Kevin Koster commented on Bill O’Reilly Announces A Jihad Against People Who Don’t Hate Muslims Enough
2013-04-26 15:46:39 -0400
· Flag
O’Reilly’s rant somehow forgot that Muslims are not responsible for many of the outrageous murders and attacks we’ve seen over the past ten years. The DC snipers were not Muslims, but their situation was similar to the Tsarnaevs. The guy who murdered the kids in Norway was actually anti-Muslim and stated his position as such. Jared Loughner, James Holmes and Adam Lanza weren’t Muslims. Timothy McVeigh and Terry Nichols weren’t Muslims. But Bill O’Reilly would have us believe that the real threat is from the Muslims. Go figure.
Even stranger was the inclusion midway through the show of Glenn Beck’s odd consipiracy theories. Beck is of course still obsessed with the Saudi student who was questioned and released. Beck doesn’t seem to understand that Homeland Security could show him as a person of interest while questioning him and then drop the status after determining he wasn’t involved with anything. I wonder if this was the big reveal that Beck was threatening last week – when he demanded that President Obama obey him OR ELSE by this past Monday…
Even stranger was the inclusion midway through the show of Glenn Beck’s odd consipiracy theories. Beck is of course still obsessed with the Saudi student who was questioned and released. Beck doesn’t seem to understand that Homeland Security could show him as a person of interest while questioning him and then drop the status after determining he wasn’t involved with anything. I wonder if this was the big reveal that Beck was threatening last week – when he demanded that President Obama obey him OR ELSE by this past Monday…
Kevin Koster commented on Megyn Kelly Attacks Planned Parenthood, Advances Lie That Pres. Obama Supports Infanticide
2013-04-26 15:34:51 -0400
· Flag
Oh boy. Just when you think that the latest Fox News game of “Whack a Mole” was done, here we go again.
President Obama’s remarks today at Planned Parenthood directly addressed the bad behavior we’ve been noting here. He stated in more diplomatic terms that the anti-choice crowd pretty clearly wants to find any way they can to take us back to the 1950s, sending women who need abortions to back alley “doctors” like Kermit Gosnell. And he’s right. These guys have never been happy with the fact that abortion is legal and is protected as a right by Supreme Court rulings.
I agree with Priscilla that it’s outrageous to try to somehow tie Planned Parenthood to Kermit Gosnell. But that’s been the intent all along of the coverage the right wing has been giving the Gosnell case. The whole “outrage” silliness about networks not covering the trial was really intended by the right wing to promote the gory accounts of Gosnell’s crimes as typical of abortion clinics and of Planned Parenthood. No matter that Gosnell has been acknowledged as being a very rare case, one that was full of criminality under existing law, and one that tells a different story than the right wing is trying to spin. No, these guys just want to get the whole idea lumped in together.
And the continuing attempts to tie in the testimony of Alisa LaPolt Snow in Florida can’t be allowed to stand either. Snow was dealing with a Florida House bill (759) that GOP legislators crafted as an attempted public gotcha about fetuses born alive during a botched abortion. Except that 759 doesn’t establish anything not already covered by existing laws, including a federal law. (Aren’t right wingers supposed to not like adding more and more superfluous laws to the books?) The only difference was that 759 had a clause in it forcing the mother to surrender any baby born in this extremely unlikely situation and making it criminal for the doctor not to succeed in saving the life of that baby. Planned Parenthood opposed both of those bits of language, as the former was intended to publicly shame women who have abortions and the latter was intended to scare doctors away from their patients. The Florida GOP caved and dropped at least the former part of the language while softening the latter. At which point, Planned Parenthood dropped its opposition while noting the law is still superfluous.
So what does this have to do with President Obama speaking at PP today? Nothing, other than Fox trying to play the gotcha footage of Snow avoiding the pitfalls being thrown at her by no less than 3 Florida GOP state legislators. As I noted in the past, had she gone along with the semantics the GOP was using, the Fox News headline would have screamed that Planned Parenthood was admitting to infanticide. (The GOP legislators were trying to trick her into saying that the fetus was an infant.)
And Priscilla’s done a good job of showing that the Illinois state legislation was another gotcha attempt, which was sidestepped as usual by the Dems in that house, including President Obama.
Frankly, it’s disturbing how many times the GOP keeps trying this semantic game – proposing laws that are intended only to rile up their base but which have very little real effect in the end. They propose laws that are obviously objectionable and offensive to women, and then act morally outraged when they are called on their behavior. Or they act morally outraged when their political targets don’t take their bait.
In the end, the real purpose here winds up not being to get anything done but to do what Fox News does best – try to score some cheap political points at the expense of anyone they don’t like. In this case, it’s women who have abortions and politicians who protect womens’ rights. The GOP (and Fox News) knows that if they were to ever succeed in somehow banning abortion, the backlash against the GOP would be catastrophic. Women on all sides would oppose GOP candidates until the right to choose was restored, and the GOP brand would be tarnished for decades. They’d essentially be throwing away any chance at the Presidency or any voice in Congress for the rest of our lifetimes. And they know it. But if they bang the drum about it and chip away at the edges of it, they can rile up their base without ever having to take the big step that would finish them. Of course, some of the wackier GOP folk think they can get away with somehow banning it, but those guys are not taken seriously even by Fox News.
President Obama’s remarks today at Planned Parenthood directly addressed the bad behavior we’ve been noting here. He stated in more diplomatic terms that the anti-choice crowd pretty clearly wants to find any way they can to take us back to the 1950s, sending women who need abortions to back alley “doctors” like Kermit Gosnell. And he’s right. These guys have never been happy with the fact that abortion is legal and is protected as a right by Supreme Court rulings.
I agree with Priscilla that it’s outrageous to try to somehow tie Planned Parenthood to Kermit Gosnell. But that’s been the intent all along of the coverage the right wing has been giving the Gosnell case. The whole “outrage” silliness about networks not covering the trial was really intended by the right wing to promote the gory accounts of Gosnell’s crimes as typical of abortion clinics and of Planned Parenthood. No matter that Gosnell has been acknowledged as being a very rare case, one that was full of criminality under existing law, and one that tells a different story than the right wing is trying to spin. No, these guys just want to get the whole idea lumped in together.
And the continuing attempts to tie in the testimony of Alisa LaPolt Snow in Florida can’t be allowed to stand either. Snow was dealing with a Florida House bill (759) that GOP legislators crafted as an attempted public gotcha about fetuses born alive during a botched abortion. Except that 759 doesn’t establish anything not already covered by existing laws, including a federal law. (Aren’t right wingers supposed to not like adding more and more superfluous laws to the books?) The only difference was that 759 had a clause in it forcing the mother to surrender any baby born in this extremely unlikely situation and making it criminal for the doctor not to succeed in saving the life of that baby. Planned Parenthood opposed both of those bits of language, as the former was intended to publicly shame women who have abortions and the latter was intended to scare doctors away from their patients. The Florida GOP caved and dropped at least the former part of the language while softening the latter. At which point, Planned Parenthood dropped its opposition while noting the law is still superfluous.
So what does this have to do with President Obama speaking at PP today? Nothing, other than Fox trying to play the gotcha footage of Snow avoiding the pitfalls being thrown at her by no less than 3 Florida GOP state legislators. As I noted in the past, had she gone along with the semantics the GOP was using, the Fox News headline would have screamed that Planned Parenthood was admitting to infanticide. (The GOP legislators were trying to trick her into saying that the fetus was an infant.)
And Priscilla’s done a good job of showing that the Illinois state legislation was another gotcha attempt, which was sidestepped as usual by the Dems in that house, including President Obama.
Frankly, it’s disturbing how many times the GOP keeps trying this semantic game – proposing laws that are intended only to rile up their base but which have very little real effect in the end. They propose laws that are obviously objectionable and offensive to women, and then act morally outraged when they are called on their behavior. Or they act morally outraged when their political targets don’t take their bait.
In the end, the real purpose here winds up not being to get anything done but to do what Fox News does best – try to score some cheap political points at the expense of anyone they don’t like. In this case, it’s women who have abortions and politicians who protect womens’ rights. The GOP (and Fox News) knows that if they were to ever succeed in somehow banning abortion, the backlash against the GOP would be catastrophic. Women on all sides would oppose GOP candidates until the right to choose was restored, and the GOP brand would be tarnished for decades. They’d essentially be throwing away any chance at the Presidency or any voice in Congress for the rest of our lifetimes. And they know it. But if they bang the drum about it and chip away at the edges of it, they can rile up their base without ever having to take the big step that would finish them. Of course, some of the wackier GOP folk think they can get away with somehow banning it, but those guys are not taken seriously even by Fox News.
Kevin Koster commented on Dennis Miller Uses Boston Marathon Bombing To Advocate Ending Lifeline Telephone Program
2013-04-26 04:45:43 -0400
· Flag
The saddest part about this segment is that Dennis Miller was once a relevant and funny comedian. From 1986 to 1990, he did some really funny and pointed material on SNL, dealing with the presidencies of Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush, usually starting with the line, “Good evening and what can I tell you?” And then going off into some good material about the stories of the week.
Somewhere around the 1992 campaign, a switch got thrown in his head. I still remember one of his stand-up appearances as shown on HBO in early 1993, during which he stood up for Admiral Stockdale (Ross Perot’s chosen running mate) and became openly furious about Stockdale’s injuries. Over the next few years, his HBO show continued to show signs of him drifting farther and farther to the right. He probably simply went the libertarian route at first – the familiar “Why am I paying so much taxes?” idea. After 9/11, he really went the rest of the way over the side and became pretty openly right wing.
Throughout his career, he’s been known for making pop culture references. Back in the late 80s, this was pretty funny stuff. It didn’t go so well on Monday Night Football. And it sounds especially strange coming out of him now.
Looking at him today, it can be hard to reconcile the angry, bitter man featured on O’Reilly with the angry young comic of the 1980s. You can see the line connecting the two people, but it’s just sad to see this as the result. (It’s a lot easier to understand how Victoria Jackson fell down the rabbit hole.) And it’s strange that O’Reilly seems to be relying on Miller to provide instant humor for his show (usually accompanied by the sounds of guys in his crew laughing at how funny they think Miller is each week).
Somewhere around the 1992 campaign, a switch got thrown in his head. I still remember one of his stand-up appearances as shown on HBO in early 1993, during which he stood up for Admiral Stockdale (Ross Perot’s chosen running mate) and became openly furious about Stockdale’s injuries. Over the next few years, his HBO show continued to show signs of him drifting farther and farther to the right. He probably simply went the libertarian route at first – the familiar “Why am I paying so much taxes?” idea. After 9/11, he really went the rest of the way over the side and became pretty openly right wing.
Throughout his career, he’s been known for making pop culture references. Back in the late 80s, this was pretty funny stuff. It didn’t go so well on Monday Night Football. And it sounds especially strange coming out of him now.
Looking at him today, it can be hard to reconcile the angry, bitter man featured on O’Reilly with the angry young comic of the 1980s. You can see the line connecting the two people, but it’s just sad to see this as the result. (It’s a lot easier to understand how Victoria Jackson fell down the rabbit hole.) And it’s strange that O’Reilly seems to be relying on Miller to provide instant humor for his show (usually accompanied by the sounds of guys in his crew laughing at how funny they think Miller is each week).
Kevin Koster commented on Bret Baier’s Lapdog Interview With President And Laura Bush
2013-04-26 04:29:44 -0400
· Flag
I appreciate that this article notes the obvious point about Fox News. When it comes to interviewing GOP presidents and cabinet folk, they’re as deferential as can be. When it comes to interviewing Clinton and President Obama, they’re as confrontational as possible. And yet they want us to believe that they’re fair-minded. Right. They’re fair-minded for the most partisan viewers they have.
Kevin Koster commented on Fox News Features Extremist Anti-Abortion Priest Who Wants To Conduct Funerals For Remains In Gosnell Clinic
2013-04-25 17:15:49 -0400
· Flag
Fox News is tipping its hand a bit more than usual by giving Pavone this platform.
He, like Fox News, is trying to use this trial to generate publicity for anti-choice memes. The clear intention isn’t to do justice for Gosnell’s victims – that’s already happening in court. The intention is to try to portray Gosnell’s operation as a typical abortion clinic. Fox News just tried that again last night on O’Reilly when he interviewed a right wing GOP congresswoman who signed on to a letter to the various news networks.
BTW O’Reilly has threatened to inflict a special on this subject next Monday. Any chance that he might include people like Katha Pollitt or a proper representative of Planned Parenthood in the show?
He, like Fox News, is trying to use this trial to generate publicity for anti-choice memes. The clear intention isn’t to do justice for Gosnell’s victims – that’s already happening in court. The intention is to try to portray Gosnell’s operation as a typical abortion clinic. Fox News just tried that again last night on O’Reilly when he interviewed a right wing GOP congresswoman who signed on to a letter to the various news networks.
BTW O’Reilly has threatened to inflict a special on this subject next Monday. Any chance that he might include people like Katha Pollitt or a proper representative of Planned Parenthood in the show?
Kevin Koster commented on Hannity Guest: Obama’s Middle Name ‘A Clue’ To His ‘Weakness’ On Terrorism
2013-04-25 14:37:44 -0400
· Flag
What made this segment more frustrating than anything was that while Cunningham was allowed to spew hatred about President Obama without interruption, Joe Trippi was not allowed to finish even one sentence.
Granted that Trippi is not a very strong commentor much of the time. He hems and haws and usually appears to be willingly subservient to whatever Hannity wants to say about Democrats. (In his way, he’s similar to the Alan Colmes of 1996-2008.) But sometimes he does actually try to say something with a point.
And Trippi was trying to respond to Cunningham’s hatred. But before he could say more than a few words, Hannity shouted over him to cut him off, and Cunningham joined in, knowing he could get away with it. Trippi tried to call Hannity on what he was doing, but Hannity continued interrupting him and apparently never heard Trippi’s responses. So Trippi was left to stumble through maybe a third or half of a response to an extremely leading question that had nothing to do with the statement he had been trying to make – a statement that was intended to rebut Cunningham’s hatred. With Trippi derailed, Hannity happily ended the first part of the segment. They returned for a second part, but it didn’t get any better. Frankly, this was one of the more distateful Hannity segments I’ve seen in some time, and that’s saying something.
Granted that Trippi is not a very strong commentor much of the time. He hems and haws and usually appears to be willingly subservient to whatever Hannity wants to say about Democrats. (In his way, he’s similar to the Alan Colmes of 1996-2008.) But sometimes he does actually try to say something with a point.
And Trippi was trying to respond to Cunningham’s hatred. But before he could say more than a few words, Hannity shouted over him to cut him off, and Cunningham joined in, knowing he could get away with it. Trippi tried to call Hannity on what he was doing, but Hannity continued interrupting him and apparently never heard Trippi’s responses. So Trippi was left to stumble through maybe a third or half of a response to an extremely leading question that had nothing to do with the statement he had been trying to make – a statement that was intended to rebut Cunningham’s hatred. With Trippi derailed, Hannity happily ended the first part of the segment. They returned for a second part, but it didn’t get any better. Frankly, this was one of the more distateful Hannity segments I’ve seen in some time, and that’s saying something.
Kevin Koster commented on Bill O’Reilly Enemy Of The Day, Boston Bombing Edition: Tom Brokaw
2013-04-24 11:04:12 -0400
· Flag
Brokaw’s point, and the point of the journalist who asked the barbed question of Jay Carney, was to note that when we kill civilians in the Middle East, we engender a lot of understandable outrage. The correct response to that outrage is not to kill civilians. The O’Reilly/Fox News response seems to be to bring on pro-military people and compliant pundits who will talk about how we don’t target civilians on purpose. But that’s a dodge.
The issue isn’t whether someone aimed a drone at a civilian group on purpose. It’s about viewing the civilians that get killed as “collateral damage”. They aren’t just numbers on a sheet, as their families will attest.
The wildest part about this is that Tom Brokaw is by no means a left-wing reporter. He just isn’t toeing a hard enough right wing line for O’Reilly. His comments above are actually quite mild, which is typical for him. I think Ellen is on to something about O’Reilly being upset that Brokaw won’t likely be coming on his show to be yelled at in person. O’Reilly’s ego seems unsuited to admitting that he is not a legitimate journalist or an authority figure that other news figures need to answer to. O’Reilly has every right to pontificate – but he crosses the line when he expects everyone else to kowtow to him.
The issue isn’t whether someone aimed a drone at a civilian group on purpose. It’s about viewing the civilians that get killed as “collateral damage”. They aren’t just numbers on a sheet, as their families will attest.
The wildest part about this is that Tom Brokaw is by no means a left-wing reporter. He just isn’t toeing a hard enough right wing line for O’Reilly. His comments above are actually quite mild, which is typical for him. I think Ellen is on to something about O’Reilly being upset that Brokaw won’t likely be coming on his show to be yelled at in person. O’Reilly’s ego seems unsuited to admitting that he is not a legitimate journalist or an authority figure that other news figures need to answer to. O’Reilly has every right to pontificate – but he crosses the line when he expects everyone else to kowtow to him.
Kevin Koster commented on It Has Been Four Years Since Hannity Promised To Be Waterboarded For Charity
2013-04-23 06:36:43 -0400
· Flag
Hannity actually suggested that the Boston bomber be waterboarded tonight. Maybe they could have a double session – one for Sean, one for the bomber?
Kevin Koster commented on Fox's "The Five" Uses Gosnell Trial To Push Anti-Abortion Agitprop, Smear Pres. Obama As Infanticide Supporter
2013-04-24 11:39:49 -0400
· Flag
Jonathan, your post makes very little sense. You are conflating things and essentially comparing oranges to lettuce.
You fail to understand that women’s reproductive choices ARE legal, whether you personally approve of them or not. The issues in the Gosnell case are not about whether women have a right to terminate a pregnancy. They have to do with what happens when poor women become desperate, particularly when they don’t have any options or don’t know what those options are, and people like Gosnell take advantage of them.
Your comparison to heroin use is odd, but beyond that, it’s simply offensive to compare someone choosing to take addictive narcotics with a woman making reproductive health choices. The comparison with assault weapons is even sillier, and it’s odd that you would try to shoehorn that into your response.
Science absolutely does not “prove” that a fertilized egg is just as human as a fully developed fetus. It is a collection of cells that are starting to form. It is not a baby with any consciousness or sense of identity. If you’re saying that just a collection of cells is the same as a fully matured new baby, then you must also believe that amoebas are intelligent life forms, that bacteria and viruses are intelligent life forms, and that all forms of life on this planet, including plants are life forms that should be getting the same protection. Which is a ridiculous argument. As is your statement about the “baby’s right to live” when what you’re discussing is again, a collection of cells starting to form.
The laws we already have on the books make very reasonable and proper restrictions on when during a pregnancy we all agree that the baby has developed far enough that terminating it is impermissible. And those are some of the ones being used to prosecute Gosnell, and they will likely result in a long and severe sentence for him.
It is not up to you or anyone else to tell a woman what her priorities are in the event that she gets pregnant. Who are you to determine what her situation is? Who are you to lecture that woman? Women make the hard choice to have abortions for a variety of reasons, and not just because the pregnancy was “inconvenient” or an “accident” and it is frankly offensive to hear someone tout that as a primary motivator. In many cases, the woman in question cannot afford to go through a pregnancy and/or cannot afford to care for a newborn child. In many cases, the woman would like to have the child but has a medical problem that will make it unsafe for her to do so. It is not up to you to tell that woman to carry a child to term whether she likes it or not.
Your argument about handicaps is specious. If you mean that the parents shouldn’t have the right to terminate a pregnancy if the doctor tells them that the fetus has a variety of major issues that will potentially give the child an extremely difficult and/or short life, your argument is even more specious. It is not up to you to tell those parents that they should bear a child just to watch that child suffer. There are some really serious birth defects that can render a child unable to see, hear or even breathe upon birth. There are defects where the child’s organs simply don’t form, and those organs can include the brain. Who are you to tell the parents that they should bear a child under those circumstances?
In the case of a late-term abortion, this isn’t something that anyone does lightly and you know it isn’t. That’s a situation where there are complications that come up, once again either threatening the mother’s life, or insuring a situation where the developing baby is already compromised for a number of reasons. That’s when a doctor is forced to discuss options with the parents about what can be done to save the mother’s life and ease everyone’s pain. Kermit Gosnell’s little setup was nothing like this, and deliberately trying to fog the difference between a medical clinic and a man taking advantage of poor women is deeply, deeply offensive to anyone who understands these issues.
Your idea of somehow conflating parental responsibility to apply to a collection of cells in the process of formation is a heck of a reach. Your attempt to describe abortion as an automatic felony is both uniformed and again, offensive. We’re not talking about a 2 year old child. We’re talking about an undeveloped fetus that a mother chooses not to carry to full term. That is NOT a felony and you should know that. That is a medical procedure and a decision made by a doctor and a patient – one that you don’t get to make for them. If you’re thinking this is a matter of law, then you need to look at the Supreme Court rulings on the matter – they’ve repeatedly affirmed that women and their doctors are well within their rights to make this choice. If your goal is to overturn that, good luck. Right wing state legislatures have been trying for decades, and they always lose, even while they rile up their more hardheaded fans. Your logic about wanting the undeveloped fetus to have the “highest level of legal protection” smacks of the same thinking that we now see prompting right wingers to propose more and more legislation to chip away at the basic right already affirmed by the Supreme Court.
And while we’re on the subject of more and more legislation, I thought that right wingers wanted LESS government, not more.
You fail to understand that women’s reproductive choices ARE legal, whether you personally approve of them or not. The issues in the Gosnell case are not about whether women have a right to terminate a pregnancy. They have to do with what happens when poor women become desperate, particularly when they don’t have any options or don’t know what those options are, and people like Gosnell take advantage of them.
Your comparison to heroin use is odd, but beyond that, it’s simply offensive to compare someone choosing to take addictive narcotics with a woman making reproductive health choices. The comparison with assault weapons is even sillier, and it’s odd that you would try to shoehorn that into your response.
Science absolutely does not “prove” that a fertilized egg is just as human as a fully developed fetus. It is a collection of cells that are starting to form. It is not a baby with any consciousness or sense of identity. If you’re saying that just a collection of cells is the same as a fully matured new baby, then you must also believe that amoebas are intelligent life forms, that bacteria and viruses are intelligent life forms, and that all forms of life on this planet, including plants are life forms that should be getting the same protection. Which is a ridiculous argument. As is your statement about the “baby’s right to live” when what you’re discussing is again, a collection of cells starting to form.
The laws we already have on the books make very reasonable and proper restrictions on when during a pregnancy we all agree that the baby has developed far enough that terminating it is impermissible. And those are some of the ones being used to prosecute Gosnell, and they will likely result in a long and severe sentence for him.
It is not up to you or anyone else to tell a woman what her priorities are in the event that she gets pregnant. Who are you to determine what her situation is? Who are you to lecture that woman? Women make the hard choice to have abortions for a variety of reasons, and not just because the pregnancy was “inconvenient” or an “accident” and it is frankly offensive to hear someone tout that as a primary motivator. In many cases, the woman in question cannot afford to go through a pregnancy and/or cannot afford to care for a newborn child. In many cases, the woman would like to have the child but has a medical problem that will make it unsafe for her to do so. It is not up to you to tell that woman to carry a child to term whether she likes it or not.
Your argument about handicaps is specious. If you mean that the parents shouldn’t have the right to terminate a pregnancy if the doctor tells them that the fetus has a variety of major issues that will potentially give the child an extremely difficult and/or short life, your argument is even more specious. It is not up to you to tell those parents that they should bear a child just to watch that child suffer. There are some really serious birth defects that can render a child unable to see, hear or even breathe upon birth. There are defects where the child’s organs simply don’t form, and those organs can include the brain. Who are you to tell the parents that they should bear a child under those circumstances?
In the case of a late-term abortion, this isn’t something that anyone does lightly and you know it isn’t. That’s a situation where there are complications that come up, once again either threatening the mother’s life, or insuring a situation where the developing baby is already compromised for a number of reasons. That’s when a doctor is forced to discuss options with the parents about what can be done to save the mother’s life and ease everyone’s pain. Kermit Gosnell’s little setup was nothing like this, and deliberately trying to fog the difference between a medical clinic and a man taking advantage of poor women is deeply, deeply offensive to anyone who understands these issues.
Your idea of somehow conflating parental responsibility to apply to a collection of cells in the process of formation is a heck of a reach. Your attempt to describe abortion as an automatic felony is both uniformed and again, offensive. We’re not talking about a 2 year old child. We’re talking about an undeveloped fetus that a mother chooses not to carry to full term. That is NOT a felony and you should know that. That is a medical procedure and a decision made by a doctor and a patient – one that you don’t get to make for them. If you’re thinking this is a matter of law, then you need to look at the Supreme Court rulings on the matter – they’ve repeatedly affirmed that women and their doctors are well within their rights to make this choice. If your goal is to overturn that, good luck. Right wing state legislatures have been trying for decades, and they always lose, even while they rile up their more hardheaded fans. Your logic about wanting the undeveloped fetus to have the “highest level of legal protection” smacks of the same thinking that we now see prompting right wingers to propose more and more legislation to chip away at the basic right already affirmed by the Supreme Court.
And while we’re on the subject of more and more legislation, I thought that right wingers wanted LESS government, not more.
Kevin Koster commented on Fox Profiles Boston Marathon Bombing Suspect As A 'Jihadi'
2013-04-19 21:45:35 -0400
· Flag
I actually did hear various ideas thrown around on Monday and Tuesday night, but in person at the pub I frequent. The right wingers tended to take the point of view of “I don’t care WHY!” The more middle of the road of us tended to look at the possible causes. Some people jumped on the idea of the apartment being searched and a supposedly Arabic guy being under investigation. Some people noted that it was tax day and that it was also Patriot Day in Boston. All of us agreed that nobody would know anything until real evidence came in, but it was odd that nobody wanted to take credit for the act.
The “evidence free speculation” was going on on every channel, both on right wing radio and on all the cable news channels. Fox in particular had its pundits leaning to this being the work of foreign nationals coming to the US to commit terrorist acts. Rush Limbaugh devoted hours during the week to fomenting that the suspect was “brown skinned”, and specifically to trying to attack the left wing for waiting to see more facts before automatically assuming who did this.
The approach taken by the right wing media has clearly been to start with the notion that this was an organized terrorist attack by Muslims, build the groundwork for that and then scream, “See! We told you!” The left wing response has tended to be to wait for more evidence. The mainstream media has tended toward the middle of the road, as usual – some going down the Fox News road, some noting that there are plenty of other possibilities.
What happens next will likely be Fox and the right trying to tie these two guys to something bigger, as a way of fomenting against immigration reform and reinforcing people’s paranoia.
The “evidence free speculation” was going on on every channel, both on right wing radio and on all the cable news channels. Fox in particular had its pundits leaning to this being the work of foreign nationals coming to the US to commit terrorist acts. Rush Limbaugh devoted hours during the week to fomenting that the suspect was “brown skinned”, and specifically to trying to attack the left wing for waiting to see more facts before automatically assuming who did this.
The approach taken by the right wing media has clearly been to start with the notion that this was an organized terrorist attack by Muslims, build the groundwork for that and then scream, “See! We told you!” The left wing response has tended to be to wait for more evidence. The mainstream media has tended toward the middle of the road, as usual – some going down the Fox News road, some noting that there are plenty of other possibilities.
What happens next will likely be Fox and the right trying to tie these two guys to something bigger, as a way of fomenting against immigration reform and reinforcing people’s paranoia.
Kevin Koster commented on Hannity's Secret Sources Validate Newest Bogus Boston Bombing Conspiracy: Deportation Of Saudi Witness (That Isn't Happening!)
2013-04-20 05:49:11 -0400
· Flag
GCT, what point are you trying to make here? The Saudi from Boston to whom you return is not a “bombing suspect”. That’s a hoax that Fox News tried and failed to promulgate. Are you trying to start that up again?
And what are we to make of your website? Are you saying that we should rely exclusively on one person’s opinion – a person who you say is a “former Muslim Brotherhood member”?
We have confirmation that the Fox News story was erroneous. And now we have Glenn Beck going down the road you’re advocating – except that he thinks he can threaten someone (the Congress? the President?) or else he’ll do “something” on Monday. So are you agreeing with Glenn Beck? If so, you may find yourself in a lonely place.
And what are we to make of your website? Are you saying that we should rely exclusively on one person’s opinion – a person who you say is a “former Muslim Brotherhood member”?
We have confirmation that the Fox News story was erroneous. And now we have Glenn Beck going down the road you’re advocating – except that he thinks he can threaten someone (the Congress? the President?) or else he’ll do “something” on Monday. So are you agreeing with Glenn Beck? If so, you may find yourself in a lonely place.
Kevin Koster commented on Ed Henry Suggests Obama Won’t Catch Boston Marathon Bombers Because Of Benghazi ‘Fiasco’
2013-04-19 04:12:34 -0400
· Flag
I haven’t seen the clip, but I’m sure that O’Reilly immediately scolded Henry and told him that this was not an appropriate time to interject partisan politics. I’m sure that O’Reilly reminded him that people in Boston are mourning right now. I mean, O’Reilly wouldn’t be hypocritical about this stuff, would he?
Kevin Koster commented on Bill O’Reilly: Let’s Go To Barney Frank’s House And Drag Him Out And Scorn Him
2013-04-18 14:06:53 -0400
· Flag
Let me see if I understand this correctly.
Bill O’Reilly is angry that somebody made a political statement concerning the Boston bombing. (He actually went on and on about this, not only regarding Barney Frank but also about any left wing commentators he could find making comments.) And Barney Frank’s statement is a reasonable one, in which he notes that the hard right approach of cutting all services and having a government you could “drown in the bathtub” would have meant that the people of Boston would not have been able to get the help they needed. That’s actually not so much political as it is a simple dose of reality. The libertarian approach of “I got mine, heck with you” means that those people who can afford to take care of themselves will be okay, and everyone else, well, you’ll just have to deal with it. So Frank is correct on this.
But let’s allow that and just stay with O’Reilly not liking the left wing political statements he was hearing. And I’d agree with him that anyone stating that they hoped that the bomber turned out to be caucasian was saying something fairly distasteful.
However, O’Reilly must also be condemning the political comments being made from the right – such as Rush Limbaugh repeatedly screaming that he’d heard that Boston had arrested a man with “brown skin” and crowing about it for hours. O’Reilly must also be preparing an on-air confrontation with not only Limbaugh but Greg Gutfield to deal with their comments about banning pressure cookers, since both guys thought it would be funny to compare that with the gun legislation they were trying to ridicule. And O’Reilly must be preparing a Talking Points memo in which he apologizes to his viewers for his own politicizaton of the matter on the very night of the bombings, when he shoehorned the failed Benghazi smear into the discussion.
I’ll be waiting to see if O’Reilly can actually walk the walk on this – he says he’s equally hard on the right doesn’t he? (We’ll try not to shine too hard a light on that “We need to hold the House and take the Senate” line…) Or does O’Reilly only care about this stuff if the political language he hears is coming from the left?
Bill O’Reilly is angry that somebody made a political statement concerning the Boston bombing. (He actually went on and on about this, not only regarding Barney Frank but also about any left wing commentators he could find making comments.) And Barney Frank’s statement is a reasonable one, in which he notes that the hard right approach of cutting all services and having a government you could “drown in the bathtub” would have meant that the people of Boston would not have been able to get the help they needed. That’s actually not so much political as it is a simple dose of reality. The libertarian approach of “I got mine, heck with you” means that those people who can afford to take care of themselves will be okay, and everyone else, well, you’ll just have to deal with it. So Frank is correct on this.
But let’s allow that and just stay with O’Reilly not liking the left wing political statements he was hearing. And I’d agree with him that anyone stating that they hoped that the bomber turned out to be caucasian was saying something fairly distasteful.
However, O’Reilly must also be condemning the political comments being made from the right – such as Rush Limbaugh repeatedly screaming that he’d heard that Boston had arrested a man with “brown skin” and crowing about it for hours. O’Reilly must also be preparing an on-air confrontation with not only Limbaugh but Greg Gutfield to deal with their comments about banning pressure cookers, since both guys thought it would be funny to compare that with the gun legislation they were trying to ridicule. And O’Reilly must be preparing a Talking Points memo in which he apologizes to his viewers for his own politicizaton of the matter on the very night of the bombings, when he shoehorned the failed Benghazi smear into the discussion.
I’ll be waiting to see if O’Reilly can actually walk the walk on this – he says he’s equally hard on the right doesn’t he? (We’ll try not to shine too hard a light on that “We need to hold the House and take the Senate” line…) Or does O’Reilly only care about this stuff if the political language he hears is coming from the left?
Kevin Koster commented on Bret Baier Panel Uses Gosnell Trial To Push Anti-Abortion, Anti-Obama Agitprop
2013-04-16 14:44:44 -0400
· Flag
I didn’t know about the gag order, but it makes sense.
At the same time, the gory and unpleasant details of this story make it unlikely that any newspaper of any political stripe would make this Page 1 material anywhere. And the fact is, it WAS covered fairly extensively in 2011, at the time that Gosnell was charged and the state officials were held responsible. At that time, multiple media sources, particularly on the left, made the appropriate point that this situation is what happens when poor women either don’t have any options or don’t know they have any options. If the anti-choice people were to have their way, this rare situation would become sadly more common.
It isn’t just Fox News trying to blare this meme. Right wing radio hosts are having a field day with this. Gary Hoffman at Los Angeles AM radio’s KFI spent a good amount of time this Sunday on the matter. He dwelled on the gory details, took a very moral tone in his voice and intoned against the media that was shockingly not telling the story. And at the end of 30 minutes of banging this drum, he then piously tried to connect the case to the safe and legal abortions that many women choose to have. He did admit that the case was rare, but he forgot to discuss the gag order or the plentiful coverage the case has already received. His listeners immediately responded on his Facebook page with plaudits. I went on there to respond to a few of them, to correct the record.
The kicker here is that neither Fox News nor the AM radio hosts are being honest about why they are trying to spotlight this story. They’re hiding behind the victims and a projected moral outrage over the crimes. But they don’t normally come out and say what Gary Hoffman admitted at the end of his show – they just don’t want women to have abortions, period. They wish that Roe v Wade would be overturned, and if they can’t get their way on it (and they can’t), then they’ll just keep trying to chip away at it – using situations like this, or the attempted “gotcha” in the Florida State House last month. It’s clear that they’re trying to shame women out of choosing to have abortions by describing the most heinous images possible. And if they can’t shame them, they’ll settle for terrifying them. But the agenda is the same.
It points out the reason for websites like Newshounds and projects like Outfoxed to exist in the first place. Someone has to keep the record straight.
At the same time, the gory and unpleasant details of this story make it unlikely that any newspaper of any political stripe would make this Page 1 material anywhere. And the fact is, it WAS covered fairly extensively in 2011, at the time that Gosnell was charged and the state officials were held responsible. At that time, multiple media sources, particularly on the left, made the appropriate point that this situation is what happens when poor women either don’t have any options or don’t know they have any options. If the anti-choice people were to have their way, this rare situation would become sadly more common.
It isn’t just Fox News trying to blare this meme. Right wing radio hosts are having a field day with this. Gary Hoffman at Los Angeles AM radio’s KFI spent a good amount of time this Sunday on the matter. He dwelled on the gory details, took a very moral tone in his voice and intoned against the media that was shockingly not telling the story. And at the end of 30 minutes of banging this drum, he then piously tried to connect the case to the safe and legal abortions that many women choose to have. He did admit that the case was rare, but he forgot to discuss the gag order or the plentiful coverage the case has already received. His listeners immediately responded on his Facebook page with plaudits. I went on there to respond to a few of them, to correct the record.
The kicker here is that neither Fox News nor the AM radio hosts are being honest about why they are trying to spotlight this story. They’re hiding behind the victims and a projected moral outrage over the crimes. But they don’t normally come out and say what Gary Hoffman admitted at the end of his show – they just don’t want women to have abortions, period. They wish that Roe v Wade would be overturned, and if they can’t get their way on it (and they can’t), then they’ll just keep trying to chip away at it – using situations like this, or the attempted “gotcha” in the Florida State House last month. It’s clear that they’re trying to shame women out of choosing to have abortions by describing the most heinous images possible. And if they can’t shame them, they’ll settle for terrifying them. But the agenda is the same.
It points out the reason for websites like Newshounds and projects like Outfoxed to exist in the first place. Someone has to keep the record straight.
Kevin Koster commented on Bolling And Malkin Fear Monger About Costs Of Immigration Reform
2013-04-15 05:22:20 -0400
· Flag
This is another right wing dog whistle.
Ostensibly, the idea is to say that it’s just “too darn expensive” to contemplate immigration reform and that we’ll just bankrupt ourselves. That’s of course in the face of the facts of where these people already are. And it goes hand in hand with the right wing outrage that they can’t just call people illegal aliens whenever they want without being called on it.
Peel it back, and you get the emotional underbelly – these guys don’t want the undocumented immigrants to get any standing in this country. They’re angry enough that the group is here in the first place, even though the undocumented people do all the menial jobs that other people won’t do. The sentiment ranges from making these people do menial labor for no benefit to themselves and then kicking them back over the border, to throwing them out of the country en masse. The latter solution is of course the preferred option for right wing AM radio hosts who cater to that kind of thought. The reality that neither of these solutions will be taken has to be in the minds of programmers both at Fox News and at right wing radio, but constantly playing these ideas helps keep their listeners riled up about a situation they can’t affect.
And that dog whistle goes hand in hand with the other dog whistles we’ve been getting lately – including the ridiculous stories about the “gotcha” hearing attended by a Planned Parenthood rep in Florida and the overblown outrage about the trial of a criminal “doctor” in Pennsylvania, both of which stories are intended to ring the bells of the anti-choicers. One has to wonder what new whistles we’ll get to hear within the coming months – or will they just be the same ones we’ve been hearing for the past four years…
Ostensibly, the idea is to say that it’s just “too darn expensive” to contemplate immigration reform and that we’ll just bankrupt ourselves. That’s of course in the face of the facts of where these people already are. And it goes hand in hand with the right wing outrage that they can’t just call people illegal aliens whenever they want without being called on it.
Peel it back, and you get the emotional underbelly – these guys don’t want the undocumented immigrants to get any standing in this country. They’re angry enough that the group is here in the first place, even though the undocumented people do all the menial jobs that other people won’t do. The sentiment ranges from making these people do menial labor for no benefit to themselves and then kicking them back over the border, to throwing them out of the country en masse. The latter solution is of course the preferred option for right wing AM radio hosts who cater to that kind of thought. The reality that neither of these solutions will be taken has to be in the minds of programmers both at Fox News and at right wing radio, but constantly playing these ideas helps keep their listeners riled up about a situation they can’t affect.
And that dog whistle goes hand in hand with the other dog whistles we’ve been getting lately – including the ridiculous stories about the “gotcha” hearing attended by a Planned Parenthood rep in Florida and the overblown outrage about the trial of a criminal “doctor” in Pennsylvania, both of which stories are intended to ring the bells of the anti-choicers. One has to wonder what new whistles we’ll get to hear within the coming months – or will they just be the same ones we’ve been hearing for the past four years…
Kevin Koster commented on O’Reilly: Our Only Hope Is For Republicans To Take The Senate And ‘We’ Hold The House In 2014
2013-04-11 20:07:20 -0400
· Flag
Thanks for noting this Ellen. This is the sort of thing that needs to be documented and not swept under the rug.
Kevin Koster commented on Monica Crowley Suggests Women On Welfare Have Children To Get More Government Money
2013-04-11 14:42:28 -0400
· Flag
There was an interesting and telling moment on Wednesday night. In the middle of a refreshing session on the President’s proposed Budget wherein O’Reilly got in some Obama bashing (I know that will be a surprise for some…), he offered this gem: the only hope for America is for the GOP to win the 2014 midterm elections. Give him points at least for directly saying what he’s advocating. So now he cannot say that he’s impartial.
Kevin Koster commented on Megyn Kelly’s Selective Outrage About Secret Recordings: Mitch McConnell Edition
2013-04-11 14:26:44 -0400
· Flag
And now Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington is calling for an investigation into the conduct of McConnell and his people, considering that they were using taxpayer funds to put together a smear campaign against Ashley Judd.
Let’s keep in mind that it doesn’t mean that there is actually an ethics investigation. It just means that one has been called for by a nonprofit group.
That’s the same thing as McConnell and his people frantically calling for an FBI investigation to try to distract everyone from the main part of the story – their attempt to smear Ashley Judd. And that pending “FBI Investigation” that Fox wants to trumpet really just means that if an FBI investigator has time, he or she will listen to the tape and ask a few people in the room some questions. This is not a major criminal matter, particularly given the circumstances. It is not Watergate. And the simplest explanation tends to work in these cases – meaning that a person in the room didn’t like where this was all going and recorded it for posterity.
This is similar to the person who recorded Mitt Romney talking about the 47% – was that person charged with a felony? No. And the person who saved these remarks won’t be charged either.
But now, thanks to CREW resetting the emphasis where it should have been all along, we can enjoy the spectacle of Rush Limbaugh and Fox desperately trying to spin things back in their direction. This is even funnier than Wag the Dog.
Let’s keep in mind that it doesn’t mean that there is actually an ethics investigation. It just means that one has been called for by a nonprofit group.
That’s the same thing as McConnell and his people frantically calling for an FBI investigation to try to distract everyone from the main part of the story – their attempt to smear Ashley Judd. And that pending “FBI Investigation” that Fox wants to trumpet really just means that if an FBI investigator has time, he or she will listen to the tape and ask a few people in the room some questions. This is not a major criminal matter, particularly given the circumstances. It is not Watergate. And the simplest explanation tends to work in these cases – meaning that a person in the room didn’t like where this was all going and recorded it for posterity.
This is similar to the person who recorded Mitt Romney talking about the 47% – was that person charged with a felony? No. And the person who saved these remarks won’t be charged either.
But now, thanks to CREW resetting the emphasis where it should have been all along, we can enjoy the spectacle of Rush Limbaugh and Fox desperately trying to spin things back in their direction. This is even funnier than Wag the Dog.
Kevin Koster commented on Bill O’Reilly Agrees: President Obama’s Cuts To Social Security Are Too Harmful To Low-Income Seniors
2013-04-10 04:56:51 -0400
· Flag
I think Bill was advised to stop being so tantrumy to both sides of the equation. He screamed at Alan Colmes and then he blew off the right wing and screamed at Laura Ingraham.
Last night, he suddenly made an effort to try to appear equal opportunity. So he cut off Alan Colmes (while Colmes was making a reasonable point about the relative differences between the stats he was mentioning between the 50s and now – and let’s be reasonable here – O’Reilly’s real point was that civil rights aside, things really were better for “family values” people in the 50’s… and Colmes was appropriately calling him on the silliness of that claim.) But then he cut off Monica Crowley when she made an obviously nasty comment about the Great Society programs.
And then, yes, in a subsequent segment, he toyed with Ed Henry (late of his spiteful grandstanding from last week) about the reality of cutting into the usual adjustments to Social Security payments.
And let’s be clear about Social Security – if anyone is concerned about its long-term viability from 2037 on, there are some very simple solutions available that would address it. One, you remove the cap on withholding – particularly since that cap was set decades before inflation devalued it. Two, you make the same minute adjustments in the withholding that were done during the Reagan Administration the last time these “Social Security is Doomed!” screams were heard. These are the kind of ideas that could have and should have passed years ago. In the current environment of angry GOP members who just want to privatize such things or do away with them, I don’t know how much pressure it will take. But the fact is that even GOP pundits like Laura Ingraham have admitted that messing with things like Social Security or Medicare for seniors – whether they be GOP or anything else – usually has lethal consequences.
It could be that the GOP is trying to trick President Obama into touching the “third rail” on his own, after which they would try to pin any consequences on him. We’ll have to see what happens when the real plan is announced in the morning…
Last night, he suddenly made an effort to try to appear equal opportunity. So he cut off Alan Colmes (while Colmes was making a reasonable point about the relative differences between the stats he was mentioning between the 50s and now – and let’s be reasonable here – O’Reilly’s real point was that civil rights aside, things really were better for “family values” people in the 50’s… and Colmes was appropriately calling him on the silliness of that claim.) But then he cut off Monica Crowley when she made an obviously nasty comment about the Great Society programs.
And then, yes, in a subsequent segment, he toyed with Ed Henry (late of his spiteful grandstanding from last week) about the reality of cutting into the usual adjustments to Social Security payments.
And let’s be clear about Social Security – if anyone is concerned about its long-term viability from 2037 on, there are some very simple solutions available that would address it. One, you remove the cap on withholding – particularly since that cap was set decades before inflation devalued it. Two, you make the same minute adjustments in the withholding that were done during the Reagan Administration the last time these “Social Security is Doomed!” screams were heard. These are the kind of ideas that could have and should have passed years ago. In the current environment of angry GOP members who just want to privatize such things or do away with them, I don’t know how much pressure it will take. But the fact is that even GOP pundits like Laura Ingraham have admitted that messing with things like Social Security or Medicare for seniors – whether they be GOP or anything else – usually has lethal consequences.
It could be that the GOP is trying to trick President Obama into touching the “third rail” on his own, after which they would try to pin any consequences on him. We’ll have to see what happens when the real plan is announced in the morning…
Kevin Koster commented on Fox News Attacks Professor, Racist Death Threats Follow
2013-04-05 19:17:30 -0400
· Flag
So will Sean Hannity take a moment to defend Professor Poole from these threats? Considering this is far more serious than the criticism spoken at Ben Carson, shouldn’t Hannity condemn this kind of thing?