Hmmm...

Just before GE board members were re-elected, shareholders asked about 10 questions of a mostly political nature concerning the viewpoints of MSNBC and CNBC, according to attendees.

First up was a woman asking about a reported meeting in which Immelt and NBC Uni CEO Jeff Zucker supposedly told top CNBC executives and talent to be less critical of President Obama and his policies.

Immelt acknowledged a meeting took place but said no one at CNBC was told what to say or not say about politics.

During the woman's follow-up question, her microphone was cut off. Later, during the umpteenth question about MSNBC, another shareholder's microphone was cut, according to multiple attendees.

I'd boycott NBC but I don't watch a damn thing on it.*

* Okay, I watch The Office, but it's not a great show. I could dump it.

Via the Rhetorician.

Oh... And how is MSNBC's liberal lineup faring in the ratings?

Maddow's down 40%.

Although every network is liberal and biased, NBC is especially egregious. I would dearly love a real boycott -- not just of their shows, but every single advertiser who pays for their shows -- as an object lesson.

But these things never seem to work out.

Posted by: Ace at 02:50 PM | Comments (4)
Post contains 223 words, total size 2 kb.

Harman is meanwhile pushing her out-of-control NSA defense.

Despite the fact that there were warrants for the wiretap, and the espionage perps were wiretapped, not she herself.

Hey, talk on the phone with espionage suspects and you're likely to get wiretapped, eh?

This was the ranking Democrat on the Intelligence committee through 2006. But she didn't realize that maybe the NSA was listening in when she chatted up men under investigation for espionage.

Posted by: Ace at 12:15 PM | Add Comment
Post contains 91 words, total size 1 kb.

No surprise.

I asked Richard Stevenson, who is the Times' deputy Washington bureau chief, what was going on. He told me Baker got the Blair information late in the day Tuesday, and there just wasn't room for it in the paper. "We already had three stories on this subject," Stevenson explained, "and it was late, there was no more space to do this separatelyÂ…We just didn't have the space to put it in the print newspaper."

...

One reason Baker's story has attracted so much attention is that it provided some balance to a number of interrogation stories we have seen in the Times, the Washington Post, and elsewhere. There is a legitimate argument to be made by the defenders of the Bush administration's interrogation program, and to see it echoed by Barack Obama's national intelligence director is striking. My guess is that, even given the attention Baker's story has gotten on the Web, it would have had even more impact were it the paper, as well.

Stevenson denied that there was any bias in the Times' decision not to run the story in the paper edition. "If your implication was there was some sort of ideological or value judgment made about the subject matter, that's preposterous," he told me. "It was 8:30 at night, we had a lot of stories going, a limited amount of space, and the ability to get that news into a different story." Stevenson stressed that the Times, after all, broke the news that all those blogs are talking about. "We no longer think of the print paper as the sole definition of the New York Times," he said. "We can get a big pop on a story by putting it on the Web, faster, more completely, and with more impact."

Captain Ed notes the Times did report it online, but is baffled at how such a big story failed to bump additional stories or even get the printing of the paper delayed in order to be included.

The Times is lying, of course. This is so transparently obvious I will not belabor it. They are lying, as they frequently lie. Lies are their stock in trade and have been for some time.

My teeth grind every time I hear the Times or MSM claim that some people -- conservatives -- need to stop reading partisan papers and read "objective" papers like the Times (giggle). Both for real truth, and "nuance" to counter the agitprop they receive from partisan papers.

But for the Times and MSM, "nuance" is a one-way ratchet. They want conservatives to believe more liberal claims, and thereby become more "nuanced" in their judgments and beliefs.

But when a story comes along that would add "nuance" to a cherished dogma of the left -- here, a memo from Obama's own DNI -- explaining that waterboarding in fact saved lives, the Times doesn't seem moved to inject that nuance into the debate. The left it is quite willing to let live with its silly fantasies, devoid of nuance.

Because the Times buried the story, and thereby signaled to the follow-the-leader sheep media that the story was unimportant, it will not get much play from anyone but that nasty conservative media the Times thinks you shouldn't be reading anyway.

Nuance is healthy, apparently, but only the right isn't getting its recommended daily allowance of the stuff.

The media freaks out whenever conservatives believe something that is untrue (or that they have collectively determined is untrue), publishing story after story, for example, about conservatives' wrongful (?) belief that Barack Obama was at one time a Muslim, or that Saddam Hussein was involved in 9/11.

They make a major issue not only of the facts (or "facts"), but do stories about the stories, meta-stories, concerning conservatives' ignorance of the facts ("facts").

But here? The left will continue screaming that waterboarding -- or any coercive technique that disrupts one's soulpatterns -- never works. And the Times is quite willing to leave the left undisturbed in believing that fiction.

Posted by: Ace at 10:50 AM | Comments (2)
Post contains 685 words, total size 4 kb.

This classic video is a fitting tribute.

Thanks to KeithA.

Bonus: Science by Press Release. The scientists didn't find that lower streamflow in rivers was a symptom of "global warming." There were too many other factors -- like irrigation and dams -- to consider.

But that's okay. Where the scientists can find no evidence, their PR department can.

As the writer asks: Which do you think will become the "real science" as far as the media and public are concerned? The actual science or the falsified press release?

Thanks to ArthurK.

Posted by: Ace at 10:00 AM | Comments (1)
Post contains 97 words, total size 1 kb.

And:

Fifty-two percent (52%) now are concerned that the government will end up doing too much in response to the nationÂ’s economic challenges. ThatÂ’s the highest level of concern since last NovemberÂ’s Presidential Election. Just 31% now worry the government will do too little. Fifty-one percent (51%) have a favorable opinion of last weekÂ’s tea parties, but the Political Class strongly disagrees.

And: Only 34% now blame humans for global warming.

Here's the link for the generic congressional, tied for a second straight week.

Thanks to AHFF Geoff.

Posted by: Ace at 09:47 AM | Comments (1)
Post contains 116 words, total size 1 kb.

Is anyone surprised? Kerry owes them bigtime, doesn't he? You scratch my back, I'll have the taxpayers scratch yours.

I should note he doesn't actually use the word "bailout." Nor does he talk of giving them money. Instead he wants a Senate panel to investigate the newspaper industry's woes. But I think we know where this train is heading.

Posted by: Ace at 09:40 AM | Add Comment
Post contains 77 words, total size 1 kb.

It's the Washington Independent, which I haven't heard of, but it's the media. I guess.

Posted by: Ace at 08:31 AM | Add Comment
Post contains 27 words, total size 1 kb.

Apparently "smart diplomacy" means suck up to enemies and needlessly piss off friends.

The furor began when Napolitano was asked to clarify statements she had made about equal treatment for the Mexican and Canadian borders, despite the fact that a flood of illegal immigrants and a massive drug war are two serious issues on the southern border.

"Yes, Canada is not Mexico, it doesn't have a drug war going on, it didn't have 6,000 homicides that were drug-related last year," she said.

"Nonetheless, to the extent that terrorists have come into our country or suspected or known terrorists have entered our country across a border, it's been across the Canadian border. There are real issues there."

When asked if she was referring to the 9-11 terrorists, Napolitano added: "Not just those but others as well.".

One, tiny, small, little problem. It's not what one might call strictly accurate.

In the weeks after the attacks, investigators established that all of the hijackers entered the United States from countries other than Canada, a finding that got the official stamp last summer with the release of the Sept. 11 commission report

Add this to the whole, verterans are a major security threat and the fact she didn't seem to know illegal immigration was, um, illegal and it's becoming pretty clear that Napolitano is one dumb bitch.

Posted by: DrewM at 07:02 AM | Comments (33)
Post contains 237 words, total size 2 kb.

Also from the Washington Post:

Treasury Department lawyers have determined that firms participating in a $1 trillion program to relieve banks of toxic assets could be subject to limits on executive compensation, contradicting the Obama administration's previous public position, according to a report to be released today by a federal watchdog agency. [...]

Speaking last month about the initiative to buy toxic assets, Treasury Secretary Timothy F. Geithner said, "The comp conditions will not apply to the asset managers and investors in the program."

But Treasury lawyers have told the special inspector general for the federal bailout that executives involved with that initiative and another $1 trillion consumer lending program "could be subject to the executive compensation restrictions," according to the report from Special Inspector General Neil M. Barofsky.

Eventually folks are going to wake up realize that when you make a deal with the devil there's nothing to stop him from changing the terms. As Darth Vader warned: "I'm altering the deal. Pray I don't alter it any further." What he meant was, "Give me a reason, bitch, I already own you."

More on this over at the Corner.

Posted by: Gabriel Malor at 06:45 AM | Comments (1)
Post contains 197 words, total size 1 kb.

An op-ed from the Washington Post describes the problem:

Put yourself in the shoes of the people who were asked to interrogate al-Qaeda prisoners in 2002. One former officer told me he declined the job, not because he thought the program was wrong but because he knew it would blow up. "We all knew the political wind would change eventually," he recalled. Other officers who didn't make that cynical but correct calculation are now "broken and bewildered," says the former operative.
[...]

One veteran counterterrorism operative says that agents in the field are already being more careful about using the legal findings that authorize covert action. An example is the so-called "risk of capture" interview that takes place in the first hour after a terrorism suspect is grabbed. This used to be the key window of opportunity, in which the subject was questioned aggressively and his cellphone contacts and "pocket litter" were exploited quickly.

Now, field officers are more careful. They want guidance from headquarters. They need legal advice. I'm told that in the case of an al-Qaeda suspect seized in Iraq several weeks ago, the CIA didn't even try to interrogate him. The agency handed him over to the U.S. military.

Click over and read the whole thing.

Obama thought that releasing the "torture" memos would help his credibility problem with the far-left "human rights" groups which felt betrayed by his pro-Bush support for warrantless wiretaping, secret evidence, and state secrets doctrine. They took it as a signal to press for "Truth" commissions and prosecutions.

Now the President is in a spot. His political decision--release the memos, look good on TV--conflicts with his stated presidential policy--no prosecutions, no investigations, move forward. In other words, he flip-flopped. Again.

The first casualty of his mixed message is the CIA. I doubt it will be the last.

Posted by: Gabriel Malor at 06:17 AM | Comments (46)
Post contains 316 words, total size 2 kb.