Member since: Tue May 13, 2008, 03:07 AM
Number of posts: 8,953
Number of posts: 8,953
- 2015 (108)
- 2014 (727)
- 2013 (731)
- 2012 (726)
Now listen to Senator Whitehouse's SMACKDOWN response to moron Senator James 'Senator-with-the-snowball' Inhofe
After Senator James Inhofe trolled the entire Senate with his snowball on Thursday, Senator Sheldon Whitehouse stepped up to the mic with his fact snowplow to clear away the mess.
So much win.
Here's the transcript:
WHITEHOUSE: I'd just like to complete my remarks with regard to the Senator from Oklahoma and his snowball. I'd like to ask unanimous consent that I show the Earth Now website on the iPad device that I have.
And if you go to Earth Now it's actually quite easy to load, and you can see how that polar vortex measurably brings the cold air down to New England where we are right now.
And this is produced by NASA. These are pretty serious people. So you can believe NASA and you can believe what their satellites measure on the planet, or you can believe the Senator With The Snowball.
The United States Navy takes this very seriously, to the point where Admiral Locklear, who is the head of the Pacific Command, has said that climate change is the biggest threat that we face in the Pacific. He's a career miilitary officer and he's deadly serious.
You can either believe the United States Navy, or you can believe the Senator With The Snowball.
The religious and faith groups are very clear on this, by and large. I would particularly salute the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, which has made a very, very clear and strong statements and we are going to hear more from Pope Francis about this when he releases his encyclical and when he speaks to the Joint Session of Congress on September 24th.
And I think that it will be quite clear that you can believe the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops and Pope Francis, or you can believe the Senator With The Snowball.
In corporate America, there is an immense array of major, significant, intelligent, responsible corporations who are very clear that climate change is real. Companies like Coke and Pepsi. Companies like Ford and GM. And Caterpillar. Companies like Wal-Mart and Target. Companies like VF Industries, which makes a wide array of clothing products, and Nike. Companies like Mars and Nestle.
So, we have our choice. We can believe Coke and Pepsi and Ford and GM and Caterpillar and Wal-Mart and Target and VF Industries and Nike and Mars and Nestle, or we can believe the Senator With The Snowball.
Every major American scientific society has put itself on record -- many of them a decade ago -- that climate change is deadly real. They measure it, they see it, they know why it happens, the predictions correlate with what we see as they increasingly come true.
And the fundamental principle is that it is derived from carbon pollution, which comes from burning fossil fuels, are beyond legitimate dispute to the point where every leading scientific organization on the planet calls them unequivocal.
So, you can believe every major American scientific society, or you can believe the Senator With The Snowball.
Posted by Segami | Fri Feb 27, 2015, 05:09 AM (26 replies)
In 2001, a private video was filmed of Netanyahu at a campaign supporter's house shows him boasting that “America is a thing you can move very easily” – noting that he purposely dragged on the process with the Palestinians in order to prevent any resolution."..."
It's a record that members of Congress should ponder on before they leap to applaud for his upcoming address.
Next week, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu will present his case against President Obama's talks with Iran; he is expected to portray Iran as an untrustworthy actor and Obama's diplomacy as naive and a distraction from more sanctions or even military action. This case suffered a major setback this week as a major intelligence leak showed that Israel's own intelligence service, the Mossad, privately contradicted Netanyahu's public statements on Iran. The leaked secret cables show that as Netanyahu was presenting at the United Nations in 2012 a narrative that Iran that was just “weeks” away from producing enough enriched uranium for a nuclear bomb, Israel's own intelligence service found a very different conclusion. From The Guardian:
"....Mossad took a different view. In a report shared with South African spies on 22 October 2012 – but likely written earlier – it conceded that Iran was “working to close gaps in areas that appear legitimate, such as enrichment reactors, which will reduce the time required to produce weapons from the time the instruction is actually given”.
But the report also states that Iran “does not appear to be ready” to enrich uranium to the higher levels necessary for nuclear weapons. To build a bomb requires enrichment to 90%. Mossad estimated that Iran then had “about 100kg of material enriched to 20%” (which was later diluted or converted under the terms of the 2013 Geneva agreement). Iran has always said it is developing a nuclear programme for civilian energy purposes...."
In 1992, Benjamin Netanyahu wasn't yet Prime Minister; he was a Likud member of the Knesset, Israel's parliament. He told his fellow lawmakers that Iran was 3 to 5 years away from a nuclear bomb, and that the only way to stop them was for them to be “uprooted by an international front headed by the U.S.”
By 1996, Netanyahu rode a right-wing wave in Israel and was elected Prime Minister; in July he was given his first opportunity to address the U.S. Congress. In his speech, he said Iran was the “most dangerous” of Middle East regimes and warned about the consequences of it acquiring nuclear weapons, saying that it would create “catastrophic consequences...for all of mankind.” He drew on many of the same themes he first introduced in his book Fighting Terrorism: How Democracies Can Defeat Domestic and International Terrorists. In that book he warned that “hundreds of thousands, and possibly millions” would perish if Iran were to possess nuclear weapons.
In 2002, he appeared before Congress as a private citizen to join a Congressional panel looking into the alleged threat from Iraq. Here's a snippet from his testimony at that time:
There’s no question that has not given upon on his nuclear program, not whatsoever. There is also no question that he was not satisfied with the arsenal of chemical and biological weapons that he had and was trying to perfect them constantly…So I think, frankly, it is not serious to assume that this man, who 20 years ago was very close to producing an atomic bomb, spent the last 20 years sitting on his hands. He has not. And every indication we have is that he is pursuing, pursuing with abandon, pursuing with every ounce of effort, the establishment of weapons of mass destruction, including nuclear weapons. If anyone makes an opposite assumption or cannot draw the lines connecting the dots, that is simply not an objective assessment of what has happened. Saddam is hell-bent on achieving atomic bombs, atomic capabilities, as soon as he can
Thirteen years later, Netanyahu has yet to offer any sort of mea culpa for his remarks before the Congress about Iraq, but he did return his sights to his original target: Iran. In September of 2012, he appeared on Meet The Press to claim that Iran was “very close, they are six months away from being about 90 percent of having the enriched uranium for an atom bomb.” And it was that year " target="_blank">where he gave his infamous cartoon-bomb-chart-assisted U.N. speech, which the recent leaks of Mossad intelligence severely undercut. In 2001, a private video was filmed of Netanyahu at a campaign supporter's house shows him boasting that “America is a thing you can move very easily” – noting that he purposely dragged on the process with the Palestinians in order to prevent any resolution. And indeed during his 2011 speech to Congress, he seemed to be proved correct. At that time, Members of Congress gave him 29 standing ovations, more than they gave their own president. But things appear to have changed as he may have finally overplayed his hand. His upcoming address to Congress is being boycotted by nearly 30 Members of Congress; the White House won't be meeting with him, and neither will Secretary of State John Kerry. Additional sanctions on Iran, more or less designed to kill talks with that country, appear to be stalled, and a historic Iran deal appears imminent.
Posted by Segami | Fri Feb 27, 2015, 03:02 AM (1 replies)
Australian comedian Jim Jefferies, whose brilliant commentary on American gun policies make up a good portion of the Netflix comedy special “Bare,” says he receives a minimum of 15 hate letters per day, from US-born-and-bred gun nuts. Hate mail and death threats aside, Jefferies’ stand up won The Interrobang’s Best Comedy Special of 2014.
Who cares what some Australian has to say about American gun policies? Well, I do, for one. So should everyone who actually cares about this country and wants to protect the lives of the people who live here. Australia banned guns in the 1990’s, and not a single mass shooting has taken place in that country since. What’s more, at last count, Americans were over 20 times more likely to be killed by firearms than citizens of Australia.
But it’s not just Australia. It’s Australia, France, the United Kingdom (excluding Northern Ireland), Israel, South Korea, Norway, Poland and Slovenia. Americans are over 20 times more likely to be killed by guns than citizens in any of those countries. And let’s look at Japan, a country which has implemented some of the strictest gun policies on the planet. According to The Atlantic:
“In 2008, the U.S. had over 12 thousand firearm-related homicides. All of Japan experienced only 11, fewer than were killed at the Aurora shooting alone. And that was a big year: 2006 saw an astounding two, and when that number jumped to 22 in 2007, it became a national scandal. By comparison, also in 2008, 587 Americans were killed just by guns that had discharged accidentally.”
Citizens of the US are ten to sixteen times more likely to be killed by a gun than citizens of Austria, Denmark, Germany, Greece, Netherlands, New Zealand and Spain.
The list goes on and on and on.
Posted by Segami | Thu Feb 26, 2015, 05:22 PM (14 replies)
The latest round of scrutiny, over a claim by O'Reilly that he "saw nuns get shot in the back of the head" in El Salvador, forced the top-rated host to clarify his remarks. For the second time in as many days, Media Matters for America on Wednesday released a report detailing "an apparent fabrication" by O'Reilly. Media Matters produced two clips of O'Reilly talking about the murders. During a December 2012 broadcast of "The O'Reilly Factor," the host recalled describing the atrocity to his mother. "When I would tell her, hey, mom, I was in El Salvador and I saw nuns get shot in the back of the head, she almost couldn't process it," O'Reilly said. "She couldn't process it, you know."
O'Reilly didn't detail when or where in El Salvador he saw those murders. In a statement to CNNMoney on Wednesday night, O'Reilly said that reporters covering the conflict in El Salvador were shown "depictions of nuns who were murdered." He noted that his reference to the nuns in 2012 came on the day of the mass shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Connecticut.
"While in El Salvador, reporters were shown horrendous images of violence that were never broadcast, including depictions of nuns who were murdered," O'Reilly said. "The mention of the nuns on my program came the day of the Newtown massacre (December 14, 2012). The segment was about evil and how hard it is for folks to comprehend it." "I used the murdered nuns as an example of that evil," O'Reilly continued. "That's what I am referring to when I say 'I saw nuns get shot in the back of the head.' No one could possibly take that segment as reporting on El Salvador."
The United States was rocked in December 1980, when three American nuns and a lay woman were murdered in El Salvador. O'Reilly notes in his book "The No Spin Zone" that he went to El Salvador to cover the strife shortly after he was made a correspondent by CBS News in 1981. In a 2009 interview, he said he had arrived in the country "right after" the murder of the nuns. Media Matters cited a professor of religion at the University of Florida who wrote that "no priests or nuns were killed in El Salvador for more than eight years" after January 1981. The professor, Anna L. Peterson, also noted that "thousands of lay Christian activists continued to die at the hands of death squads and the military." Peterson told CNNMoney that what she wrote "is correct, to the best of my knowledge." She said that video footage of political killings in El Salvador is rare, but still photos of dead bodies are widely available.
Media Matters has been digging in to O'Reilly's past statements since Mother Jones magazine questioned O'Reilly's claim to have been in a "war zone" during the Falklands war. He was actually reporting from Buenos Aires, thousands of miles from the Falkland Islands.
On Tuesday, Media Matters challenged O'Reilly's repeated claims to have been at the scene when George de Mohrenschildt, a friend of Lee Harvey Oswald, committed suicide. Media Matters, which is dedicated to correcting misinformation in conservative media, has long kept a critical eye on O'Reilly and his colleagues at Fox News. The group is currently urging supporters to demand that Fox News "hold O'Reilly accountable for his deception." O'Reilly has dismissed Media Matters in the past as a "vicious" propaganda outfit.
"Those fascists have tried everything they can try to get me off the air," O'Reilly said in 2012.
Posted by Segami | Thu Feb 26, 2015, 04:09 PM (6 replies)
Netanyahu Ad: "... explicitly places himself as a latter day ben Gurion, standing up to a United States betraying the embryonic Jewish state. Indeed, the ad claims that Israel might not even exist today if ben Gurion hadn't defied the United States and declared Israeli Independence in May 1948...."
As you can see here, Prime Minister Netanyahu has doubled down on attacking President Obama and European leaders for allegedly 'giving up' on efforts to stop Iranian from acquiring nuclear warheads. But in the course of his scorched earth campaign for reelection, he's done something as yet little noticed in the US. He's run a campaign ad which not only hugely distorts history but also managed to libel the US.
In the ad Netanyahu explicitly places himself as a latter day ben Gurion, standing up to a United States betraying the embryonic Jewish state. Indeed, the ad claims that Israel might not even exist today if ben Gurion hadn't defied the United States and declared Israeli Independence in May 1948. The precise chain of events is complicated. But this is at best a willful distortion of what happened. John Judis goes through the history in some detail here.
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has attempted to make light of his rift with the Obama administration in a new advertisement that rewrites American-Israeli history. The ad opens with “1948” emblazoned on a black background and shifts to a photograph of David Ben-Gurion declaring Israeli statehood on May 15, 1948. The text, appearing in Hebrew, reads:
1948—Ben Gurion faces a crucial decision: establishment of the State of Israel.
The American Secretary of State strongly opposed.
Ben Gurion, contrary to the position of the American State Department, declares the establishment of the state.
Would we be here today if Ben Gurion hadn’t done the right thing?
Only the Likud, Only Netanyahu.
Here are the facts: The American Secretary of State was George Marshall. In the fall of 1947, when the question of a Jewish and Arab state came before the United Nations, Marshall and President Harry Truman backed the creation of a partition in Palestine between a Jewish and Arab state. Truman and Marshall did attempt at one point to create boundaries that were more equitable—the final proposal had the Jews, who were less than a third of the population, being granted 56 percent of the land—but backed off, and when the crucial vote on partition came in November, the administration backed and energetically (to say the least) lobbied to gain the necessary two-thirds support for partition, on which the Israelis still base their claim of legitimacy. The resolution would not have passed without American support.
And it can be added that from that time to through spring of last year, the United States has provided Israel with $121 billion of foreign, and chiefly, military aid, and supported Israel in its conflicts with Arab states, most critically in 1973, and at the United Nations. I’ll leave it to counter-factual historians to decide what exactly would have happened to Israel if the United States had not supported it over the last seven decades, but I think it’s pretty clear that contrary to Netanyahu’s insinuation, Israel would have had a much more difficult time enduring and becoming prosperous—as well as maintaining an occupation of Palestinian lands—without American support. Netanyahu has gotten himself in dangerous waters by attempting to deny this.
While the US did not move into its current level of alignment with Israel until after the Six Day War and especially in the 1980s, the United States was at least a critical force if not the critical force in providing the diplomatic basis and support for Israel's birth. But the ad is a falsehood on a deeper level. Nothing was more essential to ben Gurion's theory of geopolitics than the belief that Israel, a small country among hostile neighbors, required the backing a Great Power, which he increasingly over the years identified as the United States. It also needed a powerful army which could not only defend the country but provide the deterrence to make life there possible. But the necessity of a great power alliance was never far from his mind and it recurs again and again in papers. To the extent we can manage the anachronism of placing someone from the past in a future they never knew, ben Gurion would never have played the game Netanyahu is now playing. That's not to say for a moment that he would have been indifferent to the Iran threat. Far from it. But I think most students of the man would agree he never would have approached the critical protective role of the US alliance in this way.
Posted by Segami | Thu Feb 26, 2015, 08:54 AM (0 replies)
Mayor Rahm Emanuel felt the wrath of the liberal base on Tuesday—and progressives warn it’s only the beginning.
"....“This is real,” said Kristen Crowell, executive director of United Working Families. “It will be a national marker for the progressive movement against these bad Democrats that align themselves with the corporate wing of the party. This will be ground zero. It will define the national landscape in 2016.....”
A newly confident progressive movement delivered a body blow to Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel Tuesday night—and is now gearing up for another knockout punch to what it derisively calls the Corporate Wing of the Democratic Party. This defeat was one for the record books. Emanuel became the first incumbent mayor on Tuesday to fail to get 50 percent of the primary vote since Chicago adopted nonpartisan elections in 1983. The hard-charging former congressman and chief of staff in the Obama White House angered many liberal Chicagoans, especially minorities and members of labor unions, by embarking on aggressive education reform agenda that included the closing of fifty schools. Emanuel, who cruised to victory in 2011 by 30 percentage points, has also been knocked for implementing red light cameras, which some Chicagoans say disproportionately target minorities, and for focusing on bringing business downtown at the expense of neighborhoods.
Chicago teachers union head Karen Lewis, described the move as favoring his “hedge fund homies” over the rest of the city. Rahm defeated Jesus “Chuy” Garcia, a Cook County Commissioner 45-34—that’s five points short of what the polls showed he had just a few days ago. “This is the happiest day of my life—Rahm Emanuel is in a run-off,” said Delmarie Cobb, a longtime Chicago progressive political consultant. “He is everything the city cannot continue to have in terms of its survival. The African-American is holding on by a thread from decades of benign neglect. It didn’t start with him. But he exacerbated it.” Emanuel became mayor when six-term incumbent Richard Daley decided not to seek a second term. He was supposed to have an easy first re-election when Lewis, who had been laying the groundwork for a run, dropped out after developing a brain tumor.
That Garcia, a little known official, was able to get that close to the mayor is a testament to Rahm’s unpopularity. After all, his $15 million war chest was four times what the entire rest of the field had on hand and should have swamped even the most ambitious challenger. But many liberals say, the credit goes to a resurgent progressive movement that has left a string of centrist Democrats in its wake, and point to Massachusetts Senator Elizabeth Warren and New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio as their success stories. In New York, de Blasio’s landslide win in 2013 was largely a result of a decade of organizing by labor and progressive groups under the guise of the Working Families Party, a quasi third party that the new mayor helped found. In 2009, Democratic city treasurer Bill Thompson nearly pulled an unforeseen upset against incumbent Mayor Mike Bloomberg, and a handful of liberals formed a new bloc in the city council, presaging de Blasio’s win four years later. In Chicago, the progressive movement has been slower to coalesce after decades of Daley, but the city did see a handful of progressives elected to the Council in the Rahm-era, and most look set to survive re-election despite efforts by Emanuel and the business community to take them out. Last summer, a Chicago offshoot of the WFP, United Working Families, formed to lend sophistication to progressives campaign efforts.
For Chicago area liberals, this year was supposed to be like 2009 in New York—a chance to scare the establishment and lay the groundwork for the next go around. Now though progressives are salivating at the prospect of ending the Emanuel-era in Chicago prematurely. “The next six weeks will be the defining electoral contest of 2015, between the power of the people on one hand and the power of big money on the other,” said Dan Cantor, executive director of the Working Families Party, which has joined other liberal groups in trying to draft Elizabeth Warren into the 2016 Democratic presidential primary. “Pro-corporate Democrats want to go one way, and progressive and working families Democrats want to go another, and this election will be the biggest fight in the nation on that topic.” Thom Serafin, a longtime Democratic consultant in Chicago, said that Garcia’s showing was more a testament to the a low turnout primary on a cold February day, (although the 34 percent who did show up to vote dwarfed the showing in big city primaries in New York and Los Angeles) and to the fact that many political players in Chicago just wanted to see Emanuel sweat one out a bit. “Aldermen wanted a runoff just so that Rahm would spend a little more time with them,” Serafin said. “There was a genuine enthusiasm for not going over 50 percent so that we could now have a real debate.” In order to erase the ten point (and tens of millions of dollars) Emanuel advantage, Serafin said that Garcia will have to show that he is capable of running the nation’s third largest city.
Posted by Segami | Thu Feb 26, 2015, 01:29 AM (9 replies)
As Bill O’Reilly continues on the warpath against those reporting on whether he embellished his combat experience, new allegations have emerged that the Fox News anchor lied about being present at a suicide in Florida. “He was in Dallas,” Tracy Rowlett, a former colleague of O’Reilly’s at Dallas station WFAA, told liberal watchdog Media Matters. “Bill O’Reilly’s a phony -- there’s no other way to put it.” The Fox host has claimed on several occasions that he heard the gunshot that killed George de Mohrenschildt, a friend of JFK assassin Lee Harvey Oswald who committed suicide at his daughter’s home in Florida in 1977. O’Reilly originally made the claim in his 2012 book, Killing Kennedy. He repeated it during an appearance on "Fox & Friends" while promoting the book: “I was about to knock on the door where was, his daughter’s house, and he blew his brains out with a shotgun,” O'Reilly said (see embedded video at the bottom of this piece). He made the claim again in an adaption of Killing Kennedy for younger readers.
Rowlett and Byron Harris, another of O’Reilly’s WFAA colleagues at the time, both say the embattled host was with them at WFAA’s Dallas headquarters when de Mohrenschildt died. The station "would have reported it as some kind of exclusive -- and there was no exclusive -- if O'Reilly had been standing outside the door,” Harris said. Not only did WFAA run no exclusive, but the story was broken by The Dallas Morning News. The Palm Beach County Sheriff's Office investigation of de Mohrenschildt’s death does not mention O’Reilly. Nor does The Associated Press report of the incident, which only says de Mohrenschildt was in the house with two maids at the time, neither of which heard the gunshot. According to Rowlett and Harris, O’Reilly never mentioned while he was working at WFAA that he was present when de Mohrenschildt committed suicide. “That came later," Rowlett said. “That must have been a brain surge when he was writing the book.” O’Reilly’s claim to have been in Florida is also contradicted by conversations the Fox host had with Gaeton Fonzi, an investigative journalist who wrote extensively about the Kennedy assassination. Fozi, who is now deceased, writes in his biography that he received a call from O’Reilly shortly after the suicide, asking for confirmation it had happened. From Fozi’s autobiography:
About 6:30 that evening I received a call from Bill O’Reilly, a friend who was then a television reporter in Dallas. “Funny thing happened,” he said. “We just aired a story that came over the wire about a Dutch journalist saying the Assassinations Committee has finally located de Mohrenschildt in South Florida. Now de Mohrenschildt’s attorney, a guy named Pat Russel, he calls and says de Mohrenschildt committed suicide this afternoon. Is that true?”
The new charges promise further trouble for the embattled Fox entertainer, who since last Thursday has fended off accusations that he overstated his war reporting experience. O’Reilly has claimed in the past that he "reported on the ground in active war zones from El Salvador to the Falklands" during his time with CBS and "survived a combat situation in Argentina during the Falklands War.” O’Reilly was in Buenos Aires -- 1,200 miles from the Falklands -- when the conflict ended, but maintained in an interview with conservative radio host Hugh Hewitt* that the riots he witnessed in the capital constitute a “combat situation.”
Posted by Segami | Wed Feb 25, 2015, 07:31 PM (3 replies)
I predicted last week that David Corn's questioning of Bill O'Reilly's claim that he experienced "combat" in Buenos Aires during the Falklands War won't do the slightest bit of harm to O'Reilly's career; I anticipated that the response would eventually turn vicious and thuggish, and would eventually involve ad hominem attacks on O'Reilly's critics.
Well, here's a moment of thuggishness from O'Reilly himself, as reported in The New York Times:
Mr. O’Reilly’s efforts to refute the claims by Mother Jones and some former CBS News colleagues occurred both on the air and off on Monday. During a phone conversation, he told a reporter for The New York Times that there would be repercussions if he felt any of the reporter’s coverage was inappropriate. “I am coming after you with everything I have,” Mr. O’Reilly said. “You can take it as a threat.”
In a better media world, this would offend every journalist who wasn't an ideological ally of O'Reilly's. This would get the rest of the press's back up. But it won't, because the nerdy members of the Journalism Club see O'Reilly and the rest of the people at Fox as BMOCs who sit at the cool table in the media's high school cafeteria. They fear Fox. So most of them won't wade into the fight. Meanwhile ,David Corn went on right-wing apparatchik Hugh Hewitt's radio show yesterday. Expecting to be asked about the O'Reilly story, Corn was subjected to attacks on his own character for most of an hour, eventually terminating the phone call with Hewitt. Real Clear Politics has posted the audio, deceptively headlining the clip "David Corn Hangs Up On Hugh Hewitt After 45-Minute Grilling on Bill O'Reilly." It wasn't a "45-minute grilling on Bill O'Reilly." Most of it wasn't "on Bill O'Reilly" at all. It was an everything-but-the-kitchen-sink attempted character assassination of Corn, built on irrelevancies twisted into something sinister.
The transcript is here. The effort to impugn Corn started early:
HH: All right. Let me go to Understanding Our Generation. Now I want to go to you. You graduated from Brown in what, 1982?
HH: And you were Phi Beta Kappa there?
DC: Yes, I was.
HH: Did you go to Columbia as well? I saw that in one of the bios.
DC: Yeah, I went to Columbia for a semester, had credits transferred to Brown.
HH: Now standards vary for Phi Beta Kappa. What was the rule at Brown? Did they count the Columbia courses?
DC: I don’t know.
HH: So you have no idea, what was the standard at Brown for Phi Beta Kappa?
DC: I can’t tell you what the standard was 30 years ago, Hugh. Someone, you know, one of my teachers proposed me and I got it. I don’t think you had to apply for it.
HH: You don’t recall how you got it?
DC: I recall, you know, this is crap. What do you care?
HH: I’ll, it’ll come forward. It’s about credibility. It happened 30 years ago, right?
DC: Yeah, it happened 30 years ago.
HH: And you can’t remember how you got it?
You see where this is going -- Corn questioned O'Reilly's memories of thirty years ago ... and what was Corn doing decades ago? Becoming a member of Phi Beta Kappa! Did he deserve it? Does he now know why that happened? Is his memory of becoming a member of PBK accurate? Hunh? Hunh?
Posted by Segami | Wed Feb 25, 2015, 08:43 AM (5 replies)
"...BIBI MAY LIVE TO REGRET THIS SNUB....'
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu declined an invitation to meet behind closed doors with Democratic Senators on his March 3 visit to Washington to address a joint session of Congress. The invitation came as several Democrats have declared that they would avoid the PM’s speech. “Though I appreciate your kind invitation to meet with Democratic Senators, I believe that doing so at this time could compound the misperception of partisanship regarding my upcoming visit,” Netanyahu said in a letter to Senator Dick Durbin and Senator Dianne Feinstein.
As you’ll recall, President Obama based his own refusal to see Netanyahu this visit on the same argument — that it would appear like his meddling in Israel’s elections politics. Of course, the U.S. is two years away from its next elections, but, apparently, Bibi is being extra careful.
“I regret that the invitation to address the special joint session of Congress has been perceived by some to be political or partisan. I can assure you that my sole intention in accepting it was to voice Israel’s grave concern about a potential nuclear agreement with Iran that could threaten the survival of my country.”
And to wreck an American deal with Iran over its nuclear program, which is the PM’s prerogative, of course.
In a statement, Senator Durbin said Netanyahu’s response was “disappointing.”
He added: “We offered the prime minister an opportunity to balance the politically divisive invitation from Speaker Boehner with a private meeting with Democrats who are committed to keeping the bipartisan support of Israel strong. His refusal to meet is disappointing to those of us who have stood by Israel for decades..."
Posted by Segami | Wed Feb 25, 2015, 08:20 AM (4 replies)
SKINNER, WE NEED A 'SHOVELIN'-SHIT' SMILEY JUST FOR BILLO & OTHER RETHUG HERO CHICKENHAWKS...
O'Reilly's book was titled "Those Who Trespass: A Novel of Murder and Television." It is clearly a work of fiction, but several critics have pointed out the central characters bear a clear resemblance to O'Reilly. In 2004, the late Michael Hastings said the book offers "an inside view of the author’s mind." The New Yorker's Nicholas Lemann described the main characters as two versions of O'Reilly's "alter ego." One of those characters is Shannon Michaels, who like O'Reilly, is a tall, Irish-American journalist who was sent to cover the Falklands War for a television network. The protest is a life-changing moment for Michaels where, as he puts it, he "almost got killed." In O'Reilly's story, Michaels is on the scene reporting for the fictional network GNN on June 15, 1982 when thousands of Argentines angry over the surrender rioted in front of the president's residence, La Casa Rosada. O'Reilly has said he was also there reporting for CBS News, but his accounts of the protest have been disputed. O'Reilly has described his experience covering the aftermath of the Falklands conflict as being in a "war zone" and "combat situation."[/b>] He has also said "many were killed" at the protest and that his cameraman was injured. These claims were disputed by a series of reports in Mother Jones and several of his former colleagues who have said no one was killed and no CBS staff was injured.
In O'Reilly's novel the protest was broken up by soldiers, or as the author put it, "combat-ready shock troops dressed in full battle gear and armed with machine guns." At this point, Michaels, one of the characters described as O'Reilly's fictional "alter ego" realized he "had to get away" with his cameraman and soundman. As Michaels and his crew escaped, the soldiers let loose on the crowd. "Without warning, they began firing directly into the crowd," O'Reilly wrote, adding, "Hundreds of people immediately fell onto the cement." O'Reilly wrote that Michaels "saw one man take a bullet squarely in the right eye" and he "was killed instantly." He described "ten thousand tightly packed demonstrators ... desperately trying to get away from the gunfire any way they could." These scenes written by O'Reilly contradict contemporaneous reports of the real-life protest, which do not describe widespread gunfire or any deaths. At this point in O'Reilly's tale, Michaels' cameraman and soundman, "Francisco" and "Juan" are knocked down by "a pack of fleeing young men." Michaels comes to their rescue by "fighting his way through the panicked mob." After their rescue, the two men are concerned with retrieving an expensive camera they dropped in the melee. "Fuck the camera, it's gone. Get moving," Michaels declared. Juan resists Michaels' order leading the heroic journalist to hit him with what O'Reilly described as a "murderous" look and an order to, "Get the fuck out of here Juan." "The soundman finally got the message and moved out," O'Reilly wrote.
O'Reilly's story continued with Michaels carrying his injured cameraman away amid "gunfire and screams." As they escaped. Michaels noticed his colleague was bleeding badly and needed to get to a doctor. This was no simple task in O'Reilly's fictionalized version of the protest. "Movement of any kind would not be easy," O'Reilly wrote, continuing, "The crowd was in complete disarray. Scores of dead and wounded lay on the cold concrete." This scene echoed O'Reilly's claim a CBS cameraman was injured, which has been disputed by his colleagues. In O'Reilly's novel, before Michaels and his were able to escape, they faced two more life-threatening obstacles. Michaels was involved in a tense standoff with a soldier who had "an M-16 pointed directly at his head." Just as they were about to drive off they were also stopped by a secret policeman who attempted to take their tapes. Michaels eliminated the threat by knocking out the secret policeman with a punch O'Reilly described as guided by "pure instinct" and "pure adrenaline" that was fueled by the "violence" he "had just experienced." The protest is pivotal in O'Reilly's novel. After the dramatic escape, a colleague attempted to take Michaels' notes and tapes from the protest. This causes Michaels to have a violent outburst that leads to him getting ousted from the network. Michaels' rage at his co-workers who try to take credit for his Falklands reporting is reminiscent of claims the real-life O'Reilly has made about his experiences in Argentina. O'Reilly has implied other CBS reporters were not on the ground covering the protest, another claim which has been disputed.
You can read Bill O'Reilly's fictionalized version of the protest, which is on page 17 through 25 of his book, here.
Posted by Segami | Wed Feb 25, 2015, 05:20 AM (11 replies)