ABC's Brian Ross has a history of bizarre "scoops" (like this one, when he announced that Hillary Clinton had indeed been in the White House the day Monica went down on her knees). And yet, ABC News is still proud to have him as their chief investigative correspondent, for some odd reason.

Now he overreaches on yet another story, this one claiming Nidal Malik Hasan attempted to contact al Qaeda. You heard it all over the news, right? Via Gawker:

ABC News' Brian Ross has a breathtaking record of recklessly inaccurate, overhyped stories that don't live up to the headline. His scoop yesterday about Nidal Malik Hasan's "attempt to reach out to al Qaeda" was one of them.

Ross' report yesterday that Hasan had attempted to "make contact with people associated with al Qaeda" took over the internet yesterday and sparked a furious round of speculation that Hasan's attack was part of an Islamic terrorist plot. The headline, "Officials: U.S. Army Told of Hasan's Contacts with al Qaeda," said it all. The far more mundane truth emerged today in the pages of the New York Times and the Washington Post: Hasan had communicated via e-mail with Anwar al-Awlaki, a radical American cleric living in Yemen who formerly served as the imam of a mosque Hasan had attended in Virginia. What did they talk about? From the Washington Post:

The FBI determined that the e-mails did not warrant an investigation, according to the law enforcement official. Investigators said Hasan's e-mails were consistent with the topic of his academic research and involved some social chatter and religious discourse.

We were confused this morning, because Ross had clearly reported that Hasan had made contact with "people associated with Al Qaeda," and the only contacts that other reporters were confirming were with al-Awlaki, who is, as far as we know, a single person. We called Ross and asked him if there were more "people." No, he told us, his initial report was only in reference to al-Awlaki.

"That's how it was initially described to me by my sources," he says. "Given what they told me, that's all I could say. It's a strange use of the word 'people.' But when pinned down, my sources said it's just al-Awlaki."

A strange use, indeed. How about false, too? Especially because Ross' original story did, in fact, report that al-Awliki was among the "people" Hasan was suspected of having contacted. So he reported that Hasan contacted more than one person associated with al Qaeda, and then named one person that he was suspected of contacting. What he apparently didn't bother to do was "pin his sources down" on exactly what they were saying. The result was a clear suggestion that Hasan had tried to communicate with the al Qaeda network on more than one occasion.

So did he? Al-Awlaki is routinely described by the FBI and others as an al Qaeda supporter, and a fiery inciter of violence against infidels. And he was the imam at the Virginia mosque attended by two of the 9/11 hijackers, as well as Hasan. But while it's clear that Al-Awlaki is a bad guy, what's not clear is whether he's simply a propagandist or someone who actually operates as a part of al Qaeda. It's one thing for Hasan to have sent e-mails to someone who vocally supports al Qaeda, and quite another for him to have sent e-mails to al Qaeda itself, or to operatives actively involved in trying to kill people. Ross told us that, according to his sources, "Al-Awlaki is considered a recruiter," which is how he justified invoking the name of the terrorist network. We'll defer to him on that point.

But without knowing what the e-mails are about, can it really be known that Hasan's communications were "attempts to reach out"? The FBI didn't consider them as such. Ross didn't know the contents of the e-mails when he described them that way, but felt perfectly justified in doing so based solely on the knowledge that Hasan had sent the e-mails.

We asked Ross if he had tried to contact Al-Awlaki in reporting the story:

"Yes."

So you reached out to al Qaeda, then?

"To al Qaeda? No. I reached out to him. Oh. I see what you're saying."

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

DOWNLOADS: (1506)

PLAYS: (4296)

The other day, Republican National Committee Chairman Michael Steele told ABC News that he and his fellow Republicans were going to get tough with anyone who didn't toe the party line on "core issues" such as health-care reform:

Steele: So candidates who live in moderate to slightly liberal districts have got to walk a little bit carefully here, because you do not want to put yourself in a position where you’re crossing that line on conservative principles, fiscal principles, because we’ll come after you.

Well, there was one solitary Republican who crossed the party line on health-care reform: Rep. Joseph Cao of Louisiana, who hails from a traditionally Democratic district that went up for grabs when ex-Rep. William Jefferson was busted for corruption.

Cao went on CNN Sunday and explained that his was a vote of conscience for the people in his district, "many of whom are poor, and many of whom have no health insurance."

He later commented further to a CNN reporter:

Cao chuckled when asked about the comment and said he "would like to remind" Steele that he and other Republican leaders trumpeted Cao's upset win over Democrat William Jefferson last December as a symbol of party diversity. Cao is the first Vietnamese-American member of Congress.

"He has the right to come after those members who do not conform to party lines, but I would hope that he would work with us in order to adjust to the needs of the district and to hold a seat that the Republican party would need," Cao told CNN.

As Republicans proved in NY-23 -- and as indeed they proved throughout the health-care debate -- they are becoming so ideologically blinkered that they rapidly losing the ability to have any kind of voice in Congress.

Couldn't happen to a more deserving bunch.

[H/t Versha Sharma at TPM.]

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

DOWNLOADS: (1237)

PLAYS: (5072)

From ABC News: Are 'Dead Peasant' Life Insurance Policies Fair?. The anchors were "stunned" to find that this is going on after watching Michael Moore's new movie, Capitalism a Love Story. Maybe Claire Shipman wouldn't be so surprised if they weren't using a documentary film maker as their research department.

Life insurance used to be rather straightforward, known for offering security to loved ones in a tough time.

So when Irma Johnson learned that her husband, Daniel, who died of brain cancer, had been insured for $1.5 million, it should have been at least a small comfort.

But she did not receive the money. His employer did.

It's one of the strangest free-market perversions that Michael Moore highlights in his latest film, "Capitalism: A Love Story."

In the corporate practice dubbed "Dead Peasants" life insurance, companies wager on employees' lives, expecting to make money when they die.

And it's pervasive, said Mike Myers, an attorney who has uncovered many of these cases and helped angry relatives sue.

"Life insurance is traditionally used to guard against the death of breadwinners. This is an investment scheme," he said.

Dozens of blue chip companies have these policies, according to Myers. But only banks are forced to reveal them, and several have billions of dollars worth of policies.

"The driving force behind it is the tax deductions," he said.

The life insurance policies were designed to allow companies to insure a few crucial executives. Savvy companies then realized they could also get a tax break by insuring many lower-level employees.

The financial scheme doesn't actually cost the employees anything, except, some say, their trust.

Betina Tillman felt shocked and deceived when a reporter from The Wall Street Journal told her that her brother, a music store cashier, was insured by his employer for $339,000 when he died, despite the fact that he no longer worked at the store.

"We were just in disbelief they were able to do it, and actually cash the policy and cash in on the policy," Tillman said.

She sued, and won. Now, the government mandates that companies obtain the consent of employees.

I had a very interesting tête-à-tête last week that I thought I'd share. As you may have guessed, I'm on the email distro lists for all the major Sunday shows and cable news networks, and I get email notifications for who the scheduled guests will be as well as transcripts, p.r. pieces and the like. Last week, when ABC sent me an email that John McCain was going to be their guest again, I sent back a snarky reply asking if they ever had John Kerry on after he lost the election to George Bush as often as they've had McCain, and why, when there are so many actual issues about which the public needs to be informed, they gave so much air time to GOP obstructionism. Normally, I shoot off those emails just as a private protest, but this time, I got a reply back from the executive producer:

Thanks very much for your email. I’d have to take issue with your suggestion that “so much time is given to GOP obstructionism.” Week to week we maintain a balance between Democratic and Republican guests. It’s not always a perfect balance – airtime often tips toward the party in power because the mission of our program is to ask questions of those who are in decision making and policy making roles. Our guest selection is also determined by the news stories we cover. As the ranking member of the Senate Armed Services Committee Senator McCain is clearly the appropriate Republican guest to follow the Secretary of Defense in a discussion of US Afghanistan policy.

Well, if you've ever seen me in the comments, you have to know I'm not going to let a steaming pile of Village B.S. like that go unchallenged:

Thanks for your response.

The notion of a "balance" between Democratic and Republican guests is a false equivalence too often used in lieu of actual journalism. If you put brought on a creationist to discuss the fossil record with Stephen Jay Gould, are you serving your viewership well for balance?

With all due respect to Sen. McCain---and knowing full well how much he cultivates a good relationship with the media (I'm sure Mr. Stephanopoulos enjoyed his weekend in Arizona with the McCains when health care was the prime topic in the country)--his purpose as a follow up to Gates is to simply toe the GOP line of disagreeing reflexively with any agenda the President sets. My site, Crooksandliars.com, has been documenting this for the last five years.

How about instead of reducing every issue to a simplistic binary equation of Republican vs. Democrat, you seek to actually inform your viewership with people who have real background in Afghanistan or could bring a different (and not partisan) perspective? For example, Paul Rieckhoff of IAVA could discuss it from a soldier's POV. As a blogger involved in many journalism listservs, I personally could put you in touch with people far more versed in the history and the actualities in Afghanistan which would provide far more cogent and *informative* information than you will see from the man who tried to tell Americans that Baghdad was as safe as Main Street with his contingent of soldiers and helicopters guarding him.

Further, your insistence that this is the best person to follow up on Gates is disingenuous at best, when looked at the history of who THIS WEEK has booked. I've been a media analyst and political advocate for several years and my memory is not that short. John Kerry was on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee during Bush's presidency. How often did you ask Sen. Kerry on to discuss foreign policy as a response to Bush? Rarely.

And why is McCain on as *a response*? Why isn't he on first and then give Gates--as the person who can actually make policy, as opposed to the minority party--the opportunity to address the issues afterwards? Because air time tips to the party in power? Last time I checked, Americans have pretty decisively said that they weren't happy with the GOP being the party in power, not that we can tell from your bookings. It's bad enough that you give air time to George Will every week to spread disinformation (and if you'd like, I'm only too happy to provide you with at least 10 examples in the last year of things George Will has been factually wrong about), but to actually tell me that air time tips to the party in power when you have notoriously been favoring Republicans makes me question how forthright you're being about your booking choices. Let's see you book a Democratic blogger even once to "balance" your egregious booking of the completely factually-challenged Michelle Malkin. Or maybe it's just that *informing* your viewership is secondary.

Funnily enough, the producer didn't really have much response to that, simply thanking me for the input. Honestly, I wasn't really happy with the dismissive little pat on the head from the Villager who thought that little blogger me couldn't understand why McCain was a reasonable booking. So I thought I'd give him a suggestion as to real balance:

Here is a segment I would LOVE to see you do with Sen. McCain: why don't you invite my colleague, David Neiwert, author of The Eliminationists, on to discuss how the violent rhetoric that used to be relegated to the fringes of the Republican Party which has been mainstreamed since Obama's election and let Sen McCain respond to that? After all, he is the one who brought Sarah Palin to the national stage (and as I recall, actually said on your program that Palin was his "soul mate" after having only had one phone conversation and a short meeting with her before asking her on the ticket) and there is no other politician who has tapped so proficiently into that zeitgeist. I think it would be beneficial for Americans to hear someone of Sen. McCain's gravitas and stature disavow the kind of violent and racist rhetoric we've all seen. I'm more than happy to provide you with contact information for Mr. Neiwert if you are so inclined.

But if you're not interested in putting Sen. McCain on the spot, perhaps next time you do a show on the problems we're facing in Afghanistan, the "balance" you seek would be better achieved by putting on a politician who favors withdrawal, like Rep. Alan Grayson, instead of two hawks who will both say that the most important thing is "winning" in Afghanistan without actually explaining what "winning" means or how we can achieve it militarily. Where's the balance in that for your viewers?

Are you surprised that he had no response to that? Nah, me neither. I don't know if it impacted him at all, but I'm hoping that from now on he has a small voice inside his head reminding him that some of his viewers actually think critically and realize how badly he's--and all the rest of the bobblehead media--doing his job.

UPDATE: Glenn Greenwald looks at the sources that our liberal media uses to discuss the issues of the day.

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

DOWNLOADS: (81)

PLAYS: (263)

September 10, 2009 ABC News- FBI Informant Says Agents Missed Chance to Stop 9/11 Ringleader Mohammed Atta:

On the eve of the eight year anniversary of the 9/11 attacks, an FBI informant who infiltrated alleged terrorist cells in the U.S. tells ABC News the FBI missed a chance to stop the al Qaeda plot because they focused more on undercover stings than on the man who would later become known as 9/11 ringleader Mohammed Atta.

In an exclusive interview to be broadcast tonight on ABC World News with Charles Gibson and Nightline, former undercover operative Elie Assaad says he spotted and became suspicious of Atta in early 2001, when he was sent by the FBI to infiltrate a small mosque outside Miami. Atta was there with Adnan Shukrujuman, an al Qaeda fugitive who now has a $5 million U.S. reward on his head.

"There was something wrong with these guys," Assaad, a 36-year-old Catholic native of Lebanon who pretended to be an Islamic extremist, says.

The FBI initially declined to comment but released a statement following the ABC News report, saying: "The 9/11 investigation, the most extensive ever conducted by the FBI, has been reviewed in its totality by the 9/11 Commission, Congress and others. The claims made in the news report and the factual conclusions contained in the story are not supported by the evidence."

The FBI did not specify which claims or conclusions it referred to.

Asaad said he told ABC News the truth and stands by his story.

Continue reading...

John Stossel has been masquerading as a journalist at ABC for years. We've documented some of his hackery and whining over time and as I fully expected, he's finally making the jump to crazytown where he belongs -- Fox News:

John Stossel is leaving ABC News for Fox, where he'll host a weekly show on Fox Business and host a series of specials for Fox News.

TVNewser reports that the libertarian "20/20" host is expected to sign a multi-year-deal with Fox, where he'll host a two-hour weekly show on Fox Business and make appearances on Fox News in both the daytime and primetime hours.

Stossel's departure comes on the heels of last week's announcement that Charlie Gibson is retiring from ABC News. Read on...

At least at Fox Business he won't have to worry about ratings or being seen by very many people, but his "specials" for Fox News should fit right in with their low-brow, low-information standards. ABC will be a better network for letting him go.

I have avoided using the above wrestling, smack-down clip in past Stossel posts, but the comparison between Fox News and wrasslin' was too precious to pass up!

Yes. Really. Disgraced Republican, and former Florida Rep. Mark Foley has his own radio talk show! I thought this was a parody at first, but according to ABC, it's true and the name of his show will floor you -- "Inside The Mind of Mark Foley"

Nearly three years after then-Congressman Mark Foley, R-FLA, saw his political career crumble following the revelation of his sexually explicit emails with underage congressional pages, he's garnering the spotlight once again: as a radio talk show host.

Foley, who resigned after ABC News' The Blotter broke the story before going to rehab in Arizona, is set to debut his radio show entitled "Inside the Mind of Mark Foley" on Sept. 22 on West Palm Beach radio station WSVU 960am.

When the page scandal broke, Foley was the chairman of the House Caucus on Missing and Exploited Children. He resigned hours after ABC News questioned him about the instant messages with former congressional pages, some of whom were under the age of 18 at the time of the exchanges. Officials in Florida announced a year ago that Foley would not face criminal charges because of "insufficient evidence." Read on...

Yikes! I'm not sure many people really want to know what's going on "inside the mind of Mark Foley." Once you get past the fantasies of sipping chocolatinis with young boys in their underwear, it's a good bet that all that's left in Foley's mind that could possibly be worked into a radio show are the same old, worn out right wing talking points. Because we need another right wing talk show.

I wonder when it's going to sink into Max Baucus's thick skull that Republicans aren't going to make a deal because as a party, they simply aren't interested in solving the problems of healthcare.

Maybe I'm giving Max too much credit for trying, and he knows exactly what he's doing. Because his latest proposal is a Kabuki dance of a bill that won't really help people. In fact, we'd be paying obscene amounts of money for a plan that doesn't really cover anything.

Bug - or feature?

WASHINGTON — In a last effort to give the Senate a bipartisan health care bill, the chairman of the Senate Finance Committee circulated a comprehensive proposal on Sunday to overhaul the health care system and proposed a new fee on insurance companies to help pay for coverage of the uninsured.

The proposal is the culmination of more than a year of work by the chairman, Senator Max Baucus, Democrat of Montana. A similar fee was proposed by several liberal Democrats in July. In making it part of his proposal, Mr. Baucus may help cover the costs of the bill but also risks alienating Republicans whom he is trying to win over. Mr. Baucus is struggling to forge a bipartisan consensus among 6 of the 23 senators on his committee before President Obama puts new pressure on lawmakers in an address to a joint session of Congress on Wednesday evening.

The proposal by Mr. Baucus does not include a public option, or a government-run insurance plan, to compete with private insurers, as many Democrats want.

This is Max trying to sidestep the charge of taxing workers on their benefits. But of course, there's nothing in the bill to prevent insurance companies from simply jacking up the premiums to cover their losses. Oh, and there's also this:

Mr. Baucus’s plan, expected to cost $850 billion to $900 billion over 10 years, would tax insurance companies on their most expensive health care policies. The hope is that employers would buy cheaper, less generous coverage for employees, thereby reducing the overuse of medical services.

Yeah, because that's the real problem. We all use our health coverage too much.

Max's bill is real horror show for working people. Is this the legislation that's supposed to scare the Republicans into supporting reform? Because it looks like something they'd dream up:

Another section of Mr. Baucus’s proposal would help pay insurance premiums, co-payments and deductibles for people with incomes less than 300 percent of the poverty level ($66,150 for a family of four). It would also provide some protection for people with incomes from 300 percent to 400 percent of the poverty level (up to $88,200 for a family of four), so they would generally not have to pay more than 13 percent of their income in premiums.

[...] Mr. Baucus would impose limits on out-of-pocket medical costs — the co-payments, deductibles and similar charges for covered items and services. The limits would be $11,900 a year for a family and $5,950 for an individual. The comparable numbers in the House bill are $10,000 and $5,000.

What they want is the illusion of a bill that won't actually help anyone. Where do they think all this money's going to come from, especially with a U-6 of more than 15%? Is this going to help anyone get care they need? Hardly.

In the meantime, Max, people like this are literally dying to get health insurance for their families.

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

DOWNLOADS: (61)

PLAYS: (164)

August 25, 2009 ABC News--Deaths, Missing Detainees Still Blacked Out in New CIA Report:

The CIA and the Obama Administration continue to keep secret some of the most shocking allegations involving the spy agency's interrogation program: three deaths and several other detainees whose whereabouts could not be determined, according to a former senior intelligence official who has read the full, unredacted version.

Of the 109 pages in the 2004 report, 36 were completely blacked out in the version made public Monday, and another 30 were substantially redacted for "national security" reasons.

The blacked-out portions hide the Inspector General's findings on the circumstances that led to the deaths of at least three of the detainees in the CIA's program, the official said. Two of the men reportedly died in CIA in Iraq and the third died in Afghanistan.

The Inspector General's findings about a fourth death involving a prisoner in Afghanistan were made public in the report. A CIA contract employee was convicted of assault in that case and is now in prison.

Continue reading.....

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

DOWNLOADS: (113)

PLAYS: (431)

Countdown's Worst Persons for August 19, 2009 with winner Rush Limbaugh. Runners up Bill Sammon and Bill Hemmer and ABC News.

Okay, okay. It's a bit of a stretch to post NWA's "Fuck Tha Police", about the police unfairly targeting NWA for being black teenagers to highlight a story about Bob Dylan get picked up by the police for looking like a crazy old man in the rain with sweatpants tucked in to his shoes, but it's also a stretch to pinch Bob Dylan for, well, that.

Dylan was walking in the pouring rain in Long Branch when locals became suspicious of his behaviour and called the police. 24-year-old police officer Kristie Buble answered the call, and was told that an "eccentric-looking old man" was standing in a residents' yard.

"It was pouring rain outside, and I was right around the corner so I responded," Buble told ABC News.

"I asked him what his name was and he said "Bob Dylan"," she said. "Now, I've seen pictures of Bob Dylan from a long time ago and he didn't look like Bob Dylan to me at all. He was wearing black sweatpants tucked into black rain boots, and two raincoats with the hood pulled down over his head."

Mr. Dylan, Dre, Eazy, Cube and Ren feel your pain.

Everything worked out okay in the end for Dylan, who didn't have identification but was driven by the officer back to his hotel, who upon seeing a phalanx of tour buses, got the point.

"I got out of my car and said, 'Sarg, this guy says he's Bob Dylan'," she explained. "He opened the car door, looked in, and said, 'That's not Bob Dylan.' So we go over to the tour bus and knock on the door and some guy answers and I say, 'Are you missing someone?'"

When Dylan's entourage showed her his passport, the officer said she sheepishly bid him farewell.

Looks like Officer Buble, Bob Dylan and Barack Obama have a round of cold ones on the way...

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

DOWNLOADS: (1318)

PLAYS: (5536)

ABC News had a noteworthy story today on the increasing fears for President Obama's safety because of the plethora of nutcases -- many of them in fact mentally ill -- who are crawling out of the woodwork and threatening Obama and anyone associated with him:

Experts who track hate groups across the U.S. are growing increasingly concerned over violent rhetoric targeted at President Obama, especially as the debate over health care intensifies and a pattern of threats emerges.

The Secret Service is investigating a Maryland man who held a sign reading "Death to Obama" and "Death to Michelle and her two stupid kids" outside a town hall meeting this week. And in New Hampshire, another man stood across the street from a Presidential town hall with his gun on full display.

Los Angeles police officers apprehended a man Thursday after a standoff with him inside a red Volkswagen Bug car in Westwood, CA – the latest disturbing case even though officials said the man had mental problems.

"I don't think these are simply people who are mentally ill or off their rocker," Mark Potok, director of the Intelligence Project at the Southern Poverty Law Center, told ABC News of those behind the threats. "In a very real sense they represent a genuine reaction, a genuine backlash against Obama."

Experts say a sharp growth in so-called militia groups that helped spawn a wave of domestic terrorism in the 1990s – and are now using YouTube, rock music and the Internet to recruit members and spread hate and fear - shouldn't be ignored.

"It's certainly a scary time," said former FBI agent Brad Garrett, now an ABC News consultant. Garrett said the Secret Service "cannot afford to pass on anyone," and he believes "they really do fear that something could happen to [Obama]."

Garrett said statements like one recently made by controversial radio host Rush Limbaugh comparing a logo for the White House plan to a Nazi symbol "legitimizes people who are on the edge to go do something or say something."

Naturally, the right is full-throated whine about people making this very logical connection: Yesterday on his show, Glenn Beck repeated the standard whine that "left is trying to silence me." No; we just want people like Beck to live up to the immense responsibility that comes with having those powerful media megaphones they hold.

Often we hear the excuse that the problem is simply the fact that these people are mentally ill crazies who would be doing something crazy anyway.

This is, of course, a complete cop-out. It ignores, in fact, the cold reality that violence, even by the mentally ill, does not occur in a vacuum. When people become the subject of a relentless campaign of demonization -- especially by the use of grotesque smears that make them out to be monsters and provably false "facts" that have the concrete effect of unhinging people from reality -- it will only be a matter of time before the lethal violence breaks out.

And while the concern for Obama is well-placed -- he is, after all, the focus of all this hatred -- there is only a remote likelihood of anyone actually succeeding in harming him, since he is very well protected indeed. What's far more likely, in fact, is that some innocent bystanders in his vicinity will be harmed -- or, moreover, that the crazies will decide that instead of harming Obama, they will take out their hatred on his supporters.

This was the thinking, after all, of Jim David Adkisson, the Knoxville church shooter. Recall this passage in his manifesto:

This was a symbolic killing. Who I wanted to kill was every Democrat in the Senate & House, the 100 people in Bernard Goldberg's book. I'd like to kill everyone in the mainstream media. But I know those people were inaccessible to me. I couldn't get to the generals & high ranking officers of the Marxist movement so I went after the foot soldiers, the chickenshit liberals that vote in these traitorous people. Someone had to get the ball rolling. I volunteered. I hope others do the same. It's the only way we can rid America of this cancerous pestilence.

The right-wing crazies popping up almost daily, thanks to right-wing fearmongers, are very real cause for concern about Obama's safety. But we should also be concerned about our own.

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

DOWNLOADS: (104)

PLAYS: (262)

August 07, 2009 FOX & Friends

Heather:

Fox and Friends edits down Robert Gibbs statement on whether the White House is "collecting names" into a sound byte where he says it's "to get misinformation". Geez these people take their audience for idiots since he was very obviously cut off mid-sentence.

Steve Benen's got more on this nonsense.

It's a shame yet another conspiracy theory reached the White House briefing room. ABC News' Jake Tapper reports this afternoon:

Asked about Cornyn's letter on Thursday afternoon, White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs said, "nobody is collecting names."

The blog and tips email was because, Gibbs said, "we have seen, and as I've discussed from this podium, a lot of misinformation around health care reform. Some of it I think spread purposely. We have used on many occasions the Web site to debunk things that are simply not true. We ask people if they have questions about health care reform and about what they're hearing about its affects on them, to let us know and we'd provide them information to show that that wasn't true."

Continued Gibbs: "but nobody is collecting names."

Well, no, of course not. The very idea that the White House would be "collecting names" is about as legitimate as the idea that the president is a not a natural-born citizen. As nutty Republican conspiracy theories go, this was even more headache-inducing than most.

Continue reading....

I want to know why these right wingers and Fox News were never whipped into a frenzy when the Congress passed the Patriot Act, or when we found out the telecom companies were data mining everyone in the United States. It's somehow completely lost on Steve Doocy and his guests that George Bush already did this, but no one ever accused Doocy of being very bright.

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

DOWNLOADS: 127

PLAYS: 6

(Hale Boggs (D-Louisiana) - pondering The Common Market)

Continuing our look at Sunday talk shows past, here is another long-forgotten program from ABC News, "From The Capitol" with correspondents Pete Clapper and John Edwards from ABC News. As I said in my previous talk-shows past post, interview programs were a source of in-depth information and very often the interviewers asked probing questions in search of meaningful answers. A big difference from todays spin fests and soft ball games.

This episode, from December 12, 1961 focuses on the effect the Common Market will have on the U.S. Economy and Foreign Relations with Representative Hale Boggs (D-Louisiana), Deputy Whip of the House and member of the House Ways and Means Committee.

John Edwards (ABC News): “The short term result of the lowering of tariff barriers on some American industries is going to be a hardship, isn’t it?

Hale Boggs: “Well let’s look at it first from the point of view of what happens to American industries if we’re not able to negotiate reductions with the Common Market. ( . . . ) Today we send machine tools to all of the countries in Europe practically, with the exception of Western Germany. Western Germany has a tariff against our machine tools. When the Treaty of Rome finally takes effect . . . .

Edwards: “ That’s the treaty that set up the Common Market . . .”

Boggs: “Exactly. There will be a tariff on machine tools which covers Germany, France, Italy, the United Kingdom, Belgium, Luxembourg, and any other members of the Common Market. This means that, whereas we formerly had one tariff to contend with, insofar as Germany was concerned, now we have a tariff to contend with, insofar as all of the other member nations of the Common Market are concerned. Now if we’re not able to negotiate with these members or with the Common Market, then we will, in effect, have lost the entire market we had in these other countries”

Granted, this is no inflammatory innuendo-laced gossip fest and could be misconstrued as dull-as-dirt by some who cherish politics-as-mayhem. But the bottom line is - programs like this and others like it provided a valuable understanding and knowledge of the events of the day, presenting points of view that were intelligent and articulate and did much to inform the public.

Being informed is a good thing, if you haven't noticed lately.

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

DOWNLOADS: (905)

PLAYS: (1419)

There's been a lot of talk on the teevee -- particularly Fox -- the past couple of days about domestic terrorism, sparked by the arrests of 7 men in North Carolina for supposedly planning acts of terrorism on the behest of Al Qaeda.

What strikes so many of them -- including the Fox "All Star" panel yesterday -- was that the suspects were so successful at blending in as regular American neighbors. But not once does it ever seem to cross their minds that this, indeed, has long been a feature of right-wing domestic terrorism in this country.

There's no doubt that the addition of Al Qaeda as a player on the domestic terrorism scene is cause for special concern. America has been fortunate in that, for the most part, its many would-be domestic terrorists have not typically been very competent. Adding a highly competent organization like Al Qaeda to the mix ratchets up the potential danger on this front significantly.

Attorney General Eric Holder was fairly thoughtful in his interview with ABC in addressing this:

"I mean, that's one of the things that's particularly troubling: This whole notion of radicalization of Americans," Holder told ABC News during an interview in his SUV as his motorcade brought him from home to work. "Leaving this country and going to different parts of the world and then coming back, all, again, in aim of doing harm to the American people, is a great concern."

Continue reading »