Time to Rally the Troops at MSNBC

[onmyknees]

I see lots of posts on here from Silcc and others ( Trish doesn't like to be named, so we'll pretend I didn't) about Fox News and thier
supposed lack of objectivity , so almost on que came this from Trish fave, and Chief Foreign Correspondent ( That's a reporter.....not a commentator or op-ed person) Andrea Mitchell. When the Israeli Prime Minister got a little offended by Obama's proposed solution to re-start the peace talks, you could have predicted this would happen. Mitchell went on to suggest that even Netanyahu’s associates thought his tone towards Obama was “really rude.” Just asking, but might it also be “really rude” if a foreign country demanded that we give our land to our sworn enemies so that our new neighbors can then use such land to make their desired goal of our total annihilation possible and much easier? If the answer is yes (as it should be), then Obama (and Mitchell) should be grateful that the President’s naive foreign policy dreams were met with merely a stern “lecture” from Netanyahu and not much more.

However...Netanyahu's tone with Obama was not the only story....it was Mitchell's predictable dash to the defense of Obama. Again....she's a reporter ( or so they claim) and as such is paid to report...not defend not opine. Whatever your thoughts on the pre '67 borders , any semblance of dispassionate or balanced reportage on MSNBC has to be dismissed as total folly. Mitchell felt Netanyahu insulted her man, and she wasn't going to have it. Does it mean the end of the Republic as we know it?? No, but it may mean the end of journalism as we know it.


http://videos.mediaite.com/embed/player/?layout=&playlist_cid=&media_type=video&content=77C6502MDL1FYFZ6&read_more=1&widget_type_cid=svp"

[natina]

The Israeli prime minister picks a stupid, unnecessary, and wrong fight with President Obama.


Netanyahu Blew It
The Israeli prime minister picks a stupid, unnecessary, and wrong fight with President Obama.

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, having refused to accept the policy victories offered in President Obama's speech last Thursday and declining the opportunity to form a solid bond with President Obama, has now picked a useless, counterproductive fight with the president.

President Obama's speech—billed as a "big" speech—was in fact rather vaporous as it pertained to the Arab uprisings. It did not explain what next steps were to be taken in Libya, Syria, or even Egypt, beyond some minimal financial support for Cairo. It surely did not create a policy architecture that explains the varying responses we have shown to the different revolutions in the region.

That said, the speech at least put the United States on the side of the longer arc of history, on the side of those standing for freedom and liberty, and in opposition to the tyrannies of the past. The conversation after the speech should have focused on the American desire to move against the Arab autocracies, whose funding of Islamic fundamentalism has been the bane of both the United States and Israel.

And from the perspective of Israel, the takeaway from the speech, as it pertained to the stalled Israeli-Palestinian peace talks, could have been seen as favorable for two critical reasons. First, the president made it clear that the U.S. continues to abhor Hamas, despite its partnership with Fatah and the Palestinian Authority. The United States would not expect Israel to negotiate with an entity pledged to Israel's destruction. Second, the president made it clear that, in the absence of a true peace deal, the United States would vote against and object strenuously to any effort at the United Nations this September to legitimize a Palestinian state.

Each of these is a reasonably new policy of great import to Israel. And had Netanyahu chosen to focus on them, the speech would have seemed like a major success for the Israeli side, and would have shown once again that the United States and Israel were on the same page in current international affairs.

In particular, the proposed U.S. rejection of what has become a major Arab initiative of the past months —the effort to get recognition for a Palestinian state at the U.N. this September—is hugely important. The Arab effort once again to isolate Israel at the United Nations is the first significant diplomatic effort to channel the anger of the Arab Spring toward Israel. Most of the nations of the world—like lemmings—are willing to play along. Having the United States stand as a bulwark, as it always has, will stop the forward march of the Arab effort to once again encircle Israel. The president's speech said not only that such a U.N. misadventure would not create a real state but also that distractions of this sort would not substitute for genuine reform within the Arab world.

But this didn't interest Netanyahu. Nor did Bibi revel in the president's clear articulation that as long as Hamas does not repudiate its avowed intent to destroy Israel, there can be no meaningful negotiations with its leadership. The burden is now squarely back on the Palestinian Authority and Hamas to change their worldview before anyone can demand that Israel resume negotiations. That is a fine gift for Netanyahu from the president.

A bit of appreciation for both positions would have gone a long way to easing relations between the U.S. and Israel.

Instead, Netanyahu decided to pick a fight over a meaningless and indeed standard articulation of where the future borders of a Palestinian state would be drawn. By saying that "the 1967 borders with agreed upon swaps" would be the basis of negotiation, President Obama merely reiterated what anybody who has any sense of the negotiations over the past decade knows to be the actual basis for all recent negotiations. It was nothing new. To have deviated from it would have been new.

Indeed, in a speech to AIPAC on Sunday, the president reiterated this exact formulation—making clear it was not new. "There was nothing particularly original in my proposal; this basic framework for negotiations has long been the basis for discussions among the parties, including previous administrations. … It is a well-known formula to all who have worked on this issue for a generation."

Think about this from the perspective of the White House. The effort to refocus attention on the difficult dynamics of the Arab Spring, which is quickly becoming an Arab long hot summer, and may well become an Arab winter, has now been waylaid by another dispute with an Israeli prime minister whose repeated and often petty acts have caused the president needless angst.

Netanyahu could have, and should have, positioned himself as a staunch ally, thankful to the United States for continued support, appreciative of the difficult decisions the United States has often made. He could have focused on the fact that at this time of tumult in the region, Israel is, has been, and will continue to be the sole, true democratic state in the region. Hence the cultural and value-based alliance that supersedes all others. As we watch the Arab nations slowly—and uncertainly—evolve toward our common values, Netanyahu should have said, Israel and the United States can enjoy the fact that they already have a relationship based on the deepest of emotional and political connections.

Netanyahu's focus could have also been on the uncertainties of any alliance with the Arab states, the deep cultural divisions between the U.S. and the Arab nations, the possibility—which nobody desires—that even Egypt might end up as an Islamic fundamentalist state. And in that context, Netanyahu could have said, isn't having an ally like Israel even more important?

But he rejected that path, and we are now watching an unnecessary and bitter dispute between the White House and Israel, as the Arab states get a pass.

http://www.slate.com/id/2295303/?GT1=38001

[hippifried]

MSNBC just hired Michael Steele as a political analyst from a Republican perspective.

[trish]

so almost on que came this from Trish fave, and Chief Foreign Correspondent ( That's a reporter.....not a commentator or op-ed person) Andrea Mitchell.I don't mind be referenced when relevant, but I do mind being lied about and being misrepresented. Defending someone credentials and career against slander doesn't make them your fave. I dare you to link to the post where I said Andrea Mitchel was one of my fave anythings. Go on do it. Find the post. And then tell us why my take on Andrea Mitchell, whether she's a fave or not, is at all relevant to your "point." What a fucking little troll you've turned out to be.

[trish]

Hi hippie. I see MSNBC is going for the conservative youth crowd, hiring a young republican hipster like Steele.

[hippifried]

Hipster? I don't know about that. But he is civil, articulate, & stays on point with the actual party planks that refer to the topic at hand. He's a believer in the basic philosophy, & I have no problem with that.

[Stavros]

Just asking, but might it also be “really rude” if a foreign country demanded that we give our land to our sworn enemies so that our new neighbors can then use such land to make their desired goal of our total annihilation possible and much easier?

onmyknees I am disappointed that someone as well informed as you are could reduce US-Israel relations to an either/or proposition. The USA is a major donor to Israel, on so many different levels the true value in dollars is not known, but direct aid currently runs at around $3bn a year. Moreover, as you know, some of this money is tied in to peace treaties and agreements and is therefore not just a 'free gift' but an 'incentive' -in other words, Obama, like every other President has the right to know what Israel is doing to honour its agreements. As you know, settlement activity in the occupied territories is illegal, and cannot be condoned by the USA even if morally there are Americans who think its a good thing, because the Palestinians also have a right not to have their land taken from them by force.

Netanyahu, moreover, has form with the USA -at the time of the Wye River talks in 1998, on the eve of the agreement Clinton was pressing on Netanyahu and Arafat, Bibi suddenly threw Jonathan Pollard into the ring and said if the spy was not released, Israel would not sign. Netanyahu was, like Ariel Sharon, totally opposed to the Oslo Peace Accords and has done everything he can to destroy them -but Netanyahu does not just insult the Americans who feed his country with cash, he insults Israelis too; this is a man who hasn't changed his political opinions in 40 years or more, he has no vision, no alternative options to violence, no new ideas for peace and cooperation -just the same old same old Palestinians are out to destroy us: a self-perpetuating drama fuelled by the same old same old bullets and harassment that drives Palestinians into the same old same old bunker that Israeli politicians live in.

The tragedy of Israel is that a 'Jewish state' was not only a non-starter, even in 2011 it doesn't exist. The farming sector for which the 'Jewish state' is so famous is now dependent on labourers from China and Thailand, Israelis cannot live without their domestic servants from the Philippines and Sri Lanka; the judiciary have tried and failed at least three times to define a Jew in law. Crucially, Israelis are a people blessed with a wicked sense of humour, exceptional skills in medicine, law music and so on: but these Israelis don't do politics, this is left to fanatical zionists, Jews whose political opinions are as extreme and nauseating as any Nazi, and the large bloc of Orthodox Jews who don't even mouth the word 'Israel' because its a sin. You can laugh and snigger at Daniel Barenboim, but he has taken a practical approach to the divide, and seeks to bridge it by bringing people together on an equal basis to be creative, to do things that give people pleasure, to make life better -a truly blessed alternative to Berlin Walls, bunkers, bullets and brutality.

Obama has lost the initiative on Israel anyway, Rahm Emmanuel and particularly Dennis Ross are pro-Israeli and will have swayed Obama's decisions, aided by a worthless hypocrite called Clinton. The end result is that Netanyahu and Tzipi Livni and the rest of them are completely indifferent to what Obama or any other American thinks, but not to dollars; so the settlements will continue, the violence will continue, the polarisation will sink deeper. And what happens in 10-20 years when the water runs out? Maybe they -all of us- should be focused on resource allocation rather than wars.

[Cuchulain]

the end of journalism as we know it.

I see the ol' kneeler is still flogging away, pushing the company line. Ah, these CONs...no shame, no compassion, no sense of any responsibility to the rest of humanity. No lie is too big or too small, if they can maybe, just maybe, convince some poor sucker to fall for their REICHwing horseshit.

Nobody who has actually watched MSNBC and FOX will equate the two. FOX is more than just the propaganda arm of the repub party. FOXNOISE boss Roger Ailes has power. Repubs quake in fear of his disapproval. When Ailes growls, the gop jumps to attention. FOX and the gop are inextricably linked in numerous unholy ways.

MSNBC, on the other hand, has no such stranglehold on the Dems. Obama and the Dems get kicked around on MSNBC shows all the time, with little apparent effect. Rather than being partners in crime, like FOX and the goppies, Barry O and Dems are frequently at odds with various MSNBC hosts. You will NEVER hear the FOX crowd beat up on repubs that way.

onmyknees will never admit any of this, of course. He'll deny, lie and spin with his last breath. It's what CONs do. If he doesn't work for the gop, he should. At least he'd get paid for being a soulless mutt.

[Faldur]

onmyknees will never admit any of this, of course. He'll deny, lie and spin with his last breath. It's what CONs do.

The more you speak the more you make our case for us. At least the conservatives on this board have a clear vision of what biases are out there. FOX news leans right? You bet your sweet ass, and the people who watch it know full well of that fact. Its why we watch, and as far a I can tell its a choice we can make freely no matter who doesn't like it.

The PROGS on this board have become so blinded by there hatred they cant see the forest from the trees. At least we have a clear picture of the playing field, and admit openly the biases. Something people of your beliefs have a great deal of difficulty with.

[Silcc69]

The more you speak the more you make our case for us. At least the conservatives on this board have a clear vision of what biases are out there. FOX news leans right? You bet your sweet ass, and the people who watch it know full well of that fact. Its why we watch, and as far a I can tell its a choice we can make freely no matter who doesn't like it.

The PROGS on this board have become so blinded by there hatred they cant see the forest from the trees. At least we have a clear picture of the playing field, and admit openly the biases. Something people of your beliefs have a great deal of difficulty with.

I have admitted many of times of MSNBC extreme leftist views as is the case with Fox. News stations that had a more central view would probably been boring and would have lower ratings and thus less advertising revenue. After all they are still businesses that have to turn a profit first and foremost.

[Faldur]

I have admitted many of times of MSNBC extreme leftist views as is the case with Fox. News stations that had a more central view would probably been boring and would have lower ratings and thus less advertising revenue. After all they are still businesses that have to turn a profit first and foremost.

I agree Silcc, you shoot straight.

[Cuchulain]

The more you speak the more you make our case for us. At least the conservatives on this board have a clear vision of what biases are out there. FOX news leans right? You bet your sweet ass, and the people who watch it know full well of that fact. Its why we watch, and as far a I can tell its a choice we can make freely no matter who doesn't like it.

The PROGS on this board have become so blinded by there hatred they cant see the forest from the trees. At least we have a clear picture of the playing field, and admit openly the biases. Something people of your beliefs have a great deal of difficulty with.

Really? Looks to me like you just made MY case. You spin that FOX and MSNBC are just two sides of the same coin. They're not. It doesn't matter how much you and the kneeler stamp your little feet and hold your breath, they never will be. MSNBC has an ideology, FOX has an agenda. There's a big difference...one you'll never admit too.

Hatred? Well, if you're talking about the BIG CONs, the ones who fund the think tanks and set the repubs anti-worker, anti-environment, anti-consumer, anti-American Dream agenda - like Roger Ailes and the Kochers - then yep, they're the enemy. I fucking hate them.

[hippifried]

I have admitted many of times of MSNBC extreme leftist views as is the case with Fox. News stations that had a more central view would probably been boring and would have lower ratings and thus less advertising revenue. After all they are still businesses that have to turn a profit first and foremost.
Yeah, well that's a relatively new phenomenon. Broadcast news has never made money. The first news related programming to ever turn a profit was 60 Minutes. Cable programming is cheaper because it's all studio. In the '80s, there was CNN & SNC. Turner bought out SNC & turned it into CNN-HLN. Nobody paid any attention to CNN at all until their coverage of the Gulf War in '91. FOX was still a bunch of shitty UHF stations around the country who's only claim to fame was "Married with Children". Huntly/Brinkley never made a profit. Cronkite never made a profit. Nightline came close, but I don't believe they ever actually turned a profit. I have to wonder just how much profit cable news makes. CNN is owned by Time Warner. TW makes mega bucks, but has anyone seen an audit that tells you how much of that is from CNN? MSNBC & CNBC are owned by General Electric (unless they sold off NBC while I wasn't looking), & MSNBC is a joint venture with Microsoft. I wonder what percentage of revenue they generate. The FOX cable news channel is a very small part of FOX Entertainment Group, who owns production studios, networks, broadcasters, & newspapers worldwide. Dollars to donuts says that ol' Rupert makes more money off of sports coverage. We keep hearing about ratings, but compared to what? If you took all 5 major cable "news" networks combined, they probably wouldn't come close to ESPN or TNT in viewership. Television news has always been considered a public service instead of a profit making venture.

[Faldur]

MSNBC has an ideology, FOX has an agenda.

You continue to make my point, i rest my case.


you're talking about the BIG CONs, the ones who fund the think tanks and set the repubs anti-worker, anti-environment, anti-consumer, anti-American Dream agenda - like Roger Ailes and the Kochers - then yep, they're the enemy. I fucking hate them.

Speaks for itself..

[onmyknees]

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/msnbc-suspends-ed-shultz-over-his-right-wing-slut-remark/


Apparently there are some standards over there at Obama Central. I'm bound by no such restraints, or contractual morals clauses...

Ed Schultz is a disgusting fat slob liberal misogynistic condom cleaner. My only hope is his over eating eventually gets the better of him and he forgets to take his Lipator for several days clogging his fat filled arteries. Fuck off you fat pig....you've been degrading women for years. How's that for civility? LMAO

[Cuchulain]

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/msnbc-suspends-ed-shultz-over-his-right-wing-slut-remark/


Apparently there are some standards over there at Obama Central. I'm bound by no such restraints, or contractual morals clauses...

Ed Schultz is a disgusting fat slob liberal misogynistic condom cleaner. My only hope is his over eating eventually gets the better of him and he forgets to take his Lipator for several days clogging his fat filled arteries. Fuck off you fat pig....you've been degrading women for years. How's that for civility? LMAO

LOL. I knew someone would jump on the Schultz remark. Big Ed's only mistake (other than apologizing) was calling her a slut. Slut has such nasty connotations, suggesting that there's something wrong with a woman enjoying her sexuality. He SHOULD have just called Laura a corporate whore, along with most repub politicians and the rest of their 'media' lapdogs.

The very fact that MSNBC got upset over his statement demonstrates that they are not in the same cesspool with the FOX goons...and the kneeler's rant proves that I'm not the only one with anger and hatred in my heart. On the other hand, MY anger and hatred are justified:dancing:

[Faldur]

The very fact that MSNBC got upset over his statement demonstrates that they are not in the same cesspool with the FOX goons...

How many commentators at FOX have called liberal talk show hosts "sluts"? It would seem FOX displays a better sense of journalistic decency.

[Cuchulain]

How many commentators at FOX have called liberal talk show hosts "sluts"? It would seem FOX displays a better sense of journalistic decency.

Sluts? Not that I know of, but I could spend weeks looking up all the outrageous insults the gang at FOX has thrown around over the years. 'Terrorist fist bump' comes to mind or Glenn Beck calling 911 families and Katrina survivors 'scumbags'. Has Roger Ailes ever disciplined any of his people for those type of comments? Of course not. My turn to say case closed.

[Silcc69]

I'm just sayin though



Get CommonDreams.org in your mailbox






Most Popular This Week



Most Viewed (http://www.commondreams.org/further/2011/01/03-3?quicktabs_1=0#quicktabs-1)
Most Emailed (http://www.commondreams.org/further/2011/01/03-3?quicktabs_1=1#quicktabs-1)



Osama bin Laden’s Death: There is Much More to Say (http://www.commondreams.org/view/2011/05/21-4)
Apocalypse Not Now: The Rapture Fails to Materialize (http://www.commondreams.org/headline/2011/05/21)
Fukushima's Apocalyptic Threat Demands Immediate Global Action (http://www.commondreams.org/view/2011/05/20-1)
This Is What A Police State Looks Like (http://www.commondreams.org/view/2011/05/21)
A Link Between Climate Change and Joplin Tornadoes? Never! (http://www.commondreams.org/view/2011/05/24-5)



More... (http://www.commondreams.org/popular/all)







Today's Top News

House Wrestles Over Indefinite Expansion of War on Terror (http://www.commondreams.org/headline/2011/05/26)

Slash and Burn: Brazil Shreds Laws Protecting Its Rainforests (http://www.commondreams.org/headline/2011/05/26-0)

New Leak Feared at Fukushima Nuclear Plant (http://www.commondreams.org/headline/2011/05/26-1)

Ratko Mladic Arrested: Bosnia War Crimes Suspect Held (http://www.commondreams.org/headline/2011/05/26-2)

Europe Sowing the Seeds of Hunger (http://www.commondreams.org/headline/2011/05/26-3)


More News... (http://www.commondreams.org/headlines_articles)




Donate (https://www.commondreams.org/commondreamsorg-needs-your-support)






Find us on Facebook (http://www.facebook.com/pages/CommonDreamsorg/32109457015)


Follow us on Twitter (http://twitter.com/commondreams)













E-mail (http://www.commondreams.org/forward?path=node%2F64025)
Print (http://www.commondreams.org/further/2011/01/03-3?print)
Share


resize:+ - reset

01.03.11 - 7:36 PM
Dear Dr. Laura, Why Can't I Own Canadians As Slaves?


by Abby Zimet

http://www.commondreams.org/files/images/orthodoxymoron_L.jpg
Today was the first day for Dr. Laura Schlessinger and her "no-nonsense" advice on satellite radio. In her radio show, Dr. Laura has said that, as an observant Orthodox Jew, homosexuality is an abomination according to Leviticus 18:22, and cannot be condoned under any circumstance. An enquiry into other Bibilical admonitions raises some key questions. The following response is an open letter to Dr. Laura from James M. Kauffman, Professor Emeritus at the University of Virginia.
Dear Dr. Laura:
Thank you for doing so much to educate people regarding God's Law. I have learned a great deal from your show, and try to share that knowledge with as many people as I can. When someone tries to defend the homosexual lifestyle, for example, I simply remind them that Leviticus 18:22 clearly states it to be an abomination. End of debate.
I do need some advice from you, however, regarding some other elements of God's Laws and how to follow them.
1. Leviticus 25:44 states that I may possess slaves, both male and female, provided they are from neighboring nations. A friend of mine claims that this applies to Mexicans, but not Canadians. Can you clarify? Why can't I own Canadians?
2. I would like to sell my daughter into slavery, as sanctioned in Exodus 21:7. In this day and age, what do you think would be a fair price for her?
3. I know that I am allowed no contact with a woman while she is in her period of Menstrual "uncleanliness" - Lev.15: 19-24. The problem is how do I tell? I have tried asking, but most women take offense.
4. When I burn a bull on the altar as a sacrifice, I know it creates a pleasing odor for the Lord - Lev.1:9. The problem is my neighbors. They claim the odor is not pleasing to them. Should I smite them?
5. I have a neighbor who insists on working on the Sabbath. Exodus 35:2 clearly states he should be put to death. Am I morally obligated to kill him myself, or should I ask the police to do it?
6. A friend of mine feels that even though eating shellfish is an abomination, Lev. 11:10, it is a lesser abomination than homosexuality. I don't agree. Can you settle this? Are there degrees of abomination?
7. Lev. 21:20 states that I may not approach the altar of God if I have a defect in my sight. I have to admit that I wear reading glasses. Does my vision have to be 20/20, or is there some wiggle-room here?
8. Most of my male friends get their hair trimmed, including the hair around their temples, even though this is expressly forbidden by Lev. 19:27. How should they die?
9. I know from Lev. 11:6-8 that touching the skin of a dead pig makes me unclean, but may I still play football if I wear gloves?
10. My uncle has a farm. He violates Lev.19:19 by planting two different crops in the same field, as does his wife by wearing garments made of two different kinds of thread (cotton/polyester blend). He also tends to curse and blaspheme a lot. Is it really necessary that we go to all the trouble of getting the whole town together to stone them? Lev.24:10-16. Couldn't we just burn them to death at a private family affair, like we do with people who sleep with their in-laws? (Lev. 20:14) I know you have studied these things extensively and thus enjoy considerable expertise in such matters, so I'm confident you can help. Thank you again for reminding us that God's word is eternal and unchanging.
Your adoring fan.
James M. Kauffman, Ed.D. Professor Emeritus, Dept. Of Curriculum, Instruction, and Special Education, University of Virginia.
PS (It would be a damn shame if we couldn't own a Canadian)
Ed's Note: There's some debate (http://www.yuricareport.com/Parody%20and%20Humor/OpenLetterToDrLaura.html) about precisely who authored this piece. Whoever: It's great.

[trish]

On a literal reading Leviticus doesn't ban homosexually but simply places restrictions on the sexual positions in which Levite bisexuals are allowed to engage. In particular Lev 20:13 says,


If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They must be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads.Clearly if you use the missionary position with a woman, then you should use some other position, say "doggie," with a man. Moreover, a careful and literal reading reveals these are the rules God proscribes for Levites. It's not made clear what His proscriptions would be for other nations. So all you Levites out there who want to go to Heaven, make you don't bang as man the same way you would bang a woman.

[Silcc69]

How many commentators at FOX have called liberal talk show hosts "sluts"? It would seem FOX displays a better sense of journalistic decency.

No they only think that president drink's 40's.

http://atchka.com/post/5841369343/obama-chugging-40-s-in-ire-while-tornadoes-ravage