You can view this video right here by getting the latest version of Flash Player!

DOWNLOADS: 17

PLAYS: 4

(To about 30 million people, this might as well be Mars)

I'm always amazed, listening to news programs of the past, how the concept of the future always appears rosy and without complications. We will all have 20 hour work weeks, we will all have an abundance of cash, the best possible medical care and the latest medical advances at our fingertips. They never quite get around to mentioning that all those things are possible if you have money. To paraphrase one of our lower lifeform pundits;'illness is for rich people'. Sadly, that is probably true.

But in 1958, everything was optimistic and indeed, rosy, as this panel, consisting of Senator Richard Neuberger (D-Oregon), Dr. Nathan S. Kline and Gilbert Kant Medicine Editor of Time Magazine espoused.

Sen. Richard Neuberger (D-Oregon): “I think it’s up to people in positions of political leadership, such as myself, the Foundation (National Health Education Committee) that you just mentioned. People like Dr. Kline (Director of Research, Rockland State Hospital) in Medicine, like you (Richard D. Hepner) and Mr. Kant (Medicine Editor – Time Magazine) in the field of Public Opinion to give the people leadership. I think that they will respond. In my opinion the field of Medical research is our greatest frontier of today. I come from Oregon, a frontier state. I’ve how, in covered wagon days the incidents or the coming down of epidemics of Diphtheria, Scarlet Fever and Smallpox meant death, hopeless death to hundreds of people including many little children and we cluck with pity and sympathy over that. I wonder if fifty years from now people won’t mutter with sympathy and pity of the hopelessness over Cancer in our own period today.”

Yes, fifty years later people do mutter with pity and hopelessness over Cancer. Particularly when you can't get your Health insurance to cover it.

Really? Yes, Really. For reasons unknown, Time Magazine's Mark Halperin decided to post a photoshopped picture of Louisiana Senator, Mary Landrieu with semen in her hair, ala Cameron Diaz in the movie There's Something About Mary. One would think he could have come up with something a little more appropriate. Jason Linkins has more at HuffPo:

...There are lots of ways to serve up this news story! And there are lots of creative ways to put it together for web trawlers. How about, "Mary, Mary, quite contrary?" or, if you're old-school retro, "Mary, Mary, why you buggin'?" Or you could just decide that the best thing to do is be straight about it. Not Halperin, though! Here's the imaginative Photoshop that went along with his "story." Read on...

My thoughts exactly. Halperin is a hack, with little to no journalistic integrity, but this is low even by his standards. While I don't agree with Senator Landrieu on all her votes, the health care bill in particular, I think she has an apology coming from both Mark Halperin and Time.

You can view this video right here by getting the latest version of Flash Player!

DOWNLOADS: 1418

PLAYS: 852

(Billy James Hargis - you would think butter didn't melt - the butter had different ideas)

It's endless - the parade of hypocrites masquerading as "People of God". The Pious, the righteous, the smug - all doling out edicts under the premise of "being chosen" while ingratiating themselves in the acts they so claim to despise.

So another one shows up in the history books - maybe forgotten now, but in the 1960s railed against all the godless fornicators, the infidels, the non-believers. Billy James Hargis, bible thumping anti-communist conservative, built up a sizable congregation of followers, a daily radio show and an empire until it came crashing down, as so many others have done before and since, with widespread allegations of sexual misconduct - in his case, a very public outing via Time Magazine.

But in the late 1960s he was still going full steam, as is evidenced by this interview (supposedly debate but the debater seems hopelessly challenged) where Hargis offers a few bon mots:

Hargis: “Now look at the Jewish people, this is a prime example. I’ve never seen a hungry Jew. I’ve never seen a Jew begging. I’ve never seen a Jew without work. That religion takes care of their people. They don’t ask the state for help, they take care of their own. And we believe that Christianity is nothing more than a continuation of this Jewish concept of . . .with the gospel of Christ relating to salvation being added to that concept.”

Hargis: “I doubt very sincerely that those things (the riots in Detroit and Newark in 1968) were the results of people being mistreated. I think it was results of people maybe being treated too well by the state. They were told they didn’t have to work. They were told they didn’t have to provide for their own. They were told they could get security from the cradle to the grave and these people wanted more and more and more. We’re covetous by nature. We want more and more and more. We see someone with something we don’t have we covet it, we want it. The bible warns against covetesness. Christ told us never to covet somebody else’s. They worked for it, they were entitled to it They had a right to it.”

Hargis: “I’m telling the Negro people to quit whining. I’m telling the poor white people to quit whining. Quit whining about injustices, real or imagined. But get out and better your situation. Stand up on your own two feet. Don’t wait until someone comes along and gives you life on a silver platter.”

The arrogance, as always, is mystifying. That it comes under the guise of compassion is bizarre. That it continues in exactly the same way is astonishing.

Welcome to the Religious Right.

You can view this video right here by getting the latest version of Flash Player!

DOWNLOADS: (927)

PLAYS: (2699)

Granted, it's hard to hear because the voices speak over each other, but the graphics are pretty clear: this ad for Anderson Cooper 360 was meant to claim that Anderson Cooper challenges the status quo and goes beyond partisan spin. Whether the ad is true or not is arguable, but the fact that it mentions both the right and the left is not.

Which makes this op-ed in Time Magazine by Michael Scherer that much more puzzling:

White House Communications Director Anita Dunn appeared Sunday morning on Howard Kurtz's CNN show Reliable Sources to discuss her comments in my TIME magazine story this week. She continued her criticism of Fox News[..].

The ironic part came later, during the commercial break. All morning, CNN has been intermittently running a promo for Anderson Cooper 360, a show that has long billed itself as a classic straight news program with an investigative front man who digs "beyond the headlines" with "many points of view, so you can make up your own mind." The new promo, by contrast, consists of a woman's voice, pitching Cooper's show as, essentially, a liberal alternative to Fox News: "I'm a lifelong Democrat," she says, "and that's why I watch Anderson Cooper." Hmmm. The voice goes on to say that Cooper is the person she can turn to hold "right wing" conservatives accountable. Cooper is not exactly aiming for the political middle ground here.

But then who is? MSNBC's Keith Olbermann, Rachel Maddow and Ed Schultz are committed liberals, increasingly focused on the dual project of holding President Obama to a liberal line and attacking his detractors. Fox News, on the other hand, is, well, Fox News. Dunn, on Kurtz's show, made a point of criticizing Fox News Sunday's Chris Wallace for "fact checking" an Obama administration official but not its other Republican guests. So it goes.

Interesting. So Scherer thinks that Cooper is playing to the left like those other "committed" liberals on MSNBC. And lemming-like, here comes Dan Abrams, tweeting from his new gig at Mediaite:

UPDATE to WH-Fox 'Gloves off' post: CNN promo calls Anderson Cooper left's answer to FNC.

The only problem? There's no there there. Cooper wasn't playing to the left, as Scherer was forced to acknowledge in an update:

CORRECTION: Ahh, the pitfalls of technology. In the post below, I wrote about an ad that kept running Sunday morning on CNN, which I watched in the background as I scribbled away at my office. Several times, I heard an ad for Anderson Cooper's show that included a woman's voice talking about being a "lifelong Democrat" and watching Cooper because he called out the "right wing." But that's not the whole story. I was told Monday by CNN that I only heard half the ad, which was dubbed in stereo. (Apparently my television is mono.) The other half of the ad had a male voice saying he was a Republican who turns to Anderson Cooper because he holds accountable "left wing politicians." The two voices are recorded to be talking over each other, reaffirming CNN's place in the center of the cable news spectrum. This makes my subsequent analysis largely wrong. Cooper was not signaling a shift to cater to a left-wing audience. He was signaling that he wanted both a left-wing and a right-wing audiences at the same time. The CNN dream of post-partisanship, in other words, is still alive.

Actually, Michael, your analysis is not largely wrong, but completely wrong. As polarized as this country is now (a fact for which I hold the media mostly accountable), it is not the desire of the entire country to get their news filtered through ideological lenses, confirming their pre-conceived notions. Fox unapologetically fills a niche for a select few, who cannot stand to have their ideas challenged. But MSNBC, despite shows with Maddow (the only self-professed liberal listed), Olbermann and Schultz does not cater to the left. If they did, would they fill 15 hours every week (the same as Maddow, Olbermann and Schultz put together) with Scarborough?

And for what its worth, I actually watch Maddow not for a liberal slant, but because she strives to actually present the news, not propaganda. But that seems to be a dying breed in your industry, doesn't it?

You can view this video right here by getting the latest version of Flash Player!

DOWNLOADS: 58

PLAYS: 13

(John Daly - insisted on calling Hunter S. Thompsons writing style "Bongo Journalism")

In lieu of the recent Senate Bill that questions validity of citizen bloggers, I went back to a National Town Meeting broadcast from 1974 to hear what the status of the media was then. It wasn't that much better, particularly if you were judged to be in the "alternative media" which meant the Underground press back then. However, in all fairness, in 1974 Broadcast news departments were ten times the size they are now. The hours spent on documentaries and special news programming was huge and newspapers offered a plethora of in-depth reports and daily investigative journalism. Unrecognizable from what they are today.

The panel on this broadcast consisted of Pat Buchanan, Richard Harwood of The Washington Post, Richard Goodwin of Rolling Stone and Thomas Asher of the Media Access Project. The program was moderated (and somewhat mangled) by , former newscaster for ABC and CBS, game show host and professional personality.

The subject was "Critiquing The Media" and of course Buchanan spends much time railing against the injustices of the "librul media" and complaining about imbalance. This coming from a man who was deeply entrenched in the Nixon White House.

The subject of Hunter S. Thompson comes up and that's when Daly lets his disconnect be known. Unable to say the words "gonzo Journalism" he insists on a variation of either Bongo and Bonzo Journalism and dismisses it, as does Buchanan who dismisses Rolling Stone in general as no representation of actual news reporting - the only news to be had was from The New York Times or The Washington Post and perhaps Time Magazine.

Richard Goodwin: “I’m not in favor of fictional journalism, and the headline I gave an example, is not intended as fiction, but as fact. I think one of the problems that you have is, even use of the word fact and what constitutes a fact. You’re talking about convictions, attitudes, opinions, judgments. These aren’t facts in the sense that a glass of water is a fact. They require that you impose your own judgment. Somebody says something; is he lying, does he mean it, is it true? And simply to say that he said it, in itself is an assertion, at least to the people who read it, that perhaps or probably what he said is true. It’s a fact that he said it, but he may not be speaking facts or the truth. And unfortunately, most things, most interesting or complicated things in the world are not very, it’s not often easy to decide what the facts are without bringing to it a set of values and personal convictions. And if you withdraw from that you allow those who make the presentation to you to determine what the truth is . . .”

Continue reading »

You can view this video right here by getting the latest version of Flash Player!

DOWNLOADS: (1065)

PLAYS: (2038)

A glimpse of reality managed to peek out between the lines of B.S. that largely constituted Bill O'Reilly's weekly conversation with Bernard Goldberg on Tuesday.

Goldberg: I think the guys at the White House, the political guys at the White House, say, 'You know, you have a couple of people here on this network who if their lips are moving, if their lips are moving, they're bashing the president.' And then the entertainment network, as Juan Williams said, the run the 'So You Think You Can Dance' instead of the president's speech to Congress. And I think these guys are saying, 'You want to play like that? You want to play like that, Fox? We can play like that too.' And, and, and --

O'Reilly: Yeah, but that's immature. It hurts them.

Goldberg: I agree. I agree. I agree.

It's nice of O'Reilly to finally acknowledge that the treatment of President Obama by his network is immature. That's probably the kindest description -- after "absurdly biased," "hateful," and "a journalistic travesty" -- one is likely to apply here, but it'll do. Fox's coverage of Obama has been worthy of a network run by eight-year-olds who like to stick out their tongues. (See the latest Time cover for more of that.)

And so perhaps for the White House to respond in kind is equally immature. But O'Reilly's glass palace isn't such a great place from which to throw these particular stones.

And the whining and kvetching. Oy! What a bunch of crybabies these people are.

O'Reilly then lists the Fox anchors who don't bash Obama with every breath (he calls it "giving Obama a fair shot"). It's a short list. Then he asks: "How many fair shots do you need?"

Which sort of begs the question, "Why not all of them?"

Really: Why should anyone have to absorb the barrage of cheap shots that's part and parcel of the Fox treatment for Democrats? Good on Obama for just saying No, at least this time around.

You can view this video right here by getting the latest version of Flash Player!

DOWNLOADS: (1181)

PLAYS: (1470)

George Will thinks that daring to point out the racism at these tea parties amounts to "liberals' McCarthyism. If anyone's playing the role of Joe McCarthy, it's Glenn Beck, not "liberals" who are pointing out the racist element to these protests, and all the "table pounding" on your part isn't going to change that.

CARTER: An overwhelming portion of the intensely demonstrated animosity toward President Barack Obama is based on the fact that he is a black man.

BECK: We have a former president who says, if you’re opposed to the president’s health care, you’re a racist.

LIMBAUGH: The left looks at everything through a racial prism. I’m just -- I’m just -- hey, they hit us, we hit back twice as hard.

PELOSI: In the late ‘70s in San Francisco, this kind of -- of rhetoric was very frightening. And it gave -- it created a climate in which we -- violence took place.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

STEPHANOPOULOS: The debate not coming down as President Obama called for. Let me bring the roundtable back in. I’m joined by George Will, Peggy Noonan, Bob Reich, Ed Gillespie, and Donna Brazile.

And, George, as we -- as we get to this, let me show two magazine covers from this week. First, Time magazine, Glenn Beck, mad man, and the angry style of American politics. And then in the New York magazine coming out tomorrow, there’s the tattooed face of Barack Obama , big headline, “Hate.”

We -- we heard President Obama say he thinks that a lot of anti- government feeling, the idea that the government can’t do anything right, is behind all this. What’s your theory?

WILL: The president’s right about that. What we’re hearing is the liberals’ McCarthyism, which is, when in doubt, blame people for racism. Litigators have an old argument: When the law’s on your side, argue the law. When the facts are on your side, argue the facts. When neither’s on your side, pound the table. This amounts to pounding the table.

I have yet to see evidence, is there -- does evidence even intrude in this conversation? Is there any evidence that these people are racists? I think not.

STEPHANOPOULOS: Donna?

BRAZILE: Well, George, there’s some evidence that -- not an overwhelming amount of evidence -- that some of -- a small fringe of this movement, clearly there’s some racism. And you don’t have to know the motives of someone’s heart to understand when you see signs, incendiary signs that basically compares him to a witch doctor, an African heathen. We know racism; we don’t have to be told or taught that. That -- that much we do know.

There’s a culture of extremism that has gained mainstream acceptance. And I think the president is absolutely right. When you see it, you have to call it. You shouldn’t duck it. But, on the other hand, you shouldn’t exaggerate it.

This is why we need responsible leaders to denounce it, but more importantly, we need to find a way to have an honest and good dialogue whenever race is a topic so that the president of the United States, which is very busy, does not have to have beer summits all the time.

Newshoggers: Even the brain dead can have a pulse

The Hillman Foundation: TIME magazine loves Glenn Beck (again)

Bay Area Houston: Congressman Pete Olson gets called out, police called in

A Tiny Revolution: Welcome Back, Potter

Public Citizen: Forced Arbitration: Unfair and Everywhere

Troubletown: Like an old Sidney Poitier movie

Dear Time Magazine:

Four years ago, I dropped what had been nearly a lifelong subscription to your publication, because on the 10th anniversary of the Oklahoma City bombing, you devoted not a single word to that event -- but instead devoted your cover to Ann Coulter, a woman who only a year before that had uttered the infamous line, "My only regret with Timothy McVeigh is he did not go to the New York Times building."

And you know what? I really haven't missed it since.

Lately you've been sending me e-mails imploring me to renew my subscription. "David, we want you back!" is the message line.

I've just been deleting them. Though I admit I've paused once or twice and reconsidered.

But now, after running a cream-puff profile of Glenn Beck that makes the Coulter profile look hard-hitting in comparison, I just have two words:

Bite me.

Jamison Foser at Media Matters has the ultimate evisceration of this piece of journalistic garbage. Charles Kaiser e-mails the author of the piece, who reveals he doesn't watch much cable and really hardly knows anything about the subject he was assigned to write about.

So please, go away. And no more whimpering about why no one wants to read established media publications anymore.

Signed, your ex-subscriber, Dave

John Aravosis uncovers an amazing nugget in TIME Magazine. Apparently, there are Democrats who saw Rep. Joe Wilson yell "You Lie!" at the President of the United States and thought, "that guy has a point." And they happen to be the ones writing the health care bill in the Senate Finance Committee.

The controversy over Republican Rep. Joe Wilson's shouting out "You Lie!" at the President over his claim that illegal immigrants wouldn't benefit from health-care reform apparently sparked some reconsideration of the relevant language. "We really thought we'd resolved this question of people who are here illegally, but as we reflected on the President's speech last night we wanted to go back and drill down again," said Senator Kent Conrad, one of the Democrats in the talks after a meeting Thursday morning. Baucus later that afternoon said the group would put in a proof of citizenship requirement to participate in the new health exchange — a move likely to inflame the left.

So many things wrong with this, starting with caving to an extremist. But it's worse than that on the policy end. The exchanges are just health insurance purchasing centers, like a Wal-Mart for insurance. You don't have to receive a subsidy to buy insurance on the exchanges; in fact, if your family makes over $88,000 a year, you can't be eligible for a subsidy, though you can still purchase there. What Conrad is saying is that he would make it illegal for a non-citizen to BUY something.

Not only that, but proof of citizenship laws, which we don't have in most states for voting, are onerous and disproportionately tilted away from the poor and the elderly, as well as potentially restrictive to legal immigrants with green cards, in this case. As the New York Times says today:

Should we take a harder line? Force people to prove citizenship in emergency rooms? That’s illegal, for good reason. Make verification requirements so onerous that not a single illegal immigrant slips through? Very expensive, and not smart. It would be highly likely to snag deserving citizens — like old people who don’t have their original birth certificates. And besides, we’ve tried that: A House oversight committee reviewed six state Medicaid programs in 2007 and found that verification rules had cost the federal government an additional $8.3 million. They caught exactly eight illegal immigrants.

In the case of an epidemic, like swine flu, should illegal immigrants go untreated so they can infect legal residents and American citizens?

Hard-line Republicans insist that they will fight for citizenship verification. They could, in theory, get the country to spend whatever it takes to do that and proudly report back to their voters. But there is a line beyond which antipathy to the undocumented can be damaging to those voters’ health, not to mention the federal budget. Mr. Wilson and his admirers seem to have crossed it.

Not to mention the fact that buckling to these demands will not get one Republican vote on any health care bill.

This is the Senate Finance bill, not the overall bill. But Democrats are so wishy-washy when it comes to, well, anything, that we actually could see this rotten, xenophobic, piss-poor policy in a bill supposedly designed to expand access to health care.

I know a lot of money has been flowing to Joe Wilson's opponent in 2010, but a far better use of those dollars would be to funnel them toward primary opponents for Kent Conrad and Max Baucus.

UPDATE: Conrad is now clarifying that there would be no federal subsidies, and requiring proof of citizenship would just be used to determine qualification for government assistance. Of course, you end up with the same problem, then; those without proper proof of ID would have trouble getting subsidies that could be available to them. The larger point is that there was no need to react to a teabagger yelling and screaming. This was already implicit in the bill, and allowed for the HHS Secretary to determine a best practice. This blunt instrument is not the way to do it, and makes Democrats look weak (but that's redundant).

UPDATE II: As this GAO report notes, checkpoint systems like Baucus and Conrad want were implemented under the Bush Administration to ensure undocumenteds didn't get on Medicaid, and for every $100 they spent, 14 CENTS in Medicaid savings were achieved. It's wasteful and spiteful!

You can view this video right here by getting the latest version of Flash Player!

DOWNLOADS: (1923)

PLAYS: (6710)

If the Republican Party wants to go on a listening tour to figure out what they need to do, they may start turning off their radios and televisions too. Every day we post about the absurdity that is the Republican Party and every day a completely new mind-numbing smear comes out.

I understand what they are doing. They feel if they keep chipping away at President Obama with nonsensical complaints, it will slowly erode his popularity. The problem they face is that they look like loons doing it, and all the polls point to the same conclusion. It's good for ratings on FOX, because those uber-loons are watching the little horde of Republican lunatics in action with a fervent glee, but mainstream America is laughing at them.

The new one is that Obama had the nerve, the nerve I tell you! of ordering Dijon mustard with his overcooked burger, and the media is covering up that fact.

As usual, Sean Hannity and the right wingnutosphere are all over it like Dijon on fries.

Following President Obama's May 5 visit to Ray's Hell Burger in Arlington, Virginia, Sean Hannity, Laura Ingraham, and Rush Limbaugh Show guest host Mark Steyn criticized Obama as an elitist because he ordered a burger with "spicy mustard" or "Dijon mustard." Hannity claimed that Obama ordered a "fancy burger" with a "very special condiment," while Steyn asserted Obama is trying "to enlighten us" through his order. Ingraham asked of Obama: "What kind of man orders a cheeseburger without ketchup but Dijon mustard? ... The guy orders a cheeseburger without ketchup? What is that?" In their discussions of Obama's burger order, Hannity, Ingraham, and Steyn all referenced a Grey Poupon commercial featuring actors portraying wealthy British men expressing desire for the mustard.

I happen to like the spicy taste of Dijon too. Hey. I noticed there's a Hate Hannity Hotline. I hope I make it there sometimes. He's too cowardly to have me on his show, so I'd really like to make the Hotline.

TIME magazine rips the Republican Party apart as Rep. Patrick McHenry says that Reaganism is dead.

Continue reading »

February 08, 2009 C-SPAN

Mr Ghosh's recent Time Magazine article on the challenges that Richard Holbrooke, President Obama's special envoy to Afghanistan and Pakistan, will have to deal with in the coming months. Mr. Ghosh writes that Holbrooke "will have to deal with ugly reality on the ground" when he arrives in the region on Feb. 9. Mr. Ghosh is the former Time Baghdad Bureau Chief, and is now back in the U.S. covering terrorism and national security.

See more CSPANJunkie videos here.

Mark Halperin does it again:

Two Republicans close to the situation say McCain has apparently settled on Mitt Romney as his running mate. [..]

Developing...

Nice Drudgian touch at the end, Mark.  Of course, Halperin pulled down the page saying that the Veep was going to be Dick Lugar just a little bit before, which appeared to be based on nothing more Lugar endorsing McCain.  Brilliant.  Obviously, still wishing to not blow his "MSM Maker of Conventional Wisdom" title, Halperin updated with this weasel: 

And/but:

NY Times: "People close to the [McCain] campaign also floated a wild-card choice, Gen. David H. Petraeus, the top American commander in Iraq."

Give me a break.  Either report the news as it happens or start calling yourself Miss Cleo.  This wild guessing is insulting to our intelligence.