Per PPP, who are pretty low in the trust rankings for pollsters, but what the heck.

MSNBC and its subsidiary NBCNews have earned every inch of their low regard.

By the way: NBCNews is dead last. The joke channel MSNBC ties Comedy Central for second-to-last-place.

NBC News and sister cable network MSNBC rank at the bottom of media outlets Americans trust most for news, with Fox News leading the way, according to a new poll from the Democratic firm Public Policy Polling.

In its fifth trust poll, 35 percent said they trusted Fox news more than any other outlet, followed by PBS at 14 percent, ABC at 11 percent, CNN at 10 percent, CBS at 9 percent, 6 percent for MSNBC and Comedy Central, and just 3 percent for NBC.

The next time someone on MSNBC or its kid brother NBCNews makes a crack about low Congressional approval ratings, someone should respond by citing NBC's 3% public trust rating.

Regarding MSNBC's latest foray into race-conscious juvenile razzing, the staffer "responsible" for the tweet-- whatever that means -- has been fired.

Responsible? Did this person write it?

And this is not a problem with a particular staffer. This is an MSNBC problem, and an NBCNews problem more generally. This is a... how do I put it? A Culture of Corruption.

Firing a staffer does not fix this when MSNBC's "stars," and I do use that term with reservation, say the exact same things night after night after night.

Will Queen Maddow be cautioned, I wonder? How about spittle-spraying fat drunk Chris Matthews? What about red-faced raging imbecile Ed Schultz?

Will these people be informed that daily provocations and crudities do "not represent the values of msbnc," as MSNBC President Phil Griffinclaimed?

The problem, obviously, is not that such statements don't represent the values of MSNBC. The problem is that they do.

Supposedly he's getting angry at having to drop everything twice a week to check out what the goons at Faber College's Animal House have done this time.

And it has, according to two sources at the network. Griffin, says one of the sources, is as “angry” as his colleagues have seen him. In a meeting, he warned of serious and immediate repercussions and ripped the staff about the recent bout of stupid actions, according to the sources.

But previous reports say he's a milquetoast who has no interest in news, only ratings, and just defers to Queen Rachel.

So we'll see if Queen Rachel is interested in cleaning up Delta House.

Posted by: Ace at 03:35 PM | Comments (248)
Post contains 453 words, total size 3 kb.

Horrible.

In the video below, "Juif" -- their favorite word -- means Jew, of course. The first thing said is Juif, casse-toi, La France n'est pas à toi!

This means something like: "Jew, get the hell out, France is not for you."

I didn't know what "casser" meant in this context. It usually means "break." It can also mean "get the hell out of here" when used as a command.

But it also, wonderfully enough, turns out to to have a vile double meaning:

(familiar)to kill (esp. if motivated by prejudice)

Because of the grammar of it, I think they mean the "get the hell out" meaning, but it also seems to me they don't mind this other meaning being suggested.

This "Jour de Colère," or Day of Rage, was called for by supporters of that idiot anti-semitic comedian Dieudonné.

Many protestors did the "quenelle," the inverted Nazi salute which they claim is not a Nazi salute. However, if you watch the video, you can see some of his supporters making explicit that it is a Nazi salute-- because they don't bother doing the Double Secret Nazi Salute of the quenelle, but instead do the full, real, Hitler Nazi salute.

It was part of a "Day of Anger" called by extremists in support of Dieudonne last Sunday. French police estimated that around 17,000 people had attended the march, and said that 150 had been arrested. Police told AFP news agency that 19 police officers were injured in clashes with demonstrators, one seriously.

Despite claims by Dieudonne and some of his supporters that it is simply an innocent "up yours" or "anti-establishment" gesture, [the quenelle] has been adopted by a vast range of anti-Semites, from the far-right to Muslim extremists, many of whom post online pictures of themselves making the salute in front of sensitive sites such as Holocaust memorials, synagogues, and even the school in Toulouse at which an Islamist gunman murdered a rabbi and three Jewish children.

That last incident happened just in 2012.

What is there even to say?

Oh, and let me just bookmark this post for the next time Bill Maher blabbles on about how enlightened the Europeans are.

Oh: They shout about "LICRA," too. That's the League Against (Contre) Racism and Antisemtism.

It's amazing to me that people claiming there is no anti-semitism would simultaneously walk down the streets demanding that Jews get out of the country and making Nazi salutes. Or that they would claim "The gas chambers are a lie (bullshit)," even as they're demonstrating exactly how gas chambers come into being.

more...

Posted by: Ace at 02:46 PM | Comments (285)
Post contains 473 words, total size 3 kb.

And they're compelling reasons, too.

This is part of the reason I gave up on politics and stopped identifying as a Republican. There is no point supporting a Team of Losers who furthermore don't even actually have the same goals in mind I do. Not that that would make a big difference, as they are Losers, and cannot advance their goals.

Posted by: Ace at 01:18 PM | Comments (594)
Post contains 85 words, total size 1 kb.

Amanda Knox is in America and she's not going back to Italy.

However, Rafael Solecitto -- every bit as innocent -- is an Italian citizen, and they're determined to jail Amanda Knox, but they can't, so they'll jail the guy no one cares about, Rafael.

The Italian judicial system has a quirk unlike ours. When a trial court pronounces you culpable, you're not actually convicted of the crime -- not yet. The actual conviction only occurs when a court, sitting in review, confirms the conviction.

I believe I read that Italy considers this trial finding of culpability less seriously than our own countrymen would find a jury verdict, because it's not actually yet a verdict.

Thus, Rafael is in this odd twilight, again, where he stands to be convicted of murder, and yet is not actually convicted of murderer, while the actual murderer, a drifter and repeat burglar named Rudy Guede, whose DNA was found all over the crime scene (and yet none of Rafael's or Amanda's-- the prosecutors wisely explained that they had cleaned the crime scene of their own DNA, while managing to leave behind a great deal of Guede's; the prosecutors have never explained what type of bleach could permit this selective removal of genetic material), remains in jail, but with a reduced sentence in exchange for implicating Knox and Solecitto, because all he did was burglarize, sexually violate, and then slaughter Meredith Kercher, whereas Rafael Solecitto and especially Amanda Knox provided the inspiration and stage direction for this crime, even though they weren't even there, but who cares, it's Italy, and she's a Foreign Whore, and Foreign Whores must pay.

Oh by the way: Rudy Guede fled the country the day after the murder, and he had committed a series of burglaries, armed with a knife of the exact same size as used to slaughter Meredith Kercher, with which he threatened one victim. Because he burglarized the home when the occupant was in residence. Because he was a stupid, low-impulse control, rapist, burglar, and idiot thug.

The fact that he did the same thing to another victim (without proceeding to the sexual violation and rage slaughter phase) just a month before he murdered Meredith Kercher is taken as some kind odd, but ultimately unimportant, coincidence by Perugia's All Star Prosecution Squad.

Anyone Interested in a Great True Crime Book About Italy's Own Jack the Ripper... ... should read Monster of Florence, by Douglas Preston and Mario Spezzi.

There is a strong connection to Amanda Knox, though the book is not about her.

If you want to read about this case specifically, the Hellman-Zanetti Report (the official report of the court of appeals that freed Knox and Solecitto) is great. But it is a court document, not a novelistic narrative.

But it is great reading.

Posted by: Ace at 12:03 PM | Comments (583)
Post contains 488 words, total size 3 kb.

We discussed this dynamic on the podcast last night, not knowing another pig-faced shoe was about to drop. It's no fun to serve in the minority -- small staff, smaller offices, small influence -- and when it becomes clear that a party will not be capturing a house of Congress, some Congressmen decide to retire. Conversely, older Congressmen in a party in-power are more likely to stay on.

Politico reported late yesterday that Democrats had decided on a triage strategy-- they would abandon their quixotic efforts to seize control of the House in order to direct all resources to attempting to hold the Senate.

Democrats: Cede the House to save the Senate

With Democrats’ grasp on the Senate increasingly tenuous — and the House all but beyond reach — some top party donors and strategists are moving to do something in the midterm election as painful as it is coldblooded: Admit the House can’t be won and go all in to save the Senate.

Their calculation is uncomplicated. With only so much money to go around in an election year that is tilting the GOPÂ’s way, Democrats need to concentrate resources on preserving the chamber they have now. Losing the Senate, they know, could doom whatever hopes Barack Obama has of salvaging the final years of his presidency.

The triage idea is taking hold in phone conversations among donors and in strategy sessions between party operatives. Even some of the people who have invested the most to get House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi back into the speakerÂ’s chair are moving in that direction.

“There is no question that Democratic donors are shifting towards the Senate in 2014. They will continue to support Nancy, but everyone agrees that the emphasis is going to be on the Senate,” said Joe Cotchett, a prominent San Francisco trial attorney and friend of Pelosi’s who has donated hundreds of thousands of dollars to Democratic Party candidates and causes. “When you see people like [longtime California Democratic Rep.] George Miller announcing that they are not running again, you know where the money will be going.”

And now the swinish brute Henry Waxman decides that after decades of doing his best to destroy American democracy, he too wants to spend more time with his K Street lobbyists.

“I just think it’s time to move on,” Waxman [said].

He specifically denies that he's dropping out of congress after nearly thirty years of, um, "service" due to the fact that Democrats have no chance of taking the House.

“I don’t accept the idea that Democrats won’t get the House back,” Waxman said. “I think that the Republicans have nothing to offer. They’re against everything. They’re against everything Obama wanted. They have no alternatives on health care policy. They have nothing to say, they have nothing to offer.”

But I can tell he's lying because he has a "tell." That tell is that he's Henry Waxman, three-decades-long Democratic Congressman from California.

More: @JohnEkdahl notices Freddoso's Conservative Intel noticing something.

On a related note, Waxman holds a D+11 district. But Waxman still had a rough time of it last cycle — practically nobody noticed, but he almost lost his seat. A wealthy candidate named Bill Bloomfield (a longtime-moderate-Republican-donor-turned-unaffiliated-voter) put $7.6 of his own money into an independent bid against Waxman and held him under 54 percent in the general election. Bloomfield has actually raised $75,000 already this cycle, but he might just be paying himself back some of the loans he made his campaign.

Posted by: Ace at 09:53 AM | Comments (363)
Post contains 615 words, total size 4 kb.

ICYMI, State Senator Nathan Dahm, appeared on Piers Morgan's show a few nights ago. Dahm, as you may recall, has sponsored the Piers Morgan Constitutional Right to Keep and Bear Arms Without Infringement Act bill in his home state of Oklahoma.

Catchy title, eh?

Well, Piers being Piers, he set out to make Dahm look the fool and Dahm, somehow, managed to make it through the interview without bursting into hysterical laughter or ever raising his voice. The majority of the interview can be found at You Tube but the real gem can be found in the video clip below wherein Piers attempts to analogize gun control to Kinder Eggs. It goes about as well as you might imagine.

I think Piers is trying to argue that if even a chocolate egg can be deemed hazardous to society, why aren't guns. Again, I think that's what he's trying to say but, frankly, it was such a convoluted piece of word-vomit I'm not really sure at all. No matter his point, he seems clearly okay with the idea that the federal government should be in the business of protecting us from ourselves.

My guess: He'd be happy banning the toys in Cracker Jacks and cereal boxes as well.

So.... Dahm. What are your thoughts about that guy?

Also, open thread.

Posted by: Open Blogger at 09:05 AM | Comments (279)
Post contains 229 words, total size 2 kb.

Sooo... here's a fresh thread for you to enjoy until the Ewok wakes up. I assume putting this up will result in immediate stompening!

It's snowing here today, which is great for Utah (although bad for the plans I had today). Here's something funny below the jump: more...

Posted by: Open Blogger at 08:14 AM | Comments (326)
Post contains 58 words, total size 1 kb.

Happy Thursday.

Posted by: Gabriel Malor at 02:45 AM | Comments (286)
Post contains 10 words, total size 1 kb.

Before getting into that, here's a p-shop that Jay Caruso made to goof on NBC Political Director Mark Murray and his absurd claim that Obama's struggles were just like Cory Rehmburg's.

More such mockery at the Federalist. Not exactly related, but they also caught Buzzfeed Capitol Hill reporter Kate Nocera squeeing something ridiculous about the Imperial Pomp of the State of the Union.

Every. Important. Person in the country. Well I have thought about it, and I agree, that thought is insane.

MSNBC is catching more grief for their "rightwingers hate biracial families and Cheerios" tweet. The Washington Post's Eric Wemple, who I take to be progressive-leaning based on his posts, is pretty rough on MSNBC.

He points out something important: This wasn't just an errant tweet. Just as Mark Murray's absurd tweet, comparing Obama to a ten-tour, severely wounded veteran, was itself just a shortened version of a longer, more considered article, so too was this tweet actually taken from an MSNBC "news" article, quoted below:

So that's an MSNBC writer, not dashing off a barely-considered tweet, but writing an article for publication, considering his words, submitting it to an editor, and that editor giving it the thumb's up for posting.

Wemple notices that MSNBC is doing a lot of apologizing lately, because they're crossing the line an awful lot. But rather than recognize their problem, they simply continue tossing the same crude chum into the water, and then saying "Ooh sorry we didn't mean that" each time.

At what point does Serial Contrition, with no effort to modify one's egregious behavior, simply become... enabling, as Wemple terms it? That MSNBC has adopted the attitude that they can be a divisive, petty, crude, and Jerry Springer as they like, because they'll just issue an apology in a couple of days?

The tweet in question isn’t clever, helpful or fair. It’s a divisive piece of taunting nastiness driven by a worldview that MSNBC personalities have surfaced with great regularity in recent memory, always followed by excellent apologies. After then-MSNBC host Martin Bashir suggested that Sarah Palin be subjected to an excrement-related punishment visited upon slaves, he said, “My words were wholly unacceptable,” among other very contrite things. After short-lived MSNBC host Alec Baldwin allegedly shouted down a paparazzo with homophobic language, he said, “I did not intend to hurt or offend anyone with my choice of words, but clearly I have — and for that I am deeply sorry.” After host Melissa Harris-Perry presided over a segment that mocked Mitt Romney’s family over a photo featuring his adopted African-American grandson, the host said, among other things, “So without reservation or qualification, I apologize to the Romney family. Adults who enter into public life implicitly consent to having less privacy. But their families, and especially their children, should not be treated callously or thoughtlessly.”

And now this Cheerios thing. The string of offenses raises doubts about Wolffe’s claim that the tweet from last night doesn’t reflect “who we are at msnbc.” Rather, the tweet appears to a careful observer to define precisely what MSNBC is becoming: A place that offends and apologizes with equal vigor.

The Erik Wemple Blog supports media organizations that muster strong apologies. Too often, mistakes are followed by stonewalling and a failure to repent. Apologies can be an important measure of accountability. Yet this string of meae culpae suggests that the apology may be morphing into an enabling device for the networkÂ’s tendentious and divisive attitudes. Sometimes a bad tweet represents the errant and unrepresentative thoughts of some employee managing the social-media accounts. And sometimes it represents institutional morays [sic] and prejudices.

It's not "morays," which are eels, but mores. But otherwise, all solid.

So, why is what I assume is a progressive taking MSNBC into the woodshed?

Why does anyone on the right take anyone on the right to the woodshed?

Because MSNBC is embarrassing progressives, particularly progressive journalists, who still wish to pretend that they are offering unbiased reportage and non-partisan analysis on current affairs.

MSNBC will not permit them to cling to that vanity. MSNBC will not allow them that pretense.

MSNBC is basically your drunk, crude, arrested-deveolopment man-child friend who still acts like he's 18 even though you, and he, have all turned 35. You invite him to a dinner party, hoping, for once, that he will behave as an adult. You wish to behave as an adult yourself. You'd like a nice dinner party, where people sort of slightly put on airs a bit (what we used to call "behaving properly") and attempt to be a little more refined, and witty, and cosmopolitan than they really are in their daily lives.

But your friend won't have that. He insists on insists on puncturing everyone's vanities and bringing them down to his level by putting on a show of crudeness, boorishness, and general jackassery.

That's MSNBC. Many progressive reporters would like to think of themselves as somewhat elevated. MSNBC will not allow them that. MSNBC will give them no place to hide. MSNBC will allow them no cover, not even an inch of it.

In a way, MSNBC is conservatives' best friend: We attempt to puncture the smug illusions that progressive media types have about themselves, but only MSNBC is really doing so.

And so MSNBC tells progressive reporters: This is what you really are. This is not what you wish to be, or what you pretend to be; this is what you really are, down deep, past the veneer of pretense and posturing. In your gut, you're just low, crude, unthinking partisan animals.

Just.

Like.

Us.

It is then with conflict that I greet the RNC's declaration that they are urging a conservative boycott of MSNBC (of appearing on the network; no conservative watches the channel, of course).

Why boycott them? Why not just appear on MSNBC and interrogate their ultrapartisan goons about their ridiculous, crude ethos and juvenile view of the world?

If MSNBC wants to let its Freak Flag fly -- and, by doing so, reveal the only-slightly hidden Freak Flags of the rest of the leftwing media-- should we not encourage them?

MSNBC presents a challenge to the rest of the leftwing media. And they, like your drunk, rowdy, Peter Pan friend, have something of a point: There is a certain honesty in crudeness and stupidity. We are, at root, crude and stupid. It is only by effort -- by counterfeiting ourselves -- we rise above our crude and stupid urges.

MSNBC challenges the rest of the progressive media to accept this fact. The fact that the rest of the progressive media hides its partisan id slightly better is not to the progressive media's credit, but rather to its shame.

The real face of the progressive movement is not Anderson Cooper's affable, bland urbanity.

The real face of the progressive movement is Ed Shultz, and Martin Bashir, and Lawrence O'Donnell, and Chris Matthews, and Melissa Harris-Perry, and Alec Baldwin, and Rachel Maddow queening over all of the lesser progressives.

If they are embarrassing the rest of the leftwing media -- and I have no doubt that they are -- should we not be firm in our calls to Let MSNBC Be MSNBC?

more...

Posted by: Ace at 10:52 AM | Comments (507)
Post contains 1257 words, total size 10 kb.

Is Straw Buying a Gun Actually Legal?

Well I always just assumed not since there's a question about it right on the ATF form 4473 and answering yes to buying a gun intended for someone else (a 'straw purchase') will get your transaction refused at a minimum and might result in your prosecution.

But there's a case now before the Supreme Court, Abramski v. United States, that questions whether or not 'straw purchases' really are illegal based on the 2009 arrest of Bruce Abramski for buying a Glock 19 and then immediately selling it to his uncle.

Bruce Abramski is a former cop who is legally allowed to buy firearms. His uncle Angel Alvarez, can also legally buy firearms.  Abramski purchased a Glock 19 pistol from a dealer using his law enforcement discount to get a better price, then sold the gun to his uncle. Both transfers-from the Virginia FFL to Abramski, then from Abramski through another FFL to Alvarez in Pennsylvania-followed the law.

The ATF then charged Abramski for perjuring himself on the ATF's form 4473 for saying he was the "actual buyer.

But it turns out that the ATF basically decided on their own that 'straw purchasing' must be illegal and added the above question to the 4473 form back in 1995 and started enforcing it as a law. But no where in any federal statute is there a reference to straw purchases much less a prohibition against them. Even the ATF admits that they're off in penumbra-land when it comes to this rule:

The assistant to the solicitor general, Joseph Palmore, admitted to the court that the ATF was "interpreting" the will of Congress when it added the "actual buyer" question in 1995 on the background form.

And during oral arguments before the court both Roberts and Scalia were highly skeptical of the government's arguments that the 1968 GCA somehow implies that straw purchases are illegal without ever actually mentioning them.

Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. seemed to side with the plaintiff's position that the ATF had overstepped into trying to create criminal law. Referring to the Gun Control Act, the chief justice said, "This language is fought over tooth and nail by people on the gun-control side and the gun-ownership side."

He called it "very problematic" for the government to cite going after law abiding people who resell firearms as a purpose of the law since "there are no words in the statute that have anything to do with straw purchasers."

There's interpreting the will of Congress by government agencies and then there's just making up laws you'd like to enforce. In a reasonable country this kind of overreach would be quickly struck down.

We're in the Best of Hands

And only a heart beat away from President Joe Biden.

Posted by: Maetenloch at 06:30 PM | Comments (674)
Post contains 1660 words, total size 18 kb.