Dam, Rachel Maddow

MSNBC is promoting Big Government, and Rachel Maddow jumped on board.  In her 30 second clip, Maddow boasts the glories of public works projects like the Hoover Dam.  This leads me to believe that Maddow chose to promote something about which she doesn't know a damn thing....  That, or her values are waaaay off base from what she otherwise promotes.

"You can't be the guy who builds this.  You can't be the town who builds this.  You can't even be the state who builds this.  You have to be the country who builds something like this.  This is a national project."

Yeah.  Well, ahem, tell that to Frank Crowe, the Hoover Dam chief engineer -- without whom the project would never have been completed.  Hell, without the water-cooling pipes in the concrete, the concrete would still not be fully hardened today.  Also, did you know that people died during the construction of the Hoover Dam?  And attempts to unionize the workers were stamped out?  Funny how Maddow just glosses over that part.  (OR, could it be that she wants new public works projects to literally mimic the Hoover Dam?)

Obama approval drops to 41%

...according to Gallup.  But how does Gallup frame these stunningly low presidential approval numbers?  Obama Rates Higher Than Boehner, Reid on Debt Situation.


To be fair, their headline is true.  Boehner's approval is at 31; however, Harry "The ONLY compromise that there is is MINE" Reid's approval is at a whopping 23.

The Gallup headline makes it look like people support the Dems' plan more than the Republicans' plan.  With Reid's support at 23, that seems highly unlikely.  In fact, if you combine Obama and Reid's numbers, it comes at pretty damn close to Boehner.

Conclusions:
1. The only way to discern public support for different plans is to ask about those actual plans.
2. Gallup wants to contrast public opinion of Boehner vs. Obama, as if the power and perception of the president and the speaker of the house were comparably important.
3. The most important contrast here is Boehner vs. Reid, but Gallup chose not to highlight that in their headline.  Hmm.  I wonder why.
4.  The second most important contrast here is Obama's current approval rating compared to his previous (higher) approval rating, but Gallup chose not to highlight that in their headline.  Hmm.  I wonder why.

ADDED: Obama Approval Drops to New Low of 40%

"I guess I have to respect this verdict. I think it's a travesty."

That's a quote from a talking head that I heard on the news just now.  It makes me sick.

It seemed obvious to me that there was not enough evidence to convict Casey of anything (besides lying, to which she admitted), and I am delighted that the jury was not contaminated by the state's emotional appeals and faulty logic.  I am disgusted that TV's talking heads (which nearly unanimously were sharpening their guillotines) are now back pedaling, but instead of saying that they were wrong or pretending that they predicted this, they are angry that Caylee will not get justice.

The media was, for the most part, a mob that riled up the viewers to gnash their teeth, awaiting a guilty verdict.  I have been loosely following the trial (catching some but not all live coverage everyday, the summation on the nightly news, and talking heads discussing the case) and watched the closing statements.  Some of the things covered in the defense's closing statements were not even mentioned in the state's closing statements, nor were they mentioned in the news.

The rabid talking heads are recognizing that Casey is guilty but not convicted, and they see that Casey received justice, but the dead child did not -- because her not-guilty mother will not be penalized.  These talking heads are completely neglecting that only a mob mentality can consider penalty for unproven guilt to be "justice" for the injured party.   It's like they're saying that justice is more important for one person than another, which is so anti-American that I am nauseated.

Palinizing Bachmann: Think Progress joins the fun

A Think Progress article opens with a description of a candidate who is extremely well-liked by their base and is an extremely effective fundraiser.  Sounds like Obama, no?  Nope, it's presidential candidate Michelle Bachmann.  Supposedly, she is Dangerous!, has Radical! Ideologies!, and recognizes that she is a Kook!

The article then lists the ten "nuttiest" things Bachmann has ever said.  Ever.  Ever, ever, ever!  (Does this mean that Think Progress's work is done, and they won't be publishing any further Bachmann smears?)

WI Supreme Court: playground shenanigans or serious business?

I have been trying to ignore this story, but I just can't seem to do it.  Apparently, A Situation occurred behind closed doors between Wisconsin Supreme Court Justices on the eve of announcing their ruling on the Act 10 case.

How Will Wisconsin's Budget Cuts Affect YOU?

The IWF has a "non-partisan" answer.  Since I'm currently not in Madison (and embrace the northwoods -- and any chance to pretend I actually live up here year-round), I checked out the stats for my current little town.  According to these stats, my town will have $9,127 less moneys.  The town's population is just under 1000, so that will affect each town member by about $9.

Sounds okay to me.

The website also notes

There are 1,943 public workers in Vilas County. Under the proposedstate budget, each will lose about $2,071 in take‐home pay.  This will reduce local buying andeconomic activity by $4 million leading to closed businesses and retail job losses. 

Time Magazine: Does the Constitution Still Matter?

Does Time Magazine still matter?

excerpts:

Palinizing Michelle Bachmann

Rolling Stone warns:  The Tea Party contender may seem like a goofball, but be warned: Her presidential campaign is no laughing matter.


Before you read the article or the excerpts I've pasted below, consider this quote from the article:
Asked about Bachmann's run, Pawlenty seethed, "I'm not running for comic- or entertainer-in-chief."


And then, consider this quote from the AP (linked from Yahoo):
Asked if he is capable of exciting voters as he competes for the GOP nomination, Pawlenty replies, "I'm not running for entertainer in chief."


And then watch this video (pertinent moment starts at 3:30): 


video linked from HuffPo

Jon Stewart: "Fox News viewers are dumb"

Well, he didn't exactly say that... "most consistently misinformed media viewers" and he backed up his claim citing generic "polls".  Politifact checked out this claim, finding it false.

The way Stewart phrased the comment, it’s not enough to show a sliver of evidence that Fox News’ audience is ill-informed. The evidence needs to support the view that the data shows they are "consistently" misinformed -- a term he used not once but three times. It’s simply not true that "every poll" shows that result. So we rate his claim False.

Politifact used several polls over the past several years, in which people were asked questions (to determine their level of mis/information) and asked where they got their news.

Here's my beef.

Palin's emails...

...are being released. All 24,000 of them. Over at Daily Caller, they're calling a spade a spade. Or, so sayeth their headline: NYT, WaPo give up even trying to be a news organization.  They're asking for volunteers to comb through the boxes and boxes of emails.  My favorite line from the article: Wow. Just imagine if they had put this kind of effort into analyzing… I dunno… Obamacare?

Government! Spies! Hiding! In! Your! Closet!

This is a riot.  The article states that a group has been gathering by the Capitol to monitor protesters' planned activities via Twitter, Facebook, etc.  (Crap, are they talking about my house?  Whew, it's closer to the square.)

The article defines this kind of behavior -- surfing the internet -- as spying and then goes on to say that the Department of Homeland Security has investigated, among other places, the Planned Parenthood in Madison.  (To assess threats, they say.)

The article ends with this juicy bite (emphasis mine):

There is currently no evidence to connect the emergency response team's social media suveillance with these programs, but little information yet exists on what all they are doing.

No evidence exists to connect these things, but that doesn't stop the connection from being made, especially when it's smashed together in print.  This is what democracy looks like...

To the protesters: If you don't want your planning to be known by the general public, then don't plaster it on Facebook and Twitter.  People reading your publicly posted words?  Yes, this IS what democracy looks like.  Get over it.

New York Magazine exposes Fox News

The Elephant in the Green Room's seconday-source quotes form the shaky skeleton of a narrative of Fox news that could easily describe the newsworthiness of the actual article itself.  Oft-quoted "GOPer who knows Ailes well" ties together paragraphs full of juicy story lacking factual meat.  

This article actually enforces my previously wavering belief that people are scared of the GOP and scared of Fox News.  I really can't figure out the point of the article at all.  I mean, why write it?  Why publish it?  Why now?  It talks about the 2012 election and media puppetry (ironically omitting the media's crush on Obama), so perhaps that's it.  Does anyone doubt that Fox will go easier on Republicans (compared to their coverage on other networks)?  If a pro-Candidate X source can be discredited, that's good for Obama.  Yay, New York Magazine!


For the Left, Fox is the monster in the closet -- you know it's not there, but you sleep with a nite lite anyways.  People create the argument "Fox lies therefore it sucks" without providing substantial evidence of the primary and foundational claim.  The best they can get are usually clips taken out of context or mistakes that are clarified later on the program.  


New York Mag's spin on an old song is to expose the man behind the curtain at Fox news.  Hannity is jealous of Beck's ratings!  Therefore... uh, I dunno.  They don't really get that far.  Also, for the naive reader who does not have knowledge of how TV network politics work, a comparison to another network would have been nice; however, I suspect that Fox is not that different from other networks.  Comparing it would have devalued the underlying message (that Fox is Bad).


I swear, the more news I digest (and I do get my news from a myriad of sources), the more I hate Fox-haters.  Fox is what it is.  That's more than most news sources can say.  "Fair and Balanced"?  I dunno.  Compared to MSNBC, yes.  Compared to snoozefest CNN, probably not.  Then again, what's fair?  What's balanced?  Anyways, if it's such a horrible network, if Fox really does lie, then why not just debunk all of its stories?  Media Matters has tried to do that, but their 90 members haven't been able to find enough ammo to put Fox out of business (or even put a dent in Fox's ratings).


Conspiracy theorist time.  (I'm the theorist, not Beck.)

click to enlarge

I think this pic from the NY mag article looks photoshopped (above).  Compare it to his TIME cover photo (below).  The photoshopped pic is in black and white, which makes small alterations easier.  The shading on most of his face looks unnatural.  The dark circles under his eyes make him look tense and angry.  Where did the wrinkles around his eyes and lower forehead go?  His cheeks look bloated, but they've drawn in shading to create a pointed chin.  (All villains have pointy chins, don'tcha know.)  The scowl is the worst.  As I stare at the scowl in that picture, it certainly appears edited, if not entirely photoshopped on to replace his real mouth.

click to enlarge