To avoid some redundancy, I avoided titling this entry: "Jon Stewart - 3 Jim Cramer and CNBC - 0", but that title would apply just as well.
If you have been following the Jon Stewart on-air battle with Jim Cramer and CNBC over the last few days and enjoyed Stewart's pummeling of the network with...well, truth, then you will equally enjoy this clip from last night's Daily Show:
You can find the first two segments that Stewart references here for Part 1 and here for Part 2. Stay tuned for more because on Thursday, Jim Cramer is slated to be Stewart's guest on the Daily Show. Should be interesting to say the least!
Wednesday, March 11, 2009
Tuesday, March 10, 2009
Jon Stewart - 2 CNBC and Jim Cramer - 0
You may recall Jon Stewart's recent segment on the Daily Show regarding CNBC and how the hosts of their shows encouraged viewers to hang onto stocks that ended up plummeting. Jim Cramer is host of CNBC's "Mad Money" and apparently took issue with Stewart's segment. Cramer claimed that Stewart took him out of context and so Jon Stewart responded:
Following the segment above, Cramer appeared on the Today Show this morning for a response:
Cramer's defense to put it mildly...is weak. Stewart simply pointed out the contradictions of Cramer and Cramer whines that Stewart is merely a comedian with a "variety show". Call me crazy, but I don't really feel bad for Cramer or CNBC...but that's just me.
Following the segment above, Cramer appeared on the Today Show this morning for a response:
Cramer's defense to put it mildly...is weak. Stewart simply pointed out the contradictions of Cramer and Cramer whines that Stewart is merely a comedian with a "variety show". Call me crazy, but I don't really feel bad for Cramer or CNBC...but that's just me.
Friday, March 6, 2009
Fox News has Found Their New Strategy for Ratings
I think most would agree that critical journalism that examines issues in detail is not only necessary, but fundamental to a healthy and functioning Democracy. Asking the tough questions and holding our elected officials to account should be a staple for journalists and enabling citizens to have an open and fair discourse on the issues is a responsibility that falls upon the shoulders of those who fall into the important role of host, journalist, and analyst. It is not a shock that we do not have this in what is called the "mainstream" media. What this country has is a corporate media that chases ratings points so that they can sell advertising dollars, even if it means the quality of the content suffers. (Coverage of the Octomom anyone?)
This brings me to Fox News. They have found that criticizing Obama (by calling him a "Communist" and a "Socialist") has boosted their ratings. Glenn Beck has been a prime example of how this formula has led to a ratings boost. Beck had a two year news program over at CNN's "Headline News" and has recently moved over to Fox at 2pm. He believes that this country is on the march to socialism and communism and regularly does things like this:
This is not the ranting and raving of one television host, but rather the way in which the network's chief executive, Roger Ailes, wishes to proceed against the current Administration. Take what Ailes had to say in a recent LA Times piece:
Do you think the other hosts on Fox have taken notice? Check out this intro to Sean Hannity's show "Hannity's America" from a February broadcast:
This is what happens when ideology and increased ratings hide behind slogans like "fair and balanced" and "we report, you decide". This is not holding people to account, it is ridiculous segments and video montages that sensationalize and distort as opposed to educate and get to the truth.
Recently Glenn Beck held a special edition of his program (called the "War Room") in which he drew up random future scenarios and their potential dyer consequences. It was as ridiculous as it sounds and Stephen Colbert spoofed it on The Colbert Report recently. Ironically, the spoof gives you a better angle on the truth than Beck's program on a "news" network. Enjoy:
Part One:
Part Two:
This brings me to Fox News. They have found that criticizing Obama (by calling him a "Communist" and a "Socialist") has boosted their ratings. Glenn Beck has been a prime example of how this formula has led to a ratings boost. Beck had a two year news program over at CNN's "Headline News" and has recently moved over to Fox at 2pm. He believes that this country is on the march to socialism and communism and regularly does things like this:
This is not the ranting and raving of one television host, but rather the way in which the network's chief executive, Roger Ailes, wishes to proceed against the current Administration. Take what Ailes had to say in a recent LA Times piece:
But before Beck could say anything, Ailes shared a message of his own: The country faced tough times, he said, and Fox News was one of the only news
outlets willing to challenge the new administration.
"I see this as the Alamo," Ailes said, according to Beck. "If I just had somebody who was willing to sit on the other side of the camera until the last shot is fired, we'd be fine."
Do you think the other hosts on Fox have taken notice? Check out this intro to Sean Hannity's show "Hannity's America" from a February broadcast:
This is what happens when ideology and increased ratings hide behind slogans like "fair and balanced" and "we report, you decide". This is not holding people to account, it is ridiculous segments and video montages that sensationalize and distort as opposed to educate and get to the truth.
Recently Glenn Beck held a special edition of his program (called the "War Room") in which he drew up random future scenarios and their potential dyer consequences. It was as ridiculous as it sounds and Stephen Colbert spoofed it on The Colbert Report recently. Ironically, the spoof gives you a better angle on the truth than Beck's program on a "news" network. Enjoy:
Part One:
Part Two:
Thursday, March 5, 2009
The Daily Show - 1 CNBC - 0
Last night, The Daily Show showed us that they continue to be informative, relevant, brutal, and absolutely hilarious. Watch Jon Stewart take CNBC to task:
Michael Steele's Revisionist History
I am sure that many of you have heard about the fighting that has been going on between the RNC Chair Michael Steele and the conservative radio personality Rush Limbaugh. In case you are late to this story here is an intentionally brief summary:
- Rush Limbaugh made the comment that he hopes President Obama will fail.
- Limbaugh is criticized for saying this but stands by his comments saying that if Obama succeeding means going against the principles that he believes, then of course he hopes Obama fails and he would think that many Republicans want Obama to fail as well.
- RNC Chairman Michael Steele goes on CNN, says that he is the head of the Republican Party and that Limbaugh is an entertainer. He also says that Limbaugh can be "incendiary" and "ugly". Here is the video of this exchange:
After this exchange, Limbaugh retaliated saying that Steele is not the head of the Republican Party. Steele then apologized to Limbaugh by saying:
Now, there is some revisionist history taking place as Michael Steele is claiming that he never attacked Limbaugh in the first place. He claims that he said that there were other "people out there" who may think that Limbaugh is incendiary and ugly, but that he never meant that to be his viewpoint. Watch:
In case you want to hear the exact language from Steele's CNN appearance that directly contradicts his most recent claims that he "never attacked" Limbaugh, just go watch it again for yourself. I also enjoy how Steele and others within the Republican Party are now saying that it is the Democrats and the left who are distracting America by bringing attention to all of this. Steele mentions in his final clip that the left are implementing some kind of plan that they have wanted to enact for a while...to distract Americans from the real issues by bringing up this controversy. Sure, that's it.
It's not only Steele either. Check out this exchange between MSNBC's David Schuster and former White House Press Secretary Ari Fleisher. Fleisher comes out on the offensive with his talking point about Obama acting "childish" and Schuster tries to show Fleisher just how hypocritical this claim is. It takes effort to not go insane when these items get flipped on the head on such a consistent basis and as part of a strategy to falsely revise history:
- Rush Limbaugh made the comment that he hopes President Obama will fail.
- Limbaugh is criticized for saying this but stands by his comments saying that if Obama succeeding means going against the principles that he believes, then of course he hopes Obama fails and he would think that many Republicans want Obama to fail as well.
- RNC Chairman Michael Steele goes on CNN, says that he is the head of the Republican Party and that Limbaugh is an entertainer. He also says that Limbaugh can be "incendiary" and "ugly". Here is the video of this exchange:
After this exchange, Limbaugh retaliated saying that Steele is not the head of the Republican Party. Steele then apologized to Limbaugh by saying:
“My intent was not to go after Rush – I have enormous respect for Rush Limbaugh...I was maybe a little bit inarticulate. …There was no attempt on my part to diminish his voice or his leadership.”
Now, there is some revisionist history taking place as Michael Steele is claiming that he never attacked Limbaugh in the first place. He claims that he said that there were other "people out there" who may think that Limbaugh is incendiary and ugly, but that he never meant that to be his viewpoint. Watch:
In case you want to hear the exact language from Steele's CNN appearance that directly contradicts his most recent claims that he "never attacked" Limbaugh, just go watch it again for yourself. I also enjoy how Steele and others within the Republican Party are now saying that it is the Democrats and the left who are distracting America by bringing attention to all of this. Steele mentions in his final clip that the left are implementing some kind of plan that they have wanted to enact for a while...to distract Americans from the real issues by bringing up this controversy. Sure, that's it.
It's not only Steele either. Check out this exchange between MSNBC's David Schuster and former White House Press Secretary Ari Fleisher. Fleisher comes out on the offensive with his talking point about Obama acting "childish" and Schuster tries to show Fleisher just how hypocritical this claim is. It takes effort to not go insane when these items get flipped on the head on such a consistent basis and as part of a strategy to falsely revise history:
Wednesday, March 4, 2009
Yoo Defends His Actions in Interview
John Yoo recently gave an interview to the Orange County Register discussing, in general terms, some of the decisions he made during his tenure with the Bush Administration and providing some thinly layered defenses of some of the legal memos that he crafted. It must be noted that he did not discuss and was not asked about the newly released memos that I have written about in my previous entries and this is presumably because this interview was conducted before these memos were made public.
Yoo does talk about how he came to be a "distinguished visiting professor" at Chapman University School of Law, how he has been received at Berkeley, and the crafting of various memos that gave President Bush vastly expanded executive power. Some samples from the interview:
John Balkin observes:
This is precisely what Yoo and others argued after 9/11, that the President could act as he pleased and could not be bound by laws, treaties, and even the Constitution. Yoo wouldn't have made his legal decisions differently, but would have added more "polish" to better explain that decision. In John Yoo's world, just because he wrote opinions which supposedly gave the Bush Administration these expanded powers, didn't mean that they had to use it. What on Earth would detract them from using these powers (that they were obviously interested in pursuing) if they had the advice that they could do so without being bound by documents like the Constitution? How ridiculous.
More memos and opinions need to be released and see the light of day so that investigations and prosecutions can take place. This type of assault on the rule of law and on the very foundation of this country cannot just be chalked up to "moving forward".
Yoo does talk about how he came to be a "distinguished visiting professor" at Chapman University School of Law, how he has been received at Berkeley, and the crafting of various memos that gave President Bush vastly expanded executive power. Some samples from the interview:
The thing I am really struck with is that when you are in the government, you have very little time to make very important decisions. You don't have the luxury to research every single thing and that's accelerated in war time. You really have decisions to make, which you could spend years on. Sometimes what we forget as private citizens, or scholars, or students or journalists for sure (he laughs), is that in hindsight, it's easier to say, "Here's what I would have done." But when you're in the government, at the time you make the decision, you don't have that kind of luxury.
Q. Is there anything you would have done differently?
A. These memos I wrote were not for public consumption. They lack a certain polish, I think – would have been better to explain government policy rather than try to give unvarnished, straight-talk legal advice. I certainly would have done that differently, but I don't think I would have made the basic decisions
differently.
Q. Is it normal practice to give just the straight opinion?
A. I think the job of a lawyer is to give a straight answer to a client. One thing I sometimes worry about is that lawyers in the future in the government are going to start worrying about, "What are people going to think of me?" Your client the president, or your client the justice on the Supreme Court, or your client this senator, needs to know what's legal and not legal. And sometimes, what's legal and not legal is not the same thing as what you can do or what you should do.
Q. The Department of Justice is looking into the legality of some of the memos you wrote. Is this a possible cost?
A. I wish they weren't doing it, but I understand why they are. It is something one would expect. You have to make these kinds of decisions in an unprecedented kind of war with legal questions we've never had to think about before. We didn't seek out those questions. 9/11 kind of thrust them on us. No matter what you do, there's going to be a lot of people who are upset with your decision. If Bush had done
nothing, there would be a lot of people upset with his decision, too. I understood that while we were doing it, there were going to be people who were critical. I can't go farther into it, because it's still going on right now. I'm not trying to escape responsibility for my decisions. I have to wait and see what they say.
John Balkin observes:
These two disowned claims lie at the heart of the Cheney/Addington/Yoo theory of presidential power-- namely, that when the president acts as commander in chief Congress may not restrict in any way his military decision making, including decisions about detention, interrogation, and surveillance. The President, because he is President, may do whatever he thinks is necessary, even in the domestic context, if he acts for military and national security reasons in his capacity as Commander in Chief. This theory of presidential power argues, in essence, that when the President acts in his capacity as Commander-in-Chief, he may make his own rules and cannot be bound by Congressional laws to the contrary. This is a theory of presidential dictatorship.These views are outrageous and inconsistent with basic principles of the Constitution as well as with two centuries of legal precedents. Yet they were the basic assumptions of key players in the Bush Administration in the days following 9/11.
This is precisely what Yoo and others argued after 9/11, that the President could act as he pleased and could not be bound by laws, treaties, and even the Constitution. Yoo wouldn't have made his legal decisions differently, but would have added more "polish" to better explain that decision. In John Yoo's world, just because he wrote opinions which supposedly gave the Bush Administration these expanded powers, didn't mean that they had to use it. What on Earth would detract them from using these powers (that they were obviously interested in pursuing) if they had the advice that they could do so without being bound by documents like the Constitution? How ridiculous.
More memos and opinions need to be released and see the light of day so that investigations and prosecutions can take place. This type of assault on the rule of law and on the very foundation of this country cannot just be chalked up to "moving forward".
Tuesday, March 3, 2009
Bush's Assault on the Constitution
It has become clear that in the last eight years, America was run by a group of extremists who did not respect the rule of law or the Constitution of the United States. The recent release of these nine legal opinions by the Department of Justice has only solidified this point.
President Bush and members of his Administration believed that they had the power to suspend Amendments to the Constitution, to detain prisoners without charge, to deploy the military on U.S. soil, to whisk people off to other countries so that they could be tortured, to listen in on the phone conversations of Americans without a warrant, and to find legal opinions that would justify this type of behavior. Those who have been critical of these actions along the way were either painted as "soft" or told they were on some kind of liberal witch-hunt. It cannot be much clearer that this type of assault on the liberties of Americans warrants further investigations and will have long term consequences.
Glenn Greenwald provides some excellent analysis of what this means:
Perhaps this is the same country that has a political class that continues to push the importance of "looking forward instead of backward" instead of critically examining these flagrant assaults on our laws and liberties. This is the continued viewpoint of the current Administration, despite indications that these memos are just the "tip of the iceberg".
Meanwhile, we have a group of people on the right that are screaming about President Obama and his supposed failure to adhere to the Constitution and how his policies are going to be the end of America. Could it be any clearer just how backward the discourse has become?
Scott Horton:
President Bush and members of his Administration believed that they had the power to suspend Amendments to the Constitution, to detain prisoners without charge, to deploy the military on U.S. soil, to whisk people off to other countries so that they could be tortured, to listen in on the phone conversations of Americans without a warrant, and to find legal opinions that would justify this type of behavior. Those who have been critical of these actions along the way were either painted as "soft" or told they were on some kind of liberal witch-hunt. It cannot be much clearer that this type of assault on the liberties of Americans warrants further investigations and will have long term consequences.
Glenn Greenwald provides some excellent analysis of what this means:
This is factually true, with no hyperbole: Over the last eight years, we had a system in place where we pretended that our "laws" were the things enacted out in the open by our Congress and that were set forth by the Constitution. The reality, though, was that our Government secretly vested itself with the power to ignore those public laws, to declare them invalid, and instead, create a whole regimen of secret laws that vested tyrannical, monarchical power in the President. Nobody knew what those secret laws were because even Congress, despite a few lame and meek requests, was denied access to them. What kind of country lives under secret laws?
Perhaps this is the same country that has a political class that continues to push the importance of "looking forward instead of backward" instead of critically examining these flagrant assaults on our laws and liberties. This is the continued viewpoint of the current Administration, despite indications that these memos are just the "tip of the iceberg".
Meanwhile, we have a group of people on the right that are screaming about President Obama and his supposed failure to adhere to the Constitution and how his policies are going to be the end of America. Could it be any clearer just how backward the discourse has become?
Scott Horton:
We may not have realized it at the time, but in the period from late 2001-January 19, 2009, this country was a dictatorship. The constitutional rights we learned about in high school civics were suspended. That was thanks to secret memos crafted deep inside the Justice Department that effectively trashed the Constitution. What we know now is likely the least of it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
