From the monthly archives:

May 2009

FNC Points Out Media Double Standard in Sotomayor & Gonzales/Thomas

May 31, 2009

On Wednesday’s The O’Reilly Factor, FNC’s Bill O’Reilly and Bernard Goldberg talked about the double standard of the New York Times in ignoring the life story of former Attorney General Alberto Gonzales during his confirmation, while playing up a similar life background in the liberal Judge Sonia Sotomayor. O’Reilly opened his discussion with Goldberg reminding viewers of Gonzales’s history of growing up in poverty, his service in the Air Force, and his Harvard education:

This is Alberto Gonzales’ resume: Migrant parents. Poorer than the judge’s parents, poorer, okay? Gets out of high school, joins the Air Force, does well in the Air Force. They send him to Air Force Academy. Graduates at the top of his class. He goes to Harvard Law School. Bernie, correct me if I’m wrong, in his confirmation hearing, I didn’t hear any compelling stories out of the New York Times. I didn’t hear any NBC people weeping about Alberto Gonzales.

Goldberg brought up the case of Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas, whose own history of poverty was not played up, and did not lead to "glowingly" positive coverage:

They noted, they noted that Clarence Thomas came from a poor background, but that didn’t, that didn’t encourage them to write glowingly of Clarence Thomas, you know, as a possible nominee to the court. But, you know, in this Judge Sonia Sotomayor’s case, today’s New York Times, as we all know, the most important newspaper in the galaxy, they ran a lead editorial about her.

Below is a complete transcript of the interview from the Wednesday, May 27, The O’Reilly Factor on FNC:

BILL O’REILLY: And in the "Impact Segment" tonight, the liberal media overjoyed that Judge Sonia Sotomayor may most likely go to the Supreme Court. That’s predictable as the court has the power to change the country. And another liberal on it’s what many in the media want. Joining us now from Miami, Fox News analyst Bernie Goldberg, author of the big book A Slobbering Love Affair. Good Father’s Day gift. All right, I hold in my hand, Bernie Goldberg, who can’t, can you see me in Miami, by the way? You got a monitor there?

BERNARD GOLDBERG: Yes.

O’REILLY: This is Alberto Gonzales’ resume. Migrant parents. Poorer than the judge’s parents, poorer. Okay? Gets out of high school, joins the Air Force. Does well in the Air Force. They send him to Air Force Academy. Graduates at the top of his class. He goes to Harvard Law School. Bernie, correct me if I’m wrong, in his confirmation hearing, I didn’t hear any compelling stories out of the New York Times. I didn’t hear any NBC people weeping about Alberto Gonzales. Did you?

GOLDBERG: No, because they don’t write stories like that when the compelling story is about a conservative. They noted, they noted that Clarence Thomas came from a poor background, but that didn’t, that didn’t encourage them to write glowingly of Clarence Thomas, you know, as a possible nominee to the court. But, you know, in this Judge Sonia Sotomayor’s case, today’s New York Times, as we all know, the most important newspaper in the galaxy, they ran a lead editorial about her, a lead editorial. And there’s not one word in this editorial, there’s not one syllable in this editorial about her decision upholding, upholding racial discrimination against firefighters simply because they’re white firefighters .

O’REILLY: I’m going to interrupt you. Alan Colmes is going to explain that later on in the broadcast today, Bernie. So I want you to stick around. But we know that the New York Times is not in business to inform its readers. They’re in business to promote a liberal agenda, as is NBC News,
and down the line. To be fair, the Wall Street Journal ran a lead editorial that opposed the nomination today. But she’s going to get confirmed unless there’s some big thing nobody knows about. Here’s the key question. The media, and we talk about this every week. The media is now as corrupt, I think, as any time in the republic. It’s never been more corrupt than today, in 2009 in May. Is that irreversible, Bernie? Is it going to change when the New York Times goes bankrupt, which it will, or is it over?

GOLDBERG: Well, first, let me say about what you just said, I don’t have a problem with a liberal newspaper falling in love with a liberal judge nominated by a liberal President who they have already fallen in love with. I get that. I mean, that part is fine. But the corruption comes in, Bill, when they don’t acknowledge important things such as the fact that she upheld discrimination based on the color of somebody’s skin.

O’REILLY: Somebody’s skin. That’s been going on for years.

GOLDBERG: That is not, well, it’s been going on for years with affirmative action. But that’s even the bigger story that they don’t acknowledge. I’m glad you said that. The bigger story is that we live, we now live in a brave new world where liberals, liberals not only tolerate racial discrimination, but they celebrate it as long as it’s the right kind of racial discrimination. And they always dress it up as some kind of decency when it’s the exact opposite, the exact opposite from decency.

O’REILLY: Well, you know, look, the ends justify the means in the so- called march to diversity in many of these. But I want to get back to my question, because it’s important.

GOLDBERG: Yeah, I think.

O’REILLY: Is it all over, is it all over? If you look at the landscape, it’s 80-20 now — 80 percent pushing a left-wing agenda, 20 percent saying no, we would like to remain a traditional country.

GOLDBERG: Right.

O’REILLY: It’s 80-20. Is that a trend that we’ve been seeing in five years? Or is it in stone forever?

GOLDBERG: I think it may, in fact, be in stone forever because when it reaches that point, it’s reached critical mass. And there’s nothing in the culture to say we won’t accept this. The point I just made, Bill, about how liberals in the culture celebrate racial discrimination, that’s the same culture that allows this to happen. People who don’t like the New York Times, who don’t like MSNBC or NBC News, they have already left. They’re gone. They are not coming back. The readers of the New York Times, their circulation isn’t going up. If anything, it’ s going to continue to shrink. Critical mass has been achieved. They won’t turn back because they don’t feel the need to, even, even as they go down the drain financially. Because the only thing that trumps money for them is their heartfelt ideology. They have corrupted their profession. And they won’t turn back voluntarily. And it’s probably too late to turn back in any event.

O’REILLY: All right, Bernie. Thanks very much.

{ 0 comments }

Leno Calls Disgraced Democrat Spitzer a Republican

May 31, 2009

On Monday’s Tonight Show on NBC, Jay Leno incorrectly called New York’s former Democratic Governor Eliot Spitzer a Republican during the show’s monologue as the joked about Republican sex scandals. Inspired by John McCain’s daughter Meghan’s recent declaration that she is a "pro-sex Republican," Leno used her comment to poke fun at Republican Senator David Vitter of Louisiana, as well as Democrat Spitzer, who were both revealed to have hired prostitutes. But Leno’s joke assumed both disgraced politicians were Republicans: "Don’t confuse that with other Republicans like Senator Vitter and Eliot Spitzer. They like to get their sex from a pro."

If Leno was confused about Spitzer’s party affiliation, it is hardly surprising, as the MRC’s Brent Baker previously documented the mainstream media’s reluctance to label Spitzer as a Democrat, and Rich Noyes documented the media’s greater willingness to label Republicans involved in sex scandals.

Below is the complete text of Leno’s joke from the Monday, May 25, Tonight Show on NBC:

A lot of fun stuff happening with the Republicans. John McCain’s daughter, Meghan McCain, has declared that she is a "pro-sex Republican." That’s what she said, a "pro-sex Republican." Don’t confuse that with other Republicans like Senator Vitter and Eliot Spitzer. They like to get their sex from a pro. That’s totally different.

{ 0 comments }

UK Journalists Strike Back at WH Press Secretary’s ‘Sneering and Condescending Remarks’

May 31, 2009

Gibbs0509 There is little argument that the British press is doing a better job than its U.S. counterparts covering the Obama administration’s less than perfect performance.

If the reactions of Nile Gardiner and James Delingpole at the UK Telegraph to White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs’s blanket criticism of British journalism is any indication, UK reporters are also more willing to stand up for themselves instead of filing toothless complaints and letting veiled threats go by without blowback.

First, via Howard Kurtz, here’s the fine whine from Associated Press reporter, President of the White House Correspondents’ Association, and Democratic operative Jennifer Loven about the Obama administration’s penchant for anonymous, "on background" briefings:

"We protest in the strongest terms the Obama administration’s frequent use of briefings done on a background basis . . . especially when the same officials briefing often appear ubiquitously on television shows with similar information," said Jennifer Loven of the Associated Press, president of the White House Correspondents’ Association. She said this was particularly true on a Supreme Court nomination, "when the issue does not involve sensitive material such as national security information."

At US News, John Aloysius Farrell characterized Gibbs’s response to Loven, also at Kurtz’s report, as "Nice business you got here, little lady. It would be a shame if anything were to happen to it."

If Loven or her bosses at AP have defended themselves, I haven’t seen it.

Gardiner’s and Delingpole’s defenses of their paper, on the other hand, are quite visible.

Getting back to the beginning — As noted in a previous post (at NewsBusters; at BizzyBlog), Gibbs criticized all of British journalism in reaction to a single UK Telegraph report claiming that photos from the Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq "include images of apparent rape and sexual abuse":

"I want to speak generally about some of reports I’ve witnessed over the past few years in the British media and in some ways I’m surprised it filtered down," Gibbs said.

"Let’s just say that if I wanted to look up, if I wanted to read a writeup today of how Manchester United fared last night in the Champions League Cup, I might open up a British newspaper," he continued.

"If I was looking for something that bordered on truthful news, I’m not sure that would be the first stack of clips I picked up."

Gardiner passed on the traditional British stiff upper lip and ripped into Gibbs and his boss:

Robert Gibbs should apologise to the British press for his sneering rant

I cannot recall an instance like this where the President’s official spokesman has blasted the press of a key ally – in this case America’s closest friend, Great Britain.

This kind of attack would normally be made against the likes of the North Korean or Iranian state media, but in the current climate of "engagement" with America’s enemies the White House is far more likely to attack its own allies. Gibbs’ remarks have echoes of a senior State Department official’s anti-British statements to The Sunday Telegraph after the appalling handling of the Prime Minister’s visit in March.

….. The British press, especially the Telegraph, has been singled out because they frequently publish articles critical of the Obama administration and are not afraid to take on the status quo in Washington. Increasingly, millions of Americans are turning to online UK news websites for cutting edge reports on American politics and U.S. foreign policy that the mainstream media refuses to cover in the States, especially if it is unflattering to the Obama White House.

Robert Gibbs’ completely unwarranted rant against the British press is an absolute disgrace, and the President should disown his views. An unreserved apology by Gibbs is also in order.

….. Congratulations Gibbs – you’ve just made an enemy out of the entire British media, quite an achievement for the man in charge of selling the President’s message.

Also, unlike Loven, Gardiner got delicious backup from the Telegraph’s Delingpole, who also properly impugned U.S. journalists for being lapdogs:

Memo to Obama attack dog Robert Gibbs: stop pooping on our lawn

1. Congratulations. Your presidential regime has managed to secure the most supine, slobbering, spineless, unquestioning media coverage since Enver Hoxha’s Albania.

….. 3. If you are going to make clever-sounding football references displaying your rich understanding of the British press, try to get your terminology right. We call it the "Champions League." Not the "Champions League cup."

….. 5. Insulting the British print media. Big mistake. We know we’re not angels. We know we can go over the top sometimes. But unfortunately that’s a much bigger problem for you than it is for us. You see, while a lot of your mainstream media will hold fire on stories which they think may reflect poorly on your wondrous Obamamessiah – what his half-brother has been up to, say – we have fewer qualms about telling it like it is.

….. 6. A lot of Americans know this. They appreciate our irreverence. They enjoy our frank criticisms of all the myriad areas where Obama is getting it so badly wrong – everything from his disastrous cap and trade measures, to his brutal treatment of Chrysler dealerships which didn’t support him, to his pork barrelling, to his failure to do anything that looks remotely like rescuing the US economy. That’s why they come to read us online: because they can and there’s nothing you can do to stop them.

Oh, to have a U.S. press corps with more Gardiners and Delingpoles.

Cross-posted at BizzyBlog.com.

{ 0 comments }

CNN No Longer Top Dog?

May 31, 2009

Michael Calderone over at Politico has the scoop on CNN’s fall from grace these days with cable news viewers. Reporting that “since Obama took office, CNN’s prime-time audience had dropped sharply,” Calderone gives us the grim details of CNN’s struggle to keep it’s audience.

The upshot of the story seems to be that CNN is being out liberaled by MSNBC. The hard-left programing of MSNBC seems to be drawing viewers away from CNN with CNN finding itself lately in the unfamiliar role of being considered the “centrist” network. This only shows how far left MSNBC truly is.

CNN is also alarmed that its top anchors, Anderson Cooper and Campbell Brown, are floundering in the ratings.

It’s Cooper’s ratings that are the most troubling, say staffers, given the resources and heavy promotion for his show, and persona. For years, Klein has talked up Cooper, once famously dubbing him “the anti-anchor” and, in the aftermath of Katrina, as “a reporter [who’s] got that magical something.

But that magic may be wearing off.

Cooper dropped from 1.4 million viewers in January to 1.06 million in April, according to Nielsen. And that trend will continue in May: Cooper has yet to crack 1 million viewers this month, and even fell as low as a half-million one evening. Also while “360″ is ahead of “Countdown,” the Olbermann repeat wins the 25-54 demo about half the time.

Calderone also notes that Campbell Brown’s show “No Bias, No Bull” has also seen a steady drop that doesn’t seem to be slowing. This makes two of CNN’s heaviest hitters, Cooper and Brown, seeing an alarming drop in stats.

In fact, Brown is facing falling numbers even as Fox News’ “O’Reilly Factor” and MSNBC’s “Countdown with Keith Olbermann” are still gaining viewers.

Sadly, MSNBC’s extremely liberal programing has been gaining on CNN.

But in March, MSNBC overtook CNN for the first time in both total prime-time viewers and the 25-54 demographic. CNN narrowly edged MSNBC in total viewers in April, but again lost the demo.

Naturally, Fox News is still ahead of them both in several categories.

Still, CNN does well on special political nights, like election night last year.

Or take election night, when CNN brought in nearly 12.3 million total viewers on, which not only easily beat MSNBC and Fox — with 5.88 and 5.13 million, respectively — combined, but also topped both NBC and CBS.

Calderone has a lot more interesting points in his Politico piece. Do go on over and read it all: CNN fades in prime-time picture.

{ 0 comments }

‘Hush Rush’ Fairness Doctrine Being Repackaged as ‘Localism’

May 31, 2009

Despite recent assurances that the Fairness Doctrine is a dead issue to the point of White House press secretary, Robert Gibbs, along with reporters laughing off a question about its possible return, it will probably be coming back repackaged in a more odious form as localism according to a Broadcasting & Cable article by John Eggerton:

Acting FCC Chairman Michael Copps may have wished to drive a stake deep into the Fairness Doctrine issue. However, his recent comments on the subject have only helped keep it alive and kicking.

In a speech two weeks ago, Copps said the doctrine was long gone and not coming back. If he had stopped there, he might have put some criticism to rest, though certainly not all of it. However, he went on to characterize critics linking the doctrine to pending localism proposals as “issue mongers” and “conspiracy theorists [who] see [the doctrine] lurking behind every corner.”

As it turns out, some of those theorists are broadcast attorneys who see the localism proposals as just such a back-door effort, with perhaps even greater content-control implications than the doctrine itself. And since the speech, Copps has also been called out by both Media Research Center President Brent Bozell and Frank Wright, president of the National Religious Broadcasters.

In addition to "localism" we also have another buzzword from the left which will have the result of restricting what we hear on the radio airwaves, that favorite standby of the left, "diversity":

The doctrine, which required broadcasters both to actively cover issues of public importance and to seek out opposing viewpoints on such issues, has become something of a political football in the past few years. Democrats raised the specter of its return, much to the displeasure of conservative radio talk show hosts and some Republican legislators.

And despite President Obama’s statements to this magazine that he is not interested in bringing back the Fairness Doctrine, it continues to concern broadcasters. It has gained new currency of late with FCC proposals to boost localism; these include creating community advisory boards that stations would have to consult with to determine what type of public interest programming they’d need to put on.

Combine that with the Obama administration’s pledge to make programming diversity a priority communications policy issue, and Copps’ passion about the doctrine, and you have a potent brew keeping it alive and current.

And in case you think the FCC will treat "localism" (censorship) as just some side issue, think again:

Copps has said he can’t characterize how his successor, Julius Genachowski, will address the diversity issue, but has in effect advised him to make the localism initiative—proposed as part of the FCC’s media-ownership rule revision of December 2007—his first priority. That worries NRB chief Wright, who told Copps in a letter that his members could support both minorities and women and still be “wary” about diversity initiatives that might affect broadcast content.

"First priority." Got it? Of course, if Copps were completely honest he would call the localism initiative "Hush Rush" since the goal of such a policy is to silence Rush Limbaugh and other conservative radio talk hosts. And the president of the NRB is completely correct in his characterization of the goal of "diversity":

Wright associated NRB with others who are concerned that FCC “diversity” initiatives (NRB puts diversity in quotes) could be a Fairness Doctrine in disguise: “Whether such control is called the ‘Fairness Doctrine,’ or masked by some other name, is irrelevant. We do not want any broadcasters [religious, secular minority, etc.] to be subject to a heavy-handed system of federal regulation that is fraught with problems and oblivious to the benefits of a reasonably free market.”

Wright added that NRB and others have concerns about keeping the government from issuing revised media-ownership rules that could “decrease conservative” or traditional values in media content, and increase liberal or “progressive programming.”

So how does "localism" compare with the Fairness Doctrine? According to one communications attorney, it is even worse:

One veteran communications attorney who asked to speak on background took issue with characterizing the “localism” initiatives as Fairness Doctrine lite, suggesting they could be even more constricting on content than the doctrine itself. “Localism isn’t Fairness lite,” he said. “Why have government oversight program-by-program when you can set up a regime to oversee them all?”

The attorney called the doctrine a sideshow, “both by ditto-heads [Rush Limbaugh fans] and by those on the left who claim to be shocked, shocked that anyone would suggest they want to impose such a doctrine.”

Another veteran First Amendment attorney said that the doctrine per se won’t be back. He said it would be like a hot poker to both the right wing and religious broadcasters: “The Obama administration has done a pretty good job of splitting up the evangelical movement. Why would he throw it away for that?”

But he also said that despite Copps’ protestations, the localism initiative could be problematic for broadcast speech: “Last year’s localism decision, both the advisory boards and the programming forms, are a not-very-thinly-veiled Fairness Doctrine. But not just fairness. It is the commission determining the content of programming. Oh, yes, that is very high on the administration’s agenda.”

No need to worry about the Fairness Doctrine coming back. It will merely be repackaged in the much worse form of "localism" or "programming diversity" whose ultimate goal is to destroy diversity of opinion.

{ 0 comments }

Highlights from ABC’s New Show that Mocks Left-Wing, PC, Environmental Family

May 31, 2009

‘The Goode Family,’ a new half-hour animated comedy show which spoofs the politically-correct and environmental do-good thinking of a liberal family which considers its lifestyle superior to “abstinence people” who “wear flag pins,” debuted this past Wednesday night on ABC. The opening scene showed a “Support Our Troops…And Their Opponents” bumper sticker on the family’s hybrid.

When the 16-year-old son who the parents adopted from Africa and presumed he’d be black, but to their surprise was a white South African, wants to start driving, the father cautions: “With greater emissions, comes greater responsibility.” In another scene, the mother declares “nothing brings a mother and daughter closer together than shopping at a high-end, organic grocery store.” And inside the store an intercom announcement alerts shoppers: “Check out the big board to see how you can limit the impact of your existence.”

I won’t give away all that’s in the accompanying video in which I cobbled together a little under three minutes of what I thought were the funnier and most-damning parodies of liberal thinking .

My May 25 NewsBusters post, “New Animated Series on ABC to Lampoon Environmentalists,” quoted a Wall Street Journal story:

The new animated television series ‘The Goode Family’ is a send-up of a clan of environmentalists who live by the words “What would Al Gore do?” Gerald and Helen Goode want nothing more than to minimize their carbon footprint. They feed their dog, Che, only veggies (much to the pet’s dismay) and Mr. Goode dutifully separates sheets of toilet paper when his wife accidentally buys two-ply. And, of course, the family drives a hybrid.

I then noted:

The series, from Mike Judge who created Beavis and Butt-Head for MTV and King of the Hill for Fox, will debut Wednesday night at 9 PM EDT/PDT, 8 PM CDT/MDT. The May 22 Journal article, “Making a Mockery of Being Green — The creator of ‘Beavis and Butt-Head’ and ‘King of the Hill’ has a new target: environmentalists,” observed: “Much as Mr. Judge’s series King of the Hill finds humor in the dramas of a working-class Texas family, Goode lampoons a liberal Midwestern household. In Goode, the characters are often mocked for being green just to fit in with their friends and neighbors.”

A new episode will air Wednesday at 9 PM EDT/PDT, 8 PM CDT/MDT, with a re-run of the premiere episode to follow a half-hour later.

{ 1 comment }

Obama Lifts Ban on Lobbyists! Back to Business as Usual

May 30, 2009

Roll Call is reporting that during the typical Friday afternoon document dump — a practice used to hide actions that might prove somewhat embarrassing to the White House — the administration quietly announced that some of the former restrictions on lobbying ballyhooed about during the late campaign have been lifted. And now, we have to wonder: will the media notice this sudden change? I mean, a whole day has gone by and so far only Roll Call has mentioned it.

In any case, let special interests ring, baby!

Roll Call (see here, but subscription is required) says that the administration lifted bans on lobbyists that have some part of spending “stimulus” funds. So now getting hooks into bloated federal spending is open season for the very lobbyists that Obama pretended to disdain only months ago.

So much for hopinchange.

The ban on oral communication now applies only to competitively bid applications on the stimulus package and it applies equally to lobbyists as well as non-lobbyists, according to a White House blog post written by ethics official Norm Eisen.

Additionally, the administration is still also pretending at “transparency” because one of the new rules is that there be “immediate internet disclosure” of this renewed contact that lobbyists are to have with federal agencies. Not that such a thing is anywhere near de rigueur at this point… but, um, you know how hard The One is working, right?

So why the reverse? According to Roll Call:

The decision to change the policy follows the 60-day review period that the Obama administration set for the Office of Management and Budget to review the new lobbying rules. Several watchdog groups and lobbying entities, including the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the American League of Lobbyists and the AFL-CIO, raised concern over the recently imposed rules.

So, I guess the hopinchangieness wasn’t as hopey and changie as it was once imagined? So, let this posting serve as a notice to the Old Media that they might wanna look into this little story.

{ 0 comments }

“Ab Circle Pro” Price: $280.00

May 30, 2009

The easiest way to washboard stomach! Endurance and simultaneously train the abdominal muscles.
3 minutes on the Ab Training Circle Pro correspond approximately over 100 sit-ups. The mystery of the Ab Circle Pro is the unique rotary motion to the upper body with the help of gravity along the nearly frictionless rail turns.

When Ab Circle Pro [...]

{ 3 comments }

Reverse Discrimination? Chrysler Minority Dealers Disproportionately Spared vs. Dealer Group’s 3X Higher Expectations

May 30, 2009

ClosedAutoDealer0509 "Dealergate" is a term referring to a collection of evidence indicating that dealership termination decisions at bankrupt Chrysler may have been based on factors other than maximizing the chances that the company, post-bankruptcy, will be viable and profitable.

Josh Painter at RedState has a roundup focusing on what have been the primary concerns, which continue to be vetted by Doug Ross (here, here, here, and here), Joey Smith, and several others. Those concerns are that dealers with records of supporting Republican candidates and organizations were disproportionately terminated in comparison to those with records of supporting Democratic candidates and causes, and that certain terminated right-leaning dealers have seen their territories gobbled up by Democratic Party-connected business cronies.

A separate but very relevant Dealergate issue should be whether minority-owned dealerships were unfairly spared at the expense of non-minority dealers.

Based on a report that originally appeared on May 25 in the Michigan Chronicle, a Detroit-based African-American weekly newspaper, Sean Parnell at the Center for Competitive Politics (HT Jonathan Adler at Volokh) doesn’t think so.

But the Chronicle’s report ignores a trade group’s early worry expressed in a Wall Street Journal article about what the level of minority-owned dealer terminations might be, as well as the realities of the business situations of many of minority-owned dealers. That worry, and those realities, strongly support a contention that many minority-owned dealerships avoided the ax for reasons that weren’t strictly business.

The Chronicle laid out the termination numbers (Parnell actually saw them in the Seattle Medium, which also carried the story):

Of the 789 Chrysler dealers who were notified that their contracts will not be renewed, 38 are minority owned…

At the end of April, there were 154 minority dealers in Chrysler’s 3,181 total U.S. dealer body network…

Parnell’s conclusion:

According to my trusty calculator, before closings 4.84% of Chrysler’s dealers were minority owned. What percentage of auto dealers receiving closure notices are minority owned? 4.82%

At this point, the case for Obama’s use of campaign disclosure reports to compile an "enemies list" for use in the closure of auto dealerships pretty much falls apart ….

Parnell and his "trusty calculator" are missing an obvious point: The "enemies list" may or may not exist, but the issue of its existence is separate from the issue of minority vs. non-minority dealer survival.

There’s a much bigger problem with Parnell’s argument. As noted in a May 15 Wall Street Journal article by Alex P. Kellogg, when the number of dealer closures was known but not the identities of all dealers axed, minority-owned dealers publicly feared a three or more times greater depletion in their ranks:

Chrysler on Thursday said it would drop 789 of its 3,200 dealers as part of its bankruptcy restructuring. GM plans to eliminate 2,600 of its more than 6,000 dealers as it reorganizes.

The National Association of Minority Automobile Dealers (NADAM) estimates that 140 of Chrysler’s 170 to 175 minority-owned franchises could be closed, and at least 174 of GM’s 300 minority-owned dealers could shut their doors.

My trusty calculator tells me that the feared closure rate was 82% (140 divided by 170; NADAM’s dealer count appears to be from early 2008), while the actual closure rate was 25% (38 divided by 154).

The Journal’s Kellogg went on to cite several valid business reasons NAMAD itself and other minority dealers cited as to why they would generally be more vulnerable:

The organization said Chrysler’s minority-owned dealerships are at risk because many are small stores that offer only one of the company’s three brands, Chrysler, Dodge and Jeep. Fewer than half have converted to the company’s "Genesis" format that puts all three makes under one roof, NAMAD said. That compares to the approximately 60% of all Chrysler dealerships that have the three-brand format.

Genesis stores are usually more profitable because they sell and service more vehicles than single-brand dealerships. Chrysler plans to emphasize Genesis dealerships under its reorganization.

….. Many minority dealers operate in cramped downtown locations that are less desirable than the spacious suburban auto malls that are now popular, said Mr. (NAMAD President Damon) Lester and other dealers. Urban franchises typically draw fewer shoppers and carry less inventory for customers to choose among. Both factors tend to limit sales.

Minority dealers often don’t own the land beneath their showrooms, so the monthly rent adds to their costs, Mr. Lester said. And since many borrowed money to get into the business, they sometimes have more debt than family-run dealerships that have been in business for decades.

All other factors being equal, given NADAM’s expressed fears and the general comparative dealer profile it provided the Journal, the minority-owned dealer termination rate should have been higher — probably much higher than the 25% overall average. In fact, it’s clear that NADAM expected that outcome, even if you heavily discount their worry that over 80% of minority-owned Chrysler dealers would be told to go away as overblown hyperbole.

But it would appear that all other factors were far from equal, and that influences other than bottom-line business considerations were prominent.

The last thing a bankrupt, taxpayer-underwritten Chrysler needs as it struggles to emerge from bankruptcy and regain viability is a less than optimal dealer network. Yet it seems that the company deliberately chose exactly that — or had it chosen for them.

Cross-posted at BizzyBlog.com.

{ 1 comment }

Food Lovers Fat Loss System Review

May 30, 2009

Eating all day may seem a bit contrary for a slimmer waistline, but that is exactly what Robert Ferguson promises with his Food Lovers Fat Loss diet. Since Americans love to eat anyway, the concept of the Food Lovers Fat Loss diet is exactly that: eat a lot, but eat foods that burn fat and [...]

{ 9 comments }

“Hollie Steel breakdown” (Video)

May 30, 2009

Hollie had Steel on Friday in the semifinals no nerves of steel. You forgot her text and suffered a small breakdown. But the jury was merciful and let the 10 year olds to sing again. The second time she made it better and then thanks to the votes of the jury into the finals tomorrow. [...]

{ 1 comment }

Never Liberal Enough: Networks Also Doubted Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s Pro-Abortion Credentials in ’93

May 30, 2009

Thursday night, as my colleague Brent Baker noted, ABC and NBC fretted that Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor might not adhere to a strict liberal orthodoxy on abortion. NBC reporter Pete Williams said Sotomayor’s views on abortion were a “mystery,” while ABC’s Jan Crawford Greenburg declared “both sides in the contentious debate want to know more.”

On Wednesday’s CBS Evening News, correspondent Wyatt Andrews sounded the same alarm: “Pro-abortion rights groups worried aloud today that the President — who promised an abortion rights nominee — never asked Sotomayor, who is Catholic, where she stands.”

On Thursday’s Today, co-host Matt Lauer opened the show by demanding to know “Where does she stand? Liberal activists voicing concerns over Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor and her stance on abortion. This morning, they’re demanding to know if she’s pro-choice or pro-life — and why President Obama never asked.”

But this isn’t the first time the networks have channeled the worries of liberal pro-abortion groups about a Democratic President’s Supreme Court nominee. Sixteen years ago, President Clinton picked the solidly liberal Ruth Bader Ginsburg, an ardent feminist, to replace Justice Byron White. Ginsburg is probably the most liberal justice on the Court, but the networks conveyed doubts about whether she would really be a solid liberal vote on abortion.

When Ginsburg was picked on June 14, 1993, she was touted as a “moderate” even though she’d worked as a top ACLU official. Then-CBS anchor Dan Rather told viewers of a live mid-afternoon special report that: “Ginsburg is considered a moderate and a supporter of a woman’s right to an abortion. Now there’ll be some argument about whether she’s considered a moderate or not. That’s one of the fulcrum points at which the debate about her nomination no doubt will turn, but she considers herself a moderate, and supporters of her say that she is a moderate.”

That night on the NBC Nightly News, anchor Tom Brokaw painted Ginsburg this way:“President Clinton today announced his choice for the U.S. Supreme Court: a sixty-year-old federal judge, a strong advocate of women’s rights who has become more moderate in her views over the years, Ruth Bader Ginsburg.”

Over on the CBS Evening News, correspondent Rita Braver would only call Ginsburg “moderate to liberal,” but she characterized Chief Justice William Rehnquist as an “ultraconservative.”

RITA BRAVER: Sixty-year-old Judge Ruth Bader Ginsburg has been an appeals court judge for 13 years. She’s considered moderate to liberal, but today she cited this guide to judging from ultraconservative Chief Justice William Rehnquist.

RUTH BADER GINSBURG: “A judge is bound to decide each case fairly, in accord with the relevant facts and the applicable law, even when the decision is not,” as he put it, “what the home crowd wants.”

On the abortion issue, ABC anchor Peter Jennings relayed doubts just a few minutes after Clinton announced his choice, telling viewers that “in terms of the Roe v. Wade decision, the National Abortion Rights Action League has weighed in fairly quickly, saying it has some concerns but intends to listen to what Judge Ginsburg has to say.”

The next morning on CBS’s This Morning program, co-host Paula Zahn hit a pro-Ginsburg guest from the left: "The National Abortion Rights Action League is not totally comfortable with this nomination of Judge Ginsburg. They do not feel that she supports Roe v. Wade fully. Are their fears justified?"

Over on NBC’s Today, Katie Couric voiced similar fears to White House Chief of Staff Mack McLarty: "So you don’t think she has an open mind in terms of interpreting Roe v. Wade, as some abortion rights activists are concerned about?"

And on the June 15 CBS Evening News, correspondent Susan Spencer also saw “questions.” Talking about President Clinton, Spencer relayed: “On the Hill today, his choice of Ruth Bader Ginsburg for the Supreme Court was getting good reviews. She made the rounds for what looks like an easy confirmation. But her writings on abortion have raised some questions.”

The trumped-up fears of the pro-abortion groups were baseless sixteen years ago, and may be just as baseless today. Responding to Lauer’s doubts about Sotomayor on Thursday’s Today, NBC’s Chuck Todd was the only correspondent to suggest a cynical motive: “It looks like this could be potentially just a straw man by abortion rights groups who are concerned that they’re not gonna be able to have a Supreme Court nomination to raise money on.”

Of course, network coverage that indulges left-wing worries about a liberal President’s Supreme Court choice means even less time for the far more likely concerns of pro-life groups that Sotomayor will be a reliable vote to perpetuate the liberal status quo of abortion on demand.

{ 0 comments }

Mancow Muller Accused of Staging Fake Waterboarding

May 30, 2009

Erich "Mancow" Muller has gotten a lot of publicity for himself over the last few days by subjecting himself to a supposed waterboarding and then immediately declaring it to be torture. As a result, he has been hailed in the leftwing Blogosphere and appeared on MSNBC’s Countdown with Keith Olbermann to report on his experience. Well, now it appears that his "experience" was probably faked and did not encompass what a real waterboarding is like according to the Gawker blog. A series of e-mails between Mancow publicist, Linda Shafran, and David Kupcinet who has contacts with many veterans through his Purple Heart Association was obtained by the Gawker. Shafran was trying to get a veteran to conduct the waterboarding and when Kupcinet agreed to find one, she sent him the following e-mail:

You are a ROCK STAR!!!

It is going to have to look "real" but of course would be simulated with Mancow acting like he is drowning. It will be a hoax but have to look real. Would be great if they could dress in fatigues and bring whatever is needed. We will supply the water.

In her own words, it "will be a hoax but have to look real." Even worse, the producers of Keith Olbermann’s show were informed about the e-mails prior to the appearance of Mancow. This was their reaction as reported by the Gawker:

Regarding the emails between Safran and Kupcinet, our tipster also informed us that they were shared with Keith Olbermann’s producers prior to Mancow’s appearance on his show. We were told that they were beyond livid when they found out about them and expressed their extreme displeasure for the whole situation with Linda Shafran over the phone, but went ahead with the planned segment anyway, making no mention of the fact that they’d received advance word that the whole thing may have been staged. However, we were unable to confirm this with anyone at MSNBC.

The Gawker also contrasts the differences between Mancow’s waterboarding with that of Christopher Hitchens who was waterboarded under the correct protocol:

Now, we’re obviously no experts on the art of waterboarding, but we’ve done a bit of research on it and also went back and watched the video of Christopher Hitchens‘ waterboarding in 2008 to compare and contrast his waterboarding against Mancow’s, and we couldn’t help but notice some rather striking differences.

In the Hitchens video, everything is carried out pretty much according to universal waterboarding protocol as we’ve come to understand it. His limbs and torso are tightly bound by restraints. The platform on which he lays appears to be tilted slightly downward so that his head is positioned below his heart. His head is also completely covered and the water used looks as though it’s poured directly into his breathing passages.

In contrast, Mancow isn’t bound by restraints at all, he doesn’t appear to have his body positioned at a decline, only a portion of his face from the nose up is covered, and the water is being poured on him inappropriately.

And now it turns out that the marine who conducted the waterboarding wasn’t even qualified to do so, according to the Gawker:

"It was a marine who did it," Muller said. "I don’t know his training. Is he a professional interrogator? I don’t think so. But he knew what to do. If I wanted to fake it, it would have lasted for six minutes—I lasted six seconds. I’m on the air, bud, I’m on the air." Then he hung up.

So we called Klay South, the marine Mancow found at the last minute to perform the waterboarding. He says he had no idea what he was doing! To wit:

I know nothing about waterboarding. I had never done it before, I have no formal training in it, and I’ve never had it done to me. The only thing I knew was what I saw on the internet. I went to waterboarding.org and looked it up. I just did what I was told—poured the water on his face and that was it. I’m probably the last person they should have had do it. I didn’t know what I was doing.

That settles it for us! South is the founder of Veterans of Valor, a nonprofit that helps out wounded vets, and he said he agreed to the gig just to gain a donation and publicity for the organization, a noble enough reason.

According to South’s main resource, waterboarding.org, waterboarders should "restrain the interrogation subject on a board" and "incline the board about 15-20 degrees so that the feet are above the head." South says Muller’s feet were bound, but his arms were not. And although his feet were elevated, he was laying on a flat surface.

We asked South if it seemed like Muller was faking it: "I don’t know. I couldn’t tell you if he was in distress or not."

UPDATE: Mancow called us back to say that even though his waterboarder didn’t know what he was doing, and his publicist called the whole thing a "hoax," it wasn’t supposed to be a REALLY real waterboarding to begin with. Just the radio stunt kind! "Of course I wasn’t a radical terrorist," he said. "Of course it was simulated. To compare what I went through to what Khalid Sheikh Mohammed went through—of course it was not the same. I’m sure it was worse for them."

Last night, both Keith Olbermann and Mancow tried to wriggle out of the hoax controversy which was also covered by the Gawker:

Olbermann brought Muller—with his wife and daughter wandering around aimlessly and confusingly behind him in the studio—back to his show tonight to rebut our stories. He said that "the only actual evidence" that Muller’s supposed waterboarding was not, in fact, a waterboarding was "the use of the word ‘hoax’ in an e-mail." Well, we’d say that’s something, considering the e-mail in question was from Muller’s publicist, Linda Shafran, who wrote outright that the event was indeed a hoax. Muller explained it away, as he did earlier today, by claiming that he would not have been permitted to do the stunt by his bosses if he let people know that he was actually planning on going through with it. He wasn’t clear, but the implication was that Shafran wasn’t in the loop—she thought it would be a bullshit stunt: "I didn’t think it was a big deal, she didn’t think it was a big deal. We were going to prove that it was nothing."

That Mancow would stage a hoax event is no surprise to your humble correspondent. Mancow has a long history of perpetrating such fraud. In fact, I even posted a Twilight Zone parody skit on the UseNet a dozen years ago about that very subject. Here are a few highlights from that "Mancow’s Twilight Zone" skit. It starts out making reference to some hoaxes Mancow had been perpetrating including a staged walkout by his supposedly angry producer, Irma:

IRMA: Mancow, I’m sick of the way you’ve been treating me. I’m quitting right now!

(Irma leaves the studio.)

MANCOW: Golly! What a surprise! Well, folks, at least you heard it all on the air. This is yet another one of Mancow’s spontaneous moments that you can get only while listening to my cutting edge show.

Soon after that scene, Rod Serling makes an appearance:

SERLING: Portrait of a Chicago DJ named Mancow Muller. A man desperately trying to stay ahead in the radio ratings. He is also a total fraud. A purveyor of lies whose whole career rests on nothing but cheap tricks and gimmicks. Mancow doesn’t realize it yet but he is about to take a trip into—The Twilight Zone.

Later, Mancow is driving near a cornfield in Kansas when a flying saucer appears:

SAUCER VOICE: ATTENTION EARTHLING! WE HAVE TRAVELLED OVER A BILLION LIGHT YEARS TO DELIVER AN IMPORTANT MESSAGE TO YOUR PLANET!

MANCOW: YES! YES!

SAUCER VOICE: WE WILL BRING PEACE AND PROSPERITY TO YOUR PLANET!

MANCOW: GREAT NEWS!

SAUCER VOICE: AND WE WILL MAKE YOU ABSOLUTE RULER OF EARTH!

MANCOW: OH, HOW WONDERFUL!

SAUCER VOICE: BUT—IN ORDER FOR ALL THIS TO HAPPEN AND TO EARN THIS HONOR, YOU MUST RETURN TO THIS FIELD OF BEAMS WITH AT LEAST ONE OTHER EARTHLING IN EXACTLY ONE WEEK! THIS WILL BE A TEST OF YOUR LEADERSHIP ABILITIES TO CONVINCE OTHER EARTH PEOPLE TO BELIEVE IN YOU!

MANCOW: HA! HA! Piece of cake! I’ve already got thousands of listeners to my radio show!

Mancow excitedly returns to his Chicago studio to tell everyone about his encounter with the flying saucer but no one believes him because of his past history of perpetrating fraud:

MANCOW: On Saturday I had the greatest experience in the history of the world. A flying saucer appeared before me at the Field of Beams in Kansas. The voice from the saucer told me that the aliens would bring peace and
prosperity to our planet… Not only that but they promised that I will rule as leader of this planet. All they ask for this to happen is that at least one other person must return with me next Saturday to the Field of Beams. Now let’s take
some phone calls on this subject. The first caller on the line is Hector.

HECTOR (on the phone): Mancow, this just proves what a lying fraud you are! First you have a phony stunt at the Christmas Show, then you use comedians to pretend they’re real guests, and now this! I hope they run you out of
town, like what happened to you in San Francisco, for telling such an obvious lie!

MANCOW: Ha! That’s where you’re wrong, Hector. This time I really am telling the truth about the flying saucer……Hey! How come the broadcast
light went out?

(Suddenly the station’s General Manager barges angrily into the studio.)

GENERAL MANAGER: The light is off because you’re off the air for the rest of the day! Listen you little shmuck! How dare you come up with that stupid flying saucer story!

MANCOW: But it’s true! It really happened!

GENERAL MANAGER (sarcastically): Yeah, yeah. Sure. Just like Irma quitting was for real.

MANCOW: No! No! This time it’s not shtick. A flying saucer really did deliver a message to me!

Mancow later returns to the Kansas cornfield a week later but no one else shows up:

MANCOW (twirling around): WHERE IS EVERYBODY? DIDN’T ANYBODY BELIEVE ME!!?

(The flying saucer returns overhead.)

SAUCER VOICE: EARTHLING! YOU HAVE FAILED IN YOUR MISSION. YOU HAVE COME BACK WITH NO ONE!

(The flying saucer rises up into the sky and disappears into the distance.)

MANCOW: WAIT! COME BACK!

(Mancow sinks helplessly to his knees and collapses on the ground. He starts sobbing and bangs on the ground with his fist.)

MANCOW: My name is Mancow Muller and I am a fraud! My name is Mancow Muller and I am a fraud!

(The scene cuts to Mancow still sobbing and banging on a concrete floor.)

MANCOW: My name is Mancow Muller and I am a fraud!

(We see that Mancow is in a cell. A couple of attendants in white jackets are looking at him through the cell’s bars. Mancow continues his sobbing and mumbling as he bangs the floor.)

ATTENDANT #1: That poor guy has been repeating that same thing for months.

ATTENDANT #2: The Doc says there’s nothing that can be done for him. It looks like he’s a hopeless case.

(The attendants walk away and we hear Rod Serling’s voice as Mancow continues his pathetic mumbling.)

SERLING: Submitted for your approval. A story of a DJ who cried wolf just one time too many in—The Twilight Zone.

You can read the entire skit here but take heed from "Rod Serling." Take everything that Mancow says with a huge grain of salt in light of his long history of perpetrating hoaxes. And remember what Mancow’s publicist wrote in advance about what his reaction would be:

It is going to have to look "real" but of course would be simulated with Mancow acting like he is drowning.

"Acting like he is drowning." Acting.

{ 0 comments }

“Bernoulli Numbers Solved” by a 16-year-old

May 30, 2009

A 16-year-old in Sweden says when he first presented his solution to a 300-year-old mathematics formula, he was met with skepticism from his teachers.
Mohamed Altoumaimi, an Iraqi immigrant to Sweden, said undeterred, he presented the formula explaining the calculation of Bernoulli numbers to professors at Sweden’s Uppsala University, The Local said Thursday.
“When I first presented [...]

{ 2 comments }

“Bernoulli Numbers” what is it?

May 30, 2009

The “law of Bernoulli is a formula, a statement about the relationship between pressure and flow velocity in an incompressible medium there.
Is the “law of Bernoulli” will ever apply? Yes, eigendlich already. However, this is just an equation. They say nothing about the cause of the over-or under pressure, but uses only the velocity and [...]

{ 0 comments }

“Machine Gun McCain” Movie

May 30, 2009

Hank McCain (John Cassavetes) is the imprisoned gangster who gets out of jail with the help of the mob. The syndicate wants him to take part in a heist of a Las Vegas casino. The plan is discussed and soon abandoned by the mob, but Hank decides to go ahead with the robbery. Disguised as [...]

{ 0 comments }

Penn. Paper Didn’t Know Lincoln, Garfield, McKinley, and JFK Were Assassinated?

May 30, 2009

This little report is interesting in a few ways, but the most important is that it seems to show that the editors of at least one American newspaper are wholly ignorant of American history. It seems that early last week the Warren Times Observer of Warren, Pennsylvania published an ad that basically expressed a desire to see President Barack Obama assassinated and they didn’t even know it.

The small town paper published an ad that read as follows: “May Obama follow in the steps of Lincoln, Garfield, McKinley and Kennedy!” Sadly, the paper’s editors completely missed the salient fact that all these historical presidents — except for Obama — were assassinated in office!

By Friday, the paper printed an apology and told the AP that it had turned over all relevant info to the Secret Service.

This incident does not speak well for the historical education of the folks that run the Warren Times Observer, for sure. Unfortunately, this historical ignorance raises the suspicion that the entire newspaper industry suffers from the same fate.

Lastly, it is a damning commentary on the end product of our schools if even the employees of a newspaper — an entity that is supposed to be one of the informers of the nation — are so ignorant of history that this obvious, less than thinly veiled threat to Obama’s life so easily flew over their heads.

And this is not even to mention the sad fact that an American would wish for the assassination of a president enough to place such an ad in the first place!

Yes, it’s a sad commentary all around.

{ 0 comments }

Blossom tv Show

May 30, 2009

Blossom is a flower girl in her puberty. She lives with her father and her two brothers Tony and Joey (the mother has her father left years ago) in a nice house. Important reference point in your life is your best friend Six, which they all experienced what young girls go through it. Trouble at [...]

{ 0 comments }

Is Kevin Eubanks going with Jay Leno?

May 30, 2009

According to USA Today Kevin Eubankswill join Jay Leno on his prime time show:
Jay Leno’s move to NBC’s prime-time schedule five nights a week is either a bold stroke of genius aimed at keeping TV’s top late-night host or a desperate move to salvage a failing network with drastic cuts in programming budgets.
Whatever your view, [...]

{ 1 comment }

Leary: Obama ‘Greatest President in History!,’ Sotomayor ‘Fantastic!’

May 30, 2009

Displaying a caricature of a celebrity enraptured by President Barack Obama, although apparently quite serious in the underlining attitude he conveyed in an over the top manner, on Friday’s Larry King Live actor Denis Leary (IMDb page) proclaimed: “I think that President Obama is the greatest President in the history of all of our Presidents and that he can do no wrong in my book.”

Asked about Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor, Leary, co-producer and star of FX’s Rescue Me, exclaimed: “Fantastic!” Guest host Joy Behar prompted him to affirm: “You love her?” He repeated his earlier mantra: “Everything you ask me about President Obama I’m just going to say it’s the greatest thing ever. I love the guy!”

Leary, who made the appearance ostensibly to plug his book, ‘Why We Suck: A Feel Good Guide to Staying Fat, Loud, Lazy and Stupid‘, as a Father’s Day gift, also related how he likes to “torture” pro-Bush friends and colleagues by gloating over Obama. “I do have to say that I enjoy upsetting people — friends of mine who might be in the Republican world” by telling them: “President Obama is the greatest thing that ever happened.”

Audio: MP3 clip (20 seconds)

From the not so live (the interview was pre-taped) Friday, May 29 Larry King Live on CNN:

DENIS LEARY: I do have to say that that I think that President Obama is the greatest President in the history of all of our Presidents and that he can do no wrong in my book. So how’s that for prejudice on the Democratic side?

JOY BEHAR: It’s hard to make jokes about Barack right now.

LEARY: I don’t think it is. Because I just — I did a tour — a comedy tour with the Rescue Me guys, Lenny Clarke and Adam Ferrara. We went around the country pushing the rebirth of the show because we were off the air for a year-and-a-half. And, truthfully, I mean I make fun of his smoking. I make fun of, you know, several things about him. Niki DiPaolo, who is on Rescue Me and also was on the tour made fun of his wife’s arms. I mean there — you know, it doesn’t matter who’s in the White House you can find something to make fun of.

But I do have to say that I enjoy upsetting people — friends of mine who might be in the Republican world by — like Lanny Clark, who’s on Rescue Me who-

BEHAR: He’s a right-winger?

LEARY: Well, he’s a, yes. He’s a supporter — he was a supporter of the previous eight years. So I would love to wake up in the morning and go to work on Rescue Me and just go, President Obama is the greatest thing that ever happened, just to-

BEHAR: Just to torture him?

LEARY: Yes.

BEHAR: To torture him?

LEARY: Yes.

BEHAR: But wasn’t it fun for the comedians to take on Bush all those years? So it’s hard to let go of those jokes.

LEARY: It was manna from heaven.

BEHAR: Manna.

LEARY: It really was.

….

BEHAR: What do you think of Obama’s pick of Sotomayor?

LEARY: Fantastic!

BEHAR: You love her?

LEARY: Everything you ask me about President Obama I’m just going to say it’s the greatest thing ever. I love the guy!