Sarah Palin’s Canceled Reality Show Gets Millions In Government Subsidies

Sarah PalinSarah Palin, the Alaskan governor most famous for sinking the GOP’s presidential campaign and quitting half way through her term, is in the midst of yet another controversy. This one pits her against Tucker Carlson’s Daily Caller in a Fox News contributor’s cat fight.

It seems that the company that produced “Sarah Palin’s Alaska” was the beneficiary of over a million dollars in tax credits that were made possible by a law that Palin signed while still governor. When news of this got out, many conservatives took Palin to task for the apparent hypocrisy. As a Tea Party leader, and possible Republican candidate for president, Palin has been a vocal advocate of small government, so this legislation should be as repugnant to her as say…funding for NPR.

Chris Moody of the Daily Caller posted an article on the swirling debate amongst conservatives who found Palin’s position to be inconsistent with her public stance. Palin called the article “ludicrous” and accused Moody of “spinning” the story to give a false impression.

Palin: The accusation hinges on the notion that I signed the legislation into law knowing that it would personally benefit me. That’s absurd.

That is absurd. Because that is clearly not what that accusation hinges upon. The accusation addresses the hypocrisy of opposing big government intrusions on the free market except when they are used to advance her television career. And Despite recently declaring that she was through whining about the media, she opens her Facebook defense by saying…

“Goodness, cleaning up the sloppiness of reporters could be a full time job. In response to The Daily Caller’s online inquiry, I gave them a statement that the writer buried on his story’s second page (which most people won’t even notice – I didn’t even notice it)…”

First of all, what does it say about Palin that she didn’t notice the bright red text immediately following the article that said “NEXT PAGE: Read Palin’s full statements on the tax credit.” Is that her idea of “buried?” Is she really so lazy that, in an article about herself, she fails to observe such an obvious link? Secondly, the statement she gave was a lengthy 671 word defense that was 35% longer than the article to which she was responding.

Ironically, I agree with Palin that the state is justified in providing incentives to boost business. Many states offer tax credits for production companies in order to persuade them to bring their projects and checkbooks. The problem here is that Palin doesn’t agree with Palin. She is an adamant evangelist for small government and regards these sort of initiatives as outside the role of the state.

What’s more, the Alaska measure takes into account the likelihood that an out-of-state film production company may not have significant tax liabilities in Alaska, making the tax credits of little value. So they permit the producer to profit by selling his tax credits to other Alaska-based firms. That means that local oil companies or foresters or fisheries can acquire the deductions at a discount and reduce their contributions to Alaska’s treasury. So the visiting producer and some big corporations are benefiting at the expense of Alaska’s citizens.

Nice work, Sarah.

Sarah Palin Question Stumps Jeopardy Contestants

For those who think that Sarah Palin is a serious candidate for president (or sewer inspector), they may need to adjust their perspective a bit. In addition to having dreadful approval ratings that have gone steadily downward since her debut in national politics, she is also such a trivial factor in American life that she is almost invisible.

On Monday, March 7, 2011, Jeopardy featured this question in the category Hearts: Her latest book is titled “America by Heart: Reflections on Faith, Family and Flag”

Not one of the contestants knew that the correct question was “Who is Sarah Palin.” And remember, to become a contestant on Jeopardy you need to be exceptionally intelligent with a well-rounded store of knowledge that includes history, science, popular culture, literature, and, yes, politics. Yet none of them had ever heard of this book. That’s a sign that Palin’s pop celebrity status is waning, and it’s a good sign for America.

The problem is that the media still drools over her like a Pavlovian mutt craving a moose bone. I think that when Jeopardy contestants are stumped as to the identity of this half-term governor, failed VP candidate, and vacuous purveyor of ghost written Twitter and Facebook posts, the press corps should be asking themselves the question that none of the Jeopardy players could come up with: “Who is Sarah Palin.”

Sarah Palin is a non-entity in American politics. To the extent that people pay any attention to her at all, it is to express their almost universal disgust. Continued coverage of this self-serving ignoramus is a combination of journalistic fraud, incompetence, and laziness. Just stop it already.

Military Charity Event Featuring Sarah Palin Goes Bust

Sarah PalinSarah Palin has spent most of the past two years trying to polish her credentials as a super-patriot and portray herself as a supporter of American ideals and, especially, soldiers and veterans. But her popularity (or lack thereof) outside of the Tea Party is increasingly a source of embarrassment.

Last month the Sharon K. Pacheco Foundation celebrated their booking of Palin to headline their fundraising gala. However, the foundation just announced that the event has been canceled. They wrote in a Facebook post that…

“Due to an onslaught of personal attacks against Governor Palin and others associated with her appearance, it is with deep sadness and disappointment that, in the best interest of all, we cancel the event for safety concerns.”

On the surface that would seem to be an unfortunate circumstance that reflects poorly on Palin’s opponents. But further exploration of the facts suggests a somewhat different reason for the event’s failure.

First of all, the foundation’s post also noted that “no direct threats have been made against anyone,” and that the safety concerns arose “despite the call for civility in America,” in the aftermath of the shootings in Tucson. That’s ironic in that Palin was a critic of such calls for civility and regarded them as an attack on her and her right to free speech.

More significantly, the Denver Post reports that tickets for the event were not exactly in demand. They went on sale in January for $185.00. Two weeks later a $15.00 discount was offered. Last week the price was cut in half. Apparently Palin isn’t the draw she thinks she is. It is not known if Palin was to receive her customary $100,000.00 speaking fee, but it is clear that the foundation was struggling to fill seats.

The Post also noted that there is an NBC/Politico sponsored GOP primary debate on May 2, the same day as the charity gala. Palin has not committed to participate in the debate (nor has anyone else), and she hasn’t even declared her candidacy. But she may have wanted to keep her calendar open, just in case.

Perhaps as a result of this affair, the media will start to represent Palin’s public profile more realistically. If she can’t sell tickets to a military charity, where is her support? Why is she still regarded by the press as a significant political figure? She routinely ranks near the bottom of GOP primary polls, and her favorability is in the gutter. Her canceled reality program on The Learning Channel lost half its viewers over its brief eight week run.

The truth is that she was a has-been before she began. She quit the only important job she ever held half way through. She was never taken seriously, even by her own handlers during the 2008 campaign. Her celebrity is akin to that of Kim Kardashian’s, and if there is a place for her in American culture, it’s on TMZ.

Sean Hannity’s Fake Interview of Sarah Palin

Sarah PalinFox News has been busy promoting Sarah Palin’s first interview since the Tucson Slaughter. It finally took place last night on Sean Hannity’s show.

I’m not going to waste time analyzing her response to Hannity’s obsequious inquiry because it was, for the most part, either incoherent gibberish or self-indulgent whining. But I do want to comment on the absurdity of this being presented as an interview in the context of journalism.

Ethical journalists do not pay subjects for interviews, particularly subjects in the public service arena. However, Palin was being paid for her appearance on the Hannity show. She is a contracted Fox News contributor. So what we witnessed last night was one Fox News employee interviewing another Fox News employee and pretending that it had news value.

This is just another example of why Fox ought not to be considered a legitimate news network. If Palin wanted to appear on Hannity’s program in her role as a Fox contributor, that would be fine and in accordance with her contract. But to pass this off as a newsmaker interview amounts to nothing less than deception and journalistic malpractice.

Expect more of this sort of charade in the months ahead because at least five prospective GOP presidential candidates are presently on the Fox payroll. Anyone who sees these imitation interviews needs to remember that they are bought and paid for. And that includes other media enterprises who report on what they see on Fox.

Sarah Palin Runs Crying For Help To Sean Hannity

Sarah PalinIn the wake of her disastrous video statement Wednesday, Sarah Palin is running to Sean Hannity for a heaping of consolation and damage control.

The video Palin released on the day of the memorial for the victims of the Tucson rampage presented her as the victim and, if that weren’t bad enough, offended millions with her appropriation of the phrase “blood libel” to describe what she was suffering.

It didn’t take long to recognize the depths to which her foot was shoved down her throat. She was lambasted from all sides with even staunch conservatives in shock by her fumble.

So in an effort to redeem herself she has announced that she will appear on national television to take questions about the incident. The only problem is that the questions will be coming from her dear friend and apologist, Sean Hannity. No one is more obsequious than Hannity, who we can rest assured will do his best to rehabilitate Palin’s image.

The one thing that we can take away from this is that Sarah Palin is bent on affirming her manifest cowardice. Just by scheduling this “interview” she is demonstrating a pitiful lack of character. She is conceding that she does not have the intellectual capacity, or the intestinal fortitude, to face her shortcomings or her critics. Does she really think that anyone will conclude from this charade that she has been put to the test and reclaimed her dignity (such as it is)?

Palin is now in full flail mode. Her latest book is #542 on Amazon. Her reality show on TLC is not being renewed after having dropped viewers throughout its short run. Most polls show that even Republicans don’t support her for president in 2012. And her favorable ratings are hovering in the mid-twenties.

It may be time for her to take a bow and return home to Wasilla. Thank goodness the American people are demonstrating a far greater measure of common sense than Palin ever will.

Glenn Beck’s Top Ten Reasons To Kill Your Congressman

Glenn BeckYesterday Glenn Beck introduced a petition that he described as a challenge to America. In truth it was nothing more than a self-serving stunt that enumerated a bunch of repetitive calls to denounce violence. This sets Beck apart from the millions of people in America whom he seems to think are clamoring for more of it.

Today Beck spent almost the whole hour whining that only 14 members of congress signed his silly petition. That’s a pretty dismal showing of support. Considering that congress now has 289 Republicans (House and Senate), Beck only managed to snare about 5% of his ideological allies. He was obviously devastated at having been snubbed so brutally. He heaped scorn on those who rebuffed him, blaming them for playing politics. He went on ad nauseum about not being able to understand how anyone could refuse to sign the farce that he regarded as so well-intentioned.

Other than Beck, no one should be surprised that his petition was so universally dismissed. It would be like McDonalds circulating a petition denouncing junk food. Beck is perhaps America’s foremost purveyor of violence-soaked hate speech and has no intention of changing. His history of incendiary language is rich with examples that are indefensibly bloodthirsty. And despite his denial, this sort of rhetoric can motivate the weak, the gullible, and the paranoid. So without further ado I present Glenn Beck’s justifications for political assassination.

Glenn Beck’s Top Ten Reasons To Kill Your Congressman

  • January 19, 2010: The progressive movement is sucking the blood out of each of the parties. This is their opportunity to finally win and progressives will, admittedly, do anything to win. They’ll lie, cheat, steal. Do you really think you can pull them off your neck with a ballot box? You must drive a steak through the heart of this movement. … [Obama]’s not a Democrat. He is a progressive.
  • June 10, 2010: Shoot me in the head if you try to change our government. I will stand against you and so will millions of others. We believe in something. You in the media and most in Washington don’t. […] They believe in communism. They believe and have called for a revolution. You’re going to have to shoot them in the head. But warning, they may shoot you.
  • November 13, 2009: Barack Obama and Congress are selling you a bill of goods. It is only when you take down the mask of sunshine and lollipops that you will see the real thing – the real image. Destruction. These bills are creating the path to America’s destruction.
  • July 23, 2010: They’ve already taken over health care. Is there any greater control than that of deciding the fate of someone’s life?
  • July 23, 2010: The financial regulation that the president signed into law yesterday is an unprecedented assault on our economy, our ability to do business and, quite honestly, the republic as we know it.
  • October 30, 2009: When you pull back the curtain, you will see that free speech is being eradicated for controlled speech: Control over the media; control over the Internet; control over you.
  • March 8, 2010: There is an effort to indoctrinate [our kids]. … Even President Obama, in his own Web site, targeting our children. … Get the kids out of this indoctrination or our republic will be lost.
  • April 24, 2007: I have been telling you for months now that illegal immigration is creating a new civil war in this country.
  • September 2, 2009: I’m going to show you the beginning of something that should scare the living daylights out of you. It is propaganda in America. The National Endowment for the Arts is now holding conference calls.
  • December 14, 2009: The climate cult wants more than just your recycling bin. … what they want is total submission.

Glenn Beck has assembled a pretty comprehensive list of things that will doom the republic. They include health care, religion, financial regulation, education reform, Network Neutrality, immigration, art, global warming, cap and trade, the census, cash for clunkers, and even food safety. Did I leave anything out? Yes I did. How about…

People that don’t attend his rallies?: There are people now who are saying: I don’t know if I am going on 8/28. I don’t know if I’ll go to another Tea Party. Well, if you’re done, then the republic truly is done. If you’re done, they will take your liberty as well.

And how about…

Sarah Palin? Sarah, as you know, peace is always the answer. I know you are feeling the same heat, if not much more on this. I want you to know you have my support. But please look into protection for your family. An attempt on you could bring the republic down.

As it turns out, our republic must be pretty weak. Almost anything can bring it down according to Beck. I wouldn’t sneeze too hard if I were you. But one risk that Beck stubbornly refuses to acknowledge is that inflaming people’s fears about the end of the world that they know and cherish could drive certain individuals to take extreme measures in what they regard as the protection of their family and country. If you believed that our government were actually behaving in the manner described by Beck, that it was deliberately steering toward slavery, tyranny, and ruin, you might consider it your duty to take out a congressman or two in the name of patriotism. Beck fails to acknowledge this even though it has already happened on a number of occasions; even though he has been warned; even though he caters to advertisers whose products are dependent on such fears; even though his boss Roger Ailes told him to “shut up, tone it down, make your argument intellectually.” And that may be where Beck gets tripped up.

There has been a lot of debate lately about rhetoric and imagery. I think some of it has concentrated too much on trivialities. I don’t think Beck or Palin are responsible for the shooting last Saturday. I don’t think that maps with crosshairs are going to motivate anyone to commit murder, although they may seem horribly inappropriate after a tragic event like the one in Tucson. However, repeatedly using irresponsible language that dehumanizes rivals and casts them as mortal enemies and foes of goodness and Godliness is tempting fate. It is fomenting a hatred and/or fear of government and fellow citizens. That can turn an ideological opponent into an imminent threat. That is what Beck does every day and it has to stop.

If our republic is to survive (now I’m doing it) we need to be able to have partisan divisions that don’t devolve into civil malignancies. All people in public life need to reflect on this in pursuit of their political goals. And if Beck won’t stop out of a sense of moral decency, then it is up to those who have such morality to counter his repugnancy and work to evict him from the public platform that he does not deserve.

Glenn Beck Finally Comments On The Tucson Slaughter

It took 48 hours, but Glenn Beck, arguably the worst offender at being offensive, has finally commented on the slaughter in Tucson that killed or injured 19 people including a federal judge, a nine year old girl, and Rep. Gabrielle Giffords.

Glenn Beck: Armed and DangerousFor the most part his message was a compulsory expression of condolences and a call for non-violence. This from someone whose daily sermons of apocalyptic terror have already inspired murderous acts by unstable individuals. It is notable that he only spoke to actual acts of violence and made no mention of the hostile rhetoric from which they can spring. That is if you don’t count his defense of right-wing media by characterizing criticism of the vilification in civic discourse as politicizing the tragedy. What’s more, his web page with this message featured a rotating gallery of images that includes the one to the left wherein he brandishes a firearm. Now, that’s perfectly legal, of course, but perhaps a bit insensitive considering recent events and the very subject of the page on which it appears. Even Palin felt compelled to remove her “Hit List” from her web site.

[Note] Beck has since removed the image of him brandishing a gun. That is a tacit admission that it was inappropriate, but I don’t expect that he will make an explicit admission, nor apologize.

Also included in his message was a bizarre defense of Sarah Palin that also served as an advertisement for his security provider. He introduced his remarks as being excerpted from his letter to Palin.

“Sarah, as you know, peace is always the answer. I know you are feeling the same heat, if not much more on this. I want you to know you have my support. But please look into protection for your family. An attempt on you could bring the republic down. Please call Gavin De Becker in Los Angeles. He is the guy that protects me. They are, bar none, the best.”

According to Beck it is Sarah Palin who is feeling the heat. She is the victim of Saturday’s massacre, poor thing. And if Glenn Beck thinks that an attempt on Palin could bring down the republic, his opinion of the republic is that it is pretty damn weak. Of course an attempt on Palin, or anyone, would be horrible, but our nation was strong enough to withstand a civil war; strong enough to lose four sitting presidents to assassination and numerous attempts on others; strong enough to endure the loss of 3,000 people on 9/11. It is stupid to suggest that an attempt on a former half-term governor/reality TV star would bring us down when those other events did not.

Beck should refrain from glorifying his elitist class of politicos as the foundations that keep our nation from crumbling to the ground and instead speak to the need for civil discourse in our country. We ought to be able to regard our political adversaries as people with whom we disagree, not mortal enemies. It does not help to call the President a racist or a fascist. It does not help to vilify people like Cass Sunstein as the “most dangerous man in America” or George Soros as a “puppet master” bent on destroying our economy and our nation. It does not help to fantasize about choking the life out of Michael Moore or beating Rep. Charles Rangel to death with a shovel. Nor does it help to announce that he is starting a revolution against those he vilifies as progressives, but who are really his fellow Americans. If he really believes in peace and love, he should practice it – for God’s sake.

As an aside, I was fully prepared with a knee-jerk condemnation of the product placement Beck included in his suck-up to Palin. However, Gavin de Becker & Associates, Beck’s security firm, has an article on their site titled: Media Fear Tactics. It is actually a pretty useful and entertaining commentary on the sensationalism of television news. Ironically, it describes pretty accurately the way Fox News presents their tabloid alternative to journalism. The article was clearly meant as a cautionary guide to shoddy reporting, but the Fox editors seem to have adopted as a style guide.

Hostile Intent: Right-Wing Media Doth Protest Too Much

Rarely have I seen such a desperate attempt to evade reality as has occurred since the shooting rampage in Tuscon. It would seem to be a fairly non-controversial notion that when a politician is targeted for assassination, the language that contributes to hostile discord ought to be carefully considered and avoided. The last thing anyone should want is another Jared Loughner. However, just raising that issue has caused politicians and pundits on the right to stiffen their backs and go on offense. They are taking such talk very personally. Could it be because they are harboring a latent guilt?

While the left has been responding to an horrific act of violence with calls to tone down the rhetoric, many on the right have assumed an attack posture. Keith Olbermann delivered a commentary yesterday wherein he included himself amongst those who have crossed the line. He apologized. There has been scarce reciprocation on the right. In fact, they have dug in their heels to assert that they will continue as if nothing has happened. Sarah Palin’s camp even contends that their notorious “Hit List” didn’t represent a gunsight’s crosshairs, but those on map. That might have been a little more plausible if Palin herself hadn’t referred to it as a bullseye.

So it should come as no surprise that Fox News would employ their propaganda web site, Fox Nation, to muddy the waters and absolve the right of any wrongdoing while tarnishing the left for observing the obvious. The Fox Nation presently has eleven articles that place the left in a bad light and/or polish the right’s reputation. Methinks they doth protest too much.

The Headlines:

  • Durbin Using Tragic Shooting to Silence Conservative Speech
  • A Colossal Failure of Journalism: Jared Loughner is crazy
  • Tucson Shooter and the Violent Rhetoric in the “Communist Manifesto”
  • AZ Dem Blames “Afghan Vet” for Shooting
  • DESPICABLE: NYT’s Krugman Blames Republicans For Giffords Shooting
  • NOW Blames Shooting on ‘Extreme’ Conservatives Opposing ‘Progressive Solutions’
  • PATHETIC: James Clyburn Blames Sharon Angle for Giffords Shooting
  • Tuscon Sheriff Politicizes Press Conference, Blames Talk Radio
  • Journalists Urged Caution After Ft. Hood, Now Race to Blame Palin After Arizona Shootings
  • Kurtz: Don’t Drag Palin Into this Horrific Mess
  • Dems Urge Obama to Pin Shooting on Tea Partiers

And it doesn’t stop there. On Andrew Breitbart’s BigGovernment, Jim Hoft, one of the most ignorant writers on a web site heralded for its ignorance, makes the ludicrous claim that “Democrats Plotted to Blame Tea Party for Slaughter.” Hoft’s justification for this “breaking” news flash was this paragraph from an article on Politico:

“One veteran Democratic operative, who blames overheated rhetoric for the shooting, said President Barack Obama should carefully but forcefully do what his predecessor did. ‘They need to deftly pin this on the tea partiers.'”

Did I mention that Hoft was ignorant? He is inferring from a single, anonymous source that a “plot” was in progress. And his inference is based on an opinion, not a plan. The source is suggesting what he thinks Obama ought to do, not what Obama, or any other Democrat, is actually doing. So there is no plot, just one guy with an opinion. And if this “operative” actually had access to the White House, or any group that could carry out this alleged plot, he would have given this advice to the President instead of a reporter from Politico.

What Hoft left out was the part where Politico reported this analysis from a senior Republican senator:

“There is a need for some reflection here – what is too far now?” said the senator. “What was too far when Oklahoma City happened is accepted now. There’s been a desensitizing. These town halls and cable TV and talk radio, everybody’s trying to outdo each other.”

The vast majority of tea party activists, this senator said, ought not be impugned.

“They’re talking about things most mainstream Americans are talking about, like spending and debt,” the Republican said, before adding that politicians of all stripes need to emphasize in the coming days that “tone matters.”

“And the Republican Party in particular needs to reinforce that,” the senator said.

I wonder why Hoft didn’t accuse this GOP senator of engaging in a plot to tone down the rhetoric as advised by most of the left. However, he did make the flat assertion that Loughner was “hardly a tea partier.” Apparently Hoft was unfamiliar with Loughner’s anti-government views, his opposition to immigrants and immigration reform, his advocacy of guns, and his opposition to the “2nd Constitution,” a rightist theme that regards the 14th Amendment’s securing of equality and birthright citizenship as unconstitutional. These are all views consistent with the Tea Party.

The truth is that the right is the only side that could plausibly be characterized as plotting anything. Hoft’s own column for Breitbart is evidence of that. And did the Fox Nationalists really need eleven articles to push their narrative? Then there is Judson Phillips, founder of the Tea Party Nation, who explicitly urged his followers blame liberals for the attack on Rep. Giffords. He wrote to his followers that…

“The hard left is going to try and silence the Tea Party movement by blaming us for this. […] The left is coming and will hit us hard on this. We need to push back harder with the simple truth. The shooter was a liberal lunatic. Emphasis on both words.”

The right is on a mission to wash their hands of any accountability for violence that is all too predictable. It would be much easier if they were to take the position of the GOP senator above who understands that this is the time to be thoughtful about what we say and the impact it may have on the mentally wobbly. Unfortunately, that is not the path the right is headed down.

It has been over 32 hours since the shooting in Tuscon and Glenn Beck, arguably the worst offender at being offensive, has not made a single public statement. There is nothing on his web site – no tweets – not even an expression of condolences. And you can rest assured that he will return to the air Monday with a delusional conspiracy theory for what he thinks happened in that Safeway parking lot. I can hear it now…..

Beck: Over the weekend there was a horrible crime committed against a United States Congresswoman. She is still clinging to life, but a judge, a young girl, and several others were killed.

Now, if you were watching the liberal media you may have come away thinking that this was the work of a conservative or a Tea Party member. I can assure you that nothing could be further from the truth.

Here’s the truth. Here’s what only I have been able to uncover through dogged research. Here’s what the media is afraid to tell you. Rep. Giffords was killed in order to silence me and other conservative broadcasters. That’s right. This was a liberal plot to create an environment where people would be calling for harsh rhetoric to be stopped.

Top down, bottom up, and inside out. The progressives are thinking all the time about how to stifle our message, and they know that by making a martyr of Rep. Giffords they can demand that we shut our mouths and crawl off into a corner. They can accuse us of inciting people to violence. And they think that will cause us to keep quiet about their plans to destroy America and demolish our moral culture. That’s why they sent their mole, Loughner, to the supermarket on Saturday. Some of my voices…I mean sources…are telling me that Loughner was seen with Van Jones and Cass Sunstein going over plans to take over the media.

But we aren’t going to let that happen, are we? We will remain strong because we know that only by eliminating our enemies can we live in peace.

Now, remember, I don’t want anyone to engage in violence. Even though the progressives are determined to see your future, and that of your children, blown apart and ruined for all eternity, you must not react violently. That’s what they want you to do. So even though they are going to put an end to the American Dream and cause our society and our economy to break down so badly that we will be praying for death rather than live in the socialist hell they want to create, do not become violent. Got it. Just get ready to suffer and prepare your kids for suffering like they have never known. Watching the whole world sink into depression and slavery is certainly no reason to resort to violence, is it? Well, is it? If you believe, like I do, that America is exceptional and worth preserving, then you know what to do.

And by the way, be sure to pick up a copy of my new book, “Reading Between the Lies.”

You read it here first.

[Update] Beck lived up to my speculation. On his Monday Fox News program he said:

“The solution, in this case, is to silence the opposition […] shut down the right […] How do you shut them down? You say it’s hate speech.”

As I suspected, Beck exploited the massacre to whine about the tragedy as a conspiracy to silence him and his rightist comrades.

[Update II] The right is now openly defending hate speech. Jack Shafer, editor at large of Slate.com, posted an article titled: In Defense of Inflamed Rhetoric
The awesome stupidity of the calls to tamp down political speech in the wake of the Giffords shooting.

Shafer’s article is really a demonstration of his own awesome stupidity. He argues that there haven’t been enough episodes of violence to justify the criticism of incendiary language. He is ignoring the numerous examples – from Dr. Tiller to Byron Williams to the Holocaust Museum to the Marine recruiting station to the gas line tampering at a congressman’s home. How many examples does Shafer need before he becomes concerned? But the real stupidity in his column is this passage:

“Any call to cool “inflammatory” speech is a call to police all speech, and I can’t think of anybody in government, politics, business, or the press that I would trust with that power.”

Nobody – repeat NOBODY – has suggested that inflammatory speech be criminalized. This is an invention of Shafer’s twitchy imagination. The matter is in the hands of the speakers, politicians and pundits, to be responsible and/or accountable. Free speech is not a shield from criticism of what is said. It extends to the critics as well. And when Shafer says that “violent imagery is a good thing” he illustrates just how idiotic and counterproductive right-wing hate mongers (like himself) can be.

[Acclaim for News Corpse] Keith Olbermann tweeted: “Deft and accurate summary of Right Wing Media in full-fledged panic and utter denial.” Thanks Keith.

Irony Alert: Greta Van Susteren Questions Juan Williams’ Credibility

In a recent appearance on Fox News, Juan Williams made an observation that most thinking people would regard as objectively true when he said that Sarah Palin “can’t stand on the intellectual stage with Obama.” Even most Republicans don’t think Palin has the qualifications to be president, and many are simply embarrassed by her frequent incoherent Facebookings and Tweets.

But Palin’s Fox News colleague, Greta Van Susteren, is not amongst them. In response to Williams’ comment Van Susteren took to her blog to question Williams’ journalistic credibility and to ask whether he had ever interviewed the Tea Hag, implying that if he had not his opinion is irrelevant. Says Van Susteren:

“Knowing the source of a journalist’s information helps you judge whether it is good information or just yak. […] Knowing if he interviewed (first hand knowledge) either and to what depth can help guide you as to whether you should credit his opinion or not.”

Really? Then it should be noted that Van Susteren is a personal friend of Palin and that her husband has been an advisor on Palin’s staff for years. This is something that Van Susteren fails to disclose when she defends Palin, as she often does.

What’s more, if Van Susteren is going to make the absurd contention that no one can have an opinion of a public figure without having first interviewed them, would she apply that standard to herself? Would she apply it to Glenn Beck, Sean Hannity, Megyn Kelly, and everyone else on Fox News, or in all of the media? (This would put a lot of pundits out of work which, come to think of it, may not be such a bad idea). Or does it only apply to people with whom she disagrees when they are critical of her friends and her husband’s clients? For Van Susteren to pass judgment on Williams in this manner says more about her own lack of journalistic standards than it does of his.

However, both Williams and Van Susteren may have bigger problems. They are both in violation of their boss’s edict to refrain from criticizing fellow Fox Newsers. Williams attacked Palin whereupon Van Susteren attacked Williams. On a prior occasion when Fox insiders were complaining publicly about Glenn Beck, Roger Ailes said

“Yeah, shut up. You’re getting a paycheck. Go on the team or get off the team. Don’t run around here badmouthing a colleague.”

You think Ailes will be having a talk with these two malcontents?

Sarah Palin Palling Around With Terrorists

Sarah PalinSarah Palin is so outraged about the breach of security by WikiLeaks editor Julian Assange that she wants him to be hunted down like a terrorist – just as soon as she’s through reading the U.S. State Department cables that Assange made public through WikiLeaks. This is what she wrote on her Facebook page last month:

“Assange is not a ‘journalist,’ any more than the ‘editor’ of al Qaeda’s new English-language magazine Inspire is a ‘journalist.’ He is an anti-American operative with blood on his hands. His past posting of classified documents revealed the identity of more than 100 Afghan sources to the Taliban. Why was he not pursued with the same urgency we pursue al Qaeda and Taliban leaders?”

It’s so thoughtful for Palin, a Fox News contributor, to define for us what a journalist is. After all, she considers herself a journalist by virtue of having acquired a degree in communications (after attending five colleges) and reading weekend sports scores on a local Alaskan TV station.

However, this week Palin published an op-ed in USA Today that exposes an ironic twist to her hypocrisy. In the article she (or rather her ghostwriter) rails against the Obama administration for not being sufficiently panicked by Iran’s alleged efforts to acquire nuclear weapons capabilities. She’s done her homework and can reveal that…

“…now we know for sure because of leaked diplomatic cables. King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia ‘frequently exhorted the U.S. to attack Iran to put an end to its nuclear weapons program,’ according to these communications.”

The reason Palin knows what she claims to know is only because Assange published the cables she is referencing. However, were she to get her way he would be executed for treason (a legal impossibility because he isn’t a U.S. citizen, but having a grasp of facts never stopped her before). So Palin thinks that Assange has blood on his hands for publishing the materials she is now using to validate her hawkishness toward Iran and her attack on President Obama. By her own assessment she has adopted a terrorist as her source.

Without realizing it, Palin has actually justified Assange’s commitment to the free flow of information that permits people to know what their government is doing in their name. She is herself a beneficiary of that commitment to a free press. By referencing the WikiLeaks cables Palin is, in effect, honoring Assange and his heroic work. Without him she would never have known about King Abdullah’s exhortations. Nevertheless, she refuses to acknowledge him as a journalist, and has no qualms about exploiting data that she believes should be classified and that she obtained from someone she compares to Al Qaeda.

The rest of Palin’s op-ed was a frenetic advocacy of military intervention with Iran. She cavalierly dismisses the economic and diplomatic efforts currently underway and proposes her own solutions such as banning all financial dealings with Iranian banks, limiting Iran’s access to international capital markets and banking services, and closing air space and waters to Iran’s national air and shipping lines. Amongst the many things that Palin doesn’t know is that her proposals are tantamount to a declaration of war. That would be an irresponsible and unconscionable strategy insofar as Iran’s nuclear ambitions are many years from bearing fruit and we are a long ways from having exhausted less hostile remedies.

Palin’s plan would result in the unnecessary deaths of thousands of American soldiers, not to mention Iranian, Israeli, and other civilians in the region. And it would put our country in the position of having to fight three simultaneous wars. It would also destroy any hope for advancing the interests of Iranian dissidents as those who were not neutralized by the Iranian government would turn against their U.S. aggressors. Starving and/or bombing people is not the best way to gain their affection. But what would you expect from a woman who hosts a TV reality show on which she pounds fish and shoots reindeer?

This editorial is just another example of why Palin is utterly unqualified for national leadership. She is ignorant and unstable. And she is so afraid of presenting herself to the media to defend her bizarre and dangerous positions that she hides behind occasional op-eds, Fox News, Twitter, and her Facebook wall, where she will never have to respond to criticism. And from the safety of her cyber-perch she bashes Julian Assange even as she uses his work to prop up her harebrained schemes.