home

Submitted For Your Consideration

Via Digby:

Anderson Cooper: if your crew is getting beat up in riots in every country you go to-might that suggest UR the 1 doing something wrong?

-Jay Newton-Small [Time magazine reporter]

What's interesting about this is not only that Newton-Small claims to be a journalist, but that her magazine is owned by the same company that owns CNN. I guess solidarity, journalistic or corporate, is not something Newton-Small adheres to.

Open thread.

< Political Gimmicks And The Constitution | 7th Detainee Dies at Guantanamo >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    Don't know what Newton-Small (5.00 / 1) (#11)
    by KeysDan on Thu Feb 03, 2011 at 01:29:49 PM EST
    adheres to, but she comes across somewhat un-glued.  Anderson Cooper's 'celebrity' is, in my view, beneficial to continued interest and coverage.  He is on the street, un-embedded and at no small risk to himself and crew.  Nicholas Kristof is another welcome voice, bringing human rights influences to his reporting.  Al Jazeera is great, but CNN is playing a constructive role at present.

    I don't get AlJazeera on my tv at home (none / 0) (#15)
    by ruffian on Thu Feb 03, 2011 at 01:35:48 PM EST
    So unless I want to stay glued to the laptop instead of wandering the house, CNN is mainly what I have. I'm glad they are at least trying to do something, even if their looping of the same stories and footage does drive me batty.

    Parent
    This is why I am soooo pleased with (none / 0) (#19)
    by oculus on Thu Feb 03, 2011 at 01:41:18 PM EST
    rocketfish wireless senders/receivers, which permit broadcast through my FM tuner and speakers throughout the house and on back patio.  

    Parent
    Kristof asks an excellent and scary (none / 0) (#16)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Feb 03, 2011 at 01:37:48 PM EST
    question when he says "what are they planning that they dont want us to see?"

    tomorrow is going to be huge.  they are digging in in the square.  tomorrow could be terrible.
    and what happens if it is.

    all excellent questions.


    Parent

    That has been the speculation I have seen (none / 0) (#18)
    by ruffian on Thu Feb 03, 2011 at 01:39:15 PM EST
    about the attempt to contain the media. Not so much to hide what is happening now, but that something big is going to happen soon.

    Parent
    "Departure Day." (none / 0) (#20)
    by oculus on Thu Feb 03, 2011 at 01:41:50 PM EST
    Maybe Newton-Small (none / 0) (#54)
    by Zorba on Thu Feb 03, 2011 at 03:15:31 PM EST
    is somehow jealous that Copper got all that "celebrity."  In which case, she's a jerk.  A whole lot of reporters, from all over, have been attacked and threatened.  Is she suggesting that they are all "doing something wrong"?  Maybe they're doing something right- trying to act like boots-on-the-ground actual "journalists."  

    Parent
    Mubarak tells us news (5.00 / 1) (#22)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Feb 03, 2011 at 01:52:24 PM EST
    he fears chaos if he leaves.  wonder what he calls this.

    says he has had enough and is ready to leave.  
    just not now.

    this guy is a piece of work.

    How benevolent of him (5.00 / 0) (#29)
    by jbindc on Thu Feb 03, 2011 at 02:11:23 PM EST
    it would be nice (5.00 / 0) (#67)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Feb 03, 2011 at 03:29:04 PM EST
    if someone pointed out to him that everything was fine until his thugs showed up.

    to much to expect I guess.


    Parent

    It sounds like the comment of someone (5.00 / 0) (#23)
    by Anne on Thu Feb 03, 2011 at 01:53:11 PM EST
    who's green with envy that Cooper keeps getting the really juicy stories.

    I'm sure if Cooper was an intrepid weather reporter, she'd have blamed him for the huge storm that just hit half the country...

    Unprofessional and lame; if it was a joke, it was a pretty bad one.

    Pentagon has supposed announced (5.00 / 0) (#42)
    by BackFromOhio on Thu Feb 03, 2011 at 02:27:59 PM EST
    that it will not withhold any $ from Egypt. So much for Admin's telling Mubarak the transition should happen soon.  

    I don't know what's more cynical anymore (5.00 / 1) (#46)
    by ruffian on Thu Feb 03, 2011 at 02:39:07 PM EST
    Supporting them all these years when we knew exactly what the regime was like, or withdrawing support now because we can no longer pretend the people like the regime.

    Parent
    Mubarak is not the Egyptian army though (5.00 / 1) (#52)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Feb 03, 2011 at 03:07:53 PM EST
    If they were one and the same they would have lit Tahir Square up days ago and been done with this silliness.

    Parent
    True, but I doubt our money goes right to the (none / 0) (#58)
    by ruffian on Thu Feb 03, 2011 at 03:21:57 PM EST
    Army without a trip through Mubarak's treasury.

    Parent
    We set aside money (none / 0) (#63)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Feb 03, 2011 at 03:27:49 PM EST
    for them that buys the aircraft and the military items the army desires.  We don't hand over the money to Mubarak and hope he shops with us :)  We shop for him :)

    Parent
    I missed the part that it was the pentagon money (none / 0) (#68)
    by ruffian on Thu Feb 03, 2011 at 03:31:31 PM EST
    I thought it was the whole aid package. Never mind!

    Parent
    not their decision (none / 0) (#51)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Feb 03, 2011 at 02:58:02 PM EST
    its the decision of congress and two important senators from different parties said yesterday it absolutely would stop.

    Parent
    Well, no one is better at feigning ignorance (5.00 / 1) (#59)
    by ruffian on Thu Feb 03, 2011 at 03:23:55 PM EST
    and outrage than the US Senate.

    Parent
    That is one way to get the Egyptian (none / 0) (#53)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Feb 03, 2011 at 03:08:55 PM EST
    army to commit to a side and an outcome :)

    Parent
    Or at least to intervene (none / 0) (#55)
    by brodie on Thu Feb 03, 2011 at 03:16:50 PM EST
    when the govt-paid forces intent on violence set upon mostly peaceful anti-govt protesters.  Just preventing violence should be at a minimum their next responsible step.

    Parent
    I would like for them to choose (none / 0) (#60)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Feb 03, 2011 at 03:25:19 PM EST
    to defend and follow the needs of the majority of the Egyptian people.  I would them to demand that all of their people be able to eat.  I would want them to desire to be the military of a democracy. But I have no idea what things internally with the Egyptian army is like at this time.  If a commander commmands them to do this, will the military split because some will not want to go this route?  Its military could end up fighting itself, and we gave them the things they need to cause real damage and real death on a huge scale when they fight.

    Parent
    Query: how is the military to (none / 0) (#64)
    by oculus on Thu Feb 03, 2011 at 03:27:54 PM EST
    determine whether the protestors represent the majority of the Egyptian people?

    Parent
    Yup...it is all a matter of opinion at this point (none / 0) (#66)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Feb 03, 2011 at 03:28:38 PM EST
    Maybe we could sell them on the Democracy (none / 0) (#69)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Feb 03, 2011 at 03:32:07 PM EST
    argument and get a majority of the military to agree to that and then inflict Democracy on everyone else.....it is all so fubar.  If only we had treated them how we all hoped to be treated ourselves, perhaps they wouldn't need so much therapy overcoming their victimization.

    And if Egypt becomes a Democracy and discovers what human right are and how great it is to have them, will they still torture for us?  You know how crazy those young democracies can get....all high on life and living things.

    Parent

    they have been doing that today (none / 0) (#61)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Feb 03, 2011 at 03:25:48 PM EST
    or were earlier.

    Parent
    Wonder if... (5.00 / 2) (#47)
    by kdog on Thu Feb 03, 2011 at 02:39:20 PM EST
    the Egyptians are miffed at how the western media is making their revolution all about the west and Israel and their respective "interests", as opposed it being about, ya know, Egypt.  

    Or how their inalianable human rights are portrayed as up for negotiation, if you listen to some talking heads.

    Honestly, we paid the bills for all the jackboots on their throats for 30 years...they have every right to be pissed off at all things western, and A.C. and his peers are the face of America in the square...part of me is surprised it took this long for reporters to be harassed...not saying it is right, only understandable, in light of the coverage and history.

    AC and his crew were (5.00 / 2) (#49)
    by brodie on Thu Feb 03, 2011 at 02:54:05 PM EST
    set upon by jackbooted or just shoed thugs supporting the Mubarak regime, who apparently don't like the fact that AC & Co were doing their job by covering anti-govt protest in the square.  

    It wasn't an anti-Western thing but rather an anti-free press thing. And probably a rent-a-thug mob paid for by the govt, as many journalists have suggested and as some IDs recovered from their ranks would prove.

    The attacks on the press -- almost certainly a prelude to an imminent severe govt crackdown on protesters -- are about intimidating and removing from the protest scene journalists who will tell the true story to the larger world.

    Parent

    Some of the people labeled "Mubarak (5.00 / 0) (#50)
    by oculus on Thu Feb 03, 2011 at 02:56:42 PM EST
    supporters" were bused in from their workplaces and pd.to show up.  Some had no choice.  Per Al Jazeera interviews.

    Parent
    No doubt, and every (none / 0) (#57)
    by brodie on Thu Feb 03, 2011 at 03:20:53 PM EST
    dictatorship has that one in their book of tricks.

    That would be SOP and manageable if however it weren't for the other aspect of dictatorships, namely paying some of these people to act like violent thugs and attack govt opponents.

    Parent

    It's not just dictators (none / 0) (#65)
    by jbindc on Thu Feb 03, 2011 at 03:28:34 PM EST
    It's all about "spin" and how the story plays in the media.  

    It happens in political rallies and elections here as well.

    It's when they get violent that it's a problem.

    Parent

    I don't doubt it one bit... (none / 0) (#56)
    by kdog on Thu Feb 03, 2011 at 03:17:38 PM EST
    Mubarek's thugs definitely want fewer cameras around if and when it gets real ugly.

    Though if I were an Egyptian and was able to catch some American cable news, I'd sure be tempted to run the bums outta dodge...not A.C. specifically, but American media in general...they're running out of food and we're worried about what it means for America, Israel, and oil prices.

    Parent

    If I were Egyptian I'd (5.00 / 1) (#62)
    by brodie on Thu Feb 03, 2011 at 03:26:36 PM EST
    be pleased that at least foreign press were trying to get the protesters' message and fact of their massive numbers out to the world, unfiltered by govt censors as with the govt-controlled state media.  Basically the people in that square probably know that the more coverage, the more press cameras and reporters noting what is going on, the more difficult it becomes for the govt to initiate a brutal crackdown.  

    The press are vital for essential information flow, and they also serve as a partial deterrent to massacres.

    Parent

    A free press is vital... (none / 0) (#70)
    by kdog on Thu Feb 03, 2011 at 03:36:08 PM EST
    a corporate press with its own corporate US foreign policy friendly agenda?  I don't know brodie...look at how they rolled in the lead up to the invasion of Iraq.  They were vital then allright, to Bush/Cheney and selling their war to the American public.  I worry what they're gonna try to sell for Uncle Sam in Egypt.

    Parent
    I'm talking here only about (5.00 / 1) (#73)
    by brodie on Thu Feb 03, 2011 at 03:45:52 PM EST
    the current, surprisingly good from some quarters, US media coverage of the Egyptian uprising.  As I said here a few days ago, even Wolf Blitzer of all people was starting to sound like a Voice of the People.

    Definitely an improvement over their coverage of the Iraq War and build up, when they all marched in lockstep to war and few dissenting voices were heard.  All valid criticisms of what they did then.  

    But today they seem, or some of them, to have put back on their responsible journalists hats, at least for the moment.   Always a day-to-day thing though, and there's a lot to this story yet to be played out and reported.

    Parent

    I hear ya... (none / 0) (#74)
    by kdog on Thu Feb 03, 2011 at 03:55:43 PM EST
    I shouldn't generalize them all into the "Muslim Brotherhood! Muslim Brotherhood! Stability! Stability!" contigent...who basically sound like they are willing to load Mubarek's guns for him.

    Parent
    You sure shouldn't (none / 0) (#86)
    by gyrfalcon on Fri Feb 04, 2011 at 12:42:18 AM EST
    That point of view has been given no more than a polite hearing-- briefly-- on CNN and MSNBC.

    You been watching Fox News, kdog??

    Parent

    actually when they were (none / 0) (#75)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Feb 03, 2011 at 03:57:42 PM EST
    chased the first time they were covering the PRO government demonstrators.


    Parent
    Don't know what channel (none / 0) (#85)
    by gyrfalcon on Fri Feb 04, 2011 at 12:40:17 AM EST
    you're watching or for how long, but that has NOT been more than an occasional side note, as it should be, on either CNN or MSNBC, that I've seen.

    Parent
    Fox definitely... (none / 0) (#89)
    by kdog on Fri Feb 04, 2011 at 08:07:24 AM EST
    but I've heard the stability over liberty sales pitch on the BBC and CNN too, to a lesser extent of course, but I can't believe it is uttered at all...its pretty sick thinking.

    Parent
    Have no fear. (5.00 / 2) (#71)
    by lentinel on Thu Feb 03, 2011 at 03:41:36 PM EST
    Obama has called the attacks on reporters, "unacceptable".

    That'll show 'em.

    a joke (none / 0) (#1)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Feb 03, 2011 at 01:21:57 PM EST
    possibly?  personally I got really tired of hearing about AC yesterday.  

    I mean (5.00 / 1) (#2)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Feb 03, 2011 at 01:23:00 PM EST
    its certainly not just him.  an Al Jazzera correspondent is missing.

    Parent
    And some journalists have been (none / 0) (#3)
    by oculus on Thu Feb 03, 2011 at 01:24:17 PM EST
    detained.

    Parent
    exactly (none / 0) (#6)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Feb 03, 2011 at 01:25:00 PM EST
    the fact that the vehicle he was in got its window broken is not really news.


    Parent
    ah just clicked the link (none / 0) (#4)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Feb 03, 2011 at 01:24:20 PM EST
    IMO is a joke AND a poke.

    both deserved.  

    Parent

    No (none / 0) (#8)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Feb 03, 2011 at 01:25:57 PM EST
    he later apologized for it and did not claim it was a joke.

    Moreover, is it really joke worthy?

    Parent

    weeeell (5.00 / 1) (#10)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Feb 03, 2011 at 01:28:33 PM EST
    all I can say is yesterday when I was condemned to cable news I got so sick of hearing about that I was ready to scream.
    probably not the only one who felt that way.  

    certainly its not a funny situation but there were a lot of things going on yesterday that cnn could have talked about but they wanted you to know andy was on the line.  for you.


    Parent

    Heh (none / 0) (#12)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Feb 03, 2011 at 01:32:14 PM EST
    the virtues of not watching.

    I know nothing of any of this.

    Parent

    Kind of surprising your intellectual (none / 0) (#24)
    by oculus on Thu Feb 03, 2011 at 01:55:53 PM EST
    curiousity doesn't encompass this.  I guess somebody has to worry about health care and economy though.

    Parent
    It is piqued (none / 0) (#30)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Feb 03, 2011 at 02:15:24 PM EST
    but not by television news coverage.

    Parent
    Have you listened to Al Jazeera? (none / 0) (#32)
    by oculus on Thu Feb 03, 2011 at 02:16:30 PM EST
    seriously (none / 0) (#33)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Feb 03, 2011 at 02:17:34 PM EST
    even without cameras far and away the best reporting.

    Parent
    I'm not watching. Am listening. (none / 0) (#34)
    by oculus on Thu Feb 03, 2011 at 02:18:27 PM EST
    only watching (none / 0) (#35)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Feb 03, 2011 at 02:19:24 PM EST
    because of the hot pagan baby.  speaking now.

    Parent
    Pres. Obama? (none / 0) (#36)
    by oculus on Thu Feb 03, 2011 at 02:22:57 PM EST
    who? (none / 0) (#39)
    by lilburro on Thu Feb 03, 2011 at 02:24:47 PM EST
    Would not know where to do it (none / 0) (#37)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Feb 03, 2011 at 02:23:59 PM EST
    Online?

    Parent
    Besides (none / 0) (#38)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Feb 03, 2011 at 02:24:17 PM EST
    Signing Day was coming up.

    Parent
    Al Jazeera English (none / 0) (#41)
    by oculus on Thu Feb 03, 2011 at 02:27:03 PM EST
    Of course the Superbowl is imminent.

    Parent
    Link: (none / 0) (#43)
    by oculus on Thu Feb 03, 2011 at 02:28:48 PM EST
    From that persepective I'm sure it was overplayed (none / 0) (#13)
    by ruffian on Thu Feb 03, 2011 at 01:33:40 PM EST
    But I think it was newsworthy as part of the overall apparent strategy to intimidate news media.

    Egyptian security seized BBC equipment at the Cairo Hilton today.

    Parent

    Query: why does Al Jazeera keep (none / 0) (#14)
    by oculus on Thu Feb 03, 2011 at 01:35:20 PM EST
    cutting off on my computer?

    Parent
    peak load (none / 0) (#17)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Feb 03, 2011 at 01:38:30 PM EST
    I would imagine.  happening to me too.


    Parent
    She (none / 0) (#9)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Feb 03, 2011 at 01:26:29 PM EST
    not  he.

    Parent
    I think it depends on which network (none / 0) (#7)
    by nycstray on Thu Feb 03, 2011 at 01:25:53 PM EST
    you are watching. Christiane Amanpour for ABC also ran into a bit of conflict, so they run that footage when talking about reporters getting physically involved.

    Parent
    So are many others (none / 0) (#28)
    by jbindc on Thu Feb 03, 2011 at 02:11:08 PM EST
    Here's a picture of a French photojournalist who was injured.

    it's journalists from CNN, BBC, al-Jazeera, etc.

    Parent

    ALso a Fox News crew (none / 0) (#87)
    by gyrfalcon on Fri Feb 04, 2011 at 12:43:50 AM EST
    got beaten up badly enough to be hospitalized overnight.

    Parent
    Time is still a magazine? (none / 0) (#5)
    by ruffian on Thu Feb 03, 2011 at 01:24:57 PM EST
    I see why it is irrelevant.

    Jay Newton-Small (none / 0) (#88)
    by gyrfalcon on Fri Feb 04, 2011 at 12:45:59 AM EST
    is an absolute moron.  I've had kind of a hair across my * about her idiocy since she first started showing up on the Time blog Swampland.  Aiiieeee.  Sometimes I look for her posts when I'm feeling logy in order to deliberately spike my blood pressure.  She would be grossly inadquate on a local paper.  What she's doing at Time-- which used to have some basic standards-- is beyond me.

    Parent
    may I just say (none / 0) (#21)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Feb 03, 2011 at 01:49:32 PM EST
    that "professor" al jazzera has been talking to all morning is smokin hot.


    Scrolling down her feed (none / 0) (#25)
    by lilburro on Thu Feb 03, 2011 at 01:57:24 PM EST
    I'm guessing it's a poke.  Other insightful tweets include

    JNSmall Jay Newton-Small
    Wikileaks was nominated for a Nobel Peace Prize?? http://tiny.cc/0oci9


    even a stopped (none / 0) (#26)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Feb 03, 2011 at 01:58:59 PM EST
    clock . . .

    Parent
    I assume we have all seen this (none / 0) (#27)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Feb 03, 2011 at 02:00:19 PM EST
    pagan baby (none / 0) (#31)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Feb 03, 2011 at 02:15:49 PM EST
    back on al jazzera

    "Forcible Rape" is out (none / 0) (#40)
    by jbindc on Thu Feb 03, 2011 at 02:26:43 PM EST
    Now it's just "rape"

    House Republicans plan to sidestep a charged debate over the distinction between "forcible rape" and "rape" by altering the language of a bill banning taxpayer subsidies for abortions.

    The provision in question, written as an exemption from the ban for women who become pregnant as a result of "forcible rape," touched off a firestorm of criticism from women's groups, and it gained enough attention to become the subject of a satirical segment on Comedy Central's "The Daily Show with Jon Stewart."

    But a spokesman for the bill's author, Rep. Chris Smith (R-N.J.), says the modifier "forcible" will be dropped so that the exemption covers all forms of rape, as well as cases of incest and the endangerment of the life of the mother.

    "The word forcible will be replaced with the original language from the Hyde Amendment," Smith spokesman Jeff Sagnip told POLITICO, referring to the long-standing ban on direct use of taxpayer dollars for abortion services.




    So much for (none / 0) (#84)
    by gyrfalcon on Fri Feb 04, 2011 at 12:22:26 AM EST
    all the overwrought, semi-hysterical prose about how the GOPers were in a conspiracy to abolish the whole concept of rape.

    Parent
    Uh, no (5.00 / 1) (#90)
    by Harry Saxon on Fri Feb 04, 2011 at 09:16:07 AM EST
    they wanted "forceable rape" redefined so as to leave out statutory rape(where the issue is the age of consent), but keep peeing where you drink, that must be an old Vermont custom or something.

    As Amanda Marcotte wrote on her blog a few days ago:

    Sadly, the mainstream media (outside of a handful of awesome fighters, like Rachel Maddow, Nicholas Kristof, and Bob Herbert) has gotten inured to relentless attacks on women from conservatives, and subsequently fail to properly understand that a bill like this is pure misogyny, with a giant side dose of class warfare.  They've failed to cover the nefarious workings of Rep. Chris Smith from New Jersey, who competes regularly in the heavy competition in Congress for the title Biggest Misogynist, and who has made a special pet project out of trying to shut down any foreign aid that would include contraception, and who has accused Secretary Clinton of being a friend to child rapists because she believes child rape victims should get medical care.  But as you'll see, Chris Smith is actually the worst enemy in Congress a minor victim of rape could have, starting with the fact that he seems to believe they're lying sluts who need to be punished.

    Click or Pandagon Me

    Parent

    Who is Amanda Marcotte? (none / 0) (#91)
    by jbindc on Fri Feb 04, 2011 at 09:31:13 AM EST
    And why should I care about her opinion?

    Parent
    She's part of the Pandagon blog (none / 0) (#92)
    by Harry Saxon on Fri Feb 04, 2011 at 09:46:08 AM EST
    which you'll find listed in "Blogs we Like" column on the right-hand side of this blog.

    And why should I care about her opinion?

    JM apparently does, but why do I care?

    Because she knows what she's talking about, IMHO.


    Parent

    Fine (none / 0) (#93)
    by jbindc on Fri Feb 04, 2011 at 10:09:09 AM EST
    You like her - good for you.  You didn't, however, have to be nasty with gyrfalcon in your comment.

    Although, this Amanda Marcotte thinks Rachel Maddow is so wonderful and the be-all end all, so I question her taste and reasoning as well.  Maybe her blog is good - who knows.  But becuause she wrote it on a blog doesn't mean it's gospel - it's her opinion.

    Parent

    Amanda Marcotte (5.00 / 1) (#97)
    by lilburro on Fri Feb 04, 2011 at 11:44:11 AM EST
    is a fairly major thought leader on liberal blogs, esp. blogs focused on women's issues.  She worked with John Edwards, she blogs at RHRealityCheck too...you don't have to agree with her obviously but she's influential.

    Parent
    When legitimate concerns (none / 0) (#94)
    by Harry Saxon on Fri Feb 04, 2011 at 10:54:56 AM EST
    are labeled

     

    overwrought, semi-hysterical prose about how the GOPers were in a conspiracy to abolish the whole concept of rape.

    then I'm not going to be diplomatic or 'nice' about my reaction to such drivel.

    Although, this Amanda Marcotte thinks Rachel Maddow is so wonderful and the be-all end all, so I question her taste and reasoning as well

    And she lives in that citadel of vice and iniquity, New York City, I thought that you might need to demonstrate some regionalism in your attack as well.

    She's even been on Maddows' show, so of course, you needn't worry your beautiful mind about her or when they cover stories such as this one:

    MSNBC host Rachel Maddow on Monday assailed a series of recent moves in Virginia under new Gov. Bob McDonnell, citing the rising influence of the Christian right in exacerbating "discrimination" against gays and women.

    Maddow was dumbstruck by state legislator Bob Marshall (R-Manassas), who declared Monday that children born with disabilities are God's "vengeance" for abortion, quoting scripture to make his case.

    "The number of children who are born subsequent to a first abortion with handicaps has increased dramatically. Why? Because when you abort the first born of any, nature takes its vengeance on the subsequent children," Marshall said, according to the Capital News Service

    A speechless Maddow noted that Marshall stood by his remarks when contacted by her producers. "This is the argument he's using as an elected official to...cut off any state support for Planned Parenthood," she said.

    Click or Pandagon Me

    But, keep hating on Rachel and her "self-confident pants", as Mr. Sommersby put it, if it makes you feel any better.

    But becuause she wrote it on a blog doesn't mean it's gospel - it's her opinion.

    But we didn't know that until you decided to tell us the truth.

    Thanks.  

    Parent

    Glad to help (none / 0) (#95)
    by jbindc on Fri Feb 04, 2011 at 11:03:00 AM EST
    Obvioulsy it's needed with some.  <snark>

    Parent
    Thanks as always for the feedback :-) (none / 0) (#96)
    by Harry Saxon on Fri Feb 04, 2011 at 11:13:03 AM EST
    FBI and DoD (none / 0) (#44)
    by jbindc on Thu Feb 03, 2011 at 02:32:52 PM EST
    Had enough information to discharge Maj. Hasan before the Ft. Hood massacre, but did not act on it says a bi-partisan (read:  Joe Lieberman and Susan Collins) Senate report.

    The report on the Texas army base shooting, authored by Senate Homeland Security Committee Chairman Joe Lieberman and top Republican Susan Collins, says that both agencies were aware of suspected gunman Army Major Nidal Malik Hasan's radicalization to violent Islamist extremism "but failed both to understand and to act on it."

    "Although both the public and the private signs of Hasan's radicalization to violent Islamist extremism while on active duty were known to government officials, a string of failures prevented these officials from intervening against him prior to the attack," it says in its executive summary.

    The senators say their investigation found "specific and systemic failures" in the government's handling of the case and cited additional concerns about possible broader systemic issues. "The FBI and DoD together failed to recognize and to link the information that they possessed about Hasan" they write.

    Hasan's move toward violent Islamist extremism "was on full display to his superiors and colleagues during his military medical training," according to the report's findings. One instructor referred to Hasan as "a ticking time bomb."

    "Not only was no action taken to discipline or discharge him, but also his Officer Evaluation Reports sanitized his obsession with violent Islamist extremism into praiseworthy research on counterterrorism."

    In a stinging charge against the Defense Department's handling of the matter, the report added, "DOD possessed compelling evidence that Hasan embraced views so extreme that it should have disciplined him or discharged him from the military, but DoD failed to take action against him."



    In Cairo, army has moved in to (none / 0) (#45)
    by oculus on Thu Feb 03, 2011 at 02:33:01 PM EST
    keep Mubarak supporters separated from anti-government protestors.  

    Oh man (none / 0) (#48)
    by lilburro on Thu Feb 03, 2011 at 02:39:39 PM EST
    I love Wonkette...on Rumsfeld's new book.

    Rabbi's statement (none / 0) (#72)
    by lilburro on Thu Feb 03, 2011 at 03:42:22 PM EST
    of support for Egyptian protesters (link).

    pretty strong words from Hill (none / 0) (#76)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Feb 03, 2011 at 04:08:06 PM EST
    WASHINGTON America's top diplomat, Hillary Clinton, condemned "shocking" bloody clashes that rocked the Cairo stronghold of anti-government protesters Wednesday, in a call to Vice-President Omar Suleiman.

    link

    Interesting our Sec. of State is now (none / 0) (#77)
    by oculus on Thu Feb 03, 2011 at 04:11:10 PM EST
    dealing with new VP of Egypt.

    Parent
    like I said (none / 0) (#79)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Feb 03, 2011 at 04:20:59 PM EST
    I think, protesters not withstanding, he may be the one put in charge of the transition.


    Parent
    Agree. Alhough the VP sd. (none / 0) (#80)
    by oculus on Thu Feb 03, 2011 at 04:22:52 PM EST
    the "transitioning" has already happened!

    Parent
    that was today (5.00 / 1) (#81)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Feb 03, 2011 at 04:26:39 PM EST
    there is always tomorrow

    Parent
    Well, sad to hear about (none / 0) (#78)
    by brodie on Thu Feb 03, 2011 at 04:12:43 PM EST
    actress Maria Schneider dying today.  Very mixed feelings about that very famous and controversial film she was in, which probably damaged her psychogically from the looks of it, and I thought she made some important points about exploitation of young stars by, uh, certain types of directors.

    Saw that film not long after it came out, originally released as an "X"-rated film, then once more in Paris a few yrs later.  A favorite film of the (older, French-speaking) woman I was dating at the time, as well as, iirc, one Pauline Kael, who went absolutely over the bend in praising it as a great work of film art.

    The 70s, whatever one thinks of Last Tango, did seem to produce more than its share of controversial and landmark movies.

    Health Care lawsuit dismissed in Mississippi (none / 0) (#82)
    by CoralGables on Thu Feb 03, 2011 at 08:11:00 PM EST
    A federal judge in Mississippi Thursday dismissed a lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of the U.S. healthcare reform law enacted in 2010.

    Judge Keith Starrett of the U.S. District Court Southern District of Mississippi in Hattiesburg found state Lt. Gov. Phil Bryant and others who filed a lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of the Patient Protection Affordable Care Act, did not have standing to file the suit. Starrett, told plaintiffs they could file an amended suit with 30 days

    Judge Starrett was appointed by George W Bush.

    He tips his hand on the merits too (none / 0) (#83)
    by andgarden on Thu Feb 03, 2011 at 10:31:54 PM EST
    Calls it a "tax penalty." (Opinion available here).

    Parent