Denying that he, himself, is an "ideologue," Bill O'Reilly pointed to several pictures of celebrities adorning the cover of AARP's magazine as evidence that the association is a "far-left organization":

One of the covers O'Reilly pointed to as evidence of AARP's leftist tilt was Michael Douglas. In his AARP profile, Douglas discussed such "far-left" topics as "getting his own fresh start as a husband, father, and son," his regrets about "absences" while juggling fatherhood early in his career, his son's incarceration related to drugs, staying fit at 65, and maintaining his career. On reprising his iconic role as Wall Street titan Gordan Gekko, Douglas discussed his own market losses during the financial crisis and opined that "capitalism is part of our system ... but it's not for the faint of heart."

Another cover O'Reilly pointed to was Richard Gere, who in his AARP profile spoke of the realization that he had "so many years left, maybe, to accomplish something of value," which he credited with his decision to launch a charity dedicated to social and cultural challenges -- including HIV/AIDS awareness -- and the struggle of balancing family, career, and charitable work.

Then again, it's likely Bill O'Reilly made up his mind about AARP supposedly being a "far-left organization" far before looking at the pictures on any magazine. In November 2009, O'Reilly declared that "there's no doubt" that AARP was a "left-wing organization."

CNN business correspondent Alison Kosik, whose recent tweets referred to Occupy Wall Street protesters as whiners and interested in "smoking weed," now regrets at least one of the postings, according to a CNN spokesperson.

Asked to respond to the tweets that have drawn criticism from media critics and journalism veterans, CNN emailed this short statement:

Alison regrets the tweet and took it down.

That statement was in reference to a Twitter exchange Kosik had in which she described the "purpose" of Occupy Wall Street protests "in 140 [characters] or less" as "bang on the bongos, smoke weed!"

Another Kosik tweet, in response to a question about the list of demands from protesters, stated: "the list of whines is too long already."

Both Twitter comments were captured by NYU journalism professor Jay Rosen. Kosik has removed the "smoke weed" posting, but the "whines" item remained up as of Friday afternoon.

Several media writers and news instructors said Kosik crossed the line when she offered such opinions on Twitter while also covering the growing story as a CNN reporter.

"What is her job? Is she a straight news reporter?" Eric Deggans, media critic of the St. Petersburg Times, asked sarcastically. "And if she is considered a straight news reporter, it crosses the line because she is revealing contempt for the protesters before she even gets there."

Media critic David Zurawik of The Baltimore Sun said Kosik needs to understand the power of her tweets.

"It's public record. You can say 'I'm doing it in a different forum, it is not in the story or the post or the report,' but you are still making a public utterance about this story," Zurawik said. "I think this is really a management problem at CNN New York. I don't think their standards are there. You have what is really an important story, literally on your doorstep and you go out and make fun of it."

Read the full entry ...

Radio Host Neal Boortz's attempt to compare President Obama's presidency to the tragedy of September 11 drew harsh criticism from several relatives of people who died on that day.

Boortz, appearing on Fox News' Hannity program Thursday night, stated: "Barack Obama is a bigger disaster to this country than 9-11."

For some of those who lost loved ones that day, the comparison is an insult.

"One of the most unsettling aspects of the aftermath of 9-11 has been the politicization of it," said Donald Goodrich, whose son, Peter, died in the attacks.

"It is a sad commentary on our democracy that the loss of nearly 3,000 innocent civilians of every political persuasion and religious conviction is used to demonize a president of this great country."

Timothy Sumner, whose brother-in-law was a firefighter killed on September 11, said he is no fan of Obama. But he criticized Boortz's comparison

"I think it's a ridiculous comment, it is so far off the topic, how can you emote from that?" Sumner said. "It is not even related to 9/11.

"I have issues with Barack Obama. But when you make comments like that, it is so over the top and out of context it is hard to do anything but laugh at the comment, it seems idiotic."

For Nancy Aronson, whose sister-in-law, Myra, was killed on September 11, the response was shock.

"Oh my God!" she said. "That's just ridiculous. It's politicizing an international tragedy. People from 53 countries died on September 11. Even linking Obama with that, it's just a non sequitur."

Herb Ouida's son, Todd, was killed in the North Tower on September 11. Ouida said the comparison to and criticism of Obama are both wrong.

Read the full entry ...

On Tuesday, after Rep. Lamar Smith (R-TX), chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, called for a special counsel to investigate whether Attorney General Eric Holder perjured himself during testimony about the botched ATF gunrunning sting Operation Fast and Furious, we noted that Fox News had previously devoted little coverage to Democratic calls in 2007 for a perjury investigation of Bush Attorney General Alberto Gonzales.

Our analysis found that the network's evening lineup had devoted only three segments and less then twelve minutes of coverage in their first three broadcasts after Senate Democrats called for a special counsel to review Gonzales' testimony about President Bush's domestic surveillance program. All three segments ran on Special Report; the rest of the Fox evening programs we reviewed were silent on the subject.*

By contrast, in their first three broadcasts after Smith's call for a special counsel to investigate Holder, the Fox evening programs that we reviewed devoted 43 minutes to the story. In addition to Special Report, The Five, The O'Reilly Factor, Hannity, and On the Record all covered the story at least once.**

Read the full entry ...

Since the media began covering the Occupy Wall Street protests, Fox has launched an all-out campaign to mock, attack, and discredit the movement. Fox personalities have claimed the protesters have "absolutely no purpose ... in life," called them the "sludge" of "every single left-wing cause," and claimed they are deluded. Fox & Friends co-host Steve Doocy has even complained they got "between me and a steak dinner."

On this morning's Fox & Friends, Doocy again went on the attack, attempting to discredit the protesters by hyping a Daily Caller story which claimed "Organizer admits to paying 'Occupy DC protesters.' "Doocy seized on the story, leading off the show by excitedly proclaiming "scandal":

Doocy teased the story by calling it "the scandal you got to hear to believe." The Daily Caller also heavily promoted the "scandal," making it the top story on their website this morning:

Read the full entry ...

The standard refrain from the anti-internet freedom lobby has, for some time now, been that the FCC's new open internet rules represent a "takeover" or "regulation of the internet." It's an argument that didn't have a lot of factual juice to begin with, and now that the FCC's rules are actually on the books, it comes off as pretty foolish.

But Americans For Prosperity vice president Phil Kerpen is sticking with it, and glamming it up with some amusing histrionics. This morning The Examiner published an excerpt of Kerpen's grandiloquently subtitled book: Democracy Denied: How Obama Is Ignoring You and Bypassing Congress to Radically Transform America -- and How to Stop Him. The battle for the internet, it seems, has transcended the stratosphere:

On Dec. 21, 2010, President Obama's Federal Communications Commission fittingly chose the darkest day in 372 years to impose potentially devastating regulations on the previously free-market Internet.

Early that morning, for the first time since 1638, the moon was eclipsed, blocking out the sun on the day of the winter solstice, already the darkest day of the year.

And just as the moon was eclipsed that day, Congress, the American people, and our constitutional system of government will be eclipsed if the FCC's regulatory coup d'etat -- orchestrated by the White House -- is allowed to stand.

Before we even get to internet policy, I have to point out that Kerpen doesn't quite understand the moon (a common affliction on the right). A lunar eclipse -- like the one that happened last December -- occurs when the Earth blocks the sun's rays from reaching the moon. What Kerpen describes is a solar eclipse, in which the moon blocks out the sun and prevents its rays from reaching the Earth.

Kerpen's poor description of lunar science is eclipsed (sorry) by his willful distortion of the new FCC rules:

On a party-line vote, three Democrats at the FCC decided to substitute their own judgment for the legitimate democratic process.

Those three FCC commissioners ordered that the Internet be regulated in the name of network neutrality, despite the fact that regulations had almost no support in Congress.

Untrue. The new rules apply only to internet service providers, and prevent them from regulating internet users' access to lawful online content. Nothing in the rules gives the FCC authority to "regulate" the content internet users can access.

Even still, Kerpen argues the American people are on his side:

The public overwhelmingly opposed regulation. A Rasmussen poll conducted at the time of the order found that only 21 percent of Americans supported Internet regulation, with 54 percent opposed. The poll also found that 56 percent of Americans thought the FCC would use its newly created powers to pursue a political agenda.

How did we get to the point where the FCC would ignore all of that and regulate the Internet? It took a remarkable political effort from the far Left, and a breakdown in our constitutional system that allowed regulators to bypass Congress. That breakdown must be corrected.

Here is the Rasmussen poll in question, which, given that it enthusiastically adopts the false right-wing framing of internet "regulation," falls more into the category of push-polling. A sample question: "What is the best way to protect those who use the Internet -- more government regulation or more free market competition?" That's both a false choice and a misrepresentation of the open internet rules.

Hysterically bad moon science aside, Kerpen's piece is just a retread of the same stale argument the opponents of internet freedom have been flogging for years. The message discipline is impressive, and likely appreciated in the corporate offices of telecom providers who are eager to promulgate that very same talking point. Verizon this week sued the FCC over the new rules, saying the agency asserted "broad authority to impose potentially sweeping and unneeded regulations on broadband networks and services and on the Internet itself."

KERPEN RESPONDS UPDATE:

Phil Kerpen responds via Twitter:

An excellent riposte to something I didn't write. No response thus far to the real point -- that he lies about the FCC's open internet rules.

Don Imus today seemed to endorse Mike Tyson's crude suggestion that Sarah Palin should have slept with Dennis Rodman instead of -- as alleged in a widely criticized new book -- Glen Rice. (Imus did say that he thought Tyson's "verbiage was a little rough.")

Imus' comments were apparently too offensive for Fox Business Network, which appears to have dumped some of the audio in question from its broadcast of the show.

On today's Imus in the Morning, Imus and comedian Jay Mohr riffed on several Republican presidential candidates. When the conversation turned to Fox News contributor Sarah Palin, Mohr mentioned the claim in Joe McGinniss' controversial book that, in Mohr's words, Palin "had sex with that basketball player, in that scathing book, they said she had sex with Glen Rice."

Imus responded by referencing an interview Mike Tyson did last month with ESPN Radio's Las Vegas affiliate, in which Tyson -- a convicted rapist -- referred to Palin in obscene and misogynistic terms. Imus said: "I did like -- I thought the verbiage was a little rough -- Mike Tyson, but, it should have been more, she'd have had more credibility, in my view, had it been, say, Dennis Rodman."

Listen:

But viewers watching the broadcast on Fox Business did not hear five seconds of Imus' comments, which are bolded: "I did like -- I thought the verbiage was a little rough -- Mike Tyson, but, it should have been more, she'd have had more credibility, in my view, had it been, say, Dennis Rodman."

Fox Business did not immediately return a request for comment.

Read the full entry ...

Today Fox & Friends interviewed GOP nominee Mitt Romney, giving him one of their typical softball interviews, allowing him to attack Obama and promote his economic and foreign policy without fear of any challenge from the three co-hosts. Immediately following the segment, Romney rewarded Fox & Friends by ironically praising Fox for their history of providing "fair and balanced" reporting and "pointing out both sides of issues."

The interview began when co-host Steve Doocy called Romney "Mr. President," and immediately degenerated into the co-hosts inviting Romney to bash his would-be opponent:

DOOCY: Mr. Romney, wouldn't you say that the president knows his jobs bill, in the way it is right now, is not going to pass and all he's doing is trying to portray the U.S. Congress as a bunch of do nothings like Harry Truman did to score political points for next year?

[...]

CARLSON: It's interesting because the president has said on many occasions, well, Republicans need to come up with a plan. I haven't heard a plan from the Republicans. But maybe he wasn't listening to you because you put out your economic -- an economic plan several months ago.

[...]

DOOCY: Governor, what has this president been in -- by describing it the way you just did? A leader, a follower, or an apologizer when it comes to foreign policy?

Near the end of the interview, Gretchen Carlson aired a clip of Doocy cleaning the Massachusetts Statehouse  on Fox News' 10^th anniversary while Romney was still governor.

Read the full entry ...

On October 1, 2004, Fox chief political correspondent Carl Cameron wrote a fake news story about Sen. John Kerry receiving a manicure before a debate and included false quotes like "'Didn't my nails and cuticles look great? What a good debate!' Kerry said Friday" and "'Women should like me! I do manicures,' Kerry said." The network subsequently issued a retraction and an apology. But this "stupid mistake" was not the only time Fox ridiculed Sen. Kerry for run-of-the-mill, pre-television appearance personal maintenance. Brit Hume, Bill O'Reilly, Pat Caddell, and others all similarly took the opportunity to mock Kerry following the debate.

Fox News hasn't let the fact that 97 percent of the world's climate scientists agree that global warming is occurring and that human activity is very likely to blame stop them in their quest to make sure their viewers think science, facts, and reality are figments of the left's collective imagination. No, no, no. Scientists are liars, obviously, and global warming can be linked to naturally occurring phenomena. Like moon volcanoes.

Following the 2009 release of hacked emails from the Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia, Fox repeatedly claimed that the emails showed scientists "fudging data to make their case for global warming." The allegation was unfounded at the time and was later shown to be false by numerous inquiries. Undaunted, Fox has continued to push this mythology ever since.

• Fox's Stuart Varney: Emails Suggest "Scientists Are Fudging Data To Make Their Case For Global Warming."
• Fox & Friends: Stolen Emails Show Scientists "Fudging," "Doctoring" Data.
• Sean Hannity: Scientists "Were Certainly Fudging" Data.
• Chris Wallace: Emails Showed "Some Of The Climate Scientists Were Apparently Fudging The Numbers."
• Fox Reporter Kellogg: Emails Suggest Scientists Who "Believe" In Climate Change "Were Trying To Manipulate The Data."
• Mike Huckabee: "A Lot Of The Scientists Were Cooking Data In Order To Reach A Political, Not A Scientific Conclusion."

But Fox wasn't content to restrict the "scientists are liars" message to the University of East Anglia. Following the lead of the Heartland Institute, Fox News trumpeted the utterly baseless claim that scientists at the University of Colorado are "doctoring" sea level data to "exaggerate the effects of global warming." In reality, the scientists used a standard and transparent procedure performed by other research groups around the world, and even the climate skeptic cited by Fox News objects to the implication that the group engaged in scientific wrongdoing.

Read the full entry ...

Fox Business host Eric Bolling is a gold trader who has a history of making racially inflammatory remarks about President Obama, having declared that President Obama hosted "hoodlum[s]" in the "hizzouse" and tweeted that Obama was "chugging 40's" In Ireland. Filling in for Neil Cavuto on yesterday's edition of Fox News' Your World, Bolling had on as his opening guest Craig Smith, who operates a firm that trades in gold and silver coins. The two teamed up to grouse about how ignorant the Occupy Wall Street protesters allegedly are.

Disliking the Occupy Wall Street protesters and trading precious metals are not the only things these men have in common. Like Bolling, Smith has made racially inflammatory remarks about Obama.

Up until a couple of months ago, Smith was a regular WorldNetDaily columnist. In an August 25, 2008, column, Smith asserted that "the real reason" Obama's election would be "a moment of historical significance unlike any other" is because Obama "will be our first hip-hop president." Smith explained:

Read the full entry ...

Sean Hannity, Andrew Breitbart, and others pushed the falsehood that in 2007, then-Senator Barack Obama appeared and marched with the New Black Panther Party in Selma. In fact, Obama's visit was sponsored by the Faith & Politics Institute, a non-partisan organization that has prominent Democrats and Republicans among its leaders.

During the 42nd anniversary of the 1965 march from Selma, Obama pushed the wheelchair of the late Rev. Fred Shuttlesworth, a civil rights icon, across the Edmund Pettus Bridge.

The Faith & Politics Institute released this picture of Obama, former President Bill Clinton, Shuttlesworth, and Rev. Joseph Lowery, another civil rights leader, during the event in Selma:

Read the full entry ...

Everyone makes mistakes. But not everyone acknowledges when it's time to apologize. That time is now for Erin Burnett.

CNN's new evening anchor made a mistake this week when she aired a cheap-shot report about the Occupy Wall Street protests, mocking activists for being uniformed about big banks, and for being hypocrites in general. (They're anti-big business but they use laptops!)

The segment, as has been widely discussed this week, was an embarrassment. Not because anchor Burnett aired an opinion or that her opinion was at odds with the populist movement still unfolding in the Financial District. It was embarrassing because of how smug Burnett's critique was.

In her first week on the job at CNN, Burnett quickly became a symbol of how media elites tend to  instinctively write off liberal activists as being not important; as being naive to how the world really works. (One phrase for you: WMD.)

And yes, the fact that Burnett was mocking Occupy Wall Street activists while her bosses at CNN had just taken the unusual step of co-sponsoring a GOP presidential debate with a splinter (conservative) political group, the Tea Party, only opened her up to obvious charges of a political double standard being used at CNN.

When Burnett aired her now infamous report, she stressed that Occupy Wall Street had started off as "less than a dozen college students" camping in the park, and that it had since expanded to  "hundreds" of participants. By Wednesday night an estimated 10,000 people took part in an Occupy Wall Street march in New York City, with similar protests now spreading nationwide.

For that reason alone, Burnett should revisit her report and concede she was wrong to portray Occupy Wall Street as a fringe movement. But more importantly, she should simply apologize to viewers for so rudely dismissing the emerging movement, and put the unfortunate incident behind her. 

In his October 6 Washington Times column titled, "Obama's October revolution," Jeffrey Kuhner used the Occupy Wall Street movement to attack President Obama, claiming "Mr. Obama has unleashed class hatred and racial hostility in the pursuit of state socialism" and that his 2008 campaign slogan "was really a thinly veiled rallying cry, not to save the nation, but to precipitate the downfall of American capitalism." From The Washington Times:

President Obama's shock troops are marching in the streets. Occupy Wall Street - a movement composed of communists, anarchists, socialists and anti-globalization student radicals - is spreading. Protests have swelled in cities including New York, Washington, Los Angeles, Chicago, Denver and Philadelphia. The protesters are gaining influence and numbers. A ragtag group of hippie students has turned into a potent political force.

[...]

Hence, Occupy Wall Street is not a spontaneous uprising of disenchanted citizens frustrated with corporate plutocracy and capitalist excess. Rather, it is a planned, manufactured attempt to prop up Mr. Obama's failed presidency. It is a page taken straight from the Alinsky playbook: Demonize bankers and businessmen in order to divert attention from the real source of our economic woes, Mr. Obama's policies.

The president inherited a recession, and he has deepened it. His out-of-control spending and trillion-dollar deficits have brought us to the brink of bankruptcy. America's debt credit rating has been downgraded. Growth has slowed to less than 1 percent. Unemployment has risen above 9 percent. Inflation is rising as consumer confidence declines. Obamacare is strangling job creation and business investment. Mr. Obama has waged war upon the private sector. If those students are truly angry about joblessness and a bleak future, they should direct their fury at the president.

[...]

Mr. Obama has unleashed class hatred and racial hostility in the pursuit of state socialism. It is clear that his 2008 campaign slogan of "hope and change" was really a thinly veiled rallying cry, not to save the nation, but to precipitate the downfall of American capitalism.

Previously:

Kuhner: Obama "Injecting The Heroin Of Class Warfare And Socialism Into" America Will Lead To "Insanity And Death"

Wash. Times' Kuhner: Obama Is A "Campus Radical" And Americans Should "Drive Him From Office"

Wash. Times' Kuhner: Obama Has "Black Nationalist Sympathies"

Fox News' effect on our political culture extends beyond the network's daily cavalcade of ideological and partisan attacks. Its 15 years in existence and nearly 10 at the top of the cable news ratings food chain have ushered in an era of ideological polarization and post-truth politics.

In the middle of the last decade, there were discussions about the impact of citizen journalism conducted by bloggers and its effect on the media. Under the radar, Fox was using its platform and a major cable news channel to contort our political dialogue, creating two Americas and two truths.

As a political consultant, Fox News President Roger Ailes specialized in dividing voters along racial, ethnic, and religious lines. While working for the George H.W. Bush campaign, he told a reporter, "The only question is whether we depict Willie Horton with a knife in his hand or without it," and produced the divisive "Revolving Door."

Ailes used these same tactics on Rudy Giuliani's unsuccessful 1989 campaign for mayor of New York. He was criticized for utilizing a strategy that "prey[ed] upon the fears of the Jewish community."

While Fox has certainly stoked racial fears, pushing bogus, concocted smears in an attempt to connect Barack Obama to the New Black Panther Party, it has also created an environment in which truth, facts, and science no longer are paramount. Fox-created facts rule the day. And its viewers trust the network more than any other source. Climate change? Doesn't exist, according to many on the network. Forget what scientists say. Also did you hear that this "climategate" scandal debunked the entire notion of global warming?

Now as a progressive, I will point out that there is overwhelming consensus among scientists that the Earth is warming. Additionally, "climategate" did nothing to debunk the body of scientific knowledge backing up that claim. However, no amount of evidence presented will convince Fox viewers otherwise. Any presenter not fitting the network's worldview is biased, bought off, stupid, or evil. Stephen Colbert astutely pointed out this worldview at the White House Correspondents' Association dinner when he noted that "reality has a well-known liberal bias." While a laugh line, the outcome of the post-truth era is dangerous: a country not only divided by ideology, but divided along factual lines. Without a common narrative, constructive debate is simply impossible. 

This truth dichotomy extends beyond climate science.

Read the full entry ...

Yesterday, Apple founder Steve Jobs died after suffering from a rare form of pancreatic cancer. Since then, there has been an outpouring of love and gratitude from friends, admirers, consumers, and competitors alike. Fox, however, decided to use his death to try to score political points.

During tonight's edition of The Five, co-host Greg Gutfeld stated:

GUTFELD: Jobs died Wednesday at the age of 56. Was given up for adoption after his birth to an American mom and a Syrian-born father. Apparently, the mom's father didn't want his daughter to marry a Syrian, so the baby was adopted by a working-class couple who encouraged the child's later interest in electronics. Their names were Paul and Clara Jobs.

So one hero in all of this is Steve's birth mother, who gave him up for adoption instead of choosing a more finite alternative. Imagine what a hole there would be in this world if she went the other way. Lucky for us, the choice she made was the one she made. In that sense, Steve Jobs makes me think not just of the people here but the people who aren't.

Panelist Kimberly Guilfoyle echoed Gutfeld when she said that "we're all so appreciative that he was born and ... that his mom made the choice that she did." She added, "I think that's fantastic."

Read the full entry ...

In a post on her personal website, conservative blogger Debbie Schlussel used the death of Apple founder Steve Jobs, who she called a "genius," to make a wide-ranging attack on Islam and Muslims. Responding to emails she said she's been getting claiming that "Steve Jobs was a Muslim," Schlussel wrote:

Ever since Jobs announced his resignation from Apple, they sent me the claims. Here's a tip, Muslims: Steve Jobs was a Buddhist.

Yes, technically, according to Islamic law, Jobs would be considered a Muslim, just as Barack Obama would. His biological father was a Syrian graduate student (in the U.S. on a student visa) who impregnated an American Christian grad student. They eventually married, but after Jobs was given up for adoption. The Syrian, Abdulfattah John Jandali, is now, at age 80, Vice President of a Nevada casino, so he's clearly not a religious Muslim. And Jandali never met Jobs nor did he even know Jobs was his son until a few years ago.

Jobs was raised by Paul and Clara Jobs. Steven Jobs was never raised with any connection to Islam, Syria, or Arabs. He never made any connection with or outreach to these groups later in life when he could have and was trying to reconnect with his past. Jobs never made an appearance at a mosque, never cited the Koran, never identified with Islam or Arabia in any way. Never uttered a single sentence or phrase in the lingua franca of their extremist politics.

It's a safe bet that if Steven Jobs had been raised as an Arab Muslim, there would be no Apple. Not even Al-Apple. And a lot of great inventions that made our lives better and more enjoyable would never have happened. Jobs' story is the success of American capitalism. And it's about the kind of innovation and technological spirit that only happens in two countries in the world: the U.S. and Israel. This story would never have happened in Syria, pre- or post-Arab Spring.

Schlussel has a long history of anti-Muslim rhetoric:

Schlussel: Should Barack Hussein Obama be president "when we are fighting the war of our lives against Islam"?

Right-wing media respond to Fort Hood shooting by attacking American Muslims

Some Conservative Media Use Miss USA For Immigrant Attacks

What a way to mark 15 years on the air. During Fox News' celebratory broadcast from Centennial Olympic Park in Atlanta, Sean Hannity welcomed radio host Neal Boortz to help mark the milestone. Boortz, who is no fan of President Obama, intoned, "Barack Obama is a bigger disaster to this country than 9-11." The crowd behind him cheered loudly.

Watch:

From the exchange with Hannity:

HANNITY: You once told me that you always viewed yourself as an entertainer. You don't feel that way anymore. Nine-eleven changed you. The state of the economy changed you. And you told -- remember the conversation that we had?

BOORTZ: Nine-eleven changed me somewhat but -- is AttackWatch -- you think they're -- OK. Barack Obama is a bigger disaster to this country than 9-11.

[cheering]

BOORTZ: And you talk about changing -- if you took the phrase "fair share," "millionaires and billionaires," and "pass this bill" out of his vocabulary, he would be unable to deliver a speech.

[laughter and cheering]

HANNITY: Wait, what do you mean he's more disastrous than 9-11? We've lost 3,000 lives.

BOORTZ: Because, look, the American people developed a fighting spirit after 9-11 and we responded. We went back after them and if allowed to, the defeat would be total. But Barack Obama, what he has done to our economy, what he has done to the American spirit of individual responsibility and self-reliance -- you know, killing 3,000 people is a tragedy, Sean. It is a real tragedy. But killing the individualism, the self-reliance, and the self-respect of the American people, like Barack Obama has done, is much more of a tragedy.

Hannity then stated: "All right. Thank you both for being here on the 15th anniversary. Appreciate you." The crowd could still be heard clapping and cheering wildly as Hannity spoke. He did not revisit Boortz's remarks during the rest of his show.

It's telling that Fox would welcome Boortz to its guest lineup to mark its 15-year anniversary in a city that he openly disparaged just a few months ago. But as we've noted in the past, reckless rhetoric is welcomed on the network.

Read the full entry ...

On his September 30 radio show, Rush Limbaugh approvingly read a column from the website Canada Free Press in which the writer, Judi McLeod, claimed that President Obama -- whom she identified as "Barry Soetoro" -- was considering suspending the 2012 elections because "only suspended elections would guarantee his re-election." Limbaugh said he found McLeod's claim's "fascinating," adding, "You don't think these people would suspend elections if they could get away with it?"

So, who is Judi McLeod, editor and owner of Canada Free Press, who claims that her work "has appeared on Rush Limbaugh, Newsmax.com, Drudge Report, Foxnews.com, and Glenn Beck"? Turns out she's a hard-core birther who has also suggested that the Mafia was behind the 9-11 attacks.

McLeod stated in her Limbaugh-endorsed column that "Obama and his masters already pulled the biggest scam on any country in modern times by making it to the White House without legitimate I.D." That's just the beginning of McLeod's Obama derangement:

Read the full entry ...

Neutrinos don't really affect us too much. They're small, sub-atomic particles that are generated in incalculable numbers in the sun's core and ejected out in all directions. A mere fraction of those head towards Earth, where they pass through matter -- stones, trees, humans -- unnoticed. Scientists in the 1960s working in a special underground facility designed specifically to capture the particles observed that of the roughly 10 quintillion neutrinos that passed through their detection apparatus (a humongous pool of heavy water) each day, they were able to detect, on average, two.

And just as neutrinos don't alter our chemistry in any appreciable way, they don't upset the science behind climate change, despite what Robert Bryce of the Manhattan Institute would have us believe.

Writing in the Wall Street Journal this morning, Bryce argues that an (unconfirmed) report of neutrinos that travel faster than the speed of light is sufficient reason to question climate science:

The science is not settled, not by a long shot. Last month, scientists at CERN, the prestigious high-energy physics lab in Switzerland, reported that neutrinos might -- repeat, might -- travel faster than the speed of light. If serious scientists can question Einstein's theory of relativity, then there must be room for debate about the workings and complexities of the Earth's atmosphere.

Particle physics, climate research -- it's all "science," right? Not exactly.

As Bryce notes, the faster-than-light neutrino reports are unconfirmed. If the scientific community jumped and screamed "the sky is falling" every time a small group of researchers released controversial, unverified findings, nothing would get done.

And the logic of Bryce's argument doesn't quite hold up. I could just as easily argue that we shouldn't doubt climate science because the fundamental concepts undergirding other branches of science -- like cell theory and gravitational physics -- stand unchallenged. If serious scientists aren't willing to question Newton or Van Leeuwenhoek, then surely there's no reason to challenge the science of climate change, right? And if it turns out that the CERN physicists were wrong (which is entirely likely), what then?

One of the great triumphs of the modern scientific method is that it encourages challenges to the established order, but requires rigorous proof before changing our fundamental understanding of the physical world. If we do discover that neutrinos are capable of moving faster than light, then we'll have a whole new world of physics to explore. But that doesn't change the fact that belching out carbon dioxide warms the planet.

The announcement that Sesame Street plans to introduce a Muppet named Lily, an impoverished girl whose family faces ongoing hunger issues, is prompting much snark and derision in the right-wing media.

For instance, The Blaze's blog had this to offer:

Uh-oh.  It's time to redistribute Cookie Monster's cookies.

[...]

Question: When did Sesame Street become so focused on teaching societal issues? From Bert & Ernie's gay marriage fiasco, to Big Bird's birtherism and growing unemployment.  What "injustice" might Mr. Snuffleupagus stand for?

UPDATE
One of my colleagues (who wishes to remain anonymous for obvious reasons) points out that "Snuffy" actually comes from a broken home and represents a lesson in divorce for kids.  I had no idea.

Gateway Pundit Jim Hoft, who has a history of rallying against public education, couldn't resist turning the character into a potshot at President Obama:

It's an Obama world.
Meet "Lily" the starving muppet.
 

Here's something else Barack Obama and democrats can be proud of.

With a record number of Americans on food stamps, record unemployment, increased debt and record poverty, Sesame Street will introduce a poor, starving muppet to educate on the growing number of starving children in Obama's America.

Read the full entry ...