Rachel Maddow responds to Olbermann suspension

For my part I feel a bit of schadenfreude at seeing Keith off the air; he's as insufferable to watch as anyone on Fox News.

Yet as Rachel argues, MSNBC generally isn't quite so badly behaved. They have a foot planted somewhat further into the news business, periodically airing something informative or beneficially thought-provoking.

Fox, as we know, is almost wholly devoted to pandering its viewers' bias and stupidity. One might snicker that this is true of TV news in general, but clearly Fox takes it a mile further.

Stewart on O'Reilly

Part 2 here

Link blag

The Economist looks at America's fiscal deficit.

Ezra Klein explains how the filibuster morphed into a routine 60 vote requirement, which was eye opening for me.

Later he bemoans the neglected House. One wonders whether Ezra would be making the same argument if we had a Speaker Gingrich or Speaker Delay.

FiveThirtyEight eyes European intolerance.

Kurt Vonnegut was hard-as-nails badass.

The top 20 unfortunate lessons girls learn from Twilight.

People eating Bhut Jolokia, world's hottest pepper.

Today's kid reporter winner had an odd reaction.

Jon's epic spoof of Beck

Fox is like China

James Fallows goes there.

Waterloo

Miscarriage of judgement

Conor Friedersdorf on Glenn Beck and his defenders.

Riding the fox

I'm still catching up on posts from the last week. This graph is illustrative:

Andrew comments:

The tension between the business interests of the conservative-industrial-complex and the Republican party is real. There is a huge amount of money to be made by selling to a segment of the country that alienates the critical middle that every party needs to occupy to remain a national force. And so the success of the movement risks the failure of the party. And the failure of the party - its permanent isolation from power - only fuels the resentment and alienation that make so much moolah.

This is the GOP's Fox problem. You ride that fox; it eats you in the end.

Above and beyond

I'm against parts of ObamaCare as much as anyone—specifically the public option, entitlement expansion, and continuation of distortionary tax exemptions for benefits—but here's Fox News with some way above-and-beyond-the-call-of-duty fearmongering stupidity.

(ht Radley)

Quote of the day

Via Andrew, worth repeating...

Karl Rove should have been named Man of the Year at some point by the Democratic National Committee. The political consultant/Bush adviser played a big role in expanding the burden of government, convincing Bush to saddle the nation with fiscal disasters such as the “no-bureaucrat-left-behind” education bill, the corrupt farm bills, the pork-filled transportation bills, and the horrific new entitlement for prescription drugs. He also helped ruin the GOP image with his inside-the-beltway version of “compassionate conservatism,” thus paving the way for big Democratic victories in 2006 and 2008.

I can understand why libertarians have no desire to listen to his advice, but I’m baffled why Republicans or conservatives would give him the time of day. Yet he is a constant presence on FOX News and has a weekly column in the Wall Street Journal. With no apparent irony, his latest WSJ column is entitled “How to Stop Socialized Health Care.” Too bad he didn’t follow his own advice in 2003 when pulling out all the stops to enact the biggest entitlement in four decades," —Daniel Mitchell, CATO at Liberty.

Another useful tool for the state

From a Saudi inventor:

The basic model would consist of a tiny GPS transceiver placed in a capsule and inserted under a person's skin, so that authorities could track him easily.

Model B would have an extra function — a dose of cyanide to remotely kill the wearer without muss or fuss if authorities deemed he'd become a public threat.

The inventor said the chip could be used to track terrorists, criminals, fugitives, illegal immigrants, political dissidents, domestic servants and foreigners overstaying their visas.

(ht QandO)

Shepard Smith, Fox News' oasis of sanity

I'm sorry, but you can't detain someone for 7 years just because it's difficult to build a case against them. Better to release a terrorist than put an innocent through that for so long.

Or are we to value the potential harm of released possible-terrorists over the freedom of possible-innocents now? Is this what the right would have us become?

Relatedly, see Jon Stewart's extended interview with Cliff May.

Back to basics

Seems she's allowed to raise that blindfold and read. Shepard Smith has the right words:



"I don't give a rat's ass if it helps. We are AMERICA! We do not fucking torture!!"

Ordinary Will puts it more eloquently. I'm just reminded of the inauguration:

Fox News wonders why it's biased

Firstly, MSNBC and others aren't the originators of teabagging references:


But check out the doozy that follows:

You know Brent, it's been interesting because Fox News covered these Tea Parties, and we were one of the only organizations to give it any publicity or p.r. prior to the fact that it happened, and it was so under-covered by virtually every news organization. Why is that?

Hmm, yes, why is Fox the only network doing public relations for protesters?

Liberals can be racist and sexist, too

(meme)

Sanity at CPAC?

There is some -- sort of:

Tucker Carlson attempts to convince the audience at CPAC that the New York Times actually cares about the accuracy of its news, but the audience isn't buying it and regularly interrupts him with boos and jeers.

He also says that the conservative movement needs its own news gathering organizations who will create news that reflects its values and wishes there were twenty-five outlets like the Fox News Channel:

Twenty-five Fox Newses? Could this nation survive the hysteria?

Meanwhile FiveThirtyEight's Sean Quinn attended CPAC and rambles a bit trying to understand what makes people Republicans.

Update: Leave it to The American Conservative to have the most interesting CPAC post yet

Explaining the hand of God

Heather Mac Donald wants answers:

Will Bill O’Reilly or anyone else who saw the hand of God in the safe landing of US Airways Flight 1549 this January please explain why God chose not to save Continental Connection Flight 3407, which plunged into a house outside of Buffalo last night, killing all 49 people on board and a resident on the ground?

Among the explanations which will not be accepted: “humans cannot possibly fathom God’s mysterious ways.” Oh yes they can, apparently—when something good happens. Having found proof of God’s love in the safe conclusion of US Airways Flight 1549, believers cannot now turn around and claim that God’s ways are veiled just because something disastrous happens. If it’s legitimate to infer beneficence from a happy outcome, it is equally plausible to infer malice or at least indifference from a negative outcome. You can’t pick and choose the actions in which you find God’s will transparent.

Oh yes you can! Here's how it works: Whenever something really good happens, it's because God loves us. And whenever something bad happens it's not because God willed it to happen -- he didn't! -- rather, it's because of sin. It's really that simple.

You may not have heard, but original sin -- both human and angelic kinds (see: the fall of Lucifer, and tree of knowledge in Eden) -- are to blame for all the evil in this world. God is not responsible, he just "allows it". Nevermind that because all have sinned (as well as -- gasp! -- fallen short of the glory of their Creator) that this means we're incapable of not sinning. That's what saviors are for! Jesus will save you, Heather. You just have to believe!. Tithing is optional but highly encouraged, and his priests have been hard at work bringing back indulgences for even more convenience!

So regarding the bad things, Heather, the correct inference is your need to be saved. You need someone to protect you from bad things, and only Jesus is in a vague enough position to do so while not actually taking responsibility for any bad things that happen to people who trust in him. Sometimes his mother Mary will help pick up some slack, but she's usually too busy listening to prayers. Yet since Jesus is definitionally perfect, he's still quite literally the best imaginary friend you'll ever have.

Now about Bill O'Reilly: it's really hard work finding good things to give God credit for in these tough times. So stop hassling the man! Just look at all the cognitive dissonance he already has to deal with:

Shorter O'Reilly

One slip I'll never make

For some of us they die easy -- we've only been waiting 5-6 long years.

More Fear & Imbalance

Via ThinkProgress: