Uh-oh, the Winter Olympics are set for next month in Vancouver, but the Canadian outpost has no snow because it's been caught in an extended warm spell. But you probably didn't know that from reading the Drudge Report, which relentless hypes headlines about how it sometimes gets cold in January. (Thanks for news flash, Matt.) It's all part of the right-wing's anti-reason crusade, which claims that snows storms and cold spells prove there is no climate change.
But what happens when Canada suffers through a January warm spell? Drudge and the GOP Noise Machine play dumb. So don't look for this recent UK Daily Mail headline on his site:
The lede [emphasis added]:
As spring flowers bloom early and birds start to nest around balmy Vancouver, officials there have chartered a fleet of helicopters to fly in thousands of tons of snow for the Winter Olympics.
Without the emergency snowlift, which is also shipping in tons of snow in convoys of giant lorries, Olympic chiefs feared they might have to abandon the Games that have already cost £1.5 billion and are due to start in three weeks.
Here are some more weather headlines that were ignored by Drudge:
UPDATED: Meanwhile, weather forecasters predict New York City today will flirt with setting an all-time record high temperature for January 25.
Somebody alert Steve Doocy.
In an article discussing Republican opposition to Democrats' health care reform, The Washington Post portrayed Sen. Chuck Grassley as one of the "few GOP senators who sought consensus on health care," conjuring up images of Grassley walking hand-in-hand with the Democrats to pass health care reform (unlike, say, Sen. Jon Kyl, who in September 2009 reportedly called reform a "stunning assault on liberty").
To buttress this image, the Post ignored the not-so-small fact that Grassley helped forward the 2009 "Lie of the Year," the widely debunked falsehood that health reform legislation would establish "death panels." At a town hall meeting in August 2009, Grassley said that Americans "have every right to fear" the end-of-life counseling provision in the House bill. He went on to say, "You shouldn't have counseling at the end of life, you should have done that 20 years before. We should not have a government-run plan to decide when to pull the plug on grandma."
In addition to sidestepping Grassley's embrace of the death panel falsehood, the Post also reported that Grassley "worked for months on a bipartisan bill," but that he sees President Obama as "not committed to meaningful compromise." To make this narrative of Grassley the cooperator work, the Post failed to note that during an August 2009 interview on MSNBC's Morning Meeting, Grassley admitted he wouldn't vote for a bill if the GOP remained opposed -- even if Grassley got what he wanted during negotiations.
Moreover, before blithely repeating Grassley's claim that Obama is "not committed to meaningful compromise," the Post might have pointed out that the final Senate bill included "161 Republican amendments" from senators such as Mike Enzi, Tom Coburn, Pat Roberts, and others, and reflected the efforts of "six bipartisan working groups" that "met a combined 72 times" in 2009, as well as "30 bipartisan hearings on health care reform" since 2007, half of which were held in 2009. And according to a Senate Finance Committee document detailing the amendments to the Chairman's Mark considered, at least 13 amendments sponsored by one or more Republican senators were included in that bill.
It turns out that in his new role as a Sunday Post columnist, Milbank thinks a top priority is defending his employer. And so this week Milbank dedicates his entire column to push back against a recent, critical feature article in The New Republic that highlighted the newspaper's recent woes. (i.e. Shrinking newsroom and some monumental editorial blunders.) Milbank though, insists the Post is doing just fine:
This paper's management has no sure-fire strategy for success -- and neither does any other news organization. But it does have the deep pockets and determination to tough it out while this news outlet and others experiment with new business models for online news.
Dedicating an entire Post column to rebut a single magazine article is a rather odd. Indeed, when the Post recently tapped Milbank to be a high-profile Sunday columnist, the spin was that he'd do more "big picture analysis." Suddenly hyping the Post's unique viewer count qualifies as big picture?
Also curious is that a bulk of TNR's story actually detailed the decline the Post's editorial product and its aimless newsroom leadership. But on those points Milbank remains silent.
From BigGovernment.com accessed January 24, 2010:
I would like to officially challenge the folks at Media Matters, and other progressive intellectual sink-holes, to address their movement's role in the Nazi genocide.
The Neo-Progressives might do themselves a service by admitting the damage their predecessors have done, and trying to make amends for their horrors. Denying these documented crimes is the same as excusing them.
I would also like to challenge American Jews and Blacks, the main targets of Progressive Eugenics, by asking how they can call themselves Progressives given what the movement has unapologetically done to their populations.
Progressive intellectuals inspired and fed the ideology of Nazis and the Klan.
Is a Jewish Progressive any different than a Jewish Nazi? If so, how?
Is a black Progressive any different than a black Klansman? If so, how?
If those questions strike you as painful, they should. This topic demands some tough questions.
By no means am I concluding that Progressive Jews and Blacks are Nazis or Klansmen. Of course they are not. I am absolutely suggesting they have not a clue about the movement they have signed onto. How could they be aware of what Progressivism unapologetically did, and still join it?
These are serious questions which I wish any progressive would attempt to address.
From Pamela Geller's January 22 BigJournalism.com post:
Abe Foxman has come out against a great and wonderful friend of the Jews, Rush Limbaugh. That is bad enough, but it is symptomatic of a deeper problem: I have for years derided Jews in America and the Jewish lay leadership for tolerating and supporting clear and present enemies of the Jewish people among our senior ranks. It is a sickness of the soul. The liberal Jew worships at the church of human secularism. These lost souls are married to their liberal dogma.
One of the most odious of the bunch, Abe Foxman, uses the might and the soapbox of the Anti-Defamation League in an attempt to destroy friends and supporters of the Jewish people, in order to garner favor with our enemies.
As a passionate, proud Jew, I too stand with Rush Limbaugh and would take up against Foxman in a heartbeat. Thank G-d for righteous Gentiles like Rush. He is beyond delicious. He has such a yiddische heart, I'd marry him under a chupa!
Abe Foxman, on the other hand, is a plague on our people. Foxman has come out repeatedly against one of the greatest friends of the Jews and Israel, my friend the Dutch Parliamentarian Geert Wilders. Foxman strongly condemned remarks Wilders made at a conference at which I also spoke (see here). At that conference, Wilders called Israel a "wonderful country," and affirmed: "I love it, I do love Israel."
We should be fiercely defending our right to fight for our survival. We need proud, unapologetic, vigorous Jews to lead our people now.
Mr. Foxman, please step aside. Please step aside now, for the sake of the Jews.
Watching Glenn Beck's documentary "Revolutionary Holocaust" really brought home just how shrewd and crass a propagandist Beck is.
The project, billed as an "exposé" of the "unseen history of Marxism, progressivism, and communism," was little more than an hour-long, overly dramatized denunciation of the already well-known, thoroughly examined, and exhaustively studied atrocities committed by the leading communist statesmen of the 20th century. It broke absolutely no new ground, except perhaps in its ridiculous assertion that "history has erased" the genocidal policies of Josef Stalin.
But that was never the point. Beck never intended to "expose" anything or teach anything new. The purpose of Beck's documentary was to link modern progressivism to the abhorrent violence the world saw under communism in the 20th century. Beck's intention is to undercut the current administration and very idea of progressivism -- or at least what he claims is progressivism -- by associating them with the strong emotional rejection people have to the Holocaust and Soviet pogroms, making them radioactive, something to be feared and abhorred. And he's doing it all under the guise of "education."
Take a look at how Beck closed out "Revolutionary Holocaust":
BECK: With 100 million killed, communism exists in a very exclusive club alongside with the planet's worst communicable diseases like smallpox and the bubonic plague. But it's not just communism. It is the truth of any government with too much power. Some government is necessary, too much is suicidal. Every all-powerful government has elements of what Marx called the "revolutionary holocaust," the relentless pursuit of nirvana and the price it's worth paying to get there in human life. It is only [in] understanding history that we can stop this from happening again, and again, and again.
Look at Beck's warning against governments "with too much power" turning to violence and hold it up against the things he's been saying in the past month about the progressive push for health care reform:
BECK: The way you boil this down -- I'm fascinated if I can connect with you here a little bit on. I haven't seen anything in American history like what is being played out right now unless I go back to the early 20th century with Woodrow Wilson and the early progressive movement with Teddy Roosevelt, prohibition, the Fed, income tax and the power grab that happened around 1915. [Glenn Beck, 1/18/10]
BECK: The progressives like FDR, Sunstein, Harkin desperately want you to be dependent on them and not dependent on yourself and God. Well, that's just a secondary thought. If God doesn't exist, if God is somehow another cut-out-of-the-rights process, you get all of your rights from government.
That is in essence what our founders fought against, government bestowing rights. It gives them power. Because what the government giveth, the government can taketh away. And if you disobey, guess who loses their rights? If you eat too many chips, you fatty fat fatso, guess who loses their right to health care? [Glenn Beck, 1/7/10]
Now combine all that with Beck's months-long campaign to link progressives to violence, and the picture becomes clear.
It's insidious in its nature and vile in its character -- he's using the slaughter of tens of millions as a tool to discredit those he disagrees with, and he's spewing this bile while wearing the good-natured face of an educator.
From The Fox Nation, accessed January 22:
Not surprisingly, Glenn Beck's documentary "Revolutionary Holocaust" was a giant, ahistorical waste of time. After arguing that Hitler was really a leftist because he and Karl Marx both had an affinity for genocide, Beck then "exposed" the already well-known atrocities committed by the world's communist dictators.
Promising to teach us about "the genocide you've never heard of" that "for some reason history has erased," Beck embarked on a lengthy denunciation of Soviet mass murder under Stalin, focusing on the state-imposed famine in the Ukraine.
Seriously? Stalin's pogroms and political terrorism and genocidal policies have been forgotten? They've been "erased" from the history books?
Are you kidding me?
I can't speak for all the history books, but they certainly haven't been erased from the History Channel.
The justification for this "revelation" was offered by Beck's featured scholar, Liberal Fascism author and National Review columnist Jonah Goldberg, who said that people nowadays talk about Soviet communism as a "well-intentioned social experiment."
I'm not sure who these people are, but I am sure they don't represent the consensus of historical thought.
Eighty advertisers have reportedly dropped their ads from Glenn Beck's Fox News program since he called President Obama a "racist" who has a "deep-seated hatred of white people." Here are his January 22 sponsors, in the order they appeared:
Over the past couple of weeks, Glenn Beck has repeatedly hosted fellow radio talk show host Jay Severin. This booking seemed to make sense, as Beck was frequently chatting with him about the Massachusetts special election, and, after all, Severin broadcasts from Boston.
However, a quick search of Media Matters' archives turns up a few Severin phrases that would not be out of place on your garden variety edition of Beck's show, like saying of then-Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton that "[w]ith Hillary Clinton you've got Hugo Chavez in a dress," and calling her "the devil." How about Severin channeling Beck's response to torture allegations, stating that the abuse of detainees by at Abu Ghraib was equivalent to "treat[ing] them essentially to a week in Las Vegas," adding, "I have to pay good money to have that done to me." Indeed, Media Matters has documented a long history of Jay Severin's offensive comments.
Like Beck, whose history of racially-charged remarks includes the statement that Obama is a "racist", Severin himself has a checkered history discussing minorities. In fact his comments that Mexican immigrants are "criminaliens," "primitives," and "leeches" -- in addition to calling Mexico an exporter of "women with mustaches and VD" -- was enough to get him suspended from his station for a month.
Yes, Severin and Beck even share the bond of losing advertisers after their racially-charged comments.
Thus, it only seemed fitting when, on January 20, Beck introduced Severin onto his show by calling him "a friend of mine from Boston."