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

DOWNLOADS: (851)

PLAYS: (3697)

Fresh off warning us that President Obama intends to create a "one world order," Chuck Norris went on Sean Hannity's show last night on Fox and described his eliminationist fantasies if he ran for office:

Hannity: Why don't you run? No no no, there's a solution -- why wouldn't you -- Chuck Norris could be governor of Texas one day.

Norris: You know why? Because I'd be sitting here with my opponent, and debating, and then he would start attacking my character, and I'd jump over there and choke him unconscious.

[Laughter]

Hannity: You have more control than that!

Norris: I don't! That's the problem, you know. I have a thin skin. It was really tough in the film world. And in the political world, you know, I'd be killing half the people.

Because, you know, nothing bespeaks personal character like the volatile use of violence on your opponents.

He goes on to explain why he wouldn't fit well in political arenas like the Senate:

Norris: You know, with all the senators, you can't get anything done. You know, it's always right and left --

Hannity: No, no, you can, I disagree with you. You can.

Norris: Well, what I'd have to do, I'd have to choke out all the Democrats.

Hannity: [laughs] Well, it's a good start.

He also describes one of the eliminationist "jokes" in his new book:

Norris: One of the "facts" there [in his book] is America is not a democracy, it's a Chucktatership. And if it was, I said I would go to Congress, I'd line up every member of Congress, and I'd have Ron Paul, who I believe is one of the, probably one of the more honest ones there, I'd say, 'Ron, point out the honest ones' --

Hannity: I like Ron Paul. He's nuts.

Norris: Yeah, I know. That's why I like him. But anyway, I'd choke out the dis -- every dishonest politician that's up there.

Evidently, that would perforce include "all the Democrats." And any non-Paulbot Republicans. Which is most of them.

Well, paranoia and eliminationist violence often go hand in hand. And eventually, for the paranoid, the violence ceases to be a mere fantasy.

OK, cue up the O'Reilly denunciations of the Pew Research Center:

The Fox News Channel is viewed by Americans in more ideological terms than other television news networks. And while the public is evenly divided in its view of hosts of cable news programs having strong political opinions, more Fox News viewers see this as a good thing than as a bad thing.

Nearly half of Americans (47%) say they think of Fox News as “mostly conservative,” 14% say it is “mostly liberal,” and 24% say it is “neither in particular.” Opinion about the ideological orientation of other TV news outlets is more mixed: while many view CNN and the three broadcast networks as mostly liberal, about the same percentages say they are neither in particular. However, somewhat more say MSNBC is mostly liberal than say it is neither in particular, by 36% to 27%.

The perceptions of those who regularly tune into these news networks are similar to those of the public. Nearly half (48%) of regular Fox viewers say the network is mostly conservative. About four-in-ten (41%) regular viewers of CNN describe the network as mostly liberal and 36% of regular MSNBC viewers say the same about that network....read on.

I'm surprised it's not much higher, but that's because I imagine there are many people who don't tune into it enough to really know what's what, and that's part of the reason that it freaked Fox out after the White House called them on it. And who watches Fox Noise and would possibly think it's liberal? My only guesses are militia members and a lot of teabaggers. Do some people really view BillO as a Lib?

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

DOWNLOADS: (1100)

PLAYS: (1956)

You know, for a guy who says he's sorry for having called President Obama a liar, South Carolina Rep. Joe Wilson has a funny way of showing it. Since he basically continues to call the president a liar.

Wilson exposed himself and the modern conservative movement as the idiots they are when he yelled at President Obama during his address to Congress. I was listening to a NY-based sports talk show hosted by Mike Francesa, who is a Republican, and he even mentioned the outburst on his show. He said that he's always been interested in presidential speeches and he's never seen anything like that in his life before and thought it was outrageous.

So it's not just the blogosphere or political news shows that have expressed their disdain for Wilson's outburst. It is all over the country, among all kinds of sensibilities.

For a man like Wilson, there's only one TV show he'd rather be on to try and defuse the situation. And that would be "Hannity." So when he went on last Friday, he basically set the tone for what has followed: He explained that he apologized, but he still believed Obama was not telling the truth.

After Hannity downplayed Wilson's outburst and and after Wilson said that the WH had put it behind them, they went on the attack. No need to bring up an embarrassing event like that, so Hannity went right into his usual hit-piece television and attacked health-care reform. He renewed the bogus claim that health care reform would cover illegal immigrants so that Wilson could attack the president after he called him a liar.

Hannity: Are illegal immigrants covered in this bill?

Wilson: In fact they could get insurance, they could get the benefits, they could get the subsidies and the reason I know this is I serve on a committee where ewe considered amendments and then I foll lowed the amendments on other committees, the energy and commerce, on weighs and means and I noticed that the democrats had defeated the amendments that would provide for enforcement and the verification of citizenship and so when the president said this I knew what he was saying was not accurate, I do apologize for speaking out, but what was said was not accurate.

Wilson was talking about Section 246 in one House bill---HR3200, but even if it's not spelled out in that bill, there are four others, and the House and Senate have to get their bills together first and then head into conference to come up with the final bill. So Wilson was completely out of line for calling the president a liar even by his own logic. Heather and David explain more about this here. (By the way, Mark Williams is one of the most vile people in America.)

The NY Times dispels the Republican lie that Joe Wilson is promoting in an op ed:

Mr. Obama didn’t lie. The bills before Congress declare illegal immigrants to be ineligible for subsidized benefits. It is impossible to imagine any final bill doing otherwise. Mr. Wilson was a boor, but some Republicans still insist that he was right because the bill doesn’t ensure that the undocumented have no insurance.

Time for a reality check. Illegal immigrants are here. They are not eligible for Medicaid, but many still get sick and many get care, often in emergency rooms. The current proposals would likely not stop them from using their money to buy coverage through an insurance exchange, without subsidies. Just as they can do now.

Should we take a harder line? Force people to prove citizenship in emergency rooms? That’s illegal, for good reason. Make verification requirements so onerous that not a single illegal immigrant slips through? Very expensive, and not smart. It would be highly likely to snag deserving citizens — like old people who don’t have their original birth certificates. And besides, we’ve tried that: A House oversight committee reviewed six state Medicaid programs in 2007 and found that verification rules had cost the federal government an additional $8.3 million. They caught exactly eight illegal immigrants.

In the case of an epidemic, like swine flu, should illegal immigrants go untreated so they can infect legal residents and American citizens? Hard-line Republicans insist that they will fight for citizenship verification. They could, in theory, get the country to spend whatever it takes to do that and proudly report back to their voters. But there is a line beyond which antipathy to the undocumented can be damaging to those voters’ health, not to mention the federal budget. Mr. Wilson and his admirers seem to have crossed it.

Teabaggers would rather the country go broke by requiring emergency rooms to make people prove citizenship before receiving treatment, but that's teabagger logic for you.

It's just like the logic that says you apologize for calling someone a liar by calling them a liar all over again.

I'd love to tell you that I'm so erudite and cosmopolitan that I eagerly gobble up The New Yorker cover to cover every month. But it would be a lie. The honest truth is that I read The New Yorker occasionally when articles come up through keyword searches for research for the site and when other bloggers I respect recommend an article.

But this article on Leon Panetta at the CIA was sent to me by one of my Iranian friends (living abroad) who has been filling my inbox with reports of protests and the rumors flying around Tehran. This article has filled her with dread of American interference in Iran.

In fairness, it's a reasonably balanced article; it fairly states the delicate balance that Panetta must tread between the all-too-often opposing forces in the Agency and the Executive Branch. But this section, buried deep on page 6 of the 8 page article, hit me (like my friend) right in the gut:

No criminal charges have ever been brought against any C.I.A. officer involved in the torture program, despite the fact that at least three prisoners interrogated by agency personnel died as the result of mistreatment. In the first case, an unnamed detainee under C.I.A. supervision in Afghanistan froze to death after having been chained, naked, to a concrete floor overnight. The body was buried in an unmarked grave. In the second case, an Iraqi prisoner named Manadel al-Jamadi died on November 4, 2003, while being interrogated by the C.I.A. at Abu Ghraib prison, outside Baghdad. A forensic examiner found that he had essentially been crucified; he died from asphyxiation after having been hung by his arms, in a hood, and suffering broken ribs. Military pathologists classified the case a homicide. A third prisoner died after an interrogation in which a C.I.A. officer participated, though the officer evidently did not cause the death. (Several other detainees have disappeared and remain unaccounted for, according to Human Rights Watch.)

During his tenure at the C.I.A., John Helgerson, the former inspector general, forwarded the crucifixion case, along with an estimated half-dozen other incidents, to the Justice Department, for possible prosecution. But the case files have languished. An official familiar with the cases told me that the agency has deflected inquiries by the Senate Intelligence Committee seeking information about any internal disciplinary action. (Helgerson told me, “Some individuals have been disciplined. And others no longer work at the agency.”)

Panetta acknowledges that there are some people still at the C.I.A. who may be tainted by the torture program. Nevertheless, he says, “I really respect the people who say we shouldn’t have gotten involved in the interrogation business but we had to do our jobs. I don’t think I should penalize people who were doing their duty. If you have a President who exercises bad judgment, the C.I.A. pays the price.”

Excuse me? We're literally crucifying detainees (who have not had the right to even know what they're charged with, much less any other legal right) and there's been NO accountability, NO investigation and Panetta's worried about the CIA paying the price?

Methinks they have the wrong priorities.