Friday Cartoon Fun: Weiner Edition

Sunday Bonus Cartoon Fun: The Lamestream Media Edition

Wednesday Bonus Cartoon Fun: The Head Edition

Keith Olbermann Suspended For Donating To Dems: Updated Again, And, He's Back

Huffington Post is reporting that Keith Olbermann has been suspended without pay for donating $2400 each to 3 Democrats--Reps. Raul Grijalva and Gabrielle Giffords of Arizona, and to Kentucky Senate candidate Jack Conway.

The MSNBC rules state that on-air folks must get prior approval to donate money before an interview with the recipient. Some are saying that the donation was made post-interview (Grijalva was interviewed on Thursday, October 28).

I like Keith, though he has been less seen by me the last year or so because Rachel is so much better. But Keith paved the way for Rachel. Hell, he insisted she get her own show! He paved the way for Ed Schultz and now Lawrence O'Donnell.

Keith made a statement:

"One week ago, on the night of Thursday October 28 2010, after a discussion with a friend about the state of politics in Arizona, I donated $2,400 each to the re-election campaigns of Democratic Representatives Raul Grijalva and Gabrielle Giffords. I also donated the same amount to the campaign of Democratic Senatorial candidate Jack Conway in Kentucky...I did not privately or publicly encourage anyone else to donate to these campaigns nor to any others in this election or any previous ones, nor have I previously donated to any political campaign at any level."

I think suspending him is ridiculous, especially given Citizens United and Fox have perverted our elections in ways Keith's donations never could. This is stupid.

Michael Moore has a petition up. Sign it if you feel like it.

Update:  Bernie Sanders chimes in:

WASHINGTON - November 5 - “It is outrageous that General Electric/MSNBC would suspend Keith Olbermann for exercising his constitutional rights to contribute to a candidate of his choice. This is a real threat to political discourse in America and will have a chilling impact on every commentator for MSNBC.

“We live in a time when 90 percent of talk radio is dominated by right-wing extremists, when the Republican Party has its own cable network (Fox) and when progressive voices are few and far between.

“At a time when the ownership of Fox news contributed millions of dollars to the Republican Party, when a number of Fox commentators are using the network as a launching pad for their presidential campaigns and are raising money right off the air, it is absolutely unacceptable that MSNBC suspended one of the most popular progressive commentators in the country.

“Is Rachel Maddow or Ed Schultz next? Is this simply a ‘personality conflict’ within MSNBC or is one of America’s major corporations cracking down on a viewpoint they may not like? Whatever the answer may be, Keith Olbermann should be reinstated immediately and allowed to present his point of view."

Update II:

Network sources tell Playbook that Keith Olbermann was suspended because he refused to deliver an on-camera mea culpa, which would have allowed him to continue anchoring "Countdown." Olbermann told his bosses he didn't know he was barred from making campaign contributions, although he is resisting saying that publicly. Olbermann may not hold as many cards as he thinks. He makes $7 million a year and MSNBC's prime time is not as dependent on him as it was before the addition of Rachel Maddow and Lawrence O'Donnell, who make considerably less.

Politico

Update III:

From Phil Griffin, President of MSNBC:

After several days of deliberation and discussion, I have determined that suspending Keith through and including Monday night’s program is an appropriate punishment for his violation of our policy. We look forward to having him back on the air Tuesday night.

Education Nation: The Controversy: Updated

Anthony Cody, Gary Stager and I, among others were banned from Education Nation's Facebook page.

As a result I created Miseducation Nation to counter the one-sided perspective being pushed by NBC, Oprah and Waiting For Superman.

The admin of their page asked to talk to me about the banning and about my counter-page.  He called me tonight and we talked for a long time about the need for teachers to be an integral part of the conversation, especially since they have, by actions, made it clear that they think teachers are the problem.

He told me he didn't want it to seem that way and that they (NBC news) are not biased. I told him bias is as bias does, and they're pumping out pretty biased crap!  It was then quiet for a minute.

I told him, since he asked, that I would not take down my Miseducation Nation page. I told him if I see evidence that Education Nation is making their production more level--by un-banning all of us and letting us post as we choose, even if others complain--would prompt me to say something about that on Miseducation Nation.

Were you banned?  Leave a comment and I will see what I can do.

We shall see.

Update: Anthony, Gary and I are back, and Education Nation has set their wall default to show every post.  Good for them!

Miseducation Nation

You probably know about the NBC Arne-fest about to happen called Education Nation.

They have a Facebook page that is "A place for your thoughts on the greatest challenges, most exciting opportunities, and innovative ideas on education in America" and where they "hope to create a conversation about the challenges but want to focus on the solutions."  Interesting that they want to have a conversation about challenges, but focus on solutions--before they have talked about the challenges!!??  The only problem is they keep banning participants who disagree with the notion that too many teachers suck, and Arne, Bill and Eli should be in charge of education policy.  Most teachers don't suck, and those 3 dudes don't know what they are talking about when it comes to education.

They have banned me as well as many, many others also because we complained about the incredible lack of parent and teacher voices that will be represented at Education Nation.

Don't be fooled. NBC, whose websites are all hosted by Microsoft (msn.com), are on the reform bandwagon and aim to make a killing with this broadcast.  The teacher panel will be lectured to by Gates and Rhee.  It won't be a conversation.  It's a load of nonsense.

Join the alternative page, Miseducation Nation now!!

That Acorn/Fox Video Is Actually Fox Getting Punk'd!

h/t DWT

He Was Trusted For A Reason

Flashback: Cronkite Warned In Lead-Up To Iraq War — ‘We Are Going To Be In Such A Fix’

Americans of all ages and the journalist community are remembering the life and career of Walter Cronkite, famously revered as “the most trusted man in America.”

Salon’s Glenn Greenwald notes that the media is largely glossing over Cronkite’s “most celebrated and significant moment” — “when he stood up and announced that Americans shouldn’t trust the statements being made about the war by the U.S. Government and military, and that the specific claims they were making were almost certainly false.” Indeed, few journalists have noted Cronkite’s criticism of the Iraq war just as the invasion took place in March 2003:

At a Drew University forum, Cronkite said he feared the war would not go smoothly, ripped the “arrogance” of Bush and his administration and wondered whether the new U.S. doctrine of “pre-emptive war” might lead to unintended, dire consequences.

“Every little country in the world that has a border conflict with another little country … they now have a great example from the United States,” Cronkite, 86, said in response to a question from Drew’s president, former Gov. Thomas Kean. [...]

While many are confident the United States would easily oust Saddam Hussein, Cronkite said he isn’t so sure. “The military is always more confident than circumstances show they should be,” he said.

Cronkite speculated that the refusal of many traditional allies, such as France, to join the war effort signaled something deeper, and more ominous, than a mere foreign policy disagreement.

“The arrogance of our spokespeople, even the president himself, has been exceptional, and it seems to me they have taken great umbrage at that,” Cronkite said. “We have told them what they must do. It is a pretty dark doctrine.”

Cronkite chided Congress for not looking closely enough at the war and attempting to ascertain a viable estimate of its eventual cost, particularly in light of Bush’s commitment to tax cuts.

“We are going to be in such a fix when this war is over, or before this war is over … our grandchildren’s grandchildren are going to be paying for this war,” Cronkite said.

“I look at our future as, I’m sorry, being very, very dark. Let’s see our cards as we rise to meet the difficulties that lie ahead,” he added, in a play on Bush’s dismissive remarks about France.

But Cronkite, who spent many days and nights on battlefields and in campgrounds with U.S. forces, also spoke of supporting the troops.

“The time has come to put all of our, perhaps distaste, aside, and give our full support to the troops involved. That is the duty we owe our soldiers who had no role in deciding this course of action,” Cronkite said.

“Walter was always more than just an anchor,” President Obama said in a statement released Friday night. “He was someone we could trust to guide us through the most important issues of the day; a voice of certainty in an uncertain world. He was family. He invited us to believe in him, and he never let us down.”

Update: The Nation's John Nichols reports that as the war in Iraq went horribly awry, he asked Cronkite whether a network anchorman would speak out in the same way that he had. "I think it could happen, yes. I don't think it's likely to happen," he said with an audible sigh. "I think the three networks are still hewing pretty much to that theory. They don't even do analysis anymore, which I think is a shame. They don't even do background. They just seem to do headlines, and the less important it seems the more likely they are to get on the air."

Poverty Is The Reason For The Achievement Gap

I know I have said this before!

Another Report on Effects of Poverty You Will Never See Reported in Corporate Media

As Arne and the Disruptors prepare to unload their billion-dollar bribes to cash-starved states that are willing to buy the Business Roundtable's antiquarian reform agenda of national high stakes tests, teacher pay based on test scores, and the deprofessionalization of teaching, another piece of research from David Berliner adds to the mountain of data that points to the reason for low achievement that the Business Roundtable and Achieve, Inc. continue to ignore: POVERTY. But, then, without poverty, how could the BR and Achieve, Inc. continue to demonize the schools and to offer their own solutions that serve no one besides their own corporate interests. Poverty, in fact, keeps the Business Roundtable in the business of educational control initiatives operated by the education industry.

From EPRU at Arizona State:

New policy report explains how poverty's effects are the real culprit

Contact: David Berliner -- (480) 861-0484; berliner@asu.edu
Kevin Welner -- (303) 492-8370; kevin.welner@gmail.com

TEMPE, Ariz. and BOULDER, Colo., March 9, 2009 - A new report issues a fundamental challenge to established education policies that were promoted by the Bush administration and are likely to be continued by the Obama administration. These policies are based on a belief that public schools should shoulder the blame for the "achievement gap" between poor and minority students and the rest of the student population. But the new policy report argues that out-of-school factors are the real culprit--and that if those factors are not addressed, it will be impossible for schools to meet the demands made of them.

"Schools are told to fix problems that largely lie outside their zone of influence," says David Berliner, Regents Professor of Education at Arizona State University, and author of the report, Poverty and Potential: Out-of-School Factors and School Success. The report is jointly published by the Education Policy Research Unit (EPRU) of ASU and the Education and the Public Interest Center (EPIC) at the University of Colorado at Boulder.

Berliner's report comes as debate continues over the renewal of the No Child Left Behind Act, which imposed stiff accountability measures on schools in return for federal aid. NCLB requires public schools to demonstrate "adequate yearly progress" toward the eventual elimination of gaps in achievement among all demographic groups of students and imposes a variety of sanctions if they fall short.

"This report provides exactly the type of information that should guide policy," says EPIC director Kevin Welner of CU-Boulder. "It clearly and concisely explains why poverty must be directly addressed by anyone who hopes to close the achievement gap. Just as importantly, it explains why just tinkering with NCLB is a fool's errand."

Last week, Education Secretary Duncan told the Washington Post that those who would use the social ills of poor children as an excuse for not educating them "are part of the problem." Welner agrees. "But," he says, "those who point to schools as an excuse for failure to address social ills are equally at fault."

Berliner explains that NCLB "focuses almost exclusively on school outputs, particularly reading and mathematics achievement test scores." He says, "The law was purposely designed to pay little attention to school inputs in order to ensure that teachers and school administrators had 'no excuses' when it came to better educating impoverished youth."

Yet, as explained in the new report, that position is not merely unrealistic, but certain to fail. Berliner says that NCLB's accountability system is "fatally flawed" because it makes schools accountable for achievement without regard for out-of-school factors.

Berliner reviews a half-dozen out-of-school factors that have been clearly linked to lower achievement among poor and minority-group students: birth weight and non-genetic parental influences; medical care; food insecurity; environmental pollution; family breakdown and stress; and neighborhood norms and conditions. Additionally, he notes a seventh factor: extended learning opportunities in the form of summer programs, after-school programs, and pre-school programs. Access to these resources by poor and minority students could help mitigate the effects of the other six factors.

Because of the extraordinary influence of the six factors that Berliner identifies, "increased spending on schools, as beneficial as that might be, will probably come up short in closing the gaps." Instead, he calls for an approach to school improvement that would demand "a reasonable level of societal accountability for children's physical and mental health and safety."

"At that point," he concludes, "maybe we can sensibly and productively demand that schools be accountable for comparable levels of academic achievement for all America's children."

Find David Berliner's report, Poverty and Potential: Out-of-School Factors and School Success, on the web at:
http://epicpolicy.org/publication/poverty-and-potential

Hertzberg On Chris Matthews

Speech writers gotta stick together, I guess. I think Rick is basically right here; Matthews is no right-wingnut, and to lump him in with them is wrong. I liked Matthews when he was writing for the Chronicle, and I liked Hardball, until Olbermann and Maddow came along. I find myself liking Matthews again, especially after his evisceration of Bush's farewell.

Foul Tip

I recently labeled a couple of items “Strike One” (an apologia for Obama’s playing Inaugural footsie with Rick Warren) and “Strike Two” (a kind-of endorsement of Caroline Kennedy for senator from New York). “Strike Three” was going to be another senatorial endorsement: Chris Matthews for senator from Pennsylvania. He’s been a dear friend of mine for thirty years, and, as someone who knows him now and knew him when, I was going to vouch for him. He’d have made a great senator—brave, imaginative, funny, fiery, and inquisitive. And, yes, liberal.

Speaking of which, a few liberal bloggers have lumped Chris in with thugs like O’Reilly, Hannity, and Beck, which is absurd. Most of the hostility, I’m convinced, is left over from the Lewinsky era, when even I thought that Chris had temporarily misplaced his bearings. Some of it is owing to his less than totally efficient internal censor, and some to his puppyish habit of saying things like “You’re a great American!” to people like Tom DeLay. C’mon, people, he says that stuff to everybody. Media Matters, one of the most useful sites on the Web, has been weirdly, mercilessly one-sided when it comes to monitoring Matthews. Chris talks almost nonstop on TV for five and a half hours a week. He sprays first-draft opinions like a dropped firehose. It’s easy to cherry-pick silly or ill-considered or factually flawed things he’s said.

But no one on television has been a tougher critic of the Iraq war or a tougher questioner of the war’s backers. No one made more finely minced mincemeat of Republican spinners during the Presidential campaign. The new, watchable, liberal MSNBC lineup, with Keith Olbermann and Rachel Maddow, was built around Chris. He was there first. He’s the leadoff man.

Over the holidays, Chris decided he’s sticking to television. Bad news for those who, like me, think he’d be a tonic for the Senate. But good news for those who, also like me, can’t get enough of “Hardball.” It’s comfort food for the politically ravenous.

Rachel Maddow: Hot!

I don't remember exactly when I saw her first, probably on Countdown. She impressed me. She seemed smart and funny, hip and square, liberal and serious. Can I also call her adorable?

When folks got smart enough to give her a show, I was happy.

Right now, as far as I'm concerned, she is the best thing on television. I hear her ratings are nothing to sneeze at either. Yeah, she's hot!

So, here's to America. If we're smart enough to give Rachel Maddow a show, we should be smart enough to get Barack Obama elected.

This all bodes well.

Carry on.

Olbermann & Matthews: Fuck Ups?

The story is that Olbermann and Matthews will not be doing political anchoring anymore because they snipe and are too liberal.

Okay. They do snipe. Too much sniping around lately indeed, with shovels and finger-jabber mocking and off-air (oops! not!) stoopid gaffes. But too liberal?

I mean, yeah, they are pretty liberal, Scarborough, Matthews, Todd. Oh, and Olbermann can get pretty lefty now and again. Maybe Maddow will be a bit lefty too. But after all these years of FOX, can't we have one place where the truth can be told without fear?

When Olbermann got sanctimonious about the 911 video shown at the Republican convention, HE WAS RIGHT! Yeah, he was a bit much. But he lost friends, and felt wrong saying nothing of the Republican's horrible video. He was right to call it out, his over-the-top special comments are right on, and he ought to be anchoring everything, if not for the truth, then for the humor.

Olbermann and Matthews make a crazy, spontaneous, intelligent (sometimes) team, and they are fun to watch. They also provide a rather benign--too benign--retort to FOX.

MSNBC has bowed to ratings and image. Fuck journalism, right? Who needs it?

Sullivan Gushes Over Palin's Religiosity

Andrew Sullivan, erstwhile raging right-winger, has this to say about Sarah Palin's decision to keep her (?) Down Syndrome baby:

In thinking about this astonishing week, and what's to come, I want to go on record again as saying that the decision to bring up a Down Syndrome child is one of the most noble, beautiful and admirable decisions any person can make. That Sarah Palin is doing that says a huge amount about her. The love obviously being shown toward tiny Trig is also about as profound an advertisement for genuine, pro-life Christianity as you can have. It means that, in this respect, Palin has walked the walk of the pro-life movement - in ways that many others have not. In my view, and I mean this as passionately as I mean my criticisms of her public record, this really is God's work.

Seriously? It's God's work? It shows love? These two statements seem mutually exclusive to me. Either it is for love, or for Jesus. Of course, if you (like Sullivan and Palin, apparently) believe Jesus is love, then I suppose Andrew makes sense. Walking the walk of the pro-lifers seems to point toward Sullivan's prior take on the baby: that it is Bristol's!

Keeping the Down Syndrome baby is something, depending on why you are keeping it. If you are keeping it because your parents won't let you abort it, that is bad. If you are keeping it so you will get into Heaven, again, that's a bad reason. I have no reason to believe there is another option for the Palins. This is not love, this is blind devotion being spun as love.

C'mon Sully!

Update question: Why is it that atheists, with no moral compass or reason to behave, can't screw their way to population dominance? Rather, it's those God-fearing right-to-lifers who seem to be making all the babies. Maybe if they were to lose their religion, we would have fewer of them!

Palin To Be Interviewed This Week!

AP says Charlie Gibson will be flying to Alaska this week to interview Sarah Palin, the Republican VP candidate.

Here's hoping Charlie doesn't wimp out. He needs to ask her about:

1. The Bridge to Nowhere
2. Troopergate
3. The Governor's jet
4. Her belief that the bible is the "truth"
5. Why she went to 5 colleges in 6 years
6. What is her favorite shade of pitbull lipstick
7. Why she flew home to Alaska after her water broke
8. Why it is okay for her daughter to make up her own mind about keeping the baby, but not okay for the other American teenagers who find themselves in the same unfortunate position
9. What's with the hair

Palin Is A Wolf In Sheep's Clothing!

Over at Newshoggers they are talking about what I mentioned earlier: that Sarah Palin is no neophyte, and we must be cautious!

The Palin Trap

By Libby

I haven't been blogging much here for a few reasons. One, I'm job hunting. Two, I'm blogging up a storm at The Detroit News on the premise that I'm reaching the most McCain supporters there. Three, I've been arguing for days with libertarians. And four, I've been doing a lot of research on Sarah Palin, trying to figure out the GOP strategy beyond the obvious ploy of keeping her away from the media in any sort of unscripted format in order to avoid a Fred Thompsonesque crash. I've come to the conclusion that we've walked into an incredibly intricate, Rovian trap that is breathtaking in the scope of its long range planning.

The current, carefully built narrative speaks of a hasty and rash pick, plucking a fragile and shallow neophyte, unprepared to battle with the big guns of the Village out of the wilds of Alaska, who nonetheless is showing her mettle and proving her critics wrong. Nothing could be further from the truth. For one thing, she's been in politics for a long time and from her tiny fiefdom in Wasilla to the statehouse in Juneau, she has demonstrated a strong ability to practice the ruthless politics of personal destruction. She forms alliances of convenience and does not hesitate [sic] to stab her allies in the back to further her own goals.

As McCain might say, she's learned her dirty tricks at the feet of some the most corrupt politicians in the USA. She was cozy with the Murkowskis, bowing out in one state Senate race and working to elect his daughter, ultimately being rewarded for her 'team spirit' with a patronage position as head of Alaska Oil and Gas Conservation Commission, which by the way pays a six figure annual income. Two years later, having gathered her oppo, she quit the commission, charged her enemies, now including Murkowski, with corruption and developed the 'ethical maverick,' corruption buster storyline that ultimately carried her into the governor's office.

Then there's her long association with with the king of corruption, Ted Stevens, including as a founding member of his 527 PAC. She had plenty of national press experience in the long course of Stevens' indictment. Blue NC uncovered a joint press conference she gave with him that appears to have been with local media. But if you watch the whole thing, where they address their ongoing association despite Sarah's public criticism of him, it speaks volumes on how practiced she really is in spinning. She's clearly learned much from him, though you can tell from her body language she doesn't like him a bit. He's just another convenient ally, but he's too big to take down -- yet.

But beyond all that, the GOP has had their eye on her for a very long time. Back in July of 07, Fred Barnes did a gushing profile piece on her, where he was already building the hockey mom meme. The piece reveals, among the endless flattery, that she is no stranger to the politics of personality. Her whole career has been built on it and a key element is avoiding too much exposure to the public and the press.

Her campaign for governor was bumpy. She missed enough campaign appearances to be tagged "No Show Sarah" by her opponents. She was criticized for being vague on issues. But she sold voters on the one product that mattered: herself.

In other words, (forgive me feminist readers for saying this) she traded on her looks and her personality to get what she wanted. She's not so much an achiever, as I've seen posited elsewhere, as she is a master manipulator. In December of 07, Fred Barnes had this to say about her.

"What helps her obviously is that she's a woman, she's attractive, she's a conservative, she has a strong record of integrity, she's a spending-cutter, she's not a tax-raiser, and those things obviously would help," Barnes said. "I'm not sure she's ready to be vice president, yet, however."

Notice the continued building of the current narrative. But, two days ago, Fred had this to say.

Palin shouldn't be shackled by her conservatism. True, she's a committed social conservative strongly opposed to abortion. But the portrait of her as a right-wing zealot painted by the mainstream media isn't accurate. In her short career, Palin has raised taxes, bailed out a failing state-run milk enterprise, and worked to keep federal money flowing to Alaska. She's conservative, but not that conservative. [...]

So how in the world could this 44-year-old woman with no national political experience handle the whole thing with poise and composure and seeming effortlessness? Simple. She's a natural, gifted with the ability to connect with people in a way that few politicians can and to perform under extreme pressure. She has star quality.

It looks to me like the strategy is to paint her as 'true' bi-partisan, willing to embrace Democratic strategies to get the job done, when they finally unveil her to the media. And Leftopia and the media just spent the last week and a half building that narrative for them. Sure smells like a trap from where I sit and we walked right into it.

The Palin Baby Timeline (with wingnut and MSM juxtapositioning)

Politics and Power Blog: vanityfair.com

What We Have Here Is A Failure To Communicate

Eagleton, Ferraro, and Quayle were all interviewed, on national media, within hours of being announced as VP (okay, maybe a day or two). It did not take them, what, 9 days since Palin was announced? And she is supposedly incommunicado for the next couple weeks.

This is not good. The Republicans are using her, hiding her, and touting her as if all we need is their imprimatur. Well, we need PALIN, interviewed, by Maddow (or anyone not on Fox)!

It is unthinkable to me that we may allow this Republican ticket to get away with this end-run around a proper vetting of a Vice Presidential Candidate.

If they get elected, we deserve it.

What Can You Get For $300,000?

$300,000 buys ...

... one and a half houses, given the national median home price of $206,500.

... a year's worth of health care for 750 people.

... the full array of back-to-school supplies and clothes for 500 kids.

... enough gas to drive cross-country 543 times.

... 365 round-trip flights from Washington, D.C., to Anchorage, Alaska. (John McCain should have splurged on at least one.)

... a three-course steak dinner (at Mat-su Resort) and a movie ticket (for the Mat-su Cinema) for every man, woman, and child in Wasilla, Alaska.

... enough money for three Troopergate investigations.

h/t vanity fair

They Look Pretty (rich)!

Laura Bush
Oscar de la Renta suit: $2,500
Stuart Weitzman heels: $325
Pearl stud earrings: $600–$1,500
Total: Between $3,425 and $4,325

Cindy McCain
Oscar de la Renta dress: $3,000
Chanel J12 White Ceramic Watch: $4,500
Three-carat diamond earrings: $280,000
Four-strand pearl necklace: $11,000–$25,000
Shoes, designer unknown: $600
Total: Between $299,100 and $313,100

So, who's elite now, bitches?!

Debunking Palin

Let's do some debunking.

1. As Governor of Alaska Sarah Palin sold on eBay, for a profit, the Governor's jet. No, she listed it on eBay, and then someone else sold it for her, at a loss.

2. As Governor of Alaska Sarah Palin was against the Bridge to Nowhere. No, she was for it, took the money, and was then against it.

3. Sarah Palin is a mainstream Christian. No, she is a right-wingnut, believes the bible is literally true, and thinks her duty as Governor of Alaska is to do God's will.

4. Sarah Palin is a corrupt, smalltime, ignorant, smarmy, self-important, holier-than-thou, 44-year old grandmother-to-be who thinks living near Russia gives her foreign policy credentials. Yes. All true.

5. Sarah Palin was completely vetted. No, she wasn't.