Will progressives flee to web TV?

Who cares what a bunch of dead white men thought? Unplugged Will progressives flee to web TV if MSNBC bails on them? Personally, I think it’s too early to start shopping for headstones for MSNBC’s liberal opinion lineup, but there’s no doubt that there are big changes going on at the network. Morning Joe seems in no danger of going away and Rachel Maddow is hanging on to the 9 pm time slot like grim death, but many of their other shows are either gone, moved to the low rent district or being looked at by But while we’re on the topic, if you’re advertising the wonders of Al Jazeera America and Russia Today as “more or less progressive TV news” then it might be time to take a fresh look at exactly which team you’re playing for. executives with axes in their hands. Ronan Farrow, Joy Reid, The Cycle and Ed Schultz have effectively vanished. Alex Wagner moved to the weekends and Al Sharpton (who the executives are terrified of firing entirely for fear of lawsuits and protest marches) has been shuttled off to an hour on Sunday mornings when nobody is watching. Despite persistent rumors of his impending doom, Chris Hayes is still doing an evening show but that seems to be a week by week decision. But if progressives are the “mainstream” of the new generation as they always claim, and MSNBC is really the only bastion for them in terms of finding consistently liberal programming, what went so wrong? Leslie Savan, writing at The Nation, seems despondent over the changes but hazards a guess at one reason why things didn’t work out. The content was just boring pablum. [...]  over the last several years, a whole world of more or less progressive TV news has emerged—streaming, on demand, on mobile, and, increasingly, on cable TV itself. Vice News, Fusion, and Free Speech TV are available on cable and satellite, as are Al Jazeera America and Russia Today. As for web TV, HuffPost Live now streams eight hours of original programming a day. [FULL] Web TV sounds an awful lot like Air America, the shady "progressive"  answer to Rush Limbaugh.  That used the specter of the Fairness Doctrine, where broadcast licenses hinged on broadcasters presenting both sides of controversial issues.  As much as we laugh at the antics of MSNBC, which is a national joke, there is a larger threat.  Social media have already facilitated  an  insular herd mentality, where exchange of ideas are .... nil.  How can you debate when one side is  from another planet; with their own history books, newspapers and classroom instruction?  How many of you have presented an argument only to  have it rebutted with some MSNBC or Daily Show "truth?"  Gird your loins people, conflict is inevitable.

DEMS WANT MORE CANCER

Esquire Magazine's list of the 10 dumbest vice-presidents ever includes these  post 19th- century VPs: #9 #7 #4 Dan Quayle (...because he had a habit of saying really dumb things.. ) Spiro Agnew (... the public was largely willing to overlook his habit of using terms like "fat Jap" — but we do like them to turn down bribes ...) Dick Cheney (He voted against the Head-Start program!) What?  No Al Gore?  No Joe Biden, fer chrissake?  I mean, is it possible that anyone, ever, compiled a list of more outrageously stupid quotes than has Joe Biden?  Did I say ever? GOOGLE search for STUPID QUOTES Al Gore - About 401,000 (0.45 seconds) Jo Biden- About 412,000 (0.44 seconds) Dick Cheney-About 343,000 (0.46 seconds) Dan Quayle (198,000 (1.01 seconds) Hell, I double dog-dare you to produce more insanely stupid quotes by an Executive team, than have Obama/Biden so far racked up!  Biden's sudden recovery, of course, is due to Hillary Clinton's woes (can you believe that she supposedly still beats the GOP front runner Donald Trump, despite being 2 inches away from a prison cell - for the 32nd time in her career?).  Stalwart Dem voters are left with Bernie Sanders or Martin O'Malley.  O'Malley is still my guess to get the nomination. Both are losers. But so is Biden-in spades! Tangentially, in trying to reconcile how so many Dem voters can be so gullible, and/or flat stupid, I'm struck by this personal observation.  Nobody I know, who has a life, spends much time (if any) on the social networks like Facebook, Twitter, etc.  They are,  all of them, politically  conservative.  Of those I know who are immersed in social networking, almost all have a pronounced liberal bent.  I dawdled myself with a Face Book (family) account for a few months, and straightaway I was blasted (and banned) by a family member for disagreeing with a leftist article —on his Timeline—which caused considerable embarrassment. That cloistered mindset, where viewpoints that challenge  group doctrine are blocked,  is responsible for the sorry state we find ourselves in. Liberals are often driven by a single self  serving  issue that trumps any E Pluribus Unumcy they may have once possessed.  Call  it a compound fracture of the body politic.

Let's Hope the Bomber is a White Man Screed

Let’s hope the Boston Marathon bomber is a white American “ Nobody here will likely be invited to (let alone accept) an Upper East Side dinner party—where the Liberal elite gather to spin events they are largely responsible for into something the New York Times can print.  That's the feeling I got while reading  David Sirota's Epistle to the Leviathans on Salon. Let’s hope the Boston Marathon bomber is a white American As we now move into the official Political Aftermath period of the Boston bombing — the period that will determine the long-term legislative fallout of the atrocity — the dynamics of privilege will undoubtedly influence the nation’s collective reaction to the attacks. That’s because privilege tends to determine: 1) which groups are — and are not — collectively denigrated or targeted for the unlawful actions of individuals; and 2) how big and politically game-changing the overall reaction ends up being. This has been most obvious in the context of recent mass shootings. In those awful episodes, a religious or ethnic minority group lacking such privilege would likely be collectively slandered and/or targeted with surveillance or profiling (or worse) if some of its individuals comprised most of the mass shooters. However, white male privilege means white men are not collectively denigrated/targeted for those shootings — even though most come at the hands of white dudes. [Full] "However, white male privilege means white men are not collectively denigrated/targeted for those shootings — even though most come at the hands of white dudes."  -Sirota Note that the first thing that comes to Sirota's mind is who gets the blame?  And how do we spin it if it's one of the usual suspects in the  protected class? Read it for text-book smarm, condescension and arrogance. Contrary to his assertion that "most [gun crimes] come at the hands of white dudes ..." —well, you decide. I immediately summoned the top most recent mass killings in this country.  The "dudes" below are prominent  I'm pretty sure most of you will have picked the same lot, give or take.  Five killers; three Blacks, one Asian, and one White.  Only three were motivated by ideology, and it was Islam across the board.  By now your mind is racing way ahead of me, so there. Oh jeez- I can hear Liberals screaming "What about George Zimmerman?  Huh? What about Trayvon?!" Hopeless.  UPDATE Sorry, the culprits were two Chechnyan Moslems ”

Oh, look! A liberal is talking ... .

Oh, look! A liberal is talking about whether something can be "squared with the Constitution."

“ ... here's Ian Millhiser at Think Progress writing under the headline 'The Eleventh Circuit’s Affordable Care Act Decision Cannot Be Squared With The Constitution.' He proceeds to quote the text of the Commerce Clause. (Of course, he doesn't stop there, but goes on to claim that there's virtually no limit to what Congress can do in the name of regulating commerce as long as "it does not violate another textual provision of the Constitution." Note the use of the word "textual," as if he would limit those other constraints to what is written in particular text. The obvious hypo: Could Congress ban abortion using its commerce power? Millhiser? Millhiser? Millhiser? Millhiser?)  [Full Ann Althouse] ” I love the petard thing.  H/T comments.

I Know Nuth-ing

Norman Dicks is a dick

“ For instance, when Congressman John Carter (R-TX), at about 1:24:35, rose to introduce his amendment to prevent the Department of "Justice" from implementing new shotgun import bans, based on those shotguns' supposed lack of  a "sporting purpose," he mentioned not being particularly enthusiastic about granting this gun-banning authority to the very same government agency that we now know to have been responsible for deliberately facilitating the trafficking of firearms to known killers in Mexico (this was at about the 1:30:45 mark). At about 1:33:20, Rep. Norman Dicks (D-WA) claimed not only to have been completely unaware of "Project Gunwalker," but seemed a little offended that anyone would be making such allegations.  No excuse for any congressman to be unaware of 'Project Gunwalker'

Cindersarah and the evil step-sisters

Revisiting stuff that was right then, and still is

“   There are numerous reasons why so many liberal women hate and fear Sarah Palin. However, with the exception of her pro-life stance and perhaps her Christianity, it is not really her "principle-centered policies" that cause the foam-at-the-mouth hissyfits that afflict Palinophobes. They hate her on a much more personal level. - Alana Marie Burke ”

Sometimes people are spot-on about something, but it's not confirmable until later. I recalled a post I made (on December 06, 2009, as it turns out) and went looking for it.  It rhetorically asked,  "Who's afraid of Sarah Palin."  I knew it was an insightful bulls-eye then, and still do, so it's worth revisiting. “ Palin's folksy demeanor, faulty diction and lack of elitist education, combined with pervasive appeal, are what drive her haters nuts. Ultra-liberal feminists detest that a moose-hunting everymom was able to rise to the top of the heap when so many elitist feminists rest on their lily-white laurels and pat themselves on the back for their "enlightened" political views while accomplishing very little. Unplugged The average Jane admires Palin for her ability to forge a path from obscurity to relative power while sticking to her beliefs (and guns), but more than half of Americans view her unfavorably. Yet, despite Palin's low approval numbers, liberals still fear her. Perhaps it is because Palin's view that "This is America and every woman can walk through every door of opportunity" could mobilize enough support from politically disenchanted women to harness a viable voting bloc. It is interesting to note that more men than women believe Palin is qualified to be president - perhaps because they are not personally threatened by her and find the combination of pit bull and femininity intriguing. ” Other observations made by Ms. Burke include:: New York Times columnist David Brooks called Palin a "fatal cancer to the Republican party." If this is accurate, then why are Democrats bent on discrediting her? Wouldn't they do well to let her keep her hopes up and let that cancer fester? Despite their intentions to tear Palin down, her hate club is doing her a great favor with their incessant chatter, which inflames her base and keeps her in the news. If the chatter continues, before they know it, Palin might be on that 2012 ticket. Sarah of course went on to challenge the Republican Party's 2010 hand picked RINOs with her own, mostly nobodies who were actual conservatives. Most of whom won office.  The Left's abject horror over the specter of Sarah Palin with power continues unabated. Giddy-up.

Mamet Defects

Quoting Mamet Before he moved to California, Pulitzer Prize-winning playwright David Mamet had never talked to a self-described conservative. 'I realized I lived in this bubble.'

“ Diversity is a "commodity." College is nothing more than "Socialist Camp." Liberalism is like roulette addiction. Toyota's Prius is an "anti-chick magnet" and "ugly as a dogcatcher's butt." Hollywood liberals embraced Communism "because they hadn't invented Pilates yet." Oh, and good radio isn't NPR ("National Palestinian Radio") but Dennis Prager, Michael Medved and Hugh Hewitt. ”

This is pretty delicious.  It really is impossible that a group as large as "Hollywood En Masse" could be so uniformly stupid re Liberal fraud. Or, maybe not?  Anyway, David Mamet is not Mel Gibson or Stephen Baldwin; conservative leaning actors who can be destroyed by gossip sheets, and uninvited to necessary soirees.  He's not Jerry Bruckheimer or David Zucker, conservative directors who can be dismissed as unserious, and who make films catering to lowbrows.  Mamet is Broadway.  Mamet is Pulitzer Prize.  Mamet has thereness.  To the extent then, that one person can give cover to others wishing to escape the Big Lie, Mamet's defection could have significance. Anyway, here's a bit more  fun from the Wall Street Journal's  David Mamet's Coming Out Party . “ On the left, Mr. Mamet is accused of having ulterior motives for his political shift. The New Republic's Jonathan Chait writes that the story is a familiar, Zionist one: "An increasingly religious Jew with strong loyalty to Israel, he became aware of a tension between the illiberal nationalism of his right-wing views on the Middle East and the liberalism of his views on everything else, and resolved the tension by abandoning the latter." Mr. Mamet calls this a "crock of s—." The Slate website has run with the "Rich Person Discovers He Is a Republican" narrative. And then there's the jiu-jitsu theory offered by a film blogger: "Mamet's escalating interest in martial arts—traditionally the domain of right-wing nutjobs like Chuck Norris—has pointed toward this new stance for some time." Obviously. Snort.

Baby Talk

tay inna wiiiinn

This from Sondrakistan is  very funny animated discussion betwixt baby twin  boys -- in native baby talk.  During Lent I vowed not to find in every every strange thing something analogous to Liberals.  Of course that's impossible.  You either see something, or you don't.  What I meant was, rather, that I would not ruin other's joy by intruding on their reverie with those observations.  Unless the wanted me to.

Cloisterd Liberal Heads

Clueless in the	Apple
Many Believe The Big Apple Has Become A Nanny State?