After she was widely criticized for her gleeful enjoyment of Bristol Palin’s tearful statement to police after a man she did not know came out of nowhere, pushed her down, and dragged her by her feet across the lawn, CNN’s Carol Costello apologized for her joking about the attack.
Earlier in the week Costellos told CNN viewers, “Okay. I’m just going to come right out and say it. This is quite possibly the best minute and a half of audio we’ve ever come across – well, come across in a long time anyway.” She went on to describe a “massive brawl in Anchorage, Alaska reportedly involving Sarah Palin’s kids and her husband.” Costello said, “So sit back and enjoy!”
Costello also teased the clip of Bristol Palin’s post-assault report to police the same way on her Twitter feed:
— Carol Costello (@CarolCNN) October 22, 2014
On the police tape, Bristol described what happened to police. “Some guy gets in my face. Pushes me down on the grass. Drags me across the grass. You (expletive), you (expletive), you (expletive) you (expletive). I get back up. He pushes me down on the grass again and pulls me by my (expletive) feet.”
Costello said after playing the clip, “I think that long beep was my favorite part.”
Only in liberal-feminist-double-standard world is there a “best part” of an account of a woman describing her assault to police.
After the backlash over Costello’s grossly, inappropriate comments and slobbering joy over a young woman’s assault, she issued a token apology to Palin for joking about the attack.
But actually, Costello didn’t apologize “to” Palin and she didn’t actually say she was sorry for joking about the “attack.” Instead, she took the opportunity to throw another punch at Bristol and the Palins with her perfunctory apology via Politico:
Over the past few days I have been roundly criticized for joking about a brawl involving the Palin family. In retrospect, I deserve such criticism and would like to apologize.
To whom is she apologizing? Not Bristol, or the Palins, it seems. Once more, Costello casts aspersions on the family by characterizing the attack as a “brawl involving the Palin family,” not acknowledging that Bristol was assaulted. And the majority of CNN’s viewers don’t read Dylan Byers in POLITICO, so they’ll never even see the so-called apology. They’re left with the cackling image of Costello (and by extension, CNN) salivating over a young woman’s assault because Costello has refused to apologize on the air. True soldiers in the War on Women, all of them.
Bristol Palin, like her mother, is no shrinking violet. She called out the media hypocrisy in an article at Patheos.
In the upcoming election, North Dakota has a referendum on shared parenting on its ballot. The group running the opposition to shared parenting is mostly made up of ND family law lawyers. That is fine as lawyers may stand opposed to changes in the law. But these lawyers aren’t simply opposing the referendum, they are using the funds and resources of the State Bar Association of North Dakota Bar (SBAND) to run their opposition campaign.
Serious content warning. Serious enough that the original video was pulled from YouTube.
There’s a great episode of Modern Family in which Cam and Mitchell have to explain to their four year old daughter Lily that she can’t use the f-word. Every time Lily drops the f-bomb, Cam starts compulsively laughing, making it very hard to convince the child that using the f-word is inappropriate. Horrified, Mitchell rebukes Cam throughout the episode until Lily drops a big, fat f-bomb while standing in front of a church full of people, dressed as a flower girl in a wedding party. At that point everyone laughs. Point being: Adults get a perverse kick out of watching innocent little kids use bad words.
It’s probably why Will Ferrell made a series of videos for Funny or Die featuring his creative partner Adam McKay’s toddler daughter repeating loads of foul, inappropriate language in adult-like scenarios. Commenting on his child’s foul-mouthed role, McKay remarked:
“Fortunately she is in this great stage now where she repeats anything you say to her and then forgets it right away, which is key,” says McKay, who has two daughters by his wife of 11 years, actress Shira Piven (Jeremy’s sister).
Adds McKay, “She has not said the B-word since we shot the thing.”
Rumor had it that the videos ceased production once the toddler was old enough to realize what she was saying and repeat it.
Adults find kids cursing to be funny. The younger the kid, the better. So, when FCKH8 decided to have a load of little girls dress up as princesses and drop the f-bomb all over the Internet, they basically decided to give adults everywhere (except those with some sense of moral fiber) a laugh.
And mock feminism at the same time.
I laugh at the War on Women mythology quite frequently. The idea that beauty is somehow associated with helplessness, that abortion translates to career equality, and the whole 77 cents-to-a-dollar thing all really tickle my funny bone. But I do take feminism seriously. And I wonder, if the folks at FCKH8 really took feminism seriously, would they have chosen to market it by employing one of the gags that makes adults laugh the most?
Apparently, FCKH8′s real goal is to say American Feminism, with it’s slavish attachment to the War on Women is a complete joke best understood by those with the intellect of a 5 year old. Which is a shame, both for FCKH8 and American feminism, because, for the women facing real issues of inequality and gender-based persecution, feminism is no laughing matter.
Ben Bradlee, the editor of the Washington Post during the Watergate scandal, died at his home in D.C. yesterday. He was 93.
President Obama released a statement in the evening praising the man who presided over the newsroom for 26 years as managing editor then executive editor.
“For Benjamin Bradlee, journalism was more than a profession – it was a public good vital to our democracy,” Obama said. “A true newspaperman, he transformed the Washington Post into one of the country’s finest newspapers, and with him at the helm, a growing army of reporters published the Pentagon Papers, exposed Watergate, and told stories that needed to be told – stories that helped us understand our world and one another a little bit better.”
“The standard he set – a standard for honest, objective, meticulous reporting – encouraged so many others to enter the profession,” he added. “And that standard is why, last year, I was proud to honor Ben with the Presidential Medal of Freedom. Today, we offer our thoughts and prayers to Ben’s family, and all who were fortunate to share in what truly was a good life.”
At the November 2013 Medal of Freedom ceremony, Obama noted that Bradlee was a veteran of World War II and more than a dozen Pacific battles.
“Ben Bradlee brought the same intensity and dedication to journalism,” Obama said then. “When Ben retired, Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan put the admiration of many into a poem: ‘O rare Ben Bradlee/His reign has ceased/But his nation stands/Its strength increased.’”
“As editor of our hometown newspaper, Benjamin Bradlee defined an era of reporting that gave birth to investigative journalism as we now know it,” D.C. Del. Eleanor Holmes Norton (D) said. “He will be remembered for his fearless journalism, for building a team of pathbreaking journalists, and for giving them the freedom to do what seemed to be the impossible.”
“Bradlee, his publisher Katharine Graham, and his reporters lived among the powerful in Washington, but were completely undaunted by them, including the president,” Norton stressed. “Outside of the newsroom, Bradlee did not forget our community, raising millions of dollars for the District’s Children’s National Medical Center.”
The Washington Post obituary stressed that the paper won 17 Pulitzer prizes during Bradlee’s reign.
Bradlee was portrayed by Jason Robards in All the President’s Men.
“Mr. Bradlee’s patrician good looks, gravelly voice, profane vocabulary and zest for journalism and for life all contributed to the charismatic personality that dominated and shaped The Post. Modern American newspaper editors rarely achieve much fame, but Mr. Bradlee became a celebrity and loved the status,” reads the WaPo article:
“He was a presence, a force,” [Bob] Woodward recalled of Mr. Bradlee’s role during the Watergate period, 1972 to 1974. “And he was a doubter, a skeptic — ‘Do we have it yet?’ ‘Have we proved it?’ ” Decades later, Woodward remembered the words that he most hated to hear from Mr. Bradlee then: “You don’t have it yet, kid.”
Mr. Bradlee loved the Watergate story, not least because it gave the newspaper “impact,” his favorite word in his first years as editor. He wanted the paper to be noticed. In his personal vernacular — a vivid, blasphemous argot that combined the swearwords he mastered in the Navy during World War II with the impeccable enunciation of a blue-blooded Bostonian — a great story was “a real tube-ripper.”
This meant a story was so hot that Post readers would rip the paper out of the tubes into which the paperboy delivered it. A bad story was “mego” — the acronym for “my eyes glaze over” — applied to anything that bored him. Maximizing the number of tube-rippers and minimizing mego was the Bradlee strategy.
Mr. Bradlee’s tactics were also simple: “Hire people smarter than you are” and encourage them to bloom. His energy and his mystique were infectious.
Truth Revolt‘s Ben Shapiro (a.k.a. the guy who took over the Breitbart mantle) has jumped on Christina Hoff Sommers‘ Factual Feminist bandwagon with his own info short Women are Winning the War on Women. Knocking down the pay gap, birth control, and sexual assault myths with statistical evidence, Shapiro declares, “It’s a great time to be a woman, which means we don’t need Hillary Clinton and her magical X-chromosomes to save the day.”
In the short Shapiro, an Orthodox Jew, touts the fact that his wife balances both motherhood and medical school, destroying the stereotype that religious men don’t (or can’t) support gender equality.
Using midterm hype to get ahead of 2016 Presidential electioneering, Shapiro applies his legal mind and quick wit to what is becoming a genre of informational videos geared towards the next generation of American feminists.
Check it out and pass it on.
Chicks on the Right, women working to take back feminism from the pro-choice crowd, discovered yet another way for parents and students to flush the cost of three college credits down the drain. Last spring, it was Rutgers University’s “Feminist Perspectives: Politicizing Beyoncé.” This coming spring, it’s UT Austin’s “Beyonce Feminism, Rihanna Womanism.”
By comparison, this class has a very eye-catching title. Whether or not you are a Beyoncé Bey or part of the Rihanna Navy, it will cause you to do a double take while scrolling through electives. The one downside, students may not realize the type of academic inquiry or material that will be covered in the course.
Students in this class will learn that there is far more than catchy melodies to Beyoncé’s and Rihanna’s music. They will not be simply listening to Beyoncé and Rihanna for fun or even comparing the roles of Beyoncé and Rihanna in popular culture, rather, students will be studying how the lyrics, music videos, and actions of these women express various aspects of black feminism such as violence, economic opportunity, sexuality, standards of beauty, and creative self-expression. The instructor hopes for students to understand the role black feminism plays in popular culture as well as everyday life.
For any student interested in women’s and gender studies or how popular culture reflects social studies, this is a class that will make them fall crazy in love.
Meet Shyanne Roberts, a 10-year-old competitive shooter who is out to prove something: Children with guns don’t always mean disaster.
“I want to be an inspiration to other kids and be a leader,” said the girl. “Kids and guns don’t always mean bad things happen.”
Shyanne competes alongside junior shooters, who are participants younger than 18, and even adults. Last year, she beat out adult women to place second in the Women’s Division of the New Jersey Ruger Rimfire Challenge.
On October 31, she will square off against 200 of the top women shooters at the Brownell’s Lady 3-Gun Pro-Am Challenge in Covington, Georgia. Shyanne is the youngest competitive shooter registered at the female-only event, according to the match director. The top shooter has a chance to win $5,000, as well as items from a prize table of guns, ammo and more.
The Franklinville, New Jersey, girl, who now has more than 20 sponsors, started learning gun safety when she was 5. After she could recite the rules and had grasped what guns can do, around age 6, her father started taking her to a gun range. Dan Roberts is a certified firearms instructor and a single dad. He has custody of Shyanne and her younger brother.
What the media bubble anti-gun nuts don’t understand is that the safe use of firearms is a fact of life in a lot of American homes from a very young age. I got my first rifle when I was six and grew up around people who all owned guns and knew how to handle them properly. When I first started going on the road, I found it very strange to meet people who not only didn’t own a gun, but had never fired a weapon. The experience that Brad Pitt recently described is a very normal American one.
Shyanne Roberts has some unique talent but her early involvement with shooting is a classic American family story that is all but ignored by the relentless anti-gun lobbyists and media types. Comprehensive gun legislation hasn’t been failing because of Republican obstruction, it’s failing because it is un-American and very unpopular with the citizens who are unwilling to see their rights gutted by an out-of-touch political ruling class.
Back in January, David Remick had an extensive interview with President Obama in the New Yorker Magazine. This is where Obama famously said the following about the Islamic terror group we now know as ISIS:
“The analogy we use around here sometimes, and I think is accurate, is if a jayvee team puts on Lakers uniforms that doesn’t make them Kobe Bryant,” Obama said, resorting to an uncharacteristically flip analogy. “I think there is a distinction between the capacity and reach of a bin Laden and a network that is actively planning major terrorist plots against the homeland versus jihadists who are engaged in various local power struggles and disputes, often sectarian.
That is how the phrase “JV team” made its way into today’s foreign policy discussions. (In case you needed a reference.) Now, it has become painfully obvious that ISIS is the varsity and Obama’s team is the JV.
These unfortunate circumstances were revealed, once again, in the following headlines:
Turkey denies U.S. base deal in place to battle ISIS (Drudge)
The Obama Administration has a kiss and tell problem (Foreign Policy.com and below)
In its excitement to trumpet the coalition against the Islamic State, the U.S. is outing partners before they’re ready to go steady.
Drudge linked to the above Foreign Policy piece accompanied by the photo that is the subject of our contest.
Your mission is to write an appropriate overall caption.
Additionally, here are some questions that you are encouraged to answer:
What is President Obama saying?
What is John Kerry daydreaming about?
What is Susan Rice thinking?
Bonus Question: Since we can assume the flowers are bugged, what did the buggers learn from this meeting?
Now, moving ahead, here are the winners from our last photo caption contest entitled, Capitol Dome Restoration Project to ‘Stop Deterioration.’
The grand prize goes to Allan Crowson for this zinger:
Guy on scaffolding: “Pelosi says we’ve got to cover this thing to find out what’s in it.”
The runners-up were:
Kuce for: The perfect political metaphor. If something is broken, cover it up and claim you’re fixing it.
And Zip Code won twice for:
Man on ledge talking,—- That’s one small step from the scaffolding, One giant makeover for America.
They don’t mind working till dawn’s early light, knowing the flag will still be there.
Yes, the flag is still there and we will stand by our flag — comforted and secure in the knowledge that the team pictured in our new caption contest photo is in charge of America’s foreign policy. (Yikes, it’s time for my meds!)
Need a laugh? Check out Russell Brand and Alec Baldwin’s sit down on Russia Today’s Keiser Report. Make sure there’s no food in your mouth before I tell you the episode’s title.
It’s called “Meeting of Megaminds”.
The pair make an excellent duo of on-air Putin spambots. Russell Brand, better known as the former Mr. Katy Perry, is attempting to carve out a niche for himself as a comedian-cum-conspiracy theorist who makes Carrot Top look appealing. Alec Baldwin has devolved from Hollywood megastar to angry old man in a way that makes you wish a combo of Nicolas Cage and Clint Eastwood would magically appear every time he opens his tired old mouth. He promised to immigrate if George W. Bush were elected in 2004, but I guess pre-production for 30 Rock got in the way (thanks, Tina Fey). Fitting right in with the acting crowd, Russia Today host Max Keiser plays the typical role of upper crust yuppie-turned-commie (wouldn’t Alger Hiss be proud). He was an NYU theater student before working in stand up comedy, radio, and as a broker on Wall Street before making it rich with his creation, the Hollywood Stock Exchange. Until 2012 he was a regular on Iran Press TV. Now, when he isn’t on Russia Today, he busies himself making documentaries for Al-Jazeera and writing for the Huffington Post.
Think he might just have a bit of a bias? Then you’re the biased one, obviously. Capitalist pig.
You have to slug through most of the stereotypical socialist hyperbole to get to any actual meat in the discussion. Still, the inflated theoretical dialogue (calling it “intellectual” would be an insult to those with actual, functioning brain cells) provides a great learning experience for young folk looking to understand what Soviet propaganda sounded like before the fall of the Berlin Wall. It’s nice to know this kind of pompous hot air still floats around in our atmosphere. Perhaps Al Gore should start tagging it as the real cause of global warming.
Dallas Morning News reporter Wayne Slater appeared on Ronan Farrow’s MSNBC show today.
Slater has done some excellent work over the years, but today he took off the mask and revealed a solid leftward tilt.
The segment was about the “politics of Ebola.” Fair enough, the virus unfortunately has become a political issue.
But listen carefully to how Slater describes the state of play.
“Republicans are saying it’s all Obama’s fault,” Slater begins. “I heard over on the far right, some of the talk show hosts like Rush Limbaugh saying, in fact, it’s Obama’s fault because he wants America to suffer just like the people in Africa suffer.”
Rush Limbaugh =/= the GOP, as Mr. Slater knows. He doesn’t work for the party and is not its spokesman. As for the words in question, Limbaugh was quoting an author who proffered the theory about Liberia, slavery, suffering and Ebola. Limbaugh described the author of that theory as an “oddball” and made it clear that he does not believe it. He did add that political correctness is hampering response to Ebola. Slater did not address that point.
“On the left, the Democrats and some more progressive folks point out that it’s Republicans who have severely cut the budget for response to Ebola, so it is a political issue.”
See the bias? Slater sets up a comment from talk show host to use against all Republicans, then it’s the Democrats who “point out” — meaning in his mind, what they’re saying is actually true — budget cuts.
He didn’t stop there.
Discussing local and state issues, Slater says “There’s plenty for Democrats to point to that Republicans have done badly” — again, a fact claim on behalf of Democrats — while “There are some things that Republicans can point to that they claim, if they can claim, it’s Obama’s fault.”
Slater just said that whatever Democrats say against Republicans is true, while whatever Republicans say against Democrats is a mere “claim.”
He didn’t stop there.
“As the gubernatorial candidate, Greg Abbott, in our governor’s race, is now charging in a new ad today, it’s all his Democratic opponent, Wendy Davis’ fault, because she’s just like Obama.”
Yeah. That’s false. What Wayne Slater just said is totally false.
The new ad to which Slater refers is this one, which debuted today. See if you can spot any mention of Ebola in it.
That was a trick lead-in. The ad doesn’t mention Ebola at all. Remember, the segment was about the “politics of Ebola.” Slater tied that ad to Ebola and Greg Abbott. But the ad doesn’t mention Ebola.
The ad does paint Wendy Davis as being just like Obama, because she does support Obama’s policies. The ad makes that claim on several issues and provides sources for its claims. It does not blame Wendy Davis for Ebola.
It does say that she is just like Obama, which is a very typical charge in an election year — to tie a candidate to an unpopular member of that candidate’s party. Slater himself did something similar when he equated all Republicans to Rush Limbaugh, who is one of the left’s major hate figures. Mentioning his name elicits a near Pavlovian response among liberals.
So Wayne Slater made out that the ad is false, and further, he put words in Greg Abbott’s mouth for the MSNBC audience that Abbott did not say. The ad does not mention Ebola, and Slater knows that.
Slater probably assumes, and probably correctly, that most of the MSNBC audience will never see the ad. Therefore they will never fact-check him on this.
So the Dallas Morning News’ chief political reporter just misled that entire audience.
During an interview with Wendy Davis on MSNBC today, host Andrea Mitchell asked the Democrat about the wheelchair ad that has caused a firestorm for her campaign.
Mitchell asked if Davis could have made the points that she made in the ad without pointing to Greg Abbott’s “supposed disability.”
Take a look.
There’s nothing “supposed” about it. Davis did not challenge Mitchell’s characterization, though. Davis also defended the ad, again.
Have to call them out for confrontational political language. Remember, these are the people who blame every act of violence in America on “right wing rhetoric”.
This is a big moment in the fight against climate change—stick it to climate change deniers by adding your name: http://t.co/fkCzkiMhFw
— Barack Obama (@BarackObama) October 14, 2014
GOP Rep. Cory Gardner is taking the lead over Democrat Sen. Mark Udall in a hot mid-term race in the purple state of Colorado. Ellen Carmichael explains what Republicans can learn from Gardner’s strategic campaign over at the Federalist. As it turns out, the lessons revolve around the Right’s tendency to play defense in the face of the Left’s only real weapon of choice, character assassination:
Udall’s fallacious accusations, misrepresentation of his record, or mischaracterization of his beliefs don’t shake Gardner. Instead, he redirects the debate to meatier issues, such as the economy and health care, without getting “in the weeds” on less pressing matters, like whether Julia’s birth-control pills should fall from the sky like Skittles. …Gardner’s consistency and restraint give Udall few openings for attack. When asked about his positions on birth control and abortion, Gardner responds clearly, calmly and with conviction. …We also know there’s no better way to frustrate a bully than to refuse to be bothered by him. Gardner’s disinterest in even entertaining Udall’s wild accusations demonstrate a political maturity. He knows he doesn’t have to fight every battle or feed a troll—even if that troll is a sitting U.S. senator.
Imagine, a politician that stays on point, refusing to waste voters’ time addressing baseless accusations. Could it be that, in the pot state of all places, electioneering hasn’t fallen to the level of a Real Housewives reunion?
Police in Alaska say no charges will be filed in connection with a fight that broke out at a party and involved members of former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin’s family.
Police on Thursday released a report on its investigation into the Sept. 6 brawl in Anchorage, including transcripts of interviews with multiple witnesses who said Palin’s daughter Bristol and son Track were in the thick of the brawl.
Those of us who grew up in small towns know that the social calendar involves the first days of various hunting seasons, Fourth of July, and quite a few drunken fights to keep everyone entertained in between those. This story was a nothingburger from the beginning but it had to be reported because the press is heavily invested in making the public think that the woman who understood foreign policy better than Obama is a dumb redneck.
If you look at the overwhelming body of accusations and rumors about Sarah Palin and her family, you will see that they have all pretty much never amounted to anything. However, plenty of damage gets done by the breathless coverage that happens before it all fizzles out.
Of course, there is very little reporting on the fizzle part.
Here is the headline:
Wendy Davis is running one of the nastiest campaign ads you will ever see
Even the progressive Mother Jones is not amused.
Despite all of this, Davis’ communications director, Zac Petkanas, is out trying to convince everyone this is a winner with voters:
.@chucktodd You wouldn’t think it was so risky if you talked to the voters who’ve seen this ad.
— Zac Petkanas (@Zac_Petkanas) October 10, 2014
According to Syria Deeply, the ISIS media office in Deir Ezzor came up with rules for journalists trying to document what’s going on in the Islamic State, including local Syrian journalists:
1 – Correspondents must swear allegiance to the Caliph [Abu Bakr] al-Baghdadi … they are subjects of the Islamic State and, as subjects, they are obliged to swear loyalty to their imam.
2 – Their work will be under the exclusive supervision of the [ISIS] media offices.
3 – Journalists can work directly with international news agencies (such as Reuters, AFP and AP), but they are to avoid all international and local satellite TV channels. They are forbidden to provide any exclusive material or have any contact (sound or image) with them in any capacity.
4 – Journalists are forbidden to work in any way with the TV channels placed on the blacklist of channels that fight against Islamic countries (such as Al-Arabiya, Al Jazeera and Orient). Violators will be held accountable.
5 – Journalists are allowed to cover events in the governorate with either written or still images without having to refer back to the [ISIS] media office. All published pieces and photos must carry the journalist’s and photographer’s names.
6 – Journalists are not allowed to publish any reportage (print or broadcast) without referring to the [ISIS] media office first.
7 – Journalists may have their own social media accounts and blogs to disseminate news and pictures. However, the ISIS media office must have the addresses and name handles of these accounts and pages.
8 – Journalists must abide by the regulations when taking photos within [ISIS territory] and avoid filming locations or security events where taking pictures is prohibited.
9 – ISIS media offices will follow up on the work of local journalists within [ISIS territory] and in the state media. Any violation of the rules in place will lead to suspending the journalist from his work, and he will be held accountable.
10 – The rules are not final and are subject to change at any time depending on the circumstances and the degree of cooperation between journalists and their commitment to their brothers in the ISIS media offices.
11 – Journalists are given a license to practice their work after submitting a license request at the [ISIS] media office.
Syria Deeply says a “number of journalists” signed an agreement to obey the rules — which, as noted by Rule No. 10, can be changed by ISIS at any time. Other journalists have fled; those who have exposed crucifixions and other ISIS horrors are threatened with the same fate.
A few thoughts on the current bout of ISISmania and the systemic problems it exposes:
1) ISISmania has created a financial/legal incentive for sources (most of them “shady” to begin with) used by law enforcement and intelligence agencies to manufacture info whole-cloth.
This is nothing new. Think “prison snitches.” Various foreign actors are passing along disinformation to us as well, so mountains of BS are being fed into the system from the get-go.
Imagine, for a purely hypothetical example, a member of Congress getting an authentic report from a senior agency official, but the report is later found to have originated with a non-credible source. So the member of Congress who repeated the report was actually correct that the intel had been shared with them — but the information itself wasn’t reliable.
It never should have been shared in the first place, but it’s the member of Congress who ends up with egg on their face when the agency issues its denial. No one, whether politicians or agency officials, wants to later admit they were duped, so erroneous info never gets corrected.
2) There are considerable problems on the collection and analysis sides of intel in both the intelligence community and law enforcement. In fact, very few know how to do collection — and good analysis is basically prohibited these days.
So the BS and disinfo never gets sifted out. It then gets passed on to elected officials, which is some of what we’re seeing. Then you have agencies and the administration selectively manipulating and leaking according to their own respective agendas. This is how the sausage is being made in DC these days.
3) There is only so much media space, and politicians compete with each other for that space.
So they need to come up with more outlandish claims to get a bigger share of that media space. That creates a disincentive to vet the info they get and publicly talk about. No one gets on Greta by saying: “We need to keep a cool head about this stuff.”
4) Because of that, the game of “I got a secret” is more prevalent than ever before.
Those secrets might be complete equine feces, but the desire to be “in the know,” whether they actually are or not, and the temptation to show that you’re “in the know” are strong.
5) Congress has no mechanism to vet what the agencies and administration tells them.
MoveOn.org and MAYDAY.US are running a video contest about money in politics. Contest judges are all liberals — George Takei, Jason Alexander, Zephyr Teachout and Cenk Uygur are among them.
Help us reduce the corrupting influence of money in politics by creating a 30-second video ad that could run on national TV. Put on your creative hats and let’s win our democracy back!
Contest ends at 5:00 p.m. ET on Thursday, October 16, 2014. The sooner you post your video, the more time you’ll have to get votes.
The scourge! The horror!
The failure to mention George Soros!
Conservative group American Commitment entered the contest with this ad. It’s an ad that leftwing MoveOn probably didn’t expect — it takes on one of the left’s major moneybags of this and the past couple of electoral cycles. American Commitment’s ad is worthy of airtime on broadcast or cable.
“The winning entry in this contest should be about America’s number one fatcat campaign contributor, Tom Steyer — and we have submitted an entry to shine a spotlight on him and on the role hypocritical liberal billionaire contributors play in stoking feigned outrage about conservative donors,” said Phil Kerpen, president of American Commitment, in an email to the Tatler.
“We’ve looked at the other entries and are confident that if this is an honest contest and not a partisan charade, our entry will easily win.”
At the moment, there is just a little under a week left in voting. Head here to cast a vote if you’d like.
Right now, American Commitment’s ad is hammering the competition. It has racked up more than three times the number of votes of its nearest competitor in the leftwing video competition.
Scientists have recently learned and reported that the near record-high sea ice levels near Antarctica don’t mean that global warming is not a factor at play. In fact, scientists believe the opposite is true.
Last month, on September 20th the ice level peaked at 7.78 million square miles. The 2014 level shattered the previous record which was set just a year ago in 2013. While scientists are not sure what the exact meaning behind the record levels, they do know a few other things.
Follow what was said there: “scientists believe“, and “not sure what the exact meaning” is but, hey, CONSENSUS, right?
Here is the-ahem-logic that follows from all of that believing and not knowing:
The largest takeaway from the research and the remarks were made that the best answer scientists have right now is simply that the North and South poles are the most extreme places on earth. Furthermore, they are the most extreme differences on earth. Any issues, any changes, any climate anomalies, will be felt in the greatest proportion there, rather than in the middle of the earth where the extremes are less noticeable.
See Also: Sharks show personality traits just like humans, study says
Much of this comes back to the logic that many have tried to convey for some time. Global warming isn’t a matter of extremes, or a matter of swift – and well-defined changes to our overall climate. Instead, climate change – or global warming – is the middle, or the average – changing.
In essence, change the average of the planet – and you’ve effectively changed the entire planet – no matter how the extremes on the northern or southern ends behave.
In summation: we should worry about the average between literal polar opposites that are experiencing (per this article) opposite manifestations of all of this change (what’s freezing in Antarctica is melting in the Arctic). If one extreme gets hotter and one gets colder then the average gets…
Don’t worry, they’ll come up with a Common Core way of changing what “average” means soon.
Perhaps unbeknownst to her, former IRS official Lois Lerner will be making her film debut Oct. 14 in a documentary where she’s one of the villains.
The film is called Unfair: Exposing the IRS, and it will screen in 674 theaters nationwide, though for one-night only, courtesy of Fathom Events, a company that brings sports, concerts, speeches and other alternative entertainment to movie screens.
The movie is about alleged abuse at the IRS, the agency responsible for collecting taxes in the U.S. Looming large is a scandal revealed last year wherein Republican and some Democratic lawmakers accused Lerner, at the time the director of the exempt organizations unit of the IRS, of delaying the applications of conservative groups seeking tax-free status from 2010-2013.
The writer of the movie claims that Lerner was just “one bad guy” in a corrupt system and that she was merely the scapegoat. He also claims that this isn’t about “rogue agents.”
Of course it isn’t. The orders came from the White House.
Oops, did I just type that out loud?
This time, it’s Reuters scribbling in its Trapper Keeper.
Romney has stoked some of the 2016 speculation himself. He has gone from absolutely ruling it out in the months after he lost the 2012 election to equivocating in more recent public comments. “We’ll see what happens,” he told the New York Times Magazine.
He has clearly been energized by the attention he has drawn in campaigning for congressional candidates ahead of the Nov. 4 elections, most recently on a swing through Virginia, Georgia, Oklahoma, Michigan, Kentucky and Louisiana.
Polls are sounding an encouraging note. A USA Today/Suffolk University poll in August said 35 percent of Republican voters in Iowa, which Romney narrowly lost in the 2012 Republican caucuses, would go for him in 2016, far better than any other potential candidate.
A Romney run would depend on whether any of the current crop of potential candidates caught fire. Announcements are expected to begin shortly after the Nov. 4 elections and continue well into 2015.
There was no event to warrant Reuters posting this. Romney didn’t do anything publicly yesterday to precipitate it. This is just, like all of the others articles like this, wishful, hopeful thinking on the part of the leftmedia.
Yes, Romney is a very nice guy and was right about almost everything in 2012, but he still was an awful candidate. Deep in their dark little hearts, the MSM knows that Hillary is an awful candidate as well. They like their odds with Mitt as the even whiter and richer opponent for the sixty-something white, rich woman who will carry the banner for the party of youthful diversity.
Millennial actress Raven Symone has dared to de-hyphenate her identity in the face of the goddess O:
“I’m tired of being labeled. I’m an American. I’m not an African-American; I’m an American,” Raven said.
“Oh, girl, don’t set up Twitter on fire,” Oprah said. “You’re going to get a lot of flak for saying you’re not African-American.”
“What I really mean by that is I’m an American. That’s what I really mean,” Raven replied. “I have darker skin. I have a nice, interesting grade of hair. I connect with caucasian. I connect with Asian. I connect with black. I connect with Indian. I connect with each culture,” Raven said.
“You are a melting pot in one body,” Oprah said.
“Isn’t that what America is supposed to be?” Raven declared.
The former child star, best known for her role on The Cosby Show caused television’s Goddess-in-Chief to nearly jump out of her chair. Perhaps generational difference is playing a key role in the Symone’s patriotic identification. According to a recent NPR story titled Why You Should Start Taking Millennials Seriously:
“Forty-three percent of millennials are nonwhite,” says Eileen Patten, a research analyst at the Pew Research Center (and a millennial herself). “When we look at older generations — boomers and silents — less than 3 in 10 were nonwhite.”
Because millennials look different en masse than generations past, the future is going to look different too. They’ve already led the country to massive shifts in opinion on social issues over the past decade.
As Symone illustrated, not every social issue is about sex or pot. Her willingness to step outside the box confronts the political correctness of Oprah’s Baby Boomers exactly the way it should: With a peaceful, confident, fresh perspective.
Perhaps Millennials should be given a second look after all.
The message from Republican officials has been crystal clear for two years: The 2016 Republican primary cannot be another prolonged pummeling of the eventual nominee. Only one person ultimately benefited from that last time — Barack Obama — and Republicans know they can’t afford to send a hobbled nominee up against Hillary Clinton.
Yet interviews with more than a dozen party strategists, elected officials and potential candidates a month out from the unofficial start of the 2016 election lay bare a stark reality: Despite the national party’s best efforts, the likelihood of a bloody primary process remains as strong as ever.
The sprawling, kaleidoscope-like field that’s forming is already prompting Republican presidential hopefuls to knock their likely rivals privately and, at times, publicly. The fact that several candidates’ prospects hinge in part on whether others run only exacerbates that dynamic. Ultimately, the large pack won’t be whittled for many months: Republicans have no idea who will end up running, and insiders don’t expect the field will gel significantly until at least the spring of next year.
This story of woe and worry serves three purposes.
First, it begins the 2016 narrative control early. The leftmedia wants to start beating up on the GOP hopefuls before they even begin beating up on themselves. They would also like to put the idea in the voters’ heads that the Republicans didn’t learn anything after 2012.
Second, it quietly reinforces the Madame Hillary the Inevitable myth. Focus on the GOP takes away from all of the rumors about potential challengers, including the Vice President of the United States.
The last thing it accomplishes, obviously, is keeping the conversation away from the train running down Democrat Mountain that’s headed for a crash a month from now.
It’s fun to pretend, isn’t it?
We’ve all seen this by now, either the first or second installment. It’s Bill Maher using his show to say something that many conservatives and jihad watchers have been saying for years now — that there is a widespread, fundamental illiberalism in Islamic society and culture itself.
Ben Affleck takes what amounts to the other side, which is that any criticism of any Islamic practice or belief is “Islamophobia.” Affleck would never see progressive aversion to traditional Christian beliefs as “Christophobia,” but that’s a debate for another post.
Sam Stein of the Huffington Post takes the Maher point of view, while Nick Confessore of the New York Times unsurprisingly takes Affleck’s side. The paper of record cannot tolerate truth.
Maher and Stein are not saying anything that many others, here and elsewhere, haven’t been saying and writing (and being shunned by the mainstream media for) for years.
The fact is, while the vast majority of Muslims are not and will never be terrorists, the majority do hold views that are in direct conflict with western notions regarding individual rights and freedoms. Those views are incompatible with our beliefs — not just the Christian beliefs that most Americans claim, but with our basic political beliefs too. Too many Muslims to want to impose sharia law on the west, or at least live by it here.
Stein points out, for instance, that 78% of British Muslims believe that the Danish cartoon artists should have been prosecuted. Maher points out that Ayaan Hirsi Ali, a feminist shunned and dismissed by the vast majority of so-called feminists in America because she criticizes Islam, has to have 24/7 body guards and security. She had to leave Europe because Muslims there make it unsafe, their threats made credible by the near beheading of her filmmaking partner Theo Van Gogh on the streets of Amsterdam.
Maher points out that the majority of Egyptian Muslims believe that anyone who leaves Islam ought to be killed. Had the liberal world been awake, it would already be aware of the threat to so-called apostates when the majority of Afghanis, even after years of contact with Americans who fought to free them from the Taliban, wanted to kill a man because he converted from Islam to Christianity. He had to flee to Italy.
As I said, none of this is new, our ought to be. America has had the opportunity to learn an awful lot about Islam and the countries that it dominates over the last 30-odd years, and especially during the last 13 years.
But too many of us have squandered that opportunity. Those of us who have pointed these things out have either been ignored, or called racists — even though Islam is not a race — or “Islamophobes.”
Then along comes Bill Maher, of all people, to tell liberals what they should have already learned about the illiberalism of large numbers of practicing Muslims.
The likes of Ben Affleck may be too arrogant to ever learn a thing, but many liberals will listen to Bill Maher even though he is saying the same things that many conservatives have been saying for years. Some may even find themselves changing their minds because of him. They will listen to him say things that others have said, simply because they have a bias toward Maher and against, well, us.
If they do listen and get a little education on these issues, that can only be a good thing. Overdue by many years, but good.
Dana Milbank Decides Tweet Isn’t Enough, Writes Full Op-Ed Chastising ‘Stunning Disloyalty’ To Obama
The Washington Post‘s Dana Milbank is having a bad case of the Mondays.
Earlier today,I posted a tweet of Milbank’s that publicly wondered why his imperious messiah didn’t “command” loyalty from some people. The poor dear evidently felt so strongly about it that he was overcome by the urge to wag his finger in long form.
George W. Bush got criticism from former advisers (Paul O’Neill, John DiIulio), as did Bill Clinton (George Stephanopoulos, Dick Morris), but this level of disloyalty is stunning, even though it is softened with praise for Obama’s intellect.
At the start of the year, Robert Gates, Obama’s first defense secretary, wrote a memoir full of criticism of Obama’s handling of Afghanistan, saying Obama made military decisions based on political considerations. Former secretary of state Hillary Clinton, who also published a book this year, criticized Obama for rejecting her advice on Syria and mocked the “Don’t do stupid stuff” phrase used by administration officials to describe Obama’s doctrine.
The lack of message discipline is puzzling, because Obama rewards and promotes loyalists. But he’s a cerebral leader, and he may lack the personal attachments that make aides want to charge the hill for him.
After admitting that it has happened to other presidents, Milbank never explains why, “this level of disloyalty is stunning,” or even what “this level” is. He then defaults to the hardcore Obama media lapdog explanation/excuse for everything: He’s just too smart.
Sorry, press puppies, he’s just smarter than you.
At a time when pretty much every other American breathing is questioning the foreign policy of a president whose approval ratings have gone so far south they’re running into spring again, Milbank’s childlike devotion is the only thing that is stunning here. Somebody might want to run some concussion tests on the guy.
The saddest part of this little tantrum, for both Milbank and President Obama? Milbank says that the president’s most “loyal mouthpiece” right now is Crazy Joe the Wonder Veep.
U.S. Sen. Bob Casey says it would be “very healthy” for the United States if members of Congress spend about two weeks getting briefings, holding hearings, and having a real debate about authorizing the use of force against the Islamic State terrorist group.
The Pennsylvania Democrat said in an interview Monday with The Associated Press that even if members believe, as he does, that President Barack Obama has the legal authority to mount an aerial bombing campaign against the terrorist group, a debate and even some votes could be helpful for his strategy.
That’s some cutting edge political thinking right there: suggesting that a deliberative body which expresses itself by voting should deliberate and maybe even vote on some stuff.
What next: a suggestion that they uphold the Constitution?
This really is just more media cover for The Idiot King but it does make Congress look absurd. Casey is actually only suggesting going through the motions so the president doesn’t appear to be acting unilaterally. He does have to hang onto that Nobel Peace Prize cred after all. That Casey’s suggestion for the Kabuki theater you-know-what covering is a description of what he and his colleagues should be doing all of the time while working is indicative of what a sad group we have populating the political class in Washington right now.
Turner Broadcasting, the parent of the CNN, TBS and TNT networks, is eliminating about 1,475 jobs, or about 10 percent of its total employees.
Turner says moves will include voluntary separations and the elimination of unfilled positions as well as job cuts. The eliminations will affect 18 different locations and will come from various levels in its news, entertainment, sports, and business units as well as corporate positions.
It’s hard out there for a media company these days. Even harder when the company doesn’t have a rock-solid identity.
According to Variety, about 300 of the jobs cuts will be at CNN, and that represents 8.5 percent of its staff.
Put your emotions aside for a moment and read Ben Shapiro’s succinct explanation of the ramifications of the Supreme Court’s refusal to take on gay marriage cases from five states:
The Court clearly wants to wait until a majority of states have been forced to embrace same-sex marriage by lower-level appeals courts. Then they can determine that a “trend-line” has been established, suggest that society has “evolved,” and declare that a new standard must be enshrined. That, of course, was the logic of Lawrence v. Texas (2003), in which the Court waited 17 years to overrule Bowers v. Hardwick (1986), stating that anal penetration was a hard-fought Constitutional right; the Court in that case stated that Bowers no longer applied because of “an emerging awareness that liberty gives substantial protection to adult persons in deciding how to conduct their private lives in matters pertaining to sex.” Justice Scalia rightly pointed out that the Court’s statement was false – the state, he explained, still regulates “prostitution, adult incest, adultery, obscenity, and child pornography.” And Scalia also pointed out that “Constitutional entitlements do not spring into existence because some States choose to lessen or eliminate criminal sanctions on certain behavior.”
…This is the beauty of Supreme Court doctrine: they don’t even have to do their judicial dirty work anymore. They can rely on lower-level courts to violate the Constitution, then declare the Constitution magically changed because of an “emerging” consensus on violating the Constitution.
And the people have no recourse. They cannot pass laws that for two and a half centuries have been fully Constitutional. They cannot fight state attorneys general who betray their voters. They must sit by as the courts play legal games while awaiting the great Obama-esque “evolution” – an evolution that is almost entirely top-down, and that will then be dictated to us by our betters.
Shapiro’s legal insight, akin to that of Mark Levin, provides further evidence for my own previously stated belief that the Right needs to argue on the basis of law, not theology, if they want to keep America free:
Instead of rebutting those who argue that the Constitution is an amorphous idea that will bend to their will with the simple truth that they are empowering a court to render their individual vote effectively useless, we get caught up in arguments over whether or not God approves of homosexuality. We then get stereotyped as a bunch of Bible-thumpers who have no clue how government works – by a bunch of ideological terrorists intent on destroying the very government they claim to uphold.
When gay marriage is over there will be another hot-button morality issue to be abused in the name of raping and pillaging our individual rights through legal abuse. It is time to get out from under the theological rock and see the big picture. Conservatives, if you want a truly constitutional republic, start sending your kids to law school. We may be forced into play the game, but that just means we should play to win.
Any theories on why Obama commands so little loyalty from likes of Panetta, Gates, Clinton?
— Dana Milbank (@Milbank) October 6, 2014
Milbank is also apparently the only one in the Milky Way galaxy who is unaware of all of the bad blood between the Clinton and Obama camps. OK, he and the rest of the MSM. Whenever two Republicans can’t decide on where to have lunch, the press cries, “GOP CIVIL WAR!” In reality, the much bigger rift is on the Democrat side of the aisle, between the once and current and “inevitable” future presidents. They don’t like each other. If Elizabeth Warren or any other remotely progressive candidate gets into the race, President Obama will throw Her Madameship under the bus so quickly she’ll barely have time to scream for special treatment because she’s a girl.
When that happens, the MSM will have a choice to make: stick with the “inevitable” story they’ve been pimping for a year already or remain loyal to their Idiot King.
The likely 2016 Republican presidential candidates — except for Perry — are practically lining up to warn that the Obama administration isn’t doing enough to keep Ebola out of the United States, now that Dallas is dealing with the nation’s first confirmed case.
Sen. Rand Paul of Kentucky declared on “The Laura Ingraham Show” that “this could get beyond our control” and worried, “Can you imagine if a whole ship full of our soldiers catch Ebola?”
Sen. Ted Cruz — Perry’s Texas colleague — raised the prospect of restricting or banning flights to the West African countries that are hardest hit by the disease, noting in a letter to the Federal
Rep. Paul Ryan of Wisconsin floated the idea of quarantining airline passengers in the affected African countries before they could fly out. “We’re learning a lot about how it’s spread but the question is ‘How can a person just jump on a plane and get here without a quarantine period of 21 days,’ which I believe is recommended,” he said on a radio talk show Wednesday. A spokesman for Ryan says the congressman misspoke and was referencing a recommendation to be monitored for 21 days.
And Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal says the United States should cut off flights from those countries. “President Obama said it was ‘unlikely’ that Ebola would reach the U.S. Well, it has, and we need to protect our people,” he said in a statement Friday.
None of what was mentioned above is “panic.” Each is a real-world, rational way of dealing with the problem. At this stage, some may be more premature than others. However, some of us are beginning to a) think the government may not be truthful about what is going on and/or b) isn’t competent enough to react properly even if it isn’t.
If anyone is mildly panicking, it is solely because the Dallas situation has been mishandled in many ways and we were assured recently that the situation wasn’t going to happen anyway.
Kudos, however, to Politico for carrying some water for the administration in advance.
Hillary Clinton has mapped out much of her political schedule through Election Day, an itinerary that focuses on helping Senate candidates and includes trips to a half-dozen states, including Kentucky and presidential early states Iowa and New Hampshire, according to details obtained by POLITICO.
The plan, which could see adjustments and additions as races hit critical points in the coming weeks, was the product of close work between Clinton chief-of-staff Huma Abedin and the Democratic campaign committees.
The final stretch of the midterms will mark Clinton’s most extensive political activity since she left the State Department early last year and requests for her to appear began pouring in from all corners of the country.
A major goal has been to navigate the former secretary of State’s concerns about spending time with her daughter and newborn granddaughter Charlotte, other commitments she’s made like book signings and some political commitments put in place weeks ago, along with her desire to help candidates facing tough races this fall, people close to her said.
This probably isn’t the way Team Lightbringer scripted this. The president is sitting on the sideline while his party’s candidates pretend they don’t know him while the former member of his administration with whom he had the least in common is being sought after for campaign help.
In typical Clinton Media Machine fashion, Her Madameship’s infant granddaughter is being used as a campaign pawn in an effort to paint Hillary as an oh-so-concerned family values candidate. This brings up a new battle front for 2016: the Democrats will try to remake the exceedingly unlikable Mrs. Clinton as a doting grandmother but her opponents will be taken to task for mentioning her age.
Good times ahead.
President Obama recently blamed the intelligence community for “underestimating” ISIS. Piers Morgan, recently ejected from CNN and now at the Daily Mail, isn’t buying that. At all.
‘James Clapper (Director of National Intelligence) has acknowledged that they underestimated what had been taking place in Syria,’ he said, when asked how ISIS’ influence could have spread so fast.
As Governor Chris Christie pointed out, by saying ‘they’ rather than ‘we’, Obama tried to distance himself from any personal responsibility or accountability for what has been a catastrophic failure to act over the greatest terror threat facing the world since Osama Bin Laden.
A more shameless, reprehensible display of buck-passing it would be hard to find from a sitting President.
Indeed. And Morgan is only getting warmed up.
All that will happen now is that those maligned intelligence agencies will exact cold-blooded revenge on Obama by drip-feeding negative stories about him until he’s gone.
It’s what they do.
The truth is that Obama is the one who underestimated ISIS, plunging his head ostrich-like into the sand and hoping they would go away without having to do anything to actually make them go away.
There were clear, unambiguous public warnings made nearly a year ago in front of the Foreign Affairs Committee that ISIS was on the march in Syria and Iraq.
But perhaps Obama missed them.
Hardly surprising when we discover yesterday that he has only attended 42.1 percent of his Presidential Daily intelligence briefings.
Morgan even went after Obama’s golf obsession.
Imagine how emboldened they must have felt when Obama made his ‘heartfelt’ speech about journalist James Foley’s execution, and was then seen laughing and joking on the golf course SEVEN MINUTES later.
Obama has so far played golf 192 times since becoming President.
Even Rory McIlroy would struggle to match such enthusiasm for the game.
A rapid Arsenal soccer fan, Morgan knows all about sports obsessions. Yet, unlike President Obama, Piers Morgan knows when to set that aside and work. Morgan’s editorial doesn’t make up for his fraud and his anti-gun hysteria, but it’s impressive nonetheless.
“My sympathy goes to the military members in this country,” Cowherd said toward the end of Tuesday’s show. “Socio-economically, no choices, paid almost nothing, lose a limb, lose a life. That, I feel sympathy for.”
“We know most people that go into the military in this country — they need the military often to pay bills. That is is almost a federal safety net financially, and by the way you’ll take shots. You’ll be sent two or three times to a raging inferno in the Middle East. That stuff scares me. That stuff I’m worried about. There’s loss of life there.”
Cowherd is using a liberal stererotype to describe Americans who volunteer to serve in the armed forces.
The fact is, Cowherd doesn’t know the facts at all.
George Washington University conducted a study of education in the military in 2013. Based on 2010 data, GWU found that military members are significantly more likely to have high school diplomas and at least some college experience than the general population.
According to GWU, while 59.5% of the US general population have a high school diploma or some college, 93.6% of US enlisted military personnel had the same. And while just 29.9% of the US general population have a bachelor’s degree or more, 82.8% of US military officers have at least one college degree. That’s because it’s very difficult to even become a US military officer without a degree. It can be done, by enlisted personnel making the jump to the officer corps, but it’s difficult. The vast majority of US military officer enter the military with a degree, and often from either ROTC programs or the military academies.
Cowherd also said that US military personnel get “paid nothing.” He is wrong about that too. While it is true that there remain some compensation issues at the lower end of the military pay scale, that covers a tiny percentage of the military force, and the US military officer corps is very well compensated. GWU finds that compensation is 88% higher than their civilian counterparts with a bachelor’s degree. Pay for military officers with advanced degrees is 47% higher on average than civilians with advanced degrees.
The Heritage Foundation also studied military enlistees, their socio-economic origins, education levels, and demographics. Cowherd is wrong on every single count.
- U.S. military service disproportionately attracts enlisted personnel and officers who do not come from disadvantaged backgrounds. Previous Heritage Foundation research demonstrated that the quality of enlisted troops has increased since the start of the Iraq war. This report demonstrates that the same is true of the officer corps.
- Members of the all-volunteer military are significantly more likely to come from high-income neighborhoods than from low-income neighborhoods. Only 11 percent of enlisted recruits in 2007 came from the poorest one-fifth (quintile) of neighborhoods, while 25 percent came from the wealthiest quintile. These trends are even more pronounced in the Army Reserve Officer Training Corps (ROTC) program, in which 40 percent of enrollees come from the wealthiest neighborhoods-a number that has increased substantially over the past four years.
- American soldiers are more educated than their peers. A little more than 1 percent of enlisted personnel lack a high school degree, compared to 21 percent of men 18-24 years old, and 95 percent of officer accessions have at least a bachelor’s degree.
- Contrary to conventional wisdom, minorities are not overrepresented in military service. Enlisted troops are somewhat more likely to be white or black than their non-military peers. Whites are proportionately represented in the officer corps, and blacks are overrepresented, but their rate of overrepresentation has declined each year from 2004 to 2007. New recruits are also disproportionately likely to come from the South, which is in line with the history of Southern military tradition.
The fact is, the present US military is the most educated fighting force in human history. Our all-volunteer force comes more from the middle and upper income brackets than from the lower income brackets. The global war on terrorism has been underway for a little over 13 years now, so a majority of the US military have volunteered not just for a “federal safety net” program, as Cowherd believes, but to defend America from the threat of terrorism. They have joined knowing that we are engaged in war overseas, and they are serving with unprecedented professionalism, skill and bravery. Rather than cluelessly insulting them, Cowherd should be honoring and thanking them.
Piers Morgan swears he doesn’t miss CNN, but the network is still very much on his mind.
“I’ve never looked back, because I never feel negative,” Morgan said in his first interview since leaving the network in September. “The problem is when you go into a deep decline and start believing what other people are saying about you, like, ‘I’m a terrible dimwit British failure who’s been sent home packing in the goat class, and we’re never going to see him again.’”
Morgan certainly has a lot of ideas about what the network should and should not do for a guy who isn’t looking back:
Still, Morgan faults Zucker and CNN for being overly preoccupied with ratings.
“I’ve always felt that CNN should be more resilient to media criticism about monthly or quarterly ratings,” Morgan says. “Ted Turner once described CNN to me as The New York Times of television. We don’t care about chasing ratings or chasing readers. We care about having a brand that is so trusted that whenever anything important happens in the world, people turn us on.”
“If I was running CNN, if I was Jeff Zucker, I would come out and do an interview with someone like you, and I would say, ‘I’m not going to discuss ratings again,’” Morgan continues. “Our business proposition is not predicated on ratings, our global brand is not dependent on how we rate at 9 p.m. in America.”
So, don’t just shift the goal posts, dig them up, throw them away and then every field goal is good, right?
This is obviously a dig at Fox News, which has already proven that ratings can be had in the cable news game. Morgan’s assertion that CNN can be a “trusted” brand implies that FNC is not. The ever-simplistic Morgan doesn’t understand that ratings and trust are a tandem in the television news business.
But then he doesn’t understand a lot of things.
US Marine Sergeant Andrew Tahmooressi has spent the last six months in a Mexican prison. He is there because he made a wrong turn while transporting legally owned firearms in his car, and Mexico has chosen to throw the full weight of its legal system at him.
This is the same country that regularly berates the United States if we happen to enforce our own border laws.
The Obama administration has chosen to leave him there to languish in horrible conditions, even though he may have post-traumatic stress disorder from his service in combat. Tahmooressi has been beaten and threatened while he has languished in Mexican prison.
In hearings in Washington today, Navy veteran and talk show host Montel Williams tearfully laid into the Obama administration for failing to secure Tahmooressi’s release. “Make the call today,” Williams angrily begged the president.
Rep. Ted Poe (R-TX) noted that President Obama, an avid sports fan, always makes sure to call sports teams when they win championships. But he has failed to call Mexico’s president to get Tahmooressi released.
Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (R-FL) suggested that Tahmooressi’s mother, Jill, invite President Obama to play golf. Then, perhaps, the president would pay attention to the plight of her son.
That might get the president’s attention.
But we need to be sure that we have his ear. So here’s a suggestion.
Obama is a sports fan, as everyone knows, and he makes gay rights a top priority.
President Obama hasn’t made the call to Mexico’s president but he called NBA player Jason Collins and congratulated him when he announced that he is gay.
Obama also congratulated football player Michael Sam when he became the first openly gay player to be drafted for the NFL. Sam is currently on the Dallas Cowboys practice squad.
Isn’t the solution here obvious?
To get President Obama’s attention and get him to make the call that Montel Williams begged him to make, Sgt. Andrew Tahmooressi just has to announce that he is gay.
If he does that, President Obama and Eric Holder will be on Air Force One within the hour bound for Mexico City, and Sgt. Tahmooressi will be out of Mexican prison by the weekend.