Neil Cavuto Smacked Down By Tommy Chong

Posted by on June 28, 2007 at 2:11 pm. 5 Comments :



 
The soon-to-be managing editor of the Fox Business Channel, Neil Cavuto, just got his ass whipped by this generation’s premiere stoner.

Tommy Chong appeared on Cavuto’s “Your World” to discuss today’s failure of the Immigration bill. Cavuto kept trying to steer Chong into concessions on the economy, but Chong would have none of it.

Download Windows Media Video

The interview began with Cavuto asserting that the nation is being harmed by illegal immigration. Chong refused to buy into that stating that the issue was a deliberate distraction orchestrated by the Bush administration.

Then Cavuto tried to claim that the bill that failed today was sponsored by Chong’s comrade, Ted Kennedy. The only problem is that Chong doesn’t embrace Kennedy, or any politician, as his comrade.

So Cavuto switches back to the problem of 12 million “illegals” and the damage they do to our economy. He asks Chong if it was wrong to let all of these people into the country. Chong had a handy reply: He came to this country illegally from Canada and spent the first five years here without papers.

Cavuto made the obligatory references to narcotics (that I’m sure Chong is used to by now) and asked Chong if had been smoking “anything.” Despite Chong’s reputation, Cavuto seemed surprised when Chong said, “Absolutely!”

At this point Chong begin a sustained assault on the President repeatedly referring to him as a moron. Cavuto shot back that Bush should get some credit for the nation’s strong economy. Chong just rolled his eyes and asked Cavuto if all the people losing their homes think the economy is strong. I would like to have seen Chong also point out Cavuto’s contradiction that the country is being economically savaged by immigrants and is simultaneously an economic powerhouse.

Chong proceeded to expand on his “Bush is a moron” theme by pointing our that we have a moron President who started a moron war and rattled off a few other Bush failures. He also alerted Cavuto to the fact that we didn’t have an illegal problem when Clinton was president. Cavuto misunderstood and asked if people just started pouring across the borders after Bush took office. Chong corrected him by saying that that was just when they started talking about it.

The interviewed ended with a bit of a cliffhanger. Chong asked if he could give Cavuto the solution to the problem. Cavuto declined saying that his time was up. Chong persisted in asking Cavuto for just another moment, but Cavuto would not comply. The segment ended with Chong poignantly saying, as the music and graphics swirled up, that they “just want to talk about problems and not solutions.” It couldn’t have been timed better.

I’m not sure what the most significant part of this interview is. Is it that Fox News books stoned comedians as analysts for immigration and economic policy discussions? Is that that a stoned comedian took apart the Fox anchorman? Is it the multiple inaccuracies that Cavuto offered up as fact? Or is it the fact that this rightist front man is about to head up a major cable business channel?

Find us on Google+
Advertisement:

NewsBusters: Who Ya Gonna Call?

Posted by on June 28, 2007 at 2:47 am. 1 Comments :

The rightist watchdogs at NewsBusters want to be viewed as the conservative answer to Media Matters. But while the proudly progressive Media Matters still adheres to a strict code of honest analysis, the NewsBlusters trade in ignorance and innuendo. Here’s a sampling from yesterday’s home page posts.

In an attempt to “infuriate those still buying into the junk science,” NB demonstrates that they don’t know the difference between temperature and climate:

“…it snowed in parts of South Africa Tuesday that haven’t seen the frosty white stuff in many decades. Thanks, global warming!”

When a decorated Vietnam vet makes a gift of one of his Purple Hearts to Draft-Dodger-in-Chief Bush, NB’s indignation with the Daily Show’s humorous take suggests that they don’t know what the “Comedy” part of Comedy Central means:

“On Monday’s program, “Daily Show” correspondent Jason Jones sarcastically mocked Thomas’ gesture…”

After Ann Coulter expressed her wish that John Edwards be assassinated by a terrorist, she was viciously attacked, in NB’s view, by Mrs. Edwards. Here’s the headline that begs for sympathy for the demure and put upon Coulter:

“Chris Matthews Continues Coulter Pile-On”

The Media Research Council, from which NB was spun off, issued a press release agreeing with NB’s characterization of Mrs. Edwards. Here’s the headline:

MRC Press Release Concerning Elizabeth Edwards’ Attack on Ann Coulter.

And the entire Edwards/Coulter exchange was a set-up in NB’s dementia. Never mind that the producer told Coulter before the broadcast that Edwards would be calling in and Coulter agreed in advance. Here’s how NB reported it:

“On tonight’s Hardball, MSNBC’s Chris Matthews blind-sided his guest, conservative columnist Ann Coulter, with a live call from Elizabeth Edwards.”

You would think that people who purport to monitor the media would understand what a paid advertisement is. But NB thinks this is evidence of bias:

“‘MSNBC Live’ is brought to you by ‘SiCKO’, a Michael Moore film in theatres everywhere Friday,” read the announcer…”

When the former Chairman of the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations, Richard G. Lugar (R-IN), broke with his Party’s President on the Iraq war, NB was surprised that the media reported on it:

“The network morning shows all hyped up the recent remarks from Republican Senator Richard Lugar that the war in Iraq is not going well.”

I can’t remember when I’ve had this much fun on a wingnut web site. Their distortions and misrepresentations are so over the top that it makes satire impossible. Keep up the good work, guys.


A New Pentagon Papers

Posted by on June 27, 2007 at 12:36 pm. NO Comments :

A few days ago, I wrote an article warning of the danger of allowing the government and/or media to avert our attention to important matters through the Art of Misdirection. In it I alluded to the compelling notion of some patriotic Americans exposing the crimes of the Bush Administration in the same way that Daniel Ellsberg did when he brought us the Pentagon Papers. Apparently Ellsberg agrees with me:

“The equivalent of the Pentagon Papers exist in safes all over Washington, not only in the Pentagon, but in the CIA, the State Department and elsewhere. My message is to them: Take the risk, reveal the truth under the lies of your own bosses and your superiors, obey your oath to the Constitution, which every one of those officials took, not to the commander in chief, but to the Constitution of the United States.”

This comment was made at a panel at the annual convention of Unitarian Universalists last weekend. The panel, “The Pentagon Papers Then and Now,” was moderated by Amy Goodman and included Ellsberg, Sen. Mike Gravel, and Rev. Robert West. There is a video of the session at the link above. Watch it. These are three of the principles involved in the Pentagon Papers affair and they relate some fascinating details about an honest-to-goodness spy caper.

After 35 years, most people should be aware of the basic story of how Ellsberg copied secret Defense Department documents and got the New York Times and others to publish them (if not, click here). Less well known is the story of how the Papers moved from the DoD to the public. It wasn’t easy.

Ellsberg was turned down dozens of times before the Papers were published. President Nixon obtained a restraining order halting the presses at the New York Times (the first time in U.S. history that presses were stopped by federal court order). Sen. Mike Gravel wore a colostomy bag as he attempted to read the Papers into the Congressional Record via filibuster. When a quorum could not be held, Gravel convened the Subcommittee on Buildings and Grounds, which he chaired, and read the papers into the record from there.

This is a tale of true American heroism. These people risked their freedom, perhaps their lives, to save the lives of so many more; to insure that Americans, and the world, were informed; to defend the ideals of Democracy. We need more like them.

Let me repeat: We need more like them. I do not say this as a plaintive yearning for a bygone era of dedicated public servants. I say it as an appeal to recruit soldiers of conscience to save more lives; to inform more people; to further defend what is today an ailing Democracy. Daniel Ellsberg heeded the call. Sen. Gravel heeded the call. For all the ridicule Gravel endures in his quixotic bid for the Democratic nomination, he deserves some credit for his courageous participation in these historic matters. I guarantee that you will not look upon him the same after you learn what did 35 years ago to advance peace and liberty.

And now it’s our turn. As Ellsberg said, “The equivalent of the Pentagon Papers exist in safes all over Washington…” Let’s find them. Let’s publish them. Let’s free them and ourselves – again.


Ann Coulter’s Wish For John Edwards

Posted by on June 26, 2007 at 11:32 am. 8 Comments :



 
In an appearance on Good Morning America, Ann Coulter described how she had learned from her past mistakes when she spewed messages of hate and discrimination.


She is the featured guest tonight on Chris Matthews Hardball. I guess there is just no low too repulsive for these media bottom-feeders.



 
Here’s the video of Ann on Hardball.

Elizabeth Edwards called in and challenged Coulter on her hateful comments. Ann could only respond by attacking John and falsely inferring that Elizabeth was asking her to stop writing books.


I really can’t believe she keeps getting invited back on these shows. But as long as she does, we should be hanging her around the neck of the Republican Party until the two are inseparable. When people think of a Republican, they should think of Ann Coulter.


Paris Set Free – Media Still Held Hostage

Posted by on June 26, 2007 at 3:08 am. 2 Comments :

Early Tuesday morning, the Los Angeles Sheriff released Paris Hilton into the wilds of La La Land. She smiled as she strutted from the jail to her limo. It was like a magical stroll down the red carpet to the premiere of her freedom.

The only network with sustained coverage of the event was – you guessed it – Fox News. They dutifully documented the momentous trip from the Big House to her big house. They reported feverishly of her yearning for Taco Bell and gourmet cupcakes. They followed as her coach drove through the grounds of the Beverly Hilton (a masterpiece of product placement). And they hovered as paparazzi snapped photos and blocked traffic.

We can only hope that our own freedom is approaching; the freedom from ditsy heiresses that believe they are entitled to constant fawning; the freedom from a press corps that thinks this nonsense is news. We may still have a few days of Paris regaling us with the travails of her hard-scrabble life before we are at peace. Then we can settle back down to the comfortable familiarity of her nip slips and reality TV inanities.


Sicko Bumped For Psycho

Posted by on June 25, 2007 at 11:23 am. 2 Comments :

Larry King Live has canceled an appearance by Michael Moore scheduled for Wednesday and replaced him with Paris Hilton in what will be her first post-jail interview. [I alluded to this briefly in my previous post but I thought it deserved a little elaboration.] This decision by King and his producers is an affirmation of their news philosophy which elevates trivialities above key debates on issues that effect all Americans.

In case it has slipped anyone’s attention, King’s network (CNN) is owned by the same parent company (Time Warner) as TMZ.com, the celebrity webloid that is hyping all things Paris. Note also that King is devoting tonight’s program to Paris as well. That’s 40% of his airtime this week (so far) dedicated to unmitigated tripe. And it’s not as if there is no other news to exploit: the release of the CIA’s “family jewels;” the Cheney expose in the Washington Post; and if they just can’t resist the need to gossip, the “pregnant mom” and her just arrested assailant is still relatively fresh.

But the Warner Bros. family is more intent on exploiting corporate synergy than informing the public or stimulating debate on important issues like health care. Look for King to make numerous citations of TMZ in both programs. It is all about cross-promotion. TMZ’s managing editor, Harvey Levin, even substituted for King last Friday, and may be doing so tonight as well. These new, more tightly integrated relationships will probably continue until there is no way to differentiate news from fluff – if we aren’t already at that point.

Update: According to King’s web site, Moore’s appearance is now scheduled for Friday. That is, unless Paris breaks a fingernail, John Edwards gets a haircut, or a trailer park resident leads police on a car chase through the mean streets of Tulsa.

Find us on Google+
Advertisement:

Sitting Schmuck: Alberto Gonzales Ducks Columnists

Posted by on June 25, 2007 at 3:27 am. 1 Comments :

The National Society of Newspaper Columnists awarded its “Sitting Duck“ award to Attorney General Alberto Gonzales at their annual convention last weekend.

“We’re giving the award to Alberto Gonzales, but can’t remember why,” quipped NSNC President Mike Argento, columnist for the York (Pa.) Daily Record.

The “honor” is awarded to a person or situation that the Society considers to be an easy target for columnists. By that measure Gonzales is a deserving winner. His recent demonstration of “situational amnesia” before Congress was almost laughably inept. The “almost” qualifier is only included because of the seriousness of his actual deceit.

Gonzales edged out some tough competition including Bill O’Reilly and the tabloid coverage of the likes of Paris Hilton. Speaking of which, Larry King has still not tired of the Hilton frenzy. He is featuring the story of the heiress’ impending release on Monday’s show and is bumping Michael Moore on Wednesday for her first post-jail interview. Yeah, that’s more important than the national health care debate.

I imagine the duck vote was a real nail-biter this year – maybe as close as last year when Ann Coulter took the prize from rivals Michael Jackson and Saddam Hussein. If I had to pick a runner up, it would be the Congress that Gonzales is openly mocking. The fact that they have been unable to summon the will to impeach this incompetent abuser of his office, and the Constitution, makes the “sitting duck” label particularly appropriate for the members of our legislative branch.


The Art Of Misdirection

Posted by on June 23, 2007 at 3:50 pm. 4 Comments :

In the past couple of days, the Bush White House has been frantically contorting itself to explain why they are above the law. Vice-President Dick Cheney claimed that he was not subject to oversight mandated by law because his role as President of the Senate means that he is not a part of the Executive Branch of government. Then the President’s spokesperson said that neither Bush nor Cheney are subject to the oversight provisions of the law because of an executive order exempting them, even though the order does not actually say anything about that. These absurd assertions produce this surreal chronology:

  • On Thursday: Cheney is exempt because he is not part of the executive branch.
  • On Friday: Cheney is exempt because he is part of the executive branch.

Could this get any curiouser? Bet on it.

The CIA has announced that next week they will release a collection of documents that many refer to as the “Family Jewels.” They reportedly contain accounts of clandestine adventures like assassination plots against Castro and wiretapping of journalists.

If you’ve been paying attention so far, you might wonder why an administration that has been so obsessively secretive is suddenly volunteering to throw open the drapes and let a little sunshine in. Why is it that within the span of a few days the administration is openning the door to intelligence confessionals from the past and at the same time feverishly scrambling to conceal its own more recent behavior?

The conspiracy theorist in me cannot help but become suspicious of what the administration does not want us to know, and the lengths to which they will go to keep us from knowing it. The media will be eagerly analyzing the CIA data when it is made available to them. They will assume their pack-mentality posture and focus like a laser beam on these documents to the exclusion of all other events (except, of course, the Paris Hilton liberation, which will squelch all other news items that threaten to emerge).

Consequently, I will be looking intently beneath the surface of the news to see what may be hiding there. While I approve of the CIA disclosures in principle, it is just not credible that this administration decided to be forthcoming at this time without some ulterior motive. They have never been known for their openness or honesty and the machinations evident in the Cheney affair demonstrate their extremism in pursuit of deception and obfuscation.

It would be nice if we had courageous reporters like Jack Anderson or I. F. Stone working to reveal the illicit activities being concealed from us by our disreputable so-called leaders. It would be great if there were patriots like Daniel Ellsberg inside of government willing to expose the criminality ongoing in the White House. We can keep hoping that figures like these will emerge and clean out the rot in Washington, but more likely we will have to rely on ourselves to unmask the offenders.

Next week, when the press is busily dissecting the minutiae that is fed to them, try to stay alert. There is something behind the other door. Like a magician waving a wand in one hand to misdirect your attention from the other hand as it furtively slips into his pocket, the Amazing Bushini, with the aid of his lovely assistant the Media, may be pulling a fast one. So keep your eyes open and maintain a healthy skepticism. One thing we know for sure is that these guys always seem to have something foul up their sleeve.


71% Of Americans Hate America

Posted by on June 22, 2007 at 1:54 pm. 1 Comments :

A few days ago Gallup released a poll showing Congressional approval ratings at an all-time low of 24%. The media ate it up and flooded the zone with stories about the collapse of support for Democrats and their legislative agenda. They juxtaposed this message with another poll showing that the President’s approval had also hit new lows, but those results were almost always immediately diluted with the Congressional polling results. It will be interesting to see how the media treats this new poll from Gallup:

Only 29% of Americans Say U.S. Is Winning War on Terrorism.

It should come as no surprise that the American people are fed up with the war in Iraq. All the polling confirms that this war is profoundly unpopular. But this poll approaches the question from a unique angle that is not merely an indication of support or opposition, but a judgment as to whether our efforts are, or can be, successful.

Senate Majority Leader, Harry Reid was pilloried a few weeks ago for saying:

“I believe myself that the secretary of state, secretary of defense and – you have to make your own decisions as to what the president knows – (know) this war is lost and the surge is not accomplishing anything as indicated by the extreme violence in Iraq yesterday.”

Apparently, only 71% of the country agrees with him. Is that enough for the press to follow up on the story and provide this context? Is it enough for the press to balance the Congressional approval stories they hyped earlier this week? Will the media give equal treatment to this expression of the people’s will that they gave to previous reports that reflected poorly on liberals?

Don’t hold your breath. I have yet to see a single report in any of the Conventional Media outlets of this new poll. Despite the significance of its findings, the mainstream press has not deemed it worthy of coverage. Amongst these findings is the fact that only a slight majority of Republicans (53%) believe we are winning in Iraq, so it’s not even a matter of partisanship. But the press, and the pundits that populate it, will continue to portray anti-war politicians, activists, and citizens as fringe elements of society in direct contradiction of the facts (see Media Matters’ report, “The Progressive Majority: Why a Conservative America Is a Myth”).

What’s it going to take for the media to present this type of information fairly? There’s is only one solution – profound reform and a rollback of consolidation.


Journalists And Political Donations

Posted by on June 22, 2007 at 12:26 pm. 2 Comments :

I was going to write a piece on Bill Dedman’s “investigation” for MSNBC of donations to politicians or political organizations, but journalism professor Chris Day did it for me. Thanks, Chris.

The MSNBC article failed on so many journalistic grounds. It rested heavily on the notion that there was an overweighting of donations by liberal or progressive reporters as compared to conservatives. But Chris puts the matter into perspective:

  • Dedman’s report violates one of the first rules about working with numbers in journalism: PROVIDE CONTEXT […] Dedman notes that there are approximately 100,000 newsroom employees nationwide. By my calculations, then, the number of donors comes to 0.1% In other words, the headline could have been: 99.9% of U.S. journalists do not donate to politicians.
  • A lot of the people he “exposes” in this piece are ridiculously peripheral to the coverage of partisan politics – gardening editors, rock critics and the like.
  • Dedman decided to exclude “executives” from his investigation, without offering a convincing rationale. Where are Roger Ailes? Rupert Murdoch?
  • Dedman reports that of the 144 donors, 125 gave to Democrats, while “only” 17 gave to Republicans. (Two, like Exxon, gave to both parties.) But, I notice that most of the donations to Democrats are in chicken-shit amounts like $200 or $250, while one of the Republican donors gave $90,000. I suspect that the totals given to the two parties are not that far off.

This is the kind of in-depth analysis that Dedman should have employed. Unfortunately, his version was released into the media wild and has been picked up by many other news organizations and even pretenders like Bill O’Reilly who led with the inflammatory and false conclusion that liberals outnumber conservatives in the press by 9 to 1. It really doesn’t help to supply liars like O’Reilly with pseudo-news items like this.