I Want Michael Moore To Be Wrong About Newtown Crime Scene Photos

Filmmaker and activist Michael Moore is taking predictable criticism over his assertion that the media should release photos of the children horrifically slain in the December 14 mass shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School. There are several elements of Moore's commentary that are viscerally repulsive, but little within it that I can easily identify as just plain wrong. The thing that I find most offensive about Michael Moore's commentary is the mere possibility that his central premise, that Americans need to see those photos in order to become energized about life-saving gun regulation, could be right.

Where I clearly disagree with Moore is in the notion that media outlets should publish the photos of the children's bodies without the parents' permission. His comparison of the Newtown children with Emmett Till, the black teenager who was savagely lynched in 1955, is compelling, because Till's mother insisted that the world see the strange fruit of racist hatred. If the Newtown parents were to make such a decision, it would immediately silence the notion that the photos were 'political props,' or that gun control advocates care more about their cause than the feelings of the parents. As silly as that notion is, releasing the photos without their permission would badly undercut the desired effect.

While I disagree with Moore on that point, he makes a fine case for it, citing other published horrors which led to beneficial political change:

In March, 1968, U.S. soldiers massacred 500 civilians at My Lai in Vietnam. A year and a half later, the world finally saw the photographs ' of mounds of dead peasants covered in blood, a terrified toddler seconds before he was gunned down, and a woman with her brains literally blown out of her head. (These photos would join other Vietnam War photos, including a naked girl burned by napalm running down the road, and a South Vietnamese general walking up to a handcuffed suspect, taking out his handgun, and blowing the guy's brains out on the NBC Nightly News.)

With this avalanche of horrid images, the American public turned against the Vietnam War. Our realization of what we were capable of rattled us so deeply it became very hard for future presidents (until George W. Bush) to outright invade a sovereign nation and go to war there for a decade.

It is in making that case, and elsewhere, that Moore's commentary begins to turn the stomach. It's a cold, practical argument, as is his stated goal of 'finishing off the NRA' by releasing the photos, which he then couples with graphic, emotionally fraught descriptions of what the Newtown photos might look like. Michael Moore is not a deft writer, and his emotional manipulations can be clumsy, self-conscious. The effect is profoundly uncomfortable, even repulsive. Is 'finishing off the NRA' a worthy consequence of such a soul-shattering tragedy?

That question is at the heart of the 'exploitation' narrative, and relies on the misguided premise that all 'political'goals are created equal. They are not. The NRA exists to promote the financial interests of the gun industry, at a heavy cost to public safety. Advocates for gun regulation exist to save lives. The NRA has proven itself a worthy villain in this tragedy, a fact that Moore's headline assumes, but doesn't take the full measure of.

Advocates for gun regulation support the right of Americans to defend themselves, to own firearms, and even to allow schools to employ trained police officers for protection. The NRA opposes any and all regulation of firearms, including background checks that would keep guns out of the hands of criminals and terrorists, and a ban on high-capacity magazines that would have demonstrably saved the life of nine year-old Christina Taylor Green.

Therefore, 'finishing off the NRA' is not just a political goal, it is a moral imperative. That Michael Moore failed to deliver that message with nuance and sensitivity doesn't make it less true.

What's less certain is the premise at the heart of Moore's essay, reflection upon which cuts deeply and painfully:

I believe someone in Newtown, Connecticut ' a grieving parent, an upset law enforcement officer, a citizen who has seen enough of this carnage in our country ' somebody, someday soon, is going to leak the crime scene photos of the Sandy Hook Elementary School massacre. And when the American people see what bullets from an assault rifle fired at close range do to a little child's body, that's the day the jig will be up for the NRA. It will be the day the debate on gun control will come to an end. There will be nothing left to argue over. It will just be over. And every sane American will demand action.

At this point, we have no real way of knowing whether the tragedy in Newtown has really changed things. It may already have. Polling on specific gun control measures shows overwhelming public support, but doesn't measure the intensity of that support, so it may be a long time before we find out. First, Congress must vote on all of these measures, and if they don't pass, we'll have to see if voters punish them for it in the 2014 mid-terms. Moore points out that past tragedies haven't managed to move Americans to demand action, but maybe this time will be different.

It's my hope that Americans are already as moved by this tragedy as I was, and whether or not they agree with all of the measures being considered, will demand a vote on them. The idea that I might live in a country full of people who would need to see photos of these horrifically slain children in order to demand action angers me. As I read Moore's piece, it was this anger that blotted out the merely discomforting aspects of it, and even blotted out my disgust with Moore's concern-trolling critics. If we can't internalize this tragedy now, if we can't already feel the crushing weight of those lost souls, if we can dope ourselves into closing our eyes, looking away, then to hell with us.

But there's an even more disturbing possibility embedded in Michael Moore's demand. As much as I want it to be unnecessary, there may come a time when one or more of the Newtown parents decides to heed Moore's advice, decides that no matter the emotional toll, it is worth publishing these photos if it will save a child in the next mass shooting. As accursed as I find anyone who requires such prodding, the practical effect of their support might be necessary, and might be worth it. However, given the American people's, and the American media's, history of backing down from the loudest voices in the room, there remains the sickening possibility that even those photos wouldn't be enough.

MSNBC Fooled Ed Schultz (And The Media) About His Future In Primetime

Well, it's official. Liberal firebrand Ed Schultz is out, and progressive policy wonk Chris Hayes is in at MSNBC's 8 p.m. weeknight primetime slot. Before making this change that was apparently a long time coming, MSNBC effectively fooled (dare I say may have lied to?) the media (and Schultz himself) into thinking The Ed Show was safe.

Hayes will leave his weekend morning show to host the prime time gig, while Schultz claims he 'raised his hand' and volunteered for the 'opportunity' to end The Ed Show and host a new weekend 5-7 p.m. show. Right.

Happy faces aside, it seems clear this was Schultz's spin and that, in fact, MSNBC had pushed him out of the more far prestigious primetime slot.

No one knows exactly why Schultz was demoted to weekends, but the shift undoubtedly comes as a move towards the young, technocratic image the network has effectively crafted under the Obama administration. As The Week notes, Schultz's bellicose manner is a relic of the Bush era, when progressives were fired up and on the warpath. But now, it's likely MSNBC wanted to make room for the youthful, cerebral and mild-mannered Hayes to fill out an evening that also includes young wonk-in-chief Rachel Maddow.

The media world remembers when New York Times media reporter Brian Stelter broke the story back in November that Schultz was likely on his way out of 8 p.m. In return, the fiery host unleashed a flurry of insults at Stelter, accusing him of reporting 'media garbage' and not being able to 'sniff very well' when digging through a scoop.

While Schultz stormed, MSNBC claimed : 'We're very happy with the performance of our prime time lineup, which topped Fox News Channel three nights this week. There are no changes planned.'

Television news insider site TVNewser seems to have fallen for the 'spin' and headlined an article 'Ed Schultz Being Replaced at 8pm? Not so Fast' and discussed Schultz's 'strong' ratings in his time slot.

Brian Stelter is a great media reporter and it always seemed preposterous that he had somehow gotten it totally wrong. With that in mind, I guess MSNBC could argue that its reaction was technically truthful at the time (operative word: 'planned'), but more likely it was just PR spin that managed to fool both Schultz and the some in the media into thinking he wasn't going anywhere.

On the other hand, many will speculate that the move could be mutual on both parts, seeing as Schultz's wife just finished cancer treatment, and he might not mind having some extra time to spend with her. It's also possible Schultz was in such rage over the inevitable prime time ouster that he lashed out at Stelter just because he could.

But I'd say Schultz having been snookered is a much more likely scenario, seeing as how there's no way someone as hot-headed as The Ed Show host would play along for four months with the network if he knew the end was near.

' '
>> Follow Andrew Kirell (@AndrewKirell) on Twitter

WATCH LIVE: Sen. Marco Rubio Speaks At CPAC 2013

Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL) is scheduled to speak at CPAC 2013 on Thursday, March 14th beginning at 1:15pm ET. Rubio's last major speech to his conservative base came in the form of the official Republican Party response to the State of the Union last month, which received more media attention for his over-zealous water drinking as it did for the content of his speech.

View the full CPAC 2013 schedule here and watch continuous live streaming coverage of the conference below:

Free desktop streaming application by Ustream

Dee Snider Blasts Trump For 'Very Little' Presence On Celebrity Apprentice: 'He Doesn't See Anything'

It's a not-so-well-kept secret that reality television abides by a rather loose definition of 'reality.' We may love the D-R-A-M-A, but things usually aren't as they seem. And this is what Twisted Sister's Dee Snider 'who's on the current all-star season of Donald Trump's Celebrity Apprentice ' took issue with during a recent radio interview with WOR's John Gambling. Trump, he said, isn't very clued in to what's going on.

One of the problems with the show, Snider (who was fired on Sunday night's episode) said, is that they see 'very little' of Trump himself. 'Like a judge, he doesn't see anything,' he asserted. 'He only hears what's going on in the boardroom. He doesn't see tapes, he doesn't know anything.'

Thus, in the boardroom, he added, when Trump is listening to the various team members, he has no frame of reference to know how truthful they're being ' and that's an issue.

Snider also commented on the infamously 'evil' Omarosa, also a contestant this season, noting that 'she's lovely' off camera, but the show is a performance. 'When she's doing her act, she is a villain,' he said. 'And that's where she lives, in the world of reality TV. And she does her thing.'

So, is the show fun? 'The standard answer from everybody who was asked to return to the show was no,' Snider said, explaining that it's incredibly strenuous and time consuming. 'It is Survivor': For the men, it's 16 hours a day, six days a week, three shows a week.

An 'unrelenting grind.'

Yep, sounds enjoyable.

Listen below:

Obama Warns: 'Increasing America's Debt Weakens Us Domestically And Internationally' ' In 2006

'[T]he cost of our debt is one of the fastest growing expenses in the Federal budget,' said President Barack Obama. 'This rising debt is a hidden domestic enemy, robbing our cities and States of critical investments in infrastructure like bridges, ports, and levees; robbing our families and our children of critical investments in education and health care reform; robbing our seniors of the retirement and health security they have counted on.'

Obama made this appeal from the floor of the U.S. Senate in 2006 as he and his fellow Democrats rallied against raising the debt ceiling limit. Then, the national debt stood at just over $8 trillion. Today, it has ballooned to more than $16 trillion. On Wednesday, Obama told ABC News host George Stephanopoulos that there is no 'immediate crisis in terms of debt,' and he will not pursue a balanced budget 'just for the sake of balance.' In light of these comments, Obama's words from 2006 merit revisiting.

RELATED: Obama In Wide-Ranging Interview With ABC: 'We Don't Have An Immediate Crisis In Terms Of Debt'

Human Events columnist David Harsanyi dug up Obama's floor speech from 2006 in opposition to increasing the debt ceiling limit. It is worth the read in its entirety, but a few choice elements are particularly damning in light of the president's recent dismissal of debt reduction as a worthwhile pursuit.

'The fact that we are here today to debate raising America's debt limit is a sign of leadership failure,' Obama said. 'It is a sign that the U.S. Government can't pay its own bills. It is a sign that we now depend on ongoing financial assistance from foreign countries to finance our Government's reckless fiscal policies.'

And the cost of our debt is one of the fastest growing expenses in the Federal budget. This rising debt is a hidden domestic enemy, robbing our cities and States of critical investments in infrastructure like bridges, ports, and levees; robbing our families and our children of critical investments in education and health care reform; robbing our seniors of the retirement and health security they have counted on.

'[I]t took 42 Presidents 224 years to run up only $1 trillion of foreign-held debt. This administration did more than that in just 5 years,' Obama said of the Bush administration. 'Now, there is nothing wrong with borrowing from foreign countries. But we must remember that the more we depend on foreign nations to lend us money, the more our economic security is tied to the whims of foreign leaders whose interests might not be aligned with ours.'

'Increasing America's debt weakens us domestically and internationally,' Obama said before registering his opposition to increasing the nation's debt ceiling.

This speech is regularly circulated. In 2011, then-White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs said that Obama only voted against the debt ceiling because he knew the Republicans had the votes to ensure the measure passed. In January, 2013, CBS reporter Major Garrett asked Obama directly about his 2006 vote.

'I think if you look at the history, getting votes for the debt ceiling is always difficult and budgets in this town are always difficult,' Obama told Garrett. 'I went through this just last year. But what's different is we never saw a situation as we saw last year in which certain groups in Congress took such an absolutist position that we came within a few days of defaulting.'

In other words, the president objects to the debt ceiling being used by Congress as a political cudgel to bludgeon the executive, except when he's the member of Congress doing the bludgeoning.

Either the president was being disingenuous in 2006 when he so strenuously objected to the staggering rate of growth in the nation's debt or he is being untruthful today when he tells Stephanopoulos that there is no debt crisis. Somewhere, there is an enterprising reporter just dying to ask the president to clarify his position on just how big a threat the nation's spiraling debt poses.

> >Follow Noah Rothman (@NoahCRothman) on Twitter

Rand Paul Advocates More 'Tolerant' GOP In Op-Ed: 'I Filibustered To Defend Millennials'

Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY) shot back at critics of his nearly 13-hour filibuster against the nomination of CIA Director John Brennan in an op-ed published on PolicyMic.com. Paul went directly after the Wall Street Journal editorial that accused him of catering to 'impressionable libertarian kids in their college dorms,' and idea that was later echoed by Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) on the Senate floor.

Paul used his op-ed to embrace the 'millennial' generation, a group that PolicyMic specifically targets, and defend younger libertarians from attacks by conservatives establishment like the Wall Street Journal and McCain. 'We do need a Republican Party that addresses the concerns of young people,' Paul wrote. 'We need a different kind of GOP, a party that speaks to the rising generation, who may have unique interests and concerns.'

While much of the op-ed dealt with issues of deficit and debt, the section below indicated a desire for enhanced liberty on social issues as well.

'I believe a Republican Party that is more tolerant and dedicated to keeping the government out of people's lives as much as possible would be more appealing to the rising generation. We have a nation of 300 million people who all harbor very different opinions on various policies. We have a Constitution that allows, even requires, many of these decisions to be made at the state and local level, which could accommodate the diversity of opinion in this country. Most young people I encounter simply have no desire to tell other people what to do or how to live.'

The sentiments put forth by Paul in this article could be an indication of what he plans to say during his address at the CPAC conference later this week in Washington, D.C. Paul is scheduled to speak at 1:30pm ET on Thursday, March 14th.

'

>> Follow Matt Wilstein (@TheMattWilstein) on Twitter

Beck Compares Rand Paul To 19th Century Senate Caning Victim, Predicts Launch Of 'Historic Movement'

Glenn Beck delivered a veritable history lesson to his audience Monday night, telling the story of Charles Sumner's 'Crime against Kansas' speech in 1856, which led to that Massachusetts senator getting caned by Rep. Preston Brooks on the Senate floor. Beck saw significant parallels between Sumner's physical beating and the verbal attacks Sen. Rand Paul received from Senators John McCain and Lindsey Graham last week.

After telling a brief history of the 'pro-freedom' Republican Party's founding culminating with the election of Abraham Lincoln in 1860, Beck zoomed in on the story of Sumner's speech, in which he made a the grievous error of calling out a fellow senator by name. That senator's cousin, Preston Brooks, then came to the Senate floor and beat Sumner with his cane.

'The most important difference,' Beck said, 'between what happened with Rand Paul's speech last weekend and Senator Sumner's speech is, well, Rand Paul wasn't beaten with a cane.' He added that Paul 'didn't attack anyone.' He just 'defended the Constitution.' But that didn't stop McCain and Graham from calling out Paul by name on the Senate floor. As Beck said, 'their words are their cane.'

Beck then entered the prophetic mode he self-deprecatingly mocked last night on The O'Reilly Factor, predicting that just as Sumner's speech launched a movement that ended with Lincoln in the White House, Paul's filibuster will presage a similar 'historic movement' for the libertarian-leaning wing of the Republican Party.

Watch video below, via The Blaze:

'

>> Follow Matt Wilstein (@TheMattWilstein) on Twitter