Clinton email scandal alarms Democrats.
Friday, March 6, 2015
MSNBC's Chris Matthews Promises ‘Transparent’ Coverage If Wife Runs For Congress
By Lloyd Grove
Six years ago, MSNBC host Chris Matthews briefly flirted with running for public office—a Senate seat from his native Pennsylvania—and then quickly dropped the idea. But now it looks like his wife, Kathleen, might actually take the plunge.
“Last night, Kathleen decided she is going to take a serious look at running for the United States Congress from where we live in Maryland,” Matthews told viewers of Thursday night’s Hardball, his 7 p.m. political show. “Our local congressman, a very good guy, by the way, just announced he is running for the U.S. Senate, and this development is all unfolding quickly.”
Matthews
explained that he was discussing the prospect of his wife’s candidacy
on the air because “it’s important in my position here to be as
transparent as possible with you, our loyal viewers.”
Thursday night’s disclosure was prompted by a report in Politico that Matthews’s wife of nearly four decades—a Marriott Corp. public relations executive and a local celebrity in her own right as a former longtime news anchor on WJLA-TV, Washington’s ABC affiliate—is “likely” to mount a campaign to replace Rep. Chris Van Hollen Jr. in the 2016 election cycle.
The seven-term Democratic congressman, who represents Maryland’s 8th Congressional District in the affluent suburbs of the nation’s capital, including Chevy Chase where Chris and Kathleen Matthews live, on Wednesday declared his candidacy for the Senate seat being vacated by Democrat Barbara Mikulski, who is retiring after 30 years in the Senate.
“This is something I’ve just got to deal with,” Matthews told me Thursday morning when I reached him at home. “I think people know who I am. I talk about Kathleen on the show all the time, and she’s been on a good number of times…I think viewers should have a heads-up from me about what I know—so they’re going to get it.”
If Kathleen Matthews does decide to run, her campaign would likely create ethical complications for her outspoken husband, 69, who is also the author of seven books about politics and history.
The MSNBC source added: “Chris doesn’t cover individual congressional races too regularly, which is worth noting.”
The question of campaign contributions would also be a potential sticky wicket. The NBC Universal News Group, of which MSNBC is a subsidiary, imposes strict rules on its anchors, who are generally prohibited from donating to political campaigns unless they receive prior approval.
In 2010, MSNBC personalities Keith Olbermann, a liberal Democrat, and Joe Scarborough, a former Republican congressman, were punished with two-day suspensions for writing checks to various candidates without permission.
In Matthews’ case, he’s sleeping with the prospective candidate, the mother of their three grown children, so it’s reasonable to ask if he’ll receive a marital exemption.
The MSNBC source referred me to the “all appropriate measures” vow. After all, even if their bank accounts are not commingled and he doesn’t max out in hard money, Matthews, if he’s a decent spouse, will definitely be making “in-kind” contributions.
A self-styled centrist Democrat, Matthews was a speechwriter for President Jimmy Carter and a top aide to Speaker of the House Tip O’Neill before joining the chattering classes as a columnist and Washington bureau chief for the San Francisco Examiner and later a television host and protégé of then-NBC executive Roger Ailes on the fledgling “America’s Talking” network, a forerunner to MNSBC.
“Kathleen and I have not had much time to talk about it—right now she’s on business overseas, heading from Berlin to South Africa right now—but I know she’s been involved with public issues her entire career from anchoring the news to serving as a top executive with Marriott,” Matthews said on the air. “I know her commitment runs truly deep. In our nearly four decades together I have always had the strongest belief in her judgment and values.”
He added: “I am proud of her and support her. And if she does indeed decide to run, then we will make sure we continue to fully disclose my relationship—I’ve never denied it—with her, as part of our commitment here at MSNBC to be transparent and fair in our coverage.”
The MSNBC host said he had the
strongest belief in wife Kathleen’s judgment and values, and if she runs
for office her campaign will be covered fairly by the network.
Six years ago, MSNBC host Chris Matthews briefly flirted with running for public office—a Senate seat from his native Pennsylvania—and then quickly dropped the idea. But now it looks like his wife, Kathleen, might actually take the plunge.
“Last night, Kathleen decided she is going to take a serious look at running for the United States Congress from where we live in Maryland,” Matthews told viewers of Thursday night’s Hardball, his 7 p.m. political show. “Our local congressman, a very good guy, by the way, just announced he is running for the U.S. Senate, and this development is all unfolding quickly.”
Thursday night’s disclosure was prompted by a report in Politico that Matthews’s wife of nearly four decades—a Marriott Corp. public relations executive and a local celebrity in her own right as a former longtime news anchor on WJLA-TV, Washington’s ABC affiliate—is “likely” to mount a campaign to replace Rep. Chris Van Hollen Jr. in the 2016 election cycle.
The seven-term Democratic congressman, who represents Maryland’s 8th Congressional District in the affluent suburbs of the nation’s capital, including Chevy Chase where Chris and Kathleen Matthews live, on Wednesday declared his candidacy for the Senate seat being vacated by Democrat Barbara Mikulski, who is retiring after 30 years in the Senate.
“This is something I’ve just got to deal with,” Matthews told me Thursday morning when I reached him at home. “I think people know who I am. I talk about Kathleen on the show all the time, and she’s been on a good number of times…I think viewers should have a heads-up from me about what I know—so they’re going to get it.”
If Kathleen Matthews does decide to run, her campaign would likely create ethical complications for her outspoken husband, 69, who is also the author of seven books about politics and history.
Addressing possible ethical issues, an MSNBC source told The Daily Beast: “As this process moves forward, if Kathleen decides to run for office, MSNBC and the Hardball Team would take all appropriate measures to ensure that coverage is transparent and fair, which would include fully disclosing Chris’ relationship to Kathleen if her candidacy is mentioned either by him or a guest.”“I know her commitment runs truly deep.In our nearly four decades together I have always had the strongest belief in her judgment and values.”
The MSNBC source added: “Chris doesn’t cover individual congressional races too regularly, which is worth noting.”
The question of campaign contributions would also be a potential sticky wicket. The NBC Universal News Group, of which MSNBC is a subsidiary, imposes strict rules on its anchors, who are generally prohibited from donating to political campaigns unless they receive prior approval.
In 2010, MSNBC personalities Keith Olbermann, a liberal Democrat, and Joe Scarborough, a former Republican congressman, were punished with two-day suspensions for writing checks to various candidates without permission.
In Matthews’ case, he’s sleeping with the prospective candidate, the mother of their three grown children, so it’s reasonable to ask if he’ll receive a marital exemption.
The MSNBC source referred me to the “all appropriate measures” vow. After all, even if their bank accounts are not commingled and he doesn’t max out in hard money, Matthews, if he’s a decent spouse, will definitely be making “in-kind” contributions.
A self-styled centrist Democrat, Matthews was a speechwriter for President Jimmy Carter and a top aide to Speaker of the House Tip O’Neill before joining the chattering classes as a columnist and Washington bureau chief for the San Francisco Examiner and later a television host and protégé of then-NBC executive Roger Ailes on the fledgling “America’s Talking” network, a forerunner to MNSBC.
“Kathleen and I have not had much time to talk about it—right now she’s on business overseas, heading from Berlin to South Africa right now—but I know she’s been involved with public issues her entire career from anchoring the news to serving as a top executive with Marriott,” Matthews said on the air. “I know her commitment runs truly deep. In our nearly four decades together I have always had the strongest belief in her judgment and values.”
He added: “I am proud of her and support her. And if she does indeed decide to run, then we will make sure we continue to fully disclose my relationship—I’ve never denied it—with her, as part of our commitment here at MSNBC to be transparent and fair in our coverage.”
Monday, March 2, 2015
Debt buyers bury hard-hit consumers in lies
Posted by Jim Hightower
Whenever a corporation issues a statement declaring that it is committed to "treating consumers fairly and with respect," chances are it's not.
After all, if the outfit was actually doing it, there would be no need for a statement. Indeed, this particular claim came from Encore Capital, one of our country's largest buyers of bad consumer debt – and it definitely has not been playing nice with the people it browbeats to collect overdue credit card bills, car loans, etc.
New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman found that Encore, based in San Diego, filed nearly 240,000 lawsuits against debtors in a recent four-year period, using our courts as its private collection arm. Problem is, Encore's bulk filing of lawsuits are rife with errors, out-of-date payment data, fabricated credit card statements, etc. Tons of them are missing original loan documents, payment histories, and other proof of debt.
Debt predators, however, scoot around this lack of facts by simply having their employees sign affidavits asserting that the level of money owed is accurate. Judges, overwhelmed by the unending flood of lawsuits filed by Encore et al, have accepted those affidavits as true, thus ruling in favor of the corporations. But Schneiderman found that – Surprise! – affidavits were simply being rubber-stamped by company employees, who didn't have time to check for accuracy. An employee of one large debt-buyer testified that he was having to sign about 2,000 affidavits a day!
This is no minor scam – one in seven adults in the U.S. is under pursuit by debt collectors. It's hard enough for struggling families to claw their way out from under the economic crash without having lying, cheating, predator corporations twist the court system to pick their pockets and shut off their hope of recovery.
"Debt Buyer Faces Fine In Doubtful Lawsuits," The New York Times, January 9, 2015.
Listen to this Commentary
Whenever a corporation issues a statement declaring that it is committed to "treating consumers fairly and with respect," chances are it's not.
After all, if the outfit was actually doing it, there would be no need for a statement. Indeed, this particular claim came from Encore Capital, one of our country's largest buyers of bad consumer debt – and it definitely has not been playing nice with the people it browbeats to collect overdue credit card bills, car loans, etc.
New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman found that Encore, based in San Diego, filed nearly 240,000 lawsuits against debtors in a recent four-year period, using our courts as its private collection arm. Problem is, Encore's bulk filing of lawsuits are rife with errors, out-of-date payment data, fabricated credit card statements, etc. Tons of them are missing original loan documents, payment histories, and other proof of debt.
Debt predators, however, scoot around this lack of facts by simply having their employees sign affidavits asserting that the level of money owed is accurate. Judges, overwhelmed by the unending flood of lawsuits filed by Encore et al, have accepted those affidavits as true, thus ruling in favor of the corporations. But Schneiderman found that – Surprise! – affidavits were simply being rubber-stamped by company employees, who didn't have time to check for accuracy. An employee of one large debt-buyer testified that he was having to sign about 2,000 affidavits a day!
This is no minor scam – one in seven adults in the U.S. is under pursuit by debt collectors. It's hard enough for struggling families to claw their way out from under the economic crash without having lying, cheating, predator corporations twist the court system to pick their pockets and shut off their hope of recovery.
"Debt Buyer Faces Fine In Doubtful Lawsuits," The New York Times, January 9, 2015.
Sunday, March 1, 2015
Shadow of Mordor, Arkham Knight highlight this week’s best game trailers
By
Jacob Siegal
Every week, a landslide of video game trailers hit the Internet, hyping up the games that have just been released, the games that are about to be released and even the games that don’t have release dates. It can be a bit overwhelming to keep up with all of them, which is why we’ve decided to collect our favorites into a single post.
A Batman game with a mature ESRB rating? Count me in. Arkham City didn’t blow me away like it did many others, but with the Batmobile in tow and the darker tone of Arkham Knight, I’m ready for it to be June already.
This isn’t Final Fantasy XV, but it’s the next best thing. Final Fantasy Type-0 HD pleasantly surprised me when I had a chance to go hands-on with it last year. The game has supposedly received a few major tweaks since then as well, so I’m hoping for a polished port when this game hits PS4 and Xbox One in March.
The final DLC for Shadow of Mordor brings Celebrimbor face-to-face with the Dark Lord himself. The DLC for Shadow of Mordor has been surprisingly competent up to this point, but even if you’ve missed out on everything before it, The Bright Lord DLC looks like it will be the one to pick up.
I have no idea why this exists, but it’s free to download and you don’t even need to own Forza Horizon 2 to play it. Still no word on whether Vin Diesel did any voice over work for the game.
OlliOlli was a hit in 2014, and just over a year later, the sequel is nearly ready to launch on PS4 and PS Vita. It looks like more of the same, so if you enjoyed the first one, OlliOlli2 shouldn’t disappoint.
Every week, a landslide of video game trailers hit the Internet, hyping up the games that have just been released, the games that are about to be released and even the games that don’t have release dates. It can be a bit overwhelming to keep up with all of them, which is why we’ve decided to collect our favorites into a single post.
A Batman game with a mature ESRB rating? Count me in. Arkham City didn’t blow me away like it did many others, but with the Batmobile in tow and the darker tone of Arkham Knight, I’m ready for it to be June already.
This isn’t Final Fantasy XV, but it’s the next best thing. Final Fantasy Type-0 HD pleasantly surprised me when I had a chance to go hands-on with it last year. The game has supposedly received a few major tweaks since then as well, so I’m hoping for a polished port when this game hits PS4 and Xbox One in March.
The final DLC for Shadow of Mordor brings Celebrimbor face-to-face with the Dark Lord himself. The DLC for Shadow of Mordor has been surprisingly competent up to this point, but even if you’ve missed out on everything before it, The Bright Lord DLC looks like it will be the one to pick up.
I have no idea why this exists, but it’s free to download and you don’t even need to own Forza Horizon 2 to play it. Still no word on whether Vin Diesel did any voice over work for the game.
OlliOlli was a hit in 2014, and just over a year later, the sequel is nearly ready to launch on PS4 and PS Vita. It looks like more of the same, so if you enjoyed the first one, OlliOlli2 shouldn’t disappoint.
5 Right-Wing Lunacies This Week: The Nonstop Comedy Show of CPAC
By Janet Allon
/ AlterNet
CPAC is like a nonstop comedy show. One hit after another. Scott
Walker tried to steal the show by comparing ISIS to those vicious union
members he battled in his state, and he was rightfully and roundly
ridiculed for that. It'll take some serious backtracking and spinning to
undo the damage to the Republican darling. But he was far from the only
standup comedian on the roster.
1. Duck Dynasty star to CPAC: Bring your Bible to the Oval Office, and your woman, 'cause the hippies are coming to get you.
Phil Robertson issued the above piece of advice to the CPAC audience, and no one is exactly clear what it means, honestly. Nor did the rest of his speech make a whole lot of sense. His biggest concern seems to be that Republicans not get sexually transmitted diseases.
“There is a penalty to be paid from what the beatniks, who morphed into the hippies (did)!” the Duck Commander rambled, rather incoherently. “What do you call the 110 million people who have sexually transmitted illnesses? It’s the revenge of the hippies! Sex, drugs and rock & roll have come back to haunt us!”
Head for the hills, people! With your Bible under one arm, and your woman under the other! "You lose your religion," Duck Commander bellowed. "And you lose your morality."
Robertson actually claimed, though he "hated to admit it," that he had done some research on the CDC website and found out that only one encounter was necessary to contract a sexually transmitted illness. “How many seconds does it take to get genital herpes?” he asked the CPAC audience, rhetorically. “It said 30 seconds. I’m like, whoa, that’s pretty quick.”
Well, thanks Phil. This has all been terribly enlightening.
Here's the video in case you'd like to enjoy it yourself:
1. Duck Dynasty star to CPAC: Bring your Bible to the Oval Office, and your woman, 'cause the hippies are coming to get you.
Phil Robertson issued the above piece of advice to the CPAC audience, and no one is exactly clear what it means, honestly. Nor did the rest of his speech make a whole lot of sense. His biggest concern seems to be that Republicans not get sexually transmitted diseases.
“There is a penalty to be paid from what the beatniks, who morphed into the hippies (did)!” the Duck Commander rambled, rather incoherently. “What do you call the 110 million people who have sexually transmitted illnesses? It’s the revenge of the hippies! Sex, drugs and rock & roll have come back to haunt us!”
Head for the hills, people! With your Bible under one arm, and your woman under the other! "You lose your religion," Duck Commander bellowed. "And you lose your morality."
Robertson actually claimed, though he "hated to admit it," that he had done some research on the CDC website and found out that only one encounter was necessary to contract a sexually transmitted illness. “How many seconds does it take to get genital herpes?” he asked the CPAC audience, rhetorically. “It said 30 seconds. I’m like, whoa, that’s pretty quick.”
Well, thanks Phil. This has all been terribly enlightening.
Here's the video in case you'd like to enjoy it yourself:
2. Sarah Palin says a bunch of nonsense at CPAC, then inadvertently says something extremely true.
It’s a bit disorienting, really. In her speech at CPAC, Sarah Palin stayed in her usual history-mangling character when she suggested that the U.S. killed all the Nazis in WWII, when a passing acquaintance with the subject shows is laughably far from the truth. She said we should do the same to ISIS, just kill all of them—both impossible and plain old stupid and dangerous. So far, so good. Palin doing Palin.
Then she did something totally off brand, and wandered into the thickets of truth. It was a mistake, we’re sure. She said: “It’s said that old men declare wars, and then they send the young ones to fight ‘em. So it’s the duty of he who sends them to actually make sure that we can win those wars. And it’s our duty to elect an honorable commander-in-chief who is willing to make the same sacrifices he sends others away to make.”
So, as Raw Story figures, Palin is essentially saying that neither she, nor any other Republican hopeful is qualified to be president, since none has been willing to make such a sacrifice. Governors Jeb Bush of Florida, Chris Christie of New Jersey, Mike Huckabee of Arkansas, and Scott Walker of Wisconsin have not served, nor have Senators Ted Cruz of Texas, Rand Paul of Kentucky and Marco Rubio of Florida. Nor, of course, Sarah Palin herself, although her son Track, who served in Iraq for a year.
So, basically, everybody out of the pool!
Except Track. Track Palin for President! Woohoo!
3. Jim Inhofe reduces climate change debate to a snowball.
There has been some snow this winter, in case you have not heard. And to Senator Jim Inhofe, that can only mean one thing. It’s cold out! Also, snowball fight! Oh yeah, and obviously climate change must be a hoax.
To drive his point home, darned if the Senate’s chief climate change denier didn’t bring a snowball to the Senate floor and toss it. Oh! Feel the burn, all you science believers!
"In case we have forgotten, because we keep hearing that 2014 has been the warmest year on record, I ask the chair, 'You know what this is?'" Inhofe said, holding up his secret weapon. "It's a snowball, from outside here. So it's very, very cold out. Very unseasonable."
Yes it is. Very very cold.
Never mind that despite some record low temperatures in various parts of the country, 2014 remains the warmest year on record, and the nation overall has been experiencing a warmer-than-average winter. It’s cold where Inhofe is—he has to bundle up—and he’d rather just throw a snowball than deal with all that pesky data.
4. Stupid Giuliana Rancic makes racist comment about black hair and Solange Knowles has a great response.
Joan Rivers’ replacement, Giuliana Rancic, may have apologized for her idiotic and racist snark about 18-year-old actress and singer Zendaya’s dreadlocks at the Oscars, but the comments spoke volumes about Hollywood’s inability to regard African Americans as equals and creative forces to be reckoned with. In her “Fashion Police” roundup, Rancic ventured away from talking about Zendaya’s Vivienne Westwood gown, to suggest that her hair probably smells of “patchouli oil” and “weed.”
Really? Why?
Twitter erupted in understandable outrage over the fact that black women's hair just keeps being an obnoxious topic of discussion and object of bewilderment and scrutiny by white powers that be. As HuffPo says, “From TSA agents patting down Afros, a woman having to cut her locks to keep her job, and the Army's discriminatory ban on particular African American hairstyles—the list goes on and on.”
It’s not a random comment, and Rancic’s “I’m sorry if I offended you” apology really does not wash. Zendaya’s eloquent outrage put the “Fashion Police” to shame, as did Solange Knowles’ nifty response.
just shut up, white people. Shut up.
5. Fox News doctor: Crack babies come from women who smoke weed!
Fox News Medical A-Team (ha!) doctor David Samadi is not one for scientific reports. Or science, or, like, facts. So he certainly was not going to admit that a recent study published in Scientific Reports found that pot is quite possibly the least harmful drug humans ingest, including alcohol and cigarettes.
“I think it’s a very dangerous study,” Samadi argued. “People need to be very careful about not getting the wrong message from this study. They’re using a lethal dose as a comparison. For example, they’re putting pot against or weed against cocaine or alcohol. We know you need less amount of alcohol to die. So, they’re using death to see what’s dangerous and what’s not.”
Wait, what?
He went on to make various hysterical claims, such as that pot causes heart attacks and psychosis.
Then this bit of nonsense: “Now we have crack babies coming in because pregnant women are smoking this whole marijuana business.”
They are smoking the whole marijuana business.
Looks like his brain is misfiring, and the dangerous drug he is on appears to be a combination anti-science pathology, anti-pot hysteria and just not having done his homework about the fact that the whole crack baby scare was a myth. Not to mention the fact that the mythological crack babies were not born to mothers who smoked pot.
It’s a bit disorienting, really. In her speech at CPAC, Sarah Palin stayed in her usual history-mangling character when she suggested that the U.S. killed all the Nazis in WWII, when a passing acquaintance with the subject shows is laughably far from the truth. She said we should do the same to ISIS, just kill all of them—both impossible and plain old stupid and dangerous. So far, so good. Palin doing Palin.
Then she did something totally off brand, and wandered into the thickets of truth. It was a mistake, we’re sure. She said: “It’s said that old men declare wars, and then they send the young ones to fight ‘em. So it’s the duty of he who sends them to actually make sure that we can win those wars. And it’s our duty to elect an honorable commander-in-chief who is willing to make the same sacrifices he sends others away to make.”
So, as Raw Story figures, Palin is essentially saying that neither she, nor any other Republican hopeful is qualified to be president, since none has been willing to make such a sacrifice. Governors Jeb Bush of Florida, Chris Christie of New Jersey, Mike Huckabee of Arkansas, and Scott Walker of Wisconsin have not served, nor have Senators Ted Cruz of Texas, Rand Paul of Kentucky and Marco Rubio of Florida. Nor, of course, Sarah Palin herself, although her son Track, who served in Iraq for a year.
So, basically, everybody out of the pool!
Except Track. Track Palin for President! Woohoo!
3. Jim Inhofe reduces climate change debate to a snowball.
There has been some snow this winter, in case you have not heard. And to Senator Jim Inhofe, that can only mean one thing. It’s cold out! Also, snowball fight! Oh yeah, and obviously climate change must be a hoax.
To drive his point home, darned if the Senate’s chief climate change denier didn’t bring a snowball to the Senate floor and toss it. Oh! Feel the burn, all you science believers!
"In case we have forgotten, because we keep hearing that 2014 has been the warmest year on record, I ask the chair, 'You know what this is?'" Inhofe said, holding up his secret weapon. "It's a snowball, from outside here. So it's very, very cold out. Very unseasonable."
Yes it is. Very very cold.
Never mind that despite some record low temperatures in various parts of the country, 2014 remains the warmest year on record, and the nation overall has been experiencing a warmer-than-average winter. It’s cold where Inhofe is—he has to bundle up—and he’d rather just throw a snowball than deal with all that pesky data.
4. Stupid Giuliana Rancic makes racist comment about black hair and Solange Knowles has a great response.
Joan Rivers’ replacement, Giuliana Rancic, may have apologized for her idiotic and racist snark about 18-year-old actress and singer Zendaya’s dreadlocks at the Oscars, but the comments spoke volumes about Hollywood’s inability to regard African Americans as equals and creative forces to be reckoned with. In her “Fashion Police” roundup, Rancic ventured away from talking about Zendaya’s Vivienne Westwood gown, to suggest that her hair probably smells of “patchouli oil” and “weed.”
Really? Why?
Twitter erupted in understandable outrage over the fact that black women's hair just keeps being an obnoxious topic of discussion and object of bewilderment and scrutiny by white powers that be. As HuffPo says, “From TSA agents patting down Afros, a woman having to cut her locks to keep her job, and the Army's discriminatory ban on particular African American hairstyles—the list goes on and on.”
It’s not a random comment, and Rancic’s “I’m sorry if I offended you” apology really does not wash. Zendaya’s eloquent outrage put the “Fashion Police” to shame, as did Solange Knowles’ nifty response.
just shut up, white people. Shut up.
5. Fox News doctor: Crack babies come from women who smoke weed!
Fox News Medical A-Team (ha!) doctor David Samadi is not one for scientific reports. Or science, or, like, facts. So he certainly was not going to admit that a recent study published in Scientific Reports found that pot is quite possibly the least harmful drug humans ingest, including alcohol and cigarettes.
“I think it’s a very dangerous study,” Samadi argued. “People need to be very careful about not getting the wrong message from this study. They’re using a lethal dose as a comparison. For example, they’re putting pot against or weed against cocaine or alcohol. We know you need less amount of alcohol to die. So, they’re using death to see what’s dangerous and what’s not.”
Wait, what?
He went on to make various hysterical claims, such as that pot causes heart attacks and psychosis.
Then this bit of nonsense: “Now we have crack babies coming in because pregnant women are smoking this whole marijuana business.”
They are smoking the whole marijuana business.
Looks like his brain is misfiring, and the dangerous drug he is on appears to be a combination anti-science pathology, anti-pot hysteria and just not having done his homework about the fact that the whole crack baby scare was a myth. Not to mention the fact that the mythological crack babies were not born to mothers who smoked pot.
Saturday, February 28, 2015
Walker unscripted falls flat
Gov. Scott Walker proudly touts his ability to survive a recall election and his union busting ways, but a poorly planned analogy at CPAC fails to impress. Ed Schultz, John Nichols, and Jean Ross discuss.
Friday, February 27, 2015
Erased: ISIS and the Destruction of Ancient Artifacts
The smashing of priceless sculptures is part of a tradition of iconoclasm that goes back to Abraham.
New videos released on Thursday apparently show ISIS militants destroying Assyrian and Akkadian artifacts in Mosul—smashing statues and scraping through a winged bull from the 7th century B.C.
This is only the latest episode in a spree of iconoclasm ISIS has unleashed across the areas under its control in Iraq and Syria. In May 2014, there were reports of separate Assyrian artifacts being excavated and destroyed. In July 2014, fighters destroyed the Tomb of the Prophet Jonah in Nineveh.
Earlier this week, reports said the group had burned 100,000 books and manuscripts from the Mosul library.
One way to think about this is as part of a concerted attack on civilization itself. "I'm totally shocked," a professor at the University of Mosul's college of archeology told the AP. "It's a catastrophe. With the destruction of these artifacts, we can no longer be proud of Mosul's civilization."
But another way to think about it is as squarely in a tradition of iconoclasm. Abraham, the patriarch of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam, himself destroyed idols, according to tradition. There's a strong tradition of icon-destruction in Christianity. And in pre-Islamic Mecca, the Kaaba was the site of multiple idols, which Muhammad cleared out before rededicating the site to God. This is certainly the tradition to which ISIS wishes to claim a connection. The Taliban, another group that claimed fidelity to the principles of early Islam, also spent a great deal of time destroying images of people—most notably the massive Buddhas at Bamiyan in Afghanistan. The tomb of Muhammad in Mecca was itself destroyed by Ibn Saud, the first monarch of Saudi Arabia, early in the 20th century.
In reality, the relationship with icons in all three Abrahamic religions is rather more elaborate than Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi would want us to believe—but the tradition is there. Destroying traces of forebears, and even robbing and destroying tombs, has perhaps a longer tradition in civilization than preservation.
ISIS can't claim total purity on the matter itself, either. The group has widely been reported to be profiting by selling plundered artifacts on the black market. In fact, there's speculation among archeologists that some of the destruction in the new videos is a sham. While the winged-bull sculpture was most likely original, the other statues appear to be replicas. Some of the artifacts have been removed to Baghdad, while others may have been sold off. "You can see iron bars inside," Mark Altaweel of the Institute of Archaeology at University College London told Channel 4. "The originals don't have iron bars." Other reports, such as the AP's, quoted experts familiar with the museum saying most of the pieces are genuine.
The Daily News has a video of the event:
Even in the scope of the destruction wrought by ISIS and the Syrian civil war, the damage to irreplaceable pieces of history is enormous. That's especially true since the region's archaeological history is so rich—stretching from the beginnings to civilization through the biblical period and on into the history of Islam—and because it follows on the American invasion of Iraq, which was itself a huge blow to museums and preservation. Not all of the damage results from religious zealotry or plain malice; in many cases, civilians dig for artifacts to sell simply for subsistence in the midst of war. Even when items aren't destroyed, they may be scattered to private collections through the black market and never recovered.
In September, Secretary of State John Kerry and UNESCO Director-General Irina Bokova spoke at an event at the Metropolitan Museum of Art about preserving heritage. "How shocking and historically shameful it would be if we did nothing while the forces of chaos rob the very cradle of our civilization," Kerry said. "So many different traditions trace their roots back to this part of the world, as we all know. Our heritage is literally in peril in this moment, and we believe it is imperative that we act now."
Those are strong words. But as the fighting drags on and the U.S. and its allies struggle to find effective ways to reckon with ISIS, the futility of the words becomes clearer, and priceless objects disappear into dust.
Wednesday, February 25, 2015
3D Printer Shop 'Pixelwizard' Recreates Missing Retro Computer Covers & Parts
By Cauterize
When you lose the cover for your Amiga 1200's expansion port, or even worse damage the front door to your Commodore 1702 monitor's control panel, what do you do? Similar to the Nintendo Game Boy's battery cover, replacing these individual parts is a difficult task requiring you to rely on eBay users to lists spares, as and when they find them. That's all about to change though as a 3D printing enthusiast has set up shop selling those easily lost parts from retro computers and consoles.
Starting out with a selection of Commodore based replacements, online shop Pixelwizard has begun providing retro gamers with the all important parts needed to fix up their kit. All printed from scratch using accurate 3D models of the originals as reference, all sales come in white nylon plastic with a matte finish and slight grainy feel. Looking through each product's page, you'll soon notice how each and every one of these newly printed pieces fits into place perfectly, at what also appears to be a reasonable price too.
As of speaking here's what's currently available thanks to the wonders of 3D printing:
When you lose the cover for your Amiga 1200's expansion port, or even worse damage the front door to your Commodore 1702 monitor's control panel, what do you do? Similar to the Nintendo Game Boy's battery cover, replacing these individual parts is a difficult task requiring you to rely on eBay users to lists spares, as and when they find them. That's all about to change though as a 3D printing enthusiast has set up shop selling those easily lost parts from retro computers and consoles.
Starting out with a selection of Commodore based replacements, online shop Pixelwizard has begun providing retro gamers with the all important parts needed to fix up their kit. All printed from scratch using accurate 3D models of the originals as reference, all sales come in white nylon plastic with a matte finish and slight grainy feel. Looking through each product's page, you'll soon notice how each and every one of these newly printed pieces fits into place perfectly, at what also appears to be a reasonable price too.
As of speaking here's what's currently available thanks to the wonders of 3D printing:
- Expansion Slot Cover DVI compatible to Amiga 1200
- 3,5" Floppy Rails compatible to Amiga 3000
- Expansion Slot Cover compatible to Amiga 1000
- Interlock Knobs for SX-64
- Front Cover compatible to Commodore Monitor 1702
Purina sued over claims it killed 4,000 dogs with 'toxic' food
By James Joiner
Despite years of online allegations that one of the most popular dog food brands has been poisoning pets, it wasn’t until just weeks ago that the cat was let out of the bag in a court filing. A class action lawsuit was filed that blames the deaths of thousands of dogs on one of Purina’s most popular brands of chow.
Googling Nestle Purina Petcare’s Beneful brand will get you the pet food manufacturer’s website, a Facebook page with over a million likes, and, in stark contrast, a Consumer Affairs page with 708 one-star ratings supported with page after grim page detailing dogs suffering slow, agonizing deaths from mysterious causes.
Internal bleeding. Diarrhea. Seizures. Liver malfunction. It reads like something from a horror movie or a plague documentary, but a suit brought in California federal court by plaintiff Frank Lucido alleges that this is all too real—and too frequent to be a coincidence.
But it all relies upon finding a chemical that may be in the food—and has been a staple in dog food recalls in the past—with an experiment that neither Lucido, his lawyers, or even independent scientists have even begun to conduct.
Lucido said it began last month when his beloved German shepherd began losing an alarming amount of hair, smelled strange, and wound up at the vet with symptoms “consistent with poisoning.” A week later, his wife found one of their other dogs, an English Bulldog, dead. An autopsy showed signs of internal bleeding in the stomach and lesions on the liver, symptoms eerily similar to the shepherd’s, according to the complaint. Then their third dog also became ill.
“All these dogs are eating Beneful,” explained Jeff Cereghino, one of the attorneys representing Lucido in the action. “And the dogs are all, for a variety of reasons, not in the same house. So you take away the automatic assumption that the neighbor didn’t like the dogs or whatever. He was feeding them Beneful at the start of this, and one got sick and died, the other two were very ill. And then he started doing a little research, and he realized the causal link, at least in his mind, was the food.”
It doesn’t take much digging to uncover what appears to be a pattern of allegations, Cereghino said. Lots and lots of allegations. After hearing Lucido’s story, Cereghino checked it out for himself.
“We found a significant number of folks who were trying to draw exactly the same causal link.
Thousands,” he said.
The sheer volume is what made the seasoned lawyer—one who said “a good part of our business is class action work”—realize something may be fishy.
“But when I look at 4,000? Holy hell, there’s a lot of people out here.”
So Cereghino and his partners started talking to those people, comparing more and more of the stories of heartbreak.
“There seems to be somewhat of a singular event. [The dogs] are vomiting. They’re having liver problems, failures,” he said. “I’m not a vet, but you look at some of this stuff and say, ‘OK, we’re starting to have similar symptoms across the board, and we’re starting to have causation.’”
When these dire accusations first started appearing online years ago, the initial accusation was that one of the additives in the food, propylene glycol, was the culprit.
Purina maintains the type of propylene it uses is perfectly safe for consumption, saying on its website: “Propylene glycol is an FDA-approved food additive that’s also in human foods like salad dressing and cake mix.”
It’s also the same substance that caused the spiced whiskey Fireball to be recalled in Europe, which found excessive amounts of the chemical, also used in antifreeze, in the cinnamon swill last fall. The tainted liquor was from the North American batch because, in the U.S., much higher volumes of antifreeze additives are OK for human—or canine—consumption.
“It’s horrible. That is something that you don’t want in dog food,” noted veterinarian and author Karen "Doc" Halligan when reached by phone. “It’s controversial. Why do you want to take a risk if there’s any kind of chance that that could be bad for them?”
But whether it’s good for dogs or not, food grade propylene glycol has been approved by the Food and Drug Administration. It also hasn’t been linked to toxicity, especially the type being alleged against Beneful.
Cereghino thinks there’s another culprit in the mix, and he’s named it in the lawsuit. They’re called mycotoxins.
Translated directly from the Greek words for “fungus poison,” mycotoxins are, essentially, a toxic byproduct of mold. When it comes to ducking discovery, they’re an especially crafty brand mold byproduct, and one found in all types of grains.
If you read the ingredients label of Beneful, it sounds an awful lot like breakfast cereal: ground yellow corn, corn gluten meal, whole wheat flour, rice flour, soy flour. Sure, there’s some “chicken byproduct meal” and “animal fat preserved with mixed-tocopherols,” but the food is certainly more grain than meat.
“In the channels of trade, grain is quite a lot like hamburger these days. As in ‘There’s multiple cows in a hamburger,’ if you will,” explained Dr. Gregory Möller, professor of environmental chemistry and toxicology at the University of Idaho and Washington State University joint School of Food Science. “It’s a mixed and blended commodity. So one farmer, one granary, or one mill, may have not stored their product well, which allowed for mold growth in storage.”
Even if a scientist were to stumble upon a load of grain rife with mycotoxins, Möller added, he or she could test it and still miss them.
“You can go into a sample that is known contaminated,” Möller noted. “But the particular sub sample you pull may not have enough on it to actually see. There is that challenge.”
This can be exacerbated when the host grain is earmarked for non-human use.
“Commodities that are targeted towards pet foods are managed a little bit differently, in terms of the regulatory criteria they have to pass,” he continued. “It is a very large industry. There is attention and concern about quality, but there is a difference in how the concern is managed.”
In layman’s terms?
“I think what’s put forth here is a plausible scenario,” Möller said.
When asked about the alleged symptoms described in the class action suit and online, especially the repeated liver failure, Halligan was clear in her potential diagnosis, especially as it pertained to animals of a variety of ages.
“Toxins would be real high on my list. If an animal ingests some type of toxin, that can lead to liver disease because the liver has to process it,” said Halligan.
But there have not yet been any tests to determine if mycotoxins are in Beneful at all—or any other dog food, for that matter.
Cereghino said he’s determined to find that out.
“As soon as we are able to, and the federal courts move at a fairly rapid rate, we will get discovery,” said Cereghino.
That’s when Cereghino will get to find out where Beneful’s products come from, how they’re stored, whether there’s a “connecting piece in the storage or the grain, the sourcing of it all, that sort of make sense.” He plans on running tests on the food both he and other members of the class action suit have saved to send over to a lab in the next few weeks.
That’s when they’ll know if those potentially dangerous chemicals are in the formula. And, if they are, they’ll still have to fight to prove that the mycotoxins are dangerous enough to make thousands of dogs sick.
As for Purina, when approached for comment, Keith Schopp, vice president of corporate public relations, read this statement to The Daily Beast:
“We believe the lawsuit is without merit and we intend to vigorously defend ourselves. Beneful is a high-quality nutritious food enjoyed by millions of dogs each year and there are no product quality issues with Beneful.”
A class action lawsuit alleges a mold byproduct used in kibble is leading pets to agonizing deaths.
Despite years of online allegations that one of the most popular dog food brands has been poisoning pets, it wasn’t until just weeks ago that the cat was let out of the bag in a court filing. A class action lawsuit was filed that blames the deaths of thousands of dogs on one of Purina’s most popular brands of chow.
Googling Nestle Purina Petcare’s Beneful brand will get you the pet food manufacturer’s website, a Facebook page with over a million likes, and, in stark contrast, a Consumer Affairs page with 708 one-star ratings supported with page after grim page detailing dogs suffering slow, agonizing deaths from mysterious causes.
Internal bleeding. Diarrhea. Seizures. Liver malfunction. It reads like something from a horror movie or a plague documentary, but a suit brought in California federal court by plaintiff Frank Lucido alleges that this is all too real—and too frequent to be a coincidence.
But it all relies upon finding a chemical that may be in the food—and has been a staple in dog food recalls in the past—with an experiment that neither Lucido, his lawyers, or even independent scientists have even begun to conduct.
Lucido said it began last month when his beloved German shepherd began losing an alarming amount of hair, smelled strange, and wound up at the vet with symptoms “consistent with poisoning.” A week later, his wife found one of their other dogs, an English Bulldog, dead. An autopsy showed signs of internal bleeding in the stomach and lesions on the liver, symptoms eerily similar to the shepherd’s, according to the complaint. Then their third dog also became ill.
“All these dogs are eating Beneful,” explained Jeff Cereghino, one of the attorneys representing Lucido in the action. “And the dogs are all, for a variety of reasons, not in the same house. So you take away the automatic assumption that the neighbor didn’t like the dogs or whatever. He was feeding them Beneful at the start of this, and one got sick and died, the other two were very ill. And then he started doing a little research, and he realized the causal link, at least in his mind, was the food.”
It doesn’t take much digging to uncover what appears to be a pattern of allegations, Cereghino said. Lots and lots of allegations. After hearing Lucido’s story, Cereghino checked it out for himself.
“We found a significant number of folks who were trying to draw exactly the same causal link.
Thousands,” he said.
The sheer volume is what made the seasoned lawyer—one who said “a good part of our business is class action work”—realize something may be fishy.
“If it’s a hundred or so, it’s like, ‘Okay, a lot of dogs eat Beneful; things happen.’ But when you start getting into the thousands… The long and short of it is the complaint pyramid is such that even with the Internet–easy access to complain about things– there’s still a very large percentage of folks who simply don’t complain, or whose vet tells ‘em, ‘We don’t know what happened,’ and they’re not drawing conclusions or leaping to assumptions, “ he said.“But when I look at 4,000? Holy hell, there’s a lot of people out here.”
“But when I look at 4,000? Holy hell, there’s a lot of people out here.”
So Cereghino and his partners started talking to those people, comparing more and more of the stories of heartbreak.
“There seems to be somewhat of a singular event. [The dogs] are vomiting. They’re having liver problems, failures,” he said. “I’m not a vet, but you look at some of this stuff and say, ‘OK, we’re starting to have similar symptoms across the board, and we’re starting to have causation.’”
When these dire accusations first started appearing online years ago, the initial accusation was that one of the additives in the food, propylene glycol, was the culprit.
Purina maintains the type of propylene it uses is perfectly safe for consumption, saying on its website: “Propylene glycol is an FDA-approved food additive that’s also in human foods like salad dressing and cake mix.”
It’s also the same substance that caused the spiced whiskey Fireball to be recalled in Europe, which found excessive amounts of the chemical, also used in antifreeze, in the cinnamon swill last fall. The tainted liquor was from the North American batch because, in the U.S., much higher volumes of antifreeze additives are OK for human—or canine—consumption.
“It’s horrible. That is something that you don’t want in dog food,” noted veterinarian and author Karen "Doc" Halligan when reached by phone. “It’s controversial. Why do you want to take a risk if there’s any kind of chance that that could be bad for them?”
But whether it’s good for dogs or not, food grade propylene glycol has been approved by the Food and Drug Administration. It also hasn’t been linked to toxicity, especially the type being alleged against Beneful.
Cereghino thinks there’s another culprit in the mix, and he’s named it in the lawsuit. They’re called mycotoxins.
Translated directly from the Greek words for “fungus poison,” mycotoxins are, essentially, a toxic byproduct of mold. When it comes to ducking discovery, they’re an especially crafty brand mold byproduct, and one found in all types of grains.
If you read the ingredients label of Beneful, it sounds an awful lot like breakfast cereal: ground yellow corn, corn gluten meal, whole wheat flour, rice flour, soy flour. Sure, there’s some “chicken byproduct meal” and “animal fat preserved with mixed-tocopherols,” but the food is certainly more grain than meat.
“In the channels of trade, grain is quite a lot like hamburger these days. As in ‘There’s multiple cows in a hamburger,’ if you will,” explained Dr. Gregory Möller, professor of environmental chemistry and toxicology at the University of Idaho and Washington State University joint School of Food Science. “It’s a mixed and blended commodity. So one farmer, one granary, or one mill, may have not stored their product well, which allowed for mold growth in storage.”
Even if a scientist were to stumble upon a load of grain rife with mycotoxins, Möller added, he or she could test it and still miss them.
“You can go into a sample that is known contaminated,” Möller noted. “But the particular sub sample you pull may not have enough on it to actually see. There is that challenge.”
This can be exacerbated when the host grain is earmarked for non-human use.
“Commodities that are targeted towards pet foods are managed a little bit differently, in terms of the regulatory criteria they have to pass,” he continued. “It is a very large industry. There is attention and concern about quality, but there is a difference in how the concern is managed.”
In layman’s terms?
“I think what’s put forth here is a plausible scenario,” Möller said.
When asked about the alleged symptoms described in the class action suit and online, especially the repeated liver failure, Halligan was clear in her potential diagnosis, especially as it pertained to animals of a variety of ages.
“Toxins would be real high on my list. If an animal ingests some type of toxin, that can lead to liver disease because the liver has to process it,” said Halligan.
But there have not yet been any tests to determine if mycotoxins are in Beneful at all—or any other dog food, for that matter.
Cereghino said he’s determined to find that out.
“As soon as we are able to, and the federal courts move at a fairly rapid rate, we will get discovery,” said Cereghino.
That’s when Cereghino will get to find out where Beneful’s products come from, how they’re stored, whether there’s a “connecting piece in the storage or the grain, the sourcing of it all, that sort of make sense.” He plans on running tests on the food both he and other members of the class action suit have saved to send over to a lab in the next few weeks.
That’s when they’ll know if those potentially dangerous chemicals are in the formula. And, if they are, they’ll still have to fight to prove that the mycotoxins are dangerous enough to make thousands of dogs sick.
As for Purina, when approached for comment, Keith Schopp, vice president of corporate public relations, read this statement to The Daily Beast:
“We believe the lawsuit is without merit and we intend to vigorously defend ourselves. Beneful is a high-quality nutritious food enjoyed by millions of dogs each year and there are no product quality issues with Beneful.”
Tuesday, February 24, 2015
MSNBC Not All In with Chris Hayes Anymore
By Joe Concha
When reporting on a TV personality possibly getting the boot from their network, it’s par for the course to request for official comment on the matter. When you do this long enough, you begin to notice some patterns as it pertains to certain networks. In the case of MSNBC (and NBC News in general), I think I’ve found — as they say in poker — their tell.
A tell, of course, is that trait or sign in regard to the poker hand they hold. Is that person bluffing? Doesn’t he have a straight flush? A tell — as seen in the classic Rounders with Matt Damon and John Malkovich as the great Teddy KGB — can make or break who wins the pot. With MSNBC, I first noticed its tell following my original exclusive about the demise of Ronan Farrow’s daytime show.
To review, when asking if the network was planning on cancelling the ill-fated program for the 26 year old Cronkite Award Winner, the answer was the following: “No. We’re fully committed to Ronan.”
So, I took that as a standard denial without reading between the lines too much. But in retrospect, the tell is obvious: Being fully committed to Ronan is one thing, being fully committed to his program is quite another. Network spokespeople are meticulously trained in this stuff and, in this case, thought of that response very carefully before replying. The language specifically engineered so that if I went back to them now and called them out, they can always say, “Hey, we never said we were committed to the show, just committed to the host staying on at the network in a different capacity,” or something to that effect.
Fast forward to last week and the announcement around the aforementioned Farrow and Joy Reid‘s respective 1:00 and 2:00 p.m. ET programs being cancelled. Not a big surprise given the anemic numbers — even by MSNBC standards. But the bigger story to emerge was that the network is eying Chris Hayes as well, who isn’t exactly killing it at 8 p.m. (the most important time slot out there), falling to third and sometimes fourth place behind HLN’s Forensic Files repeats.
Any objective media critic or fan will tell you Hayes isn’t a prime-time host (he was great on weekend mornings in his old Up spot, where his style, pace and topic selection was and would be a better fit) — and that reportedly includes Griffin, who made the big bet (at the reported behest of Rachel Maddow) on Hayes and is seeing very little return on investment.
All of that said, when asked if the network planned to cancel Hayes following the report in The Daily Beast, here was the response below from an MSNBC spokesperson: “Contrary to the rumors from unnamed sources, we have no plans take Chris Hayes’ show off the air or move Rachel Maddow’s show.”
Given the Farrow example, you see the tell, right? No plans to take Chris Hayes’ show off the air will likely mean not taking it off entirely, but instead moving it to a different home out of prime time. Or no plans could be flackese for no finalized plans at this exact moment in time.
This isn’t the first time NBC has gone this route either. Just think back to the time the network denied that Ed Schultz was being removed from weekday primetime to a weekend slot (Hint: It happened, despite denials). Or the times NBC News repeatedly denied the ousting of David Gregory from his moderator spot on Meet the Press (Hint: He did). Or Ann Curry being safe on the Today Show (Yeah, you get the idea).
Of course, this just doesn’t pertain to MSNBC, but all networks trying to hang on and control the narrative after word is leaked of a program’s or personality’s impending doom.
But given his network’s track record, if I’m Chris Hayes, I see the tell and start looking forward to getting my weekday dinner time back with the wife and kid again soon.
>> Follow Joe Concha on Twitter @JoeConchaTV
When reporting on a TV personality possibly getting the boot from their network, it’s par for the course to request for official comment on the matter. When you do this long enough, you begin to notice some patterns as it pertains to certain networks. In the case of MSNBC (and NBC News in general), I think I’ve found — as they say in poker — their tell.
A tell, of course, is that trait or sign in regard to the poker hand they hold. Is that person bluffing? Doesn’t he have a straight flush? A tell — as seen in the classic Rounders with Matt Damon and John Malkovich as the great Teddy KGB — can make or break who wins the pot. With MSNBC, I first noticed its tell following my original exclusive about the demise of Ronan Farrow’s daytime show.
To review, when asking if the network was planning on cancelling the ill-fated program for the 26 year old Cronkite Award Winner, the answer was the following: “No. We’re fully committed to Ronan.”
So, I took that as a standard denial without reading between the lines too much. But in retrospect, the tell is obvious: Being fully committed to Ronan is one thing, being fully committed to his program is quite another. Network spokespeople are meticulously trained in this stuff and, in this case, thought of that response very carefully before replying. The language specifically engineered so that if I went back to them now and called them out, they can always say, “Hey, we never said we were committed to the show, just committed to the host staying on at the network in a different capacity,” or something to that effect.
Fast forward to last week and the announcement around the aforementioned Farrow and Joy Reid‘s respective 1:00 and 2:00 p.m. ET programs being cancelled. Not a big surprise given the anemic numbers — even by MSNBC standards. But the bigger story to emerge was that the network is eying Chris Hayes as well, who isn’t exactly killing it at 8 p.m. (the most important time slot out there), falling to third and sometimes fourth place behind HLN’s Forensic Files repeats.
Any objective media critic or fan will tell you Hayes isn’t a prime-time host (he was great on weekend mornings in his old Up spot, where his style, pace and topic selection was and would be a better fit) — and that reportedly includes Griffin, who made the big bet (at the reported behest of Rachel Maddow) on Hayes and is seeing very little return on investment.
All of that said, when asked if the network planned to cancel Hayes following the report in The Daily Beast, here was the response below from an MSNBC spokesperson: “Contrary to the rumors from unnamed sources, we have no plans take Chris Hayes’ show off the air or move Rachel Maddow’s show.”
Given the Farrow example, you see the tell, right? No plans to take Chris Hayes’ show off the air will likely mean not taking it off entirely, but instead moving it to a different home out of prime time. Or no plans could be flackese for no finalized plans at this exact moment in time.
This isn’t the first time NBC has gone this route either. Just think back to the time the network denied that Ed Schultz was being removed from weekday primetime to a weekend slot (Hint: It happened, despite denials). Or the times NBC News repeatedly denied the ousting of David Gregory from his moderator spot on Meet the Press (Hint: He did). Or Ann Curry being safe on the Today Show (Yeah, you get the idea).
Of course, this just doesn’t pertain to MSNBC, but all networks trying to hang on and control the narrative after word is leaked of a program’s or personality’s impending doom.
But given his network’s track record, if I’m Chris Hayes, I see the tell and start looking forward to getting my weekday dinner time back with the wife and kid again soon.
>> Follow Joe Concha on Twitter @JoeConchaTV
Rahm Emanuel's Moment of Fucking Truth
The Chicago mayor hopes voters will allow him to avoid an April runoff
despite school closures and outbreaks of violent crime.
By David A. Graham
By David A. Graham
Too often, candidates run for office promising one thing and
deliver another, alienating or simply disaffecting voters, and
ultimately losing their offices. Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel faces a
different sort of challenge: For the most part, he's given voters what
he said he would. Now, do they want to keep it?
He'll find out Tuesday, when Windy City voters go to the polls in a mayoral election. Emanuel has mounted an extremely expensive, high-powered push to get past 50 percent of the vote—the threshold he needs to win reelection outright and avoid an April 7 runoff. The X-factor in the race seems to be black voters, so Emanuel has rolled out endorsements from high-profile African American politicians, including his former boss President Obama and Representative Bobby Rush, the only man to ever beat Obama in an election.
A Chicago Tribune poll last week showed that Emanuel was within striking distance of an outright majority, with 45 percent of voters backing him, and nearly 20 percent undecided. Emanuel's top opponent is Cook County Commissioner Jesus "Chuy" Garcia; other challengers include Alderman Bob Fioretti and businessman Willie Wilson.
It's been a rambunctious four years for Emanuel. After an election campaign in which he was nearly disqualified under residency requirements, the former U.S. representative and White House chief of staff cruised to victory. Since then, Emanuel has closed almost 50 schools; dealt with a strike by public-school teachers; passed an austerity budget for the city; and faced a significant murder rate.
The bruising term has turned some voters off, especially after 22 years in which the city was led by the same man, Richard Daley. But in many ways, Emanuel has done just what he said he would, bringing his brusque, no-nonsense approach to the mayorship.
Long a pragmatic moderate who reveled in muscling his preferred strategies through—often with the aid of a generous helping of profanity—that's just what he's done, on issues ranging from the budget to education. Emanuel has exercised a control over the levers of power that exceeds even his long-tenured predecessor, bending the City Council and even the state legislature to his will. But that focus seems to have come at a cost: retaining support among voters themselves, who have grown chilly on Emanuel after giving him 55 percent of the vote four years ago.
Reaching the 45 percent mark is an accomplishment in its own right. Not long ago, Emanuel's polling was in the tank, and his reelection seemed in doubt. His rebound has been helped by two big factors: good luck, and piles and piles of money. First, two of his most formidable potential opponents bowed out. Two black candidates decided not to run—Toni Preckwinkle, president of the Cook County Board, passed, and Karen Lewis, a major Emanuel antagonist as head of the teachers' union, opted against running when she was diagnosed with a brain tumor.
Meanwhile, Emanuel has raised $15 million in the race, pouring much of it into television ads. His enormous war chest has allowed him to far outspend Garcia on the airwaves, who was unable to get TV time until the final two-week stretch of the race. In moving early to get on TV and bury his opponent, Emanuel is taking a page out of Obama's playbook in the 2012 presidential election, when he and allies spent early to "define" Mitt Romney for voters.
Still, black voters—who came out in force for Emanuel four years ago, in part because of Obama's backing—remain cool. In the Tribune poll, only 42 percent backed him this time around, with a quarter still undecided. That's in large part because minority neighborhoods have borne the brunt of Chicago's recent troubles. Most of the schools that closed are in those neighborhoods. Emanuel says that was actually for the better: The schools that were shuttered were underused and under-performing, and the closures should lead to students getting better educations. He also boasts of improvements like longer school days and more extensive pre-K programs. Horrific violence is also a major factor. Even as other cities saw big drops, there were 500 murders in Chicago in 2013, many of them concentrated in minority neighborhoods. (The number was down to 407 in 2014, a 40-year record low.)
If Emanuel has ridden Obama's coattails, his challengers have tried to emulate New York Mayor Bill de Blasio's example. As a technocratic, moderate Democrat who used a top-down style and has won plaudits from neoliberal pundits on issues like education, he seems to invite just the sort of left-wing campaign de Blasio used in his come-from-behind victory in 2013. They've even co-opted de Blasio's leitmotif, accusing Emanuel of overseeing a city divided into "two Chicagos."
Emanuel essentially admitted that was true in an interview with The New York Times. “‘The city that works’ has to work for everybody,” he said, alluding to a nickname for Chicago. “Have we made progress in areas that had developed for years? Yes. Is our work done? Absolutely not.” (Skeptics might note that he's been saying the same since his term started, and apparently hasn't finished the job yet. In a profile in The Atlantic in 2012, Emanuel told Jonathan Alter almost exactly the same thing: "We are known as ‘the city that works.’ You gotta make sure it works for everybody and not just a few.”)
The irony is that even as Emanuel risks losing voters, his hold on the city has been extremely strong—stronger even than Daley, by some measures. The mayor has managed to turn the city council into a "rubber stamp" for his policies, with aldermen backing him more than they did Daley or his father, who was mayor for 21 years.
If Emanuel can win on Tuesday, it might set him up for a tenure comparable to Daley pere or fils, perhaps even with more power. But most analysts are calling the contest too close to predict at this point, and if Emanuel wins only a strong plurality matters get murkier. Emanuel would retain the advantage of incumbency, fundraising, and backing from the national Democratic establishment. Yet Dick Simpson, an oft-quoted political scientist and former alderman, thinks Emanuel would be in trouble in a runoff: He'd suddenly look far more vulnerable, and national liberals would flock in to aid Garcia. (For the record, Simpson has contributed to Garcia's campaign.)
Hence the race to the finish for the mayor, as he spent aggressively and shook as many hands as possible in the last few days before balloting. Not that glad-handing is a pleasant task right now—as of writing, it feels like -14º F in Chicago. Tuesday won't be great either, with the high barely reaching freezing and a forecast of gusty winds that should live up to Chicago's nickname. Bad weather tends to be a boon to incumbents. For a candidate who's already gotten very lucky, the forecast is one last stroke of fortune.
He'll find out Tuesday, when Windy City voters go to the polls in a mayoral election. Emanuel has mounted an extremely expensive, high-powered push to get past 50 percent of the vote—the threshold he needs to win reelection outright and avoid an April 7 runoff. The X-factor in the race seems to be black voters, so Emanuel has rolled out endorsements from high-profile African American politicians, including his former boss President Obama and Representative Bobby Rush, the only man to ever beat Obama in an election.
A Chicago Tribune poll last week showed that Emanuel was within striking distance of an outright majority, with 45 percent of voters backing him, and nearly 20 percent undecided. Emanuel's top opponent is Cook County Commissioner Jesus "Chuy" Garcia; other challengers include Alderman Bob Fioretti and businessman Willie Wilson.
It's been a rambunctious four years for Emanuel. After an election campaign in which he was nearly disqualified under residency requirements, the former U.S. representative and White House chief of staff cruised to victory. Since then, Emanuel has closed almost 50 schools; dealt with a strike by public-school teachers; passed an austerity budget for the city; and faced a significant murder rate.
The bruising term has turned some voters off, especially after 22 years in which the city was led by the same man, Richard Daley. But in many ways, Emanuel has done just what he said he would, bringing his brusque, no-nonsense approach to the mayorship.
Long a pragmatic moderate who reveled in muscling his preferred strategies through—often with the aid of a generous helping of profanity—that's just what he's done, on issues ranging from the budget to education. Emanuel has exercised a control over the levers of power that exceeds even his long-tenured predecessor, bending the City Council and even the state legislature to his will. But that focus seems to have come at a cost: retaining support among voters themselves, who have grown chilly on Emanuel after giving him 55 percent of the vote four years ago.
Reaching the 45 percent mark is an accomplishment in its own right. Not long ago, Emanuel's polling was in the tank, and his reelection seemed in doubt. His rebound has been helped by two big factors: good luck, and piles and piles of money. First, two of his most formidable potential opponents bowed out. Two black candidates decided not to run—Toni Preckwinkle, president of the Cook County Board, passed, and Karen Lewis, a major Emanuel antagonist as head of the teachers' union, opted against running when she was diagnosed with a brain tumor.
Meanwhile, Emanuel has raised $15 million in the race, pouring much of it into television ads. His enormous war chest has allowed him to far outspend Garcia on the airwaves, who was unable to get TV time until the final two-week stretch of the race. In moving early to get on TV and bury his opponent, Emanuel is taking a page out of Obama's playbook in the 2012 presidential election, when he and allies spent early to "define" Mitt Romney for voters.
Still, black voters—who came out in force for Emanuel four years ago, in part because of Obama's backing—remain cool. In the Tribune poll, only 42 percent backed him this time around, with a quarter still undecided. That's in large part because minority neighborhoods have borne the brunt of Chicago's recent troubles. Most of the schools that closed are in those neighborhoods. Emanuel says that was actually for the better: The schools that were shuttered were underused and under-performing, and the closures should lead to students getting better educations. He also boasts of improvements like longer school days and more extensive pre-K programs. Horrific violence is also a major factor. Even as other cities saw big drops, there were 500 murders in Chicago in 2013, many of them concentrated in minority neighborhoods. (The number was down to 407 in 2014, a 40-year record low.)
If Emanuel has ridden Obama's coattails, his challengers have tried to emulate New York Mayor Bill de Blasio's example. As a technocratic, moderate Democrat who used a top-down style and has won plaudits from neoliberal pundits on issues like education, he seems to invite just the sort of left-wing campaign de Blasio used in his come-from-behind victory in 2013. They've even co-opted de Blasio's leitmotif, accusing Emanuel of overseeing a city divided into "two Chicagos."
Emanuel essentially admitted that was true in an interview with The New York Times. “‘The city that works’ has to work for everybody,” he said, alluding to a nickname for Chicago. “Have we made progress in areas that had developed for years? Yes. Is our work done? Absolutely not.” (Skeptics might note that he's been saying the same since his term started, and apparently hasn't finished the job yet. In a profile in The Atlantic in 2012, Emanuel told Jonathan Alter almost exactly the same thing: "We are known as ‘the city that works.’ You gotta make sure it works for everybody and not just a few.”)
The irony is that even as Emanuel risks losing voters, his hold on the city has been extremely strong—stronger even than Daley, by some measures. The mayor has managed to turn the city council into a "rubber stamp" for his policies, with aldermen backing him more than they did Daley or his father, who was mayor for 21 years.
If Emanuel can win on Tuesday, it might set him up for a tenure comparable to Daley pere or fils, perhaps even with more power. But most analysts are calling the contest too close to predict at this point, and if Emanuel wins only a strong plurality matters get murkier. Emanuel would retain the advantage of incumbency, fundraising, and backing from the national Democratic establishment. Yet Dick Simpson, an oft-quoted political scientist and former alderman, thinks Emanuel would be in trouble in a runoff: He'd suddenly look far more vulnerable, and national liberals would flock in to aid Garcia. (For the record, Simpson has contributed to Garcia's campaign.)
Hence the race to the finish for the mayor, as he spent aggressively and shook as many hands as possible in the last few days before balloting. Not that glad-handing is a pleasant task right now—as of writing, it feels like -14º F in Chicago. Tuesday won't be great either, with the high barely reaching freezing and a forecast of gusty winds that should live up to Chicago's nickname. Bad weather tends to be a boon to incumbents. For a candidate who's already gotten very lucky, the forecast is one last stroke of fortune.
Sunday, February 22, 2015
Final Judgment: MSNBC Moving Away From "Left-Wing TV"
Cenk Uygur host of The Young Turks addresses the recent programming shift at
MSNBC. A source at MSNBC said the goal of the changes was to "move away
from left wing TV". Cenk has a unique opinion as someone who was once
inside the MSNBC bubble.
Saturday, February 21, 2015
What Rudy Giuliani knows about love — a response to his 'doesn't love America' critique of Obama
Ask Regina Peruggi, the second cousin he grew up with and married, who was "offended" when Rudy later engineered an annulment from the priest who was his best man on the grounds, strangely enough, that she was his cousin.
Or ask Donna Hanover, the mother of his two children, who found out he wanted a separation when he left Gracie Mansion one morning and announced it at a televised press conference.
Or ask Judi Nathan, his third wife, whom he started dating while still married to Hanover and New York mayor. In two SUVs, he and an entourage of six or seven cops traveled 11 times to Judi's Hamptons getaway at a taxpayer cost of $3,000 a trip. That's love.
Rudy knows so much about love that he declared the other day that President Obama "doesn't love you" and "doesn't love me" at a private party of GOP fat cats.
Rudy may have forgotten the half-dozen deferments he won ducking the Vietnam War, even getting the federal judge he was clerking for to write a letter creating a special exemption for him. And remember Bernie Kerik? He's the Giulaini police commissioner, business partner and sidekick whose nomination as homeland security secretary narrowly preceded indictments. He then did his national service in prison.
Though Rudy cited Harold throughout his public life as his model (without revealing any of his history), he and five Rudy uncles found ways to avoid service in World War II. Harold, whose robbery conviction was in the name of an alias, made sure the draft board knew he was a felon. On the other hand, Obama's grandfather and uncle served. His uncle helped liberate Buchenwald, which apparently affected him so deeply he stayed in the family attic for six months when he returned home.
DE BLASIO, DNC CHAIR SLAM GIULIANI'S COMMENTS
While Giuliani finds Obama's rhetoric insufficiently pro-American, his 2012 RNC speech was filled with catchphrases like Obama's "a complete and absolute failure," and he just branded the President "a moron" in his Arizona invocation of Neville Chamberlain at Munich, all of it presumably a new form of nationalist celebration. In 2012, Rudy even blasted Obama, without a glance in the mirror, for "attempting to exploit" the killing of Osama Bin Laden, calling it "disgusting."
Rudy contends that his not-like-us Obama insights have nothing to do with race, adding in day-after doubling down that the President "was taught to be a critic of America," while pointing out that his mother and grandparents were white. There are few in New York now, after 12 years of Mike Bloomberg and a year of Bill de Blasio, who doubt that Rudy was a conscious, almost energetic, polarizer. He never acknowledged his dark side then and he's not about to now.
Barrett is author of "Rudy: An Investigative Biography."
Friday, February 20, 2015
Liberal Racism: 25 Things I Learned After I Wrote About ISIS and White Racism at the Daily Kos
By chaunceydevega
Racism is not an opinion. It is a fact.
White supremacy is one of the most powerful social forces and ideologies in the United States (and the West). As such, it is reflected in our political discourse, and both intentionally (through active racism) and unintentionally (implicit bias) reproduced by individuals.
Online spaces are a great lens into white supremacy because they are a type of public arena where individuals can drop the mask of social conformity and desirability, revealing their private thoughts and true selves.
Thus, comment sections are transformed into a space where “backstage racism” can be transformed into direct and public acts.
I have shared my essays here on the Daily Kos for several years. There are some good and sincere folks here who I have talked to via email and through other mediums. There are likely many “lurkers” who read, give “recs”, and share work they find valuable and useful with their friends, family, colleagues, and others in their personal networks.
By definition, those individuals who frequently comment on and read political websites are outliers relative to the general population. And while the Daily Kos is a “liberal” or “progressive” website, it still reflects the biases, habits, and beliefs of the individuals who frequent it.
For example, if a given society is racist, sexist, and homophobic, then its members and culture, to varying degrees, will be a reflection of those values. Some will resist them; others will actively reproduce and support them; most will go about their quotidian lives, a herd or mass public to be directed one way or another as their personal whims and desires pull, and cues from elites direct them.
White liberals love to point out the racism of conservatives and republicans. This is an easy task in the post civil rights era because the Tea Party GOP is the United States’ de facto White identity party.
It is far more difficult for white liberals and progressives to look in the proverbial mirror and to take a personal inventory of their own possessive investment in whiteness, and how they reproduce white supremacy as a lived ideology.
Liberal or “aversive” racism is the counterpart to the “symbolic” and “old fashioned” racism practiced by conservatives and the White Right.
My most recent posts on the Daily Kos (an essay on Dr. Martin Luther King and White memory; a new piece on ISIS’s barbarism and the lynching of black Americans by white people) have been met with many hundreds of comments. Those essays were also shared many thousands of times on Facebook and other social media.
Collectively, the comments on my essay on ISIS, as well as white historical memory and Dr. King, are a lesson in the enduring power of liberal racism. I have learned much from them.
As I have done in the past, what follows are some helpful guidelines and observations for people of color (and white folks of conscience) who dare to speak some “truth to power” about race or racism at the Daily Kos.
1. White people are very sensitive. Many of them get very upset and angry when you tell the truth about racism, white supremacy, or white privilege. Never speak plainly and directly to liberal racists. They may wilt.
2. Liberal racists and their allies believe that it is “unnecessary” to comment on the plain on the face fact that black Americans were burned alive in much the same as ISIS did to the captured Jordanian, Muadh al Kasasbeh.
3. Addendum to the above. The spectacular lynchings of black Americans by white people were “a long time ago” so it should not be discussed anymore lest white people be made uncomfortable. For the White Gaze a long time ago is compressed to 50 years.
4. Be prepared for the deflection and dismissive comment that, “everyone knows this stuff! Why are you bringing it up!”
5. If you want to talk about racism and how black folks were subjected to horrific violence by white people—much of it worse than what ISIS visited upon Muadh al Kasasbeh—during Black History Month, one must get permission from white people first. This is especially true during Black History Month because black folks tend to get too confident and back sass white folks during those 28 days.
6. The idea that white people who benefit in the present from systems of material advantage and other unearned privileges, outcomes that are the direct result of racial terrorism against non-whites, should “own” their history, is very upsetting and provocative to white folks. Never forget that White America and White Americans are a people and a country without a history.
7. If you talk to white people about racism you should speak in the same tone and manner as Bill Moyers.
8. Second Bill Moyers rule. White folks, especially liberal racists here on the Daily Kos and elsewhere, will only believe something is true and appropriate to discuss if a white man like Bill Moyers says it is.
9. Third Bill Moyers rule. Well-documented events, such as horrific violence against black Americans as committed by whites, only occurred if a white person says they did. The white speaker effect is very real in America’s racial discourse.
10. “Class issues” and “real progressive politics” trump any concern about race and racial justice.
11. Daring to talk about the burning to death murder of Muadh al Kasasbeh by ISIS and how it resonates with the burning to death murder of thousands of black people by white Americans is a type of “black racial narcissism”.
12. White supremacists and liberal racists have much in common with their rage at the premise that a black person would dare to talk about white on black lynchings in the United States and ISIS.
13. White supremacists and liberal racists at the Daily Kos channel much the same animus and rage at black folks who tell them things they do not want not want to hear. The former are just more honest; the latter pretty up their racial ugliness just a bit more.
14. Liberal racists—like their Right-wing compatriots—will derail, distract, and obfuscate your claims.
15. Liberal racists—like their Right-wing compatriots—also use standard troll tactics such as picking on one word in a title or other questions of grammar and emphasis to avoid dealing with the facts you have presented.
16. White supremacy’s reflection is very ugly to most white folks—especially those who have not disowned Whiteness.
17. These people are especially upset by the premise that someone like them, in their own immediate family, neighborhood, or other relation could/would have participated in a lynching, owned slaves, or benefitted from an act of inter-personal or institutional white supremacy.
18. Remember that being a victim of white racial terrorism is the present lived experience for non-whites in the United States and elsewhere. These are living memories. And yes, many of the victims of white racial terrorism are still alive.
19. Whiteness is ahistorical: one of the primary advantages of being white in America is the luxury of being an individual unmoored from the past, history, and perpetually living in a bubble of white innocence.
20. If the word “thug” is the new “nigger” then when white folks call a black person “angry”, “combative”, “bitter”, “unhinged”, or “disrespectful” they are channeling the new “uppity”…the latter being a crime that not too long ago could be punished by the lynching tree.
21. Right-wing racists are much more honest, and thus easier to deal with, than liberal racists.
22. At some point in the conversation, white privilege deems that white folks who are unhappy with how a person of color dares to talk about racism will somehow be magically transformed into the real “victims”.
23. The rules for how white supremacy and white racism should be discussed must always be set by white folks so that they can be told what they want to hear, their assumptions about their goodness and innocence validated, and their egos stroked.
24. Racist River Dancing. At some point, a liberal racist, will call you a “nigger” in everything but name. Liberal racists are very good at calling blacks who make them upset “niggers” by using many more than just one efficient word. I grant liberal racists the permission to call me a "nigger" if they are sufficiently aroused to anger. It is much more efficient than the racial river dance--it will also keep their teeth white.
25. Liberal racists at the Daily Kos get very upset when you write an essay that—gasp!—gets attention, goes viral, has many comments, or “hits”. Because of course, the only reason someone writes something online at the Daily Kos is to work in obscurity. Moreover, never be a black or brown person who writes something “popular” and critical about white racism at the Daily Kos.
Remember that haters are always gonna hate.
A wise person told me that “the ultimate disrespect is to look at someone and lie to them”. I have, however reluctantly, come to the conclusion that liberal racists prefer lies to the truth. Consequently, they are not worthy of any respect.
If the Daily Kos is indeed a cathedral, many of its members will condemn you, calling thee a heretic if you dare to talk critically about whiteness and white privilege. In many ways, white liberals are of the same faith as white conservatives on matters of justice and the color line—separated in belief from one another only by virtue of their membership in a different denomination.
Racism is not an opinion. It is a fact.
White supremacy is one of the most powerful social forces and ideologies in the United States (and the West). As such, it is reflected in our political discourse, and both intentionally (through active racism) and unintentionally (implicit bias) reproduced by individuals.
Online spaces are a great lens into white supremacy because they are a type of public arena where individuals can drop the mask of social conformity and desirability, revealing their private thoughts and true selves.
Thus, comment sections are transformed into a space where “backstage racism” can be transformed into direct and public acts.
I have shared my essays here on the Daily Kos for several years. There are some good and sincere folks here who I have talked to via email and through other mediums. There are likely many “lurkers” who read, give “recs”, and share work they find valuable and useful with their friends, family, colleagues, and others in their personal networks.
By definition, those individuals who frequently comment on and read political websites are outliers relative to the general population. And while the Daily Kos is a “liberal” or “progressive” website, it still reflects the biases, habits, and beliefs of the individuals who frequent it.
For example, if a given society is racist, sexist, and homophobic, then its members and culture, to varying degrees, will be a reflection of those values. Some will resist them; others will actively reproduce and support them; most will go about their quotidian lives, a herd or mass public to be directed one way or another as their personal whims and desires pull, and cues from elites direct them.
White liberals love to point out the racism of conservatives and republicans. This is an easy task in the post civil rights era because the Tea Party GOP is the United States’ de facto White identity party.
It is far more difficult for white liberals and progressives to look in the proverbial mirror and to take a personal inventory of their own possessive investment in whiteness, and how they reproduce white supremacy as a lived ideology.
Liberal or “aversive” racism is the counterpart to the “symbolic” and “old fashioned” racism practiced by conservatives and the White Right.
My most recent posts on the Daily Kos (an essay on Dr. Martin Luther King and White memory; a new piece on ISIS’s barbarism and the lynching of black Americans by white people) have been met with many hundreds of comments. Those essays were also shared many thousands of times on Facebook and other social media.
Collectively, the comments on my essay on ISIS, as well as white historical memory and Dr. King, are a lesson in the enduring power of liberal racism. I have learned much from them.
As I have done in the past, what follows are some helpful guidelines and observations for people of color (and white folks of conscience) who dare to speak some “truth to power” about race or racism at the Daily Kos.
1. White people are very sensitive. Many of them get very upset and angry when you tell the truth about racism, white supremacy, or white privilege. Never speak plainly and directly to liberal racists. They may wilt.
2. Liberal racists and their allies believe that it is “unnecessary” to comment on the plain on the face fact that black Americans were burned alive in much the same as ISIS did to the captured Jordanian, Muadh al Kasasbeh.
3. Addendum to the above. The spectacular lynchings of black Americans by white people were “a long time ago” so it should not be discussed anymore lest white people be made uncomfortable. For the White Gaze a long time ago is compressed to 50 years.
4. Be prepared for the deflection and dismissive comment that, “everyone knows this stuff! Why are you bringing it up!”
5. If you want to talk about racism and how black folks were subjected to horrific violence by white people—much of it worse than what ISIS visited upon Muadh al Kasasbeh—during Black History Month, one must get permission from white people first. This is especially true during Black History Month because black folks tend to get too confident and back sass white folks during those 28 days.
6. The idea that white people who benefit in the present from systems of material advantage and other unearned privileges, outcomes that are the direct result of racial terrorism against non-whites, should “own” their history, is very upsetting and provocative to white folks. Never forget that White America and White Americans are a people and a country without a history.
7. If you talk to white people about racism you should speak in the same tone and manner as Bill Moyers.
8. Second Bill Moyers rule. White folks, especially liberal racists here on the Daily Kos and elsewhere, will only believe something is true and appropriate to discuss if a white man like Bill Moyers says it is.
9. Third Bill Moyers rule. Well-documented events, such as horrific violence against black Americans as committed by whites, only occurred if a white person says they did. The white speaker effect is very real in America’s racial discourse.
10. “Class issues” and “real progressive politics” trump any concern about race and racial justice.
11. Daring to talk about the burning to death murder of Muadh al Kasasbeh by ISIS and how it resonates with the burning to death murder of thousands of black people by white Americans is a type of “black racial narcissism”.
12. White supremacists and liberal racists have much in common with their rage at the premise that a black person would dare to talk about white on black lynchings in the United States and ISIS.
13. White supremacists and liberal racists at the Daily Kos channel much the same animus and rage at black folks who tell them things they do not want not want to hear. The former are just more honest; the latter pretty up their racial ugliness just a bit more.
14. Liberal racists—like their Right-wing compatriots—will derail, distract, and obfuscate your claims.
15. Liberal racists—like their Right-wing compatriots—also use standard troll tactics such as picking on one word in a title or other questions of grammar and emphasis to avoid dealing with the facts you have presented.
16. White supremacy’s reflection is very ugly to most white folks—especially those who have not disowned Whiteness.
17. These people are especially upset by the premise that someone like them, in their own immediate family, neighborhood, or other relation could/would have participated in a lynching, owned slaves, or benefitted from an act of inter-personal or institutional white supremacy.
18. Remember that being a victim of white racial terrorism is the present lived experience for non-whites in the United States and elsewhere. These are living memories. And yes, many of the victims of white racial terrorism are still alive.
19. Whiteness is ahistorical: one of the primary advantages of being white in America is the luxury of being an individual unmoored from the past, history, and perpetually living in a bubble of white innocence.
20. If the word “thug” is the new “nigger” then when white folks call a black person “angry”, “combative”, “bitter”, “unhinged”, or “disrespectful” they are channeling the new “uppity”…the latter being a crime that not too long ago could be punished by the lynching tree.
21. Right-wing racists are much more honest, and thus easier to deal with, than liberal racists.
22. At some point in the conversation, white privilege deems that white folks who are unhappy with how a person of color dares to talk about racism will somehow be magically transformed into the real “victims”.
23. The rules for how white supremacy and white racism should be discussed must always be set by white folks so that they can be told what they want to hear, their assumptions about their goodness and innocence validated, and their egos stroked.
24. Racist River Dancing. At some point, a liberal racist, will call you a “nigger” in everything but name. Liberal racists are very good at calling blacks who make them upset “niggers” by using many more than just one efficient word. I grant liberal racists the permission to call me a "nigger" if they are sufficiently aroused to anger. It is much more efficient than the racial river dance--it will also keep their teeth white.
25. Liberal racists at the Daily Kos get very upset when you write an essay that—gasp!—gets attention, goes viral, has many comments, or “hits”. Because of course, the only reason someone writes something online at the Daily Kos is to work in obscurity. Moreover, never be a black or brown person who writes something “popular” and critical about white racism at the Daily Kos.
Remember that haters are always gonna hate.
A wise person told me that “the ultimate disrespect is to look at someone and lie to them”. I have, however reluctantly, come to the conclusion that liberal racists prefer lies to the truth. Consequently, they are not worthy of any respect.
If the Daily Kos is indeed a cathedral, many of its members will condemn you, calling thee a heretic if you dare to talk critically about whiteness and white privilege. In many ways, white liberals are of the same faith as white conservatives on matters of justice and the color line—separated in belief from one another only by virtue of their membership in a different denomination.
Chris Matthews has a warning Democrats better heed for 2016
By Egberto Willies
Chris Matthews made a point about the candidates that Democrats are putting up in 2016. He made a comment that is rather prescient.
"Democrats think they can win back the US Senate in 2016. And to do that they are trying to lure back names back into the political arena for comeback bids," Chris Matthews said. "The thinking is that strong Democratic candidates who lost in the GOP wave elections of 2010 and 2014 when turnout was exceedingly low and bad for Democrats, they have a chance of winning in a Presidential year when voter turnout is usually high."
Chris Matthews then displayed a parade of Democratic election losers including Former Senators Mark Begich (D-AK), Kay Hagan (D-NC), & Russ Feingold (D-WI), Former Representative Joe Sestak (D-PA), and Former Governors Charlie Crist (D-FL) & Ted Strickland (D-OH).
The prominent list consists of one White woman and five White men. They are all over fifty. Hillary Clinton's potential candidacy has stifled the development of any real debate for a candidate to move past their past.
The Democratic Party has mostly the correct values. It has mostly the correct policies. What it is lacking is a broad bench for Americans to see.
The Republican Primary may turn out to be another exercise of free comedic entertainment. But their candidates look like America even as they articulate lunacy. They have the young and Latino in Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio. They have the Black man in Ben Carson. They have the woman in Carly Fiorina. They have the establishment middle-aged White guys in Rand Paul, Chris Christie, Jeb Bush, and Scott Walker. And they have the religious fanatic in Mike Huckabee. Now that is diversity, not the one America needs philosophically, but visually.
Democrats should fear two things. The first is that the predictable Presidential surge will fail to materialize when all Democrats see are retreads. Secondly, a well defined narrative for Hillary Clinton could set in, a narrative that she could have problems shaking. There are many narratives that could come back and bite her as the Republicans jump on the income inequality train. Republicans know how to do that well especially for a flawed candidate.
So here is the question. Where is the Democratic bench? Are there any fresh candidates with great ideas ready to fill it? In today's politics the optics and semblance of what one will do is much more effective than a party's articulated platform.
Chris Matthews made a point about the candidates that Democrats are putting up in 2016. He made a comment that is rather prescient.
"Democrats think they can win back the US Senate in 2016. And to do that they are trying to lure back names back into the political arena for comeback bids," Chris Matthews said. "The thinking is that strong Democratic candidates who lost in the GOP wave elections of 2010 and 2014 when turnout was exceedingly low and bad for Democrats, they have a chance of winning in a Presidential year when voter turnout is usually high."
Chris Matthews then displayed a parade of Democratic election losers including Former Senators Mark Begich (D-AK), Kay Hagan (D-NC), & Russ Feingold (D-WI), Former Representative Joe Sestak (D-PA), and Former Governors Charlie Crist (D-FL) & Ted Strickland (D-OH).
The prominent list consists of one White woman and five White men. They are all over fifty. Hillary Clinton's potential candidacy has stifled the development of any real debate for a candidate to move past their past.
The Democratic Party has mostly the correct values. It has mostly the correct policies. What it is lacking is a broad bench for Americans to see.
The Republican Primary may turn out to be another exercise of free comedic entertainment. But their candidates look like America even as they articulate lunacy. They have the young and Latino in Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio. They have the Black man in Ben Carson. They have the woman in Carly Fiorina. They have the establishment middle-aged White guys in Rand Paul, Chris Christie, Jeb Bush, and Scott Walker. And they have the religious fanatic in Mike Huckabee. Now that is diversity, not the one America needs philosophically, but visually.
Democrats should fear two things. The first is that the predictable Presidential surge will fail to materialize when all Democrats see are retreads. Secondly, a well defined narrative for Hillary Clinton could set in, a narrative that she could have problems shaking. There are many narratives that could come back and bite her as the Republicans jump on the income inequality train. Republicans know how to do that well especially for a flawed candidate.
So here is the question. Where is the Democratic bench? Are there any fresh candidates with great ideas ready to fill it? In today's politics the optics and semblance of what one will do is much more effective than a party's articulated platform.
Joy Reid’s MSNBC Show Canceled
By Andrew Kirell
According to two internal sources, MSNBC has canceled The Reid Report. The daytime show, airing weekdays at 2 p.m. ET and hosted by Joy Reid, has long been rumored to be on the chopping block.
Our sources at the network say Reid was informed of her show’s cancellation on Thursday. It is unclear when the show will go off-air.
Media watchers have long speculated whether the “Lean Forward” network will shake up its struggling daytime lineup, especially after 1 p.m. ET host Ronan Farrow‘s eponymous show fell to a stunning 11k viewers in the ages 25-54 demo just a few weeks ago. While Farrow has been the subject of most cancellation rumors, The Reid Report has frequently been named as well.
To that end, one of our tipsters — who has worked at MSNBC for just under a decade — complained to Mediaite that the decision to cancel Reid but seemingly keep Farrow in the lineup is “a slap in the face of a woman of color,” especially because Reid’s ratings have been consistently higher than Farrow’s, and yet “she’s been given no support and no promotion.”
MSNBC declined to comment for this story.
UPDATE — 5:24 p.m. ET: It’s confirmed. Reid is out; and so is Ronan Farrow, contrary to our source’s initial complaint.
According to two internal sources, MSNBC has canceled The Reid Report. The daytime show, airing weekdays at 2 p.m. ET and hosted by Joy Reid, has long been rumored to be on the chopping block.
Our sources at the network say Reid was informed of her show’s cancellation on Thursday. It is unclear when the show will go off-air.
Media watchers have long speculated whether the “Lean Forward” network will shake up its struggling daytime lineup, especially after 1 p.m. ET host Ronan Farrow‘s eponymous show fell to a stunning 11k viewers in the ages 25-54 demo just a few weeks ago. While Farrow has been the subject of most cancellation rumors, The Reid Report has frequently been named as well.
To that end, one of our tipsters — who has worked at MSNBC for just under a decade — complained to Mediaite that the decision to cancel Reid but seemingly keep Farrow in the lineup is “a slap in the face of a woman of color,” especially because Reid’s ratings have been consistently higher than Farrow’s, and yet “she’s been given no support and no promotion.”
MSNBC declined to comment for this story.
UPDATE — 5:24 p.m. ET: It’s confirmed. Reid is out; and so is Ronan Farrow, contrary to our source’s initial complaint.
MSNBC Gets One Right By Canceling Ronan Farrow
By Jason Easley
It is a day of change at MSNBC as the network has canceled the extremely low rated Ronan Farrow show. The cancellation of Farrow comes on the same day that the network also canceled Joy Reid.
Via The Wrap:
Farrow’s program was the lowest rated show on any of the three cable networks. As I wrote, when the news of Reid’s cancelation was announced, “Ronan Farrow’s ratings are so bad that he is finishing behind a newscast on Al-Jazeera America. On February 4, 2014, Farrow had 22,000 total viewers compared to 44,000 for Al Jazeera America (AJAM). The former Current TV is available in fewer homes than MSNBC, so a smaller network is doubling Farrow’s viewership. Joy Reid was also struggling in the ratings, but her show was not performing as badly as Farrow’s. Plus, any chance that she had to be successful was destroyed by the fact that Farrow was her lead in.”
Joy Reid didn’t deserve to get the axe. Ronan Farrow’s cancellation was long overdue. Farrow’s show never worked. He was almost painful at times to watch. Farrow wasn’t a television person, and it showed. It got to the point where putting Farrow’s show out of its misery was the humane thing to do.
Thomas Roberts is MSNBC’s utility player, and he will almost certainly generate higher ratings than Farrow. Moving Roberts to 5 AM ahead of the slumping Morning Joe always felt like a waste of talent. MSNBC might have been better served to have Roberts take Farrow’s spot and leave Joy Reid at 2 PM, but apparently Reid has to pay for Phil Griffin’s terrible decision to hire the untested Farrow.
The good news for viewers is that it looks like Phil Griffin’s wonk obsession might be coming to an end. The other long-rumored move to be coming is that Chris Hayes will be moved out of 8 PM. Once Hayes is moved to a timeslot that better fits his talents, MSNBC will finally be on a path towards righting the ship.
Update: An MSNBC spokesperson tells PoliticusUSA that MSNBC is moving towards a more news driven lineup between 11 AM-3PM ET. It looks like the wonk experiment is over at MSNBC.
It is a day of change at MSNBC as the network has canceled the extremely low rated Ronan Farrow show. The cancellation of Farrow comes on the same day that the network also canceled Joy Reid.
Via The Wrap:
MSNBC’s daytime changes continued Thursday with the cancellation of “Ronan Farrow Daily,” an MSNBC spokesperson confirmed to TheWrap.It’s about time.
….
The network will move “Way Too Early” host Thomas Roberts to the 1 p.m . to 3 p.m. timeslot, where he’ll host a news show.
Farrow’s program was the lowest rated show on any of the three cable networks. As I wrote, when the news of Reid’s cancelation was announced, “Ronan Farrow’s ratings are so bad that he is finishing behind a newscast on Al-Jazeera America. On February 4, 2014, Farrow had 22,000 total viewers compared to 44,000 for Al Jazeera America (AJAM). The former Current TV is available in fewer homes than MSNBC, so a smaller network is doubling Farrow’s viewership. Joy Reid was also struggling in the ratings, but her show was not performing as badly as Farrow’s. Plus, any chance that she had to be successful was destroyed by the fact that Farrow was her lead in.”
Joy Reid didn’t deserve to get the axe. Ronan Farrow’s cancellation was long overdue. Farrow’s show never worked. He was almost painful at times to watch. Farrow wasn’t a television person, and it showed. It got to the point where putting Farrow’s show out of its misery was the humane thing to do.
Thomas Roberts is MSNBC’s utility player, and he will almost certainly generate higher ratings than Farrow. Moving Roberts to 5 AM ahead of the slumping Morning Joe always felt like a waste of talent. MSNBC might have been better served to have Roberts take Farrow’s spot and leave Joy Reid at 2 PM, but apparently Reid has to pay for Phil Griffin’s terrible decision to hire the untested Farrow.
The good news for viewers is that it looks like Phil Griffin’s wonk obsession might be coming to an end. The other long-rumored move to be coming is that Chris Hayes will be moved out of 8 PM. Once Hayes is moved to a timeslot that better fits his talents, MSNBC will finally be on a path towards righting the ship.
Update: An MSNBC spokesperson tells PoliticusUSA that MSNBC is moving towards a more news driven lineup between 11 AM-3PM ET. It looks like the wonk experiment is over at MSNBC.
Thursday, February 19, 2015
HEAVY METAL
Posted by the man of twists and turns
The Science of Cast Iron Cooking. The Truth About Cast Iron. How To Season A Cast Iron Skillet:
Cast Iron: A Love Story leads to
The Cast Iron Chronicles {1} - "As you can guess from pretty much every post on this blog, I am deeply devoted to cast iron. "
The Cast Iron Chronicles {2} - " My plan is to continue with the steel wool and then transition to the coarse sand paper as needed."
The Cast Iron Chronicles {3} - "I trust that it’s an important step but the science is a mystery to me!"
The Cast Iron Chronicles {4} - " I promise that when we did this portion of the restoration we had a fire extinguisher on hand and that the pan was not close to anything that could catch on fire."
The Cast Iron Chronicles {5} - "It took me a few minutes to accept it, seeing as how I’ve been cracking at this beast for weeks I didn’t think I’d ever get to the point where I’d be ready to fry an egg in it."
The Cast Iron Chronicles {6} - "I’ve always been taught that to season a pan you coat it in animal or vegetable fat (or a combination), and put it in a warm oven for an hour. Then you let it cool, rinse, and repeat."
The Best Cast Iron Recipies
Iron-clad goodness
What We Can Learn From A Cast Iron Pan.
How to season, use and love cast iron skillets (with recipes)
The Cast-Iron Secret to Serious Pizza: Recipe: Vaughn's Perfect Skillet Pizza
The Pizza Lab: Foolproof Pan Pizza
The Science of Cast Iron Cooking. The Truth About Cast Iron. How To Season A Cast Iron Skillet:
The skillet you want is at least fifty years old, and right now it is probably sitting on a thrift store shelf or a yard sale table. Your first task is to locate it. Until the 1960's, the final stage in manufacturing cast iron was to machine-polish each pan until the cooking surface was as smooth as glass. New cast iron is sold unpolished, that is, fresh out of the mold, with a texture like pitted Formica. The cast iron companies claim that the new, unpolished skillets are as easy to season and as non-stick as the old, polished ones—but then they would say that. You can polish new cast iron yourself with an orbital sander and some 80 grit, followed by hand sanding with 220 grit wet-dry, then 320, then 400, then 600 for good measure, but let’s face it, you’d rather have those five hours of your life and the ridges on your fingernails intact. The skillet you want is polished already.How To Season A Cast Iron Pan. 5 Myths Of Cast Iron Cookware.
Cast Iron: A Love Story leads to
The Cast Iron Chronicles {1} - "As you can guess from pretty much every post on this blog, I am deeply devoted to cast iron. "
The Cast Iron Chronicles {2} - " My plan is to continue with the steel wool and then transition to the coarse sand paper as needed."
The Cast Iron Chronicles {3} - "I trust that it’s an important step but the science is a mystery to me!"
The Cast Iron Chronicles {4} - " I promise that when we did this portion of the restoration we had a fire extinguisher on hand and that the pan was not close to anything that could catch on fire."
The Cast Iron Chronicles {5} - "It took me a few minutes to accept it, seeing as how I’ve been cracking at this beast for weeks I didn’t think I’d ever get to the point where I’d be ready to fry an egg in it."
The Cast Iron Chronicles {6} - "I’ve always been taught that to season a pan you coat it in animal or vegetable fat (or a combination), and put it in a warm oven for an hour. Then you let it cool, rinse, and repeat."
The Best Cast Iron Recipies
Iron-clad goodness
What We Can Learn From A Cast Iron Pan.
How to season, use and love cast iron skillets (with recipes)
The Cast-Iron Secret to Serious Pizza: Recipe: Vaughn's Perfect Skillet Pizza
The Pizza Lab: Foolproof Pan Pizza
The way I see it, there are three basic difficulties most folks have with pizza:
Problem 1: Kneading. How long is enough? What motion do I use? And is it really worth the doggone effort?
Problem 2: Stretching. Once I've got that disk of dough, how do I get it into the shape of an actual pizza, ready to be topped?
Problem 3: Transferring. Ok, let's say I've got my dough made and perfectly stretched onto my pizza peel. How do I get it onto that stone in the oven without disturbing the toppings or having it turn into a misshapen blob?
This recipe avoids all three of those common pitfalls, making it pretty much foolproof. To be perfectly honest, every single one of these steps has been done before, and none of it is rocket science. All I'm doing is combining them all into a single recipe.
You can jump straight into a full step-by-step slideshow of the process or find the exact measurements and instructions in the recipe here, or read on for a few more details on what to expect and how we got there.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)