After his foolish comment Tuesday night about how it seemed like President Obama had entered the "enemy camp" in West Point when he gave his speech about the U.S.'s future military campaign in Afghanistan, MSBNC's Matthews last night apologized to West Point, its officers, and its cadets. That's a good start, but Matthews still needs to apologize to Obama, because he insulted the president as well.
Matthews needs to apologize to Obama, and to Democrats, because Matthews' idiotic comment was born out of the pundit's ingrained CW that Democrats can't do national security and that the armed forces are naturally distrustful of Democratic presidents. And that when a Democratic leader visits West Point he's somehow entering foreign or hostile territory.
Note to Matthews: Obama's the commander-in-chief. No Democratic president ought to have to prove to talkers like Matthews that the military remains loyal to the President of the United States.
Defending Newsweek's global warming panel, which was sponsored by the American Petroleum Institute and featured API president Jack Gerard -- but no representative of environmental groups -- Newsweek director of external relations Mark Block insisted "These events are transparent. They're on the record. ... There's no concern of appearance of impropriety because it's an open and transparent process." Newsweek's Howard Fineman, who moderated the panel, agreed earlier this week: "I see nothing wrong with an open, on-the-record balanced discussion like this."
"Open"? "Transparent"? That's interesting, because when a Greenpeace staffer caught up with Gerard after the event and asked him how much API paid for his seat on the panel, Gerard refused to answer.
So: By "balanced discussion," Newsweek means "the panel doesn't include environmental groups, but does include oil lobbyists who pay us" and by "transparent," they mean "but we won't tell you how much they pay us."
Rev. Sun Myung Moon, who claims Jesus spoke to him and chose him as God's Messiah, has already lost $2 billion on his failed Washington Times. And it turns out that maybe $3 billion was the magic number, because the newspaper just gutted its newsroom, a clear indication that the right-wing welfare days at the Times may be over.
But oh, what a glorious conservative jobs program it was for nearly three decades, as Moon created thousands of jobs over the years for a product nobody really wanted--the WashTimes. Now with a new generation of Moon leaders looking at the blood-red books, the Times just fired nearly half the staff and is going to become a free give-away daily.
In other words, the WashTimes has pretty much closed up shop in terms of being an actual, functioning newspaper.
Can't say we're going to miss it. And here's why.
UPDATED: Times leaders insist the future is online and especially the site it recently launched, TheConservatives.com, which, of course, is an odd site to own if you're, y'know, a supposedly professional news organization that doesn't take sides politically, which is the odd claim execs there have always made. But remember how, those same Times leaders said not to fret because they were hard at work on launching a similar liberal site, so it's not like the paper was partisan.
At the time we laughed out loud. And we're pretty sure those guffaws were dead-on, because we can't imagine the Times was ever serious about hosting a liberal site, and now, given the fact that nearly half the company just got pink-slipped, it seems even less likely.
Like this one:
Heatwave puts Moscow's white Christmas on hold
Or this one:
Record warmth and strong winds
Or this one:
Hot summer tipped after record November
Or this one:
Record heat in November
Or this one:
Heat, rainfall records for November in SA
Or this one:
November among warmest on record
Or this one:
Lincoln has record November temperatures
Or this one:
November more like summer than winter
Or this one:
November enters record books as seventh warmest on record
And on a personal note, I sure wish Sean Hannity would explain why, in December, rose bushes are in full bloom in my North Jersey garden.
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 December 2 sponsors, in the order they appeared:
WorldNetDaily video-maker Molotov Mitchell -- best known for smearing Sonia Sotomayor as an "anti-American racist" and the National Council of La Raza as "the tan Klan" -- peddles revisionist history on the Matthew Shepard case in his latest video.
First of all, like Harvey Milk, Matthew Shepard was not killed for being gay. After being robbed and beaten to death, his killer went on to try the exact same thing only on a straight guy 20 minutes later. The only reason he survived was because he had a bat and a friend with him. The liberals aren't interested in those facts. They didn't even care when Shepard's killers told ABC News that his murder had nothing to do with his lifestyle. And why would the killers lie? They had nothing to gain.
In fact, as blogger David Neiwert detailed at the time of the 2004 ABC interview, one of the killers, Aaron McKinney, mounted a "gay panic" defense at his trial -- which would seem to contradict the story Mitchell wants to hear -- and has changed his story multiple times. As the Matthew Shepard Foundation has stated, the ABC report omitted the contents of McKinney's in-custody interview a few days after Shepard's death. That transcript shows "an un-rehearsed and unemotional anti-gay account of the events before, during, and after leaving Matt tied to the fence," according to the foundation.
Further, as retired Laramie Police Chief Dave O'Malley told a Laramie newspaper: "Only three people know what really happened that night ... One of them is dead and the other two are known liars and convicted felons -- murderers."
Why would the killers lie, Mitchell asks? Because they're convicted murderers and known liars. And what do they have to gain? Sympathy from anti-gay activists like Mitchell.
Mitchell then goes into full anti-gay freak-out mode that the name of lynching victim James Byrd joined Shepard's in the name of the bill that added federal hate-crime protection to gays. The crimes that resulted in Byrd's death was "for real," Mitchell insists, "not some made-up Laramie Project stunt for political gain." Crank up that faux outrage, Molotov:
To exploit a modern-day lynching to score points with the gay lobby, to equate the true horror of Byrd's murder to their phony gay passion play, is unforgivable. Gay activists, how dare you cheapen his sacrifice? For that alone, you are unnatural. For that alone, you are deviant. For James Byrd alone, you are an abomination.
Oh, and he also sneeringly refers to President Obama as a "weak-kneed metrosexual."
Molotov has some issues. And this is merely the first of a two-part video.
Here's MSNBC's Chris Matthews, moments ago:
Willie Horton comes to mind. It was Al Gore that first dug up that little sugar plum, on, on, uh, Mike Dukakis and sort of worked that against him. And then of course the Republicans really lashed him with that issue back in '88 and helped George H Walker Bush get elected president. Is this guy going to be Willie Hortoned, Mike Huckabee?
This did not happen. During the 1988 presidential primaries, Al Gore criticized Dukakis for furloughs generally; he did not mention Horton's name, his crimes, or his race.
During the general election, Republicans attacked Dukakis over Horton's crimes, emphasizing his race in the process.
When people talk about someone being "Willie Hortoned," they aren't referring to what Al Gore did -- again, Gore didn't even mention Horton. They're referring to the GOP's use of Horton, which had deeply racist undertones.
But for years, conservatives and some media figures have been trying to blame all of this on Al Gore, despite the fact -- one more time -- that Al Gore never mentioned Horton's name, his crimes, or his race.
From The Fox Nation accessed December 2:
This morning, Politico published a story, the premise of which appears to be that Republican senators are mad at Al Franken for having proposed an amendment - which passed two months ago - banning federal contracts from being awarded to companies who require their employees to use their firms arbitration process - rather than the courts - for workplace discrimination claims. Why was this article published? I have no idea.
A Franken press release sent out after the amendment passed stated that Franken had been "inspired" to offer the amendment by the story of Jamie Leigh Jones, "a 19-yr-old employee of defense contractor KBR (formerly a Halliburton subsidiary) stationed in Iraq who was gang raped by her co-workers and imprisoned in a shipping container when she tried to report the crime" who subsequently "learned a fine-print clause in her KBR contract banned her from taking her case to court, instead forcing her into an "arbitration" process that would be run by KBR itself."
According to the Politico article, the amendment has - horror of horrors! - "spawned attacks like the satirical website RepublicansforRape.org." And so, the Republican senators in the article are complaining that Franken has been excessively partisan, demanding that he come out and say that opponents of his amendment are not effectively pro-rape, and claiming that until that happens, Franken's ability to work with Republicans in the future will be undermined.
Why has the Politico decided to let Republicans like John Cornyn - the head of the Republican National Senate Committee, i.e., the chief Republican partisan in the Senate - decide what constitutes excessive partisanship? No idea.
Does the Politico think it's somewhat unusual for Senators to be criticized for the votes they cast, and respond by complaining? Sure looks like it.
Why is the article running now, two months after Franken's amendment passed? Dunno.
But I'm sure it has nothing to do with this blog post, in which a different Politico reporter complains that Franken won't talk to him in the halls.
Rep. Ed Markey, the chief sponsor of the House cap-and-trade bill and a leading environmental advocate, is a full participant in the open, on-the-record discussion with no control by API over the questions or flow. Dem Sen Byron Dorgan is also participating and will reflect various views in Dem caucus. Rep Fred Upton, who opposed the House bill, will also participate. I see nothing wrong with an open, on-the-record balanced discussion like this. Newsweek has a long tradition of enviro reporting, including our annual green issue.
Seriously? The "discussion" featured the president of the American Petroleum Institute -- which just happens to fund Newsweek -- but no representatives of environmental organizations ... and Howard Fineman calls that a "balanced discussion"?
Apparently to Newsweek, "balance" means "Industry representatives who fund us and--Hey! Look over there!"