The Reason Why Sarah Palin Talks So Funny

Palin Spars With 'Today' Show Hosts Over Obama Comments:

"You said that President Obama may be to blame for some of the PTSD that's out there," said Guthrie.

"I never said that," Palin said.

And when asked if she regrets her comments about her son, she demanded: "What did I say that is offensive?"

"I don't regret any comment that I made because I didn't lay PTSD at the foot of the president," Palin argued. "I did say though that there is – and adamantly that our president needs to let the military do their job. If you have a specific quote, it allows the media to be credible if you would tell me what you're talking about."

Sarah Palin Blames President Obama, PTSD for Son’s Problems:

“I can talk personally about this, I guess it’s kind of the elephant in the room,” Palin said. “My son like so many others, they come back a bit different, they come back hardened, they come back wondering if there is that respect for what it is that their fellow soldiers and airmen and every other member of the military so sacrificially have given to this country. And that starts from the top. It’s a shame that our military personnel even have to wonder, if they have to question, if they’re respected anymore. It starts from the top. The question though that comes from our own president where they have to look at him and wonder, do you know what we go through? Do you know what we’re trying to do to secure America and to secure the freedoms that have been bequeathed us?”

“I can certainly relate with other familes who kind of feel these ramifications of some PTSD and some of the woundedness that our soldiers do return with,” Palin continued. “And it makes me realize more than ever it is now or never for the sake of Americas finest that we have that commander in chief that will respect them and honor them.”

The reason why Sarah Palin talks so funny is because her foot is constantly in her mouth.

Can You Say Unbiased?

The Today Show reports on the removal of the head of Jesus. Yes, you read that right, someone removed his head. Yet in spite of this, Zombie Jesus still lives on.

Oh no, NBC Touts Left-Wing Atheist Group Forcing Removal Of Jesus Painting:

Wednesday’s NBC Today devoted a full report to the Freedom From Religion Foundation forcing a Kansas school to take down a painting of Jesus. Co-host Matt Lauer declared: “...a controversial decision to take down a portrait of Jesus that’s getting an awful lot of attention.”

Since when is reporting the news "touting"?

The above link is to NewsBusters. They proclaim that they expose and combat liberal bias. Of course the way for NewsBusters to do this is to use their own bias, like this:

On its website, the Freedom From Religion Foundation asserts:

The history of Western civilization shows us that most social and moral progress has been brought about by persons free from religion. In modern times the first to speak out for prison reform, for humane treatment of the mentally ill, for abolition of capital punishment, for women's right to vote, for death with dignity for the terminally ill, and for the right to choose contraception, sterilization and abortion have been freethinkers, just as they were the first to call for an end to slavery.

No mention was made of the slaughter of millions by Communist atheist regimes in the 20th century.

I call shenanigans. I call logical fallacy. I call red herring. I call tilting at windmills. I call straw man. I call irrational stupid bias. Show me some sort of document, manifesto, or Atheist Bible that instructs atheists to slaughter millions. Perhaps NewsBusters is confusing the Christian God of the actual Old Testament, with some sort of imagined Atheist Bible.

Failure?

What would Rush do? Unfortunately he won’t shut up, so we all know what he does. Nothing but talk. And all of it is destructive, none of it is constructive.

Rush wants Obama to fail. He now has clarified his statements to include the word policies. He wants Obama’s policies to fail.

What would Rush say to someone who said that they wanted George W. Bush to fail and that they wanted his policies in Iraq to fail? Unpatriotic and treasonous come to mind.

Is Rush Limbaugh unpatriotic and treasonous?

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy

“That’s the nature of this job, baby” cracks me up.

Why does Matt Lauer not question Michael Steele when Steele says: “I don’t think that Republicans, Democrats, or Independents, or anyone wants policies that redistributes the wealth of this country, wants policies that nationalizes our health care…” Steele is basically lying here, and Lauer is complicit in the lie. Many people do want a progressive tax (something we have had for a very long time, even Bush didn’t completely get rid of it; yes, Bush redistributed wealth!) and many people support universal health care.

Once again Steele perpetuates the lie that Republicans think of the small business owner as the saviour of the country. Once again I will ask the question: if the small business owner means so much to the economy, why do the Republicans only offer tax cuts to the wealthy as a solution? Small business owners are not wealthy, big business owners are.

“One of the challenges that is presented to the minority party is to get heard.” Really? Rush Limbaugh is on the radio every day, Republican Congress members are on television whining all the time, and Michael Steele is on the Today Show. I’m listening. The rest of America is listening. You are heard. We just don’t like what you have to say. We don’t want America to fail. Why does Mr. Limbaugh?

The polices of George W. Bush have failed us. The policies of the Republican Party have failed us. The policies of Rush Limbaugh have failed us. At least give Obama a chance.

Perhaps Rush Limbaugh is part of the problem. I really don’t see him as the solution.

Jaw Dropping

Here is some of what Mary Matalin said on the Today Show this morning:

I, I, well, this is a different kind of presidency, isn’t it? Although these are old-timey policies, the likes of which, though, at this, of this magnitude we’ve never seen. And to pay for this, we are going to not just raise taxes on the rich — two-thirds of whom are small business owners who create three-quarters of all the jobs — but now we’re gonna eliminate tax deductions for that same class of people. We are absolutely going to discourage investment, savings, job creation, and we’re going to — he says he’s gonna reduce the deficit, cut it in half, which is still a greater deficit than George Bush ever had. It is, it is jaw-dropping. That’s a good word for it, Meredith.

Old-timey policies? What the hell does she mean by that?

Like George W. Bush, Mary Matalin does not know what a small business is. It is small, it is not large. The rich are large business owners. The poor and the middle class own small businesses. If two thirds of the rich “are small business owners who create three-quarters of all the jobs” then why do we care so much about the possible failure of large banks and large automakers? Let the big businesses fail, let everyone go work for all the small businesses.

Who cut taxes drastically for the rich? George W. Bush. Who screwed the economy and left it for Barack Obama to try and fix? George W. Bush. Who kept things like the wars off the books to try and make himself look better? George W. Bush. Bush screwed everything up terribly. Bush let rich people get even more rich and what happened? Nothing trickled down to the poor and middle class, and the banks tanked, and the home builders tanked, and the mortgage lenders tanked, and the auto makers tanked, and the economy tanked. Obama is trying to undo the damage Bush has done, and Mary Matilin doesn’t like it? She wants to continue doing the same things that Bush did? What is wrong with her?

I hope that Matalin’s jaw drops far enough so that it falls off. Then we won’t ever have to listen to her mindless drivel ever again.

Update:
The right-wing-nuts love to lie in concert.

From Matthews did not challenge Ehrlich's false suggestion about small business taxes:

On MSNBC's Hardball, Chris Matthews did not challenge former Gov. Robert Ehrlich's false suggestion that President Obama's proposal to let the Bush tax cuts for wealthy taxpayers expire would increase taxes on a large percentage of small businesses. In fact, Obama has proposed raising marginal income tax rates and reducing income tax deductions for individuals earning more than $200,000 per year and for couples earning more than $250,000 per year, and according to the Tax Policy Center, just 2 percent of tax returns that reported small business income in 2007 are in the top two income tax brackets, which include all filers with taxable incomes that would be affected.

Why Would Anyone Listen To A Raving Lunatic?

Is Ann Coulter a raving lunatic? I’ll let you be the judge. Watch this clip from the Today Show and decide for yourself.



If Ann Coulter ever made a valid point would anyone notice?

Does anyone else find her remarks about single mothers having children that end up in prison to be racist? To top it off she throws Charles Murray into the mix.

Is Matt Lauer an idiot, simply incompetent, or a pawn in the game of bad media? Or is he all three? Hey Lauer, if the children of single mothers are the root of all of our problems why not ask some of the obvious questions of the raving loon? Things like: Would it be better if all these mothers had abortions? Would it be better if all these mothers had used contraception? Isn’t our prison population disproportionately full of black men? Do you think that the justice system is biased against black men? Why are only single mothers to blame, what about the fathers? (To be fair, Mr. Lauer did sort of dance around that question.) Do you think that if there were more available jobs in the inner cities that this “problem” would be lessened? Do you think that if there were better schools in the inner cities that this “problem” would be lessened? Wouldn’t allowing gay couples to marry decrease the number of single mothers? Hasn’t George W. Bush screwed everything up much worse than any single mother possibly could? Name me some of the articles in the New York Times that have “promoted” single motherhood. Name me some of the court cases that have been responsible for “destroying the institution of marriage.” If marriage has been destroyed as an institution why are people still getting married? How can liberals possibly destroy America, hasn’t George W. Bush already beaten them to it? When has Barbara Ehrenreich ever denounced the nuclear family? Do you think that extremely rude people like yourself are more detrimental to society than single mothers are?

And the most obvious question of all: If single motherhood is the root of all of our problems, then what is the solution to this problem?

Notice the cross necklace? “Jesus died for somebody's sins, but not mine.”

Obviously I listened to Ann Coulter. Does that make me a raving lunatic as well?

Movin' On With Tom Brokaw

Let’s just forget that the last eight years happened and get on with our lives. That seems to be what Tom Brokaw thinks.

Here is what he said on the Today Show this morning (in reference to the Babs and W. kiss):

That is symbolic of where this country is. They want to come together. People want to put the feud behind. We’ve got big, big challenges ahead of us and it is time to get beyond some of these fights that have been going on, and find some common ground. It doesn’t mean we give up our individual, very strong feelings about things, but the country’s on a domestic war footing.

Never mind that George W. Bush should be held accountable for constitutional shredding and other criminal acts. The past eight years amounted only to some sort of feud, it wasn’t a nightmare of incompetence and immorality. Let’s just forget all that and kiss and make up.

The Bush administration has done more than just hurt people's feelings. They have nearly destroyed the entire country. Let’s have some accountability. Let’s have an investigation. Surely, we can do several things at the same time.

“Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.” George Santayana

To me, Brokaw is symbolic of what is wrong with this country. He gets paid big bucks to say idiotic things like this, while patting himself on the back and yucking it up with Matt Lauer and David Gregory. They’re all such nice, good old boys. Just like George W. Bush. I’d never want to have a beer with any of them.



Update:
From Journalists become 'self-reverential' celebrities by Jennifer Harper:

"Anchors and journalists have become part of self-reverential celebrity culture. Everything goes back to 'me.' It's driven somewhat by technological and economical change. Still, I haven't seen them pulled kicking and screaming into this," said Robert Lichter, director of the Center for Media and Public Affairs at George Mason University.

"Anchors can be bigger stars than the nominees at a political convention. They're not only brand names, but whole mini-corporations who supply the news, tell us what it means, and then turn around and be news themselves," he added.

An online poll at MediaBistro.com -- an insiders' journalism blog -- found that 79 percent of the respondents thought it would be a "bad idea" if NBC chose Mr. Gregory as moderator. The Drudge Report referred to the events as "meet the depressed," calling the 60-year-old public-affairs show - the nation's longest-running TV program - a "fading format."

Should a woman be chosen, she would be only the second female in the coveted post. Martha Rountree, who helped create the show, hosted it from 1947 to 1953.

Is this the mediabistro.com poll that is referred to? (Who knows? The Washington Times does that idiotic linking thing where it only links to itself.) If so, when I checked it had 65% saying “no” to the question “Do you think David Gregory is a good choice for MTP?” No mention of a “bad idea.”

What You Know And Who You Know

From Between Thee And The Bedpost by Cernig:

It simply doesn’t compare, though, with the likes of Andrea Mitchell reporting on the bank bailout plan - and blaming Obama for its failure - while married to Alan Greenspan and not making full disclosure of that fact before every report.

I was having a similar thought this morning while watching Mrs. Greenspan on the Today Show. Perhaps the assumption is that everyone knows who she is married to, although that certainly is no excuse for not making full disclosure.

Who is Henry Paulson married to? George W. Bush and Goldman Sachs and his investment banking buddies, that’s who. Are we really to believe that he cares more about the average American than he does about his current work buddies and his former work buddies?

The same thing holds true for Jim Cramer giving advice and opinions on the bail out on the Today Show. Does he really care more about my financial future than he does about his own or his investment buddies financial future?

I’m not saying that these people don’t know anything and shouldn’t be listened to. All I’m saying is we should consider who they have been associated with and who they represent. A little balance from less self-interested parties would also be nice. Plus more informative and pointed questions from the likes of Matt Lauer would help. Instead we get things like Jim Cramer scoffing at economic academics (who opposed the bail out) for not being part of the real world. (As if college buildings are less tangible than financial derivatives.) There is no analysis of content, just an attitude of superiority. “I used to trade these things, so I know better.” (I’m relying on my memory here, but I think that’s close to what he said.) And Matt Lauer just lets that go. He doesn’t ask Cramer if he helped contribute to the problem because he used to trade these things. He doesn’t ask Cramer about the uptick rule and whether he ever benefited from the elimination of it. Chances are that Cramer never did (He even called for its reinstatement), but the point is that Lauer doesn’t ask these questions. I don't know who is right here, I'm just saying that we heard Cramer's point of view, and nothing else.

Steny Hoyer and Roy Blunt were also talking to Ann Curry on the Today Show this morning. Their talk disturbed me greatly. From what they said one could infer that short term stock market moves on Wall Street are what is driving how they will decide what policies to put into place. This is scary. Short term gambling on Wall Street, rather than long term investing on Wall Street is part of the problem. To have legislation that is driven by the former, rather than the latter will only make things worse.

We seem to think that the very same “experts” that have been part of the cause of the problems we now face are going to come up with a solution. The President and Congress allowed for way too much deregulation and too little oversight. The investment bankers (like Henry Paulson), and other financial speculators “played” the market with greed as their guide while things were good, and fear as their guide when things were bad. They weren’t investing, they were gambling. And to make matters worse, they were gambling with things they didn’t understand. Now we turn to them to not only explain what they were doing, but to come up with a solution. How insane are we? Instead of reporting on the dangers of the deregulation and lack of oversight, the media focused on the ups and downs of the market on a daily basis. The roller coaster ride of greed and fear probably got better ratings than the text of the newest bill passed by Congress and the President. Yet, who is now supposed to be fixing everything, and who is telling us about it all? The very same people once again. Why should we trust any of them? Do we have any alternatives?

Let’s look at another marriage. Mr. and Mrs. General Electric. General Electric owns NBC. NBC produces the Today Show. General Electric is also largely a financial company, and as a financial company they are heavily involved with loans.

From General Electric:

Since over half of GE's revenue is derived from financial services, it is arguably a financial company with a manufacturing arm. It is also one of the largest lenders in countries other than the United States, such as Japan.

The conflict of interest of Andrea Mitchell, while important, kind of pales in comparison.

Update:
This Modern World

The Today Show Sucks

The Today Show on NBC is one huge propaganda machine. Matt Lauer and all those associated with the show should be ashamed of themselves. This show is one of the reasons why our country is rapidly continuing its downward spiral.

Here is one example.

From Today hosts Dick Morris, who says people are debating whether Obama will be seen as "sleeper agent":

Summary: On Today, Dick Morris asserted: "[T]his whole debate about what kind of president [Sen. Barack] Obama would make has swirled around almost an existential level. Is he sort of a Manchurian candidate? A sleeper agent?" Morris has previously stated that "the determinant in the election will be whether we believe that Barack Obama is what he appears to be, or is he somebody who's sort of a sleeper agent who really doesn't believe in our system."

Actually Morris said “existentional." Is existentional a real word?

Why Did The Today Show Give Bill O'Reilly A Free Pass?

The Today Show this morning lumped Bill O’Reilly’s now famous meltdown in with various celebrity gaffs and bloopers, including the one by WNBC news anchor Sue Simmons. Yesterday O’Reilly’s meltdown was all over the web. In this Today Show clip it is hardly mentioned and seems to be dismissed as some sort of flub that was just a slip of the tongue. Obviously that’s not what it was.

Couldn’t they find someone better to talk to about this than Marvet Britto (Celebrity Publicist) and Donnie Deutsch? Donnie Deutsch has never said anything that I agree with. He is as vapid as they come. I’ve never heard of Marvet Britto before. She seems to be as vapid as Deutsch.

This segment by the Today Show is upsetting to me. Sue Simmons revealed a side of herself that was previously not known to her viewers. Bill O’Reilly revealed a side of himself that we all know all too well. There is a difference and the Today Show was pretending there isn’t.

Why does this matter? For one thing the Today Show is being dishonest. They should be reporting the truth, not trying to change it. Secondly, some people actually seem to take Bill O’Reilly seriously and believe the things he says. For this reason the Today Show should take him seriously and not be pretending that what he says and how he says it is the same thing as Katie Couric falling down.

In the now famous clip of Bill O’Reilly he is exactly the same Bill O’Reilly we’ve all come to hate. He is rude, loud, uncouth, self-centered, and stupid. He talks, but he doesn’t listen. The off camera voice is polite, quiet, and informative. Yet O’Reilly mistreats the poor guy for no reason other than O’Reilly is an ignorant ass who can’t even do his job right.

Play the clip below and notice how they try to blur O’Reilly’s meanness and ignorance (who doesn’t know what “to play us out” means?) with other peoples mistakes. Marvet Britto says “They’re not talking about curbing a bad person.” However, O’Reilly is a bad person. Donnie Deutsch says “There is a difference between just a human slip and something that shows anger or hatred or a real human flaw.” Yes, I agree with this, but this is not the case with Bill O’Reilly’s behavior. He shows anger, hatred, and is a real human flaw.

Think for a moment of all the young people that see Bill O’Reilly on television. How do they process what they see? Do they see someone who is despicable? Or do they see someone who is a role model for success and riches? The world already has enough assholes, we don’t need Bill O’Reilly to be grooming more.

The word schadenfreude (enjoyment obtained from the troubles of others) is used in the clip of the Today Show. In the case of O’Reilly much more than schadenfreude is needed. Someone needs to shut him up.

Enough already, here is the clip:


If you don't see the video, try this: Anchor mishaps caught on tape

Manufactured Controversy

From Today, Early Show covered Wright interview, but didn't ask McCain about Hagee:

The April 25 editions of NBC's Today and CBS' The Early Show both aired interviews with Sen. John McCain while the candidate was in New Orleans, but in neither case did they ask McCain about controversial comments that one of his endorsers, Pastor John Hagee, recently made about Hurricane Katrina. By contrast, on the same day, both programs discussed controversial comments made by Sen. Barack Obama's former pastor, Rev. Jeremiah A. Wright Jr. As Media Matters for America noted, Hagee said in 2006: "I believe that New Orleans had a level of sin that was offensive to God, and they are -- were recipients of the judgment of God for that." As the blog Think Progress noted, on the April 22 edition of Salem Radio Network's The Dennis Prager Show, televangelist John Hagee affirmed his 2006 comment about Hurricane Katrina; host Dennis Prager asked Hagee: "[I]n the case of New Orleans, you do feel that God's hand was in it because of a sinful city?" Hagee responded, "That it was a city that was planning a sinful conduct, yes."

It’s one thing to believe that people have the freedom to hold racist beliefs, it’s a whole ‘nother thing to believe that it’s OK for the rich and powerful (and religious) to promote racist beliefs.

Barack Obama And Jeremiah Wright And God Damn America

The Today Show this morning had a segment on the speech Barack Obama made yesterday. Who was doing all the talking? Rich white people. The absurdity of watching rich white people talk about race, Barack Obama, and Jeremiah Wright struck me immediately. How can people like Meredith Vieira and Tim Russert fully understand race from an African-American point of view? Yet, Tim Russert was the gasbag of choice, as usual, on the Today Show this morning. He obviously thinks he knows something about this topic. Well, he does. From a rich white man's perspective. That’s not exactly what’s needed here. In a discussion about race in America, if you must censor someone, censor Tim Russert, not Jeremiah Wright.

It took a little longer for me to remember that one of the video clips of Jeremiah Wright that is being shown over and over again is a condemnation of the rich white people who run America. At least on this topic it appears that the Today Show was proving Wright right. I may be one of the few Americans that wishes Barack Obama wasn’t distancing himself from Jeremiah Wright. So Wright said “God damn America.” Big deal. I’ll say it. God damn America. God damn the America that supports the “war” in Iraq! Five fucking years as of today! God damn the America responsible for Katrina! God damn the America that won’t impeach Bush and Cheney! God damn the America that supports the greedy vultures on Wall Street who destroy our economy! God damn the America that suppresses the views of a black reverend! I could probably go on forever with the God damning…

Let me repeat, five fucking years as of today! Suppression by the mass media of the many people against the invasion of Iraq, as well as the pro war bluster of the mass media helped push us into the Iraq mess. How is the suppression by the mass media of a black reverend's voice supposed to help solve our racial problems?

Whatever happened to freedom of speech?