Gun Control Segment On MSNBC Proves No Critical Thought Is Required To Advocate For Stricter Gun Laws

» comments

In a canned gun control segment on MSNBC's Now with Alex Wagner that has run in some form multiple times over this summer due to the increase in high profile shootings, the panelists engaged in an conversation which included a veritable potpourri of liberal justifications for stricter gun laws. The explanations that the MSNBC panel guests reached for to explain what they consider to be an increase in violence (not an increase in coverage) include a lack of civil discourse, American culture and the gun lobby. Notably absent from the hysteria-driven coverage was any note that gun violence, by and large, is down and American support for gun control continue to plummet.

RELATED: MSNBC Politicizes Dark Knight Shooting With Long Gun Control Segment

In a nearly identical segment to the one that followed the mass shooting in Aurora, Colorado in July following the Dark Knight massacre, MSNBC's Now guests set right about politicizing Friday's shooting at the Empire State Building.

Dan Gross, president of the pro-gun control group Brady Campaign, told Wagner that he believes the American people will come together to say 'we are better than this.' That phrase, coincidentally, is also the name of a national effort by the Brady Campaign to strengthen national gun control laws.

Gross also was able to predict the future, claiming that '48,000 Americans' will die from gun control violence in the term of the next president unless something is stopped ' thereby demonstrating the faulty logic in straight-line projections.

Washington Post columnist Jonathan Capehart was quick to blame the ever culpable National Rifle Association for the acts of a deeply troubled individual who shot his former boss and proceeded to engage in suicide-by-cop in the streets of Midtown Manhattan during the morning rush hour.

'What's sitting in that disconnect between the American people and their elected officials is the NRA,' said Capehart. 'How do you get the NRA to back down or, more importantly, get elected officials to stare down the NRA?'

Actually, the only measurable disconnect is between Capehart and the American people. America's elected officials seem to be pretty well informed of where public opinion is on the matter of gun control. Pew Center polls following every high-profile shooting since 2007, including last month's mass shooting in Colorado, show support for stricter gun control laws continues to decline at a steady pace.

'The addiction to violence in America is nearly erotic,' said Georgetown University Professor Michael Eric Dyson. Dyson at least acknowledged that he was asking American politicians to go against the will of the people who do not support stricter gun laws. He did, however, succumb to the fallacious notion that gun violence is on the rise, rather than coverage of gun violence.

Had the Now panelists actually sought to inform rather than terrify/galvanize their audience, they would have cited the FBI's Preliminary Annual Crime Statistics from 2011, released in June, showed violent crime is down from 2010. In fact, violent crime is down by more than 5 points in major cities.

In 2011, all four of the violent crime offense categories'murder and non-negligent manslaughter, forcible rape, robbery, and aggravated assault'declined nationwide when compared with data from 2010. Murder and non-negligent manslaughter declined 1.9 percent, while forcible rape, robbery, and aggravated assault each declined 4.0 percent.

Violent crime declined in all city groups. Cities with populations of 50,000 to 99,999 saw the largest decrease (5.2 percent) in violent crime. Violent crime decreased 6.6 percent in metropolitan counties and 4.7 percent in nonmetropolitan counties.

In New York City alone, the murder rate is near record lows, even amid a recession which is increasing the number of Americans living in poverty ' no doubt, some of the gun control advocates also subscribe to the root cause theory as noted conservative ideologue (sarcasm, off) John Avlon succinctly describes in The Daily Beast.

That's some contradictory stuff for a nation which is supposedly worships violence to a near 'erotic' state.

The truth is that the gun control script has not been significantly amended since the 1999 murder of 12 students at Columbine High School. No matter the nation's changing circumstances, the story remains the same. Guns are dangerous and violence is on the rise, facts be damned, and only the curtailing of the U.S. Constitution can save us from ourselves.

But by not addressing real data and real circumstances, purveyors of the theme that gun control is both necessary and desirous limit their audience to those that already agree with them. MSNBC'sNow panel is preaching to the converted.

Watch the segment below via MSNBC:

> >Follow Noah Rothman (@Noah_C_Rothman) on Twitter

Team Romney 'Optimistic' That TV Networks Will Decide To Cover RNC Monday Night

» 1 comment

The three major television networks have said they're not including Monday in their primetime coverage of the Republican National Convention next week. That's the same day Ann Romney is scheduled to speak and Mitt Romney is set to be formally nominated. Romney campaign adviser Russ Schriefer said they're still 'optimistic' the networks will 'change their mind.'

'We're still optimistic that the networks are going to change their mind and cover Monday night,' Schriefer said during a conference call with reporters Friday morning, according to POLITICO. 'We understand only covering three nights, but what we find puzzling is why everyone has to cover the same three nights.'

The POLITICO story also noted that, 'Sources at multiple networks said it was highly unlikely that the networks would cover Monday night's proceedings, given the cost and last-minute planning it would require.'

It's possible Ann Romney's speech may be moved to Tuesday night, but no final changes are known yet.

(H/T POLITICO)

• I'm optimistic that the media are a bunch liberal lapdogs who are afraid of little Ann Romney. 

Fox News Employee Recounts Witnessing Empire State Building Shooting En Route To Work

» comments

On the way to work this morning, Fox News booker Jacque Boothby witnessed the shooting that took place at the Empire State Building. Phoning into the America's Newsroom, Boothby recounted her experience Bill Hemmer.

Boothby, who's since spoken to police, said she told them what she saw as she was crossing the street in the morning and heard four gunshots. 'A woman fell at my feet and I honestly got nervous and kind of hid behind'when the gunshots subsided, I got back up and I tried to help the woman, tried to prop her head up, do whatever I could. I'm not sure if she's okay now or not.' The woman, she said, was shot in her abdomen or side.

She was breathing, Boothby said, 'but it was hard for her to speak.' Asked whether she was able to see the shooter, Boothby said she couldn't.

'It sounded like he was on foot, but there was still other people crossing the street, so maybe he was amongst the crowd,' she said. 'But when the shots happened, everyone just fled the intersection and just ran in any opposite way that they could.'

She added, 'All I really heard were shots and people falling to the ground.'

Boothby then went on to describe how surreal the situation felt:

'I mean I've never heard a gunshot before, so I wasn't sure if it was just sounds or the city or something. It was more muzzled, not like a distinct gunshot, but you could hear that there were four actual shots. But they did say that there was a police officer on the corner, and I guess he had maybe seen this, and I believe he was the one who chased down the gunman and shot him.'

As for the police questioning, Boothby said it was fairly standard: Questions about whether she'd seen the gunman (no), known anything about the incident ('obviously didn't'), what she'd seen, and conditions of the people there.

Her account of what she witnessed below, via Fox News:

Oops! Well-Meaning 80-Year-Old Woman Hilariously 'Fixes' Priceless, Century-Old Spanish Fresco

» 1 comment

Hey, who remembers the 1997 American-made Mr. Bean movie?

'

Ok, I see that 99% of you have gone silent (By the way, yes, we here at Mediaite can see you through your computer screens. Most of you don't wear pants). Well, then I will have to explain. In the movie, there is a sequence where Mr. Bean has to guard the famous 1871 portrait of James McNeill Whistler's mother. Unfortunately, in all his Beaniness, Mr. Bean stains the portrait's face, a mistake he tries to correct by hurriedly doodling a terrifying smiley face in its place.

I remember laughing very, very hard at that scene in the theaters back in '97. I laughed just as hard this morning at this hilarious BBC report about an 80-year-old woman who tried to 'restore' a priceless fresco in a Spanish church.

I think you can guess how the story ends.

For more than a century, the Sanctuary of Mercy Church has been home to Elias Garcia Martinez's Ecce Homo, a beautiful fresco depicting Jesus Christ. Unfortunately, the years have aged the work of art, and the Lord's face has become deteriorated. So, parishioner Cecilia Gimenez decided to fix things by painting over it.

And'well'

I'll let someone else describe it:

'BBC Europe correspondent Christian Fraser says the delicate brush strokes of Elias Garcia Martinez have been buried under a haphazard splattering of paint.

The once-dignified portrait now resembles a crayon sketch of a very hairy monkey in an ill-fitting tunic, he says.'

Oh, man is that funny. You know, aside from the 'ruining a historic and beautiful artwork' part.

Check out the video from the BBC below:

• This is the greatest thing I have seen all week

Paul Ryan Is 'Very Proud' Of 'Forcible Rape' Bill He Co-Sponsored With Todd Akin

» 13 comments

Even as vice-presidential nominee Paul Ryan tries to escape his bonds with 'legitimate rape' Congressman Todd Akin by doing his best Barack Obama impersonation, he can't quite bring himself to denounce his 'forcible rape' bill. While he told one interviewer, on Wednesday, that 'rape is rape,' when reporters aboard his campaign plane asked him about the Ryan/Akin-sponsored 'forcible rape' bill, he responded that he's 'very proud' of his 'pro-life record.'

It's a clear contradiction, one that's easy to explain. Ryan wants to take credit for being the most extreme anti-choice (including most birth control) candidate, but he doesn't want to explain what, exactly, he meant by 'forcible rape.'

The not-so-secret dirty little secret is that, whatever he meant by 'forcible rape,' Paul Ryan doesn't actually care why, how, and if you were raped, forcibly, legitimately, or whatever, his objective is to force you to carry that rapist's baby to term.

As The Last Word's Lawrence O'Donnell points out, Ryan also assured reporters that, while he may hold one set of views on abortion and rape, Mitt Romney is at the top of the ticket, and 'the President sets policy.'

Perhaps more tellingly, though, he said a ban on abortion with exceptions for rape and incest (an exception which Ryan opposes) is a 'step in the right direction.'

That direction, of course, is a federal law that recognizes personhood at the point of conception, turning abortion, most birth control, and most fertility treatments, into murder. While that position is extreme to many Americans, it is one that is shared by a substantial number of legislators (the people who make the laws), and it's the Holy Grail of the extreme anti-abortion movement. When Paul Ryan says that a ban on abortion with an exception for rape is a 'step in the right direction,' this is the direction he's referring to.

When Paul Ryan explains that 'the President sets policy,' he isn't just explaining why the Romney/Ryan ticket shouldn't be held accountable for his own views, he's also reminding voters that if their ticket wins, he and his Holy Grail of anti-abortion policies will be one heartbeat away from the presidency, from being able to sign into law any crazy piece of anti-choice legislation the US Congress sends his way.

That might not mean much to the kind of voter who is lightly engaged on the issue of choice, who just likes the way the words 'Pro Life' sound together, but you can bet it means everything to a movement that views abortion, and even many forms of contraception, as baby-murder. The problem is, it's tough to get the average voter as worked up about protecting reproductive freedom as it is to excite the Operation Rescue crowd.

What often gets lost in the abortion rights debate is that people on both sides of it largely agree that it would be good if there were fewer abortions, they just disagree on the means to achieve that. The pro-choice side believes in greater access to, and education about, contraception, and in building a society that provides women with the basic support they need to choose to keep a baby, if they want to. The anti-abortion side believes in using the law to make it harder to get an abortion, and even if they're reasonable individuals, end up lining up with people who weirdly oppose contraception.

But most sane people don't view abortion, or the use of the birth control pill, as actual murder, punishable by death. It may sound like alarmism to the moderate mind, but a vote for Romney/Ryan is a vote for that view, whether it's at the top or the bottom of the ticket. Even if Paul Ryan is never called upon to serve as president, does anyone really believe that a President Romney, when presented with a personhood bill by a GOP-controlled congress, will have the political will to veto it?

• so proud that ryan has become mute on the subject

• Let's keep the focus on abortion. People don't care about things such as gas prices inching toward four dollars a gallon, whether their job will still be there tomorrow, etc. Yes, abortion is what concerns everyone the most. 

• I wonder what the percentage of republicans are that think the killing of Dr. George Tiller was a justifiable and even a moral act? I'd guess the number would be fairly high (30%?) but don't know the exact numbers. Those kind of people would fit into Tommy Christopher's definition of insane. The problem though is that they also make up a significant part of the republican electorate.

• That's a notably well-written, well-reasoned piece, TC. I found this passage particularly thought-provoking:

  'What often gets lost in the abortion rights debate is that people on
  both sides of it largely agree that it would be good if there were fewer
  abortions, they just disagree on the means to achieve that. The
  pro-choice side believes in greater access to, and education about,
  contraception, and in building a society that provides women with the
  basic support they need to choose to keep a baby, if they want to. The
  anti-abortion side believes in using the law to make it harder to get an
  abortion, and even if they're reasonable individuals, end up lining up
  with people who weirdly oppose contraception.'

  I am as anti-abortion as anyone in America. Twice, women close to me have wrestled with the question of abortion. I have done all I could to persuade them not to proceed. My wife and I have help support a teen pregnancy outreach. As a matter of faith, I am devout. As a matter of government policy and law, I am pro-choice. Principally for the reason stated in your last sentence. Making it harder to get an abortion does nothing to prevent an abortion. It simply burdens someone already heavily burdened.

  We have had some press in south and central Texas about Texas women border-shopping various abortion-inducing drugs in Mexico and facing some significant dangers in taking the medication without doctor's advice and without clear instructions on dosage and risks. Ms. Maddow even covered this story last night. You have to wonder what end is served when the extremes of either position win out.

  Thank you for a good piece.

•  No worries, loads of focus on abortion coming right up in Tampa.

  But as you clearly already know if you read the above article, it isn't just about abortion or Ryan alone, it's about Ryan trying to play both sides of the same coin.
  He's a lying, squirming, incompetent, dodging every question hypocrite, he doesn't want to explain why exactly he's so proud of his pro life record. Just another 'trust me' moment from  the Lyin'Ryan // Romney campaign.
  Yeah, just vote for me and after the election I'll tell you what my position is on any issue, right now you can forget it and just go away!!

  America ain't buying that tripe!!

• Damn you for your preference for freedom and choice and not forcing your beliefs on others!

• Thanks for the clip Tommy! Notice Senor ready to pounce at any deviation from the the talking points.

• Wasn't it Clinton that was so scorned by the right for saying abortion should be rare but legal or something like that?

  I explained the same thing about myself here recently only for the idiot trolls too call me a baby killer. I'm anti-abortion albeit perhaps less than you because I believe in the right of ANY woman to choose what SHE wants to do with her body. But I'd rather her not have an abortion it just shouldn't be up to me or ANYONE else. And then of course exactly that is after all the law of the land.

• There are two issues here that need more said than TC allows:

  1) It is not uncommon for pols to state a policy preference, acknowledge they are working toward it (or, more likely remain ambivalent about it, or suggest it's not the right time) but also declare they will follow the law of the land.

  Obama has done this on numerous occasions. It is attacked by both sides routinely for a variety of obvious reasons' but it is hardly an uncommon thing.

  2) most people don't vote on a single issue basis' so saying 'a vote for Romney/Ryan is a vote for that view' is highly misleading. Most people who vote for Romney/Ryan won't even have abortion cross their mind.

  you don't get to vote on each and every policy preference you may hold. You vote for a candidate that (typically) best represents your preferences most of the time. 

• Tommy, the people could care less that Ryan is pro life.
  They care about Barrys failed Presidency, the economy and jobs jobs jobs'something the liberal lame stream media is avoiding like the plague!

•  The topic, my friend, was advanced by one of your own.

•  Would that the topic itself at long last be moot.

•  So you're against abortion. From the tone of his articles, Tommy would argue that you're pro-rape.

Will GOP Convention Hurricane Overcome Media Blackout Of Ann Romney's Speech?

» 12 comments

The measured glee with which the media has greeted news that a potential hurricane is barreling down on Tampa precisely as Republican party is set to commence their nominating convention has been, well, predictable. Even accounting for the fact that hurricanes are notoriously volatile, Isaac appears set to impact the west coast of Florida on Monday ' just as the convention begins. But the broadcast media had also made a point of ignoring that first convention day when Mitt Romney's wife, Ann Romney, is scheduled to make an important address. But the storm could revive hopes that Ann's speech will receive the attention of a broad audience. The impending hurricane, and the speculative run-up to landfall that accompanies such events, could increase marginal voters' interest in the convention and draw viewers who would otherwise stick with the broadcast networks' staple sitcoms and dramas.

RELATED: Ann Romney's GOP Convention Speech May Not Make It Into Network TV Coverage

When news broke that the three major broadcast networks planned to ignore the first day of the Republican convention, despite broadcasting every night of the (albeit truncated) Democratic convention the following week, the usual cries of media bias arose from cynical conservatives. While few would question the near ubiquitous popularity of Hawaii Five-O reruns, the networks probably just cannot afford to lose a full week's worth of advertising dollars to broadcast the entire convention. Blame revenue projections first before malice ' if that's not a razor yet, it should be.

But the decision by the networks to skip Monday comes as a blow to the Romney campaign. Republicans want to feature Ann Romney prominently in the coming weeks. Not only does she serve to rebut Democratic claims that the GOP is unfriendly to women, she is uniquely suited to neuter attacks on Mitt Romney coming from President Barack Obama's allies that he is a heartless accountant who is implicitly responsible for a steelworker's cancer-related death. Ann Romney's own battles with multiple sclerosis and breast cancer make her a living, breathing counterargument to the tired liberal caricature of Republican politicians as unfeeling plutocrats.

The potential for Ann Romney's speech to be blacked out to marginally interested voters must have been viewed as a blow to the Romney campaign's hopes for a comprehensive polling bounce across all demographics coming out of the convention.

And then came the news that a storm churning in the Caribbean threatens to transform into a major hurricane. Furthermore, that storm is targeting, of all places, Tampa. The storm threatens to hit the city, either glancing or directly, on Monday night ' the precise night of Ann's speech.

This has been greeted as a near-cosmic confluence of events by Democrats. Is it possible that the GOP convention could be disrupted or even ' gasp ' postponed?

Well, that possibility remains unlikely. Isaac could disrupt the convention in some way, which would be a shame for the GOP as it would greatly frustrate the party's hopes for a well-managed rollout ahead of autumn's full-court press. But the speculative coverage of the hurricane ahead of the convention could salvage the GOP's hopes to drive up interest in that first convention day and, thus, Ann Romney's 10:30 p.m. address.

The broadcast networks will not reverse course on their decision not to cover the convention on Monday, but the hype that surrounds a storm is likely to push a few marginal voters onto online feeds and the cable news networks to watch some of the the convention's first night ' even if that impulse is motivated by schadenfreude.

The hurricane may still be the God-send that Democrats hope it will be, but it also has the potential to salvage the Republican's hopes to dominate the news cycle next week. It is just possible that this coming storm could be the savior of the convention's first night. Without that storm, Ann Romney's speech would probably be seen only by already committed voters. Isaac could become a blessing in disguise for the GOP.

> >Follow Noah Rothman (@Noah_C_Rothman) on Twitter

• Nobody cares, Rafalca will keep her happy.

•  He speech'''..pointing a finger at the country and crying'no more tax returns!! Those liberals are mean!!
  Ann and the rest of these clowns are a great representation of everything wrong with America, the world knows it, most patriotic Americans know it.

• Queen Ann Romneyhood doesn't come out in the rain.  maybe she can skype her speech from one of her mansions.

• If you whiny ass tittie babies want her featured then switch her night'otherwise STFU'

• Fox 'News', MSNBC, CNN, C-Span will all cover it so who cares.

•  Precisely. This is total whining. Some of us are more excited for the Hurricane than the hot air coming from the dopes on the right

• When will the 5 Romney-boys be speaking ?

  or are they too busy enlisting in the military just in case dear ol' dad starts a war with Iran or something ?

• I'm sure the AP is not suggesting that a hurricane will hit the GOP convention or inviting a little fantasy schadenfreude around that scenario, because that would be just beyond the pale. It would be like a Republican-leaning news source in the middle of the 2000 election cycle warning coyly that earthquakes are known to occur in Southern California and it would be a tragic shame if the Staples Center had to be abandoned in the wake of such a disaster. Of course, the AP is not engaging in such an appalling flight of fancy.- Noah

  http://www.mediaite.com/online/ap-scoop-republicans-august-convention-in-florida-could-be-hit-by-a-hurricane/

• 'The measured glee with which the media has greeted news that a potential
  hurricane is barreling down on Tampa precisely as Republican party is
  set to commence their nominating convention has been, well, predictable.'

  Could you please give specific examples of this because I watch CNN and MSNBC constantly ( and the network nightly news) and I haven't seen any 'glee' regarding a hurricane coming.

• Ummmm'here's a solution'.Have Ann speak on another night. Problem solved. No charge.

  Leave it to the Republicans to create their own 'problem' and then blame the media for not solving it. Seriously, Repub's think network TV should be interrupted so Ann can speak?  How is this newsworthy?  Is she going to go on TV and ask for a divorce? That would be news. We already get it'she thinks her husband is a 'swell' guy.  

• A measurable Glee?  How so?  What type of scale did you use to measure this Gleefulness amongst the Media?

  Oh yeah, the Cablers/TV love to cover Hurricanes.  They are notorious for sending their Major anchors to cover Natural disasters.  So please spare your readers the right winger nonsense.

  In 2008'.the Networks Covered ONLY 3 hours of both conventions.  They are doing the same this year.  Facts matter.

  They will all be stream lining, which were not really done in 2008.  Cablers will be doing prime time coverage   FBN, CNBC, Fox will cover the TBGOPer convention more than they will cover the Dem convention.  So please spare Us the victim-hood for Ann Romney.

• There are some of us out here among the 'You People' who really don't care to hear this filthy rich woman tell us to 'eat cake.'

Holder's Justice Department Directed To Hire Dwarfs, People With 'Psychiatric' Or 'Intellectual Disabilities'

» 19 comments

According to a report in PJ Media, Attorney General Eric Holder's Department of Justice has a directive to hire dwarfs or individuals with 'psychiatric disabilities' or 'severe intellectual disabilities.'

The directive by Assistant Attorney General Tom Perez, dated May 31, 2012, authorizes Justice Department officials to recruit those who self-identify as suffering from a psychiatric disorder or intellectual disability.

RELATED: Bloggers File Formal Complaint To Get Attorney General Eric Holder Disbarred

PJ Media notes that the directive allows DoJ officials to hire those disabled recruitment targets through 'non-competitive' appointment. That is, they don't have to compete with applicants who do not suffer with disabilities:

According to the documents, those with these 'targeted disabilities' may be hired 'before the position is advertised' and even 'before the position's closing date.' Moreover, lawyers with psychiatric disabilities and 'severe intellectual' disabilities receive a waiver from the requirement that a new DOJ employee have practiced law for one year before being hired.

h/t PJ Media

> >Follow Noah Rothman (@Noah_C_Rothman) on Twitter

• PJ Media is worse than the National Enquirer. 

•  Exactly.
  Pure silly tabloid trash.

• Kill two birds with one stone and hire Chucky.

• Noah, you just sunk to a new low .. 

• Mediaite, Drudge, Fox Nation? Hard to tell them apart when Noah writes.

• The correlation between how well Republicans are doing and the histrionics contained in Noah Rothman's posts at Mediaite is strong.

• I read the document. The author of this 'story' obviously did not.

• Well at least the first sentence says it

  According to a report in PJ Media

  In the future, it would be nice to know before clicking.

• IF that is true I would not be surprised!!

• Dwarfs are one thing'OK.  But lawyers working for the DOJ with Psychiatric' Or 'Intellectual Disabilities??   Now THAT gives us lots of faith in Holder and the DOJ.

  But then, maybe Holder is getting lonely and wants more of his own kind on staff.

  P.S. I saw this story on another site and I'm shocked that Mediaite actually printed it.

•  Well, since holder has an obvious mental disability, it's only fair, right?!

• They already hired people with severe intellectual disabilities and psychiatric disabilities'they just need to hire Verne Troyer and complete the trifecta !!

•  I know, the truth hurts.  Cheer up..you may be able to find a job at the DOJ.

•  National Enquirer is one of the few that investigate and reveal the real truth.

•  Here is the PJ site with direct links to the documents.  Let people see for themselves.

  http://pjmedia.com/tatler/2012...

• Noah appears to be the  Mediaite special needs hire.

• Sounds about right.   While their process is suspect (and wrong) government agencies have long been at the forefront of hiring persons with disabilities, which is a good thing.

• chuck got hired for his janitorial position through the same policies.

• It doesn't take much imagination to guess which ideology you subscribe to, its the one that lives to degrade others versus the one that lives to see people build themselves up.  And no, I'm not disabled.