ChrisinParis (AmBlog): Burger King franchise responds to "global warming is baloney" controversy
Basically, they're freedom lovin', God fearin', Fox News watchin', Bush-lovin', Obama hatin' folks. Basically. Every country has their crowd of idiots and this is certainly an American classic. While the franchise, Mirabile Investment Corporation, is enjoying the controversy, the good news is that they're obviously fuming over Obama being in the White House. They even regurgitate the right wing "Obama's apology tour" line that is making its way around in those circles. The question now is how much or how little support they receive from their community who now have a clearer understanding of what they're all about.C&L: Pat Buchanan's race-based diatribes on Sotomayor a sight to behold
The environmental journalist from The Guardian (UK) phoned the business and managed to speak with the franchise. It's a strange interview but you have to love a restaurant owner throwing in a story about cockroaches. That always inspires confidence in an operation selling food. I'm smellin' a pro-Sarah Palin post on that board sometime soon, if it hasn't been posted already.
Amato Friday Jun 05, 2009 6:00pmWe've been doing a lot of posting on Pat, but Media Matters put together a cool mash up.
- Yglesias: NR’s Sotomayor Cover
So National Review decided to run this very odd cover image of Judge Sonia Sotomayor:
It seems that what happened was that, as conservatives are wont to do, they tried to do something that would be racist, but also arguably not racist. Hence, instead of depicting a Latina with a racist stereotyped image of a Latina, they depicted her with a racist stereotyped image of an Asian. It’s hard to know exactly what to make of that. But National Review editor Rich Lowry seems to have known exactly what to make of it since as this post makes clear he was anticipating people criticizing the imagery.
At any rate, then he waited around a bit, got the accusations of racism he was waiting for, and then got to engage in every white conservative’s favorite passtime of wallowing in self-pity and calling his accusers humorless.
Unfortunately, there’s not a good shorthand term for the psychology behind this kind of behavior. “Racism” doesn’t, I think, capture it. But there’s this deranged fascination with walking up to the line and dancing around there in hopes of getting called on it. Then you get to become indignant. Because, again, the contemporary right’s main view on race is that actual racism against non-white people is only a tiny problem compared with the vast social crisis that allegedly exists around people being vigilant against racism.
Hat tip on this to Brian Beutler who adds a funny unrelated joke “Also featured on the cover in the current issue: ‘Jonah Goldberg On His Critics.’ That better be a long article.”
There was a fascinating exchange the other night on Fox News between Bill O'Reilly and Karl Rove, with the two evaluating President Obama's speech in Cairo. It was brief, but helpful.Think Progress: Inhofe Rips Obama As ‘Un-American,’ Suggests He’s On The Side Of TerroristsO'Reilly, wearing his devil's advocate hat, lauded President Bush's counter-terrorism successes, but argued that the former president simply wasn't credible in "the Muslim world." Rove said he "totally" disagreed. When O'Reilly pressed the point, Rove replied:
"You know what? Who cares about whether or not they approve or like the president of the United States? The question is do they respect the policies of the United States government? And you bet they did. Because we showed strength and power and influence."
Remember, Rove was the deputy White House chief of staff, and one of the former president's top advisors.
And as far as this guy is concerned, looking back over the last eight years, Muslims throughout the Middle East "respected the policies" of the Bush administration, and whether people in the region admire the U.S. president is entirely irrelevant.
He was serious.
In our reality, al Qaeda is scrambling to tarnish President Obama's reputation in the region because, as Richard Clarke explained last year, the last thing terrorists want is a popular U.S. president who enjoys respect and support on the world stage.
Once in a while, it's worth taking a moment to breathe a sigh of relief that loyal Bushies are no longer running the government.
Reacting to President Obama’s outreach to the Muslim world yesterday, Sen. James Inhofe (R-OK) decried the president’s speech as “un-American” and even suggested Obama might be on the side of terrorists:Benen: LIZ IS NOT A 'GREAT GUEST'...Sen. Jim Inhofe said today that President Barack Obama’s speech in Cairo was “un-American” because he referred to the war in Iraq as “a war of choice” and didn’t criticize Iran for developing a nuclear program.
Inhofe, R-Tulsa, also criticized the president for suggesting that torture was conducted at the military prison in Guantanamo, saying, “There has never been a documented case of torture at Guantanamo.”
“I just don’t know whose side he’s on,” Inhofe said of the president.
Unsurprisingly, actual Iraqis and Iranians — a couple of the key audiences for Obama’s speech — viewed it far more favorably than Inhofe. Iraqi government spokesman Ali al-Dabbagh said the speech reflected greater understanding of Mideast culture and “reduces the chance of growth of extremist ideas that are trying to tarnish the image of Islam in the world.” “Obama’s speech was extraordinary. I loved it,” said 24-year old Iranian Morteza Sinaie. “I wish every Iranian would hear it. I think it would dramatically change their opinion about Obama and the United Sates.”
Reporting from Iraq, NPR correspondent JJ Sutherland noted one family said they wished Obama’s words “to be real. We wish what he’s saying to be real.” Reporting from Iran, Christian Science Monitor’s Scott Peterson wrote, “Mr. Obama’s pledge that America was ‘ready to move forward’ with ‘courage, rectitude, and resolve’ will be welcome in Tehran.”
One of the important goals of Obama’s speech was to stop creating an “us versus them” mentality with the Muslim world, the very approach that Inhofe is still espousing. In his speech, Obama tried to end language that suggests the Muslim world and the U.S. are on competing sides:
I have come here to seek a new beginning between the United States and Muslims around the world; one based upon mutual interest and mutual respect; and one based upon the truth that America and Islam are not exclusive, and need not be in competition. Instead, they overlap, and share common principles — principles of justice and progress; tolerance and the dignity of all human beings.
The Wall Street Journal reports, “Muslims in the Middle East and beyond praised U.S. President Barack Obama for the tone of his speech Thursday.” Al-Jazeera, the Arab world’s leading satellite channel, celebrated the speech as “an attempt at forging a new relationship between Washington and the Muslim world.” If the Muslim world is on America’s side, whose side is Inhofe on?
UpdateThe Financial Times reports, “Even Saudi Islamists expressed their satisfaction after Mr Obama spoke on Thursday. ‘It is a beautiful speech in general,’ said Mohsen al-Awaji, an activist. ‘He talked about peace in Islam and we are saying yes, Islam is a religion of peace towards those who are peaceful with us but a religion of war for those who are fighting us.’”UpdateMore Iraqi reaction. The Washington Post reports, "[F]or many Muslims, Obama's nearly hour-long address at Cairo University was a much-welcomed clearing of the air."
Liz Cheney made four television appearances yesterday, showing up on all three major cable networks. She's made seven national appearances since Monday. Media Matters updated its comprehensive list, and found that Liz Cheney has been on national television 22 times in the last 24 days.Mind you, Liz Cheney is not a journalist or a media professional. She's not a celebrity or a candidate for public office. She doesn't work for a news outlet, government agency, party, think tank, or activist organization. She isn't known for saying anything especially provocative, amusing, counter-intuitive, or thought-provoking.
Liz Cheney is given a media platform, over and over again, to defend her father, attack the president, and repeat transparently ridiculous Republican talking points. None of the networks that has featured her on-air "analysis" seem to find it at all strange that they're seeking political commentary on Dick Cheney's national security efforts from his own daughter.
Greg Sargent chatted with MSNBC this afternoon about the odd trend.
MSNBC is shrugging off the growing criticism of the extensive airtime the network has granted Liz Cheney to mount a political defense of her father and a political offensive against the Obama administration, with a network spokesperson saying, "Liz is a great guest."
As more critics are beginning to notice, Liz Cheney is not an ordinary GOP commentator. She is an active spokesperson on her father's behalf at a time when questions about how to handle the Bush torture program are actively being debated by the White House and Congress. Her appearances are not comparable to those of conventional GOP guests.
Yet ... Liz Cheney has been granted a near-constant platform on MSNBC to act as her father's chief defender and go after Obama, often without meaningful challenge from either a co-guest or from anchors. They also note that it's unclear what makes her newsworthy enough, in and of herself, to merit all that airtime.
The whole of the defense is, "Liz is a great guest."
Except, that's not at all true. Liz Cheney not only lies routinely on national television, she occasionally even repeats bogus arguments that even her father won't say. My friend Rachel Maddow joked last night, "Liz Cheney is still on TV -- making news by apparently making stuff up."
This isn't to pick on MSNBC, which has featured Liz Cheney's on-air attacks four times in the last eight days, and six times in the last 24 days. The other cable nets are just as bad.
There's no modern precedent for such a ridiculous arrangement. Dick Cheney launches a crusade against the White House, and to supplement his attacks, the networks turn to his daughter -- 22 times in 24 days?
This isn't journalism. It's just crazy.
Think Progress: Coleman urges Republicans to be more tech-savvy by competing on the ‘ethernet.’
Over the past few months, improving their web presence has become a hot topic for conservatives. At a debate earlier this year, candidates for the chairmanship of the RNC boasted about the number of followers they had on Twitter and friends on Facebook. Yesterday, in an interview at the Conservative Heartland Leadership Council in St. Paul, former Minnesota Republican senator Norm Coleman inadvertently highlighted the “tech gap” between conservatives and progressives when he encouraged conservatives to compete with progressives on the “ethernet“:
“In the end, we need to compete, as I’ve said before, we need to compete in each and every kind of forum,” said Coleman. “And whether it’s on the ground traditionally, or today it’s in — it’s in the ethernet. It’s in the — you know, it’s online. It’s in the blogs, it’s Twitter, it’s Facebook, and the next iteration.”
Watch it:
(HT: Minnesota Independent)
sgw: "And That's Called Reporting"
FALSE EQUIVALENCY WATCH....Bill O'Liely has shaken up a hornets nest with Rick Sanchez. I don't think he will be making shit up about CNN again any time soon.
Many of Sonia Sotomayor's less responsible detractors have been throwing around careless (and baseless) accusations of "racism." Today, CNN ran an unbelievably forgiving piece on Sen. Jeff Sessions (R) of Alabama, the ranking Republican on the Senate Judiciary Committee, who CNN suggests was unfairly painted with the same brush.The headline reads, "Key senator knows what it's like to be called 'racist.'" (via TPM)
When greeting Judge Sonia Sotomayor this week, Republican Sen. Jeff Sessions of Alabama made sure to tell her something loud enough for the assembled reporters to hear.
"You will get a fair hearing before this committee," Sessions told President Obama's Supreme Court nominee with emphatic gestures and tone.
That greeting wasn't just pleasantries. It was a promise born out of his own experience.
From there, CNN reports on Sessions' 1986 judicial nominee, which was defeated, with bipartisan opposition, due in large part to the Alabama Republican's record on race. The piece characterizes Sessions as a victim of painful attacks -- which makes it easier for him to relate to Sotomayor.
Characterizing these as relative equivalents is silly. The attacks on Sotomayor are baseless and easily debunked. The charges against Sessions 23 years ago were based on extensive facts, an outrageous pattern, and were bolstered by a lengthy record.
As a U.S. Attorney in Alabama, Sessions' most notable effort was prosecuting three civil rights workers, including a former aide to Martin Luther King Jr., on trumped up charges of voter fraud.
Also during his illustrious career in Alabama, Sessions called the NAACP "un-American" because it, among other groups, "forced civil rights down the throats of people." A former career Justice Department official who worked with Sessions recalled an instance when he referred to a white attorney as a "disgrace to his race" for litigating voting rights cases on behalf of African Americans. Sessions later acknowledged having made many of the controversial remarks attributed to him, but claimed to have been joking.
What's more, Thomas Figures, a former assistant U.S. Attorney in Alabama and an African American, later explained that during a 1981 murder investigation involving the Ku Klux Klan, Sessions was heard by several colleagues commenting that he "used to think they [the Klan] were OK" until he found out some of them were "pot smokers." Sessions once again acknowledged making the remark, but once again claimed to have been kidding. Figures also remembered having heard Sessions call him "boy," and once warn him to "be careful what you say to white folks."
How is this in any way similar to the attacks on Sotomayor? It's not. The CNN report, which includes extensive quotes from poor Sessions, and precious little about why he was accused of racism in the first place, is woefully incomplete.
- from the comments:
Hillary Clinton was accused of killing Vince Foster.
Jeffrey Dahmer was accused of murder.
Hillary Clinton = Jeffrey Dahmer.
Man this is a fun game...
Posted by: sven on June 5, 2009 at 2:02 PM
Think Progress: South Carolina Supreme Court orders Sanford to accept stimulus funds.
After waging a months-long war against the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, Gov. Mark Sanford (R-SC) lost his final battle yesterday, when the state supreme court ordered him to accept the $700 million in stimulus funds he had opposed. The court, in a unanimous decision made “with blazing fast speed,” took extra steps to try to ensure Sanford obeys their ruling:
The S.C. Supreme Court also took the rare step of issuing a writ of mandamus, which orders the governor to apply for the money. [...]
As for issuing the writ of mandamus, the other four justices said that “while we recognize and respect Governor Sanford’s sincerely held beliefs concerning (the federal law), those convictions do not alter the ministerial nature of the legal duty now before him.”
The justices added that the decision to issue a writ is “an extremely delicate one.”
$185 million will go to K-12 education this year, on July 1, and $100 million will go to state colleges. “I’m very excited that our schools and our teachers and our education system will be getting the funds that are so desperately needed here in South Carolina, and I’m glad the court case went our way,” said 18-year-old South Carolina student Casey Edwards, who filed the lawsuit.
UpdateTeachers across the state are expressing a "sigh of relief."
Sully: Call Me When You Are Serious
Derek Thompson checks out the GOP's spending cut proposal:
At nearly $2 trillion, the deficit is a monster. So the GOP has proposed $375 billion of budget cuts to pare it down. That's the good news. The bad news is that when you peak under the hood of the engine, you see two big wrenches. 1) $317 billion of the estimated cuts is just a cap on discretionary spending, which is a make-believe item that will never pass Congress. 2) The new, actionable ideas amount to only $5 billion a year, which is a hardy 0.3% of the estimated deficit.
As the Cato Institute blog points out, if you're aiming to amputate billions of dollars off the budget, why keep defense spending off the operating tableDerek also writes about some of the non-crazy ideas in the proposal.
Think Progress: Burr Defends Mint-Flavored Suckable ‘Tobacco Lollipops,’ Claims They’re Not Being Marketed To Children
On May 27, CNN’s Carol Costello reported on tobacco company R.J. Reynolds new dissolvable “smokeless products.” Noting that critics call them “tobacco lollipops” that are aimed at getting “kids hooked on nicotine,” Costello reported that “R.J. Reynolds will soon test three new products — Camel sticks that dissolve as you suck them, minty tobacco strips that look like breath strips, and orbs — flavored, dissolvable tablets that some say look and taste exactly like candy.”
On the Senate floor yesterday, Sen. Richard Burr (R-NC) came to the tobacco company’s defense, claiming that it wasn’t trying to deceive anyone; it’s CNN’s fault for labeling Camel Orbs as candy. Burr charged that CNN “mischaracterized the product” because “it’s not candy flavored”:
BURR: But when CNN did their story. Take a guess on the angle that they took. They labeled it as candy. Candy! Even though it’s not candy flavored. They said it was candy. … No, they said it was candy. That’s where they labeled it. … They portrayed Reynolds America as being deceptive and luring children. No candy. It’s not going in the candy section. It’s in the tobacco section where smokeless and stick products is.
Later in his speech, Burr responded to Sen. Jeff Merkley’s (D-OR) criticism that some of the dissolvable tobacco products are in containers shaped like cell phones to attract kids. “Let me assure you, Mr. President, if a cell phone doesn’t work, children don’t want it,” said Burr. Watch it:
While Burr might claim that the Orbs aren’t “candy-flavored,” the fact is that they come in “mint and cinnamon flavors” known as “fresh” and “mellow.” Additionally, the tobacco industry has a well-documented history of using flavored tobacco to market their products to children:
Documents from the tobacco industry also contradict these claims. A report from R.J. Reynolds in 1985 stated: “Sweetness can impart a different delivery taste dimension, which younger adult smokers may be receptive to, as evidenced by their taste wants in other product areas.” A Brown & Williamson report from 1972 suggested consideration of developing cola-flavored and apple-flavored cigarettes. The report also suggested a sweet-flavored cigarette and stated: “It’s a well-known fact that teenagers like sweet products. Honey might be considered.” If flavored products were appealing to youth then, what has changed to make them less appealing to youth now?
Burr’s speech today follows his earlier claims that regulating tobacco by the FDA would contradict the agency’s mission to protect public health since there is no healthy way to use tobacco. Burr, whose hometown Winston-Salem is also the home of R.J. Reynolds, is the second-highest recipient of campaign contributions from Big Tobacco.
No comments:
Post a Comment