Little Green Footballs

The 7 Most Ridiculous Breitbart Articles of the Week

Thu, 24 May 2012 21:20:07 PDT

This last 7 days has been a real banner week for the blogging heirs of Andrew at Breitbart.com; one stunning non-story after another, each one billed as a BOMBSHELL EXCLUSIVE, getting progressively more ridiculous in a crescendo of Obama-hating wingnuttery, building to a denouement of derp.

I think we should commemorate this unbroken string of total failures, so here are LGF's picks for the 7 most absurd, irrational, yet inadvertently hilarious Breitbart-related posts of the week:

Breitbart.com Publishes Ludicrous 'Not-Birther' Article (Wink)
Literary Agent on Breitbart Bombshell: 'A Simple Mistake'
Week in Review: A Right Wing Fail-a-Ganza
Fear the Vetting! Breitbart.com Editor Joel Pollak's Latest Bombshell Exclusive
Breitbart Blogger Dan Riehl on the Trail of a Bombshell Obama Photoshop Phraud
Fear the Vetting! Breitbart.com Bombshell Exclusive: We Don't Have Obama's SAT Scores!
Vetting Themselves: Breitbart Gang in Yet Another Ridiculously Massive Fail

Thursday Night Jam: Primus - Lee Van Cleef

Thu, 24 May 2012 18:47:34 PDT

Vimeo

Does Anyone Care That the GOP Presidential Candidate Courts Birthers?

Thu, 24 May 2012 14:32:25 PDT

Mitt Romney is appearing with Newt Gingrich next week at a fundraiser in Las Vegas, along with the highest-profile Birther conspiracy theorist in the nation: Gingrich to Join Romney (And Trump) at Vegas Fundraiser.

Newt Gingrich will make his first appearance with presumptive GOP nominee, Mitt Romney, on May 29 in Las Vegas.

NBC News has learned the former House speaker will attend a fundraiser for Romney at Trump Towers in Las Vegas Tuesday evening. Donald Trump will also attend.

The last time Gingrich and Romney were in Nevada together was in early February, amid a biter fight for the nomination.

The Myth of 'Obama the Socialist,' Part II

Thu, 24 May 2012 13:35:56 PDT

My previous page on Obama (found here) clearly showed that President Obama has presided over one of the "greatest periods of government austerity in recent memory."

To hammer home this point, there are a few more pieces of evidence I would like to share with you.

Firstly, consider the graph below (source):

It clearly shows what we already knew, that overall government spending under Obama is going down (though state and local spending is also being slashed).

Secondly, it shows that government spending under G.W. Bush increased dramatically. Where the Tea Party patriots were then we can only speculate about.

In fact, Federal spending is lower now than it was when President Obama took office, taxes today are lower than they were on inauguration day 2009, and the deficit this year is going to be lower than what it was on the day President Obama took office.

Whilst you let those facts sink in for a while, here is the graph that proves it (source):

And speaking of the national deficit, what caused it?

Well, according to TPM, "The vast bulk of the debt is the result of policies enacted during the Bush administration coupled with automatic increases in federal spending and decreases in tax revenue triggered by the economic downturn."

Using figures from the Center On Budget and Policy Priorities from May 2011, we see what current policies have caused it. If you're G.W. Bush, you may want to look away now (source):

To quote Andrew Sullivan:

No administration has reduced aggregate government spending as a precentage of GDP as much as Obama's in forty years. If you look at the full chart, back to George HW Bush, you reach an inescapable conclusion: the biggest spenders and borrowers are Republicans and the most fiscally conservative presidents have been Democrats.

To claim that President Obama is a "Big Government Socialist," a "Marxist," or a "Stealth Commie" may make for a good soundbite, but it's an outright lie.

As Daniel Patrick Moynihan once said, "'Everyone is entitled to his own opinions, but not to his own facts."

Romney Insists Class Size Is Less Important Than 'School Choice'

Thu, 24 May 2012 12:48:49 PDT

Mitt Romney was on the defensive today at an education roundtable in Philadelphia, trying to tell teachers that smaller class sizes are less important than "school choice:" Romney Defends Class Size Stance to Teachers.

(CNN) - Mitt Romney, who is spending this week promoting a plan for America's public school system, spent Thursday morning defending his stance that smaller class sizes don't necessarily equate with better learning in schools.

Romney participated in an education roundtable at a charter school in Philadelphia the day after laying out his education plan to Latino small business owners in Washington. Romney's plan emphasizes school choice over other factors, including efforts to reduce the number of students in classrooms.

Speaking of his time as governor of Massachusetts, Romney said he was frequently told that smaller class sizes would lead to better learning, but that certain studies advised otherwise.

"I came into office and talked to people and said, 'What can we do to improve our schools?'" Romney said at his Thursday event. "And a number of folks said we need smaller classroom sizes, that will make the biggest difference."

Romney went on to cite a study that showed no correlation between classroom size and performance, naming schools in Cambridge, Massachusetts as an example.

This is such a common right wing tactic that whenever someone like Romney cites a "study" to support a claim that seems counter-intuitive, you should always double-check to see what credible sources say about the matter. In this case, the fact is that the majority of credible studies show that smaller class sizes absolutely are an important factor in better education results: Education Week Research Center: Class Size:

Research, for the most part, tends to support the belief in the benefits of small classes. While not all studies on the subject have shown that students learn more in smaller settings—and some are still ongoing—most have linked smaller classes to improvements in achievement.

The biggest and most credible of those studies, Tennessee’s statewide Student/Teacher Achievement Ratio, or STAR, project, begun in the late 1970s, found that the learning gains students made in classes of 13 to 17 students persisted long after the students moved back into average-size classes (HEROS, 2011). What’s more, the Tennessee researchers found, poor and African-American students appeared to reap the greatest learning gains in smaller classes. After kindergarten, the gains black students made in smaller classes were typically twice as large as those for whites. Follow-up studies through the years have found the students who had been in small classes in their early years had better academic and personal outcomes throughout their school years and beyond (Krueger, 2001; Sparks, 2011).

Likewise, a 2001 evaluation of the Student Achievement Guarantee in Education, or SAGE, class size reduction program by researchers at the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee found that a five-year-old program of class-size reduction in Wisconsin resulted in higher achievement for children living in poverty. Research from Columbia University Teachers College in New York showed the context of class-size reduction can affect its success in improving student achievement (Ready, 2008). Similarly, Charles M. Achilles, one of the original principal researchers on the STAR study, has said researchers and policymakers will have difficulty replicating the improvements seen in the STAR study without including key elements of that program, such as early intervention and small class sizes of three years or more (Achilles, 2008).

The teachers at Romney's roundtable meeting were clearly rather aghast at his claims:

"I can't think of any teacher in the whole time I've been teaching, for 10 years, 13 years, who would say that more students would benefit them," Steven Morris, the teacher, said. "And I can't think of a parent who would say 'I would like my student to be in a classroom with a lot of kids with only one teacher.' So I'm kind of wondering where this research comes from."

Another teacher participating in the roundtable said unequivocally that he had too many students in his classroom.

"It's too large," the second teacher said. "It varies between classes, anywhere between 20 and 28. You can give more personalized attention to each student if you have a smaller class size."

Why is Romney emphasizing "school choice" over class size, even though most studies disagree with his approach? The most likely answer is that he's pandering to the religious right again, where "school choice" is a culture warrior code word for religion-based home schooling.

Former National Review Writer Renounces the Right

Thu, 24 May 2012 10:19:11 PDT

Today's must-read: Michael Fumento's My Break With the Extreme Right.

I was always way ahead of the curve. And my expos�s primarily appeared in right-wing publications. Back when they were interested in serious research. I also founded a conservative college newspaper, held positions in the Reagan administration and at several conservative think tanks, and published five books that conservatives applauded. I’ve written for umpteen major conservative publications – National Review, the Weekly Standard, the Wall Street Journal and Forbes, among them.

But no longer. That was the old right. The last thing hysteria promoters want is calm, reasoned argument backed by facts. And I’m horrified that these people have co-opted the name “conservative” to scream their messages of hate and anger.

Read the whole thing...

Not This Again - Wingnut 'Expert' Zooms In, Sees Pixels, Uncovers Obama Photoshop Phraud

Wed, 23 May 2012 22:20:05 PDT

Not this again.

The idea of President Obama "photoshopping" images in order to carry out some kind of nefarious scheme has clearly gotten a death grip on the wingnut zeitgeist. They seem to assign some kind of mystical power to this meme; they believe that if they can finally convince the world at large that these pictures have been doctored, Barack Obama will be forced to hang his head in shame, immediately resign the presidency, and live the rest of his miserable life in his true country of birth, Kenya.

It's wingnut crack. They can't stop doing it, even as it destroys their brains.

Tonight's episode in the Parade of Ridiculous Photoshop Outrages is brought to us by the always wacky American Thinker, where once again we have a so-called "Photoshop expert" who doesn't seem to understand how JPEG compression works, zooming in and analyzing the pixels to impress the rubes: The Illusion of Obama's Bin Laden Raid Situation Room Leadership.

I don't even know what to say about this kind of bizarre right wing craziness any more. There's no point in debunking it; first, it's too freaking easy, and second, they just don't care and it doesn't stop them from repeating it endlessly with less self-awareness than your average parrot.

But here's all you need to know about American Thinker's "Photoshop expert" Mara Zebest: she's been a Birther since 2008, and joined Arizona Sheriff Joe Arpaio's "Cold Case Posse" to push the crackpot theory that Obama faked his birth certificate. So her credentials are impeccable for an appearance at American Thinker, but "Photoshop expert" is a bit of a stretch.

I have to say, though -- Floating Hand Problem is a great band name.

Also see:
Debunking Mara Zebest
Amazon Customer Discussions: Mara Zebest - Oh Dear!

Vetting Themselves: Breitbart Gang in Yet Another Ridiculously Massive Fail

Wed, 23 May 2012 14:43:15 PDT

OK, I'm now nearly convinced that the Breitbart.com gang are just trolling the Internets with these mind-bogglingly ridiculous VETTING articles. I mean, nobody could possibly take this kind of absurd, over the top propaganda seriously, could they?

EXCLUSIVE - THE VETTING - BARACK OBAMA, THE FIRST TEA PARTIER.

Well, it may be damned hard to believe anyone could be this strange, but they really are serious about this stuff.

Breitbart blogger John Sexton's EXCLUSIVE BOMBSHELL: a photo that's been available to the public for 15 years, showing Barack Obama leading a Fourth of July parade in 1997, in a Revolutionary War era costume.

Sexton wants his audience to believe that the costume makes Obama exactly the same as a Tea Party member. Let the sheer stupidity of that one sink in for a minute.

The rest of Sexton's hilarious derp-filled piece is basically an extended whine about those monstrous liberals who mocked the Tea Partiers by calling them "teabaggers."

Monstrous liberals like, oh, for example, their founder Andrew Breitbart, who declared in May 2010 that he was Proud to Be a Tea Bagger.

A screenshot of Andrew Breitbart's brave, forward-thinking declaration of teabaggishness:

Breitbart's post still exists on the new Breitbart.com, but oddly enough, they seem to have removed his byline from it: I'm Proud to Be a Tea Bagger.

That 'Obama Spending Binge?' Another Right Wing Myth

Wed, 23 May 2012 11:15:51 PDT

Rex Nutting of MarketWatch posted this very interesting debunking of a persistent right wing myth: Obama Spending Binge Never Happened.

Here are the facts, according to the official government statistics:

� In the 2009 fiscal year — the last of George W. Bush’s presidency — federal spending rose by 17.9% from $2.98 trillion to $3.52 trillion. Check the official numbers at the Office of Management and Budget.

� In fiscal 2010 — the first budget under Obama — spending fell 1.8% to $3.46 trillion.

� In fiscal 2011, spending rose 4.3% to $3.60 trillion.

� In fiscal 2012, spending is set to rise 0.7% to $3.63 trillion, according to the Congressional Budget Office’s estimate of the budget that was agreed to last August.

� Finally in fiscal 2013 — the final budget of Obama’s term — spending is scheduled to fall 1.3% to $3.58 trillion. Read the CBO’s latest budget outlook.

Over Obama’s four budget years, federal spending is on track to rise from $3.52 trillion to $3.58 trillion, an annualized increase of just 0.4%.

There has been no huge increase in spending under the current president, despite what you hear.

Tuesday Night Jam: Hot Chip - Night and Day (With Reggie Watts)

Tue, 22 May 2012 18:09:12 PDT

YouTube Video

Iowa GOP Releases Platform, Goes Full Metal Wingnut

Tue, 22 May 2012 12:43:22 PDT

Text of the Platform here

First off, they decide to disregard any Supreme Court decisions they disagree with:

We disagree with Roe vs. Wade and Doe vs. Bolton as 'settled law.' Under the Tenth amendment, these Supreme Court decisions have no authority over the states.

They're on board with nullification:

We support constitutional state sovereignty including nullification of federal oversteps.

UN conspiracy to take over the world? Yeah, we got that.

We demand that the term 'sustainable development' be defined, vetted, and controlled by county and state agricultural agencies whose private property it impacts rather than the UN, other international or Agenda 21 agencies, or any federal organization.

A shout out to the Breitbart crowd and their legacy.

We call for a full investigation of the organization formerly known as ACORN and its allied organizations, call for full prosecution of those involved in any illegalities discovered, and call for elimination of government funding of such organizations.

And of course, smaller government by destroying every organization responsible for environmental or business regulations or those which help the average person:

We support the elimination of the departments of Agriculture, Education, Homeland Security, Housing and Urban Development, Health and Human Services, Energy, Interior, Labor, and Commerce as well as TSA, FDA, ATF, EPA, National Endowment for the Arts, Fannie Mae, and Freddie Mac.

And last but not least, the crowning gem on this temple of derpitude -

We insist that a candidate prove that he or she meets all requirements for that office prior to being placed in nomination, including proof of United States citizenship.

Your Iowa GOP party platform! Lets give them all a hand!

Fear the Vetting! Breitbart.com Bombshell Exclusive: We Don't Have Obama's SAT Scores!

Tue, 22 May 2012 10:36:25 PDT

It's one BOMBSHELL EXCLUSIVE after another at the site that Andrew Breitbart built! Man, these guys are ON FIRE!

Stand back, because the VETTING continues with an astounding new breaking news story by Charles C. Johnson (no, it's NOT ME): EXCLUSIVE: THE VETTING - DID OBAMA HAVE LOWER SAT SCORES THAN GEORGE W. BUSH?

So, in order to make such a bold pronouncement, Charles C. Johnson must have obtained the long-sought SAT scores of Barack Obama, right? After all, he says they've ESTABLISHED it.

Wow! What a BOMBSHE... oh wait. You mean, he didn't get the SAT scores? So what's the basis for this claim?

Breitbart News has learned that the transfer class that entered Columbia College in the fall of 1981 with Obama was one of the worst in recent memory, according to Columbia officials at the time.

That's it?

They're kidding, right?

Nope, not kidding. (These people are out of their freaking minds.)

Gateway Pundit Enraged By President Obama Complimenting Joplin Students For Working Together

Tue, 22 May 2012 09:43:17 PDT

"Gateway Pundit" Jim Hoft, St. Louis's resident birther blogger, was frothing-at-the-mouth angry this morning over what he said was the "socialist message" of President Obama's commencement speech to the graduating class of Joplin, Missouri, a city ravaged by a devastating tornado last year. What was the evidence for Hoft's claim (not that a birther cares about evidence)? Here's the passage he highlighted:

'The road has been hard. The day has been long. But we have tomorrow, so we march. We march together,' he said on the first anniversary of the deadly tornado strike...

'As you begin the next stage in your journey, you will encounter greed and selfishness; ignorance and cruelty. … You will meet people who try to build themselves up by tearing others down; who believe looking after others is only for suckers,' he said.

'My deepest hope for all of you … [is that] you can serve as a reminder that we're not meant to walk this road alone; that we're not expected to face down adversity by ourselves,' he told his audience. 'We're stronger together than we are on our own.'

So, in other words, President Obama is saying that people need to work together and care about their fellow citizens. And, of course, he was saying this in the context of a town that was completely devastated by a tornado and had been doing a good job rebuilding precisely because people in the town were willing to work together and had been getting help from other Americans.

I honestly don't know how someone could be so ridiculous as to think that helping other people out and not being selfish is "evil." As @jbposnanski pointed out on Twitter, Hoft has all the makings of a cartoon villain, openly rooting for greed and selfishness while condemning "working together." Hoft's sentiments, of course, are also completely at odds with the Golden Rule and the New Testament, though he's happy to use his Christian beliefs to bash others. What a piece of work.

By the way, here's the local coverage of the President's visit.

Outrage Fail: 'Vulgar Comments From The Left' Not Actually From The Left

Mon, 21 May 2012 19:59:37 PDT

Right-wing bloggers (Michelle Malkin, Adam Baldwin, Katie Pavlich) have been hyping a story lately of a 16-year old conservative girl who was purportedly subjected to "vulgar comments from progressives" after recording a youtube video arguing in favor of the North Carolina amendment outlawing gay marriage. The girl is now scheduled to appear on Fox and Friends on Wednesday morning to pass along her story.

The original post from the girl included four purported examples of "vulgar comments from the Left," and I absolutely condemn the comments (though one is not really in the same class as the others). But one thing that jumped out immediately was that one of the comments ( "I repeat queerbait, don't expect me to endorse it!") was from someone named "ACORNSUCKS." Yeah, that name doesn't exactly sound like someone from "the Left." In fact, if you look at ACORNSUCK's youtube page, you'll see that the account routinely favorites videos about Mitt Romney. Furthermore, in the original youtube comments, it's pretty clear that ACORNSUCKS is defending the youtube video and attacking people arguing in favor of gay marriage. For example:

So the author was being deliberately dishonest to suggest that this comment was representative of "the Left."

With this in mind, I decided to look at the other 3 comments used as examples of "vulgarity from the Left." Someone called TheAtheist79 said the following:

This bitch is Psycho!

OK, so this guy has "atheist" in his name, he's got to be a lefty, right? I don't know for sure, but it doesn't seem that way. The actual youtube account for TheAtheist79 is now gone. However, if you do a google search for "theAtheist79" what you find is a lot of comments in a lot of different places that are primarily focused on arguing against the existence of human-influenced climate change. For example:

So yeah, a climate change denier. Not exactly a defining trait of "the Left.'

Another comment was from funnykoreantv:

you think you're brave because you come out in public spewing your ignorance? no that just makes you foolish. the very reason you make a video is to spread ideas and discussion to people whom you've never met. so people make inferences from your video and its up to you to make sure you're complete with your portrayal. here, you portray stupidity and ignorance.

I can't really tell from the youtube profile whether this person is liberal or conservative, but the comment wasn't really that vulgar, at least compared to the others.

So that leaves the last, and definitely worst (illegal even?) comment from UniversalHourglass:

Hey, you really seem like one stupid c*nt. That being said, I'd still let you wrap yours lips around my c*ck.'

This is a more complicated case than the others. UniversalHourglass makes fun of conservatives in the video comments. And if you look at his youtube feed, he also clearly doesn't like Mitt Romney. On the other hand, he also hates Occupy Wall Street, and routinely uses the words "ni**ers" and "fa**ots." Furthermore, he tells both men and women that he would "do" them and even makes vulgar suggestions that he's pleasuring himself. In other words, if you look at his feed, the thing that stands out is not that he's "liberal" or "conservative," but rather that he's a completely unhinged looney who clearly intentionally says offensive stuff to get a rise out of people. So claiming that one nutbag that says offensive and perverted stuff to pretty much everyone on the internet, both left and right, is somehow revealing about "the Left" is clearly ridiculous.

So out of 4 claims of "vulgar comments from the Left" maybe one of them is 1/2 true. But on the bright side, that's a better batting average than James O'Keefe!

Breitbart Blogger Dan Riehl on the Trail of a Bombshell Obama Photoshop Phraud

Mon, 21 May 2012 16:24:47 PDT

Today, Breitbart.com ace blogger Dan Riehl tweeted the latest conspiracy theory to hit the wingnut blogosphere:

RT @AureliusPundit: Did White House dr Photo of President "Throwing" Football?- tinyurl.com/cdg8z7c

— DanRiehl (@DanRiehl) May 21, 2012

The link goes to "Pundit Press," where "Aurelius" is analyzing the pixels in a photo tweeted by the White House...

Photo of the Day: President Obama throws a football @soldierfield after the @NATO dinner in Chicago: twitter.com/whitehouse/sta...

— The White House (@whitehouse) May 21, 2012

The Kenyan impostor can't slip such an obvious fake past the "I AM BREITBART" army, of course.

"Aurelius" zooms in on his screenshot of this tweet (which measures, by the way, 471 x 318), and discovers ... yes, the dreaded PIXELLATION! Proof of photoshop doctoring!

Why would the President want to fake a photo like this? Well, that's not what Aurelius is interested in - he's just asking questions!

Note the pixelation that occurs around the entirety of the President's head. Such deterioration does not exist anywhere else (at least so obviously) in the photo. Also note Mr. Obama's oddly large eyes. Additionally, President Obama is inexplicably looking upward, unless his target is sitting somewhere in the cheap seats 100 yards away. ...

So, is this picture doctored? It's up to you to decide. However, the fact that the White House may have altered a picture of the President throwing a football speaks to how despereate [sic] they are to perfectly manicure his public image.

Rather than post a lesson in how JPEG compression works and why a freaking screenshot of a low res image on Twitter would be expected to have exactly those kinds of compression artifacts, which would be wasted effort, I'll just direct any wingnuts who really want to search for an EXCLUSIVE BOMBSHELL SCOOP to the original photograph from the White House in their Flickr photostream, at a resolution of 4000 x 2760. (h/t: Gus.)

At the top of this post is a somewhat zoomed-out clip of the section in question, saved at fairly high quality. Happy pixel-hunting!

Former Bain Executive Said Romney Was Directly Responsible for Ampad Layoffs

Mon, 21 May 2012 13:41:59 PDT

Andrew Kaczynski discovered a 2002 interview that sheds more light on the situation with Mitt Romney's Bain Capital and the Ampad paper company, and it doesn't make Romney look any better: Former Bain Executive: Romney Bears Blame for Ampad Layoffs.

According to a 2002 interview with former managing director of Bain Capital Marc Wolpow, Romney was directly responsible for Ampad’s layoffs. Wopow and a fellow Bain partner sat on the board of directors of Ampad, and were responsible with carrying out the Bain business plan that caused the layoffs.

“My job was to maximize the profits to Bain Capital's partners from the Ampad transaction,” Wolpow told the Globe in 2002.

Wolpow said Romney was responsible for the business plan carried out by Bain in Indiana.”Mitt's employees executed that transaction,” he said. “We carried out the business plan. He was CEO of the firm.”

”I reported directly to Mitt Romney ... You can't be CEO of Bain Capital and say, `I really don't know what my guys were doing.”

Stunning Telescopic Video of Yesterday's Eclipse

Mon, 21 May 2012 11:40:26 PDT

YouTube Video

Still pictures will be available at http://www.corypoole.com

700 pictures through a Coronado Solar Max 60 Double Stack telescope were used to make this video. The Telescope has a very narrow bandpass allowing you to see the chromosphere and not the much brighter photosphere below it. The music was composed in Abelton Live.

(h/t: Dangerous Minds.)

Obama Campaign Ad: The Story of Bain Capital and Ampad

Mon, 21 May 2012 10:37:00 PDT

The new advertisement from the Obama campaign continues their devastating criticism of Mitt Romney's vulture capitalism techniques, with the story of the plundering of SCM Office Supplies.

YouTube Video

Meanwhile, Newark mayor Cory Booker is walking back his criticism of the Obama campaign's ads today -- but not entirely.

The Obama team saw Booker equating attacks on Bain Capital with attacks on Rev. Jeremiah Wright — he said almost exactly those words — and knew they had a political mess to clean up.

“This election, like all other elections, is going to be a choice between two candidates, two records and two visions for the country,” said Obama campaign spokesman Ben LaBolt on a conference call Monday morning. “We’ve not heard an affirmative vision from [Romney].”

Trur [sic] enough. But, it’s also clear from watching the entirety of Booker’s video that he isn’t really walking back his comments as much as he is trying to provide more context than is typically available on a Sunday show roundtable appearance.

Watch Booker’s video; it’s obvious he doesn’t like the negativity of the campaign — on both sides — and despite what we can only assume was heavy pressure by the Obama team to fix the glitch, he isn’t willing to entirely walk back his comments.

Sunday Night Jam: Bonnie Raitt - Used to Rule the World

Sun, 20 May 2012 17:47:46 PDT

Here's Bonnie Raitt way deep in the pocket at this year's New Orleans Jazz Fest, with "Used To Rule the World" from her great new album Slipstream.

YouTube Video

Right Wing Birtherism Is Back (Actually, It Never Left)

Sun, 20 May 2012 11:55:44 PDT

Yes, Birtherism is back. That idiotic article at Breitbart.com by Joel Pollak has opened the door for the Birthers to come rushing back in, babbling incoherently.

Actually, this craziness never really went away; if you've read any right wing blog for the past four years, or the comments at Fox News or Free Republic, you know that the Birther delusion is deeply rooted in today's right wing psyche. That's why the Breitbart.com article set them off in such spectacular fashion. The right is heavily invested in portraying the first black President as a dangerous, angry, un-American radical "other" from somewhere else, probably Kenya.

Here we see two spokesmen for the politically-connected American Family Association, Buster Wilson and the execrable Bryan Fischer, spouting Birther craziness and conspiracy theories while complaining that they're being labeled as "Birthers."

YouTube Video

And at the far right propaganda site Daily Caller, wingnut attack clown Jim Treacher (real name: Sean Medlock) has latched onto a new technique: he's going to call anyone who criticizes Birthers "Birthers." Yes, even President Obama himself: Why Was Obama a Birther Until He Decided to Run for President?

UPDATE at 5/20/12 12:22:56 pm

Treacher's tweets today are bizarre and childish, as usual:

@silviobreckman Obama was born in Hawaii. If you have proof to the contrary, Birther, let's see it.

— Jim Treacher (@jtLOL) May 20, 2012

@silviobreckman Because you think Obama was born in Kenya. Prove it, Birther.

— Jim Treacher (@jtLOL) May 20, 2012

@BigPapa1849 @silviobreckman Whatever you say, Birther.

— Jim Treacher (@jtLOL) May 20, 2012

@BigPapa1849 @silviobreckman Prove you're not a Birther, Birther.

— Jim Treacher (@jtLOL) May 20, 2012

@BigPapa1849 @silviobreckman If you want me to stop calling you a Birther, all you have to do is ask, Birther.

— Jim Treacher (@jtLOL) May 20, 2012

@BigPapa1849 @silviobreckman Birther.

— Jim Treacher (@jtLOL) May 20, 2012

Journalism, Daily Caller style.

Overnight Video: How a Bicycle Is Made (1945)

Sat, 19 May 2012 21:00:31 PDT

Vimeo

Fear the Vetting! Breitbart.com Editor Joel Pollak's Latest Bombshell Exclusive

Sat, 19 May 2012 12:20:17 PDT

Diligently working night and day to do the vetting the mainstream media refuses to do (because they're IN ON IT), Breitbart.com editor Joel Pollak has released a new BOMBSHELL EXCLUSIVE report on Barack Obama's evil plots.

Well, actually, it's not really about an evil plot. It's a document that shows Obama graduated from Columbia University in 1983.

Which everyone already knew.

The Vetting - Exclusive Document Debunks Myth About Obama's Columbia Years!

It's almost cute how Pollak pumps up this total non-story, almost managing to make it seem as if Breitbart.com is doing real journalism.

The image above--never before released--is from public records at Columbia University that prove that Obama did, in fact, graduate in 1983 from the Ivy League school. Contrary to some conspiracy theories, Obama was a student within the Faculty of Arts and Sciences--not the less selective, “nontraditional” Columbia University School of General Studies (which only merged with the Faculty of Arts and Sciences in 1990).

This never-before-seen document debunks a persistent myth that is unfairly unfavorable to the President.

Some “fact-checking” websites--such as snopes.com and FactCheck.org--have attempted to debunk the “Obama never graduated Columbia” conspiracy theory before. Yet they have relied almost entirely on secondary sources and mainstream media reports, which fail to cite primary sources. And the Obama campaign has not provided details of his admission to, or graduation from, the prestigious Ivy League school.

Crucially, Obama has refused to release his college transcripts from Columbia and Occidental College, which certainly do exist. Other candidates--such as George W. Bush--released their transcripts, though their grades were not necessarily flattering.

The mainstream media has clamored for, and investigated, and leaked information about other presidential candidates. But not Barack Obama--not in 2008, and not now. ...

As more and more information about Obama emerges--through Breitbart News and other New Media sources, left and right--the failing mainstream media look more and more foolish, reduced to beatifying the president instead of reporting what he and his administration have done to this country.

Yes, that's right; Pollak is congratulating himself on "debunking a myth" that circulates only on the fringes of the conspiracy-minded right wing, a myth that no sane person in America believes. A myth that needs no debunking, because it's batshit loony from square one.

Devastating.

UPDATE at 5/19/12 12:28:52 pm

By the way, Pollak is flat wrong when he says George W. Bush released his Yale transcripts. In the real world, Bush tried to prevent the transcripts from getting out, but they were leaked to The New Yorker.

The fail is strong in Joel Pollak.

New Song From Ben Folds Five: Do It Anyway

Sat, 19 May 2012 11:24:23 PDT

Ben Folds Five are making a new record, and they're doing it through PledgeMusic, an interesting initiative to let musicians finance their own records with support from fans.

Here's a track from the album, scheduled for release sometime this year...

YouTube Video

Week in Review: A Right Wing Fail-a-Ganza

Fri, 18 May 2012 18:39:11 PDT

It's been an awesome week of right wing failitude; the Ricketts/Rev. Wright Debacle, followed by the Breitbart Birther Bogosity, followed by National Review's Massive Elizabeth Warren Plagiarism Fail-a-Ganza: The National Review's Fake Plagiarism Scoop.

The National Review says Elizabeth Warren is guilty of the gravest crime a writer can commit: Plagiarism. Katrina Trinko compares passages from “All Your Worth: The Ultimate Money Lifetime Plan,” Warren’s book with her daughter, Amelia Warren Tyagi, with passages from “Getting on the Money Track,” a book by Rob Black. The passages line up perfectly. The wording and even the punctuation are identical. It’s plagiarism all right. Except it looks very much like Warren is actually the victim.

The National Review headline says “Plagiarism in Elizabeth Warren’s 2006 book.” The body refers to Warren publishing the book “in 2006″ and Black’s book coming out in 2005. That’s true! Except that in 2006 the paperback of Warren’s book was published. The hardcover came out in March of 2005. Black’s book seems to have come out, if Amazon is correct, October 14 2005. (Or, according to Barnes and Noble, July 2005?) Months after Warren’s book. Unless there was an earlier published hardcover version that I can’t find on Amazon, it seems like Black most likely plagiarized Warren.

Then, to put the dim-witted icing on this many-layered cake of fail, Breitbart.com jumped on the "Elizabeth Warren Plagiarism Bombshell" story after it had already been debunked! Evidence of Plagiarism in 2006 Elizabeth Warren Book.

Gotta hand it to the loveable little wingnuts -- they're dedicated, if nothing else! A bit over-eager, sure, but I don't want to criticize them too much lest they stop providing such great inadvertent comedy.

Go ahead on, brave wingnuts. Forward, into the past.

Also see:
Correction on Warren - by Katrina Trinko - the Corner - National Review Online

UPDATE at 5/18/12 6:55:25 pm

The Breitbart gang have now deleted their post calling for Elizabeth Warren to be fired, but here it is in Google's cache for a limited time: Evidence of Plagiarism in 2006 Elizabeth Warren Book.

And here's the full text, with the original formatting:

Earlier today, Breitbart News published evidence suggesting that several of Elizabeth Warren's contributions to a Cherokee-themed cook book were plagiarized. Late this afternoon, more evidence of plagiarism appeared in National Review's The Corner. The following excerpt comes from Warren's 2006 book All Your Worth:

For millions and millions of Americans, debt has become a way of life. Owing a bunch of money has become normal in this country, right up there with playing baseball in the summer and eating turkey on Thanksgiving. In fact, more than 80 million Americans now owe money on a credit card. And not just a little bit of money: The average family that carries a balance now owes more than two months’ income on their credit cards.

Maybe your grandpa has told you that “back in his day” if you couldn’t pay cash, you didn’t buy it. And that was pretty much true: Debt just wasn’t a routine part of American life the way it is today. A generation or two ago, almost no one carried any debt except for a home mortgage and maybe a car loan. There were no giant credit card balances, no payday loans, and no home equity loans. In fact, just 35 years ago, the total amount of debt outstanding among all American households was about 1/600th of what it is today. That means that for every dollar your generation owes today, your parents’ generation owed less than half a penny!

The portions in bold are identical to another book published in 2005. Here are the same paragraphs as they appear in Rob Black's Getting on the Money Track:

For millions of Americans, debt has become a way of life. Owing thousands of dollars in high-interest debt has become the norm in this country. This is astonishing and shows we are a nation of spenders and not savers. In fact, more than 80 million Americans now owe money on a credit card. And not just a little bit of money: The average family carrying a balance now owes more than two months of income on their credit cards. Because bankruptcy laws in the United States were recently changed, getting away from credit card debt is going to be even tougher than in the past.

You might have heard this from your grandparents: “Back in the day, if we couldn’t pay cash, we didn’t buy it.” This was pretty much the truth: Debt just wasn’t a routine part of American the way it is today; it was viewed quite differently. A generation or two ago, almost no one carried any debt except for a home mortgage and maybe a car loan. There were no giant credit card balances, no payday loans (watch out for these as they end to charge 10 percent or more for the right to your own money), and no home equity loans. In fact, just 35 years ago, the total amount of debt outstanding among all American households was about 1/600th of what it is today. That means that for every dollar your generation owes today, your grandparents’ generation owed less than half a penny!

Warren's excerpts were obviously cut and pasted. This sort of thing would usually be considered a firing offense for anyone who writes for a living; however, Warren's book was co-written with her daughter. It's possible the daughter is responsible for this. I suppose Warren will have little choice but to throw her under the bus if she wants to stay in the Senate race (and keep her job).

Rob Black has a business conducting financial seminars. I contacted Mr. Black via Twitter but haven't heard back from him so far.

A screenshot:

Video: Dueling Campaign Web Ads

Fri, 18 May 2012 16:18:02 PDT

Since I've been posting some of the Obama campaign ads from YouTube, it's only fair to post the first official ad from Mitt Romney, in which he promises to kill "Obamacare" on day one of his presidency:

YouTube Video

Followed by the latest ad from the Obama campaign, hammering Romney hard with his own words:

YouTube Video

CNN's Dana Loesch: Twitter Warrior

Fri, 18 May 2012 13:28:37 PDT

All day long, Breitbart.com editor and CNN contributor Dana Loesch has been spewing insults at me on Twitter; it probably has something to do with our posts on Breitbart.com's Ludicrous 'Not-Birther' Article and on Loesch's claims that Mitt Romney is counting on bloggers like her to attack Obama using Rev. Wright. Clearly, a nerve was struck.

Here's one example out of more than a dozen:

Ponies unite! Refreshed after buying new brushes and Scrunchies at Sally's Beauty Supply, Johnson Bloggers sit down to a day of trollin.

— Dana Loesch (@DLoesch) May 18, 2012

She's also now imagining a conspiracy between me and Mediaite writer Tommy Christopher:

Just got an email from Tommy Christopher who is apparently now taking story direction from Charles Johnson. Seriously.

— Dana Loesch (@DLoesch) May 18, 2012

Loesch has had me blocked on Twitter for months, but still constantly tweets juvenile insults and paranoid conspiracy theories about me, nearly every day. She and her pals are now totally convinced that I'm the mastermind of an evil plot to ban conservatives from Twitter. Not only do I pull Tommy Christopher's strings, but I also control Twitter. Moo hahaha.

And today, I'm told that Loesch also spent a good deal of time trashing me on her radio show. Wheee!

Meanwhile, LGF reader SidewaysQuark pointed out something amusing about Loesch's new "brave right wing Twitter warrior" avatar, which you can see in the tweets above. Here's a larger version:

And here's where it comes from:

Witness Says George Zimmerman Harassed Him With Racist Jokes (Audio)

Fri, 18 May 2012 12:28:54 PDT

SoundCloud

This could start to explain why prosecutors have reportedly been considering charging George Zimmerman with hate crimes in the death of Trayvon Martin: AUDIO: Witness Says George Zimmerman Repeatedly Bullied Him at Work, Targeted Him With Racist Jokes.

Among the evidence in the Trayvon Martin case released by the Florida state prosecutor yesterday was a 15-minute interview with a former work colleague of George Zimmerman. The man, who is not identified by name, says that Zimmerman relentlessly bullied him at work.

Zimmerman, according to the witness, targeted him because he was Middle Eastern. He repeatedly called the man a “fucking moron” and mocked him using the voice of “Achmed the terrorist.” Zimmerman’s stories about the man would involve “bombing,” “I’ll kill your family” and other “jokes” about “Middle Eastern stuff.” According to the man, this went on “for days and days.”

After Secret Meeting With Romney Campaign, Breitbart Employees Say He Supports Their Smears

Fri, 18 May 2012 09:25:23 PDT

Readers on this site are already aware of the leaked document that showed a super-rich right-winger planning a $10 million "scary black President" smear campaign. Of course, once the plan and the billionaire backer were exposed to the sunlight, they quickly pivoted to say that they never really planned on running the ads.

Romney, after initially hemming and hawing and saying he hadn't "read the papers yet," eventually got around to "condemning" the attack strategy, saying, "So in regards to that PAC, I repudiate what they're thinking about."

But some in the right-wing blogosphere think that Romney actually is offering "wink wink nudge nudge" support for the smear campaigns, and is simply employing the strategy of "good cop, bad cop" alongside his surrogates. For example, here's what one Breitbart.com editor had to say (chronological from bottom to top):

Now, I'm tempted to dismiss this as another example of Breitbart.com editors being completely unaware when everyone is laughing at them. But on the other hand, Breitbart representatives did recently participate in a secret meeting with the Romney campaign about campaign messaging. You'd think that if the Romney campaign wanted ridiculous race-baiting campaigns or birther conspiracy theories off the table, they could have made that clear.

Though it violates my general rule-of-thumb, if Breitbart.com editors are claiming that Romney is actually supporting their smear campaigns, I say we should believe them.

Why Do Conservatives Fear Gay Marriage?

Thu, 17 May 2012 21:16:40 PDT

Since President Obama's recent endorsement of gay marriage, and the ensuing backlash from the Right, a question has been bugging me...

Just why do many people - particularly religious conservatives - fear gay marriage, especially when they seem willing to at least tolerate the legality of gay behavior? I realize that looking for reasons in a case like this is often bound to produce only frustration, but it might be interesting to catalog at least the sorts of explanations those who fear same-sex marriage usually set forth.

A common explanation cites the biblical condemnation of gay behavior as an "abomination". A problem with this explanation is that, presumably, gay people in our society will engage in gay sex whether they are married or not; there is no reason to think that preventing them from marrying results in less gay sex, and at least some reason to think that it actually results in more gay sex, and hence in more "abomination". Surely adopting policies that keep gay sex more promiscuous than it might otherwise be isn't a very effective way of pleasing God!

There are, of course, many other arguments against gay marriage, including an obvious instance of the slippery slope fallacy and various economic concerns, all of which are easy to debunk, as this article by Tom Head rather effortlessly demonstrates: "10 Really Bad Arguments Against Same-Sex Marriage...".

As you can see from that article, theological arguments against same-sex marriage apparently all have countervailing theological arguments, and the empirical arguments - alleging deleterious effects on society, children, or straight marriage - have no evidential support that stands up to even the most cursory scrutiny. This fact, of course, provided the basis of Judge Vaughn R. Walker's famous decision that California's Proposition 8 violated the Equal Protection clause. If you've never read Judge Walker's decision, you can read it here. Here's the conclusion, after 135 pages of careful legal reasoning-

Proposition 8 fails to advance any rational basis in singling out gay men and lesbians for denial of a marriage license. Indeed, the evidence shows Proposition 8 does nothing more than enshrine in the California Constitution the notion that opposite-sex couples are superior to same-sex couples. Because California has no interest in discriminating against gay men and lesbians, and because Proposition 8 prevents California from fulfilling its constitutional obligation to provide marriages on an equal basis, the court concludes that Proposition 8 is unconstitutional.

Now, putting aside the technical legal arguments, perhaps the most common argument against legally recognizing same-sex unions is that "normalizing" such unions would result in their becoming more common, and that this would devalue or diminish heterosexual marriage. Such arguments often use analogical reasoning, and the sorts of analogies that come to mind in this context might include devaluation of the dollar (via inflation) by printing more dollars, or diminishing the quality of a wine by diluting it with water. Such analogies are obviously weak: the value of a particular marriage has nothing to do with the overall number of marriages, and producing more wine, even a new category of wine, does not dilute other bottles of wine. This is true even if those new bottles of wine are diluted relative to the others (as conservatives argue gay marriages are less valuable than straight marriages). Of course, if the new category of wine were diluted, then the average quality of all of the wine in the world would be diminished. But surely the value of marriage, in the only sense that has practical consequences, depends on the value of each marriage, and on the additive effects of those marriages on society - not on any merely theoretical average number. So... just how could expanding the category of marriage to include a new "vintage" devalue the other, pre-existing vintage? Well, only if the new vintage were perceived to be better...

Could this be the correct explanation of the fear? Could it be that conservatives (subconsciously?) believe that if same-sex marriage were to become more accepted and hence more common, heterosexuals would actually begin converting their sexual orientation? Could conservatives really (subconsciously?) believe that gay sex is so much better than straight sex, or that switching one's sexual preference is, at least for most people, as easy as switching brands? It sounds silly, but you do often hear conservatives fantasizing about gay folks - especially teachers - "recruiting" children who would otherwise be straight, as if changing or determining someone's sexual orientation - even a child's - were as easy as giving them the right sales pitch!

I'm sure that there are plenty considerations I've missed, including some that might buck up the conservative case against gay marriage. It is true, for instance, that legally recognizing gay marriage would be a social experiment whose long term consequences are not entirely predictable. What is disappointing is that in the very next breath, conservatives are likely to deny the much more predictable and clearly dire consequences of that other "social experiment" in which we've been engaged for a hundred years: dumping millions of tons of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere. Since changing marriage law would be a lot easier than repairing the atmosphere, I'd much rather experiment with same-sex marriage than with global warming.

Anyway, I'm just asking the question; I haven't settled on any answer. So if you feel like venturing an opinion, I'd love to hear it. The comments are open.

More: blogherenow.net

Keith Jarrett Trio: God Bless the Child

Thu, 17 May 2012 20:14:26 PDT

YouTube Video