Nazi Analogies on Fox

Jon Stewart and company do us all a favor and watch Fox to bring teh funny.

The Daily Show With Jon Stewart	Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c
24-Hour Nazi Party People
www.thedailyshow.com
Daily Show Full Episodes Political Humor & Satire Blog The Daily Show on Facebook

Fox Makes It Too Easy

Why can't the mainstream media demonstrate the same level of analysis that The Daily Show does on a regular basis? Watch in awe as they demonstrate the intellectual dishonesty that exists on Fox.

The Daily Show With Jon Stewart	Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c
The Parent Company Trap
www.thedailyshow.com
Daily Show Full Episodes Political Humor Tea Party

The Dishonesty of Glenn Beck

I don't get Glenn Beck. Or more accurately, I don't get the people who watch Glenn Beck. On the occasions that I've watches his show, I've been left dumbstruck by his circus antics - making a dramatic point with a misspelled word, crying, or rudely yelling at a caller. I just can't figure out how he can be taken seriously. Obviously he's making a ton of money doing it, so why shouldn't he keep doing it? The fact that so many people buy into his shtick, though, just boggles my mind.

What is perhaps most egregious, however, is his reckless dishonesty. Check out Media Matters pwning Beck for his lying about Anita Dunn's remarks. The video that he keeps showing has been edited to take her remarks out of context! Not to mention that many conservatives have quoted Mao. It's sickening that he does this and people don't care. They live in their little bubble where Beck is an outcast prophet speaking truth to power. Beck is a dangerous demagogue and shouldn't be given the time of day let alone a regular TV spot to spout his garbage.

UPDATE: And here's another example of Beck's intellectual dishonesty.

The Conservative Press

A new book out, The Obama Nation, has shot up to number one on the charts and is causing quite a stir, not least because of its factual inaccuracies. Of course, this is not the first time its author Jerome Corsi has been in the spotlight. He...

...rose to prominence as the co-author of a book attacking 2004 Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry, penned another tome asserting oil is a nearly infinite resource that continues to generate naturally, and posted a series of online comments through 2004, including suggestions that Hillary Rodham Clinton is a lesbian and Muslims worship Satan.

Not surprisingly the publisher is not concerned about pesky things like "facts."

Ordinarily, when an author or an editor discovers errors in a book's text, he or she arranges to correct them in the next printing. I've done this myself. But neither Corsi nor Matalin responded to e-mails from me asking whether they intended to correct any errors in The Obama Nation—it would be a miracle if there were none. In the Times, Corsi brushed aside the Media Matters critique because of its politics.

And why do these books get printed? Take a guess.

Quite the contrary. Simon & Schuster and the other big publishing houses have started conservative imprints, at arms' length and with noses held, because they recognize them to be a gold mine. The Obama Nation, the Times reports, will debut on its best-seller list this Sunday at No. 1. But part of the deal, clearly, is that conservative imprints aren't required to adhere to the same standards of truth as the grown-up divisions.

This is one of my major beefs with the modern conservative movement. Too many conservatives are wedded to the Republican party at the expense of their principles. Look at all the people who still support George Bush. A principled person - conservative or liberal - would care more about their political beliefs than the political party. Sadly, most people seem to treat it like sports. No matter how bad your team is, you still root for them.

If only people would remember that politics is not a game, but an activity that has far-reaching impacts on everyone. I know that's asking a lot, though. It's much easier to close your eyes and loudly cheer for your team.

John Yoo Smacked Down

John Yoo, architect of much of the Bush policy on torture and executive power, has tried to use Thomas Jefferson to justify his thoughts and Bush's power grab. Unfortunately for him, some people out there seem to have a better grasp of Jefferson's thoughts than he does.

Jefferson did not claim plenary, exclusive, independent, or inherent presidential authority. He never argued, as did the Bush administration after 9/11, that presidential powers under Article II enabled him to violate any statute or treaty that stood in his way. I think it is false for Yoo to write: "Contrary to popular belief,Jefferson believed in an independent Presidency with inherent powers." Jefferson believed in the Lockean prerogative, subject to the conditions described above.

In reading this article, I wondered if John Yoo decided to look to earlier Presidents to determine whether their concept of the office might justify what President George W. Bush did after 9/11. Perhaps my suspicions are groundless, but the quote above did not help, nor the following: "Madison's low performance is attributable in part to his narrow view of his constitutional powers as President." Nothing in Jefferson's presidency lends support to the view widely circulated in the Bush administration that the President is endowed with inherent powers in national security that trump statutes, treaties, judicial decisions, and the Constitution.

There has been a definite strain of intellectual dishonesty on the right, especially in those slavishly devoted to Bush and his policies. You'd think that these people might remember that there are smart people out there who disagree with them and can easily pick apart the flimsy arguments they make. Of course, they were able to convince America to put Bush back in office, so maybe their tactics work.