Talking Points Memo: The FOX Report- Chris Wallace: 'Calls Presidential Interruption by Neil Munro Outrageous'

Source:Talking Points Memo- Shepard Smith & Chris Wallace: two actual FNC journalists. 

Source:FreeState Now

"Chris Wallace Calls Interruption By Daily Caller Reporter 'Outrageous"

From Talking Points Memo 

There use to be a day in American journalism when reporters were reporters and commentators were commentators. Reporters would write facts that they found and share them with who they worked for and their audience. Commentators and columnists would write about what they thought of the news that was reported and what that meant. In today’s media it’s a little harder to tell the difference between news and commentary. Even though the Washington Post, New York Times and Wall Street Journal still do a very job of reporting.

Even though these three news giants clearly slant in one direction or another, when it comes to their editorials, but you can tell the differences between their reporters and their editorialists. With today’s online partisan media, with “news organizations” clearly slant in one direction or the other. Talking Points Memo on the left and The Daily Caller on the right, who don’t hide from their partisan leanings, but they do it to the point that most of their stories, benefit their side of the aisle ideologically.

And rarely do partisan publications report something that’s negative towards their side of the aisle. Which is why I believe if you are going to follow one of these partisan news organizations”, I suggest you follow them on both sides. Because many times, you’ll only get one side of the story from one of these groups. But follow both of them and you may get the full story, or at least half of it. Some of these “news organizations” are so partisan to the point that they’ll send their columnists and analysts to press conferences, as if they are reporters and not commentators, to ask questions that are intended to benefit or hurt the person that’s giving the press conference.

David Corn does this for the so-called progressive Mother Jones Magazine and Neal Munro does this for the right-wing The Daily Caller. But Neil Munro took it to a different level today at President Obama’s press conference on immigration reform. Where he literally heckled the President, interrupting him as he was giving his speech. Its one thing to not like a President, as Mr. Munro clearly doesn’t, or be against him or even feel that the President is not worthy of the office and feel disrespect for him. But it’s another to disrespect the office, which is what Neil Munro was doing today.

I have no problem with aggressive journalism as its called today, as long as its intended to report facts. And not designed to make the case for one side of an argument or another. But it’s another thing, just to be rude and classless and not just disrespect the person that’s holding the office, but disrespect the office itself. Which is what Neil Munro did today and proved that the right-wing is more than just against President Obama on philosophically. 

HBO Docs: The Weight of The Nation (2012)

Source:HBO Docs- From HBO's documentary Weight of The Nation. 

Source:FreeState Now  

"To win, we have to lose. The four-part HBO Documentary Films series, The Weight of The Nation explores the obesity epidemic in America." 

From HBO Docs

I’m all for cutting our healthcare costs, but doing it in a way that encourages personal responsibility and protects individual freedom. Two reasons why I’m against the NYC soda ban (which is an example of the Nanny State on steroids) it fails both tests, personal responsibility and individual freedom. Because of instead of leaving it up to the people to decide how to take care of themselves, it essentially outlaws a bad habit. Doesn’t eliminate it, just outlaws it. Two different things.

When you outlaw something, you are telling people what you can’t do, whatever it is you are outlawing. Doesn’t mean it goes away, it just means whatever has been outlawed, is now illegal. New Yorkers will still drink those large sodas, but take their tax dollars outside of New York City. 

But when you eliminate something, well guess what happens (I’m speaking basic English here) it goes away, because you eliminated it. So-called Progressives (Neo-Communists, in actuality) have this notion, that you can automatically eliminate bad behavior, by outlawing it, through prohibition. They’ve tried this with alcohol, organized gambling and now caffeine and sugar. Guess what, those things still continue , just done in different places or done illegally.

As a Liberal I believe in individual freedom, as long as you are not hurting innocent people with your freedom. As well as personal responsibility, that is to say we all make choices in life, for good and bad and have to deal with the consequences of our decisions. 

If someone wants to drink soda pop all day, eat nothing but junk food and doesn’t exercise, that’s on them as an adult. But that I and others who don’t make those bad choices and take better care of ourselves, shouldn’t be stuck with cost of John and Jane or whoever who made poor choices with their health.

People who make good decisions with their lives, should be rewarded for them and that people who make poor choices, should be held accountable for their poor decisions. Including the health costs of those bad decisions. Thats what comes from living in a liberal society and not a Nanny State. 

We’ll never have a health care system, where people who can’t afford health care, won’t get it, at least at the emergency room. Americans will always get health care, at least in emergencies. The question is how is it paid for. As much as Libertarians may want so-called free health care to go away. 

But what we can do is force people who have chosen to live unhealthy, a choice they didn’t have to make, to pay for their bad decisions up front. It’s very simple, you tax people for living unhealthy, not prohibiting it, so they can pay up front for the health care that they are going to need later on. As a result of their bad decision-making and you reward people for living healthy. Thats one good way to control our health care costs.

Talking Points Memo: 'The War on Everything'

Source:Talking Points Memo- CNN, doing a report on torture. Hopefully they didn't title it: "The War On Torture" LOL

"The War On Everything"

From Talking Points Memo

There are several words that are overused to the point, that I would almost like to see them disappear. Like a hot song, that sounds great for a the first couple of weeks, but then you get tired of hearing it and a song like that generally comes from a one-hit wonder. Someone like the group Dream, that was big ten years ago or so. With their song Love Me or Love Me Not, I think was the title. But if I had to put a list of lets say the top 5-10 words that are overused in America, going from 1-5, it would now be war, which just recently replaced awesome to me as the most overused word in America.

When I think of war, I think of combat, where people can get hurt or even die. Where lives can even be saved. The Iraqi War comes to mind, the Civil War in Syria would be a another one, the Vietnam War. But if you are not familiar with military combat, but somehow familiar with American politics, which would be really odd, you would have to be the ultimate political junky to meet that criteria, where all you are interested in is politics, you only follow campaigns and speeches and don't see anything else in the world, you would think war is purely a political term. The war on this and that and so-forth. The War on Women, the War on Capitalism, the War on Freedom, the War on Religious Liberty, etc. First of all: most of these things are fabricated.

The War on Women, thats not a war. Now you can make the case that House Republicans are making an effort to limit females access to certain health care. But thats not a war, its a campaign at best and they sound funny and perhaps clever and easy to remember, make good sound bites, etc. But these aren't wars, they are campaigns at best. I've been guilty of this myself using the word of war with my blogging. I wrote one blog post that I called the Christian-Right's War on Freedom, but I was half-joking. Perhaps I should've said the Christian-Conservative  Campaign Against Freedom. Which would be accurate and would also be easy to remember.

But a lot of times when people say The War on This or That, they generally aren't talking about a War on This or That. They are generally talking about something specific. Just to round out my list of words that are overused in America top 5-10 that I mentioned earlier, that hopefully may end up on the Late Show Top 10 List, perhaps as soon as beach houses go for sale in North Dakota or just after that) War would be at the top of the list for reasons I've already explained.

Followed by awesome: If everything is awesome, nothing is awesome. It seems like every time someone sees something they like now it's, awesome!!! When I think of the word awesome, I think of something or someone that's really amazing, good or bad, that there is no other way to explain it. Most of things in the world don't meet that criteria. A team isn't awesome just because they won the championship, they might not be awesome at all. A good meal or movie, band, song, whatever, aren't always awesome, they may just be good at that particular time.

Two other words that thank goodness have died down over that last few years, perhaps with Paris Hilton being in the news less (or in jail) are hot and fabulous. For the same reasons as awesome and I said top 5-10 and I've only done a top 4, or how about Fab 4, number five and then I got to wrap up. And I'm sorry if I offend any valley people, girl or guy here, but you guys and gals are big targets of mine. But like and totally, especially when they are put together. "Like totally!" That is so annoying to me!

And oh my God, especially when they are put together, thats nine and WTF. (Hopefully you know what thats short for) All for the same reasons as awesome. And there you have it my top now list of words that are overused and I'm tired of hearing. But look I understand lazy when it comes to language in America is in and thinking for one's self especially when it comes to expressing themselves and risking standing out, is not really in especially if you come as different. But being a person an individual is exactly that. And with that comes the freedom for people to be themselves, even if they are different from the pack or group. 

You can also see this post on WordPress. 

You can also see this post at FreeState Now, on Blogger.

Reason Magazine: Nick Gillespie Interviews Jonah Goldberg: ‘The Tyranny of Cliches and Political Discourse’

Source:Reason Magazine- National Review columnist and author Jonah Goldberg.

“Liberals are sure they’re in the reality-based community and anyone who disagrees with them either has a bad brain, or in some other way rejects empiricism and science, and they are the only ones working with the building blocks of facts and reason,” says National Review’s Jonah Goldberg, author of the new book, The Tyranny of Cliches: How Liberals Cheat in the War of Ideas.

“And I call bullshit on that.”

Goldberg, who became the editor of National Review Online in 1999, is responsible for creating the tone and format of the highly trafficked website, which built on the magazine’s venerable reputation while signaling, as he puts it, “that this is not your father’s National Review.” Goldberg’s new book, which follows his best-selling 2008 Liberal Fascism, argues that liberals should stop claiming their ideas derive solely from science and fact but never ideology–a way of arguing that stifles honest debate. Liberal arguments sometimes take the form of hackneyed cliches meant to sound self-evident but that in reality disguise a political bent, such as “violence never solves anything” or “I may disagree with you but I’ll defend to the death your right to say it.”

Goldberg sat down with ReasonTV’s Nick Gillespie for a wide-ranging discussion about liberal and conservative discourse, his early vision for National Review Online, and the firing of long-time National Review contributor John Derbyshire for writing a racist article in Taki’s Magazine. Goldberg also explains why he plans to vote for Mitt Romney despite his lack of enthusiasm for the presumptive GOP nominee.”

From Reason Magazine 

This is what I like about Jonah Goldberg and I’ll admit as a Liberal I have a short list of what I like about him. And could lay that out in under a paragraph, but he seems to understand the differences between Liberals and Socialists, at least to this extent. That he describes people who have been called “Modern Liberals”, as Progressives, (people who I could call Socialists) not Liberal. Even though like a lot of right-wingers, still throws out those old stereotypes that make Liberals look more like Socialists.

Jonah even has described his own politics as classical liberal, at least to a certain extent and sounds like a real Conservative in the classical sense. Not someone in today’s Christian-Theocratic-Populist Republican Party, but more with the Barry Goldwater line of thinking ideology, not Rick Santorum. (To use as an example) That’s what I like about Jonah Goldberg, in under a paragraph. But then says things that Liberals don’t believe in ideology, even though we wrote the U.S. Constitution and Bill of Rights, along with Conservatives.

But Jonah says we don’t believe in ideology and that we get on and put people who do believe in ideology and we look down at people, who don’t look at the world exactly the way we do. And to use Jonah Goldberg’s line, “I call bullshit on that”. If Jonah used these stereotypes just to describe people who he sees as “Modern Liberals”, people who are Democratic Socialists, in the so-called Congressional Progressive Caucus mode, then I wouldn’t have a problem with that. Because of the way he describes the politics of a lot of these people.

I agree with Jonah to a certain extent, but when he calls them Liberals and says that “Liberals believe in bloated big government” and our ideology is built around the welfare state. How we can empower the Federal Government to take care of people, again to use Jonah’s line, I call bullshit on him. Because he’s describing the politics of today’s so-called Progressives (who are really Democratic Socialists) and not my politics. And when he focus’s on big government, he only does it from one side of the aisle and doesn’t go after big government supporters from his own side of the aisle. He doesn’t go after the Christian-Right in his own party. Unlike myself who has long enough arms to pat myself on the back.

If Jonah Goldberg wrote a book about the big government leanings about the so-called Congressional Progressive Caucus and other so-called modern Progressive Democrats and then also wrote a book about the big Government leanings about the Religious-Right, then I would take him more seriously. But the current track right now seems to try to make so-called Liberals look like people they aren’t. And only goes after the big government fascist views of one side of the aisle and sound more like a partisan hack to me more than anyone else. 

You can also see this post on WordPress.

You can also see this post at The New Democrat, on WordPress.

You can also see this post at FreeState Now, on WordPress.

You can also see this post at FreeState Now, on Blogger.

The Atlantic: Alexander Abad-Santos- 'Jon Stewart: Mourns The Miracle That Was Rick Santorum's Campaign'

Source:The Atlantic- comedian Jon Stewart on the miracle that was a Rick Santorum presidential campaign.

Source:Real Life Journal

“During his concession suspension speech on Monday, Rick Santorum said he “was winning in a different way,” which was right in Jon Stewart’s wheelhouse, especially with the Santorum’s odd euphemisms for losing, and patting himself on the back by insinuating his run to second place was as “improbable” and miraculous as they come. Though Stewart doesn’t seem too upset that the “Pennsylvania Prude” is dropping out, you know that there’s a part of him that will miss being able to rip on the fallen nominee. We’ll miss Santorum for that reason, too, but at least our loss was soothed by one of our most favorite things: Jon Stewart figuring out a way to work Herman Cain into the picture..

From The Atlantic

If Mitt Romney represents the brains of the Republican outfit in 2012 (meaning he's the only Republican who has a snowballs chance on a hot day in Florida of winning in 2012) then Rick Santorum represents the heart of the Republican Party. Who speaks for the base of the party, even though they won't give him the nomination. Because apparently Republican still prefer winning and their minds of their hearts.

Source:Fox News- Rick Santorum: "I know I shouldn't of had that extra bottle of scotch before I went out on stage. I can't stop shaking." Actually, I have no idea why he's doing that with his fist.

I’ll say this about Rick Santorum and this is probably the only nice thing I’ll say about Senator Santorum in this post, but at last its true: Rick Santorum ran a hell of a presidential campaign as far as where he started, as someone who wasn’t even expected to make it to Iowa, let alone win it, because he was thought of as a loser who was kicked out of the U.S. Senate by 16-18 point by his own state. He was seen as way too far to the right and keep in mind we are talking about the Republican Party here. So that’s saying something.

I mean Michele Bachmann who didn’t even make to New Hampshire apparently considers pornography and same-sex marriage as our biggest threats to national security. You can’t get to the right of someone like that, she’s so far to the right she couldn’t see Conservatives with a telescope or with X-ray vision. So what Senator Santorum did and accomplished was something pretty impressive.

Rick Santorum came from looking like an ex-politician who’s political career was over, to finishing in 2nd place in the Republican presidential race. Only trailing the frontrunner in Mitt Romney. And came damn close to winning, Michigan, Ohio, Illinois, and Wisconsin. If he wins those four states or just two to of them, he’s still campaigning for President right now, with a competitive shot at the presidential nomination. And had he made those state campaigns about the economy, instead of Jesus Christ knows best how free Americans should live their lives, maybe he wins those states.

But no, that wasn’t good enough for Ricky. Ricky wanted to be the Father of America and yet he runs for President instead. Telling Americans how to live their lives and focusing on social issues in an economy with 8.2% unemployment and he probably should’ve won those states. But remember, we are talking about Rick Santorum here, the leader and champions of big government republicanism. That’s just not in his creed, he believes the number one problem in America is that are too free and need more restrictions.

What Rick Santorum did by dropping out this week, was save his political career. Instead of continuing to campaign and looking like nothing more than a sore loser who doesn’t know when he’s taken too many punches. And leaves options open for himself, like perhaps the vice presidential nomination. Running for President in 2016 and being the frontrunner, or perhaps running for Governor of Pennsylvania in 2018.Or even running for Priest in Pennsylvania as an Italian-Catholic and have the right platform to tell free Americans as immoral we are and need our newly elected father to guide us in how we should live our own personal lives.

To be serious for a second: running for Priest seems to be a job right up Ricky’s ally and something he might actually be qualified for. Instead of trying to run for president in a liberal democratic free society.

Los Angeles Times: Robin Acarian- 'Campaign Gaffes- Is Foot-In-Mouth Disease Always Fatal to Campaigns?'

Source: Watch The Daily- Barry, Bird & Mitt.

Source:Real Life Journal 

"Texas Gov. Rick Perry had his “oops” moment on a Michigan debate stage.

Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-Minn.) mixed up actor John Wayne with serial killer John Wayne Gacy.

And Herman Cain referred to “Ubeki-beki-beki-stan-stan.”

The 2012 Republican presidential campaign has provided a bounty of infelicitous phrasings, wrongheaded assertions and embarrassing gaffes.

There was Perry’s memory lapse on the debate stage, which came to be known as his “oops moment.” 

From the Los Angeles Times 

"It's been a long, hard-fought, and gaffe-prone campaign. And now that it's just about over, it's time to take a look back at the bloopers that helped define the 2012 presidential race." 

From Watch The Daily

Hopefully for Republican Party's sake, they'll decide on their presidential nominee before the cows come home, but they are a little hard to predict right now. They seem about as divided as the Democratic Party in 1972 trying to figure out which leftist they were going to nominate. Between three Senators, Ed Muskie, George McGovern and Hubert Humphrey. The Democrats in 72  settled on Senator McGovern (the Bernie Sanders Democratic Socialist of his time)  

Unless the Obama Campaign is successful in communicating the political gaffes of lets, just for the hell of it say Mitt Romney as their  GOP nominee, (I flipped a coin on that) it would be Mitt Romney, American voters will have forgotten about them, long before the general elections.

Good news that even though generally political gaffes made in presidential primaries aren’t remembered for the general election, whoever the GOP nominee is. They will still be as addicted to making political gaffes, as Jim Morrison was addicted to alcohol or Rosie O’Donnell is addicted to food. 

Mitt Romney in the general election, will most likely say something like: "I’m not that rich, I only drive three Cadillacs, I don’t even own a Rolls Royce. I only own three homes, I’m friends with people who own ten. Really I’m not that rich, attack my friends instead." Mitt could give you the numbers of his super rich friends, they are some of my major contributors.

Or Rick Santorum, if Mitt Romney were to end his presidential campaign right before he’s nominated and Rick becomes their presidential nominee. Well first of all if that happens, Republicans will hand in their Republican affiliation. But if that were to happen, he may say something like: "Women shouldn’t be allowed to work." The GOP candidates right now are addicted to political gaffes. There’s more than enough to go around.

America I’m not sure is the only country in the world with a short attention span, but we have the shortest. Our attention span is a midget, so when some politician says something that five minutes later, they want to kick themselves in the balls for saying, or wish they hadn’t drank that extra scotch before giving that speech (take Rick Perry, to use as an example) they managed to say something else thats ignorant right after that that gets played up as well.

Our politicians and political candidates are only as good as the people who elect them, for the most part. From time to time we get leaders that stood out and look like God, at least in comparison to average Americans. Americans say dumb things all the time. But the difference is most of us aren't politicians and our well, bullshit isn't on the national news or web right after we say it unlike our politicians. Which is why they get to look like the assholes, because they represent the assholes who voted for them.

The Atlantic: Dino Grandoni- 'Jon Stewart Explains Comedy to FOX News'

Source:The Atlantic- The Daily Show with the Real Jon Stewart.

Source:Real Life Journal

“As the brouhaha continues over Rush Limbaugh’s “slut” comment, Jon Stewart took a look at how the right is covering the story, asking, how should Fox News handle the recent dose of Rush-brand hate-mongering? By pointing out that the left has its own hatemonger in Bill Maher, who once called Sarah Palin a bad word himself. Fox’s hosts accuse Maher (and liberals in general) of cloaking their comments in the veil comedy, but Stewart rightly notes that comedians like himself get criticized for racy jokes constantly. He adds that top-rated Fox News isn’t really in the position to call itself anyone’s victim.”

From The Atlantic 

“When Fox News seeks recognition for their reporting on the shooting of Michael Brown case, liberal Hollywood and the network’s number one fan offer their praise.”

Source:Comedy Central- The Daily Show with the Real Jon Stewart.

From Comedy Central 

The only reason for me at least to watch FNC or Fox News Channel and for that matter to be “fair and balanced”, MSNBC prime time on weeknights, is to find out what’s not going on in the world. To get some comic relief and perhaps some ideas for my political satire. Because FNC is basically the RNC, laying out the positions and the spin of the Republican base. And MSNBC prime time Monday-Friday, is basically the mouthpiece for so-called progressive, not liberal (Socialist, if accuracy means anything) Democrats.

The Democrats and so-called progressive (social democratic, in actuality) third-parties, that don’t like President Obama and the Democratic Leadership, because they aren’t “progressive enough” and aren’t Socialists like themselves. Which is what they thought they were getting during the 2008 general elections.

If you’re going to listen to FNC seriously, not to make fun of it, but to actually find out what’s going on in the world, do yourself a big favor: check at least two other credible news sources. Like a good reporter and you better know what that is before you take FNC seriously.

If you’re listening to Megyn Kelly, Sean Hannity, David Asman and others, Bill O’Reilly to a certain extent (but he isn’t as bad as the others)  you’re basically hearing what they want to tell you. What makes their political views look best and you’re hearing a lot of political gossip, that’s designed to hurt Democrats and that’s what you get from Rachel Maddow and Ed Schultz on MSNBC at the expense of Republicans.

I swear I get more facts from The Onion (something I read everyday) than from FNC or Maddow and Schultz.

The Onion is seriously about news satire and doesn’t hide from that and they take stories that are true and make them as funny as possible by adding humor to them. When FNC says “Fair and Balanced”, you should take that as a joke that you would hear from The Onion. Because they are only “Fair and Balanced” to their own side.