Tag: Media bias

Bad for America? Maybe. The “Cure” Would Be Worse

So this happened:

Veteran TV journalist Ted Koppel analyzed the media’s role in the political divide in Trump-era America on “CBS Sunday Morning” — and had a pointed moment interviewing Fox News host Sean Hannity.

“We have to give some credit to the American people that they are somewhat intelligent and that they know the difference between an opinion show and a news show,” Hannity told Koppel on camera, registering the veteran newsman’s doubt. “You’re cynical. … You think we’re bad for America? You think I’m bad for America?”

“Yep,” Koppel replied. “In the long haul, I think that all these opinion shows…”

“Really?” Hannity asked. “That’s sad, Ted.”

Koppel explained: “You know why? Because you’re very good at what you did and because you have attracted … people who have determined that ideology is more important than facts.”

I’m not a fan of Koppel and I think the cause he went on to blame for this problem — the demise of the Fairness Doctrine — is horribly misguided. But I think he has a point on Hannity and talk radio/TV in general.

Last year, Conor Friedersdorf wrote a great article on how talk radio precipitated the rise of Donald Trump:

Here are some of the cues and signals that even anti-Trump members of “the party” have sent to voters, over many years, that made the rise of a populist demagogue possible if not likely, and that Trump voters absorbed into their world views:

  • Career politicians cannot be trusted. This widespread conceit in “the party” has effectively made it impossible for candidates with governing records and public sector experience to be accepted by large swaths of GOP primary voters.
  • When the base doesn’t get what it wants, it is because of betrayal by party elites, never because a majority of Americans disagree with what the base wants.
  • Rhetorical stridency is a better heuristic for loyalty than core principles or governing record—and there is nothing disqualifying about extreme incivility (hence, for example, a buttoned up think tank giving a statesmanship award to Rush Limbaugh, a gleeful purveyor of bombastic insults).
  • Complaints about racism and sexism are always cynical fabrications, intended be used as cudgels against conservatives.
    Political correctness in governance is one of the biggest problems facing America.
  • Illegal immigration poses an existential threat to America.
  • President Obama has deliberately made bad deals with foreign countries to weaken America.

If any movement conservatives in the #NeverTrump crowd doubt that “the party” has sent all of those signals or cues, I’ll gladly expound on any of them. Taken together, it’s easy to see why a majority of an electorate that bought into those premises would be more attracted to Trump than to anyone else in the GOP field.

I would add to that list the claim that global warming is a hoax, unemployment numbers are faked, there’s a War on Cops, that opposing anti-terror policies is siding with the terrorists, that tax cuts pay for themselves, etc., etc. When people said “Trump says what no one else says” or “Trump tells it like it is” this is what they mean: that Trump reiterates the (often false) doomsday rhetoric of the conservative echoshere.

And now we’re reaping the results of this. Last week, we saw the utter immolation of Republican efforts to replace Obamacare. There are many authors of that disaster but a big one, as Josh Barro argues, was that Republicans spent years misleading the voters on Obamacare and pretending that healthcare reform was easy.

For years, Republicans promised lower premiums, lower deductibles, lower co-payments, lower taxes, lower government expenditure, more choice, the restoration of the $700 billion that President Barack Obama heartlessly cut out of Medicare because he hated old people, and (in the particular case of the Republican who recently became president) “insurance for everybody” that is “much less expensive and much better” than what they have today.

They were lying. Over and over and over and over, Republicans lied to the American public about healthcare.

To be fair, many Republican politicians understood there would be trade-offs and crafted policies around those. But those policies were never implemented because the Republican base believed that Obamacare had to be repealed instantly, replacement or no replacement. Friedersdorf lays the blame for that on the commentariat:

Still, even the insight that Republicans spent years willfully obscuring the tradeoffs involved in health-care policy doesn’t fully explain the last week. Focusing on GOP officials leaves out yet another important actor in this debacle: the right-wing media. By that, I do not mean every right-leaning writer or publication. Over the last eight years, lots of responsibly written critiques of Obamacare have been published in numerous publications, and folks reading the aforementioned wonks, or Peter Suderman at Reason, or Yuval Levin, or Megan McArdle at Bloomberg, stayed reasonably grounded in actual shortcomings of Obamacare.

In contrast, Fox News viewers who watched entertainers like Glenn Beck, talk-radio listeners who tuned into hosts like Rush Limbaugh, and consumers of web journalism who turned to sites like Breitbart weren’t merely misled about health-care tradeoffs.

They were told a bunch of crazy nonsense.

He lists hysterical claim after hysterical claim. Death panels, forced fat camps, depression, slavery, the end of individual liberty. There were and are plenty of problems with Obamacare. But claiming it was the end of America was ridiculous.

The problem is not conservatives nor conservatism. The problem is faux conservatives like Hannity and Limbaugh and every other joker out there who has no solutions, no answers, no philosophy, no ideas … just acres of doom and gloom and anger. Conor talks about his grandmother, who spent her last years terrified by what she was hearing from right wing hacks like Hannity. I see it in my Trump-supporting relatives, who hear a constant deluge from Fox News about how doomed America is and how awful the Democrats are. It’s incredible disheartening. And it angers me to think of these jokers making millions by convincing millions of Americans that the end is nigh.

I don’t mean to downplay real concerns, which are legion. We are in a lot of debt. Obamacare is staggering around, avoiding a death spiral only because of subsidies. Crime appears to have spiked, especially in certain cities. Rural areas are hurting badly (see my earlier post on the opioid epidemic).

But lately the conservative commentariat has no ideas for how to deal with these problems. Only a steady diet of doom and gloom, blame-storming and uncompromising rhetoric. And yes, this is bad for country. It makes people fearful who have no need to be and it instills an us-vs-them mentality, turning people we disagree with into hideous villains who hate America.

It was not always so. Friedersdorf is a bit too young to remember but in the 90’s, there’s no question in my mind that talk radio hosts like Hannity and Limbaugh were a good thing. They served as a critical counter-weight to a very liberal media. Their broadcasts played a big role in the Republican revolution of 1994, the subsequent balancing of the budget, the passing of NAFTA and the destruction of numerous corrupt politicians.

However, something changed in the aughts. I’m not sure why exactly — I suspect it was 9/11. But the tone of conservative commentary began to be less positive and more negative. Liberals stopped being mocked and started being demonized. I stopped listening to Limbaugh because his show, which has always left me feeling upbeat and inspired, became a huge downer. Everything was awful. America was going to hell. Compromise was a bad word. And now we’re at the apotheosis of this: a Republican party that can’t get anything done because they can’t approach issues in any kind of a realistic way.

That’s not to let liberals off the hook here. It wasn’t conservatives who called half the country “deplorables”. It’s not conservatives who are writing off half the electorate as evil racist sexist monsters for having voted Trump. But liberal idiocy does not make conservative idiocy OK. No matter how bad the commentary on the Left gets, that does not excuse Hannity for being a demagogue who has worsened the debate.

I don’t know that there’s a fix for this. My gut feeling is that we are in the grip of a national fever of partisanship that has yet to exhaust itself. But I do want address one supposed “cure”, which I referenced above, because it’s becoming a bigger liberal talking point these days.

Koppel blamed talk radio on the end of the Fairness Doctrine, the FCC policy that Reagan killed in 1987 that had previously forced television and radio stations to present “both sides” of an issue.

Put bluntly, the Fairness Doctrine was an awful policy and it should stay dead. The only reason we should ever dig it up is to put a stake through its heart and make sure it stays dead. Consider:

  • The Fairness Doctrine was blatantly unconstitutional piece of garbage, no matter what the Supreme Court said. Having the government dictate what constitutes “fairness” in commentary is an invitation to abuse. And indeed, Limbaugh, in one of his books, noted several times where politicians — including Nixon — used the Fairness Doctrine to bludgeon commentators into shutting up about issues the politicians didn’t want discussed.
  • This is why Fairness Doctrines have long been rejected for newspapers and print media, despite the long history of partisan commentary therein (Thomas Paine was not known for his “Fairness”). The justification for the Fairness Doctrine the last time it was upheld was that radio and TV media are limited to only so many channels. So the government has to ensure that all views are represented. This view is nonsense, of course. Most cities have one, maybe two newspapers, both of which are liberal. By contrast, TV has innumerable stations, some of which — MSNBC, for example — are decisively liberal. In that light, the Fairness Doctrine is one of the most liberal of things: a solution running around in search of a problem.
  • People who want government to do things never seem to consider that the powers they give government could be turned against them. Let me ask you something, Fairness Doctrine-supporting liberals: do you really want to give that kind of censorship power to Donald Fucking Trump?! Does it never occur to you that he might decide that “Fairness” dictates that Samantha Bee needs to make more jokes about Democrats or SNL needs to mock Nancy Pelosi more? Can you, for once, consider what government power will look like in the hands of people you don’t like?
  • The Fairness Doctrine is not going to magically create a more skeptical and reasonable populace. This is an appeal to government policy as magic.

Ultimately, the Fairness Doctrine plugs into the Ultimate Progressive Conceit: progressives’ firm belief that they are the only reasonable people in the room; and that if people disagree with them it’s only because they’ve been brainwashed by nefarious forces. This is an outgrowth of the Marxism that underpins much of liberal thought. The Marxists maintained that Marxism was as scientifically proven as the Law of Gravity and, if anyone disagreed, it was because they were mentally ill or had been brainwashed by bourgeoisie interests.

But that is never the case. People disagree with Progressive ideas because they disagree with them. Sometimes it’s because the progressives have the facts wrong. Sometimes it’s because progressives’ logic is poor. Sometimes it’s because progressives are being irrational and stupid. And sometimes — most often — it’s because people disagree with progressives on values (e.g., progressives think it’s “fair” to take money from rich people and give it to power people; many conservatives think that’s the definition of unfair).

I am very concerned about the nihilist direction conservatism has taken. And I think that Sean Hannity and his ilk have played a large role in that and, yes, I think he’s been bad for the country in some ways. One can not behold the election of Trump and not be concerned with the direction we’re going.

But getting government more involved is not the answer. If you really think Trump is fascist, why on Earth would you give him the tools to implement fascism?

Is the System Rigged? Define Rigged

Over the last few weeks, Donald Trump has been saying that the election is being “rigged” against him and is about to be stolen by the Democrats. He was asked about this during the last debate and indicated that he might not accept the election results. This had lead to two things: 1) the Democrats claiming his potential refusal to accept the result and claims of a rigged system are horrifying and dangerous; 2) Republicans citing examples of Democrats (notably Sanders and Warren) also claiming the system is rigged.

I wanted to unspool this a bit. Because a lot of words are being tossed around lightly that reference several inter-related issues that all fall the description of a “rigged” system.

Read more… »

The Media in the Can

I’m shocked, SHOCKED to find out that there is gambling going on in here:

A new email obtained by POLITICO is shedding more light on the mystery of whether and how interim DNC chair Donna Brazile might have obtained the text of a proposed question from a town hall between Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders in advance, and possibly shared it with the Clinton campaign.

And now CNN, which co-hosted the town hall with cable network TV One, is pointing the finger at its media partner for what appears to be a breach of the traditional secrecy surrounding the questions for such events.

The email obtained by POLITICO was written by town hall co-moderator Roland Martin on the day of the town hall to CNN producers. But it shows him using word for word the language of a question that Brazile appeared to have sent to the Clinton campaign a day earlier. That email, from Brazile to the campaign, was included in yesterday’s release of hacked emails by Wikileaks of Clinton campaign chair John Podesta.

Here’s what the record shows: On March 12, Brazile, then vice chair of the DNC and a CNN and ABC contributor, allegedly wrote an email with the subject line “From time to time I get the questions in advance.”

The question was a tough one on the death penalty, which Clinton has favored but the Democratic Party (and an increasing segment of the American public) has turned against. Sanders is anti-death penalty so it was going to be a tough and somewhat unexpected question for Clinton. Having that question in advance would definitely have benefited her.

Brazile and Martin are denying the question was provided in advance. But it’s looking very like they did, in fact, pass this question onto the campaign. And I’m sure, as time goes on, we will find out more and more about how the media have helped both campaigns (Cory Lewandowski was still being paid by Trump while he worked for CNN). Clinton because they wanted Clinton elected; Trump because they wanted Clinton elected and Trump was the best candidate to make that happen.

The Clinton Foundation

This week, AP ran a story alleging that about half of the people outside government who met with Clinton when she was Secretary of State had donated to the Clinton Foundation. This is on top of reports that donors to the Clinton Foundation mysteriously mysteriously earned lucrative contracts from the State Department under Clinton’s tenure. There is no smoking gun at this point; no proof of an explicit quid pro quo. But there is an awful lot of smoke.

The response of the Left Wing has been … astonishing. They have basically been writing pieces all week that are little more than wrappers for the Clinton campaign’s press release. Their claims are basically:

  • The AP deceptively focused on only 154 of Clinton’s thousands of meetings during her tenure. This talking point is garbage. AP deliberately excluded people with whom Clinton would have met anyway as Secretary of State (some of whom, incidentally, were also big Foundation donors). Moreover, the State Department has refused to release large parts of Clinton’s schedule. The AP worked with what they had.
  • There is no explicit proof of a quid-pro-quo.. True enough. But the Left Wing knows perfectly God-damned well that this is not how corruption works. Government corruption does not work like it does in movies with smoke-filled rooms, cackling fat men and suitcases full of cash. What the Foundation donors are alleged to have been buying is access. And a group of people who have spent the last six years screaming and wringing their hands over Citizens United should understand that.
  • The Clinton Foundation is an A-rated charity and puts 88% of its money into good causes. I’m a bit dubious of the charity rater they are citing, who seems a bit too enthusiastic. But even assuming this, that’s kind of beside the point. I’m sure the Clinton Foundation does do a lot of good — $2 billion will do that. That does not mean that donating to it isn’t the best way to get the Clintons’ time and attention. It does not mean that its money can’t be directed toward certain organizations and causes. That the Foundation does good and the Clintons are corrupt are not mutually exclusive possibilities.
  • Republicans don’t face this level of scrutiny.. As the Intercept points out, this is bullshit. Non-profits associated with John McCain, Newt Gingrich and George W. Bush have come under fire for similar incidents. Just because you haven’t been paying attention doesn’t mean it isn’t happening.

Honestly, it’s pathetic. So pathetic that Vox had to run an article where four experts carefully explained to them why these allegations are so troubling.

Clinton Derangement Syndrome is a thing. There are certainly people who are driven to madness by the Clintons and see everything they do in the worst possible light. But Clinton Defense Derangement Syndrome is also a thing. There are people who continually insist that all the allegations about the Clintons are baseless right-wing smears. Hell, there are people who still insist that Whitewater — which resulted in forty felony convictions — was a whole lot of nothing. To these people, the Clintons are wonderful do-gooders who have endured 25 years of baseless persecution.

(Left unanswered by the Clinton defenders is this: if the Clinton scandals are all Republican dementia and invented nonsense, why have we seen nothing like this with Obama? The Republican hatred of Obama is arguably deeper than their hatred of Clinton. And they’ve tried to pin some stuff on him sure. But they’ve never gotten anywhere with it. The IRS scandal fizzled and ended up focusing on Lois Lerner. The gunwalking scandal fizzled. Benghazi ended up focusing on Clinton (and fizzled). Even the VA scandal fizzled. The most they could come up with from his pre-Presidency days was Jeremiah Wright/Bill Ayers which no one outside of Fox News cared about. They’ve made a lot of noise and tried to get something going, but we’ve not seen them gain the kind of traction they did with Whitewater or Lewinski. And while the media arguably runs interference for Obama, it’s peanuts compared to the interference they run for Clinton. Obama’s been in office for eight years without any felony convictions, impeachment proceedings or perjury. The vast majority of criticism is focused on his policies, not his ethics. Doesn’t this suggest that there may be at least something to the idea that the Clintons are a bit slimy?)

Now I wouldn’t go as far as some pundits have in describing the Clinton Foundation as a criminal organization. The money it dispenses actually goes to good causes, such as providing anti-malarial drugs in Africa and disaster relief in Haiti and Indonesia. It’s also burned money on a lot of dubious liberal initiatives like “sustainability” and patting do-gooders on the back. Overall, I suspect it’s fine … on its terms.

But I also think it’s highly likely that it’s become a nexus of Clinton influence, with donations to the Foundation catching the attention of the Clintons and occasionally largesse from the government. It’s not nothing. And I wish the media would quit pretending that it is.

NYT caught shilling for Shillary

In case you didn’t get to see it, the NYT ran a hit-piece on Trump titled “Crossing the Line: How Donald Trump Behaved With Women in Private“, where they used quotes from women to basically paint the picture that Trump was a cad. Unfortunately for the scumbags at the NYT that feel obligated to shill for democrats, and for Hillary Clinton in particular, one of the people they “misquoted” (that is me being sarcastic, because I have no doubt they lied on purpose) decided to fight back.

I guess the idiots at the NYT felt that they could lie with impunity and that since nobody in the DNC controlled media would give these people they were lying about a forum to call them out. By the time the truth comes out, it is too late because people made the wrong choices already. Let me point out that this is a tactic used to not just elect, but reelect Obama by the DNC controlled media, and thus considered very effective by these propagandists. I guess they got unlucky that one of the people they chose to lie about not only had the avenue to get the truth out, but chose to do so. Maybe people in the LSM that want to make a name for themselves should find some of these other women quoted, and see if their story checks out. My guess is that the lot of it was fabricated by the scumbags at the NYT.

Let me be clear that I wouldn’t mind real investigation into people running for high office’s personal behavior, if I for a second believed that the media actually meant to just inform the public. But the problem is that whenever you get one of the SJW hit pieces it tends to be replete with falsehoods and always targets non-democrats to push an ideology that basically is evil. If the shitheads in the LSM had vetted Obama with the same expediency and faked rigor they felt was necessary to undermine candidates like Palin, Romney, and now Trump (see a pattern there yet?), and applied the same rigor to any democrat, I think we would never see another democrat winning any election. You might think Trump is a blowhard and likely to make a mediocre president like I do, but then again, I am willing to bet money that he can’t sink to the level of Obama, and for that matter the stupidity of Sanders or the criminal behavior of any of the Clintons.

BTW, I have some advice for the NYT and rest of the DNC controlled media about finding men that treat women like sex objects and shit: if you want to do a serious hit piece, one based on truth and that targets a real scumbag that abuses women, write about Bill Clinton. No need to make up any facts there to show how much of a lowlife that dude is. But nobody at the NYT, or in the LSM for that matter, seems interested in actually writing objective pieces about members of the DNC, where we have real despicable and law breaking activity going on constantly, precisely because they feel they are protected by the media.

Oh, That Liberal Media, Part 7614

You know, I can’t imagine why people think the media has a liberal bias. I mean it’s not like they stealthily edit articles to remove politically damaging quotes from the President and then come up with multiple BS explanations when caught.

Oh, wait. That’s exactly what they do.

(In other news, the media are going nuts because PPP did a poll asking voters if we should bomb Agrabah. 30% of GOP voters agreed. But Agrabah is not a real place; it’s the fictional city in the movie Aladdin.

Here’s the thing. You have to read further in to find it (and some outlets elide it entirely). But 19% of Democrats agreed. Moreover, 57% of Republicans said they didn’t know if we should bomb a fictional country. But only 45% of Democrats said they didn’t know. In other words, Democrats were more sure that they knew whether or not to bomb a country that doesn’t exist.

This is also an illustration of why polls mean little. You can get 20% of people to agree to anything in a poll, just from trolling. So when you hear something like “20% of Republicans think the moon is made of green cheese”, add a lot of salt.)

And Still………..

I know, there is bias in the MSM, and water is wet, no insight is needed to recognize the obvious, but it highlights not only the extraordinary night last Tuesday, but more generally the obstacles erected to confound any GOP win in any election. Liberal bias permeates almost every facet of American culture, how did this happen?

Conservatives have long believed American culture is entrenched with a liberal bias, only to be scoffed at and called paranoid. However, three new charts dealing with political donations from academia, media, and Hollywood prove this to be the case.
Business Insider was provided a data set of federal campaign contributions dating all the way back to 1980, making the sample size considerable. The data set confirms that media, academia, and the entertainment industry are some of the most liberal professions in America.

Interesting charts provided, revealing biases the extent at which even surprised me.

Liberal bias is like voter fraud, we have lived with its presence so long that we get desensitized to how debilitating it is to the process. And like cockroaches, for every one you find, there was 10 more hiding under the fridge.

We talk a lot about the low information voter here on this blog, the folks that populate those hilarious videos on Water’s World, Kimmel, and other late night shows. These are the folks that are embarrassingly ignorant of current events, yet voted for Obama because;

1) Their college professors, supposedly wiser, are always labeling the GOP as racists, homophobes, sexists, religious fanatics, and generally inbreed freaks.
2) The girls that man the “Free Palestine” booth usually put out, if you can get passed their poor hygiene.
3) Jon Stewart is cool, hip, and progressive, be like him.
4) Whenever they stop by their local Quickstop for a Red Bull or some smokes, newspapers are predominately placed by the cash register, papers that headline with ,”GOP hates poor people and wants to starve your kids”
5) MTV, the Comedy Channel, and the big three networks run spots with a cool celebrity like Katie Perry (donning her latest Obama dress) warning that their vigilance is needed in protecting reproductive rights, equal pay, and rights of women not to get raped.
6) Hitting the Stairmaster at your local fitness club, you are bombarded with TV monitors, with scrawling headlines at the bottom warning of the evils of the Kotch Brothers, and how Obama is really trying to get immigration legislation passed and raise the minimum wage.
7)Even at your local supermarket, the periodicals placed by the check out sport headlines about how stylish and elegant Michelle is and how much she cares about school nutrition.

Given all the subtle (?) reminders to those who could not find Canada on a map, don’t know who the vice president is, or actually think more government is a good thing, it is a miracle that Republicans ever get elected, to anything.

Oh, THAT Liberal Media, Part 87

Just remember, kids, our media are totally not biased. That’s why things like this happen:

National media coverage of North Carolina’s Senate race between incumbent Democrat Kay Hagan and Republican challenger Thom Tillis has focused on Hagan’s allegedly “perfect” campaign, in which the Senator has hammered her opponent on his record of attempting to reform a horrifically inefficient state education system while serving as Speaker of the state’s House of Representatives.

Admittedly, education is a far more appealing wedge issue than claiming one’s opponent plans to ban condoms, but lurking beneath the surface of the Hagan-Tillis race is a troubling ethics issue, one that has gone virtually unreported by North Carolina’s two largest newspapers, the Charlotte Observer and the Raleigh News and Observer: that Kay Hagan’s family, including her attorney husband “Chip” Hagan, her son, and her son-in-law, made out like bandits under the 2009 federal “stimulus” bill championed by Senator Hagan, receiving hundreds of thousands of dollars to renovate buildings owned by their companies through solar power companies which, coincidentally, were also owned by the Hagan family. Instead, coverage of this potential conflict of interest, in which Hagan’s family may have benefitted from her vote and her political connections, has been left to the tiny Carolina Journal, a blog run by North Carolina’s economic libertarian John Locke Foundation, which has run rings around the state’s larger papers in coverage of this race.

Last night, the Charlotte Observer posted some coverage of the story (note, this is less than 48 hours before the election). Today, they tried to memory-hole the story but conservative sites have archived it.

I’m sitting her with my jaw on the floor. You know damn well that if, say, Jeb Bush had stimulus dollars flowing to his family in possible violation of regulations, it would be a front-page story. It’s simply stunning that a major news outlet would ignore it. The deference to the powerful — no matter what their political stripe — is absurd.

Or … maybe not so stunning.

Want to see some serious double standards in play?

While everyone remains focused on what happened in Ferguson and the LSM is milking it for all its worth while presenting very little factual information – must be an election year or something, and the demcorats need something to get their voters to the polls – we get this laughable story. There are two things in the story that caught my eye. Here is the first:

A rural Mississippi man suffered life-threatening injuries and required brain surgery after he entered a Waffle House despite receiving a warning not to enter the restaurant because of the color of his skin.

The severe beating occurred early Sunday morning around 2 a.m., reports The Clarion-Ledger. Up to 20 assailants participated.

The injured man is Ralph Weems IV, a veteran of the Iraq War and a Marine. He is white.

The altercation began at about 1 a.m. when Weems and a friend, David Knighten, chose to go inside the Waffle House. They made this decision after a man in the parking lot diplomatically suggested that they should leave because the patrons inside were angry about the Aug. 9 police shooting death of Michael Brown in Ferguson, Mo. Thus, the unidentified man explained, the restaurant would not be a safe place for two white people.

Can you imagine telling a minority something like this? Even if your intentions are as pure as the driven snow and your motive is to protect them? yeah, well that’s not the part that chafes. So fast forward a bit and you get:

ZKnighten added: “I do remember racial slurs being yelled from the crowd.”

Police failed to arrive on the scene until the crowd had dispersed.

“This does not appear to be a hate crime,” local police chief Tim Brinkley said, according to The Times-Picayune. “It’s very early in this investigation but thus far the evidence and statements suggest that a verbal altercation turned physical and somebody got hurt.”

Yeah sure Mr. police chief. Again, reverse the races of the victim and perps, and how do you think this would be playing out? Of course, this was racially motivated, and revelations like this one should leave no one with any doubt who are the ones making things worse. The last time the evil white man, oh, pardon me, the white Hispanic, was the catalyst for their push the vote agenda. I guess when you have a winning formula, you just keep going back to it.

Our police forces are over militarized and need to be restructured, but our media is a despicable political stooge of the biggest criminals to run the nation, and IMO far greater threat and problem for our democracy’s survival than the militarized agents of the nanny state. Things are only going to get worse because of these people. Don’t you trust that these collectivists or their stooges have any good intent at any time. It’s about power for these bastards, and nothing more.

So will the left demand legal redress this time?

Back during the Boosh days, Richard Armitage, a donkey, disclosed the identity of a woman that had once been a low level CIA desk jockey, and the left went bat shit about it because they figured they could use a pretense of caring about national security to nail evil Boosh and his gang. It went nowhere, but they managed to fuck over some guy – Libby – for not playing along nice with the witch-hunt. Well, now Obama’s own WH has revealed the identity of a real CIA station chief in a country we are at war in> How much do you want to bet that Holder and the left all tell us this is nothing to worry about and that this is just a manufactured scandal, huh?

Karma is a bitch you leftards. Do that dance. Squirm. Show us that the only standards you have are double standards. Line up to see the excuse making. This is going to be fun.