Archive for Media Morons

Welcome to CNN, Jay Carney!

Now, don’t tell me, let me guess: you’re back to being an independent, straight-shot, call-‘em-as-you-see-‘em journalist, right?

SEN. JOHN McCAIN: I think it was a very weak argument. And by the way, I’m astounded that Mr. Carney should say that the Free Syrian Army is now stronger. In fact, they have been —

JAY CARNEY: Well, that’s not that I said, Senator. If I could, sir, what I said is, if we know a great deal more now about the makeup of the opposition. —

McCAIN: Come on, Jay, we knew all about them then. You just didn’t choose to know. I was there in Syria. We we knew about them. Come on, you guys were the ones — your boss was the one when the entire national security team wanted to arm and train them that he turned them down, Mr. Carney after —

CARNEY: Well, Senator —

McCAIN: The fact is —

CARNEY: I think we have to agree to disagree on this.

McCAIN: No, facts are stubborn things, Mr. Carney, and that is his entire national security team, including the Secretary of State said he want to arm and train and equip these people and he made the unilateral decision to turn them down. The fact he didn’t a residual force in Iraq, overruled all of his military advisers, is the reason why we’re facing ISIS today.

So the facts are stubborn things in history and people ought to know them. And now the president is saying basically that we are going to take certain actions, which I would favor, but to say that America is safer, and that the situation is very much like Yemen and Somalia shows me that the president really doesn’t have a grasp for how serious the threat of ISIS is.

CARNEY: Well, again, Senator, we’re going to have to agree to disagree. And I think on the question of the residual force, there was another player in that which was the Iraqi government. A, and B, it was the fulfillment of the previous administration’s withdrawal plan. And it was also the fulfillment of the president’s promise to withdraw from Iraq and not maintain a true presence, in perpetuity, which is pretty consistent with what the American people wanted and believed it was the right approach.

McCAIN: Mr. Carney, you are again saying facts that are patently false. The fact is because [Senator] Lindsey Graham, [former Senator] Joe Lieberman and I, we were in Baghdad, they wanted a residual force. The president has never made a statement during that or after that he wanted a residual force left behind. The Iraqis were ready to go. The Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff testified before the Senate Armed Services Committee that the number cascaded down to 3,500. That was not sufficient to do anything but to defend themselves. And you in your role as a spokesperson bragged about the fact that the last American combat troop had left Iraq. If we had left a residual force the situation would not be what it is today. And there would be a lot more —

CARNEY: Senator, I can posit for great respect for you we can disagree on that.

McCAIN: You can’t.

CARNEY: Sir —

McCAIN: You don’t have the facts, Mr. Carney, that’s the problem.

CARNEY: Senator, I understand that that you present the facts that you believe are true based on the arguments that you have made for a long time, sir, that we should leave troops in Iraq for perpetuity. And that is not what this president believes. Obviously, he was elected president to fulfill what he believes is right for our country and right for our national security.

McCAIN: It is a bad decision.

CARNEY: I certainly understand where we are today.

McCAIN: It is not a matter of disagreement; it is a matter of facts, and you have yours wrong and you have distorted it.

COOPER: Jay, do you believe, does the president believe at all, if a residual force had been left on the ground in Iraq, that we would not be in this situation now?

CARNEY: Anderson, I think it is a mis — basically a whitewash of history to suggest that there was not — were not periods of enormous chaos and fighting and bloodshed in Iraq when there were tens of thousands of troops, of American troops on the ground. That is a fact. And it was true in 2004, it was true in 2007. And it was true even when we had the highest number of U.S. troops on the ground.

We cannot — the United States of America ask our military to be a permanent occupying force in a country like Iraq. We have to get to a situation where we can help build up and assist an Iraqi security force, where we can put pressure on Iraqi political leaders to form an inclusive government, which they have taken steps to do, as was noted earlier. And then we can provide the kind of military support that we’re providing, an action that we’re taking against a threat like ISIS as appropriate.

But the alternative of leaving a permanent, massive U.S. force on the ground in Iraq, not for 10 years, not for 20 years, but in perpetuity, is simply not sustainable financially; it is not consistent with what the American people think we should do.

MCCAIN: Again, Mr. Carney misstates the facts. We had it won, thanks to the surge. It was won. The victory was there. All we needed was a force behind to provide support, not to engage in combat, but to supply support, logistics, intelligence. And by the way, the Koran War, we left troops behind. Bosnia, we left troops behind. Not to fight but be a stabilizing force. And Mr. Carney neglects the fact that thanks to David Petraeus, and Ryan Crocker, who by the way, are very strong on this issue, that we won the conflict, and then by pulling the rug out and setting a date for withdrawal and bragging about it —

CARNEY: Excuse me, sir, but I think you have forgotten that the date for withdrawal was —

MCCAIN: I think you have forgotten — no, the date for withdrawal. They always contemplated an additional date behind it. And you can ask Condoleezza Rice, or George W. Bush.

CARNEY: Absolutely, and so did we, and we–

MCCAIN: So that is absolutely false too. And we didn’t need to go through the Iraqi parliament. All you had to do was have an agreement. And we were there on the ground.

COOPER: Senator McCain, let me ask you about in terms of what you heard tonight, do you believe the U.S. can fight an effective counter- terrorism strategy, which is what the president is calling this fight against ISIS, without U.S. military personnel on the ground? In harm’s way?

MCCAIN: We — this is another falsehood the president is purveying. We already have boots on the ground, well over 1,000. We need more. But we don’t need them like the 82nd Airborne sent in direct — to do — into direct combat.

We need to have additional support there, and we need to help the — the Iraqi army rebuild its capabilities. But we don’t have to have a ground combat invasion of the type we had before. But, the fact that they didn’t leave — we were not there before is a direct result we are paying a very heavy price for. And it doesn’t mean in perpetuity, but it does mean to keep the situation stable, which we could have done.

COOPER: Senator McCain, the president also said that we have not yet detected specific plotting against our homeland. Americans who hear those words might wonder, if that is really the case, then why do we need to take action against ISIS? To that you say what?

MCCAIN: I say that today, we had a hearing, and there was testimony from the counterterrorism people and the Department of Homeland Security. There is Twitter traffic right now and FaceBook traffic, where they are urging attacks on the United States of America. And there is a great concern that our southern border and our northern border is porous and that they will be coming across.

So is there a specific, direct threat? No, but is there any doubt to what their goal is? Mr. Baghdadi, the day he left our prison in Iraq, Camp Bucca, said “see you in New York.”

COOPER: And in terms of, as you said, you have been in Syria, you met with Syrian moderate opposition a while back, do you believe there are enough on the ground right now in Iraq who actually have military capabilities that can actually stand up and fight against ISIS, against the Assad regime?

MCCAIN: I do, but it is going to be very tough, and it is going to be a heck of a lot tougher, despite what Mr. Carney said, than it would have been two years ago when it was recommended by his entire national security team.

How many times did he call Carney a liar? He called Obama one once or twice, but Carney got more than I can count. Delicious.

You were a lousy candidate, Senator, and who knows what kind of president you would have made. But as grump old man, you’re peerless.

Comments

Captain Obvious To The Rescue

We’ve all been made aware of the social science research which claims that conservatives are stuck in rigid ways of thinking, always support authority, blah, blah, blah, whereas liberals are oh-so-open-minded, right?.

Those of us who are conservative, but reside in very liberal parts of the country, know this to be nonsense. Just attend a single cook-out in Cambridge, MA and see if you can express yourself when the conversation turns to: Obama, Health Care, Bush, Israel, the economy, school choice, conservatives, the Tea Party, Christians, Muslims, hate speech, etc. You can compliment the host on the food, though.

Anyway, now there is research that highlights the obvious:

Conservatives are conservative because they’re authoritarian and resistant to new ideas. Everyone knows that, right? There’s a bunch of social-science research that even proves it. If only conservatives were more open and less dogmatically attached to their tribe and their traditions, the world would be a much better place.

A lot of smart people endorse some version of this story. And yes, research surveys show that conservatives do express a much stronger affinity for obedience, authority and in-group loyalty than do liberals.

But there’s a question those surveys can’t answer: How does what people say translate into what people actually do? Jonathan Haidt, one of my favorite social scientists, studies morality by presenting people with scenarios and asking whether what happened was wrong. Conservatives and liberals give strikingly different answers, with extreme liberals claiming to place virtually no value at all on things like group loyalty or sexual purity.

One of Haidt’s most memorable questions involves a man who has sex with a frozen chicken, then cooks the chicken and eats it for dinner. Is this wrong? he asks. Philosophy-class enlightenment values pretty much give one answer: No one was harmed, so it can’t be wrong. And yet: I’m willing to bet that most of the folks who say that it’s A-OK would still be weirded out if they found out this is what their spouse had prepared for a special anniversary feast. Or that this is how a co-worker spends every Monday night.

In the ultra-liberal enclave I grew up in, the liberals were at least as fiercely tribal as any small-town Republican, though to be sure, the targets were different. Many of them knew no more about the nuts and bolts of evolution and other hot-button issues than your average creationist; they believed it on authority. And when it threatened to conflict with some sacred value, such as their beliefs about gender differences, many found evolutionary principles as easy to ignore as those creationists did. It is clearly true that liberals profess a moral code that excludes concerns about loyalty, honor, purity and obedience — but over the millennia, man has professed many ideals that are mostly honored in the breach.

Apparently, I’m not the only one who had questions about the prevalence of conformity on both sides of the political spectrum:

The way I saw it, this slavish obedience to authority and tradition on the part of conservatives was the true source of the culture war between liberals and conservatives over foreign war, abortion, same-sex marriage, gun control, and racial inequality. They way I saw it, conservatives clung to old, near-sighted ways of thinking and fell in line with the dictates of the “man in charge.” If only conservatives would think for themselves — like liberals do — the war would be over and we could get on with life, governance, and progress. Or so I thought.

Then, in 2012, I went on a cycling trip around Cuba.

Jeremy Frimer, the author of the piece, noticed that socialists seemed unable to tolerate even mild questioning of Che Guevara’s eminently questionable legacy. Frimer is a researcher at the University of Winnipeg, and he decided to investigate. What he found is that liberals are actually very comfortable with authority and obedience — as long as the authorities are liberals (“should you obey an environmentalist?”). And that conservatives then became much less willing to go along with “the man in charge.”

Frimer argues that conservatives tend to support authority because they think authority is conservative; liberals tend to oppose it for the same reason. Liberal or conservative, it seems, we’re all still human under the skin.

Here’s a question: Can the average liberal bumbling through Harvard Square even understand the nuance here?

– Aggie

Comments (3)

Candlelight Vigil

What you you say, guys? Do we need some good old-fashioned candlelight vigils for all the folks who’ve had their heads chopped off? Maybe a nice big candlelight vigil in DC? We can all sing Kumbayah or We Shall Overcome or some other suitable bit of drivel.

– Aggie

Comments (1)

Obama Had Been Briefed About ISIS For A Year

And ignored it.

A JV team, eh? Obama, you are such a dolt.

President Obama was given detailed and specific intelligence about the rise of the Islamic State as part of his daily briefing for at least a year before the group seized large swaths of territory over the summer, a former Pentagon official told Fox News.

The official — who asked not to be identified because the President’s Daily Brief is considered the most authoritative, classified intelligence community product analyzing sensitive international events for the president — said the data was strong and “granular” in detail.

The source said a policymaker “could not come away with any other impression: This is getting bad.”

Obama, unlike his predecessors who traditionally had the document briefed to them, is known to personally read the daily brief. The former Pentagon official, who has knowledge of the process, said Obama generally was not known to come back to the intelligence community with further requests for information based on the daily report.

I honestly blame the well-to-do, arrogant, political Left in our country for giving us such an inept President as this one. Do you know that the current leftist strategy for dealing with this is? They have simply stuck their heads in the sand. They have stopped following the news. They plead ignorance. Obama is clearly stupid, but not all of his minions are. And they bear responsibility for this unfolding worldwide chaos.

– Aggie

Comments (1)

In Defense of “No Strategy”

The media circles the wagons:

There is a fun foreign policy game making all the rounds in Washington D.C. this summer: Pin the tail on Barack Obama.

There are no points for understanding how international relations work, how U.S. power is actually utilized or how other countries interpret their own interests. There’s no space on the board for tracking the real-life impact of your recommendations.

Foreign policy stewardship would be easy if it were as simple as playing this game. If, as President Obama joked recently, America “control(led) everything around the world,” there wouldn’t be much to decide at all.

See? “Strategies” are fanciful constructs, mere whims. They are policy variations on the old line, “Want to make God laugh? Tell him your plans.” Obama’s too smart for that.

We’re just not smart enough to see it:

White House senior adviser Dan Pfeiffer said Obama will continue to move at his own speed to respond to these crises, regardless of criticism. “There’s no timetable for solving these problems that’s going to meet the cable news cycle speed,” he said. “It’s not a tenable thing. We’d much rather do this right than do it quickly. We tried the opposite [during the Bush years] and it worked out very poorly.”

This week, Obama will have an opportunity to show global leadership at a crisis-packed summit with European allies. Immediately afterward, Secretary of State John F. Kerry will travel to the Middle East, where potential partners, waiting to see whether Obama has the capacity to chart a clear, decisive course, are hoping for direction.

Obama does have one strategy: blame Bush. It’s worked for him so far.

And then, there are those who don’t take the president at his word:

President Obama’s critics often claim he doesn’t have a strategy in the greater Middle East. That’s wrong. Like it or loathe it, he does, and he’s beginning to implement it against ISIS. To understand what it is, it’s worth going back seven summers.

No, no, no. Life’s too short. If I want to climb into the Obama way-back machine, it’s too hear him dismiss bitter clingers, or tell a hall full of union hacks he wants single-payer health insurance, or try to come up with the word “inhaler”. If we’re going to do nothing against the threats of ISIS, Boko Haram, Vladimir Putin, and a dozen other threats (not one of which is global warming), I’m going to enjoy what remains of summer. And my life.

Comments (2)

Heard On The BBC

Today on the BBC they did a heartfelt piece about the anguish of the average Gazan. It dripped with empathy, British-style, meaning they were warm and caring toward the Gazans and at the same time hostile and snotty toward Israel.

I thought about this: “Aggie, (I thought), how can you help the British media, and the British public, to feel empathy for the suffering of the Israelis? How to make them understand that in a nation of roughly 7 million people, 14,000 missiles have been launched from Gaza in total, and about 3,500 of them happened within the past couple of months? How can such loving people not feel for the poor Israelis, and how can I help?”

Well, I thought and I thought and I think I have the solution. It is pretty simple. You see, there are about 7.5 million Israelis, but 63,742,000 citizens of the UK. I want to divide the UK into Israel-sized populations. Hmmm. I have to divide 63,742,000 by 7.5 million. It comes up to 8.493333333333. Let’s agree on 8.5, ok? So that means that there are 8.5 regions of the UK, somehow divided into 7.5 million human beings each (except for the .5 which has only 3.75 million, give or take). Got it? Now draw the borders any which way, as long as each region has only 7.5 million people.

And start shelling them. Randomly and persistently, begin to fire missiles into the UK. Some will land in fields, some will shatter the stained glass in those beautiful cathedrals, some will hit cafes, and some will land in nursery schools or senior living facilities. This needs to go on for 9 years and it needs to be random. Perhaps someone can write a computer program to create the randomness of the targets? And naturally, the missiles themselves must be faulty enough that even if something is aimed at a park, it could as easily land in the 3rd floor living room of a nice apartment.

Talk doesn’t matter. Whoever runs the program can talk and talk and talk, as long as the shelling continues. It’s best if they promise to stop if demands are met, etc., but the shelling must continue. Oh, and it would be lovely if the population of Britain was blamed for their own misery and most especially if the UN passed dozens, oddles!, of resolutions blaming them.

In 9 years, we can see how the BBC responds. Our readers who either live in the UK or are familiar with it can write and let us know if this would work.

Best,

Aggie

Comments

Hamas Executes Tunnel Builders

In order to protect the secrecy of the locations

The tunnelers, many of whom constructed the tunnels over the course of months, would dig for 8-12 hours a day, and received a monthly wage of $150-$300, according to the blog.

Sources in Gaza told the website that Hamas took a series of precautions to prevent information from reaching Israel. The terror organization would reportedly blindfold the excavators en route to the sites and back, to prevent them from recognizing the locations. The tunnels were strictly supervised by Hamas members, and civilians were kept far from the sites.

M., a former tunnel digger and Israeli collaborator, told the website that Hamas would strip search the workers to ensure they had no recording devices or cameras hidden on them.

“The people we met had their faces covered; no one knew them by their real names, it was all codes and first names. They didn’t want to take the risk that some of the diggers were collaborating with Israel,” he said.

A tunnel, within a civilian home, found by Golani soldiers in the northern Gaza Strip (photo credit: IDF Spokesperson’s Unit/ Flash 90)
A tunnel entrance, within a civilian home, found by Golani soldiers in the northern Gaza Strip (photo credit: IDF Spokesperson’s Unit/ Flash 90)

After the tunnels were completed, dozens were reportedly executed to prevent intelligence leaks to Israel.

“Anyone they suspected might transfer information to Israel on the tunnels was killed by the military wing,” a different source said. “They were very cruel.”

In 2012, a Journal of Palestine Studies article claimed 160 Palestinian children were killed while working on Hamas’s tunnel system.

The digging of tunnels began four years ago and has demanded 40 percent of Hamas’s budget, The Times of Israel has learned.

Tunnel diggers have been using electric or pneumatic jackhammers, advancing 4-5 meters a day. The tunnels found were reportedly mostly dug 18-25 meters (60-82 feet) underground, though one was discovered at a depth of 35 meters (115 feet). “That’s like a 10-story building underground,” one expert said.

So, let’s see: They executed both adults and children who were hired (forced?) to build the terror tunnels. They used 40% of the aid provided by the west to carry this out. And the Left thinks that Israel is somehow the bad guy?

– Aggie

Comments (1)

Romney Got It Right – All Of It.

Iraq, Russia, the economy, health care…

Almost every day, it seems, brings a headline demonstrating how right 2012 Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney was, and how wrong President Barack Obama was, on the critical issues facing America.

In 2012, Romney warned that Obama’s failure to secure an agreement to keep a residual military force in Iraq would threaten the U.S. gains made at such a high cost in American lives and treasure. “America’s ability to influence events for the better in Iraq has been undermined by the abrupt withdrawal of our entire troop presence,” Romney asserted.

The chaos in Iraq today supports Romney’s view. With no U.S. military presence to constrain Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki, the Shiite politician persecuted Sunni leaders and gutted Sunni participation in government and the military. Worse, it set the stage for Sunni sympathies to turn to the fanatical Islamic State in Syria and Iraq that has conquered a significant part of the country and waged genocide against religious minorities. Obama has had to order U.S. air strikes to protect U.S. personnel in the Kurdish region and to support Kurdish militia to keep ISIS from capturing all of northern Iraq.

In the 2012 debates, Obama mocked Romney for calling Russia America’s top geopolitical foe. Today, Russia has stolen Crimea from Ukraine, funds and provides weapons and men to Russian separatists in eastern Ukraine and even threatens an invasion of the country. President Vladimir Putin meddles in the Mideast, seeks to expand Moscow’s clout in Latin America, and harbors renegade Edward Snowden.

On domestic issues, Romney in 2011 advanced the idea of giving veterans a voucher to obtain medical care they could not get at a Veterans Administration hospital. This year saw the VA scandal reveal that long waiting lists for hospital treatment were hidden. Legislation Obama signed this week allows vets to seek help outside the VA system.

Romney understood that the nation’s outdated, complex tax code encourages U.S. corporations to park assets overseas and invest in other countries. He recommended tax reform to keep that money and business in America and boost the economy. Obama does nothing about reform but demagogues as “unpatriotic” corporations pressured by the tax code to seek profits and better returns for shareholders overseas.

More at the link. Read it and weep.

– Aggie

Comments (2)

President Obama Speaks Nonsense, Part Deux

We noted yesterday what utter drivel Obama talked with Tom Friedman about Israel. Of particular note was his claim that Netanyahu was too popular among his people to make peace. But we kind of blamed Tom Friedman. He has that effect on people.

To wit:

“Our politics are dysfunctional… societies don’t work if political factions take maximalist positions,” said Obama, who repeatedly claims to be a moderate stymied by the GOP’s supposed obstructionism and radicalism.

“And the more diverse the country is, the less it can afford to take maximalist positions,” Obama added.

That comment about diversity was likely a warning to conservatives, who are expected by many Democrats to lose power as the nation absorbs more foreigners who do not share conservatives’ small-government ideals.

“Increasingly politicians are rewarded for taking the most extreme maximalist positions… and sooner or later, that catches up with you,” Obama warned.

The GOP was first on the list of causes that Obama blamed for the political divisions that are blocking his agenda, such as increased immigration. However, his list also included a series of subsidiary causes that are actually consequences of underlying ideological conflicts and economic factors.

“While he blamed the rise of the Republican far right for extinguishing so many potential compromises, Obama also acknowledged that gerrymandering, the Balkanization of the news media and uncontrolled money in politics — the guts of our political system today — are sapping our ability to face big challenges together, more than any foreign enemy,” said Friendman, who is an Obama supporter, and a champion of progressive-style expansive government.

I guess you’d have to say that Republicans are too popular, as well, to make peace with the president. That would put Obama in the same position as Hamass, intractable villain, which is my view, but I doubt Friedman’s. Like I said, Tom Friedman can make an idiot out of anyone, merely by projecting his own idiocy. It’s his superpower.

Comments

Meanwhile, ISIS Is Forcing Christians To Convert To Islam, And Then Beheading Them

Hey Europe! Where are the protests? Why aren’t you attacking people on the streets over this? And for that matter, where are the protests in the US? Where is our State Department or our Great Leader, President Obama?

If you’re following the news about ISIS, which now calls itself the Islamic State, you might think you’ve mistakenly clicked on a historical story about barbarians from millennia ago.

In a matter of months, the group seized territory in both Iraq and Syria and declared an Islamic caliphate, celebrating its own shocking slaughter along the way.

“I don’t see any attention from the rest of the world,” a member of the Yazidi minority in Iraq told the New Yorker. “In one day, they killed more than two thousand Yazidi in Sinjar, and the whole world says, ‘Save Gaza, save Gaza.'”
In Syria, the group hoisted some of its victims severed heads on poles. One of the latest videos of the savagery shows a Christian man forced to his knees, surrounded by masked militants, identified in the video as members of ISIS. They force the man at gunpoint to “convert” to Islam. Then, the group beheads him.

ISIS has targeted members of numerous minority groups in the region, including Christian nuns, Turkmen and Shabaks, according to Human Rights Watch.

ISIS is apparently beheading children too. So, again, where is the Western world? Or don’t you care?

– Aggie

Comments (1)

Bulldog of the Press?

Or turtle?

International press in Gaza has hardly reported on how Hamas operates in this round of fighting and photos or video of Hamas fighters from recent weeks are rare, the reason for which became apparent this week as several journalists reported being threatened and even expelled from Gaza for reporting the terrorist organization uses civilian sites to attack Israel.

Reporters from Italy and the US corroborated the IDF’s explanation for explosions near Shifa Hospital and by a playground in Shati on Tuesday, that it was a result of rockets misfired by Gazan terrorists.

However, one altered his report and another waited to leave Gaza because he feared retribution from Hamas.

Italian journalist Gabriele Barbati tweeted a photo on Tuesday as he went through the Erez crossing into Israel.

Barbati then he tweeted the following in Italian and English: “Out of Gaza far from Hamas retaliation: Misfired rocket killed children [yesterday] in Shati. Witness: militants rushed and cleared debris.”

He followed that tweet with another: “@IDFSpokesperson said truth in communique released yesterday about Shati camp massacre. It was not Israel behind it.”

The Wall Street Journal’s Middle East Correspondent based in Egypt Tamer El-Ghobashy tweeted a photo of rubble with the explanation: “An outside wall on the campus of Gaza’s main hospital was hit by a strike. Low level damage suggest Hamas misfire.”

Soon after, El-Ghobashy deleted the tweet, similar to his Wall Street Journal colleague Nick Casey, who tweeted a photo of a Hamas official using Shifa hospital for media appearances last week and then deleted it.

El-Ghobashy then replaced the same tweet with the same photo and the text: “The outer wall of Gaza City’s main hospital was struck. Unclear what the origin of the projectile is.”

The French newspaper Liberation published an article last week detailing how Hamas interrogated French-Palestinian journalist Radjaa Abu Dagga and threatened to throw him out of Gaza – all in Shifa hospital. The article was later removed at Abu Dagga’s request.

Pro-Palestinian activists and journalists, including Fadi Arouri from Al-Ayyam, reported on Wednesday that RT (formerly Russia Today) correspondent Harry Fear was told to leave Gaza after he tweeted about Hamas rockets being fired into Israel from near his hotel.

In another tweet from last week, Fear called Al-Wafa hospital “the hospital with human shields.”

Reporters Without Borders confirmed to Liberation that many journalists reported being threatened by Hamas, though the organization’s website criticizes Israel.

Love that “THOUGH”. Hamass is threatening to kneecap anyone with a steno pad, but RSF blames Israel. Dinks. Megadinks.

Comments

Andy Griffith Beats Rachel Maddow

Now, that’s a pay-per-view I’d shell out for!

But it’s a figurative beating, not a literal one:

What’s most disconcerting for MSNBC might be its total day average among the news demo of adults 25-54. Dropping 33 percent from July 2013, it actually ranked below HLN by 16,000 viewers for No. 4 status.

To be sure, it wasn’t a particularly outstanding month for most of the networks. In primetime and total day, CNN, MSNBC and HLN all were off double digits in the targeted demographic compared to a year ago. FNC, which easily retains the top slot, had the benefit of being up a tick (2 percent) in primetime for an average 299,000 adults 25-54.

There also are individual races that proved more interesting than usual. In the morning, CNN’s New Day overtook MSNBC’s Morning Joe in the key demo, 93,000 to 79,000 viewers. At 5 p.m., FNC’s The Five hit its third month at No. 1 among total viewers across all of cable — beating Nickelodeon’s longtime vet and kid-pleaser SpongeBob SquarePants.

And in the evening, Rachel Maddow was only marginally improved from her lowest month ever in June, averaging 181,000 viewers in the key demo. (FNC’s Megyn Kelly, by contrast, enjoyed her second-highest-rated month since launch with an especially strong 386,000 adults 25-54.)

It’s also worth noting that Kelly and Maddow no longer see traditional news competition from CNN at 9 p.m. ET. Doc special The Sixties, which has been airing in the hour on Thursdays, has averaged 291,000 adults 25-54 over the course of its seven premiere telecasts. It now regularly outperforms Maddow.

That means Ozzie and Harriet—heck, Harriet by herself—kicks Maddow’s ass. Across this great nation of ours, almost 320 million strong, Maddow pulls the equivalent of Overland Park, Kansas to her show. She can’t even beat a series from half a century ago.

But then, America has taste. No aspersions intentionally cast, but if I want to look at a woman with a mannish haircut, I’m going to watch Andy’s squeeze, Helen Crump (Aneta Corsaut), over Rachel Maddow (Rachel Maddow) any day:

PS: I see Fox News Sunday beat Meet the Depressed too. They never should have gotten rid of Laurence Spivak. Talk about eye candy!

PPS: So what? MSNBC and CNN may trade places on the list of who’s the biggest joke, but Obama is still president. No wonder Maddow’s always smiling.

Comments

« Previous entries Next Page » Next Page »