On the May 13 Fox & Friends , MRC President and NewsBusters publisher Brent Bozell came abaord to recap the 2011 Media Research Center Gala and DisHonors Awards dinner held on May 7 in Washington, D.C. Anchor Brian Kilmeade started off by showing the ” Quote of the Year ,” which was “won” by MSNBC's Ed Schultz for ranting that Republicans “want to see you dead” and “make money off your dead corpse.” [For the full Fox & Friends segment, watch the video embedded after the page break or listen to MP3 audio here ]
Continue reading …
enlarge Credit: Carl Mydans When the rains came. Click here to view this media With the news the past several days about the epic floods going on throughout the area of the Mississippi River, and reports citing this as the worst flooding since the Great Flood of 1937 , I thought it would be fitting to run those on-the-scene reports, some of the first of their kind in broadcast history, during the great Ohio and Mississippi River Floods from January 23-25, 1937. The damage and loss of life was no doubt greater in 1937 than it is today, mostly because our warning systems are a lot more sophisticated now than they were in 1937. But the destruction loss and urgency of the moment are very much the same. Here is a one hour rundown of the Great Flood as it happened between January 23rd and 25th 1937 via various NBC Red and Blue Network Radio outlets in Illinois, Ohio and Tennessee. History, as you’ve noticed, repeats and repeats often.
Continue reading …
“I have gotten from friends all over the country copies of the picture that was this iconic picture taken in the Situation Room while we were watching the operation. And they have been photoshopped in every way you can imagine…Coming after the royal wedding, one of these had all of us in one of these
Continue reading …
She is the biggest pop star in the world, who doesn’t have fans so much as disciples. But has Lady Gaga’s Jesus complex gone too far? It’s not the vertiginous heels that I can’t keep my eyes off, nor the super-mafioso shades, not even the see-through catsuit. It’s that little growth from her forehead. There’s only one on show today. It could be a horn, a cancer, an embryonic phallus. It could be, as she likes us to think, a
Continue reading …
She is the biggest pop star in the world, who doesn’t have fans so much as disciples. But has Lady Gaga’s Jesus complex gone too far? It’s not the vertiginous heels that I can’t keep my eyes off, nor the super-mafioso shades, not even the see-through catsuit. It’s that little growth from her forehead. There’s only one on show today. It could be a horn, a cancer, an embryonic phallus. It could be, as she likes us to think, a
Continue reading …John King and Ed Gillespie Ignore That Voters Might Care What Ended Gingrich’s First Two Marriages
May 13, 2011 No Comment
Click here to view this media CNN’s John King talked to former Bushie and Republican operative Ed Gillespie about whether we should actually take flame thrower Newt Gingrich’s presidential run seriously and they focused in on whether it might bother voters that he’s been married three times. What they failed to note is that the details of his two divorces and how that somehow squares with him being a so-called “Christian conservative” are completely at odds with each other and that hypocrisy might bother voters quite a bit more than the number of marriages he’s had. The HuffPo laid out a timeline of Gingrich’s divorces and affairs here — Newt Gingrich: Marriages, Divorces, Affairs Timeline . And our corporate media continues to ignore that he left one of his wives while she was recovering from cancer surgery. So much for those family values . And as John wrote about here earlier this year, David Frum criticized Gingrich for not just dumping one sick wife, but two . Fox “News” can attempt to clean up Gingrich’s image all they want along with some of their fellow enablers in our corporate media as CNN did here, but I don’t think there’s enough lipstick out there to cover up this pig. Gingrich is nothing but a huge flaming hypocrite who says inflammatory things every chance he gets and I don’t think he’s any more a serious candidate for president than Trump was. Transcript via CNN : KING: We asked about Newt Gingrich, opinion of Newt Gingrich in our poll — 30 percent favorable, 44 percent unfavorable, 26 percent, unsure. A 44 percent unfavorable is not a good place to start a campaign for president. GILLESPIE: I think that 2012 is going to be a very big election. It’s going to be over big things — the direction of the country, the economy, national security, the war on terror, all the things that are in play. And the bigger, the better, I suspect, for Speaker Gingrich. You know, he’s someone who revels in big ideas. And so, you know, I think some of these concerns, legitimate concerns. He’s going to have to address them. But I think his bet is, though people will look past some of those concerns because — because he has the kind of big ideas that the country’s looking for now. KING: Do you think a concern they will look past — and you hear this when you talk to social conservatives in Iowa, social conservatives in South Carolina, is the that fact he’s been married three times? GILLESPIE: That will be an issue for a segment of the Republican primary electorate, in particularly, in the two early states you mentioned, in Iowa and South Carolina. But, look, you know, if the concern over, you know, a third marriage is disqualifying in the voters’ minds, Gingrich is not going to be able to convince them otherwise. They’re outside his reach from the get-go. I don’t think they’re a majority of the voters though and he’s got to piece together a coalition of voters who don’t have that, don’t consider that to be disqualifying in order to capture the nomination. And, you know, the fact that the rules have changed in the Republican primary in a way where many of the states, you know, in March, are proportional delegates, you know, that may mitigate against that in some ways.
Continue reading …John King and Ed Gillespie Ignore That Voters Might Care What Ended Gingrich’s First Two Marriages
May 13, 2011 No Comment
Click here to view this media CNN’s John King talked to former Bushie and Republican operative Ed Gillespie about whether we should actually take flame thrower Newt Gingrich’s presidential run seriously and they focused in on whether it might bother voters that he’s been married three times. What they failed to note is that the details of his two divorces and how that somehow squares with him being a so-called “Christian conservative” are completely at odds with each other and that hypocrisy might bother voters quite a bit more than the number of marriages he’s had. The HuffPo laid out a timeline of Gingrich’s divorces and affairs here — Newt Gingrich: Marriages, Divorces, Affairs Timeline . And our corporate media continues to ignore that he left one of his wives while she was recovering from cancer surgery. So much for those family values . And as John wrote about here earlier this year, David Frum criticized Gingrich for not just dumping one sick wife, but two . Fox “News” can attempt to clean up Gingrich’s image all they want along with some of their fellow enablers in our corporate media as CNN did here, but I don’t think there’s enough lipstick out there to cover up this pig. Gingrich is nothing but a huge flaming hypocrite who says inflammatory things every chance he gets and I don’t think he’s any more a serious candidate for president than Trump was. Transcript via CNN : KING: We asked about Newt Gingrich, opinion of Newt Gingrich in our poll — 30 percent favorable, 44 percent unfavorable, 26 percent, unsure. A 44 percent unfavorable is not a good place to start a campaign for president. GILLESPIE: I think that 2012 is going to be a very big election. It’s going to be over big things — the direction of the country, the economy, national security, the war on terror, all the things that are in play. And the bigger, the better, I suspect, for Speaker Gingrich. You know, he’s someone who revels in big ideas. And so, you know, I think some of these concerns, legitimate concerns. He’s going to have to address them. But I think his bet is, though people will look past some of those concerns because — because he has the kind of big ideas that the country’s looking for now. KING: Do you think a concern they will look past — and you hear this when you talk to social conservatives in Iowa, social conservatives in South Carolina, is the that fact he’s been married three times? GILLESPIE: That will be an issue for a segment of the Republican primary electorate, in particularly, in the two early states you mentioned, in Iowa and South Carolina. But, look, you know, if the concern over, you know, a third marriage is disqualifying in the voters’ minds, Gingrich is not going to be able to convince them otherwise. They’re outside his reach from the get-go. I don’t think they’re a majority of the voters though and he’s got to piece together a coalition of voters who don’t have that, don’t consider that to be disqualifying in order to capture the nomination. And, you know, the fact that the rules have changed in the Republican primary in a way where many of the states, you know, in March, are proportional delegates, you know, that may mitigate against that in some ways.
Continue reading …You’d think John McCain could settle this stupid torture debate, but I doubt it
May 13, 2011 No CommentAnyone who knows me knows I am not a fan of John McCain, but his op-ed in the Washington Post should settle the question of whether torture “worked” to locate and kill Osama Bin Laden. But this must be an informed debate. Former attorney general Michael Mukasey recently claimed that “the intelligence that led to bin Laden . . . began with a disclosure from Khalid Sheik Mohammed, who broke like a dam under the pressure of harsh interrogation techniques that included waterboarding. He loosed a torrent of information — including eventually the nickname of a trusted courier of bin Laden.” That is false. I asked CIA Director Leon Panetta for the facts, and he told me the following: The trail to bin Laden did not begin with a disclosure from Khalid Sheik Mohammed, who was waterboarded 183 times. The first mention of Abu Ahmed al-Kuwaiti — the nickname of the al-Qaeda courier who ultimately led us to bin Laden — as well as a description of him as an important member of al-Qaeda, came from a detainee held in another country, who we believe was not tortured. None of the three detainees who were waterboarded provided Abu Ahmed’s real name, his whereabouts or an accurate description of his role in al-Qaeda. In fact, the use of “enhanced interrogation techniques” on Khalid Sheik Mohammed produced false and misleading information. He specifically told his interrogators that Abu Ahmed had moved to Peshawar, got married and ceased his role as an al-Qaeda facilitator — none of which was true. According to the staff of the Senate intelligence committee, the best intelligence gained from a CIA detainee — information describing Abu Ahmed al-Kuwaiti’s real role in al-Qaeda and his true relationship to bin Laden — was obtained through standard, noncoercive means. It’s interesting to see how the Sunday shows — never shy about inviting McCain to their panels — completely ignored him in favor of the neocons and torture apologists. Why is that?
Continue reading …You’d think John McCain could settle this stupid torture debate, but I doubt it
May 13, 2011 No CommentAnyone who knows me knows I am not a fan of John McCain, but his op-ed in the Washington Post should settle the question of whether torture “worked” to locate and kill Osama Bin Laden. But this must be an informed debate. Former attorney general Michael Mukasey recently claimed that “the intelligence that led to bin Laden . . . began with a disclosure from Khalid Sheik Mohammed, who broke like a dam under the pressure of harsh interrogation techniques that included waterboarding. He loosed a torrent of information — including eventually the nickname of a trusted courier of bin Laden.” That is false. I asked CIA Director Leon Panetta for the facts, and he told me the following: The trail to bin Laden did not begin with a disclosure from Khalid Sheik Mohammed, who was waterboarded 183 times. The first mention of Abu Ahmed al-Kuwaiti — the nickname of the al-Qaeda courier who ultimately led us to bin Laden — as well as a description of him as an important member of al-Qaeda, came from a detainee held in another country, who we believe was not tortured. None of the three detainees who were waterboarded provided Abu Ahmed’s real name, his whereabouts or an accurate description of his role in al-Qaeda. In fact, the use of “enhanced interrogation techniques” on Khalid Sheik Mohammed produced false and misleading information. He specifically told his interrogators that Abu Ahmed had moved to Peshawar, got married and ceased his role as an al-Qaeda facilitator — none of which was true. According to the staff of the Senate intelligence committee, the best intelligence gained from a CIA detainee — information describing Abu Ahmed al-Kuwaiti’s real role in al-Qaeda and his true relationship to bin Laden — was obtained through standard, noncoercive means. It’s interesting to see how the Sunday shows — never shy about inviting McCain to their panels — completely ignored him in favor of the neocons and torture apologists. Why is that?
Continue reading …You might have thought the answer to this question would be pheromones, but according to a new study, you’d be wrong. Researchers from Rice University and the University of Nebraska—Lincoln analyzed data collected from more than 5,000 couples in order to find out how similar political beliefs were among spouses. In their preface to the
Continue reading …