FOX brings more family values to TV

Rupert Murdoch always knows a winner when he sees one. This time, it's a new TV show that is about people being fired. Get it? As in "hey, you are losing your job during the worst recession in decades." Funny, isn't it? Downright hysterical. Ha, ha, ha. We probably can't even begin to understand how funny watching someone getting fired is because we don't have Rupert Murdoch/Fox TV family values. Whether real or fake, what red-blooded American is not interested in watching what is happening to friends, family or themselves? Funny, stuff. This is the new Fox TV show that is in the works:

An upcoming series titled, "Someone's Gotta Go," lets employees of a small business decide which one of their colleagues will be laid off.

Fox says it has no air date yet for the series, which is being developed by the company behind "Big Brother" and "Deal or No Deal." Each week, a different company lays off an employee.

How about we start with the person or people at Fox who thought this was a great idea? Read More......

Roger Ebert discusses Bill O'Reilly's, uh, mouse-like appendage

Hysterical column from Roger Ebert about Bill O'Reilly having declared the Chicago Sun-Times public enemy number one for dropping his column.

Here are the first three paragraphs. You really need to read the rest, including the last paragraph, that I'm not quite sure I can post without peeing my pants:

Dear Bill: Thanks for including the Chicago Sun-Times on your exclusive list of newspapers on your "Hall of Shame." To be in an O'Reilly Hall of Fame would be a cruel blow to any newspaper. It would place us in the favor of a man who turns red and starts screaming when anyone disagrees with him. My grade-school teacher, wise Sister Nathan, would have called in your parents and recommended counseling with Father Hogben.

Yes, the Sun-Times is liberal, having recently endorsed our first Democrat for President since LBJ. We were founded by Marshall Field one week before Pearl Harbor to provide a liberal voice in Chicago to counter the Tribune, which opposed an American war against Hitler. I'm sure you would have sided with the Trib at the time.

I understand you believe one of the Sun-Times misdemeanors was dropping your syndicated column. My editor informs me that "very few" readers complained about the disappearance of your column, adding, "many more complained about Nancy." I know I did. That was the famous Ernie Bushmiller comic strip in which Sluggo explained that "wow" was "mom" spelled upside-down....

Read More......

Conservatives suddenly discovered the Constitution - kind of

Well, it seems our friends in the Republican party have suddenly discovered the US Constitution. Well bully for them. It always brings a tear to my eye when a political party that oversaw the shredding of the Bill of Rights during its eight year tenure, going so far as to illegally wiretap innocent Americans for the first time since Nixon (another great conservative), suddenly takes an interest in what the flag stands for, rather than just the flag itself. Of course, they're still rather off their rockers. Domestic spying didn't get their dander up. Neither did suspending habeas corpus. No, what has so incensed conservatives, that they are crying "fascism" while flashing images of marching Nazi soldiers, and shooting up cops because they're so afraid their "rights" will be taken away, is the fact that President Obama is spending money to stimulate the economy in order to avoid another Great Depression.

The crime? Well, they seem to be saying that deficit spending is akin to Hitler, or something. Or maybe it's akin to King George III, since now the conservatives are having "tea parties" to protest Obama's stimulus spending. (Kind of gay, having tea parties, if you ask me, but whatever. Maybe they'll invite Lindsey and Aaron.) But if it's really deficits the conservatives are so upset about, then why weren't they upset the first time Republicans ran up huge deficits, under Ronald Reagan, and then Bill Clinton had to fix things? Why weren't they upset the second time conservatives blew up the deficit under George Bush? Probably the same reason that conservatives weren't upset when George Bush illegally spied on Americans and suspended/ignored other constitutional rights and civil liberties. These people aren't real conservatives. They're political opportunists who don't believe in any ideology at all. They're the same minority of extremists who control and lead the Republican party. And who still think George Bush did a bang up job.

So, while we're glad that conservatives have finally rediscovered liberty and all that, perhaps they can explain to us what stopping the country from going into a depression has in common with the Revolutionary War? Or why they're opposed to averting a depression at all. Read More......

Audition tapes found of phony "testimonial" ad created by anti-gay groups

They're running ads telling the stories of "real" people who have been "hurt" by gay marriage. Too bad someone found the audition tapes for the ads - you'll get to see lots of real actors telling the same "personal" story over and over and over. These people are pathetic. If there are so many "real" people hurt by our civil rights, then why do they have to hire actors at all? Because it's all a big lie, brought to your during Holy Week, of all things. Amazing.

HRC got their hands on the audition tapes - you can see them via the link above - I also took the tapes and cut and pasted them with the actual commercial, so you can watch how duplicitous these people really are.

(Some of the actors are so bad, I'm convinced these people got Uncle Fred and Aunt Edith to try out as well - not only couldn't they find real victims, they couldn't even find real actors.)

Read More......

Obama administration 'anti religious,' Gingrich says

Chris in Paris just sent me this story, and added his two cents: "I've often wondered what religion supported leaving a first wife in the hospital and living on handouts, and then leaving a second wife for the new bimbo, and then getting married a third time. It's true, I'm not religious, so some of these fancy arguments go over my head." Read More......

Top bloggers blast lead liberal groups

It's a problem that's been building for a while. First, I'll quote Greg's piece, then give you my thoughts below. From Greg Sargent:

Some of the leading liberal bloggers are privately furious with the major progressive groups — and in some cases, the Democratic Party committees — for failing to advertise on their sites, even as these groups constantly ask the bloggers for free assistance in driving their message.

It’s a development that’s creating tensions on the left and raises questions about the future role of the blogosphere at a time when a Dem is in the White House and liberalism could be headed for a period of sustained ascendancy...

“They come to us, expecting us to give them free publicity, and we do, but it’s not a two way street,” Jane Hamsher, of FiredogLake, said in an interview. “They won’t do anything in return. They’re not advertising with us. They’re not offering fellowships. They’re not doing anything to help financially, and people are growing increasingly resentful.”

Hamsher singled out Americans United for Change, which raises and spends big money on TV ad campaigns driving Obama’s agenda, as well as the constellation of groups associated with it, and the American Association of Retired Persons, also a big TV advertiser.

At some point, Democrats - progressives - need to start investing in the future. And by "the future," I don't mean large organizations that have been around for years but haven't accomplished anything in the past two decades. I mean investing in progressives who can kick ass, and have a proven ability to do so.

There is the perception on the right that all of the top liberal blogs are funded by George Soros. I wish. We, for example, are funded by advertising and by your individual donations. Both are dropping in a terrible economy. No one subsidizes my blog. I wish they did. But they don't.

For our blog to survive - for the liberal blogosphere to survive - we need support. Unlike many of the top bloggers on the right, many of the top liberal bloggers blog for a living (many of the folks on the right have "real" jobs, a lot of them work as lawyers, and blog on the side). This is our job. It's our career. It's our passion, to be sure. But it's also how we pay the mortgage, invest in our retirement, and put food on the table. It makes no sense that Democrats have not found a way to invest in the blogosphere, and help us not just survive, but grow and become even more powerful. It's almost as if we don't want to win.

The immediate concern, that led to Greg's article above, is the plethora of liberal organizations who ask us for help - wanting us to promote their pet cause, or simply their executive director's latest uttering - but who never think of asking us if there's any way they can help us in return. These groups would never, in a million years, ask another liberal organization to post one of their press releases on the other group's Web site. In fact, they'd pay another organization, and do, for access to its members. But these same groups come to the blogs, time and again, and beg for our help, for free, and never give it a thought.

And the thing is, we help them anyway.

It's a bit like being a doctor. Sure, you expect your family, and even your close friends, to ask you for free medical advice. And you give it, because it's what good people do for their family and close friends. And in return, those family and friends offer you their services as well - maybe one is an accountant, another a lawyer - but the expectation on all sides is that we're family, and we will all find ways to help each other.

What you don't expect is to have a complete stranger knock on your door and ask you, ever day, to help cure their latest ill, for free, and never ever offer to lift a finger to help you in return. It gets old. It's also incredibly presumptuous and rude.

Far too many of the large progressive organizations, and the Democratic party itself, want the benefits of friendships without actually being our friends. (And don't even get me started on the PR firms - little do their clients know that the best way to get an email deleted by a blogger is to have a PR firm send it.) They clearly recognize the blogs as a powerhouse that can help the party and help the progressive movement - otherwise they wouldn't ask for our help. But they don't think enough of us to actually support our work, and help us survive and prosper.

Perhaps it's time they stopped getting the milk for free. Because this cow has had about enough.

UPDATE: I had mentioned something to Greg Sargent, when he was interviewing me for the article, but it didn't make it into the piece. Namely, that there are a few groups - a very few - who have been supportive of the blogs, and get how to work effectively with the Netroots. SEIU and the ACLU. Ever since Rachel Perrone left the ACLU, they kind of disappeared in terms of blogger relations. But before that, they were a model for how to work with bloggers, harness our talents to work together on issues of common interest (and yes, they also bought ads). The other group, SEIU, has been ga ga in terms of its support of the blogosphere, both inside and outside of the organization. SEIU gets the Internet. They also get the notion of progressives being a movement, and a family. About the need, the obligation, to help each other. Unfortunately, off the top of my head, I can't think of any other group that fits the bill. Read More......

Turkish TV anchor dresses in black-face to honor, or mock, Obama

It's not terribly clear. ThinkProgress has more.

Read More......

Chrysler debuts its only new car... it's an SUV

Looks like the same bone-headed "leadership" that Rob Nardelli delivered while at Home Depot. I only hope that this time, he doesn't walk away with hundreds of millions despite being a failure.

Chrysler insists the Jeep Grand Cherokee, which clocks in at 20 mpg in its two-wheel-drive version and 19 in four-wheel-drive, is a crowd favorite and a crucial part of its lineup.

"This is a very important vehicle for us. It's one of the primary legs of the Chrysler stool," Chrysler spokesman Rick Deneau said. "Customers have told us they want this vehicle and that it's the right size."

The 2011 model is 11 percent more fuel efficient than its predecessor, powered by a cleaner and more powerful engine. Still, Chrysler's decision to debut an SUV as its only new car at the New York International Auto Show seems like odd timing to say the least.

Wow. A whole 11% improvement. If there's one thing the future is calling for, it's another gas guzzling SUV. GM management gambled with a similar theory and thankfully was called out. Read More......

Fun with online polls

It's on gay marriage, in the lower left hand corner of this page. You know what to do. Read More......

Wash Post publishes conservative hit piece on Obama

Well that didn't take long. You'll recall that on Monday I wrote about how conservatives were about to take a new PEW poll and twist it against Obama, claiming that he's the most polarizing president EVER, even more so than George Bush?

Well, it's begun, courtesy of the Washington Post.

Now, you'd think the Post would have some issues with publishing, even commentary, that promotes right-wing talking points that have already been debunked. Greg Sargent over at the Post's own Plum Line investigated this newest line of attack on Monday, and got none of than PEW itself to say that the notion that their poll shows Obama to be polarizing is bunk. Here's what the head of PEW's polling unit told Greg:

The fellow who oversees Pew Research’s political polling is disputing the claim, made by some on the right today, that the much-discussed new Pew poll showing a stark partisan divide in Obama’s approval rating proves that Obama is a “polarizing” President.

“It’s unfair to say that Obama has caused this divisiveness or to say that he is a polarizing president,” Michael Dimock, Pew’s associate director, told me in an interview just now.

But that didn't stop the Post from, only 48 hours later, bringing the lie back to life.

So now we have to, once again, dissect the same lie we already put the rest on Monday. Sigh.

In a nutshell, the new poll shows that Republicans and Democrats are divided on their approval of Obama. Even more so than Rs and Ds were over their approval of George Bush. The Post writer claims that this is because Obama is a super-duper polarizer, and overall a bad man. What the PEW people actually found was quite the opposite. The guilty party, responsible for this partisan divide, isn't Obama - it's the Republicans themselves.

What PEW found is that Democrats traditionally give a new president a pass, even when the president is from the opposing party. Republicans, however, are less charitable - they tend to be more critical, less approving, of a new Democratic president than Democrats are of a new Republican president. That's one reason that the partisan divide is greater during Obama's first few months than during Bush's - because Democrats are less partisan than Republicans.

As an aside, this is a point that the Post commentary today outright lied about. The commentary claimed that both Dems and Republicans in the past have given new presidents a fair shake. What it doesn't tell you - gee, I wonder why - is that Dems have traditionally been far more fair-shaking than Republicans in this regard, and the numbers prove it. Again, from PEW via Greg:

[PEW's] Dimock also said this phenomenon is partly caused by the recent tendency of Republicans to be less charitable towards new Presidents than Dems have been.

In contrast to the 27% of GOPers approving of Obama now, more than a third of Dems (36%) approved of George W. Bush at a comparable time in 2001. Before that, only 26% of Republicans approved of Bill Clinton at the same time in his presidency, while 41% of Dems approved of both George H.W. Bush and Ronald Reagan at comparable times.

In other words, it's patently false to suggest that things were even in the past but somehow uneven now. Republicans have always been more critical.

The second reason that PEW found for the divide under Obama is that Republicans have actually gotten even more partisan - less willing to give the new Democratic president a fair shake - over the past few years, so they're being even harsher on Obama than they were on Democratic presidents before him.

So, rather than this poll showing evidence that Obama is somehow different, and more polarizing, than previous Democratic presidents, what the poll actually shows is that Republicans have gotten more polarized all on their own. Obama could have been a turnip, and Republicans would have hated him more than ever.

One final point that a reader mentioned after I'd written Monday's piece, and it's a point I've raised before. The reason "Republicans" are more polarized than ever vis-a-vis Obama is because millions of Americans have fled the Republican party under George Bush, Dick Cheney, Tom Delay, and Rush Limbaugh. An increasing number of those remaining in the party, those still willing to call themselves "Republican" when the pollster comes knocking on the door, are the Limbaugh/Dobson/Palin wing of the party. In a nutshell, the angry wackos who, of course, can't stand Obama simply because Obama has a "D" after his name (and maybe even for some other reasons that have nothing to do with the content of his character).

The GOP has quite literally distilled itself into a party of hate and extremism. It's the reason you now can't win a GOP primary without being an angry, intolerant, far right gun-hugging, Bible-thumping, gay-bashing nut. And it's the reason polls, up until the end of his presidency, continued to show so many "Republicans" approving of George Bush's job as president. All the rats who disapproved of Bush, who had a modicum of sense, already fled the proverbial ship.

So, yes, the far right of the Republican party loathes Obama. Unfortunately, they're no longer the far right of the party. They are the party. Read More......

Norm Coleman's never-ending death row appeal

What is Norm Coleman, the former Republican Senator who lost to Democrat Al Franken last fall, doing in Minnesota with his never-ending appeal of his election defeat? He's doing the GOP's bidding. It's no coincidence that Ben Ginsberg, a top (and nasty) Republican political operative here in DC, is Coleman's lawyer.

The national Republican party sees never-ending appeals in this case as a win-win. In the end, there are two outcomes, both of which help the national GOP. 1) Coleman wins on appeal (by a fluke, but an infinitesimally small chance of victory is better than no chance of victory, which is what Coleman would have if he finally conceded). 2) Coleman drags this case out for years, and not only is Al Franken not seated, which is a form of personal victory if Coleman is really taking the race that personally, but more importantly for the Republicans, Obama is denied another Democratic vote in the Senate - a vote that would put the Dems perilously close to a filibuster-proof 60 votes in the Senate.

Ever since Bush v. Gore, the Republicans started shifting their election strategy from winning enough votes to winning in the courts. The Coleman strategy dangerously take this one step further. Even if they can't outright win in the courts, they'll deny their opponent victory for years in never-ending judicial appeals. It's Norm Coleman's version of the never-ending death row appeal.

What's worse - if the Republicans are willing to do this in a Senate race, it's only a matter of time before they refuse to seat a Democratic president. And judging by the non-response from Democrats on this issue, don't be surprised if the Republicans get bolder and bolder in the future. And they might just get away with it.

The latest on Norm's folly here. Read More......

Wash Post reporter slaps George Will on global warming

The new data is pretty disturbing in this article from yesterday, but equally surprising is the Washington Post reporter outright mentioning, and implicitly criticizing, Washington Post opinion writer George Will.

The Arctic sea ice cover continues to shrink and become thinner, according to satellite measurements and other data released yesterday, providing further evidence that the region is warming more rapidly than scientists had expected....

The new evidence -- including satellite data showing that the average multiyear wintertime sea ice cover in the Arctic in 2005 and 2006 was nine feet thick, a significant decline from the 1980s -- contradicts data cited in widely circulated reports by Washington Post columnist George F. Will that sea ice in the Arctic has not significantly declined since 1979.

Scientists have begun debating how soon the Arctic will lose its summer ice altogether, with some saying it could happen as early as 2015....

The loss of sea ice in the Arctic will not directly raise global sea levels, researchers said, but will contribute to an overall ocean warming that could erode the Greenland ice sheet, which would affect sea levels. The disappearance of the polar ice cap patterns....

That's short-hand for "The Day After Tomorrow." Read More......

DKos: More Immunity Claims on Wiretapping from Obama DOJ

I'm getting a number of emails about this. People are pissed. After all, Obama did promise to filibuster FISA, once upon a time. More from McJoan:

In three separate cases in as many months, the Obama Justice Department has used the same arguments that the Bush administration Justice Department used to attempt to stop judicial review of extraordinary rendition and warrantless wiretapping. In the Mohamed v. Jeppesen extraordinary rendition case, the Obama administration reiterated the Bush administration argument that the case should be dismissed to preserve "states secrets." Likewise, in the Al-Haramain wiretapping case, Obama's DOJ used the arguments of the Bush administration to argue, again, that state secrets should prevent the Al-Haramain case--in which the only secret isn't a secret because it was inadvertently shared with plaintiff's attorneys--from moving forward.

Late Friday, the Obama DOJ actually went the Bush administration one argument further, in a third case. In Jewel v. NSA, the Electronic Frontier Foundation is "suing the National Security Agency (NSA) and other government agencies on behalf of AT&T; customers to stop the illegal, unconstitutional, and ongoing dragnet surveillance of their communications and communications records." The Obama administration filed its first response [pdf] to the suit Friday, demanding dismissal of the entire suit.

Read More......

Lest we forget, it was George Bush's Justice Dept. that botched the Stevens prosecution

It was odd enough that Bush's Justice Department was going after Stevens, but that they'd apparently break the rules at the same time, in order to go after a fellow Republican, begs a lot of questions.

A furious federal judge on Tuesday took the extraordinary step of ordering that the prosecutors who bungled the case of former Senator Ted Stevens of Alaska be investigated for possible criminal wrongdoing.

Judge Emmet G. Sullivan dismissed the charges against Mr. Stevens, which was expected given the way the case has disintegrated since the conviction in October. But the judge went well beyond that step, declaring that what the prosecutors did was the worst “mishandling or misconduct that I’ve seen in my 25 years.”

Judge Sullivan spoke disdainfully of the prosecutors’ repeated assertions that any mistakes during the trial were inadvertent and made in good faith. He said he had witnessed “shocking and serious” violations of the principle that prosecutors are obligated to turn over all relevant material to the defense.

Read More......

Wednesday morning open thread

Joe is still exploring the wonders of Grand Canyon, but he should be back blogging tomorrow (after all, what would a vacation to one of the great wonders of the world be without taking a little time to work?) But were Joe here, he'd be crowing about the news that a top writer at the conservative National Review posted this little ditty yesterday:

Norm Coleman... I think it's time for him to give up this fight.

It was bad enough for Coleman when some in the media starting asking if it was time for him to give it up, but with lead conservatives joining the chorus, things are looking increasingly over. The only remaining question is whether Coleman himself realizes that. Then again, considering how the Democrats don't seem to mind very much that the Republicans are trampling our democracy (yet again), Coleman may hang in there awhile. Oh, imagine what the Republicans would do to us if we were holding up the swearing in of one of their senators... Read More......

Roubini: "Cramer is a buffoon"

There are too many digs to repeat so click through to read it all because it's worth it. Roubini has had enough of Cramer and is brutal. He's also right.

"Cramer is a buffoon," said Roubini, a New York University economics professor often called Dr. Doom. "He was one of those who called six times in a row for this bear market rally to be a bull market rally and he got it wrong. And after all this mess and Jon Stewart he should just shut up because he has no shame."

Cramer recently wrote in a blog that Roubini is "intoxicated" with his own "prescience and vision" and said Roubini should realize that things are better since the stock market bottom in March.

Roubini said in 2006 that the worst recession in four decades was on its way. He has attracted attention for his gloomy — and accurate — predictions of the U.S. financial market meltdown.

Every time there is a small gain or the market has become exhausted from selling off, CNBC is always there to pitch the new bull market that doesn't exist. Their entire existence has been called into question with this recession because they lost all credibility. The entire network is nothing other than a bunch of cheerleaders who are unable to offer any criticism of the system they helped create. The sooner they are sent to the junk pile and shoved aside for a real business network, the better. Read More......

Film footage emerges after G-20 death

This is a terribly disturbing story that if proven should have serious consequences. You may recall a man (Ian Tomlinson) died during the London G-20 protests though the story had been sketchy and difficult to follow. The footage that The Guardian is providing suggests the man had nothing to do with the protests and was walking (reportedly, home from work) past the Metropolitan police. The video inside shows him walking past the police with hands in his pockets as he was struck hard from behind, twice. Ian Tomlinson died minutes after this happened.

The protests at the G-20 (and practically every global meeting of this type) consistently do a great job of destroying the credibility of legitimate protest as they get carried away with violence for the sake of violence. Rather than rallying people to a good cause, the few goons in the groups make everyone and the cause look like idiots. And yes, the violent protesters are complete idiots who should be thrown in jail. In the particular case of Ian Tomlinson, appears to have been a victim of violence but not by protesters. He made the mistake of walking home from work and minding his own business.

Ian Tomlinson, the man who died at last week's G20 protests in London, was attacked from behind and thrown to the ground by a baton-wielding police officer in riot gear, dramatic footage obtained by the ­Guardian shows..

Moments after the assault on ­Tomlinson was captured on video, he ­suffered a heart attack and died.

The Guardian is preparing to hand a ­dossier of evidence to the police ­complaints watchdog. It sheds fresh light on the events ­surrounding the death of the 47-year-old newspaper seller, who had been on his way home from work when he was confronted by lines of riot police near the Bank of England.

Read More......

Blair calls out the Pope

There's never been a doubt about his ability to speak though there's often been questions on his values, if they even exist. On this occasion, Blair at least saying the right thing and perhaps even means what he says. Maybe, or at least I hope so.

Asked whether he agreed with the Pope's latest remarks on homosexuality Mr Blair said he believed that ordinary Catholics did not feel the same way about homosexuality but the Church's leadership was afraid of making any major doctrinal concessions.

"There is a huge generational difference here," he said. "There's probably that same fear amongst religious leaders that if you concede ground on [homosexuality], because attitudes and thinking evolve over time, where does that end? You'd start having to rethink many, many things." He added: "If you went and asked the [ordinary Catholic] congregation, I think you'd find that their faith is not to be found in those types of entrenched attitudes."

Mr Blair's comments are controversial because since leaving office two years ago he has become a powerful unofficial ambassador for Catholicism. Although Catholicism takes a traditionally tough line against homosexual sex, Mr Blair presided over key pieces of gay equality legislation when he was in office, including the introduction of civil partnerships and lowering the age of consent for gay people to the same as for heterosexuals.

For someone like Blair who was very public about his conversion and practice of Catholicism, it's encouragingly bold so let's give him credit for saying this publicly. Read More......

"Sanfordville" tent city going up in South Carolina in honor of stingy GOP governor

More troubles for the GOP's master plan to harm children for their own political gain. Read More......

CEO confidence hits record low

Not good, but also not unexpected. No one ever thought the economy would start turning around until, at best, much later this year. And in any case, even then, unemployment won't be turning around for a long while. So it's understandable that CEOs are gloomy and expecting more layoffs. Again, this isn't good, but it's not really any worse than we already knew. So it's not any additional cause for alarm. Read More......