Blogoland

Michelle Malkin asks, "What Would It Take for Joe Lieberman to Fire Harry Reid?"

Answer: Nothing. Lieberman is not a Democrat. He also wields no power. He can "fire" Harry Reid in the same way I can "fire" President Bush.

Perhaps it was inevitable that the Sci Fi Channel chose to program wrestling.

Beclown: I thought this was supposed to be the hot new word in the jingosphere, the "word of the year" as some estimable pundits described it, circa 60 days ago. What happened? Was it too damn stupid?

For some reason, one of the Powerlinemen puts up a somewhat gracious (!) post noting the passing of David Halberstam (including a dig at his Vietnam reporting, of course)

Now let's jump over to the comment board, shall we, where a Power fanboy named "jmoss1976" notes:

Not a bad obit for a left wing hack who undermined our efforts in ‘Nam.

What goes around.....

Ha. See, his traitorous reporting was bad karma that got him killed. Or something. Classy.

Or as a later commenter notes:

I was wondering how long it would take Powerline to start the race to the bottom of the barrel.

Whatever. Just read Greenwald on the matter of Halberstam.

UPDATE: Okaaay, now we get it. See, Halberstam was going after "liberal Democrats" in his early 60's reportage. Erego his negative take on Vietnam was conducted in an "earnest and probably good faith effort."

It's really very hard to describe these people at Power Line as anything but ridiculous buffons.

Yes. Good for the Rutgers women for not meeting with Sen. Clinton. I think those women recognize rank political opportunism when they see it.

Let's unpack this, shall we?

The Manhattan-Beltway media elite are very similar to the lords of the Confederacy in terms of reverence for a code of honor they simply refuse to believe has enormous flaws in it, flaws which are glaring and obvious to outsiders but which are at best unspoken of in politce company and at worst so deeply inculcated in MSM-lifers that they cannot begin to imagine the absurdity of their claims to such things as objectivity.It goes without saying that the self-esteem that journalist feel for themselves has nothing of the moral depravity that slavery burdened the South's aristocracy with, but when the audience clapped for [NBC News President Steve] Capus' defense of Katrina coverage when it was at best parasitical and at worst a hysteria-inducing mini-series that left almost wholly unexamined its own pre-storm failures in reporting on the lack of preparation of the local, state and federal governments as well as the excesses of the coverage, the obviousness of their obliviousness to the rapidly accelerating eclipse of their authority was keen.

That's real nice of Hugh, first comparing the news media to the Confederacy, then pointing out (it goes without saying... I guess...heh-heh) that people like Keith Olbermann and Brit Hume are not quite as morally depraved as, say, slaveholders. To even conjure the idea that the media are somewhow comparable to the Confederacy is grotesque. But then, that's ole Hugh for you.

Second, that Hewitt is criticizing anyone regarding pre-Katrina coverage is almost gut-bustingly hilarious. To wit, here's Hugh on his radio show talking to NYU's Jay Rosen, in Sept. 2005:

Again, I've got a proposition for you, because they [reporters] did not do their homework, because they did not understand the levees were the threat, they ended up killing hundreds of Americans. I'm not going to say thousands, because I don't know the number. But I know hundreds are dead, that they did not communicate the severity of this storm.

An assertion which, as we detailed here, was so laughably stupid and wrong -- and, frankly, crazy -- it defies description. It was wrong then and it's wrong now, no matter how many times Mr. Hewitt declares it otherwise.

See, there's a reason media types don't take you seriously, Mr. Hewitt: You are an unreliable, feces-slinging kook. That certain groups even have you on their panels is clear enough indication that they don't really read you.

P.S. When you can manage to spell the words "Capus" (not with a "K") and "Trippi" (not with three "I's"and one "P") properly in the course of a missive excoriating the news media for its unreliability, then maybe we'll talk.

Praise the Lord we have sensible people like Rush to explain the real facts:

Who is it that made this guy hate the rich? Why, there's only one answer to this! The Democrat Party, the American left and their willing accomplices in the Drive-By Media, routinely portray the rich as a bunch of evil, rotten SOBs who are out to steal everybody else's money.

[...]

This guy had to be a liberal. You start railing against the rich, and all these other things? This guy is a liberal. He was turned into a liberal somewhere along the line. So it's a liberal that committed this act.

Enlightening. It should be noted that this discourse is filed on his web page under the title "The Left's Hatred, Demonization of 'Evil Rich' Comes Home to Roost." Meanwhile, Jon Swift has found others to blame.

Glenn Reynolds, April 18, 8:39 P.M:

DAVE WINER to NBC: Free the video!

Glenn Reynolds, April 19, 10:23 A.M.:

"SOCIAL CATASTROPHE:" "The blood of the victims of the 'next one' is on the hands of everyone in the decision-making chain at NBC for this utterly inexcusable decision."

So...April 18 Glenn Reynolds says that the unexpurgated, unedited, full tapes should be released, in the interest of... something, to which April 19 Glenn responds: "Blood on hands... urp, next victims, copycat, err."

You really have to marvel at the chutzpah.

When your team is ahead 5-1 in the 7th, we don't need to hear your "Oh, it's a long season, it's early, you read the Philly Inquirer and it's like the sky is falling" bullshit. It's really easy to say that when your team is on its way to 8-4, as opposed to, say 3-9.

Cut the fakery, mustache.

Deb-bie! Deb-bie! Deb-bie!

On the Palestinian side, Jamal Al-Barghouti, a Palestinian Student from the "West Bank" (who grew up in Saudi Arabia) took video of the shooting that made TV worldwide.

His film didn't save a single person, but he's getting far more media attention and kudos than the barely-mentioned Librescu is getting. And he used the "opportunity" on CNN, to compare the Virginia Tech massacre to "violence" in the in the "Occupied Territories". One problem with his story: He grew up in SAUDI ARABIA.

Wondering if he's related to Palestinian terrorist mastermind Marwan Barghouti, now in prison for planning mass terrorist attacks and homicide bombings, which murdered many Israelis? It's very likely.

Sick.

UPDATE: Shockingly, Schlussel has scrubbed that last paragraph significantly, without noting that she did so, and replaces it with this:

Wolf Blitzer noted that Barghouti is from a "prominent Palestinian family." That family is none other than the family of Palestinian terrorist mastermind Marwan Barghouti, now in prison for planning mass terrorist attacks and homicide bombings, which murdered many Israelis.

Uh, Debbie, Blitzer said: "The Barghouti family, a very prominent Palestinian family in the Middle East." He offered nothing further. Is this guy related to Marwan? I have no freaking clue. And, I suspect, neither do you. But I guess that doesn't stop you from spewing your baseless filth.

LATER: Goodness, the inter-trolls have been busy at DebbieSchlussel.com. Now that paragraph reads:

Wolf Blitzer noted that Barghouti is from a "distinguished Palestinian family." That "distinguished" family is none other than the family of Palestinian terrorist mastermind Marwan Barghouti, now in prison for planning mass terrorist attacks and homicide bombings, which murdered many Israelis. Glad to know that Wolf Blitzer and CNN now believe that being a terrorist and orchestrating the murder of several innocent people in cold blood is now "distinguished."

Keep it up, Debbie. Maybe next edit you'll just come out and say that Jamal and the Barghoutis are controlling your brain.

First Amendment enthusiast Glenn Reynolds:

And, speaking of "copycats," a Virginia Tech alumna in Kabul blogs: "Eight years ago, after Columbine, a group of students (including myself) from my high school met with then-President Clinton to talk about gun violence. I made a comment that the media was largely responsible, with the glorification of violence in big-budget blockbusters, and constant bombardment of violent images as 'fun.' Clinton shook off my comments, and it's funny, because now something on the same terrible scale has happened at a place close to me, and I still stand by them." I actually think that the sensationalized news coverage 24/7 is worse than the entertainment products.

Thank goodness there’s someone like Prof. Reynolds around to point out the reason a 22-year-old Asian immigrant massacred dozens at a university in Virginia is because he was inflamed by watching too much Neil Cavuto and Paula Zahn.

PS: Curious how much the non-sensaztionalizing and non-opportunistic Prof. Reynolds has posted on this story in less than, ahem, 24 hours? How about ten times (some of them quite lengthy), including a second crack at the "24/7 cable news coverage." He really is the most un-self-aware being around.

UPDATE: Re-reading Prof. Reynolds' original post, I guess what he's saying is that he's worried that the "sensationalized" coverage may result in a copycat shooting. Still, you have to hand it to a guy who exploits the shooting to advance his own agenda, all the while tut-tutting news outlets for doing the same thing.

CLARIFICATION: The non-opportunisitc Professor now has fifteen posts relating to the massacre at Virginia Tech, including some great juxtapositions like "Shootings like this are super-rare" quickly followed by: "What to do in mass shootings."

That's what the lover of all races tells his listeners Thursday:

When the program ended yesterday, I had to cut an audio bit for the season premiere of The Family Guy on Fox. I think they told me that this is the season premiere for networks season, whenever that next season starts...

Does anyone think this is a good idea?

UPDATE: Well, I'm very behind the times. MacFarlane confirmed that Limbaugh would be part of the show in March. From an interesting Chicago Sun-Times article:

On an upcoming guest voice: "Rush Limbaugh agreed to do the show, believe it or not. That's in our 'Star Wars' episode, which airs in the fall. He's playing himself, and it's a neutral gag. [Bill] O'Reilly turned us down."

Limbaugh was second choice? Ouch, as they say.

When he tapped out this sentence:

It may seem easy and unseemly for a Keyboard Warrior like me to criticize the conduct of the British troops.

He should have just stepped away from the laptop at that point.

This whole Duke-non-rape story, now that it has fallen apart completely, has been a disaster every which way: it has destroyed young men's lives, it has destroyed (justly) a district attorney's career, and it has destroyed the credibility of the alleged non-victim. And the media did not bathe themselves in any kind of glory in covering this matter.

It is a hideous story.

All that aside, can someone explain to me why the wingnuts have always been so crazed about this thing?

Really. Seriously. It's never been clear to me where the juice is coming from.

UPDATE: Ask, and you shall receive. The media. It's always about the media. From the never-let-you down InstaPundit.

LATER: Prof. Reynolds responds (which happens to be in the same link as the one in the update, just scroll down). I'm not sure if he's on to something, but the thoughts of Radley Balko have more of a ring of truth to me:

[T]o hear law-and-order right-wingers like Sean Hannity, Bill O'Reilly, Michael Savage, or the Powerline crew scream about prosecutoral excess, the rights of the accused, and political opportunism on the part of a prosecutor these past few months really strained all credulity. Yes. I'd love to think their interest in this case was motivated solely by their sense of justice. But come on. Does anyone not think the race and class of the accused, the race and class of the accuser, and the politics of feminism and anti-feminism had something to do with their sudden embrace of and familiarity with NACDL talking points?

Maybe I'm wrong. Maybe these conservatives have gotten religion. Maybe in the future, O'Reilly, Hannity, & co. will actually make a cause celebre about cases where the accused aren't rich white kids with high-paid attorneys accused of raping a poor black woman. I'm skeptical.

[...]

These kinds of injustices happens to all people, of course. It's just that most of them don't make the newspapers. The do also tend to happen disproportionately to black people, and to poor people who can't afford big-shot attorneys. And they happens far more frequently than most conservatives I know would ever care to acknowledge.

The right-wingers who left their law-and-order perch to hustle to these players' defense were no less politically motivated than the left-wingers who left their rights-of-the-accused perch to condemn them.

The right-wingers just happened to be right this time.

That sounds right to me. Or, as I told one of my emailers: "I guess the real question is this: Had this story not transpired the way it did (and the accusations were true), would these same blogs be covering it with as much fervor as they are now? I'm guessing not." She disagreed, but like Balko, I'm skeptical.

UPDATE XVII: Ugh. So now Prof. Reynolds is in why-I-care-about-guilt-vs.-innocence high dudgeon (which was never the point of this post), and links to Jonathan Wilde, a seemingly sincere-sounding fellow who voices his concern over whether Jose Padilla is found guilty or innocent (too bad he initially identifies him as "Edgar"). I'd buy that line of reasoning, and I agree that the Padilla case is a miscarriage of justice, except after conducting a search of Mr. Wilde's archives, I can't seem to find any posts discussing Edgar, Jose or Miguel Padilla's guilt or innocence. Perhaps he can direct me to some posts in which he actually delves into a topic that he identifies as an important matter.

You'd think that after spending time in Kurdistan, where he snapped photos, posted video and wrote about a market there, Patrick S. Lasswell would learn how to spell the name of the place he visited, right?

Repeat after me: Sulaimaniya, not Suliamaniya

And, yes, we got this via Prof. Reynolds, who we assume is under the impression that this is a story the terror-loving media just doesn't want you to see.

There ain't nobody better than Digby when he's angry.

Really, why do they even bother? Can't they just be some horrific kind of bad so we can stop paying attention?

LATER: Jeebus, who writes the headlines for the Inky? "Phils cough up loss to Braves in 11th" I guess that means they won.

It's good to be the king.

No matter how much money they spend, no matter how much hope they engender, no matter how many MVP's they have on the team, the Fightin' Phils will always be -- absent any kind of overwhelming evidence -- losers.

When you have runners on 2nd and 3rd with no outs and can't get a runner home, you are a loser. When you first-pitch swing against a guy who just walked the pitcher on four pitches, you are a loser. When you have a 3-2 lead, two outs, and an 0-2 count in the eighth, and think it would be a great idea to throw a pitch straight down the middle of the plate to give up a game-tying home run, you are a loser.

Same old crap. Just enough to lose.

Or as Conlin the sage sez: Don't ever count on this team.

Really, quite a surprise.

UPDATE: Commence the moving of the goalposts!

This morning, CNN's Soledad O'Brien asked Ware point-blank about the alleged "laughing and mocking" tale that Drudge was peddling about him yesterday. Ware replied (according to a "rough" Power Line transcription):

I did not heckle the senator. Indeed, I didn't say a word. I didn't even ask a question. In fact, when I raised my hand to ask a question, the press conference abruptly ended, so what I would suggest is that anyone who has any queries about whether I heckled, watch the videotape of the press conference.

That's about as forceful a denial as one could get. One would assume that CNN has the videotape; I think it might be worthwhile for CNN to slap it up on the website and let us decide whether there was any "heckling."

Slightly off-topic, if you want to listen to, say, an entire album, completely free -- and apparently, legally -- just go to NME.com. Somehow, they have full versions of Fields (an interesting new band I'm into), Arcade Fire, Clap Your Hands Say Yeah, Flaming Lips and others.

You have to register, but just give them some made-up crap.

No, you can't download it, from what I can gather.

It's going to be interesting to see how this turns out. Seems the brightest lights in right-blogistan are getting exercised over CNN reporter Michael Ware, who was described by that estimable chronicler of facts, Matt Drudge, as "laughing and mocking" Sens. Lindsey Graham and John McCain as the two held a press conference in Baghdad.

Unhelpfully, Drudge provides neither transcript nor a video to this really terrible act, so all we have to rely on is the second-hand, anonymous telling of the incident by what I'm sure is a disinterested "official" at the press conference. I guess the official was so steamed that he couldn't even conjure a quote or two to show us just how reprehensible Ware was.

Such sketchy reporting, however, has not stopped several brilliant individuals from tutting their tuts and actually embroidering the alleged incident [read here to see how InstaPundit's emailer characterizes an incident he's apparently never witnessed as "screaming"]. Or suggesting -- in a very professional way -- that Ware was drunk at the time.

Of course, what many of the critics of right-wingistan fail to realize -- Ware's "an activist, not a reporter!" they, ahem, shriek -- is that Ware had no problem lambasting Dems for wanting to set an arbitrary date for withdrawl.

And here's the best, "let's smear em all" from those beacons of credibilty, the Power Line:

Having publicly committed himself to the proposition that everything that happens in Iraq is a disaster, having publicly ridiculed those who pointed to optimistic developments, how can anyone trust that Ware's future reporting is giving us anything like the straight story from Iraq? And what does his conduct say about his employer, CNN? How much confidence can we have in their reporting from Baghdad, or anywhere else?

Hilarious. To that, I would only add: the memo was not a fake, so why don't we try to keep that "How can we ever trust them again" stuff in check, eh?

Also, here's CNN's version of the press conference.

UPDATE: To make it clear, it's entirely possible that Ware acted like a buffoon. But what struck me is how eagerly righty blogs lapped up Drudge's incredibly thin (and as Tbogg notes, extremely bogus-sounding) reportage.

ADDED: I can't believe an actual news organization picked up the Drudge crap. Here is KUTV in Salt Lake. Read it to believe. And I love this line:

As of Sunday night, KUTV.com was unaware of a response from the Cable News
Network regarding the report.

Alert to geniuses at KUTV: Call CNN if you're going to run an unsubtantiated smear by Drudge. Pick up a phone. You are a news organization. You try to ascertain a reasonable facsimile of the truth. You are not Drudge's press agent. "Unaware of a response...?!!!" Pathetic.