the "victim" in this sociopolitical obsurd theatre.

(m)Ann Coulter will never be able to address issues from a rational perspective. She won't be able to listen to the world because she is Narcisus' daughter - so in love with her own voice, so enamoured with her fucking hair, that she won't hear or see what people outside her limited sphere of undertanding actually go through in their life.

Her next book would be aptly titled "Look At Me! : How Major Networks Fall For The Same Schtick Year After Year."

Terrorist*

Brian Williams: Back to the notion of terrorists and terrorism, this word has come up in relation to Mr. Ayers -- hanging out with terrorist – domestic terrorists. It is said that it gives it a vaguely post uh 9-11 hint, using that word, that we don’t normally associate with domestic crimes. Are we changing the definition? Are the people who set fire to American cities during the ‘60’s terrorists, under this definition? Is an abortion clinic bomber a terrorist under the definition?

Sarah Palin: There is no question that Bill Ayers via his own admittance was um one who sought to destroy our US Capitol and our Pentagon -- that is a domestic terrorist. There’s no question there. Now others who would want to engage in harming innocent Americans or um facilities, that uh, it would be unacceptable -- I don’t know if you could use the word terrorist, but its unacceptable and it would not be condoned of course on our watch. I don’t know if what you are asking is if I regret referring to Bill Ayers as an unrepentant domestic terrorist. I don’t regret characterizing him as that.

Brian Williams: I’m just asking what other categories you would put in there. Abortion clinic bombers? Protesters in cities where fires were started, Molotov cocktails, were thrown? People died.

Sarah Palin: I would put in that category of Bill Ayers anyone else who would seek to destroy our United States Capitol and our Pentagon and would seek to destroy innocent Americans.

Why couldn't she just say "yes"?

It's not a difficult question. It isn't designed to back Palin into a corner - though this will be painted as such by conservative bloggers and Fox"News". It's almost a guarantee.

Palin is very trainable, as is readily apparent in any and all interviews that are not conducted by members of Fox"News". She calls up her script with such ease that she often doesn't realize that she isn't even answering the question, even when offered a second chance.

Then again, perhaps she is avoiding applying the "terrorist" label to those that wish to harm those that she - and her party - are opposed to.

The later is highly likely.

Predictability : Michelle Malkin Whines About NBC And The Olympics

I had thought about prefacing this blog with the phrase "if someone at NBC had come up with the cure for cancer, Michelle Malkin would find a way to bitch about it".

But seeing as how it is the conservatives that tend to live in the "what if" world rather than the one that most people inhabit, I'll skip that and get right to the point.

Michelle Malkin - as well as those that follower her as if she has some hypnotic musk or perhaps a tractor-beam emanating from her evry orafice - seems to think that NBC is "supporting" or "glossing over" the fact that China is a "communist" nation.

True, China is censoring the internet, certain members of the press have been detained, people were removed, dust-masks were seen as insults, and some are even claiming that Bejing is becoming a massive police-state for this years events.

If Bejing were a dangerous place to hold the games, the IOC would most likely have not chosen it, don't you think?

But, the Olympics are about a coming-together of nations where a sort-of common ground can be shared and the spirit of competitiveness and sportsmanship is shared and learned from.

I'm opting not to watch the Olympics this year simply because I've lost interest in them.

True, as a former competitive swimmer, I'm hoping that Micheal Phelps gets all 8 golds that he is striving for, but I'm not going to watch - no other reason than I just don't feel like it.

Enter "The Pursed-Lipped-One", Michelle Malkin.

Malkin needs - no DEMANDS - that you have a reason that you are watching the Olympics, demands that you rationalize your reasoning of "supporting" NBC. She demands that NBC fall into lock-step with her and her followers. She ( and a few others ) seem to think that NBC is somehow "glossing over" the fact that the games are being held in China.

So, what do Malkin and her fellow compatriots do? They do what they always do - complain without offering a reasonable solution and ( their favorite tactic ) using Photoshop.

Seriously, if your ability to proficiently execute all the options available through Photoshop somehow made you a respectable and praise-worthy blogger, then Malkin and her reactionary-minions might be something to marvel at.

The truth is, it doesn't and she's not.

You're not going to hear about other protests, other activists' voices quoted, other's statements of disapproval echoed by Malkin unless she has "approval" of them alread. Why would the woman want to talk about anything that she didn't think of to begin with.

This whole "China-Bad-NBC-Bad-Malkin-Smash" schtick brings up an interesting point.

Why is it that so many people wait for a "world-event" to talk about things like nations censoring their citizens, governments removing any form of civil liberties, segregation, genocide, et al?

The reason is, to me at least, it gives them ( Malkin in particular ) the false-glow of "awareness".

You see, we like to admire people who pretend to know what they are talking about.

I'll be up front and tell you that I am ignorant about many things that I should know plenty about. But I learn. I read. I listen. I rationalize. I process and make informed, reasonable, logical decisions.

If there's one thing that I know of, one thing that I can say unequivocally, it is that Malkin has never supplied a "solution" to anything.

Well, That Didn't Take Long - Right Wing Bloggers Foam At The Mouth Over NBC's Purchase Of The Weather Channel

In a previous post here, I hypothesized that the right-wing bloggers that find fascism, socialism, and pretty much every 'ism there is available within media that they don't understand ( read : media that doesn't fit into their canted, ideological view of the world ).

It appears though, that I was incorrect in my assumption. It turns out that this Ed Morrissey guy ( who appears to be taking over the HotAir site from Michelle Malkin - can she not do anything right? ) has launched in with his complaints:

The Weather Channel has been a major advocate for global-warming policies. Combining it with the Keith Olbermann/Chris Matthews network will probably result in a major release of greenhouse gases on its own. Given NBC’s inability to impose even a modicum of balance and objectivity at MS-NBC, we can expect Jeff Zucker to use this new outfit as a platform on which to push even harder for statist policies on energy production and use.

Wow Ed, way to cram as many fear-inducing names into one paragraph as you can. Let's see, you've got global-warming right up front - that will score points with the Hannity crowd. Then you've got Olbermann AND Tweety back-to-back. Not pulling any punches, are we? Oh, but you can forget the catalyst of conservative hysteria, the source of sleepless nights for Malkin, Coulter, O'Reilly, Ailes, and Murdock - the dreaded MSNBC. Ooooooh, so scary. And you polished it off with a good-ole reference to "statist policies".

Seriously, it's the fucking weather channel.

But, the start of the piece kind of caught me off guard:

NBC Universal announced a $3.5 billion acquisition of The Weather Channel, helped along by Mitt Romney’s firm, Bain Capital.

Maybe i'm just reading more into this than I should. Why is it relevant that Mitt's firm would be mention so up front like that? There are several probable reasons, none of which make much sense to me right now.

But seriously, it's the fucking weather channel.

Here's some of the comments from the HotAir piece:


This guy wins the award for rehashing Bill O'Reilly's rambling hysteria.

Don’t forget GE and its “progressive” CEO Jeff Immelt. He’s in the hot seat. GE tank has tanked big time. The WSJ today has a piece on Immelt’s problems as head of GE. This won’t help restore GE’s image as America’s prime industrial/technological entity.

In case you haven’t noticed, the libs are grabbing hold of corporate America. It started with the Silicon Valley type co’s, but now reaches into industrial companies. Bad, bad news.

JiangxiDad on July 7, 2008 at 1:19 PM

This one is just too hillarious.

This is the point that FOXNEWS needs to create a competing Weather Channel.

“The Weather Changes”. Observance of and predictions for the infinitely variable atmostphere of our planet.

Motto: Cyclones are the only Spin you’ll get here.

babylonandon on July 7, 2008 at 1:42 PM

Then this guy dives right into the shallow end of the pool - head first.

Given NBC’s inability to impose even a modicum of balance and objectivity at MS-NBC, we can expect Jeff Zucker to use this new outfit as a platform on which to push even harder for statist policies on energy production and use.

A global tax is the ultimate aim. If Obama wins, this will be one of the major objectives. You read it here, as I repeat myself on some topics.

Entelechy on July 7, 2008 at 1:45 PM

And I have NO idea what this guy is even attempting to say.

So how many Nothing But Crap channels will this make?

Anyone else notice the weather channel temperature maps are being recalibrated, making them appear more orange-red. The shift seems to come by making the inflection point about 70 instead of about 75, Subtle propaganda, now the whole US map appears orange or red in the summer.

How soon before they all get the orders?

I wonder why they are doing that? I notice our local channel still has the old style ‘cooler’ maps where about a third of the country appears blue-green.

tarpon on July 7, 2008 at 1:45 PM

So, is it Marxists, Fascists, Communists, Socialists. These guys can't even make up their minds.

Looks like Marxists are even taking over the weather…If Fauxbama does get into the White House, I’m going to feel like I’m in the middle of “Invasion of the Marxist Body Snatchers” Isn’t anyone going to expose this fraud???? Where’s my country indeed………..

adamsmith on July 7, 2008 at 3:28 PM

These people are offically insane.

Will The Weather Have A Liberal Bias Now?

NBC is set to buy The Weather Channel:

NEW YORK — NBC Universal and two partners said Sunday they have reached a deal to buy The Weather Channel from Landmark Communications Inc., ending a drawn-out process that had attracted interest from several major media companies.

Financial terms weren't disclosed, but a person familiar with the matter who insisted on anonymity said the purchase price was $3.5 billion in cash. NBC was joined in the deal by the private equity firms The Blackstone Group LP and Bain Capital LLC.

In addition to The Weather Channel, which can be seen by 97 percent of U.S. cable subscribers, the deal also includes several related assets such as weather services for newspapers and radio stations and the widely used Web site Weather.com.

Nevermind the fact that the amount of cash that NBC is getting ready to throw down for The Weather Channel is not only going to buy the cable channel, but don't you think that NBC could have bought something better?

The Weather Channel?

Sure, Storm Stories can be pretty interesting, maybe even a little cool, but all I'm seeing with this purchase is more fuel for the Fox"News'" fire. And by that, I'm speaking about Bill O'Reilly.

He's made it his mission to try and pin everything from fluctuating stock prices, media bias, and bad goings-on in the alleged "war on terror" on Jeffery Immelt - who happens to be the CEO of GE.

So, what does this have to do with NBC buying The Weather Channel and the whole 'liberal bias' title of this blog?

Well, that's because GE owns NBC, who is the 'parent' of MSNBC, home of O'Reilly boogie-man du jour Keith Olbermann.

From the Washington Post.

Bill O'Reilly, the Fox News star, is mounting an extraordinary televised assault on the chief executive of General Electric, calling him a "pinhead" and a "despicable human being" who bears responsibility for the deaths of American soldiers in Iraq.

On the surface, O'Reilly's charges revolve around GE's history of doing business with Iran. But the attacks grow out of an increasingly bitter feud between O'Reilly and the company's high-profile subsidiary, NBC, one that has triggered back-channel discussions involving News Corp. owner Rupert Murdoch, Fox News Chairman Roger Ailes, NBC chief executive Jeff Zucker and General Electric's CEO, Jeffrey Immelt.

Ailes called Zucker on his cellphone last summer, clearly agitated over a slam against him by MSNBC host Keith Olbermann. According to sources familiar with the conversation, Ailes warned that if Olbermann didn't stop such attacks against Fox, he would unleash O'Reilly against NBC and would use the New York Post as well.

Both Fox and the Post are owned by Murdoch, who complained about Olbermann's conduct in separate calls to Zucker and Immelt.

The high-level appeals failed, and O'Reilly has escalated his criticism of GE in recent weeks, declaring, "If my child were killed in Iraq, I would blame the likes of Jeffrey Immelt."

None of this really has to do with Immelt, Iraq, Bin Laden, Terrorism, or NBC. It all revolves around the infated ego of Bill O'Reilly and his seething hatred for Olbermann. But, in reality this could have been anyone. The reason is that O'Reilly fancies himself a 'journalist' and, well, he just isn't.

So, there is another media entity for O'Reilly to attack now. But, I have a feeling that people are going to have have a hard time following O'Reilly's 'logic' if he sets hi sites on The Weather Channel.

I'll let Olbermann sum this up as only he can: