I didn’t want to post this at first. Then I thought, wait a minute, these people are batshit crazy! This is the mindset that wants the GOP to retain its majority in the House and take over the Senate. OMG!
I didn’t want to post this at first. Then I thought, wait a minute, these people are batshit crazy! This is the mindset that wants the GOP to retain its majority in the House and take over the Senate. OMG!
What is this fascination with the unrealistic stereotype of the “virile, over sexed Black man and the angry Black woman?
Get over yourselves news people…move on, nothing to see here but your warped imaginations. The POTUS and FLOTUS do not need your intervention.
Employing an inordinate number of pastry puns and an inexplicable knowledge of the first family’s marital harmony, the New York Post’s Andrea Peyser unleashed a torrent of outrage toward President Obama for “using the solemn occasion of Nelson Mandela’s memorial service Tuesday to act like a hormone-ravaged frat boy on a road trip to a strip bar.”
The columnist’s evidence for such moral depravity? A series of photos showing the President smiling and laughing with Danish Prime Minister Helle Thorning-Schmidt at Mandela’s service, all while First Lady Michelle Obama appears to be shooting her husband a scornful glare.
You might not be all that familiar if you aren’t a Twitter user, presumably because the photos were rightly treated as a goofy meme more than a news story. But Peyser, writing in her column on Thursday, somehow knows it’s a sign of trouble in paradise for Obama.
In front of 91 world leaders, the mourning nation of South Africa and Obama’s clearly furious wife, Michelle, the president flirted, giggled, whispered like a recalcitrant child and made a damn fool of himself at first sight of Denmark’s voluptuously curvy and married prime minister, Helle Thorning-Schmidt.
Later in the column, Peyser observed what she deemed a particularly unsavory interaction between Obama and Thorning-Schmidt.
Thorning-Schmidt placed her hands dangerously close to Obama’s side. The president’s cackling head moved inches from the Danish tart’s and yards away from his wife’s. Obama then proceeded to absorb body heat from the Dane, which he won’t be feeling at home for a long time.
It’s unclear how Peyser knows that the first lady was actually miffed, and not simply photographed at a few ill-timed moments. Peyser wasn’t at Mandela’s service, nor does she cite any source to back her assumptions. Nevertheless, Peyser insists that President Obama owes his wife — nay, the world — an apology.
President Obama has some ’splaining to do. To the woman he married. To his daughters. To the people of South Africa. And to the scandalized folks here at home. He owes the world an apology.
And don’t think Thorning-Schmidt was let off the hook either! Peyser cooked up a batch of sexually-charged labels drawn from both baked goods and Thorning-Schmidt’s nationality. The prime minister of Denmark, Peyser reminds readers throughout the column, is Danish.
Not just any Dane, but a “Danish pastry,” “Danish hellcat,” and “cross-legged Danish cupcake.”
Update: A photographer who actually attended the service made it clear that the first lady’s “stern look was captured by chance.”
H/t: Obama Diary
It took Bill Clinton less than 60 seconds to destroy the latest Republican attempt to stop his wife Hillary from running for president:
Former President Clinton was asked if the Weiner scandal was difficult to watch. He used the opportunity to knock down the Republican attempts to tie his wife to Anthony Weiner.
Clinton said, “Well, not because it is a political campaign. Neither Hillary or I was ever involved in the political campaign, and they understood that from the beginning. There are too many people running for mayor who have been my supporters, who supported her for senator, her for president. One was once a campaign manager,Mr. de Blasio But there are literally five people in that race, including one of the Republican candidates Mr. (John) Catsimatidis, who are personal friends of ours, so we are a hundred miles from that race and everyone understands that we are not going to be involved, as long as our personal friends and people who we feel obligations are involved. So, the feelings I have are all personal and since they are, I shouldn’t talk about them.”
This is all started with a New York Post story that reported that the Clintons were livid with Weiner, but the story went on to baselessly speculate that the Clintons were worried that Weiner’s scandal would hurt Hillary’s potential 2016 campaign. Conservative media picked up on that point, and have been speculating that Weiner’s sexting romps will hurt Clinton if she runs for president.
Former President Clinton’s comments revealed two things. One, there is no way that the Clintons are going to let the right use former Rep. Weiner to smear Hillary, and two, on a personal level they are probably understandably personally angry about what Weiner has done.
Republican strategists are trying their best to connect Hillary Clinton to Anthony Weiner. In a memo released to reporters on Friday, they wrote, “Hillary Clinton, has stayed mum about all of it. For someone who has not-so-veiled aspirations to lead her party, she’s failed to show any leadership in publicly denouncing Weiner’s habits or his candidacy.”
Former President Clinton stopped the whole effort to Hillary Clinton to Anthony Weiner dead in its tracks. Republicans are desperate, so desperate that they are trying to stop Hillary Clinton’s candidacy before she has even had a chance to announce it. The Republican Party couldn’t stop Obama with these types of smears and attacks. It definitely isn’t going to work on Hillary Clinton. Right now, Bill and Hillary Clinton’s messaging is more powerful than the entire Republican Party.
The Clintons have been playing this game with Republicans for twenty plus years. They know what they are doing, and over these past few decades Republicans have never won. Bill and Hillary Clinton are big leaguers, and Republicans are kidding themselves if they think that their efforts to smear Hillary will even make a dent.
Here’s hoping the two get a large pile of Murdoch money in exchange for this mess. A very, very large pile of money ~ Daily Kos on Facebook
Here’s hoping the two get a large pile of Murdoch money in exchange for this mess. A very, very large pile of money.
I’m only surprised it took this long:
A Massachusetts teenager and his 24-year-old friend filed a defamation lawsuit against the New York Post Wednesday in Boston, accusing the tabloid of falsely portraying them as suspects in the deadly Marathon bombings by plastering their photograph on the front page under the headline, “Bag Men.”
As the picture above demonstrates, the Post wasn’t shy about it, calling them the “bag men” in large type even while their own story admitted that it wasn’t actually clear if the two pictured were the ones law enforcement were actually investigating. As it turns out, they weren’t—it was a picture that some online sleuths found suspicious, and that was all it took to make the Post front page, and to therefore make the two a conspicuous public target:
When Zaimi arrived at work that day, a company vice president called him into his office. Zaimi did not understand why until the office manager showed him a copy of the Post.“He immediately started shaking, his mouth went dry, and he felt as though he was having a panic attack,” the complaint said. […]
That night, the complaint said, as he waited for the train home, someone pointed him out as the person in the New York Post. Zaimi fled.
Given that we’re living in an age when would-be public heroes even fire shots at fleeing shoplifters, I’d say hightailing it out of a crowd that thinks you might be a terrorist based a front-page picture saying so was probably a very good idea. The Post should count themselves lucky no worse harm came to the two.
Here’s hoping the two get a large pile of Murdoch money in exchange for this mess. A very, very large pile of money. The crooked, reckless sensationalism of the Post was demonstratedthroughout the Boston story, but in this instance it could have gotten someone killed.
The media — most notably, The New York Post and CNN — came under fire on Sunday for mistakes it made during coverage of the Boston Marathon bombings.
On Wednesday, CNN and other outlets erroneously reported that an arrest had been made in the bombings. The New York Post was also hotly criticized for inaccurate reporting. It sparked even more controversy when it splashed pictures of two innocent men with the headline “BAG MEN: Feds seek these two pictured at Boston Marathon.”
Viewers wondered what CNN’s Howard Kurtz would say about his own network’s coverage of the bombings on Sunday’s “Reliable Sources.” Kurtz did address CNN’s erroneous reporting, as well as John King’s controversial “dark-skinned male” comments.
“CNN owned up to the mistake, took responsibility,” Kurtz said about the network’s false claim about an arrest. “I think that was a good thing.”
Not everyone was satisfied by Kurtz’s commentary. The Daily Caller’s Jeff Poor blasted Kurtz for hitting Fox News over making the same mistake that CNN did and for criticizing NBC News’ Pete Williams. Williams had been commended for getting the news right and first throughout the manhunt on Friday. On Sunday, Kurtz pointed out that Williams had said a body had been found in the boat where the bombing suspect was hiding.
Over on ABC News, New Yorker editor David Remnick ripped the Post for its controversial front page, calling it “outrageous” and “more pernicious” than CNN’s mistake.
“This is slapping on the front page of a newspaper with a wide circulation something not confirmed at all and it harms people’s lives,” Remnick said about the front page, which inaccurately tied 17-year old Salah Barhoun to the bombings.
He also responded to Murdoch’s defense of the cover, saying, “That’s a lousy excuse. It appeared on the front page of his newspaper for all to see, and it hurts that kid’s life.”
Earlier this week, The Post had also been criticized for falsely tying the bombings to a “Saudi national” who had no connection to the events, and reported that many more people had died than was true. Meanwhile, CNN bore the brunt of the blame for its inaccurate reporting, which was also disseminated by The Boston Globe, Fox News and the Associated Press.
As soon as two pressure cookers crammed with shrapnel killed three innocent bystanders and wounded scores more near the Boston Marathon’s final stretch on Monday, the hunt for a terror suspect was on. Right now, police are combing through Watertown, Mass., in hopes of finding the second of two brothers from Chechnya suspected of carrying out the attack, but not before several knee-jerk, false alarms triggered by Reddit and an information-hungry media led to several other “suspects” being wrongly ID’d. How could this happen? Here, a rundown of the wrongfully accused:
1. “The Saudi national”
On Monday, in the immediate frenzy of the explosions, the New York Post boldly trumpeted that a “Saudi national who suffered shrapnel wounds” had been identified as “a suspect in the Boston Marathon bombing.” Yes, a 21-year-old English student who was, in fact, injured by the very bombing he was suspected of plotting.
Talking Points Memo quickly debunked the The Post‘s claim that the person being questioned was a suspect. “Honestly, I don’t know where they’re getting their information from, but it didn’t come from us,” a Boston Police Department spokesperson told TPM. The young Saudi national was later revealed to be a witness, not a suspect. The Post never apologized.
“What made them suspect him?” asks Amy Davidson at The New Yorker. “He was running — so was everyone.”
The police reportedly thought he smelled like explosives; his wounds might have suggested why. He said something about thinking there would be a second bomb — as there was, and often is, to target responders. If that was the reason he gave for running, it was a sensible one. He asked if anyone was dead — a question people were screaming. And he was from Saudi Arabia, which is around where the logic stops. Was it just the way he looked, or did he, in the chaos, maybe call for God with a name that someone found strange? [The New Yorker]
2. A high school track star
The intrepid online sleuths at Reddit had nothing but good intentions when they created a subforum to crowdsource information on the criminals behind the Boston attacks. As my colleague Keith Wagstaff wrote, “the /r/findbostonbombers subreddit is a mostly harmless rabbit hole of marked photos and amateur conjecture,” but “the problem starts when theories go viral or are adopted by the media.”
Case in point: This photo of a “suspect” standing next to another man implicated for not doing much more than wearing a backpack. Worse still, the New York Post shamelessly plastered that same image on its front page the next day, along with the guilt-drenched cover line “BAG MEN.”
The young man in question turned out to be 17-year-old Salah Eddin Barhoum, a high school track star who moved to the U.S. four years ago from Morocco. His dream is to one day run in the Olympics.
“I’m not a terrorist… I was just watching the marathon,” Salah told the Daily Mail. “I was terrified. I have never been in trouble, and I feared for my security.”
At 1.30am I called a friend to take me to the state police — I walked into the lobby and told them I thought I was wanted by the FBI. They didn’t know what to make of it.
I had my papers with me and I gave them my Social Security number so they could check me out.
They didn’t even take me into a private room. They made some calls, then said I was free to go. [Daily Mail]
The internet, ladies and gentleman.
3. A missing student
“Thousands of Reddit users and 4chan people spent the days after the bombing combing through every available photo and frame of video of the site of the bombings, searching for the perpetrators,” says Alex Pareene at Salon. “And they found a bunch of guys with backpacks.”
One of them was believed to be Sunil Tripathi, a Brown University student from Pennsylvania who has been missing since March 16. Tripathi allegedly left behind all his belongings, as well as a vague note that suggested a possible suicide. Says one of his friends:
Having known Sunil for years as a classmate, roommate, and friend, I can honestly say that he was one of the nicest individuals I’ve met at Brown. He has a great sense of humor and got along well with everyone. He loves to bike, play the sax, and talk about philosophy. We all hope that he is safe, wherever he is. [International Business Times]
“Who disappears — causing a well-publicized region-wide search that had already expanded beyond Providence to Boston — a month before carrying out a terrorist attack?” asks Pareene. “Wouldn’t it be smarter to act normal as long as possible, and maybe not do something that gets your picture posted all over television and the Internet before you attempt to plant a bomb in an incredibly public venue?”
Some blogs still picked up the story and ran with it. Tripathi’s name and picture were everywhere. A Facebook page, “Help Us Find Sunil Tripathi,” was soon deleted by his family after it filled up with ugly (and false) accusations.
Hey, all who tweeted the name of a poor kid because you heard it on a scanner and further destroyed an already destroyed family? Go to hell.
— Stephen Rodrick (@stephenrodrick) April 19, 2013
Tripathi’s whereabouts are still unknown. 4. A mystery man Age: Unknown On Thursday night, gunshots rang through the MIT campus in what became a bloody shoot-out after the two actual suspects robbed a 7-Eleven. Twenty-six-year-old police officer Sean Collier was left dead. And somehow, a man named Michael Mulugeta was (falsely) reported to be involved. The confusion came when hacker group Anonymous posted a tweet: “Police on scanner identify the names of #BostonMarathon suspects in gunfight, Suspect 1: Mike Mulugeta. Suspect 2: Sunil Tripathi.” It was retweeted nearly 3,200 times. It was also, well, wrong.
I was a crime reporter for almost 4 years. The police scanner is not a reliable source of some types of info — including names of people.
— Zach Lowe (@ZachLowe_NBA) April 19, 2013
It remains unclear who Mulugeta is — or if he even exists.
“The last thing we want to become are reporters for the fugitive,” Clint Van Zandt, former FBI profiler and NBC criminal analyst, told NBC News. “That’s what I think people who tweet and post have to be careful of in the extreme and worst-case scenario. Are they giving information that would give aid and comfort to a killer? If you ask yourself that question and the answer is no, then go ahead and post it.”
Back home in New York City, I rarely read The New York Post, for the same reasons…
The news outlet spread rumors that a Saudi suspect was in custody, and the satire site is holding them accountable
The Onion’s bold attempts at humor are not always successful, but today the satire news site took a risk in the wake of a national tragedy, and hit the nail on the head. In a column satirizing the New York Post, the Onion ridiculed the Post’s poorly sourced story that disseminated virtually no new information, and instead fueled fears of Islamophobia during a period of heightened anxiety.
Under the headline “This Is A Tragedy—Does It Really Matter Exactly How Many People Died Or What Any Of The Details Are?” the Onion writes as a New York Post columnist:
Yesterday’s violent attack at the Boston Marathon has left all of us struggling to come to terms with such a senseless display of carnage. In the wake of this devastating tragedy, we at the New York Post join the nation in mourning those who were lost in this horrible event so that we may console one another and ultimately emerge from this catastrophe stronger and with a greater compassion for one another.
And so, as we attempt to begin the healing process, let us not bicker over such trivial matters as the actual death toll and what exactly happened at yesterday’s bombing. After all, is it really important, in the aftermath of an event so disastrous and sad, to pick apart the so-called information surrounding this horrific situation and find out what actually happened?
The NRA can’t rely on truth to support their positions so they resort to such blatant lies that even a far right publication has to call them out on it…
Whatever side of the gun control debate you’re on, everyone can agree: there’s something different this time. Whether we’ve reached a tipping point and we are collectively tired of the unnecessary violence or the crime was so shocking that it can not be rationalized, it’s clear that the usual bag of NRA tactics is not working.
Nothing has made this more clear than the outright rebellion from reliable right-wing sources. The New York Post labeled NRA Chief Executive Wayne LaPierre a “Gun Nut.” Fox News has been uncharacteristically subdued and now, even Newsmax, a website known only for being an outlet for right-wing propaganda has turned its back on the NRA in a bit of rarely seen journalistic integrity:
Israel’s policy on issuing guns is restrictive, and armed guards at its schools are meant to stop terrorists, not crazed or disgruntled gunmen, experts said Monday, rejecting claims by America’s top gun lobby that Israel serves as proof for its philosophy that the U.S. needs more weapons, not fewer.
Far from the image of a heavily armed population where ordinary people have their own arsenals to repel attackers, Israel allows its people to acquire firearms only if they can prove their professions or places of residence put them in danger. The country relies on its security services, not armed citizens, to prevent terror attacks.
This is not a right-wing knee jerk defense of Israel in any sense. It is simply a statement of reality that stands in stark contrast to the NRA’s Wild, Wild west fantasy. Newsmax goes on:
“Israel had a whole lot of school shootings until they did one thing: They said, ‘We’re going to stop it,’ and they put armed security in every school and they have not had a problem since then,” LaPierre said on the NBC News show “Meet the Press.”
Israel never had “a whole lot of school shootings.” Authorities could only recall two in the past four decades.
Israel didn’t mandate armed guards at the entrances to all schools until 1995, the Education Ministry said — more than two decades after the Maalot attack and two years after a Palestinian militant wounded five pupils and their principal in a knifing at a Jerusalem school.
Foreign Ministry spokesman Yigal Palmor spelled it out.
“We’re fighting terrorism, which comes under very specific geopolitical and military circumstances. This is not something that compares with the situation in the U.S,” Palmor said.
The only terror we’re fighting on American soil is the one instilled by groups like the NRA itself. Newsmax goes on to fully describe how superior Israel’s gun policies are in relation to America’s in the sense that the Israelis take the time to know who is buying a gun, why and to check whether they are a risk to public safety. All of this would be considered “tyranny” but gun “rights” advocates. It’s OK for the rest of the country to live in fear of the next gun massacre as long as a well-funded minority tells us they have the right to buy as many guns as they want.
This particular episode of America’s addiction to guns has not yet played itself out and the NRA may yet prevail with its bag of distractions and nonsense. This time, though, it will not be with quite the same amount of automatic support from the usual suspects. Hopefully that means the tide is finally turning and America can reverse the “shoot first, ask never” mentality that has overtaken us.
When Rupert Murdock’s, The New York Post cries foul, then you know the NRA is in trouble…
Two New York tabloid newspapers on Saturday sharply criticized NRA Executive Vice President Wayne LaPierre’s Friday press conference, during which he called for armed guards to be installed in every school in America.
Here’s the Post:
And the Daily News…
Images via The Newseum.
Let there be no doubt about it. This will in no way hinder the Secretary of State’s excellent record nor will it be a problem if she decides to run in 2016.
Hillary Clinton has been an outstanding public servant for decades and a few rumblings from the other side, in an effort to derail anything with Barack Obama’s name on it, will be an epic fail.
An independent inquiry faults missteps by the State Department in the death of Ambassador Chris Stevens.
“So much for any presidential aspirations Hillary Clinton may be entertaining for 2016,” says Janet Shan atHinterland Gazette. An independent review board investigating the Sept. 11 attack on the U.S. diplomatic mission in Benghazi, Libya, released its unclassified report late Tuesday. (Read the whole thing below.) The upshot? “Systemic failures and leadership and management deficiencies” at high levels of the State Department contributed to the death of four Americans, including U.S. Ambassador Chris Stevens. As secretary of state, that’s a pretty big stain on Clinton’s reputation.
The board, led by former diplomat Thomas Pickering and retired Joint Chiefs Chairman Admiral Mike Mullen, eventually concluded that blame for the American deaths rests “solely and completely with the terrorists,” and pointedly “did not find reasonable cause to determine that any individual U.S. government employee breached his or her duty.” But the board did fault the State Department for relying on unseasoned U.S. security personnel and Libyan militias to protect Stevens, ignoring requests for more guards, failing to make needed security upgrades, not adjusting to the deteriorating situation in Benghazi, and for poor intra-agency coordination. Clinton was expected to testify before Congress about the report on Thursday, but begged out, citing a concussion sustained during a fall last week while she was fighting a stomach bug.
Conservatives aren’t buying it. With U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice pulling out of the running for Clinton’s job and CIA Director David Petraeus ousted amid a sex scandal, “Clinton is the latest scapegoat for ongoing frustrations over Benghazi,” says Alexander Abad-Santos at The Atlantic Wire. And since the report declined to name new victims to destroy in their Benghazi-gate crusade, they’re making do with “Concussiongate.”
Well really, Clinton is bowing out from yet another round of Benghazi hearings, this time because of a supposed concussion, “and we’re supposed to just take her word for it”? says Jim Treacher at The Daily Caller. “If she has a concussion, let’s see the medical report.” Imagine the outrage if Clinton predecessors Colin Powell or Condoleezza Rice had called in sick for Iraq War hearings. Yes, “Clinton’s story beggars belief,” says the New York Post in an editorial. Thissupposed concussion “looks like one of the most transparent dodges in the history of diplomacy,” and Republicans must insist she testify later if not now.
Give me a break, says Joe Gandelman at The Moderate Voice. Clinton is faking an illness? Theseconservatives “are fixated on creating crises where they aren’t any,” and doing so in a “cravenly partisan” manner. Congratulations, or something: Your paranoia has earned you a coveted spot in our “Get a Life” club.
In the end, Clinton will probably emerge from this relatively unscathed, says The Wall Street Journal in an editorial. Before she gets another chance to testify, she will likely “leave the Obama cabinet with sky-high approval ratings and an eye on the 2016 presidential nomination,” and at this point, “it’s logical for her not to want to dwell on the worst debacle of her tenure at State.”
Read the report for yourself: