of course, ABC News will still never beat the champion

You may have heard the recent GOP talking point about a supposed magnetic levitation rail line in the stimulus bill from "Disneyland" to Las Vegas. It's a Rush Limbaugh canard; there is no such earmark in the stimulus bill (though in all honesty, a direct line from LA to Vegas actually makes a lot of sense). Nevertheless, you wouldn't expect FOX News to settle with an average Limbaugh whopper, would ya?:

KELLY: It's a super railroad, of sorts -- a line that will deliver customers straight from Disney, we kid you not, to the doorstep of the moonlight bunny ranch brothel in Nevada. I say, to the moonlight Bunny Ranch brothel in Nevada. So should your tax dollars be paying for these kinds of projects? [...]

Now the phantom flying train runs straight from Disneyland to Las Vegas the Bunny Ranch brothel. You know, the one near Carson City. Incidentally, if any of you are heading to Las Vegas, I would not suggest hopping a train to Carson City.

View Larger Map
Amazing that there are people out there who still refer to FNC as a "news channel."

Fox and Friends: "soldier is hard to spell, because there's no D in it"

Where do they find these people? There's video on Crooks and Liars of a clip of Fox and Friends discussing a teacher who argues that English spelling is too hard for many students. FOX, which has never found an anti-feminist stereotype it didn't love, has found a blonde woman to anchor the show so horrifically stupid that, within the same segment, she says:

It [spelling "soldier"] is too hard because of the "d." There's no "d" in it."

and...

Yeah, you could use a dictionary, but here's the thing: do they even sell hardcore dictionaries anymore?

In case you were wondering, a "hardcore" dictionary is a bound paper one, as opposed to an online dictionary which, apparently, is utterly useless for checking spelling.

But don't worry, people, one of the dudes tries to out-ditz the blonde:

People have been speaking English for thousands of years!

Mr. Stewart... Mr. Stewart, you are being paged...

but remember, the black guy from Chicago is the elitist

Apparently Clinton felt that the rich don't get enough pandering in this country, so she made her O'Reilly appearance a chance to assure them that she's their candidate.

I am glad she reminded everyone that it's Obama who's for raising the payroll tax cap and not her. Good to know that it's Obama and not Clinton who's for the only permanent solution to Social Security solvency that doesn't include raising the tax itself (which only counts the first $90k of your income, disproportionately affecting the poor and middle class) or cutting the already criminally low benefit checks. I guess that means that, if you're poor/middle class, your income is subject to the payroll tax, and you will be needing Social Security to live on when you retire, Obama's your candidate. If, however, you're rich, your income comes from pay over $90k/year, capital gains and/or an estate, and you won't even notice your Social Security checks 20 years after you retire in your 40's, then Clinton is a perfect fit for you.

Glad she cleared that up.

People are going to jump all over the "rich people-- God bless us" line of hers as it's an easy soundbyte to latch onto and it's a lovely compliment to the $109 million tax form thing, but I wish I knew what she was trying to say with that line. She was in the middle of qualifying it when O'Reilly cut her off (mirabile dictu!), and I just wonder what would have possessed her to say that.

HISTORY IZ HARD!!1!

Welcome to American history, as brought to you by FOX News. It is the raucous year of Our Lord 1858, and Illinois Senatorial candidate Abraham Lincoln of the fledgling Republican party has a series of contentious debates with Democrat Stephen Douglas prominent abolitionist Frederick Douglass:

UPDATE: It appears the Daily Exorcist has beaten me to the punch on this one. You win this round, Mr. D!!

Super Bowl to be tainted with FOX News election coverage

GODDAMNIT! From the NY Observer:

On Feb. 3, a k a Super Bowl Sunday, in an original News Corp. smorgasbord, reporters from FOX News will be teaming up with reporters from FOX owned and operated stations from around the country for a three hour broadcast event, focusing on—USA! USA!—presidential politics and professional football.

Shepard Smith, of FOX News, will headline the production from Glendale, Ariz., the site of this year’s Super Bowl. FOX News anchor (and Cincinnati Bengals fanatic) Bill Hemmer will contribute from New York, along with Fox News’ Megyn Kelly.

As the anchors toggle back and forth between discussion of the Super Bowl and Super Tuesday, they will chew over political dispatches from FOX Broadcasting reporters from around the country.

As an added bonus, we'll also be getting regular interruptions to our frakin' Super Bowl coverage so FOX News' Carl Cameron, America's prissiest hyperconservative, can wax poetic about the musky manliness of John McCain. We can expect some serious FOX News-style journalistic integrity, as well, seeing as this is the guy who covered the cretin from Crawford on the campaign trail while his wife was working in W's campaign.

I mean, Goddamnit! We've already had to deal with Dennis Miller and Rush f**king Limbaugh belching their bile all over NFL broadcasts, and despite how spectacularly both of those clowns crashed and burned, we now have to endure FOX News? Are you kidding me? Yeah, sure NBC put Keith Olbermann on Sunday night football, but a) KO doesn't talk politics in his football segment, and b) his journalistic work has been primarily as a sportscaster with ESPN and, coincidentally, FOX Sports.

It's possible, too, that injecting politics into the Super Bowl could backfire spectacularly considering that many people watch sports to take their minds off the "real world" and I'm willing to bet that most Americans do not think sportscasts are an appropriate place to talk politics.

Why do Republicans have this urge to mix their politics into our football? And more importantly, can the TiVo at Chez O'Zee save us from this monstrosity?

true patriotism

Really all there is to say about that:

Said Sean Hannity: “Why do we wear [flag lapel] pins? Because our country is under attack!”

how skewed election coverage is: an example

At my father's house in the South, they occasionally watch FOX News. He honestly thought Barack Obama was Muslim.

like fishing in an oil spill

The DLC, quite honestly, baffles me. I understand the allure of "centrism," and I get their tactic of tacking right to capture the center (though considering what Americans actually say their views are in polls, I think it's delusional), and I certainly understand that they feel like they're losing the battle for the soul of the Democratic party (if only that were so!). But I think they're stuck in an earlier time. If there was ever a time when the values of the majority of the electorate tracked closer to the Republicans than the Democrats, this ain't it. In fact, judging from the pluralities of most opinion polls, the American people currently oppose the GOP on virtually every issue. It makes no sense, in light of these facts, to emulate the Republicans.

Of course, then again, the head of the DLC, Harold Ford, is a Democrat who did exactly that in a state where the people actually are pretty conservative, and what happened? People chose the actual conservative over the GOP-lite candidate, which is why he's heading the DLC as his day job instead of representing the people of Tennessee in the US Senate. Go figure.

But here's where I'm really stumped. If you're the head of the DLC, which supposedly embraces a blue-dog Democratic ideology to appeal to the middle, why would you go bash Democrats for being too extremist? I mean, if you don't want people to think your party's full of loony leftists, why go on TV and call them a bunch of loony leftists? And more to the point, why would you do it on FOX News? Surely Ford isn't so ill-informed that he never saw the poll that showed that 88% of FOX News viewers voted for George W. Bush in 2004, right? Does Harold Ford, the head of an organization committed to electing Democrats, not know that FOX News viewers vote more reliably Republican than gun owners, white Evangelical Christians, self-identified conservatives, and supporters of the Iraq War? Who does he think he's convincing here? Why not just have the RNC send an email to its supporters about this?

speechless

After all this time, the press finally ends their boycott on the word "filibuster" and reports:

During the July 17 edition of ABC's Good Morning America, co-anchor Diane Sawyer falsely claimed that Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) "vows to filibuster, talking all night to close out all topics besides a vote on Iraqi troop withdrawals." Sawyer was referring to Reid's plan to hold an all-night Senate debate prior to the July 18 cloture vote on a Democratic proposal to withdraw troops from Iraq. However, by planning to extend the Senate session throughout the night, Reid is not "vow[ing] to filibuster," as Sawyer reported. Rather, he is highlighting the Republicans' blocking of an up-or-down vote on the proposal; in other words, it is the Republicans who are filibustering the withdrawal proposal by requiring that 60 senators vote for the amendment in order for it to pass.

Additionally, on the July 16 edition of Fox News' Special Report with Brit Hume, Weekly Standard executive editor Fred Barnes asserted that Reid is "filibustering his own bill."

Yes, you read that right. Diane Sawyer just reported that it's the Democrats who are filibustering.

This is insane.

FOX news vs. Mr. Rogers

I don't really know what to say. From ThinkProgress:

This morning, Fox and Friends asked, “Why is it at the end of every term, these kids who on the bubble…they come in and beg for extra credit so they can get an A?” Citing a report by a university professor, Fox speculated one possible answer: “Blame Mr. Rogers! Because Mr. Rogers had an optimistic message where everyone was special even if they didn’t deserve it.” During the segment, one chyron read: “Mr. Rogers’ Mixed Message: ‘You’re Special.’” Another chyron asked: “Is Mr. Rogers Ruining Kids?: Sense of Entitlement.”

Who are these monsters? And by the way, if by "special" one could mean "unique," then yes, actually all children are special. It's a biological fact proven by our DNA. Furthermore, considering that any one of them has virtually unlimited creative potential and since we as a society give children preferential treatment and consider them particularly valuable, yes, children are special. Why are we even having this conversation? Has the conservative movement truly gone this far down the rabbit hole?

Violent Femmes

THE LEZBOS ARE COMIN' TA GITCHA!!! WITH PINK PISTOLS!!!

What a bunch of dumbasses. And no, it's not reliable, in case any of you were wondering.

I <3 NY

I'll set the scene: FOX News's Laura Ingle is conducting an interview about the new iPhone on the street in NYC. And all of sudden...well, just watch the video, c/o ThinkProgress.

How funny. Pay attention, too, at the different way Ingle tries to spin what just happened; it's a little weird (and very telling) that misinformation has become second nature for her, the automatic reaction to someone reacting physically against FOX.

FOX News rots your brain

Boy, W sure does sound great when your coverage is fair and balanced! From Political Wire:

According to a poll conducted by Democratic pollster Mark Mellman, in 2004, "Fox News viewers supported George Bush over John Kerry by 88% to 7%. No demographic segment, other than Republicans, was as united in supporting Bush. Conservatives, white evangelical Christians, gun owners, and supporters of the Iraq war all gave Bush fewer votes than did regular Fox News viewers." [emphasis mine]

For those keeping track, the difference in this poll between the number of viewers who supported Kerry and the tiny third category who supported neither (in 2004, the most hotly contested election in recent memory, mind you) was statistically insignificant.

Amazing that it took this long for people in power to start openly questioning FOX's legitimacy.

Please, Salon, get Camille Paglia off my browser!

When I think of Camille Paglia's writing, I think of a chutney-covered ricecake: lots of hip, snappy, intellectual-sounding ingredients on top with no substance whatsoever underneath. For all the academic vocabulary this woman uses, she has nothing insightful to say, being content instead to foist poorly researched triangulations and reflexive regurgitation of rightwing arguments that haven't been anywhere near true for many years (if they were ever true at all).

I feel like I'm reading Joe Klein, if Joe Klein did nothing but watch FOX News all day.

For instance, if you were to read her tripe today, you'd never guess that Clinton did not, in fact, give an entire sermon in a faux-drawl, but instead was merely quoting a southern writer. You would, however, get the sense that the media really is liberal, contrary to a number of Media Matters studies which show a persistent conservative slant in all major networks' coverage of news and in their talking head lineups, contrary to the lack of a motive for a corporate news agency to espouse liberal views, and despite the lack of any evidence for her case whatsoever-- as well as contrary to what everyone saw with their own eyes in election 2000. You'd have just read her argument that if FOX News just admitted they were a propaganda outlet for the GOP like Rush Limbaugh then it would be hunky dory for them to host a Democratic debate (because FOX News treated the Dem debates in '04 so fairly, dontcha know-- and does she actually think that Rush Limbaugh would be a valid person to host a debate?). And, as the fly on the turd, you'd have been told flat-out that Ann Coulter is a "feminist."

Then there was this:

"Of course, any Salon readers who still follow the mainstream media out of numbed habit will never have heard Hillary's most extreme flights of faux gemutlichkeit. All that Sunday, network radio news, for example, betrayed its liberal bias by running clips of only her noblest phrases. Heaven help any Republican who had made so lurid a gaffe!"

Yes, this is clearly an example of liberal bias, because if a conservative running for president ever made serious verbal gaffes or put on a comicbook accent, the media would make sure he could never win.

That quote was right before a "Thank God for Matt Drudge!" moment that really says all that needs to be said.

Seriously, what does she offer that we don't already get from every preening, uninformed conservative in the media today?

inside baseball-- on the myth of "doing well while doing good"

I call this post "inside baseball" because it's about blogger/"netroots" scuttlebutt and insider issues. I try to stay out of this crap normally because, frankly, for most people it's not that interesting, but I had to say something here.

Most of us starry-eyed idealists have a cause that we believe in, a vision of "the greater good" to which we commit ourselves, be it religious, political, social, or all 3. We join together in common cause and form movements to change society for the better. Some of us, however, get too wrapped up in, say, personal ambition and the desire for "fame" in whatever size circle that may be along the way, and it almost inevitably comes at odds with the work we originally set out to do. And for many, myself included, our abilities don't quite match our ambitions. In some cases, such people grow envious of others who have been more successful in the cause, and manage to lose all perspective in seeking to supplant that person instead of working together for the greater good (call this the "Cain and Abel" complex).

And the smarter members of the opposition are always ready to capitalize on it to strike a blow against the whole movement.

Maryscott's "cry me a river" act has been needing calling out for a long time. MLW gets way more traffic than a lot of sites, and is quite successful for what it is (i.e., a political blog). That being said, it will never be near the size of dKos because Maryscott and the writers there got hung up on their cliquish condescension of all bigger, less ideologically pure blogs and their needless offending of every demographic that isn't stereotypically "left." In my opinion, the scatterspray tactics and self-centered whining do more harm than good at the end of the day, but hey, it's her blog. Anyway, I'm no fan, but even I never thought she'd actually do this.

I can't imagine that interview going any better for Gibson, FOX News, and conservatism, and all he had to do was let her talk.

And, for the record: if you think Daily Kos is "centrist," you need to get out more.

the dictionary definition of hypocrisy

From TPM:

In the wake of the Libby verdict, Fox News has wheeled out a brigade of legal analysts and their usual TV hosts, all of whom are reaching oddly similar conclusions: The verdict is flawed, and there was no underlying crime.

So the conservative gasbags on FOX News were complaining about the verdict because there was no underlying crime. That is, though Libby lied, he lied about something that is not, in fact, a criminal act. In a perjury and obstruction of justice trial. Of someone in the White House.

Of course, I'm just being facetious. After all, there is a major difference between the two cases: unlike adultery, leaking the identity of a clandestine CIA operative is, in fact, a federal crime. It could even constitute an act of domestic terrorism according to the Patriot Act.