Go Home

narrative

36 documents found in 0.001 seconds.

The Rachel Maddow Segment You Must Not Miss

In this segment, Rachel Maddow does the following:

  • Lays waste to every single mainstream media narrative about the midterm elections
  • Exposes those narratives as the Republican wish lists that they are
  • Reminds us all of the stakes in this election, especially when it comes to the extremists being pawned off as viable candidates.

If there were a Debunkers' Hall of Fame, Rachel Maddow's name would be all over the trophy. It's so good I'm not including the transcript. Just watch. You'll see what I mean.



Reigniting the Crusades is probably a bad idea

Crusader_Newt_154da.jpgChristopher Preble over at the Cato Institute aptly notes that starting a war against all Muslims might not, in fact, be in our national interest:

This strategy, exploiting still-raw emotion and implicitly demonizing Muslims, threatens to trade short-term political gain for medium-term political harm to the party. And it most certainly will translate into long-term harm for the country at large.

Opposing the construction of a mosque near the Ground Zero site plays into al Qaeda’s narrative that the United States is engaged in a war with Islam, that bin Laden and his tiny band of followers represent something more than a pitiful group of murderers and thugs, and that all American Muslims are an incipient Fifth Column that must be either converted to Christianity or driven out of the country, else they will undermine American society from within. [...]

[W]ho within the GOP will affirm the party’s position that declaring a war on Islam does not advance our nation’s security?

Indeed, from a sane person's point of view the desire to declare more than a billion people around the world to be your sworn enemies seems to be somewhat unwise. There is a perfectly rational counterpoint to this, however: If we let the Muslims build their mosques, they will giggle at the size of our pathetic white penises. Sam Harris logically outlines this view in a Daily Beast column:

The erection of a mosque upon the ashes of this atrocity will also be viewed by many millions of Muslims as a victory—and as a sign that the liberal values of the West are synonymous with decadence and cowardice.

Y'hear that, America? They're gonna erect something big and long right in the middle of your bosom. Are you gonna stand fer that?

Similar noises have been grunted by one of our fiercest holy crusaders, the Radical Cleric Newt al-Ginrichinedad:

There should be no mosque near Ground Zero in New York so long as there are no churches or synagogues in Saudi Arabia. The time for double standards that allow Islamists to behave aggressively toward us while they demand our weakness and submission is over.

That's right! Newt's sick and tired of submissively bending over for the Muslims! He at least demands that the Saudis give us a reach around first!

Ahem. If I may be (semi)serious for a moment:

If millions of Muslims around the world are actually anticipating a mosque being built in the same neighborhood as a Lower Manhattan strip club so that they can laugh and call us girly-men, then they really need to get lives. I mean guys, seriously. I don't sit fixated to my television waiting to see a report of a new McDonald's getting built near Mecca. There are better uses of my time.

But see, this is the beauty of living in a free society. We can't stop Muslims from building mosques and impugning our manhood*. But at the same time, we can't stop stupid wingnuts from burning the Koran, nor can we stop cartoonists from drawing Mohammad. Everyone can offend everyone else, but no one can stop another person from being offensive.

And this brings me to my final point: Some folks need to relax about this stuff. The construction of a single building does not mean the nationwide implementation of Sharia Law. History teaches us that bad things tend to happen when one ethnic group or nationality decides that another ethnic group or nationality is a monolithic, insidious horde hellbent on weakening its traditions and national character from within through both overt and covert means. Furthermore, such attitudes can give rise to unintended consequences, especially when a country decides to invade another country to simply give it "a 2-by-4 across the side of the head," even if that particular country had done nothing to attack the invading country.

As I said in the title of my post, reigniting the Crusades is probably not a very good idea.

*And yeah, I know that's not what the mosque builders are actually doing but let me play wingnut's advocate.

[Thanks to my pal Tintin for the art!]



8907bread_line_bd6c0.jpg

Lather, rinse, repeat.

If you listen to the media, they'll foretell gloom and doom for Democrats in November because they just can't seem to knock down high unemployment. Not for lack of legislative effort, of course.

Forget that business is sitting on trillions in cash rather than hiring workers. Forget that profits are at record highs on the back of unemployed workers. Forget all that.

In other times, government jobs were created to get people back to work. Democrats have certainly tried to get bills through that would allow for more public jobs, but those darn Republicans slide in and stonewall until there's nothing really left of the bills that actually make it to Obama's desk, or they just die halfway to Obama's desk.

Via the Guardian:

The private sector actually gained jobs, 71,000 of them, and while that's an OK number, it's not good enough politically. The public sector lost far, far more jobs, though – mostly census workers, but also some of the teachers and firefighters and cops and so on who were laid off because Congress didn't pass a bill funding their positions, as the Republicans held it up.

And this:

Even so, it's a nifty trick, no? Vote against funding for public jobs. Watch them disappear. Reap political benefit as unemployment rate rises.

And this is for jobs that already exist, not new ones. But what really frosts me is how the narrative begins and ends with "Unemployment is high. Voters will hand the Congress back to Republicans."

Continue reading »



Get Adobe Flash player

DOWNLOADS: (1424)
Download WMV Download Quicktime
PLAYS: (1358)
Play WMV Play Quicktime
Embed

Sarah Palin's very proud of her idiotic "cojones" jibe at President Obama last Sunday, and went on Sean Hannity to crow about it some more last night:

HANNITY: Yes, it's amazing to me. I wonder -- and tell me this is separate and apart. I think on national security issues and some other issues like immigration a willingness to really take on a controversial issue, do you think over time the narrative that the president is wimpy is going to take place?

PALIN: I think he's quite complacent and I think he's over -- in over his head and I think he has poor advisors surround him and I think he's really influx kind of when it comes to what his governing philosophy actually is. Some of this though is a result of he not having much experience and then a complicit media, and maybe some voters who chose not to allow him to be vetted very closely.

It's a combination of things that's resulting in a president who's not taking a strong stand on those things that are the will of the people. Obviously the will of the people is to enforce the laws that we have on the books.

HANNITY: Yes, but you know, Governor, I've tried to make this observation as many times as I can. It seems that -- you know, I know we are supposed to have government of, by, and for the people. That's what I -- that's what I always understood.

But this administration -- Democrats in particular -- right now seeing it's government by and of and for Obama. And by that I mean, you know, look at where the American people are on immigration. Look at where they are on health care.

Look at where they are on deficit spending. And then look at the Obama administration's positions. They seem at odds and a willingness to be at odds with the American people so often.

Is it ideology? Is it a lack of sophisticated political knowledge? What do you think it is?

PALIN: It's ideology and it's a commitment to what he had set out to do as a candidate. Barack Obama. And that was to fundamentally transform country.

So wait, which is it? Is Barack Obama a lousy president because he's a wishy-washy leader who doesn't really know which way to go? Or is it because he's a hardcore radical ideologue who refuses to budge or compromise or try to work with Republicans?

These nabobs seize on any straw in a windstorm to bash Obama. It's pretty pathetic, really -- except, of course, that one of them is about 90 percent likely to be a major Republican candidate for the presidency in 2012.



Get Adobe Flash player

DOWNLOADS: (1199)
Download WMV Download Quicktime
PLAYS: (3456)
Play WMV Play Quicktime
Embed

The other day FOX Host Megyn Kelly got into a heated argument with Kirsten Powers because Powers had the audacity to understand that the New Black Panther story Kelly was promoting was nothing more than FOX's attempt at race baiting. The post has spread through the blogosphere quickly and many are discussing this example of inflammatory "journalism" specifically. Last night, she went on The Factor to let off some steam and continue her assault against African-Americans. Unfortunately for Kelly, O'Reilly starts off by highlighting how ridiculous this NBPP story is by stating the fact that there is only EIGHT members in the whole party.

But Kelly has a much more sinister story to tell. One that connects the Obama administration to racist behavior.

O'Reilly: ...but why do you so passionately about the Panther story when there's only eight Panthers? There...er...it's a very minuscule organization.

Kelly: Yea, it's not about the Panthers. Ah, I got involved in this more seriously or more extensively as the DOJ whistleblower came...

Bill: Came on your show.

Kelly: And gave us his first television interview. And the reason that I'm passionate about this case and this story, Bill, is I believe in fidelity to the law. And I believe your viewers know that about me. It doesn't matter whether it's left or right, conservative or liberal. I try to follow the law.

That's the crux of her argument that O'Reilly dutifully is ready to distribute. Kelly is not being honest with the false narrative that she doesn't care which ideology is to blame for not upholding the law because her outrage was nowhere to be found during the Bush years.

It's all a smoke screen. J.Christian Adams is a fraud and everyone who has a smidgen of integrity knows it. Digby easily dispatches him here. The rest of the clip goes on to attack Newsweek's David Graham for rightly calling out this story in his piece: The New Black Panther Party Is the New ACORN

And make no mistake about it. This nothing of a case is all about whipping up the racist elements of the GOP/Tea Party Clans and the conservative movements, which they have seized upon and exploited for political gain for decades.

Kevin Drum has been writing about this story as well and he sees what I see. It's all about using The Scary Black Man Thing to appeal to the angry, disaffected white men and point his anger away from the real cause.

James Joyner, the right-leaning blogger takes a level-headed view as well.

Moreover, as others have pointed out, the district at which these two members of the NBPP were filmed was a majority black district that had gone overwhelmingly for John Kerry in 2004. If these two guys were really interested in intimidating white voters in the Philadelphia metro area rather than engaging in street theater, they would’ve shown up at a polling place in King of Prussia or Bensalem, not one in the inner-city at which, conveniently a guy with a video camera had shown up.

As I noted in an earlier post, there’s no evidence that any actual voters were intimidated by these two men, or even that their “protest” lasted longer than the amount of time that the camera crew was there filming them. In fact, judging from this video, it seems clear to me that these two guys were playing for the cameras.

The way FOX is amplifying the narrative of "The Angry Black Man" to their audience is disgusting. That's what Kelly has latched onto even if she deludes herself into thinking that she's on a righteous path. I might actually go on her FOX show and debate her. I've never gone on FOX before and although I've refused up to now, who knows? I doubt she'd have me anyway because I may know a little too much. Powers is hired by FOX and does a good job at times, but she is also a very conservative, pro-life Democrat and doesn't represent progressive thinking.

Drum later asks a good sort of a good question here.

(T)hey might be playing a dangerous game here. As Chait says, the Fox/Megyn Kelly crusade against the NBPP is taking this to a whole new level, one that's far more overt and far more incendiary than in the past. And there's no telling how that's going to turn out. As a friend puts it, "I think the reason why conservatives have so assiduously censored themselves from playing fast and loose with Atwater-esque racial overtones is that it can be a very difficult genie to put back in the bottle once released on a national stage." The press will start paying attention, tea partiers might feel freer to spout off, and the whole thing could turn ugly very quickly.

Or not. Who knows? But for reasons of both principle and self-interest, some of the conservative movement's big guns might want to think about weighing in on this before it gets out of hand. It can't hurt.

As a man studying the history of the conservative movement, I can make the observation that while conservatives hate and try to reject being painted with the racism brush, they do nothing whatsoever to stop those in their party from spreading this garbage. Like it was done before, the Atwateresque racial overtones still brings in the right wing engagement...and votes. That's the bottom line. No votes, no racism.

(h/t Heather)



Andrew Breitbart has taken alleged "SEIU thug victim" Kenneth Gladney under his wing, because it's very difficult to be a victim without someone to pimp said victimhood for political points, after all. Kenneth Gladney, as you might recall, is the man who was handing out flags at a Russ Carnahan town hall meeting on August 6, 2009 in Missouri when he claims to have been 'attacked' by a large man wearing a SEIU t-shirt. The video above was shot at the scene (actually, just after the 'assault'), and Dave has a great post pulling apart the fake narrative here.

This case is about to come to trial (at Mr. Gladney's insistence), which gives Breitbart all the more reason to pimp Gladney and his little "rescue fund" at Bank of America. Before you reach for your checkbook, some things to consider:

  • Gladney's story stinks to high heaven. Here is the original police report, posted by Breitbart himself. Gladney alleges that Elson McCowan leaned over his flag table, provoked a confrontation, and then punched him in the face! Just like that. Punched him in the face. So I looked at the police report to see if he received medical treatment, because being punched in the face can be really, really bad. Black eye, broken nose, all that. And you can see from the video that Elston McCowan is a big guy. Linebacker big.

    Here's an image from the detective's report, written right after the incident occurred:

    Screen shot 2010-05-03 at 10_331b7.45.04 PM.png

    Wow. So this is news. A punch to the face causes elbow pain. Huh. Who knew?

  • Since August 6th, Gladney's pain has moved from his face to his back. In his most recent appeal for money, his brother writes on his behalf (because it wouldn't do for a crime victim about to testify in court to do his own shaking down):

    Kenneth Gladney is not doing well at all. He has found out that he has three bulging disc in his back and neck and may need surgery. He has back pain all the time and has to have medication to help the pain subside. Since the incident on August 6th of last year when he was beat up by SEIU thugs while selling flags and buttons at a Russ Carnahan town hall meeting, Kenneth has had nothing but problem after problem with his health and his financial situation. The family is trying to help him as much as we possibly can, but we just can’t afford the cost of his meds and doctors visits. This is why we need your help.

    Wow. Punch a guy in the face, he has no visible bruises or evidence that he was punched by a great big guy, but long after the fact, he has 3 bulging discs and the need for surgery. This is terrible. No wonder he needs money.

  • Less-than-credible witnesses? Witnesses #1 and #2 in the police report corroborate each others' stories and Gladney's. Let's meet them, up close and personal. They are Harris and Sandra Himes. Harris Himes is pastor of the Big Sky Christian Center in Montana. Sandra is his wife. The Himeses are well-known agitators and activists associated with the Montana Family Coalition, formerly known as the Montana Christian Coalition. Yup, no bias there. Besides...what were Montana activists doing at a Missouri town hall meeting? It isn't possible they were disrupting democracy, is it?
  • First lawyer David Brown was also Gladney's employer, fellow flag and pin hawker. He sort of forgot to disclose his relationship when he appeared with wheelchair-bound Kenneth Gladney on Fox and Friends the following day. Oh, and Brown is also one of the witnesses interviewed in the police report. All the time Fox and Friends (and Breitbart) are pimping this guy and whining about SEIU thugs, hate crimes, and all manner of terrible things, that relationship is never disclosed. Not once.

    Screen shot 2010-05-03 at 10_75442.44.45 PM.png

    In fact, Brown and Gladney traveled out here to LA to sell flags at Michael Jackson's funeral the month before this incident. Quite the pair, they are. They made a little bit of money in December when the Tea Party Express folks wrote a check for $460 or so to buy up some flags and pins for their next tour. I'm surprised they didn't invite Gladney along for the ride on TPE III.

  • Elston McCowan is the true victim. The only person with a real injury from their encounter was Rev. Elston McCowan, who dislocated his shoulder. Here's the hospital report confirming it.

This is quite similar to my own experience back in September, where nearly 200 of us were attending a peaceful vigil for health care reform when violence broke out after one of the tea party gang (Bill Rice), punched a guy out twice, knocked him in the street, and then got all bent out of shape when his fist "happened to land in the other guy's mouth" and his finger was bitten off.

In the meantime, Andrew Breitbart continues to pimp this guy on BigGovernment.com as if Gladney and his brother are are some kind of victim or something. They're running a conservative con, and if anyone knows about cons, it's Breitbart, after all.

You can read the SEIU's version of Gladney's "victimhood" here.

Update: The document images I used in this post were uploaded by the St. Louis Activist Hub. I also just finished reading through an excellent post on , and have new appreciation for the work and detail they've put into researching this case. I certainly hope their evidence is used to discredit this story. It's obvious they've taken much time to really work out all of the details. Their take on how things played out is slightly different from mine, but leads to the same conclusion. I also recommend reading their entire case against Gladney.



New book I just ordered: Michael Lewis: Big Short

Big Short cover_9dbd9.jpg

I just ordered "Big Short," by Michael Lewis. I watched his 60 Minutes appearance and still wasn't sure if I would buy the book although it was a horrifying tale to be sure.

Felix Salmon convinced me otherwise in his review:

Amazingly, despite the fact that the book is so one-sided, it also functions as a peerless guide to exactly what went so very wrong in the credit markets generally, and the mortgage markets in particular, over the course of the last decade. It's not easy to explain synthetic subprime-backed collateralized debt obligations, but Lewis does an excellent job on both the micro level -- what these thing are, and how they worked -- and the macro level -- how the market in such exotica helped to destabilize the entire financial system.

Most impressively, Lewis has backed up his story with an enormous amount of old-fashioned reporting, spending a lot of time with the characters in his book and their families, as well as getting the important complex financial details correct. (Not everybody will understand the grittiest of the details, of course: that's inevitable. But everybody will be gripped by the book's narrative, all the same.) The Portfolio story on which this book is based was a great tale which was sometimes a bit fuzzy on the finance; the book is an even greater tale with the facts nailed down.

The result is that rarest of beasts in a world drowning in financial-crisis books: a new book which actually breaks news.

--

There's lots more where that came from: this is an assiduously-reported and beautifully-written book. There aren't many reasons to be happy about the global financial crisis, but here's one: that it brought Michael Lewis back to his roots, to produce what is probably the single best piece of financial journalism ever written.

Felix adds much more to his review here. He's really an excellent resource of information. I'm not an economist and too many people on line act as if they are, but I'm doing my research and learning.

You can grab a copy here or any place else that you like. Michael Lewis sat down to discuss with Jon Stewart on The Daily Show last night, you can see the interview here:



Get Adobe Flash player

DOWNLOADS: (548)
Download WMV Download Quicktime
PLAYS: (943)
Play WMV Play Quicktime
Embed

Jake Tapper on This Week interviews David Axelrod on the healthcare bill, pushing the right-wing narrative that people don't want this bill. Axelrod responds that when you push on into the details, the public supports the things this bill does:

TAPPER: David, pluralities, if not majorities of the American people do oppose this bill. Doesn't he have a point?

AXELROD: Well, first, let me note that Senator Brown comes from a state that has a health care plan that is similar to one that we are trying to enact here, and that people in his state are overwhelmingly in support of it. He voted for it and said he wouldn't repeal it. So we're just trying to give the rest of America the same opportunities that the people of Massachusetts have to get health insurance at a price they can afford.

This bill is important to the American people, Jake, and when you get underneath the numbers and you ask people, do you support giving people more leverage against insurance companies so that they -- if they have preexisting conditions, they can get coverage, so if they get sick, they don't get thrown off, so they don't have these huge premium increases of the sort we've just seen announced in states around the country, they say yes. When you say, do you want to give small businesses and people who don't have insurance through the job the chance to get insurance in a competitive marketplace where they can get it at a price they can afford and give them tax credits to help them do that, they say yes. And when you say, should we reduce the overall costs of the health care system over time, they say yes.

But that's the program. That's the plan. And it is important to the American people that we have the fortitude to go ahead against it, to leave the politics aside, to leave the partisanship aside, to resist the special interests and get the job done.

TAPPER: But according to polls, the American people do not agree with what you think--

AXELROD: The polls are split, Jake. I mean, one of the interesting things that has happened in the last four or five weeks is that if you look at -- if you average together the public polls, what you find is that the American people are split on the top line, do you support the plan? But again, when you go underneath, they support the elements of the plan. When you ask them, does the health care system need reform, three quarters of them say yes. When you ask them, do you want Congress to move forward and deal with this issue, three quarters of them say yes. So we're not going to walk away from this issue.



Get Adobe Flash player

DOWNLOADS: (744)
Download WMV Download Quicktime
PLAYS: (1782)
Play WMV Play Quicktime
Embed

We know that folks on the East Coast -- especially in New York and D.C. -- tend to think the world revolves around them, but this is ridiculous.

The Fox News anchors were having a field day yesterday, promoting their coverage of the East Coast snowstorms, mostly as a way of springboarding into their claim that the storms somehow prove that global warming is not happening -- a fixture in the Fox narrative.

Because, of course, the only part of the world that actually counts is the East Coast. Nevermind that for the planet as a whole, temperatures in 2009 were the second-warmest on record, nor that scientists are anticipating more records in the immediate years ahead.

The theme on Fox: Because it's colder in New York and D.C., it must be colder all around the rest of the world!

Eric Bolling taunted Al Gore, as did Glenn Beck, who then went on to laugh at the reports noting that in fact this is evidence of global-warming theory, claiming that we were now using an upside-down thermometer, then darkly proclaimed that this was all about the "progressive agenda", which has no use for "the truth." And on Hannity's show, he trotted out the "blizzards debunk global warming" line, and Greg Gutfeld proclaimed that this meant the demise of the "global warming industry."

Of course, we could just as easily proclaim that the record warm temperatures we're getting in Seattle are proof that global warming is real.

But here in Seattle, we understand that what happens to us locally doesn't mean the same thing is happening globally. We're not only more honest about it, we're more reality-based.

And the reality, as the New York Times explained this morning, is that the heavy snowstorms on the East Coast in fact perfectly fit into the model of climate change being predicated by scientists:

Jeff Masters, a meteorologist who writes on the Weather Underground blog, said that the recent snows do not, by themselves, demonstrate anything about the long-term trajectory of the planet. Climate is, by definition, a measure of decades and centuries, not months or years.

But Dr. Masters also said that government and academic studies had consistently predicted an increasing frequency of just these kinds of record-setting storms, because warmer air carries more moisture.

“Of course,” he wrote on his blog Wednesday as new snows produced white-out conditions in much of the Eastern half of the country, “both climate-change contrarians and climate-change scientists agree that no single weather event can be blamed on climate change.

“However,” he continued, “one can ‘load the dice’ in favor of events that used to be rare — or unheard of — if the climate is changing to a new state.”

A federal government report issued last year, intended to be the authoritative statement of known climate trends in the United States, pointed to the likelihood of more frequent snowstorms in the Northeast and less frequent snow in the South and Southeast as a result of long-term temperature and precipitation patterns. The Climate Impacts report, from the multiagency United States Global Change Research Program, also projected more intense drought in the Southwest and more powerful Gulf Coast hurricanes because of warming.

In other words, if the government scientists are correct, look for more snow.

Fox's Jane Skinner featured a report this morning discussing this Brenda Ekwurzel of the Union of Concerned Scientists, who laid out in more detail how the heavier snows are likely a product of the heavier amounts of moisture in the atmosphere from global warming.

Want to bet that this bit of reportage goes completely ignored by the "opinion" anchors?



Barney Frank took the gloves off on the floor and called John Fund out for making up a story about a phony bill and then he outlined how the right wing noise machine works as a propaganda arm of the republicans to push that narrative into the mainstream.

Frank: You are entirely wrong about me and in the absence of your being able to show any basis which you made such a statement to ask you to acknowledge that fact. He's not only a liar, he's a coward. He wouldn't do it. My staff member asked him, called him up and said, what was this based on? Well, I made a mistake. Well, have you made a retraction? Oh, yeah, he said. Can we see it? "I told a couple of people." Mr. Fund makes it up. It's a lie, it's a myth. There was nothing there and it's to discredit all democrats.

His right-wing cohorts echo it and echo it. The next thing is it will be on the floor in the next two weeks. This is the democrat disregard for the electoral process. And when we call Mr. Fund's attention to the fact that this was a lie, what does he say? Whoops. but he's not going to tell anybody about it. Mr. Speaker, this is not the only case of this and I know this has happened before. But because I was directly involved here, I was in position to document this. It begins with a lie from this editorial writer from "the Wall street journal." it is then a lie repeated by his right-ring colleagues. He refuses to do anything about.

It doesn't get any clearer than that. Frank posted the entire story on the web.

Frank responded to fabricated accounts of his supposed plans to introduce a bill on “universal voter registration.” The story began in November at the conservative Restoration Weekend conference in Palm Beach, Florida, where for $1,700 per person activists were able to hear talks by conservative opinion leaders on the theme, “Defending our Country and Culture.” At one session, John Fund, a writer for the editorial pages of the Wall Street Journal, claimed that Congressman Barney Frank and Senator Chuck Schumer had hatched a plan to game the election system by registering felons, illegal aliens and others to vote:

Democrats were very rattled by the November 3rd election results. What do liberals do when they lose elections? They change the rules. In January, Chuck Schumer and Barney Frank will propose universal voter registration.

What is universal voter registration? It means all of the state laws on elections will be overridden by a federal mandate. The feds will tell the states, “Take everyone on every list of welfare recipients you have, take everyone on every list of unemployed you have, take everyone on every list of property owners, take everyone on every list of driver’s license holders, and register them to vote regardless of whether they want to be.”

The allegation against Congressman Frank is absolutely false and has no basis in reality. The Congressman in fact heard about it for the first time after the story was launched in the conservative media.

Continue reading »