Welcome to FiAF. Awesome tipster Krukke1 left this delicious puddin' cup in my mailbox this morning. This tune is nostalgic to those of us of a certain age...but the lyrics have been updated hilariously.

Posted by: LauraW at 05:26 AM | Comments (57)
Post contains 44 words, total size 1 kb.

Friday. W00t.

Posted by: Gabriel Malor at 05:13 AM | Comments (83)
Post contains 10 words, total size 1 kb.

Pretty funny:

Via Gabriel Malor.

Cute Vid: A porcupine that thinks it's a puppy.

It's helping me chill from my bad touchy-touchy mood. more...

Posted by: Ace at 07:52 PM | Comments (132)
Post contains 85 words, total size 2 kb.

Beer summit?

Nah.

Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack rushed to judgment when he dismissed a former government official over racism allegations, U.S. President Barack Obama said in an interview on Thursday.

"He jumped the gun, partly because we now live in this media culture where something goes up on YouTube or a blog and everybody scrambles," Obama said in an interview on ABC's "Good Morning America" that will be broadcast on Friday.

The cool thing about backing the bus up when you've made a silly Presidential leadership boo boo, is that they can always find another body to toss back under when you find first gear again.

And since I'm taking this stupid metaphor to the bank (see what I did there?), anybody remember Obama backing the bus up before now? Or does shifting the blame to your cabinet head not count?

I for one am comforted that my federal government can respond swiftly and powerfully when the exigencies of Youtube require that it do so.

Posted by: Dave in Texas at 05:52 PM | Comments (144)
Post contains 177 words, total size 1 kb.

Happy Thursday all.

The Most Dangerous Countries in the World

Here's an interesting infographic showing the most dangerous countries and regions in the world.

Bottom line conclusion: Steer clear of the usual hellholes and probably Colombia and South Africa as well.

Posted by: Maetenloch at 05:28 PM | Comments (776)
Post contains 715 words, total size 7 kb.

Actually they're just reprinting your typical Media Matters drivel.

1:18 a.m.*: Breitbart posts Sherrod video, calls her "racist," claims "Context is everything."

Fox News amplifies Breitbart's deceptively edited video

12:13 p.m.: Hoft runs with Breitbart video.

12:55 p.m.: HotAir's Morrissey: "Breitbart hits NAACP with promised video of racism."

1:40 p.m. (approximately): Fox Nation accuses Sherrod of "discrimination caught on tape" before she resigned.

1:49 p.m.: Ace of Spades picks up Sherrod story, calls it an example of "your government, working for you."

3:31 p.m.: Elizabeth Scalia of the blog The Anchoress raises questions about the editing of Breitbart's video.

4:01 p.m. Ace of Spades reports that CBS' NYC affiliate picked up Sherrod story, declares, "Breitbart gets results."

4:28 p.m. (approximately): Sherrod story hits Drudge.

4:50 p.m.: Breitbart tweets to Media Matters: "Tomorrow's gonna be a long day."

7:51 p.m.*: Big Government links to a FoxNews.com article reporting that Sherrod had resigned and USDA repudiated her remarks.

8:21 p.m.: Allahpundit questions the video's editing, but says he will "assume Breitbart's edit is fair to the spirit of her remarks."

8:50 p.m.: O'Reilly airs Breitbart's Sherrod video

9:04 p.m.: "Fox News Alert": Hannity reports that Sherrod has resigned and discusses the incident with Gingrich.

Number of emails to/from Allah, Ed, The Anchoress, Jim Hoft, any representatives at Fox, or Andrew Breitbart to/fom Myself: Zero, until today, an hour ago, when The Anchoress emailed me this link about how we "coordinated."

Last time I emailed anyone on that list was two days ago, when I emailed Ed to tell him his Gallup story was wrong (and he didn't email back).

Before that? I wrote Andrew Breitbart on Sunday about getting me in touch with someone he might or might not know (it was a total flier) about non-political business (he didn't email back).

Before that? Some point in the last month I emailed Allah some one-line observation, I think about a person, rather than politics (he didn't email back).

Before that? I am pretty sure I have not contacted any of these people, nor been contacted by them, it at least three months. I have almost never emailed The Anchoress or Jim Hoft, ever, and nor they me; I used to email Allah every so often, but we sort of stopped doing that (or he stopped, then I did); and I have traded like two or three emails, all short tip-type things, with Ed Morrissey, in, like, my entire life.

I spoke with one guy at Fox, one day, like a year and a half ago ago, about some blog sort of thing, I don't even remember the details. Something like, I don't know, a cross-fire blog thing or something. I forget.

This was my last contact with anyone from FoxNews; indeed, I don't believe I know the email of a single person at FoxNews. I was on there one time; that email may or may not work. Haven't used it since -- what? -- three or four years ago now?

By the way, since Media Matters is discussing "smearing" people with innuendos without fact-checking:

Number of calls or emails I received from anyone at Media Matters asking me if I had "coordinated" with anyone, or asking me for comment on their upcoming smear: Zero

But thanks for looking into the facts, Media Matters!

Do what I say, not what I do!

Oh: There was some coordination -- between myself and my cobloggers.

"TRScoop" bravely, I think, confessed strong doubts about the story on Twitter, and linked the Glenn Beck piece casting doubts on it. I retweeted him, not sure if he was right, but respecting his guts in offering a counter-to-the-crowd opinion, and then posted the video on my site.

Then I talked in emails to cobloggers Drew, Dave, Slublog, and Laura, and Gabe I think, and we were all having the same doubts, it turned out: Since that morning there had first come the new information that the story related was 24 years old, and then came the revelation that the farmers in question were vouching for the woman.

Then came the full video from the NAACP, which I saw on Hot Air, not because Allah tipped me, but just because I check there ten times a day.

And in that tape, at 16:20-16:40, Sherrod says she thought she was taking a vow to help only black people, but the following tale opened her eyes, which was a clear statement that her views had changed, and that was of course excised from the first video, and anyway, then after we'd watched Beck, we all sort of realized: Shit, this story is wrong, way wrong.

So there was, I guess, coordination there. That "coordination" consisted of me tossing out the Beck video and asking for reassurance that the facts seemed as poor for us as I was starting to suspect, and getting that reassurance.

Gabe also tipped me that the Anchoress had always had suspicions (which I'd seen Allah note on Twitter the night before, and really wondered about).

This "coordination" with the cobloggers took about 15 minutes, and in the course of that 15 minutes, I updated the post several times and also changed the headline to indicate my increasing skepticism in the story, and then in the comments it came out more and more.

So that was the coordination going on here -- me asking the other bloggers here if I was crazy, or if this story was a stone-cold piece of shit, and they offering the opinion "Yeah, looks pretty damn weak now."

Again, I would have told this to Media Matters had they bothered to check their innunedos against the fact, or at least contact the subjects of a story for comment or denial, but they didn't bother.

And damn that Andrew Breitbart, and FoxNews, and right-wing bloggers, rushing stories out there without any fact-checking for fair request for comment....

By the way, since Media Matters posted this, it has been picked up by the Huffington Post.

Gee, how did that happen so quickly, guys?!!

Important Update: Andy Levy just coordinated with me to tell me I do in fact know his email.

True. I didn't think of him "at Fox" (and I'm sure Fox barely does either).

Still -- okay, my coordination with Andy Levy consists of one sentence about once every sixty days.

I'm tellin' ya, we just don't talk. We don't. I don't know if these other bastards talk. They probably do. They're probably all coordinating with each other, daily.

Me? I'm ostracized, baby.

Posted by: Ace at 03:58 PM | Comments (347)
Post contains 1099 words, total size 7 kb.

A must watch video shamelessly stolen from The Corner.

Allah has the answer to the mystery behind why Greene was discharged from the Air Force. There's no polite way to put this, Green's not very bright.

The reviewer also wrote Greene “required a daily to-do list” to perform basic duties and had a “consistent inability to follow instructions or maintain basic job knowledge.” Most seriously, the reviewer wrote that Greene would represent “a threat to others” because of his inability to grasp the basics of military training.

It's a fine line between laughing at a guy who honestly just doesn't seem all there and the mess the Democrats are in having nominated this guy. Let's be honest, a Republican wouldn't get any breaks. Besides, the Senate is mostly rich guys, not a Mensa chapter.

If this guy were running against Lindsay Graham, I'd send him money.

Idle thought...Greene's actually going to get a bunch of votes based on the publicity and the mood of the country (he's as close to "none of the above" as you're going to see). What percentage does he wind up with and if enough people decide to throw and pity/protest vote to him thinking, "he'll never win"...could he?

If it weren't at the expense of DeMint, I'd love to see Senator Greene.

Who's with me on the Greene in '14 bandwagon?

Posted by: DrewM at 02:13 PM | Comments (205)
Post contains 238 words, total size 2 kb.

Most ethical Congress ever!

A House investigative committee on Thursday charged New York Rep. Charles Rangel with multiple ethics violations, a blow to the former Ways and Means chairman and an election-year headache for Democrats.

The committee did not immediately specify the charges against the Democrat, who has served in the House for some 40 years and is fourth in House seniority. The announcement by a four-member panel of the House ethics committee sends the case to a House trial, where a separate eight-member panel of Republicans and Democrats will decide whether the violations can be proved by clear and convincing evidence.

The timing of the announcement ensures that it will stretch into the fall campaign, and Republicans are certain to make it an issue as they try to capture majority control of the House. Speaker Nancy Pelosi had once promised to "drain the swamp" of ethical misdeeds by lawmakers in arguing that Democrats should be in charge.

There is a conservative Republican running in the district but it's what? 105% or so Democratic?

I doubt the charges will hurt Rangel in the general election, he'll use it to rally the troops against those SOBs in DC trying to destroy him.

In an interesting twist Rangel does face a primary challenge this September from Adam Clayton Powell IV. Powell's father, Adam Clayton Powell Jr., was the man Rangel unseated to win the seat about 100 years ago. The elder Powell was a longtime member of Congress whom the Democrats refused to seat after the '66 elections because of corruption charges. Powell then won the special election to fill the vacancy and sat in the House until Rangel beat him the 1970 primary.

So, we've seen this movie before.

Posted by: DrewM at 01:11 PM | Comments (124)
Post contains 302 words, total size 2 kb.

No, but really, this is pretty funny, and may be useful as a uniting thing.

Surely we can agree that Keith Olbermann is a fucking ninny, right?

One thing, though: Yeah, Glenn, you are supposed to know about L'Affair Dreyfuss. I mean, I don't know every single detail, but if you're culturally/historically literate you are supposed to know when someone means Dreyfuss.

Still, pretty funny.

Via Hot Air.

But... if you want funny...

I sort of have never understood why people like Glenn Beck. "Because he's funny," people will say, and sometimes I have thought he was funny (I love the smoking jacket/pipe/elite liberal thing he does), I guess I don't listen enough to get that.

However, I was kind of crying listening to this. This almost achieved what I doubted could be achieved in political radio talk -- almost putting me into laughing hysterics the way Howard Stern used to when he and his crew were on a really good riff.

He's busting on American Al Qaeda spokesman Adam Gadanh, who, unfortunately for an Al Qaeda spokesman, speaks with a prominent, hissing lisp.

His schtick here isn't to say he's gay per se, but just note that one would want a scarier sounding spokesman than this.

Boo!, he keeps saying.

more...

Posted by: Ace at 12:03 PM | Comments (275)
Post contains 259 words, total size 3 kb.

Legal Insurrection made this point; but Dan Riehl makes it well, too.

The media and progressive-left Democrats now appear in a rush to convict Andrew Breitbart of shoddy journalism, while exonerating Shirley Sherrod and the NAACP from charges of abiding racism within their ranks. Both Sherrod and the NAACP have charged the Tea Party movement and the Republican Party with racism, while offering less proof than Breitbart did of the racism he correctly alleged. In many cases, the Left has outright manufactured evidence of racism regarding Tea Party events, yet no one has raised a voice about that slander at all. If one didn't know better, this wouldn't be today's news, but an Orwellian script circa 1984.

At approximately 17 minutes into the now-released full video of the event, Sherrod can be heard relaying a tale from her past in which she initially failed to help a white farmer with the full effort she would reserve for a black farmer.

The assembled crowd of card-carrying members of the NAACP took great pleasure in that, their laughter was not nervous at all. That is a contemporaneous expression of racism by today's politically correct standards, not racism from some 40 years ago.

Sherrod later says, "It's not so much about whiteÂ…" then catches herself and says, "It IS about white and black." Perhaps Sherrod should explain why, even today, color is so centrally important in her work, be it at the Agriculture Department or elsewhere.

BreitbartÂ’s web-posting of the speech showed more racism at one NAACP event than those charging Republicans and Tea Parties with racism have yet to produce after making accusations for months on end. The people making that charge include both Sherrod and the NAACP, neither of which has produced any proof. But it is Breitbart who should be convicted for false charges in the court of public opinion? That is totally absurd given the actual facts.

Indeed.

In case you're getting whip-sawed about my opinion on this -- when I say or link something that agrees with you, then something that disagrees -- let me say I kinda think Sherrod is a racist. My problem is that we (well, "we" generally) got caught using a deceptively edited tape to establish that, and thus we can no longer push the tape as evidence.

My general opinion on all of this remains: The left manufactures claims of right-wing racism on a daily basis, sometimes, because, like Sherrod, they are in fact racists who cannot conceive of a world in which decisions are made according to any other criterion but skin color, and sometimes, as Spence Ackerman advocates, just because you want to rough up an opponent.

And yeah, my general belief is that the NAACP is so race-obsessed it frequently is actually racist -- you can't sit there and obsess over the Sins of Whitey 24/7 and maintain an objective and nonprejudiced attitude towards the white man -- and that the Tea Party is largely, you know, not.

I believe these things: I just think the videotape here is a singularly bad vehicle to use to "prove" them given that it was deliberately falsified.

It's like framing a guilty man by planting a murder weapon, but then the judge discovers you planted that murder weapon.

Look, it's simple: The man is still guilty, and you've still got to make that case to the jury, but damnit, give up on trying to introduce that planted "murder weapon" as evidence.

You got caught. Drop it. And move on to the non-falsified evidence, which does, in fact, exist.

And yeah, Riehl continues using the tape as evidence, but I'm quoting him for his broader point, the one that doesn't really depend so much on the doctored tape.

And... Once again, no, I'm not beating up on Breitbart. I think he's completely honest when he says the tape was delivered to him in this condition and he did not have the complete tape.

As a general matter, I think he's doing what he needs to do -- putting up a defense. But I think he will let the actual issue of the tape itself drop when the media gets over the feeding frenzy.

Because, in the end, it's too hard to defend, and, as they say, If you're defending, you're losing. He is best on attack.

Hell, everyone's best on attack. But he in particular.

(And yes, I do note, boy, the media loves it when a conservative makes a mistake. Still waiting, as Legal Insurrection noted, for a prominent statement from the MFM that that census worker wasn't killed by Tea Partiers!)

Corrected! This is Dan Riehl writing, not Jason Mattera.

Thanks to steve.

Posted by: Ace at 11:00 AM | Comments (356)
Post contains 819 words, total size 5 kb.