As she ended several men's devotion to heterosexuality (I assume; I mean, gotta be, right?), Andrea Mitchell now ends one man's willingness to defend the media.

I’m tired. Truly. I’ve grown weary of trying to defend the indefensible and explain the inexplicable. For years, people have stomped their feet and pounded their fists and snorted “Liberal media bias!” and I’ve always tut-tutted and shooshed them and said, “No, no. Calm down. They meant well. It was just a misunderstanding. A mistake. These things happen."

...

But now?

Forget it. IÂ’m done. You deserve what theyÂ’re saying about you. ItÂ’s earned. You have worked long and hard to merit the suspicion, acrimony, mistrust and revulsion that the media-buying public increasingly heaps upon you. You have successfully eroded any confidence, dispelled any trust, and driven your audience into the arms of the Internet and the blogosphere, where biases are affirmed and like-minded people can tell each other what they hold to be true, since nobody believes in objective reality any more. You have done a superlative job of diminishing what was once a great profession and undermining one of the vital underpinnings of democracy, a free press.

Via The Anchoress.

Posted by: Ace at 02:38 PM | Comments (167)
Post contains 238 words, total size 2 kb.

Funny stuff -- guy just keeps using the same lines and witticisms from show to show.

Before the video, try this Breitbart piece about one of Sorkin's pretend-facts from his stupid show (which sounds exactly like the supercut below, only dumber and slower).

Oh, and if you were up in the air (as I was) about whether Emily Mortimer was sort of cute or not that cute, it's not that cute. more...

Posted by: Ace at 01:38 PM | Comments (151)
Post contains 77 words, total size 1 kb.

Allah's reading some tea leaves.

This leaf... this leaf I don't like so much.

Sean Trende, though, made an interesting observation on Twitter today: In the past, Scalia’s dissents in other cases have been grumpier than usual when he ended up losing on the big case of the term — not unlike today’s Arizona dissent, in fact. And that’s not just Trende saying that; that’s a former Scalia clerk whom Trende knows. (Guy Benson noted this also.) That’s weak, weak evidence of what Thursday will bring, but like I said, we’ve got 60 hours to kill. Weak evidence is better than none.

So, this reasoning goes: Scalia shows some grumpiness via hisstinging dissent in the Arizona case. He has previously gotten grumpier as bad terms (for him) wore on, so we should expect he's grumpy now because he lost The Big One.

I don't like that tea leaf at all. Bring some other tea leaves.

One tea leaf (for me) is my general belief that things rarely go the way you wish they should go (or they should go), so... I guess I should be more pessimistic about this.

Posted by: Ace at 01:18 PM | Comments (193)
Post contains 199 words, total size 1 kb.

First -- of course Jerry Sandusky is guilty.

That's not the point here. The point is that the prosecutors relied upon NBC to provide an accurate edit of the Jerry Sandusky interview.

They were burned on that.

Lawyers for Jerry Sandusky sought a mistrial before his conviction for child sex abuse on the grounds that prosecutors showed jurors an inaccurate version of a bombshell NBC News interview with the former football coach, and the mistake may now form part of the basis for an appeal.

In response to a subpoena, NBC News turned over three versions of Bob Costas' NBC News interview with Sandusky, which aired last November on different NBC shows.

One of those versions, which was broadcast on the 'Today' show, contained an erroneous repetition of a key question and answer - about whether Sandusky was sexually attracted to young boys, Nils Frederiksen, a spokesman for the Pennsylvania attorney general said on Sunday.

The repetition, Sandusky's lawyers contend, made it appear to jurors that he was stonewalling.

"It wasn't noticed by (NBC News), it wasn't noticed by us, but it became obvious when it played in court," Frederiksen told Reuters.

...

Sandusky attorney Joe Amendola said NBC's error would form part of the basis for an appeal. "Oh my goodness, yes," he said, when asked about whether it could be used in an appeal.

I can't quote the whole thing, but they apparently knitted together two parts of the interview that were not actually connected. Bob Costas asked him if he was sexually attracted to young boys, and then Sandusky answered (according to NBC's edit) "Am I sexually attracted to young boys?" as if he was stonewalling, or attempting to delay answering, the way people do when hiding guilt.

The article doesn't say in what context those two statements actually appeared, but it appears they were not actually connected.

Big Journalism wants to know how many deliberately deceptive edits NBC's chief is comfortable with.

Apparently the answer is "at least five, and counting."

Posted by: Ace at 11:45 AM | Comments (252)
Post contains 357 words, total size 2 kb.

I think this might serve as basis for a counter-suit.

The Obama administration said Monday it is suspending existing agreements with Arizona police over enforcement of federal immigration laws, and said it has issued a directive telling federal authorities to decline many of the calls reporting illegal immigrants that the Homeland Security Department may get from Arizona police.

There will be an increased number of calls from Arizona police, checking on immigration status-- and Obama refuses to budge the number of personnel handling such calls. In most cases, they simply won't even return the call (or pick up the phone).

That means police statewide can immediately begin calling to check immigration status — but federal officials are likely to reject most of those calls.

Federal officials said theyÂ’ll still perform the checks as required by law but will respond only when someone has a felony conviction on his or her record. Absent that, ICE will tell the local police to release the person.

Posted by: Ace at 10:51 AM | Comments (332)
Post contains 181 words, total size 1 kb.

Tommy Christopher, Media Matters hardest hit.

Vid at the link, but here's the transcript:

HOWARD KURTZ, HOST: Ever since George Bush, Sr. seemed surprised by a supermarket scanner, the media had been on the lookout for out-of-touch candidates. MSNBC appeared to catch Mitt Romney in such a moment.

[Clip of Andrea Mitchell's deceptively-edited story omitted]

KURTZ: But as first pointed out by a blogger named Sooper Mexican, here is the problem. That clip was deceptively edited. Romney had started out talking about a doctor being entangled in government paperwork. And here is how the supermarket anecdote actually ended.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

ROMNEY: There's your sandwich. It's amazing. People in the private sector learned how to compete. It's time to bring some competition to the Federal Government.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

KURTZ: So Romney wasn't amazed by the touch screen, but by the contrast between a supermarket chain and the government. That kind of editing is enough to give you indigestion.

Now, Andrea Mitchell played the full sound bite the next day, but expressed no regret for the earlier editing.

NBC's covering itself in glory lately, eh?

If you want to get angry, Bill Maher talked about Fast & Furious with (of course) Rachael "The Boy Who Lived" Maddow, Nick Gilespie and Mort Zuckerman (neither of the last two were buying the "witch-hunt narrative"). Corrected: Damn, I wrote "Michael Bloomberg" instead of Mort Zuckerman. It was the latter, Zuckerman.

Bill Maher actually said this: 1, Republicans don't care about dead Mexicans, and 2, it doesn't matter if US government guns killed Mexicans, they'd be dead anyway.

"So is this really a scandal?" he wanted to know.

So, Bill Maher actually said, to paraphrase, "Who cares about Dead Mexicans, they'd be dead anyhow, and those Republicans, why they don't care about Dead Mexicans, just like I don't."

Well then thank you for your support, Bill.

He further admitted he did not know what Fast & Furious was until this past week, then made two breathtaking statements: "they [Republicans] live in a bubble" (we do? We're not the ones who literally thought (as he admits) that people were talking about a Vin Diesel movie until this week) and further that Republicans are trying to convince ignorant people of some crazy conspiracy theory, not well-informed people like Nick Gilespie (and, by implication, himself).

You're one of the well-informed ones? The guy who just found out this wasn't about a 2001 movie, this past week?

So, if you can bear it, the video, at Real Clear Politics.

That last one thanks to steve.

Posted by: Ace at 10:34 AM | Comments (114)
Post contains 449 words, total size 3 kb.

Suspended from school. Of course.

The kid was harassed, his sister says, by the teacher's relatives, who attend the school. His request to finish the year by home-schooling was denied (naturally).

[T]hey gave him a suspension on his school record for videotaping in the classroom -- the first suspension ever issued for such an action, despite the fact that other students have also videotaped on school grounds.

The young man’s sister stated that assistant principal Antoine Brisbon said to her brother, “That was a very stupid thing you did. You have damaged the school. Our staff is taking a beating because our phones are nonstop. This is all over the country.”

No, the teacher damaged the school; the kid just exposed it.

So tell me once again how teachers and the NEA are "all about the children."

Yeah.

Posted by: Ace at 10:10 AM | Comments (133)
Post contains 164 words, total size 1 kb.

James Fallows blogs at The Atlantic. You can find it if you like. I won't link it, because I might get spazz-cooties from him.

But here's Fallows' spazz attack.

Normally I shy away from apocalyptic readings of the American predicament... But when you look at the sequence from Bush v. Gore, through Citizens United, to what seems to be coming on the health-care front; and you combine it with ongoing efforts in Florida and elsewhere to prevent voting from presumably Democratic blocs; and add that to the simply unprecedented abuse of the filibuster in the years since the Democrats won control of the Senate and then took the White House, you have what we'd identify as a kind of long-term coup if we saw it happening anywhere else.**

** You can try this at home. Pick a country and describe a sequence in which:

First, the presidential election is decided by five people, who don't even try to explain their choice in normal legal terms.
Then the beneficiary of that decision appoints the next two members of the court, who present themselves for consideration as restrained, humble figures who care only about law rather than ideology.
Once on the bench, for life, those two actively second-guess and re-do existing law, to advance the interests of the party that appointed them.
Meanwhile their party's representatives in the Senate abuse procedural rules to an extent never previously seen to block legislation -- and appointments, especially to the courts.
And, when a major piece of legislation gets through, the party's majority on the Supreme Court prepares to negate it -- even though the details of the plan were originally Republican proposals and even though the party's presidential nominee endorsed these concepts only a few years ago.

How would you describe a democracy where power was being shifted that way?

Remember what I was saying in the comments on Friday, about the psychological shock of the coming repudiation, and how it would become a Concern (capital intended) as some people simply went crazy?

Bear in mind, this is but the pre-Spasmodic Freakout. This is just dress rehearsal for the full derangement of the left.

Also via @ben84's sidebar news-dump.

By the way, I italicized "blogs" to stress it. Fallows was some kind of author previously.

Now he's just another idiot left-wing blogger, with his daily freak-outs and misrepresentations he got from other left-wing bloggers.

Headline Credit: Nickless suggested "coup-coup." I like it.

Posted by: Ace at 09:53 AM | Comments (181)
Post contains 428 words, total size 3 kb.

After posting yesterday, I decided to overcome my usual resistance to visit an exhibit or piece on opening day, just to further spite those of you angry at a rock being called art. Full disclosure: part of my hyping this has been a reaction to the absurdity of this on paper. The sheer cost and energy put into creating this work went beyond any adjective I can summon without grinning, though as a conservative I find it refreshing how this came to be: artist Michael Heizer found a way to get his 40-year vision off paper and, with $10 million all privately raised, onto Miracle Mile.

I thought about what I would probably write, whilst making Mrs CAC her Starbucks Surprise (grain alcohol and ginger ale in a Starbucks cup for the long drive). I was probably going to focus on the positives of minimalism, on the hype, on a hundred things I didn't. Yesterday was perfect: high 70s, light breeze, and a waxing crescent moon suspended in the bright blue California sky. You couldn't ask for better weather while enjoying outdoor sculpture. Or when having an epiphany.

Passing Wilshire, the plaza came into full view, along with the crowd. Surprise, even at 5:30 there were still hundreds milling about the campus. If you decide to make the trip, it is free: just enter the park entrance on 6th street and walk towards the Big Fucking Rock. You really can't miss it. Even if the ranting street lunatics try to distract you on Fairfax. Once inside the plaza the gigantic rock is hard to miss:
more...

Posted by: CAC at 09:12 AM | Comments (221)
Post contains 1160 words, total size 9 kb.

Via Vic, Patterico guesses 5-4 overturn, all of it.

If the mandate goes, most of the law will have to go, because much relies on the mandate. You can't mandate that insurance companies cover anyone who signs up, even the desperately sick, without making sure they're not gaming the system in that manner. And I imagine that means the state exchanges would have to go.

I could see some smaller parts of it being allowed to stand -- requiring insurance to cover "children" up to 26. I say this because as far as I know that part of the law wasn't challenged (or at least the Supreme Court didn't certify that question and have arguments on it -- they have no record upon which to rule on that part of the law, except to strike down the whole of the law as incomplete without the mandate and unconstitutional, in the whole, as written).

Given Kennedy's decision in the Arizona immigration case, I can see him once again trying for some kind of "one for you, and one for you too" split decision.

There may be a few more freestanding bits of the law like that permitted to stand.

Here's one prediction I think is untrue: E.J. Dionne says you'll miss ObamaCare when it's gone.

Were the health-care law to be eviscerated, those who battled so hard on its behalf might draw at least bittersweet comfort from what could be called the Joni Mitchell Rule, named after the folk singer who instructed us that “you don’t know what you’ve got till it’s gone.”

I predict my reaction will be less informed by the Joni Mitchell Rule and more informed by what I call the Prodigy Rule.

more...

Posted by: Ace at 08:36 AM | Comments (272)
Post contains 291 words, total size 2 kb.