enlarge It’s no wonder voting rights are being taken away with aplomb, especially in the South and swing states like Ohio and Michigan. After all, why shouldn’t they be when our children aren’t learning about the price paid to get them? This study is pretty telling : That ignorance by American students of the basic history of the civil rights movement has not changed — in fact, it has worsened, according to a new report by the Southern Poverty Law Center , on whose board Mr. Bond sits. The report says that states’ academic standards for public schools are one major cause of the problem. “Across the country, state educational standards virtually ignore our civil rights history,” concludes the report, which is to be released on Wednesday. The report assigns letter grades to each state based on how extensively its academic standards address the civil rights movement. Thirty-five states got an F because their standards require little or no mention of the movement, it says. Eight of the 12 states earning A, B or C grades for their treatment of civil rights history are Southern states where there were major protests, boycotts or violence during the movement’s peak years in the 1950s and ’60s.“Generally speaking, the farther away from the South — and the smaller the African-American population — the less attention paid to the civil rights movement,” the report says. Over the past decade, students have performed worse on federal history tests administered by the Department of Education than on tests in any other subject. On the history test last year, only 12 percent of high school seniors showed proficiency. That weakness is a huge hole in our society and our democracy. It leaves a door for parents to pretend tea party child indoctrination camps are a way of teaching their kids the “proper history”, or pretending dinosaurs were roaming the earth with man. It’s a dangerous trend, and one that benefits those who wish to rewrite it.
Continue reading …
enlarge It’s no wonder voting rights are being taken away with aplomb, especially in the South and swing states like Ohio and Michigan. After all, why shouldn’t they be when our children aren’t learning about the price paid to get them? This study is pretty telling : That ignorance by American students of the basic history of the civil rights movement has not changed — in fact, it has worsened, according to a new report by the Southern Poverty Law Center , on whose board Mr. Bond sits. The report says that states’ academic standards for public schools are one major cause of the problem. “Across the country, state educational standards virtually ignore our civil rights history,” concludes the report, which is to be released on Wednesday. The report assigns letter grades to each state based on how extensively its academic standards address the civil rights movement. Thirty-five states got an F because their standards require little or no mention of the movement, it says. Eight of the 12 states earning A, B or C grades for their treatment of civil rights history are Southern states where there were major protests, boycotts or violence during the movement’s peak years in the 1950s and ’60s.“Generally speaking, the farther away from the South — and the smaller the African-American population — the less attention paid to the civil rights movement,” the report says. Over the past decade, students have performed worse on federal history tests administered by the Department of Education than on tests in any other subject. On the history test last year, only 12 percent of high school seniors showed proficiency. That weakness is a huge hole in our society and our democracy. It leaves a door for parents to pretend tea party child indoctrination camps are a way of teaching their kids the “proper history”, or pretending dinosaurs were roaming the earth with man. It’s a dangerous trend, and one that benefits those who wish to rewrite it.
Continue reading …
Click here to view this media Miami Herald columnist Carl Hiaasen told MSNBC’s Rachel Maddow Wednesday that he would be willing to pay for drug tests for the Florida lawmakers who voted to drug test welfare recipients. “Interestingly, the governor’s pee-in-the-cup mandate doesn’t apply to the one bunch that whizzes away more tax dollars than anyone else — the legislators who pass such useless laws,” Hiassen wrote in a recent column . “I say line up all 160 of ‘em for a patriotic whiz-fest at the Capitol clinic. You think more than 2.5 percent might test positive? Let’s find out. And I’ll pay for it out of my own pocket. Seriously.” Welfare repents were “an easy target,” he explained during an interview with Maddow Wednesday. “This is class warfare. This is picking on the folks who happen to be unemployed, especially the ones with children. And they are testing at such a lower rate than the general population. The most recent federal drug survey shows national drug use at about 8.9 percent — almost nine percent. These people are living like monks compared to them.” “If you get a majority — close to a majority [of lawmakers] saying yes, I would please like to be there along with a camera crew if you don’t mind,” Maddow said. “Yeah, but the deal is all or nothing,” Hiaasen remarked. “That’s what they do to the applicants for the welfare fund. It’s all or nothing. Everybody’s got to do it. So, all 160 of these folks have to stand there with their little cup and do the deed. And if the lab sends me a bill, I’ll send a check.” EDITOR’S NOTE: Can we start a whole movement to drug test ALL lawmakers? They’re on the gubmint teet. I’d donate to the cause. This is a fantastic idea.
Continue reading …
Click here to view this media Miami Herald columnist Carl Hiaasen told MSNBC’s Rachel Maddow Wednesday that he would be willing to pay for drug tests for the Florida lawmakers who voted to drug test welfare recipients. “Interestingly, the governor’s pee-in-the-cup mandate doesn’t apply to the one bunch that whizzes away more tax dollars than anyone else — the legislators who pass such useless laws,” Hiassen wrote in a recent column . “I say line up all 160 of ‘em for a patriotic whiz-fest at the Capitol clinic. You think more than 2.5 percent might test positive? Let’s find out. And I’ll pay for it out of my own pocket. Seriously.” Welfare repents were “an easy target,” he explained during an interview with Maddow Wednesday. “This is class warfare. This is picking on the folks who happen to be unemployed, especially the ones with children. And they are testing at such a lower rate than the general population. The most recent federal drug survey shows national drug use at about 8.9 percent — almost nine percent. These people are living like monks compared to them.” “If you get a majority — close to a majority [of lawmakers] saying yes, I would please like to be there along with a camera crew if you don’t mind,” Maddow said. “Yeah, but the deal is all or nothing,” Hiaasen remarked. “That’s what they do to the applicants for the welfare fund. It’s all or nothing. Everybody’s got to do it. So, all 160 of these folks have to stand there with their little cup and do the deed. And if the lab sends me a bill, I’ll send a check.” EDITOR’S NOTE: Can we start a whole movement to drug test ALL lawmakers? They’re on the gubmint teet. I’d donate to the cause. This is a fantastic idea.
Continue reading …
On Thursday's Early Show, CBS's Chris Wragge bizarrely wondered if the dissatisfaction with the current GOP field of presidential candidates would give President Obama an edge: ” Is this just primary politics, or does this make candidate Obama kind of lick his chops, thinking he's got a real advantage here? ” Mr. Obama actually trails a generic Republican candidate in two recent polls. Just moments before Wragge dropped his question, correspondent Jan Crawford had explained during a report that such dissatisfaction from primary voters wasn't unusual in either party from a historical perspective. Crawford cited the Democratic presidential fields in 1991 and 2003 as examples: CRAWFORD: …[N]one of this searching and hand-wringing is new. In nearly every nearly presidential election, voters at this stage are dissatisfied with their choices, often when they're trying to beat an incumbent. In the latest CBS News poll, just 43% of Republican voters say they are satisfied with the field. But around this time in 2003, only 40% of Democratic voters were satisfied with their choices to unseat President Bush. Senator John Kerry lost to Bush . But voter dissatisfaction early on doesn't mean a loss in the general election. In 1991, Democrats were begging top politicians, like Senator Ted Kennedy or New York Governor Mario Cuomo, to jump in. Only 18% of Democratic voters were satisfied with their options, which, at the time, included an obscure Arkansas governor, Bill Clinton. Recent polls also give no reason for President Obama to “lick his chops,” to use the CBS anchor's term. Gallup has the Democrat's approval rating at 39% , and he trails three to four percentage points behind a generic Republican presidential candidate, according to the last polls from Rasmussen and NBC News/Wall St. Journal . The transcript of the Chris Wragge/Jan Crawford segment from Thursday's Early Show, which began nine minutes into the 7 am Eastern hour: CHRIS WRAGGE: Now to politics- several big money Republican donors say they're unhappy with the current crop of GOP presidential candidates, but Republican voters will have to decide this race. And CBS News political correspondent Jan Crawford is in Washington with a look at how they really feel about the race at this time. Jan, good morning. JAN CRAWFORD: Good morning, Chris. You know, we thought this field was pretty well settled, but then, Texas Governor Rick Perry had that big stumble in last week's debate, and that, of course, has started Republican insiders talking again and again about finding yet another candidate to get in this race. But the polls show that this kind of thing happens almost every presidential election. [CBS News Graphic: "Race For 2012: Inside Look At GOP Dissatisfaction"] MITT ROMNEY, 2012 REPUBLICAN PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE (from campaign event): How are you? Good morning! CRAWFORD (voice-over): Campaigning across the country, the candidates who are actually running for president, like former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney, downplay all this talk about someone else. ROMNEY: I think we recognize that it's very important we get this right, and I appreciate the fact that it's taking a lot of careful consideration. In the final week or two, it's going to really narrow down, and people will decide who's the person who will have the best shot of replacing President Obama. CRAWFORD: That may be because none of this searching and hand-wringing is new. In nearly every nearly presidential election, voters at this stage are dissatisfied with their choices, often when they're trying to beat an incumbent. In the latest CBS News poll, just 43% of Republican voters say they are satisfied with the field. But around this time in 2003, only 40% of Democratic voters were satisfied with their choices to unseat President Bush. Senator John Kerry lost to Bush. But voter dissatisfaction early on doesn't mean a loss in the general election. In 1991, Democrats were begging top politicians, like Senator Ted Kennedy or New York Governor Mario Cuomo, to jump in. Only 18% of Democratic voters were satisfied with their options, which, at the time, included an obscure Arkansas governor, Bill Clinton. CRAWFORD (on-camera): Now, of course, Cuomo and Kennedy never got in that race, and that second-string candidate, Bill Clinton, became a two-term president. Chris? WRAGGE: Jan, as we get closer to the primaries, what is an actual cut-off date for a candidate- a potential candidate, like a Chris Christie, to get in? There's got to be a time where you just can't- it's just too late in the game. CRAWFORD: That's right, and it is right around the corner. I would say in about six weeks, and that's because you're going to have these filing deadlines in key states, like Florida and South Carolina, to get their names on the ballot. So these guys, Chris Christie, Sarah Palin- they're going to have to make a decision sooner, rather than later, which means, of course, all of this talk is going to stop soon enough. WRAGGE: Like you said- in the graphic you showed in the piece, there's this perceived dissatisfaction with the current Republican field. Is this just primary politics, or does this make candidate Obama kind of lick his chops, thinking he's got a real advantage here? CRAWFORD: Great question- it's primary politics. It happens almost every four years, as all these polls show, and the lesson here- I think what's important to keep in mind- is that these candidates, who are in this race right now, are going to look a lot stronger as this race goes on over the next few months- more debates, they're going to be tested. So the eventual nominee is going to look like the nominee. WRAGGE: All right. CBS's Jan Crawford in Washington for us this morning- Jan, thanks. Good to talk with you.
Continue reading …On Thursday's Early Show, CBS's Chris Wragge bizarrely wondered if the dissatisfaction with the current GOP field of presidential candidates would give President Obama an edge: ” Is this just primary politics, or does this make candidate Obama kind of lick his chops, thinking he's got a real advantage here? ” Mr. Obama actually trails a generic Republican candidate in two recent polls. Just moments before Wragge dropped his question, correspondent Jan Crawford had explained during a report that such dissatisfaction from primary voters wasn't unusual in either party from a historical perspective. Crawford cited the Democratic presidential fields in 1991 and 2003 as examples: CRAWFORD: …[N]one of this searching and hand-wringing is new. In nearly every nearly presidential election, voters at this stage are dissatisfied with their choices, often when they're trying to beat an incumbent. In the latest CBS News poll, just 43% of Republican voters say they are satisfied with the field. But around this time in 2003, only 40% of Democratic voters were satisfied with their choices to unseat President Bush. Senator John Kerry lost to Bush . But voter dissatisfaction early on doesn't mean a loss in the general election. In 1991, Democrats were begging top politicians, like Senator Ted Kennedy or New York Governor Mario Cuomo, to jump in. Only 18% of Democratic voters were satisfied with their options, which, at the time, included an obscure Arkansas governor, Bill Clinton. Recent polls also give no reason for President Obama to “lick his chops,” to use the CBS anchor's term. Gallup has the Democrat's approval rating at 39% , and he trails three to four percentage points behind a generic Republican presidential candidate, according to the last polls from Rasmussen and NBC News/Wall St. Journal . The transcript of the Chris Wragge/Jan Crawford segment from Thursday's Early Show, which began nine minutes into the 7 am Eastern hour: CHRIS WRAGGE: Now to politics- several big money Republican donors say they're unhappy with the current crop of GOP presidential candidates, but Republican voters will have to decide this race. And CBS News political correspondent Jan Crawford is in Washington with a look at how they really feel about the race at this time. Jan, good morning. JAN CRAWFORD: Good morning, Chris. You know, we thought this field was pretty well settled, but then, Texas Governor Rick Perry had that big stumble in last week's debate, and that, of course, has started Republican insiders talking again and again about finding yet another candidate to get in this race. But the polls show that this kind of thing happens almost every presidential election. [CBS News Graphic: "Race For 2012: Inside Look At GOP Dissatisfaction"] MITT ROMNEY, 2012 REPUBLICAN PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE (from campaign event): How are you? Good morning! CRAWFORD (voice-over): Campaigning across the country, the candidates who are actually running for president, like former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney, downplay all this talk about someone else. ROMNEY: I think we recognize that it's very important we get this right, and I appreciate the fact that it's taking a lot of careful consideration. In the final week or two, it's going to really narrow down, and people will decide who's the person who will have the best shot of replacing President Obama. CRAWFORD: That may be because none of this searching and hand-wringing is new. In nearly every nearly presidential election, voters at this stage are dissatisfied with their choices, often when they're trying to beat an incumbent. In the latest CBS News poll, just 43% of Republican voters say they are satisfied with the field. But around this time in 2003, only 40% of Democratic voters were satisfied with their choices to unseat President Bush. Senator John Kerry lost to Bush. But voter dissatisfaction early on doesn't mean a loss in the general election. In 1991, Democrats were begging top politicians, like Senator Ted Kennedy or New York Governor Mario Cuomo, to jump in. Only 18% of Democratic voters were satisfied with their options, which, at the time, included an obscure Arkansas governor, Bill Clinton. CRAWFORD (on-camera): Now, of course, Cuomo and Kennedy never got in that race, and that second-string candidate, Bill Clinton, became a two-term president. Chris? WRAGGE: Jan, as we get closer to the primaries, what is an actual cut-off date for a candidate- a potential candidate, like a Chris Christie, to get in? There's got to be a time where you just can't- it's just too late in the game. CRAWFORD: That's right, and it is right around the corner. I would say in about six weeks, and that's because you're going to have these filing deadlines in key states, like Florida and South Carolina, to get their names on the ballot. So these guys, Chris Christie, Sarah Palin- they're going to have to make a decision sooner, rather than later, which means, of course, all of this talk is going to stop soon enough. WRAGGE: Like you said- in the graphic you showed in the piece, there's this perceived dissatisfaction with the current Republican field. Is this just primary politics, or does this make candidate Obama kind of lick his chops, thinking he's got a real advantage here? CRAWFORD: Great question- it's primary politics. It happens almost every four years, as all these polls show, and the lesson here- I think what's important to keep in mind- is that these candidates, who are in this race right now, are going to look a lot stronger as this race goes on over the next few months- more debates, they're going to be tested. So the eventual nominee is going to look like the nominee. WRAGGE: All right. CBS's Jan Crawford in Washington for us this morning- Jan, thanks. Good to talk with you.
Continue reading …Phone hacking: Watergate reporter ‘struck by parallels’ with Nixon scandal
September 29, 2011 No Comment
Carl Bernstein said the two events were ‘cultural moments of huge consequence’ about corruption at the highest levels One of the two journalists who uncovered the Watergate scandal has said that he was “struck by the parallels” between the News of the World phone-hacking affair and the saga that brought down Richard Nixon in the 1970s. Carl Bernstein said on Thursday night that the two events were “shattering cultural moments of huge consequence that are going to be with us for generations” and that both were “about corruption at the highest levels, about the corruption of the process of a free society”. The American reporter, speaking at an event in London organised by the Guardian, specifically likened Rupert Murdoch, the News of the World’s proprietor, to the ousted US president in his relation to criminal acts and alleged criminal acts conducted by their respective employees and subordinates. Bernstein argued that the important thing was not whether there was “a smoking gun” that could link Murdoch to “knowledge of phone hacking on a specific date” – just as it was not important whether Nixon knew that that “the Watergate break in would happen on a specific date”. Instead, he added, both events were “about a sensibility that corrupted a free institution” whose consequences in the case of phone hacking helped “drive the ever descending lowest common denominator of journalism that resulted in a diminution of reporting standards” across the British press. The Guardian event, After Hacking: How Can The Press Restore Trust?, brought together Bernstein with George Eustice, David Cameron’s former press spokesman, in a public meeting that saw the Conservative MP argue that the British press needed tighter regulation in order to prevent a repeat of the phone-hacking scandal and raise standards generally. Eustice, complaining that journalists frequently wrote news items to the dictates of news desks, editors or owners, said that there was “not much wrong” with the existing Press Complaints Commission (PCC) code apart from the fact that it’s not really enforced. The former spin doctor – who was replaced by Andy Coulson, the former editor of the NoW, in 2007 – added that a reformed PCC should be strengthened with “proper sanctions” that are “enforced independently” of government. Eustice also complained that in the early part of David Cameron’s leadership, the Conservative party tried to adopt a distant relationship with print media. Hinting of a change of approach that began when Coulson arrived at Conservative party headquarters, Eustice said: “It was our analysis [that under Tony Blair] there was too much emphasis on getting the headlines right. It was our position that if we were invited to News International’s worldwide conference we’d have politely declined. “Our position was not to respond to page one headlines … but it was very hard to sustain that and abandoned in 2007.” However, Bernstein responded by saying that he was horrified by the idea of introducing stiffer press regulation, arguing that the press needed to be regulated in the same way as every other person’s speech is, through general law rather than a specific code. Alan Rusbridger, the editor of the Guardian, said that PCC had run into trouble because its “mistake was to call itself a regulator. It is not a regulator.” Rather, he continued, the body was best described as “a mediator” handling complaints from the subjects of news articles. He “liked the idea” of continuing with two systems of regulation for press and broadcasting but even that distinction would become “tremendously complicated”, he said, as newspapers developed their websites and started appearing on electronic TV programme guides. Phone hacking Carl Bernstein Rupert Murdoch News of the World Newspapers News International Newspapers & magazines National newspapers The Guardian Watergate Richard Nixon United States Dan Sabbagh guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …
Defence secretary reveals there had been a ‘complete breakdown of trust’ between the military and the rest of Whitehall The Ministry of Defence has to accept a share of the blame for the depth of cuts to the military budget that have led to thousands of redundancies, the defence secretary, Liam Fox, has said. In his first interview this year, Fox revealed that there had been a “complete breakdown of trust” between the military and the rest of Whitehall over ballooning costs, and that this had hampered his efforts to protect the defence budget. Fox told the Guardian that military chiefs working within the Ministry of Defence at the time have to take some of the blame for allowing the situation to get so out of control. “I think the MoD consistently dug a hole for itself that it eventually found that it could not climb out of,” he said. “It is irritating to hear some of those who helped create the problem criticising us when we try to bring in a solution.” The crisis reached its peak at the end of Gordon Brown’s time as prime minister, he said. “I think there had been a loss [of trust] and in the latter part of the Brown government there was an almost complete breakdown between the MoD and the Treasury and the MoD and No 10.” His combative remarks are bound to provoke a fresh row over the government’s cuts to the armed forces, though Fox made it clear the MoD had been its own worst enemy at times. Speaking as the navy was poised to tell 1,100 sailors and support staff they are being made redundant – one third will be compulsory – Fox said he wanted the armed forces to “take the pain early” so the military can balance its books and regain lost credibility. Morale within the forces had “taken a knock” but most people understood that reform “had to be done”. Fox also said he believed critics of the military campaign in Libya had been “silenced” and proved wrong. He said he hoped there would be no more job losses beyond those already announced and that the Royal Navy might need to “increase in size towards the second half of the decade”. There might yet be recruitment in other areas. Asked if would sack military or civilian commanders if costs ran out of control again, Fox said: “Yes. And I’d cancel projects that look like they are not coming to fruition.” He made it clear that he had never considered quitting, nor would he, whatever the pressures upon him. “To walk away and let something unacceptable happen isn’t very brave,” he explained. Fox said the problems at the MoD had been building for some time and that when he took over he had no confidence that the figures he was being given were accurate, which made negotiating with a sceptical Treasury very difficult. The attitude towards the MoD was “here we go again”, he said. “I was never convinced in early months that the department actually knew what the cost of things were.” He renewed his attack on Labour for letting matters spiral out of control, saying: “How anyone would allow a department of that size to operate without controls on its spending is literally beyond me.” Fox said he believed that trust was being repaired, but at a high price. The MoD has had to make sweeping cuts to personnel and equipment to come within budget, changes that have been undertaken against a backdrop of near relentless criticism from former members of the services. He admitted the decision to approve job cuts was the most painful he had had to make, but that he believed the worst was now over. “Debt is a strategic issue. Countries that cannot produce economic wellbeing cannot defend themselves properly in the long term. None of us knows what will happen in the economy in the next decade. But we are setting as good a course as possible without knowing what the weather will be. I am as confident as you can be that the big decisions have been taken.” Fox did not rule out that defence spending might rise again, above and beyond the 1% increase for equipment that was announced earlier this summer. “As the economy recovers, we will all go into the usual negotiations with the Treasury. We will all be fighting our own corner. I do think there has been a shift in Whitehall dynamic. And the MoD is held in better esteem now.” On Libya, Fox defended the cautious approach of Nato’s military campaign, and said that he believed that this may have helped to heal some of the wounds inflicted in the region by the Iraq war. “We stuck like glue to our initial belief that minimising civilian casualties would not only give us the high moral ground over Gaddafi, but that in the post-Gaddafi environment we have different values. And in many ways that was laying to rest some of the views in the Arab world that came out post-Iraq.”He described Labour’s recent proposals for reforms to defence as “a pointless exercise … a grotesquely crude instrument which suggests they have learned little from their appalling mismanagement of the MoD.” Liam Fox Defence policy Tax and spending Ministry of Defence Nick Hopkins guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …Conservative pontificators are always recycled on TV no matter how ridiculous and petty they are. Tucker Carlson left CNN to start an even worse show on MSNBC after Bush was reelected that failed pretty quickly. Anyway, he soon jumped on the web and started the Daily Caller to be part of the online revolution. His site is quickly becoming a reflection of his own failed pundit career. See, truth and facts do not matter. Greg Sargent details their latest atrocity. Not sure I’ve ever seen anything quite like this before. As you may have heard, the Daily Caller took a terrible hit yesterday after falsely reporting that the Environmental Protection Agency is looking to hire 230,000 new “bureaucrats” — at a cost of $21 billion! — to implement new climate rules. The tale quickly went viral on the right as the latest example of Obama overreach and government run amok, and the fact that the tale was comically absurd on its face didn’t seem to slow the frenzy. But now the Daily Caller is doubling down on the story, and the argument it’s making in its own defense is really something to behold. To back up: As Kate Sheppard noted yesterday in her post debunking the original Daily Caller story , there are only 17,000 employees at the EPA, which alone makes the Daily Calle r’s claim ridiculous. Not only that, but the legal brief that formed the basis for the Daily Caller story was actually pointing to the 230,000 new employees as a theoretical outcome to be avoided . That is, EPA was arguing that the high number of new employees would be necessary if the agency didn’t have a so-called “tailoring rule.” This rule, which actually restricts the EPA’s regulatory powers to limiting emissions from the largest greenhouse gas producers, is being challenged in court, and EPA is trying to defend it. Case closed, right? Well, no, of course not. Today, in response to the criticism, Daily Caller executive editor David Martosko said the publication is standing by the story : “The EPA is well-known for expanding its reach, especially regarding greenhouse gas emissions. What’s ‘comically wrong’ is the idea that half of Washington won’t admit it. The EPA’s own court filing speaks volumes,” Martosko said in an email. “What’s more likely: that the Obama administration’s EPA wants to limit its own power, or that it’s interested in dramatically increasing its reach and budget? Anyone who has spent more than a few months in Washington knows the answer,” he added. This truly is low comedy. The Daily Caller is now claiming that the original tall tale is true, simply because, well, the government regulatory apparatus by definition wants to expand rapaciously in reach and power. Once it has been established that government regulation is inherently onerous and bad and relentlessly expansionary, literally any fact at all can be pressed into service to support that unshakable overarching truth — even facts that directly contradict it. Nothing else could possibly be true, and therefore, it isn’t. This isn’t meant in a glib way. Recognizing the absolute irrelevance of the facts at hand is central to understanding what’s really going on in situations such as these. This is an old story, but you almost never see examples in which the cynicism is quite this brazen. In this sense, the Daily Caller really has revealed a larger truth, albeit not the one it intended. So they make stuff up and then do what conservatives usually do, they continue to promote falsehoods. Their is no lie big enough for them not to try and ferment into a full-blown Villager story like Hot Air ‘s (read: out of thin) idiotic “Ford Gate” lie that was debunked by Ford. Breathless thread title at Hot Air reporting a piece from a columnist from the Detroit News web site : “Ford pulls bailout-criticism ad after pressure from Obama administration” Much talk about about phone calls and pressure from the WH to pull a Ford ad talking about Ford not taking a bailout. Comments follow about Big Brother’s control of private industry. Great story, but it turns out to be BS as the Hot Air updates admit: Update: Ford is responding on its Facebook page that it didn’t pull the ad under pressure, but instead had it rotate out normally. That doesn’t explain why Ford pulled it from its YouTube account, though. Update II: Actually, it appears that Ford deleted the ad and then reposted it on Friday, for some reason, where it now has only 305 views. Or the Solyndra nontroversy garbage: David Roberts at Grist has a great overview today of the Solyndra nontroversy, based partly on recent polling and focus groups. The upshot? Support for solar energy remains strong even among conservatives, and the non-scandal “scandal” is basically confined to the Fox News nuts:… read on. Snippy Tuck The truth is that it is (it’s a legal case, click the link to read the explanation),the Daily Caller has been shown to be pathetic fools — and Tucker Carlson and his minions, like the petulant children they are, refuse to admit they were wrong. Recall this sad little episode back in the day when Carlson would pollute the airwaves on a regular basis. That anecdote was almost certainly a total lie from beginning to end. EDITOR’S NOTE: “Journalists” make corrections, propagandists make things up.
Continue reading …