Patterico's Pontifications

12/30/2013

MSNBC Cretins Mock Mitt Romney’s Black Adopted Grandson

Filed under: General — Patterico @ 11:52 am

If you weren’t familiar with the channel, this might seem shocking:

I can’t editorialize any better than Ken White from Popehat:

193 Comments

  1. i don’t get why kieran is wearing pink when all the other lil guys are wearing blue

    Comment by happyfeet (c60db2) — 12/30/2013 @ 12:07 pm

  2. I can see where that panel is coming from. As we all know, there is a huge shortage of children — especially African-American children — waiting to be adopted, so, like, shame on the Romney kid for depriving one of the tens of thousands of African-American couples patiently waiting for the chance to adopt a child of their own race.

    My word, this Melissa Perry-Harris broad is an absolute harpy.

    Comment by JVW (709bc7) — 12/30/2013 @ 12:08 pm

  3. Mr. Feets, I’m wondering if the Romney grand kid isn’t really a girl, and the MSNBC bozos are hoping that she has a gay wedding to the Kardashian baby.

    Comment by JVW (709bc7) — 12/30/2013 @ 12:11 pm

  4. You can take the harpy out of the ghetto but you can’t take the ghetto out of the harpy. South LA lost a popular street walker when Melissa went to MSNBC.

    Comment by nk (dbc370) — 12/30/2013 @ 12:12 pm

  5. The amount of bile, hatred, venom and general trailer trash intellectualism that inhabits that channel is beyond belief.

    Comment by SPQR (1c89a2) — 12/30/2013 @ 12:20 pm

  6. To reach that rich vein of crazy, is not easy.

    Comment by narciso (3fec35) — 12/30/2013 @ 12:21 pm

  7. 2. This racist attitude has held sway in Social Services for decades, primarily among bureaucrats of color.

    On a note related to this racism:

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2530741/Theres-no-room-MANLY-Controversial-feminist-writer-Camille-Paglia-speaks-against-loss-masculine-virtues-negative-impact-society.html

    Biological differences are an error, a fluke of Creation, on the part of a blind and sightless Demiurge.

    Thia “is how a civilization commits suicide”.

    Comment by gary gulrud (e2cef3) — 12/30/2013 @ 12:30 pm

  8. The Daily Mail is just repeating what was in the Wall Street Journal.

    Comment by Sammy Finkelman (b9404b) — 12/30/2013 @ 12:48 pm

  9. turtles all the way down;

    http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2013/12/dem-rep-obamacare-enrollment-low-because-people-think-the-law-is-repealed-video/

    Comment by narciso (3fec35) — 12/30/2013 @ 12:51 pm

  10. MSLSD…

    Comment by redc1c4 (abd49e) — 12/30/2013 @ 12:52 pm

  11. PS: why the need to insult cretins the world over by comparing them to these creatures?

    Comment by redc1c4 (abd49e) — 12/30/2013 @ 12:52 pm

  12. And they wonder why Air America, didn’t take off as a business model.

    Comment by narciso (3fec35) — 12/30/2013 @ 12:58 pm

  13. 9. I know you can get all kinds of answers in polls when people are being pressed to answer – a majority are opposed to “Obamacare” but a lot like favors the “Affordable Care Act” I read today – but thinking Obamacare has been repealed?

    Oh – that’s Eleanor Holmes Norton’s explanation for low enrollment.

    No, nobody thinks it has been repealed, but it is probably true that people aren’t worried about the penalty, for a variety of reasons.

    They may not even have heard about it, they may know it is avoidable, they may think Congress may repeal it, they may think it’s not worth buing even taking into account the penalty, they may not be thinking that far ahead, and hey may just not be able to afford to buy these insurance policies anyway.

    Comment by Sammy Finkelman (b9404b) — 12/30/2013 @ 1:00 pm

  14. Melissa Harris Perry wouldn’t have been as upset had the black child been aborted.

    Comment by Peter (371d15) — 12/30/2013 @ 1:08 pm

  15. Isn’t “MSNBC Cretins” a redundant phrase?

    Comment by askeptic (b8ab92) — 12/30/2013 @ 1:10 pm

  16. I guess making sexual jokes about the Palin children has gotten old, since they are no longer under-age. “Cretins” is right.

    Comment by The Sanity Inspector (121b27) — 12/30/2013 @ 1:12 pm

  17. Grinches.

    Comment by SarahW (b0e533) — 12/30/2013 @ 1:35 pm

  18. She wore a couple as earrings, but she needs one in that orifice right below her nose.

    Comment by Colonel Haiku (53f59e) — 12/30/2013 @ 1:52 pm

  19. You want to see epic fail;

    http://minx.cc/?post=346108

    Comment by narciso (3fec35) — 12/30/2013 @ 1:55 pm

  20. Tampon brain

    Comment by Icy (b22f5c) — 12/30/2013 @ 1:58 pm

  21. Melissa Hairy-Paris. Lapsus Linguae.

    Comment by Birdbath (716828) — 12/30/2013 @ 2:04 pm

  22. What’s the ugliest part of her body? I think it’s her mind.

    Comment by Colonel Haiku (53f59e) — 12/30/2013 @ 2:06 pm

  23. Just wait until she finds out one of Duck Dynasty leads has a multiracial family as well.

    Comment by ratbeach (477e41) — 12/30/2013 @ 2:34 pm

  24. 19. Yes, David Gregory is no Tim Russert. Why should it take NBC five years to realize this?

    Comment by Sammy Finkelman (b9404b) — 12/30/2013 @ 2:42 pm

  25. I think respectable blogs need to just stop linking to these cretins, and respectable people need to just quit cluck clucking and eye rolling over them. Most of the hosts on there are evil nasty racist people but I am convinced MSDNC mostly does it for link bait since they know nobody watches them when it’s aired the 1st time.

    Comment by elissa (7635d7) — 12/30/2013 @ 2:48 pm

  26. They were mocking the Republican party for lack of diversity, and so forth, and mocking Mitt Romney for … adopting a black child?

    So they were way off base and awful in a different way. I don’t get that they were mocking the child though.

    Anyway, it’s up to Mitt and Ann Romney and probably to their children as well who else they decide to offer a safe and loving home to. Adopting a child is not something we usually criticize people for.

    Comment by Former Conservative (6e026c) — 12/30/2013 @ 2:50 pm

  27. #10

    Don’t put LSD down like that.

    Comment by DejectedHead (a094a6) — 12/30/2013 @ 2:55 pm

  28. They were mocking the Republican party for lack of diversity, and so forth, and mocking Mitt Romney for … adopting a black child?

    Why not? They had fun with GHWB’s brown grandchildren, and somehow managed to make him seem racist anyway.

    Comment by Milhouse (50cb78) — 12/30/2013 @ 3:05 pm

  29. Did Porter Rockwell leave progeny?

    Comment by nk (dbc370) — 12/30/2013 @ 3:07 pm

  30. I think that there is a reason for this clearly hypocritical nonsense. The folks on that so-called network only hang out with people just like themselves. So they are “soaking in their ideology” on a daily basis.

    Folks on the Right *have* to listen to Left of center ideas, since the MSM pushes that point of view, as does popular culture.

    So these nutty deluxe Leftists don’t see that they are being hateful racists. And they are. Because if they were not, why, what would they say about Brad Pitt’s family? Or Stephen Spielberg’s family? Or *any* Left of center white family adopting a child of African or Hispanic ancestry?

    But as I have been writing, folks on the Left believe they are on the side of the angels. So folks who disagree with them must needs be evil. This is the result.

    And the sad part, to me? All the Hollyweird families who have adopted kids from another race ought to be furious at the clear racism here. But they won’t.

    Because an eeevvviiillll Republican did it.

    Sort of like a white Hispanic, you know?

    All hail the ethnocracy of our own “Animal Farm,” hey?

    I’m glad that some folks are fighting back.

    Comment by Simon Jester (815a21) — 12/30/2013 @ 3:13 pm

  31. I once wound up visiting a family that had deep scandanavian roots and we all were invited crosstown to have dinner at the relatives house.
    I get introduced around and then find myself outside in a large common lawn area playing soccer with a bunch of blonde kids and two kids who have dark brown/black skin.
    I forget how it happened, but somehow I asked the black kids where they lived and they said “over there” and pointed towards the house I was visiting… I’m a little slow on the uptake on this, so I stumble around that one for a second and must have looked stymied, so the oldest of the blacks kids has mercy on my stupidity and tells me they were adopted from PNG and they were all brothers, sisters and cousins.
    I never thought to call social services to check to make sure they kids were getting daily cultural inculcation and/or reparations.

    Comment by steveg (794291) — 12/30/2013 @ 3:19 pm

  32. Rush had it right when he labeled them: PMSNBC!

    Comment by askeptic (b8ab92) — 12/30/2013 @ 3:21 pm

  33. I think it’s just a continuation of Romney’s admission that he is a progressive and not a real rock-ribbed conservative like they have down there in Texas.

    Comment by Colonel Haiku (53f59e) — 12/30/2013 @ 3:32 pm

  34. He was too busy killin’ people that deserved it, nk.

    Comment by Colonel Haiku (53f59e) — 12/30/2013 @ 3:34 pm

  35. between her and Comandante Krugman, Princeton’s just coming up aces,

    Comment by narciso (3fec35) — 12/30/2013 @ 3:53 pm

  36. 35. Do you get the drift some people’s are missing the actual reason PMSNBC token’s are bringing up Willard?

    Here for your amusement is a discussion about the ‘Business Cycle’ stick Seamus’s abuser kept coming back to last campaign.

    http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2013-12-30/correcting-some-misconceptions-about-new-secular-bull-market

    That oscillation is white noise riding on a ‘Rise and Fall of an Empire’ blip in history cycle.

    There is no point to Willard but as a misdirection. Squirrel!

    Comment by gary gulrud (e2cef3) — 12/30/2013 @ 4:22 pm

  37. Her parents must be so proud.

    Comment by mg (31009b) — 12/30/2013 @ 4:31 pm

  38. “Everybody loves a baby picture,” Harris-Perry said, “and this was one that really, a lot of people had emotions about this baby picture this year. This is the Romney family. And, of course, there on Governor Romney’s knee is his adopted grandson, who is an African-American, adopted African-American child, Kieran Romney.”

    ***

    did a lot of people for reals have emotions about this picture?

    i never seen it before my whole life

    but i don’t have an emotional reaction to it really

    I just wish someone would explain why Kieran is wearing pink when it’s clear these people went to a lot of trouble to get all the boys to wear blue and all the girls to wear pink

    not to be all ocd or anything

    Comment by happyfeet (c60db2) — 12/30/2013 @ 4:48 pm

  39. I dug this out of my email in-box earlier today and had a chuckle.

    To All My Democrat Friends:
    Please accept with no obligation, implied or implicit, my best wishes for an environmentally conscious, socially responsible, low- stress, non-addictive, gender-neutral celebration of the winter solstice holiday, practiced within the most enjoyable traditions of the religious persuasion of your choice, or secular practices of your choice, with respect for the religious/secular persuasion and/or traditions of others, or their choice not to practice religious or secular traditions at all.
    I also wish you a fiscally successful, personally fulfilling and medically uncomplicated recognition of the onset of the generally accepted calendar year 2014, but not without due respect for the calendars of choice of other cultures whose contributions to society have helped make America great. Not to imply that America is necessarily greater than any other countries nor the only “America” in the Western Hemisphere.
    Also, this wish is made without regard to the race, creed, color, age, physical ability, religious faith or sexual preference of the receiver of the wish.

    To My Republican Friends:
    Merry Christmas, and a Happy New Year!

    Comment by elissa (7635d7) — 12/30/2013 @ 4:56 pm

  40. put it on the top of the car for a spin

    Comment by pdbuttons (6f2573) — 12/30/2013 @ 4:57 pm

  41. those romneys and their crazy adventures my goodness

    little guy just has no idea what he’s in for

    Comment by happyfeet (c60db2) — 12/30/2013 @ 5:05 pm

  42. This is disgusting. Romney’s political views aside, he’s never been anything but great to his family. Attacking family is nasty even during a hot election season. Attacking the family of someone who isn’t even running for anything is just nasty for nastiness’s sake. It’s petty and it’s revealing.

    Comment by Dustin (303dca) — 12/30/2013 @ 5:16 pm

  43. what if kieran’s mom is some kind of momo who thought it was supposed to be blue for the girls and pink for the boys so when she got there she was like

    oh wait I screwed up huh

    and everyone was like no sweetie you didn’t screw up and even if you did it’s perfectly understandable here have some pudding

    Comment by happyfeet (c60db2) — 12/30/2013 @ 5:21 pm

  44. Have a Snickers, happyfeet. You’re yourself when you’re hungry.

    Comment by nk (dbc370) — 12/30/2013 @ 5:29 pm

  45. Sure, what could go wrong;

    http://www.examiner.com/article/msnbc-s-krystal-ball-s-says-minimum-guaranteed-income-would-end-poverty

    Comment by narciso (3fec35) — 12/30/2013 @ 5:30 pm

  46. 38. …not to be all ocd or anything

    Comment by happyfeet (c60db2) — 12/30/2013 @ 4:48 pm

    Too late. Years too late.

    Comment by Steve57 (be5be1) — 12/30/2013 @ 5:30 pm

  47. Anyone else getting the impression MSNBC is throwing everything they have left out there right before they collapse as a channel? I’m giving them 6 months to a year.

    Comment by UncleDan (efea20) — 12/30/2013 @ 5:36 pm

  48. Krystal Ball? Wasn’t she with Kandy Kane, Ursula Undress, and Ron Jeremy in “Debbie Does Everybody”?

    Comment by nk (dbc370) — 12/30/2013 @ 5:38 pm

  49. nk, is there a free down-load?

    Comment by askeptic (2bb434) — 12/30/2013 @ 5:45 pm

  50. 42. This is disgusting. Romney’s political views aside, he’s never been anything but great to his family. Attacking family is nasty even during a hot election season. Attacking the family of someone who isn’t even running for anything is just nasty for nastiness’s sake. It’s petty and it’s revealing.

    Comment by Dustin (303dca) — 12/30/2013 @ 5:16 pm

    Liberals are soulless ghouls, Dustin.

    When liberal politicians exploit their children, libtards will attack conservatives for pointing out that libtard politicians are exploiting their children. They libtards will claim conservatives are attacking the children, when it’s obvious to anyone with a brain (but I’m being redundant) that conservatives are attacking the liberal pols who see everyone around them as a prop. Such as their “typical white person” grandma.

    http://uptownmagazine.com/files/2013/11/uptown-nymag_deblasio_cover.jpg

    Hey, maybe 19 year old Chiara de Blasio wouldn’t be the poster child for Obamacare’s mental health coverage and wouldn’t have struggled with alcoholism and depression throughout her adolescence if her dad wasn’t a cold, calculating, exploitive NYC pol.

    I suppose the libtard outrage at conservatives for criticizing their politicization of their own and their opponents children for crass political purposes is mirrored by their outrage at conservatives for daring to mention atrocities like Sandy Hook in a political context.

    Politicizing children is a libtard monopoly.

    Comment by Steve57 (be5be1) — 12/30/2013 @ 5:47 pm

  51. I’m sorry, askeptic, but I consider it as equally unethical to pirate porn videos as it is to not pay a hooker.

    Comment by nk (dbc370) — 12/30/2013 @ 5:51 pm

  52. 48. Krystal Ball? Wasn’t she with Kandy Kane, Ursula Undress, and Ron Jeremy in “Debbie Does Everybody”?

    Comment by nk (dbc370) — 12/30/2013 @ 5:38 pm

    Unfortunately, no. Not that she’s all that or anything. But that flick would have been less obscene than the use she tried to make of her own child.

    http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/04/05/msnbc-host-uses-young-daughter-to-push-gay-marriage-asks-her-if-shed-marry-a-girl/

    Libtards use their own children as human shields. Literally, if you see some of the videos of women bringing their kids in strollers to Occupy riots just so they can blame the cops for any consequences of the violence their friends and fellow travelers intend to perpetrate.

    So why wouldn’t these vile creatures make fun of Mitt Romney’s adopted grandchild?

    Comment by Steve57 (be5be1) — 12/30/2013 @ 5:56 pm

  53. 29. Wiki, FWIW, implies John W. Rockwell, great-great-grandson, is a church historian.

    Comment by gary gulrud (e2cef3) — 12/30/2013 @ 5:59 pm

  54. Mr Feets doesn’t need a Snickers: he needs a plate full of tacos & some caldo.

    http://tacosmanzano.com/

    Comment by redc1c4 (abd49e) — 12/30/2013 @ 6:03 pm

  55. Don’t forget this;

    http://legalinsurrection.com/2012/06/what-did-krystal-ball-know-and-when-did-she-know-it/

    Comment by narciso (3fec35) — 12/30/2013 @ 6:06 pm

  56. 52. Wimmin bringing their kids to work. Hmmm.

    I think I might see a pattern. Do these critters ululate afterwards?

    Comment by gary gulrud (e2cef3) — 12/30/2013 @ 6:10 pm

  57. well, at least Kieran Romney isn’t likely to grow up and act like this: http://www.c-ville.com/knock-out-victims-of-brutal-downtown-mall-assault-want-arrests-and-answers-from-police/#.UsILA9JDvh6

    maybe that’s what she’s butthurt about, rich white people denying a brother his cultural heritage that encourages violent racial attacks & generalized criminal behavior?

    Comment by redc1c4 (abd49e) — 12/30/2013 @ 6:16 pm

  58. Comment by nk (dbc370) — 12/30/2013 @ 5:51 pm

    OMG, what is the world coming to?
    A lawyer demonstrating ethical behavior.
    Isn’t there a Canon against that?

    Comment by askeptic (2bb434) — 12/30/2013 @ 6:27 pm

  59. What would be best is if folks could keep the personal out of politics. But as we can see, there are some folks who just can’t help themselves…and not just on the Left.

    And the real problem is that if we think it is amusing or something when “our” folks do it, how can we complain when the “other side” does it?

    Gosh, life is complicated.

    Comment by Simon Jester (626677) — 12/30/2013 @ 6:29 pm

  60. No, Life is Simple – you either live or die – it is People that are Complicated.

    Comment by askeptic (2bb434) — 12/30/2013 @ 6:31 pm

  61. tacos! si se puede… let’s do that soon in the new year

    Comment by happyfeet (8ce051) — 12/30/2013 @ 6:47 pm

  62. 48. Comment by nk (dbc370) — 12/30/2013 @ 5:38 pm

    Krystal Ball? Wasn’t she with Kandy Kane, Ursula Undress, and Ron Jeremy in “Debbie Does Everybody”?

    No, she ran for Congress, (VA-1 in 2010, losing 63.90% to 34.76%) and had something to do with Neal Rauhauser, (and therefore the Kimberlin crime family) and the #StopRush Boycott, as well as being a member of the National Rifle Association, and she once worked years ago (before 2009) for CGI, the now notorious healthcare.gov contractor.

    In October 2010, 6-year old photos of her as “naughty Santa” showed up on the Internet.

    http://theothermccain.com/2012/06/22/e-mails-expose-msnbc-hosts-involvement-in-stoprush-boycott/

    Krystal Ball is her real name. Her father is Edward Ball, who did his Ph.D dissertation in physics on crystals.

    Comment by Sammy Finkelman (b9404b) — 12/30/2013 @ 6:50 pm

  63. [Liberals] use their own children as human shields. Literally, if you see some of the videos of women bringing their kids in strollers to Occupy riots just so they can blame the cops for any consequences of the violence their friends and fellow travelers intend to perpetrate.

    Liberals and outfits like the PLO and Hamas have an awful lot in common. You are absolutely right about the way they shamelessly exploit their own children for political ends.

    Comment by JVW (709bc7) — 12/30/2013 @ 6:51 pm

  64. Bless you and your new family Kieran.

    Speaking of cultural heritage, family ties, and young love…..oh and a set-up armed robbery involving drugs that lead to the accidental death of a pregnant 17 year old who, along with the 16 year old baby daddy and his two half brothers, was the setter-upper of the deal.

    Read this and then reread it a second time to be sure you have all the unbelievable sickening details and intricacies of this horrible story.

    http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/breaking/chi-third-suspect-arrested-in-death-of-pregnant-teen-20131230,0,7763500.story

    Comment by elissa (7635d7) — 12/30/2013 @ 6:52 pm

  65. Krystal Ball criticized Bill Clinton for criticizing Barack Obama a month and a half ago:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3pIp_M0O6v0

    Comment by Sammy Finkelman (b9404b) — 12/30/2013 @ 6:54 pm

  66. “This is disgusting. Romney’s political views aside, he’s never been anything but great to his family. Attacking family is nasty even during a hot election season. Attacking the family of someone who isn’t even running for anything is just nasty for nastiness’s sake. It’s petty and it’s revealing.”

    That’s funny! I remember someone attacking Romney’s sons for not serving in the military and Romney himself just a couple of months ago for hiding out in France during the war in Vietnam.

    Comment by Colonel Haiku (53f59e) — 12/30/2013 @ 7:03 pm

  67. Oh, Good Lord! I’m laughing so hard I just sh*t myself…

    Comment by Colonel Haiku (23baa0) — 12/30/2013 @ 7:08 pm

  68. maybe Kieran will grow up to be a famous super soldier

    he’ll probably become a test pilot at first

    but then something will go wrong with one of the planes he’s testing

    “she’s breaking up she’s breaking up I can’t hold it,” Kieran will say, before ejecting at the last moment, albeit at a nigh-ruinously high speed.

    A crew will arrive just in time to whisk our battered and partially dismembered hero to a mobile surgical unit parked conveniently nearby.

    They will rebuild him. They will make him better, stronger, faster than he was before.

    And then he will fight evil.

    And wear lots of pink cause of he’ll be super-secure in his masculinity.

    And the MSNBC propaganda sluts can stick that where the sun don’t shine.

    Comment by happyfeet (8ce051) — 12/30/2013 @ 7:20 pm

  69. In other news, the state of Colorado legalizes sale of marijuana. That’s something good, right? :)

    Comment by The Emperor (5647ed) — 12/30/2013 @ 7:23 pm

  70. All the babies are in pink, happyfeet. The toddlers are the ones wearing blue shirts and shorts. Baby boys used to be dressed in dresses. I have a picture of me in one. Some places they still are. Get over it.

    I am secure in my masculinity. http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_BPfMsBhpr6o/SKE_NozDxvI/AAAAAAAAAJk/fVtM2DEU5Vc/s320/Christening2.jpg

    Comment by nk (dbc370) — 12/30/2013 @ 7:29 pm

  71. Perhaps we can cure our very own feets’ OCDitty with a simple image …

    Picture Pyjama boy …

    He’s in that red plaid onesie with feets …

    And feets hasn’t complained even once about that experience, in here, so far …

    (If that doesn’t shock feets out of it, ain’t nuthin’ gonna !)

    Comment by Alastor (e7cb73) — 12/30/2013 @ 7:33 pm

  72. 66. Odd, I’ve never, not once, considered that Dustin is not as genuine as I plainly am not.

    Comment by gary gulrud (e2cef3) — 12/30/2013 @ 7:33 pm

  73. The liberals on MSNBC merely validate surveys that indicate a higher percentage of people on the left compared with those on the right, in fact, are surprisingly bigoted, racist, non-charitable, non-humane.

    The ultimate figurehead for that is Franklin D Roosevelt, one of the most famous do-gooder progressives in US history, who launched the New Deal, and yet who said Jews were to blame for the rise of antisemitism in 1930s Europe, deserved to have quotas placed against them, smirked that the offspring of Asian/white parents were unfortunate, and touted the purity of American bloodlines. Moreover, that doesn’t include his telling the IRS that the higher taxes he enacted into law didn’t apply to his own sizable income.

    Liberalism: Phony-baloney.

    Comment by Mark (58ea35) — 12/30/2013 @ 7:45 pm

  74. Oh, Good Lord! I’m laughing so hard I just sh*t myself…

    If you’re referring to nk and Sammy, yep. LOL.

    Comment by Mark (58ea35) — 12/30/2013 @ 7:48 pm

  75. when I’m a bit older and become a toddler, I shall wear blue

    with a blue hat what matches perfectly, even if it doesn’t suit me

    and I shall spend my allowance on legos and a variety of imported cheeses

    and a really nice espresso machine, and say we have no money for butter

    when of course actually we have like a TON of money for butter cause of we’re Romneys

    and when I’m tired I will sit on my grandpa’s lap, and pretend like he wasn’t the douchebag who invented obamacare

    Comment by happyfeet (8ce051) — 12/30/2013 @ 8:00 pm

  76. RE: Babes in pink.

    Just wondering from which of the seven Romney abodes the Xmas pic originated.

    Anyone?

    Comment by gary gulrud (e2cef3) — 12/30/2013 @ 8:05 pm

  77. 35. I noted earlier the implication that Ms. Perry might actually be educated after a fashion.

    I must confess without ever listening to her–and I have no intention of doing so–I thought her, I mean this seriously, an equal opportunity welfare queen spokesmodel.

    Is there any help for me? I’m Caucasian and I can’t stand being in my own skin I’m so racist.

    Comment by gary gulrud (e2cef3) — 12/30/2013 @ 8:25 pm

  78. #70 nk

    “I am secure in my masculinity…” if those are your mother and father in the picture I can see why.
    They look like salt of the earth people…

    Comment by steveg (794291) — 12/30/2013 @ 8:27 pm

  79. Thank you, steveg. My grandparents.

    Comment by nk (dbc370) — 12/30/2013 @ 8:29 pm

  80. 79. Grandparents I trust.

    My dad wore a dress at his christening. Bet its more convenient with diapers and laundering.

    Comment by gary gulrud (e2cef3) — 12/30/2013 @ 8:30 pm

  81. Separated at birth:

    http://www.zerohedge.com/sites/default/files/images/user5/imageroot/2013/12/Obama%20vs%20Kim…jpg

    Nature overwhelms nurture.

    Comment by gary gulrud (e2cef3) — 12/30/2013 @ 8:37 pm

  82. Sorry about the link.

    Comment by gary gulrud (e2cef3) — 12/30/2013 @ 8:40 pm

  83. [object TextRange]

    Comment by gary gulrud (e2cef3) — 12/30/2013 @ 8:43 pm

  84. Is this what you were after, gary? http://thepeoplescube.com/peoples-blog/kim-jong-un-and-barack-obama-bobbsey-twins-t8165.html

    Comment by nk (dbc370) — 12/30/2013 @ 8:44 pm

  85. All the babies are in pink, happyfeet. The toddlers are the ones wearing blue shirts and shorts. Baby boys used to be dressed in dresses. I have a picture of me in one. Some places they still are. Get over it.

    On my birthday this year my mother posted a picture on Facebook of me wearing my christening gown. It’s a gown that all ten of my grandmother’s grandchildren wore for baptism, and seeing as how I was a month old I really had no say in the matter.

    I lost a bet a few years back and had to wear a dress to a Monday Night Football gathering at a bar, so that was the only other time I can recall wearing women’s clothes. Wearing the dress wasn’t so bad — I was surprisingly a big hit with the ladies at the bar all evening.

    Comment by JVW (709bc7) — 12/30/2013 @ 9:40 pm

  86. tacos! si se puede… let’s do that soon in the new year

    the landlord should have given you my contact info… if not, i’ll resend it.

    Comment by redc1c4 (abd49e) — 12/31/2013 @ 12:39 am

  87. I would wager a Grant that the Romney who adopted this baby could care less what color it is. Mitt may not be an honest politician, but I tend to believe he has put good intentions into the upbringing of his family.

    Comment by mg (31009b) — 12/31/2013 @ 3:11 am

  88. when I’m a bit older and become a toddler, I shall wear blue

    with a blue hat what matches perfectly, even if it doesn’t suit me

    and I shall spend my allowance on legos and a variety of imported cheeses

    and a really nice espresso machine, and say we have no money for butter

    when of course actually we have like a TON of money for butter cause of we’re Romneys

    and when I’m tired I will sit on my grandpa’s lap, and pretend like he wasn’t the douchebag who invented obamacare

    Comment by happyfeet (8ce051) — 12/30/2013 @ 8:00 pm

    I love the Romneys and MHP is a racist bubblehead but that was hilarious, happyfeet.

    Comment by no one of consequence (55c367) — 12/31/2013 @ 4:00 am

  89. You see why Volodya just pinches himself;

    http://pjmedia.com/tatler/2013/12/30/after-attacks-administration-offers-to-help-russia-counter-folks-who-want-to-cause-mischief/

    Comment by narciso (3fec35) — 12/31/2013 @ 5:26 am

  90. 84. That’s the idea but its more extensive. Pasting the whole tag in one’s link entry field works.

    I’m embarrassed to need a few tries to learn the helper doohicky.

    Comment by gary gulrud (e2cef3) — 12/31/2013 @ 6:33 am

  91. Here goes _blank

    Comment by gary gulrud (e2cef3) — 12/31/2013 @ 6:51 am

  92. I am reminded that it is written, in Proverbs somewhere I believe, that “Where there are many words, there is sin”, as well as something about what comes out of the mouth reveals what is in the heart.

    Making a living by having to say something all of the time is a dangerous occupation. I was in high school when I first remember hearing the phrase, “It is better to keep your mouth shut and let people think you are a fool, than to open it and remove all doubt”.
    Of course, one (I, me) does good to practice what one preaches.

    Comment by MD in Philly (f9371b) — 12/31/2013 @ 7:06 am

  93. Just harmless pranksters who want to draw a penis on Lenin’s mural, narciso.

    Comment by nk (dbc370) — 12/31/2013 @ 7:10 am

  94. OT

    I am sure that one can find many people saying that allowing women into combat roles would not mean lowering physical fitness standards,
    perhaps as many times as President Obama said people could keep their doctor and health insurance plan if they wanted to:
    http://moonbattery.com/?p=40775

    Comment by MD in Philly (f9371b) — 12/31/2013 @ 7:18 am

  95. Listened to the video.

    The panel was invited to say negative things by the host. They didn’t actually say so much. I think it was a dud.

    Comment by Sammy Finkelman (d22d64) — 12/31/2013 @ 7:22 am

  96. Comment by MD in Philly (f9371b) — 12/31/2013 @ 7:06 am

    I was in high school when I first remember hearing the phrase, “It is better to keep your mouth shut and let people think you are a fool, than to open it and remove all doubt”.

    Wasn’t that said by Calvin Coolidge? I see it’s been attributed to Mark Twain and the writer George Eliot.

    Another thing attributed to Calvin Coolidge is:

    “Nothing in this world can take the place of persistence. Talent will not; nothing is more common than unsuccessful people with talent. Genius will not; unrewarded genius is almost a proverb. Education will not; the world is full of educated derelicts. Persistence and determination alone are omnipotent.”

    Not quite what Obama and others say about education nowadays.

    But then there’s this quote about persistence:

    “Insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.”

    It was said by Bill Clinton, so it’s probably a lie.

    Comment by Sammy Finkelman (d22d64) — 12/31/2013 @ 7:30 am

  97. It was said by Bill Clinton, so it’s probably a lie.

    Good one, Sammy.

    Comment by nk (dbc370) — 12/31/2013 @ 7:38 am

  98. It’s fascinating that, to “catch” conservatives being racist, the left has to lie, misinterpret and make up nonsensical concepts like “code words” and “dog whistles” so they can imagine things we’re not saying, put words in our mouths.

    To catch liberals being racist, the right just has to sit back and let liberals speak for themselves.

    Comment by CrustyB (5a646c) — 12/31/2013 @ 7:40 am

  99. MD, the military is an insane as the work it does. We can say it should not be used as an instrument for social change or for politically correct gestures, and it will say “$700.00 is not too much for a toilet seat”.

    I have no doubt that there are women who can meet the infantry physical standards. But why on Earth would they want to do it in the Marines, when they can do it in organized sports, athletic competitions, the Cirque de Soleil, P.E. instructors, working their way through law school while training for the weekend triathlon …. This is a “low-hanging fruit” thing, not a woman thing.

    Comment by nk (dbc370) — 12/31/2013 @ 7:51 am

  100. “It was said by Bill Clinton, so it’s probably a lie.”

    97. Comment by nk (dbc370) — 12/31/2013 @ 7:38 am

    Good one, Sammy.

    Bill Clinton claimed he read in a book, which he didn’t name, and that is also probably a lie.

    It’s been attributed to Albert Einstein, which is also probably a intentional lie.

    My question when did it start being so attributed?

    Well…

    According to http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Insanity

    It actually first appeared in “Narcotics Anonymous” the basic text of the group with the same name. It was said maybe in 1980 and in print in 1981.

    It is also cited in a 1980 text from Alcoholics Anonymous as being said orally earlier (but, says the wikiquote article, the link on google books is to the 1992 revised edition, so maybe it didn’t appear in the original 1980 version.)

    The 1992 edition says:

    When I came into the program, I heard that insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results,”[1]

    Footnote 1 is Step Two: A promise of hope (anonymous pamphelet (from AA Twelve Steps), later attributed to James G. Jensen), 1980, 1992 revised edition, ISBN 0-89486106-9, published by Hazelden Foundation, p. 10

    the anonymous pamphlet was attributed to James G. Jensen, not the quote.

    Comment by Sammy Finkelman (d22d64) — 12/31/2013 @ 9:09 am

  101. Sammy, I have no idea who first said it. I heard it from a high school librarian, who I am sure did not take credit for it herself.

    Yes, and Edison said that genius is 99% perspiration. Hard work and endurance seem to be pretty much key to success, especially success that lasts, even if one is naturally gifted or talented.

    nk, no doubt that there are some women physically fit for combat roles (though that alone shouldn’t make it policy), and that is what “they” all promised initially, that combat readiness would not suffer by putting female soldiers into positions where they cannot do “their fair share” of the work.
    I read where some elite units (not sure if military or CIA, etc.) recruited female triathletes for selected roles that put them in harm’s way, thinking it would sometimes be easier to get a female operative inside certain situations.
    But that could all be urban legend.

    It would be nice if someone would just give video clips of what lies people said in the past, document the reality, and then ask, “They lied to you before. Do you really want to give them the chance to do it again?”
    Dems and Repubs.
    But even that is problematic anymore, because much of the time things are reported so confusingly that it is hard to determine the truth,
    and even when the truth is clear, people will say, “Well, they all lie”, in order to justify voting for who they want anyway.

    Comment by MD in Philly (f9371b) — 12/31/2013 @ 9:41 am

  102. “cretins” is spotting those twits 40 IQ points. Why be so generous?

    Comment by Comanche Voter (bd140e) — 12/31/2013 @ 10:28 am

  103. There has been an apology made to the Romney family.

    Comment by elissa (7635d7) — 12/31/2013 @ 11:38 am

  104. do twitter apologies count?

    Comment by happyfeet (c60db2) — 12/31/2013 @ 11:39 am

  105. MD in Philly at 101.

    Sammy, I have no idea who first said it. I heard it from a high school librarian, who I am sure did not take credit for it herself.

    Before or after 1980? What about before or after the mid-1990s, when Bill Clinton popularized it?

    Comment by Sammy Finkelman (b9404b) — 12/31/2013 @ 11:54 am

  106. Harris’ apology tweet : “I am sorry. Without reservation or qualification. I apologize to the Romney family.”

    She then proceeds to qualify her apology.

    Comment by Pons Asinorum (8ce71a) — 12/31/2013 @ 12:25 pm

  107. Re post 106—Like I said; Patterico is spotting her 50 IQ points.

    Comment by Comanche Voter (bd140e) — 12/31/2013 @ 1:12 pm

  108. do twitter apologies count?
    Comment by happyfeet (c60db2) — 12/31/2013 @ 11:39 am

    Good point. Perhaps when the original offense was also a tweet.

    Sammy, likely 74-75, give or take a year.
    So last century.

    Comment by MD in Philly (f9371b) — 12/31/2013 @ 1:50 pm

  109. I can’t believe that MSNBC is attacking Romney.
    After all, I’ve heard here from certain commenters that Romney is actually a liberal. Or something.

    Comment by Elephant Stone (6a6f37) — 12/31/2013 @ 2:01 pm

  110. Comment by MD in Philly (f9371b) — 12/31/2013 @ 1:50 pm

    Sammy, likely 74-75, give or take a year.
    So last century.

    We’re talking about “Insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results?”

    Comment by Sammy Finkelman (b9404b) — 12/31/2013 @ 2:22 pm

  111. Not in any way advocating something as childish as a sponsor boycott or letter writing campaign or anything like that. Unlike all those lefty folks who do stuff like that all the time I would never do that. Not even thinking about such a thing. Really, honest inju … Can’t say that can I? OK. Honest indigenous person.

    Comment by Glenn (647d76) — 12/31/2013 @ 2:41 pm

  112. There has been an apology made to the Romney family.

    Comment by elissa (7635d7) — 12/31/2013 @ 11:38 am

    She really should apologize to African Americans, to adopted children, and to blended race families. And to her audience and the staff who produce her show.

    “This is disgusting. Romney’s political views aside, he’s never been anything but great to his family. Attacking family is nasty even during a hot election season. Attacking the family of someone who isn’t even running for anything is just nasty for nastiness’s sake. It’s petty and it’s revealing.”

    That’s funny! I remember someone attacking Romney’s sons for not serving in the military and Romney himself just a couple of months ago for hiding out in France during the war in Vietnam.

    Comment by Colonel Haiku (53f59e) — 12/30/2013 @ 7:03 pm

    It’s true. A year or two ago I linked an article tracing the Romney family’s history in politics, which spans over 100 years and ends most recently with Romney’s adult son talking about a run for office. I compared this guy to Track Palin, who was serving in the military, I believe in Iraq. I believe that Presidential candidates in particular are much more appealing if they have shown a great deal of devotion to their country. I believe that all politicians are more credible if they have, in some way, shown selfless devotion to their country. Being a soldier is a great way, but being a defense attorney or teacher or police officer can be a great way (though I would need to know a little about HOW you showed the devotion).

    I do hope the GOP does a better job nominating someone who has shown selflessness and sacrifice in pursuit of some value, or just someone with a better example of character, next round. I probably said something along those lines within the last two months because I have that thought ever couple of hours! I agree this attack was out of bounds, but I hardly think a recent presidential candidate is suddenly out of bounds for discussion of his professional record. That would be Dear Leader worship level speech codes!

    Why you found the need to complain about this in the context of anti black racism is a mystery to me. But I guess I don’t really feel the need to dig into Romney right now. If you REALLY need to get into it, I’m sure you can find a thread from the primary and relive the adventure. Let me know if you still are sorry for your conduct back then, ok?

    Comment by Dustin (303dca) — 12/31/2013 @ 3:23 pm

  113. I would wager a Grant that the Romney who adopted this baby could care less what color it is. Mitt may not be an honest politician, but I tend to believe he has put good intentions into the upbringing of his family.

    Comment by mg (31009b) — 12/31/2013

    Very well said.

    And of course it isn’t even Mitt who adopted this child. It was completely off limits from political commentary, not that someone’s race is relevant regardless.

    I have no doubt that this child is loved just as much as the others. It is evil that MSNBC made this attack, and it really transcends politics.

    I am very tired of everything being about partisanship. MSNBC’s entire mission is partisanship, and many of those condemning MSNBC are wholey and purely partisan. Everything has been reduced, even the principles the parties stand for, For The Party. Now we’re seeing idiots bash grandkids over race For The Party.

    Sick.

    Comment by Dustin (303dca) — 12/31/2013 @ 3:29 pm

  114. Dustin,

    C’mon, bud, cool your jets with the sanctimony.
    Mitt Romney has been an exemplary man whose business successes have created tons of jobs and opportunities for people. His contribution of wealth creation speaks for itself.
    And he has given lots of his own money to various charities.

    Military service is great, but it is not for everyone. And there really are many ways that a person can serve one’s country.
    While we do honor military service, please keep in mind that not everyone who has served in the military is a shining patriot whose devotion to our country is unquestioned.
    For example, Lee Harvey Oswald served in the Marine Corps.

    Comment by Elephant Stone (6a6f37) — 12/31/2013 @ 3:43 pm

  115. They went after George HW, recall Sid Blumenthal, tried to discredit his heroics, they went after Dole, they went after McCain, more recently Allen West, who was the newest of the warrior statesmen,

    Comment by narciso (3fec35) — 12/31/2013 @ 3:48 pm

  116. “I do hope the GOP does a better job nominating someone who has shown selflessness and sacrifice in pursuit of some value, or just someone with a better example of character, next round.”

    More of that special Dustinesssssss…

    Comment by Colonel Haiku (756c13) — 12/31/2013 @ 4:40 pm

  117. teh soft bigotry
    of such low Nielsen ratings
    don tampon earrings

    Comment by Colonel Haiku (756c13) — 12/31/2013 @ 4:43 pm

  118. Re post 106—Like I said; Patterico is spotting her 50 IQ points.

    @107 Comment by Comanche Voter (bd140e) — 12/31/2013 @ 1:12 pm

    Harris is not particularly bright (she wore tampons for earrings), but then again, neither is her audience.

    A real find for MSNBC.

    Comment by Pons Asinorum (8ce71a) — 12/31/2013 @ 5:25 pm

  119. They are Ideological Political Liberals and Communists. They do not believe that they can EVER be Wrong. When these Bastards are hung by piano wire, like Mousolini, THEN WE CAN APOLOGIZE for what happened to them.
    I’m ready. Are you?

    Comment by Gus (70b624) — 12/31/2013 @ 10:54 pm

  120. that was not the most inane thing this year from her;

    http://dailycaller.com/2013/12/31/5-dumbest-melissa-harris-perry-quotes-of-2013-video/

    Comment by narciso (3fec35) — 1/1/2014 @ 10:13 am

  121. 76. Just wondering from which of the seven Romney abodes the Xmas pic originated.

    Anyone?

    Comment by gary gulrud (e2cef3) — 12/30/2013 @ 8:05 pm

    Not that I know with 100% certainty, but the Romneys hold a family reunion every summer at their New Hampshire vacation home.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I2r6cIG5C-c

    It would be the perfect time for them to have taken that pic. It’s clearly summer. And from other pics I’ve seen it certainly looks like their New Hampshire place on Lake Winnipesaukee.

    Comment by Steve57 (eb0f3a) — 1/1/2014 @ 1:16 pm

  122. 94. OT

    I am sure that one can find many people saying that allowing women into combat roles would not mean lowering physical fitness standards,
    perhaps as many times as President Obama said people could keep their doctor and health insurance plan if they wanted to:
    http://moonbattery.com/?p=40775

    Comment by MD in Philly (f9371b) — 12/31/2013 @ 7:18 am

    O/T, but I’ve said many times on these threads that always has been an out and out lie.

    Since I was in the Navy I saw the standards slip far earlier than the Army or Marines. The combat exclusion rules only barred women from billets in units that were expected to engage in ground combat.

    The Navy isn’t an infantry force, but physical strength is still required. Most notably in damage control. To satisfy their political masters, the top brass decreed the recruit and training commands had to graduate women regardless of whether they could handle the damage control equipment. Which over 90% of the women couldn’t.

    We were heavily propagandized back in the post-tailhook ’90s about what a wonderful resource women provided to the fleet. For instance one figure sticks in my head. With regular strength training, we were told, women could achieve 60% of the upper body strength (note the USMC requirement has to do with upper body strength) of a man the same size.

    The powers-that-be thought this was a great selling point, being so out of touch that they didn’t realize that it betrayed just how lousy of an idea it was to put women on warships.

    1) When you’re maintaining combat optempo no one has time for regular strength training. 2) We had great weight rooms on carriers and big deck amphibs but they were still crowded and you had to wait for the machines or the free weights, the smaller combatants had much less in the way of equipment. 3) It’s one thing to do strength training at a gym ashore. Try doing it in a rolling pitching ship. 4) Since when is 60% acceptable performance? A 60% score will attrite you from any Navy school I’m familiar with.

    Essentially the whole notion of putting women in combat roles comes from pols who have never even trained for combat, and in any case are totally unconcerned if the force they’re social-engineering can sustain combat because they don’t take the idea that its primary mission is combat at all seriously. They see the military as a petri dish in which to demonstrate their foregone conclusions.

    One of my pet peeves was that the historically ignorant claim that integrating women and gays into the military is just like integrating blacks back in the ’40s. Anyone with the briefest familiarity with the subject knows it’s not true. Even in the segregated military, blacks had already demonstrated their value in combat (going back to the Civil War). The WWII Army was segregated by unit, the WWII Navy was segregated by rate. So in the Navy you would have blacks on every ship, but they were restricted to certain types of work such as stewards. But everyone then and now had collateral duties.

    It was in fact the experience in WWII that led to the desegregation of the military. It wasn’t forced down from the President; the military wanted it. Because of segregation the Navy, at least, was forced to keep the majority of black sailors ashore while white sailors had to stay at sea in combat for the majority of the time. There were few sea billets for black sailors because they were limited by rate to only a few jobs on each ship. White sailors could fill any of them. This was highly unpopular with everybody. The Navy also knew it was a misuse of manpower. There were black sailors who were allowed to strike, by their ship’s captains, for rates such as machinist mate. Because, they had experience working on machinery and engines before they were drafted or enlisted and it was going to waste. But these men weren’t allowed to enter that rating because of their race.

    This was doubly infuriating because during WWI and in the immediate aftermath the Navy was not segregated by race. There were still older black sailors who were Machinist Mates or Gunners Mates or whatever. Probably the segregation was a progressive idea; as we see on MSNBC it’s the progressives who are the true racists. And Wilson introduced segregation into the federal bureaucracy.

    But even in the segregated WWII Navy a wardroom steward had a GQ station assigned, and this was usually to one of the gun mounts. There were only enough Gunners Mates assigned to maintain the guns. Other crewmen were assigned to run ammo from the magazine lift to the gun mount, to load the projectile and the powder, etc. Gun captains used to compete to get the best men for the job assigned to their mounts, and they didn’t care what color they were. They wanted to be able to maintain the highest rate of accurate fire of any gun crew on the ship. It was physically demanding work, and also the gun crew had to work as a well oiled machine. And there were plenty of black sailors who proved they could not only do the job be be part of the team.

    Here’s one:

    http://www.history.navy.mil/faqs/faq57-4.htm

    Cook Third Class Doris Miller, USN

    …In July of that year he had temporary duty aboard USS Nevada (BB-36) at Secondary Battery Gunnery School.

    The Navy looked at the problem and decided, “This segregation s*** is stupid.” The Navy couldn’t have segregated units like the Army because even if you have white officers you don’t just grow quartermasters or radar operators on trees, most especially petty officers and chiefs. The Navy recommended scrapping the whole segregation business during the war.

    The Army, too, found during WWII that desegregated units fought better than segregated units as well.

    There is nothing at all similar about integrating women and gays into the military, particularly combat units, because blacks had already proven their value in combat before desegregation. Now were integrating women and gays into combat units before they’ve demonstrated their impact on combat effectiveness. And one thing is for certain; the military will never, ever honestly evaluate what that impact might be. They will simply proclaim it a success, because that’s the foregone conclusion.

    Sorry for the hijack, although I did try to make it relevant by pointing out that progressives then and now like Woodrow Wilson and Melissa Harris-Perry are the true racists.

    Comment by Steve57 (eb0f3a) — 1/1/2014 @ 2:25 pm

  123. 25. I think respectable blogs need to just stop linking to these cretins, and respectable people need to just quit cluck clucking and eye rolling over them. Most of the hosts on there are evil nasty racist people but I am convinced MSDNC mostly does it for link bait since they know nobody watches them when it’s aired the 1st time.

    Comment by elissa (7635d7) — 12/30/2013 @ 2:48 pm

    I agree; no one should link to these cretins.

    But I would like to point out that what these cretins are saying is exactly the same thing the more mainstream MFM outlets are saying. For instance On CNN one of the paid contributors announced that including the black child in the photo was “exploitive.”

    Which is jaw dropping. The Romneys are supposed to exclude some of their grandchildren from their Christmas card photos to suit the liberal commentariat?

    Even more important, what these cretins on MSNBC are saying is no different from what the Democratic party leadership is saying. Unless conservatives adopt the entire liberal program of race, gender, and gender orientation identity politics they will be denounced as racist, sexist, homophobic, and islamophobic.

    Is what MHP said about the Romneys really worse than what the members of the Congressional Black Caucus said about the TEA Party in particular and Republicans in general during the last two election cycles? That they want to bring back Jim Crow, slavery, and the lynching tree? Because…voter ID.

    Comment by Steve57 (eb0f3a) — 1/1/2014 @ 3:02 pm

  124. Sorry for the hijack, although I did try to make it relevant by pointing out that progressives then and now like Woodrow Wilson

    I don’t think the average person — including me until not all that long ago — is aware of Wilson’s involvement in enacting Jim Crow laws back in the 1920s, or the appalling bigotry of Franklin D Roosevelt — who said Jews were to blame for the anti-Semitism sweeping Hitler’s Europe — or the even more truly gut-wrenching bigotry of Harry Truman, who wouldn’t allow Jews into his home in Missouri, much less blacks, etc. IOW, the background of the biggest figureheads of the Democrat Party and liberal America.

    Comment by Mark (58ea35) — 1/1/2014 @ 5:23 pm

  125. Even more insane, then her own comments, in Christopher’s attack from the left;

    http://www.mediaite.com/tv/melissa-harris-perry-jokes-about-mormons-changing-their-minds-about-black-folks-having-souls/

    Comment by narciso (3fec35) — 1/1/2014 @ 5:27 pm

  126. Comment by Mark (58ea35) — 1/1/2014 @ 5:23 pm

    — is aware of Wilson’s involvement in enacting Jim Crow laws back in the 1920s,

    Wlson’s term as president came to an end on March 4, 1921, and he had been mostly incapacitated by a stroke for about one and half years before.

    So I am not sure he is responsible for the U.S. Navy halting all enlistments of blacks in 1922.
    This lasted for about ten years, afer which they were restricted in rates as Steve57 says.

    But maybe it could be. It could be the people, tathat Wilson, or more precisely, Secretary of the Navy Josephus Daniels, promoted in the Navy.

    Josephus Daniels was also a southerner, and Wikipedia says, a longtime champion of white supremacy, arguing that as long as Blacks had political power they would block progressive reforms, although he did oppose the Ku Klux Klan.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Josephus_Daniels

    On June 1 1914. he instituted Prohibition in the Navy.

    Comment by Sammy Finkelman (652c5b) — 1/1/2014 @ 5:40 pm

  127. Comment by Mark (58ea35) — 1/1/2014 @ 5:23 pm

    the appalling bigotry of Franklin D Roosevelt — who said Jews were to blame for the anti-Semitism sweeping Hitler’s Europe

    I think was only in 1933, when it was only in Germany, and it was maybe because he was not treating anti-semitism as an independent variable, but sought some explanation, so he hit on the one thing he agreed with: Jews taking important positions out of proportion to their presence in the population.

    Comment by Sammy Finkelman (652c5b) — 1/1/2014 @ 5:43 pm

  128. He certainly introduced Jim Crow in the DC schools,
    somewhat ironic after Dubois’s endorsement, much of the record of reconstruction, was washed away in that era, of course, his friend, Thomas Dixon, who was encouraged to turn his tale, the Klansmen into a film.

    Comment by narciso (3fec35) — 1/1/2014 @ 5:45 pm

  129. SecNav Daniels: On June 1 1914. he instituted Prohibition in the Navy.

    I’ll bet that was overwhelmingly received in a positive manner.

    Comment by askeptic (2bb434) — 1/1/2014 @ 5:51 pm

  130. I found wwl2.dataformat.com/HTML/34143.htm

    Comment by Sammy Finkelman (652c5b) — 1/1/2014 @ 6:01 pm

  131. Sammy, the Navy was fully integrated prior to 1900. You can trace the decline in the number of black sailors in the Navy and the restrictions on their employment to the rise of progressivism.

    Do you really think it’s unlikely that the Woodrow Wilson, the man who brought Jim Crow to the federal bureaucracy, wouldn’t be responsible for a policy that excluded blacks from enlisting even though his term of office expired the year before the policy was announced? After all, there was no postwar enlistment into the Navy after WWI. The Navy was drawing down, and enlistment didn’t resume until 1923.

    Wilson had two terms to reshape the federal bureaucracy. The Department of the Navy is a federal bureaucracy. And segregation was the norm in federal bureaucracies until post-WWII when Hitler had given progressive theories on race and eugenics a bad name. But segregation hadn’t been the norm prior to Wilson. So it was one of his long lasting legacies.

    I suppose by the same token one could say that people like Chester Nimitz influenced Truman’s policy to integrate the military even though Nimitz retired as CNO a year before Truman issued his executive order. Nimitz was a huge proponent of integrating the Navy after he witnessed the personnel problems, racial tensions, riots, hunger strikes, and mutinies caused by attempting to maintain a segregated service despite the huge influx of black sailors into the Navy due to the draft. When he found out that the skipper of an attack cargo ship was segregating his black sailors in berthing, he advised the CO not to do that. Because that would just add to their sense of grievance, and by assigning them to to one berthing area they would gripe together and no doubt plan some sort of disturbance. It sounds racist, maybe, but look at who Nimitz was dealing with. He had to convince this CO whose natural tendency was to segregate his sailors by race that it was in his own best interest not to do so.

    A lot of the top leadership in the Navy became convinced that segregation caused racial friction, though. Black sailors resented their second class status, and white sailors resented the fact that they were assigned the most hazardous duties at sea. So it wasn’t just Nimitz. And the reason that those black sailors were on that AKA was because SecNav James Forrestal had introduced a policy of integration. It wasn’t all sweetness and light. Forrestal had to compromise with admirals that resisted, but his only compromise was that he wouldn’t open general service billets to black sailors on combat vessels until the war ended. But he did open general service billets to black sailors including officers on auxiliaries and other types of vessels.

    I find it amusing to read lines like these in the Wikipedia entry for Woodrow Wilson:

    Although considered a modern liberal visionary giant as President, Wilson was “deeply racist in his thoughts and politics” and his administration racially segregated federal employees and the Navy.[4][5]

    Being deeply racist in one’s thoughts and politics is still the hallmark of the modern liberal/progressive. As demonstrated by MHP and her ilk on MSNLSD. These people simply accuse conservatives of secretly believing, and speaking in code or “dog whistles” about, what they openly espouse. The only modern twist today’s progressives have added to Wilson’s brand of liberalism is denial and projection. Wilson was honest about it.

    http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/345274/progressive-racism-paul-rahe

    http://reason.com/archives/2006/05/05/when-bigots-become-reformers

    Comment by Steve57 (eb0f3a) — 1/1/2014 @ 10:41 pm

  132. Enlisted berthing (note the hooks for the men’s hammocks on the overhead beam) onboard the cruiser USS Brooklyn. Time period circa the Spanish American war.

    http://steelnavy.org/history/archive/fullsize/4a14120u_360cc63aa5.jpg

    Before the progressives segregated the Navy.

    I guess progressives like Marc Lamont Hill decided that the black guys needed to disappear because it was “exploitive” to have them in the picture.

    Comment by Steve57 (eb0f3a) — 1/1/2014 @ 11:21 pm

  133. Comment by Steve57 (eb0f3a) — 1/1/2014 @ 10:41 pm

    ? Do you really think it’s unlikely that the Woodrow Wilson, the man who brought Jim Crow to the federal bureaucracy, wouldn’t be responsible for a policy that excluded blacks from enlisting

    No, it’s ot unlikely, but it requires some explanation as to why thius didn’t happen until after he was no longer president.

    even though his term of office expired the year before the policy was announced? After all, there was no postwar enlistment into the Navy after WWI. The Navy was drawing down, and enlistment didn’t resume until 1923.

    So, that’s the explanation.

    The policy was almost in the bank already.

    I can give anotehr excplanation. A large part of the U.S> military was drawn from the south.

    But that maybe didn’t begin to dominate until after about 1910. Even if before, they’d have been earlier in a more integrated Navy and had to get use ds to it.

    After all, in 1865, it was 100% Union.

    But segregation hadn’t been the norm prior to Wilson. So it was one of his long lasting legacies.

    Looks like it. I had thought about 1916 was the nadir, but maybe 1921 or 1922 pr even up to 1924 is it.

    Comment by Sammy Finkelman (652c5b) — 1/2/2014 @ 3:53 am

  134. I suppose by the same token one could say that people like Chester Nimitz influenced Truman’s policy to integrate the military even though Nimitz retired as CNO a year before Truman issued his executive order.

    Things are in the works for a while.

    he advised the CO not to do that. Because that would just add to their sense of grievance, and by assigning them to to one berthing area they would gripe together and no doubt plan some sort of disturbance.

    This is an appeal to the commander’s self interest.

    It sounds racist, maybe,

    Not so much racist, as unfair, especially if blacks are thought to motivelessly create disturbances, and not a reflection of reality.

    Comment by Sammy Finkelman (652c5b) — 1/2/2014 @ 4:03 am

  135. I find it amusing to read lines like these in the Wikipedia entry for Woodrow Wilson:

    The main Wikipedia article, by the way, on integration in the U.S. military has almost nothing on segregation and integration in the U.S. military before the 1940s. (nothing about no enlistment in the Navy or previous integration)

    Even so, Google still makes it one of the main results.

    Although considered a modern liberal visionary giant as President, Wilson was “deeply racist in his thoughts and politics” and his administration racially segregated federal employees and the Navy.[4][5]

    It’s hard for some people to believe that someone they’ve been led to admire could have had ideas that would horrify them. It does not compute.

    But Wilson actually I think may have bene dropped from the liberal pantheon some time ago, but nobody is really noticing that.

    They also didn’t like his position on civil liberties but that was only toward the end of his term and also looked like an aberration.

    Comment by Sammy Finkelman (652c5b) — 1/2/2014 @ 4:05 am

  136. Woodrow Wilson’s term as President effectively ended with his stroke on October 2, 1919. He was not even capable of managing his own bodily functions from then on. He literally could not see to s**t — he was almost 100% blind and in a wheelchair. His wife and his aides ran the White House, grateful that there was no Constitutional mechanism to throw their butts out, and I doubt they exerted much influence with the Departments of War, Army, or Navy.

    Comment by nk (dbc370) — 1/2/2014 @ 6:07 am

  137. I think was only in 1933,

    Sammy, and I understand that Obama really isn’t an innate leftwinger. Moreover, columnist Pat Buchanan loves blood and violence.

    Oh, and Woodrow Wilson’s views were formed by his southern upbringing while Franklin Roosevelt’s biases were influenced by his Yankee upbringing.

    BTW, Roosevelt supported quotas to restrict Jews in schools and the government, said that the offspring of whites and Asians were unfortunate, and that pure bloodlines were a good thing, only in 1933. Before and after that, he was a wonderful, beautiful, open-minded, sophisticated progressive.

    Comment by Mark (58ea35) — 1/2/2014 @ 7:30 am

  138. 135. …His wife and his aides ran the White House, grateful that there was no Constitutional mechanism to throw their butts out, and I doubt they exerted much influence with the Departments of War, Army, or Navy.

    Comment by nk (dbc370) — 1/2/2014 @ 6:07 am

    I’m sure that Woodrow Wilson’s appointees, SecNav Josephus Daniels and Asst. SecNav Franklin Delano Roosevelt, exerted a great deal of influence over the Dept. of the Navy. FDR was an original “Wilson Man” and a died in the wool progressive.

    He and Josephus Daniels saw eye to eye as well, and Daniels was FDR’s Ambassador to Mexico in the ’30s.

    I don’t see what Wilson’s stroke had to do with anything. Obama could have a stroke tonight and his henchmen would continue implementing his agenda.

    Comment by Steve57 (eb0f3a) — 1/2/2014 @ 3:25 pm

  139. 135. The main Wikipedia article, by the way, on integration in the U.S. military has almost nothing on segregation and integration in the U.S. military before the 1940s. (nothing about no enlistment in the Navy or previous integration)…

    Comment by Sammy Finkelman (652c5b) — 1/2/2014 @ 4:05 am

    Which is why it’s not a good idea to rely on Wikipedia unless you know from other sources the information is reliable (I kept the endnotes in that statement about Wilson segregating the federal bureaucracy and the Navy for a reason, although they’re not available online).

    http://www.archives.gov/publications/prologue/2001/fall/black-sailors-1.html

    Black Men in Navy Blue During the Civil War

    …Because the navy, unlike the army, was racially integrated, understanding the history of black sailors requires some effort but even more interpretive caution to unravel it from that of all Civil War sailors. Exploring the similarities and differences in the experiences of black and white enlisted men must avoid viewing the racial groups in strictly monolithic terms that do not allow for internal complexity and diversity and shifting, if not altogether porous, borders. The work must also beware currently popular understandings of the black soldiers’ experience. Often framed around the Fifty-fourth Massachusetts Volunteer Infantry, that tale depicts stoic sacrifice and daunting perseverance in pursuit of freedom and equality that in the end was crowned with “Glory,” the impression conveyed by the popular feature film. The black sailors’ story fits awkwardly, if at all, within that image.

    …As a result, nearly eighteen thousand men of African descent (and eleven women) who served in the U.S. Navy during the Civil War have been identified by name.5 At 20 percent of the navy’s total enlisted force, black sailors constituted a significant segment of naval manpower and nearly double the proportion of black soldiers who served in the U.S. Army during the Civil War.6

    At the start of the conflict, the army and the navy drew upon separate traditions regarding the service of persons of African descent. Following adoption of the federal Militia Act in 1792, the army excluded black men, and the prohibition remained in effect until the second summer of the Civil War. The navy, in contrast, never barred black men from serving, although from the 1840s onward regulations limited their numbers to 5 percent of the enlisted force. When the war began, several hundred black men were in the naval service, a small fraction of those with prewar experience and a figure well below the prescribed maximum. During the first ninety days after Fort Sumter, when nearly three hundred black recruits enlisted, fifty-nine (20 percent) were veterans with an average of five years of prior naval service per man.7 Over succeeding months, the proportion of black men in the service increased rapidly. At the end of 1861, they made up roughly 6 percent of the crews of vessels. By the summer of 1862, the figure had climbed to nearly 15 percent.8

    At first, navy officials did not treat black manpower separately from their general need for men as the service expanded and as volunteer army units competed for the able-bodied. With enlistment centers at the major Atlantic ports from Chesapeake Bay through New England, recruiters could draw upon the international seafaring fraternity to supplement the recruits from the seaboard states.

    …Additional recruits with prior maritime experience on the lakes and rivers of the nation’s interior also enlisted; these included 420 natives of Kentucky. The largest number of black men from any of the northern states— more than 2,300 in all— hailed from Maryland. The maritime culture of Chesapeake Bay, with its numerous tributaries and the port of Baltimore, offer part of the explanation for the large number of Marylanders in naval service. The size of the Maryland contingent also benefited from a spring 1864 agreement between army and navy officials to transfer nearly eight hundred black Marylanders from incomplete units of the U.S. Colored Troops into the navy.9

    Another fifteen hundred men were born outside of the United States, chiefly Canada and the islands of the Caribbean.10 Like their counterparts from the United States, the foreign-born men entered service for a variety of reasons. John Robert Bond, for instance, a mariner of mixed African and Irish descent from Liverpool, England, enlisted during 1863 “to help free the slaves,” as his descendants recall.

    …By September 1861, the volume of requests from commanders of naval vessels regarding authorization to enlist fugitive slaves reached such proportions that Secretary of the Navy Gideon Welles, a Connecticut native of antislavery bent, felt obliged to act. Welles permitted the enlistment of former slaves whose “services can be useful,” stipulating that the “contrabands” be classified as “Boys,” the lowest rung on the rating and pay scales and one traditionally reserved for young men under the age of eighteen.12 (The term “contraband” itself had within weeks of Fort Sumter sprung into widespread use throughout the North as a rationale for treating such persons as plunder under international conventions of warfare.) The practical effect of this policy became evident when Flag Officer Samuel F. Du Pont established federal control of the harbor at Port Royal, South Carolina, in November 1861. This beachhead eventually became the home port of the South Atlantic Blockading Squadron, with repair and supply facilities that employed nearly a thousand contrabands. At the same time, vessels in all the squadrons began taking fugitive slaves on board, enlisting the men as needed and forwarding others to places of safety.13

    Comment by Steve57 (eb0f3a) — 1/2/2014 @ 3:40 pm

  140. Well i’ve gotten used to not just checking the links
    but these sections;

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Josephus_Daniels

    Comment by narciso (3fec35) — 1/2/2014 @ 3:44 pm

  141. Cont.

    …The black enlistees who had been slaves— in many instances down to the time of enlistment— stood apart from the freemen of all colors and nations. Often accepted into service on a supposition of inferiority, stigmatized as “contrabands,” and rated and paid at the lowest levels of the rating and pay scales, these men often could not escape the stereotypes cast upon them no matter how creditably they performed their assigned duties.

    …Although the men born free in the northern states and in places outside the United States often found themselves guilty by racial association with the contrabands, several measures also separated them from the men who had recently escaped slavery. Paramount among these was their status as free men, which both officers and enlisted shipmates respected— if at times grudgingly— for its implications of manly independence. The freeborn men also spoke with familiar accents, and their cultural compasses bore reference marks similar to those that oriented white sailors from the northern states and the maritime nations of the north Atlantic basin.

    More than any other attribute, however, the prior maritime experience of the free black men distinguished them from the contrabands.

    …Two sets of naval traditions— one formal and the other informal— offer insights into points at which the Civil War experiences of black sailors overlapped with and diverged from those of white sailors. The formal traditions both expressed the reciprocal relationship between the government and every person serving under arms and governed the responsibilities of each party to the other. For risking their lives on behalf of the nation and subjecting themselves to rigid discipline, the naval volunteers of the Civil War gained the government’s protection, an especially significant boon to the men only shortly removed from slavery. In the first place it meant clothing, food, and shelter, the likes of which must have appeared princely to many a former slave. Second, naval service meant access to arms and training in their effective use. Third, naval service promised mobility. Apart from mere acquaintance with new places— nothing to scoff at— this mobility brought black sailors into circumstances in which they might offer assistance and perhaps even protection to persons fleeing, as one termed it, “from the horrible pit of bondage.”44 Fourth, wartime service enabled black sailors to take part in the struggle to save the Union and destroy slavery, which in postwar years paid assorted dividends, most notably government pensions. Although black naval veterans appear to have sought such support in significantly lower proportions than either their white comrades or army veterans, black or white, the benefits provided both financial support and a tangible measure of the nation’s gratitude in the men’s later years.45

    For freeborn black men no less than former slaves, navy regulations offered a mixed measure of impartiality and caprice, perhaps the most ambiguous feature of their relationship with the federal government during the Civil War.

    …Despite such blatant discrimination, sailors of every color and nationality appreciated that, for better and worse, regulations prescribed a degree of uniformity over judicial proceedings. Like other stewards, Charles Fisher relished visiting shore for fresh provisions, understanding at the same time that punishment would surely follow any abuse of the privilege. On one occasion when he and several other stewards returned late from marketing, he resigned himself to “Double Darbies [that is, irons on wrists and ankles] for five days on bread and water.” The brig awaited any man who flouted orders in such a fashion.48

    At the level of infractions, including capital cases, that came before courts of inquiry and general courts-martial, black sailors particularly welcomed the impartiality of the regulations. Take, for instance, the inquiry into the death of James (or Owen) Conlan on USS Pampero in February 1864. The case grew out of a fistfight between Conlan, an Irish sailor, and James Dixon, a contraband. When Conlan leaned against a deck gun for which Dixon claimed to be the captain, the two exchanged insults. According to witnesses, Dixon invited Conlan to “Kiss my ass you Irish son of a bitch,” upon which Conlan called Dixon “a damned bastard son of a bitch” and cursed “all his (Dixon’s) generation.” When words turned to punches, Dixon gained the upper hand, but at one point both men fell to the deck. Conlan struck his head and died instantly. Upon examination, the ship’s surgeon concluded that the victim had fractured his skull. The court ruled that because “death was not premeditated by the accused” there was “no necessity for further proceedings.”49 In civilian life North or South, a black man in Dixon’s shoes would have had a difficult time walking away from such charges.

    During the Civil War there was a great deal of discrimination against black sailors regardless of origin. But as this article by Howard University Prof. Joseph P. Reidy points out there was a great deal of overlap between how black and white sailors were treated. It isn’t like the white sailors, particularly the immigrant white sailors, were treated very well either.

    And after the Civil War the enlisted ranks became even more integrated when black sailors lost the stigma of being “contraband.”

    Until the progressive era started in the 1890s. By the end of WWI with rare exceptions there were only three places you’d find black sailors; in the galley, in officer country as stewards, or shoveling coal in the engine rooms.

    There were still a handful of regularly enlisted black sailors when WWII started because the 1922 bar on black enlistments didn’t prevent blacks from reenlisting. So when WWII started there were a few black reservists from WWI who were torpedomen, machinist mates, etc.

    History doesn’t move in neat straight lines. Jim Crow wasn’t even the norm in the south before the progressive era. Plessy v. Furguson essentially put northern progressives’ imprimatur on southern racism.

    It’s no accident that Wilson was president was Princeton. We are still dealing with the scourge of vile Ivy League racial and political theories. Melissa Harris Perry taught at Princeton, too. She’d deny she’s one of the progressive intellectual heirs to all of Wilson’s legacy. But then that denial doesn’t mean it’s not true.

    Comment by Steve57 (eb0f3a) — 1/2/2014 @ 4:16 pm

  142. Hey, Steve. A Chinese helicopter had to airlift the Chicken Littles from the ship stuck in the Antarctic ice. Do the Chinese get the ship as salvage? It’s Russian.

    Comment by nk (dbc370) — 1/2/2014 @ 4:18 pm

  143. How does a Russian ship run out of alcohol, I want to know?

    Comment by narciso (3fec35) — 1/2/2014 @ 4:31 pm

  144. I was hearing a day or two ago that the Chinese icebreaker was also stuck in the ice.

    And that they will probably have to be asirlifted from that ship.

    Some people remain on the original ship. They expect to eventually get free.

    Comment by Sammy Finkelman (d22d64) — 1/2/2014 @ 4:32 pm

  145. Comment by Steve57 (eb0f3a) — 1/2/2014 @ 4:16 pm

    It’s no accident that Wilson was president was Princeton.

    I think about half of Princeton’s student body came from the South. I’m not sure of the percent.

    Woodrow Wilson himself had gone (transferred) to Princeton.

    Comment by Sammy Finkelman (d22d64) — 1/2/2014 @ 4:33 pm

  146. R.I.P. Bob Grant, radio talk show host, 84 years old.

    Comment by Sammy Finkelman (d22d64) — 1/2/2014 @ 4:34 pm

  147. Evidently the Australis ice breaker shipping the fools back has slowed to 1/4 knot due to high wind and ice.

    Closer to home MN weathermen declared the recent December only tying for 18th coldest all time. That of 2000 was like fifth.

    Of course, these folks hail from Mpls/St.P in the southeast.

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/01/02/new-record-low-set-in-the-coldest-city-in-the-continental-usa-much-of-the-country-headed-for-a-deep-freeze/#more-100311

    Locally, International Falls and Embarrass MN are co-holders of coldest spots in MN, despite what the journalists say.

    The former set an all time record for 8 consecutive days of -30 low temperatures.

    Comment by gary gulrud (e2cef3) — 1/2/2014 @ 4:35 pm

  148. 140. Well i’ve gotten used to not just checking the links
    but these sections;

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Josephus_Daniels

    Comment by narciso (3fec35) — 1/2/2014 @ 3:44 pm

    You can’t go by those sections, narciso. These are the people who edit Wikipedia, right?

    Ahm, alcohol was banned on navy ships startning midnight September 1, 1862. Or at least I have heard same from multiple reputable sources. Cheers. 130.64.154.225 06:20, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

    He didn’t ban alcohol, he banned wine from the wardroom. Jean Smith’s FDR biography actually has the primary references. I’ll be adding them shortly. Old64mb 19:40, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

    Wine is alcohol. And there was a lot more than wine in the wardroom until Josephus Daniels introduced prohibition to the Navy. Pictorial evidence. The Captain’s quarters on the USS Olympia around the turn of the century.

    Here’s a postcard from the wardroom of the Don Juan de Austria, a Spanish ship captured during the Battle of Manila Bay in 1898.

    http://steelnavy.org/history/archive/fullsize/nh82781_e41a5784f2.jpg

    I think those are bottles of San Miguel on the table.

    The rum ration for the enlisted men was abolished in 1862 along with all distilled spirits except as medical stores.

    In WWII aviators and sailors were issued a bottle or two of “medicinal” brandy or whisky essentially as a commendation for performing some brave or arduous feat, like repairing a valve in the engine room while the ship was under fire while steam from the boiler scalded their hands. They valued those more than medals.

    But private stores, i.e. the wine mess, of beer, ale, malt liquor, wine, etc. were allowed in the wardroom.

    Comment by Steve57 (eb0f3a) — 1/2/2014 @ 4:43 pm

  149. 143. How does a Russian ship run out of alcohol, I want to know?

    Comment by narciso (3fec35) — 1/2/2014 @ 4:31 pm

    Because it’s full of Russians.

    Comment by Steve57 (eb0f3a) — 1/2/2014 @ 4:55 pm

  150. 142. Hey, Steve. A Chinese helicopter had to airlift the Chicken Littles from the ship stuck in the Antarctic ice. Do the Chinese get the ship as salvage? It’s Russian.

    Comment by nk (dbc370) — 1/2/2014 @ 4:18 pm

    Right of salvage. If the Chinese risked life and property to save the life and property of another they have a claim. That doesn’t mean they can claim the whole ship, though.

    But by the time that sea ice gets done with that (those) ships they won’t be worth much. If they don’t get those ships out of the ice before autumn starts, they’ll probably be crushed like tin cans. Ice strengthened or no.

    Comment by Steve57 (eb0f3a) — 1/2/2014 @ 5:00 pm

  151. 147. Guess it was International Falls’ second coldest December ever.

    Neglected to accord Tower MN equal status as coldest MN locale along with the other two.

    That said Winnipeg has 500K citizens and is far colder.

    Comment by gary gulrud (e2cef3) — 1/2/2014 @ 5:44 pm

  152. Comment by nk (dbc370) — 1/2/2014 @ 6:07 am

    He literally could not see to s**t — he was almost 100% blind and in a wheelchair.

    I didn’t read that in “When the Cheering Stopped” or the Reader’s Digest Condesed Books version of that book, anyway. And vision problems are not in the lore, even after the 1960s.

    On the other hand, I didn’t read anything about him reading anything. I think. He did scrawl a signature.

    Comment by Sammy Finkelman (bf7669) — 1/2/2014 @ 5:53 pm

  153. R.e. the ships stuck in the ice. The Akademik Shokalskiy is rated by the Russians as ice class LU(1). The only source I could find is for the Xue Long is Wikipedia, so take this with a grain of salt, but the this ship is rated by the Chinese as ice class B1.

    This table gives the approximate correspondence between the various classification organizations.

    http://meeting.helcom.fi/c/document_library/get_file?folderId=76322&name=DLFE-30798.pdf

    LU(1) is the lowest category that qualifies as ice strengthened.

    As I said, the above is a rough correspondence, and whoever entered that in Wikipedia may not know the difference between B1 and B1*. The USCG considers the Xue Long a true ice breaker capable of independent operations in arctic conditions, but as you can see by the color coding it’s at the low end for what qualifies.

    http://www.uscg.mil/hq/cg5/cg552/docs/20130718%20Major%20Icebreaker%20Chart.pdf

    It’s not quite as capable as the USCGC Healey, as the Healey can steam continuously through 4 1/2 foot ice at 3 knots, while the Xue Long can steam continuously through 4 ft of ice at 1.5 knots.

    But the Healey is rated as a medium ice breaker by the USCG and they wouldn’t send it against this kind of ice. They’d use one of the Polar class heavy ice breakers. They can steam continuously through 6 ft of ice at 3 knots and break ice 21 ft thick.

    The ice around the Akademik Shokalskiy is rated at 10/10ths, so it’s between 10 and 13 feet thick. None of the ice breakers near that Russian ship is designed to deal with that. The Healey has double the shaft horsepower of any of them, including the Aurora Australis, and it’s not even designed to deal with that.

    Both of the Polar class ice breakers are well past their service life and should have been replaced. The USCGC Polar Sea is out of commission. The Polar Star was back in commission in late this year after an extensive overhaul and refit. It’s supposed to be in the Antarctic early this year.

    Maybe it can pull the Russkie’s and Chicom’s bacon out of the fire.

    Comment by Steve57 (eb0f3a) — 1/2/2014 @ 6:48 pm

  154. “A Chinese helicopter had to airlift the Chicken Littles from the ship stuck in the Antarctic ice.”

    At least they avoided being rescued by the French, which would have been tough to live down.

    Comment by daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 1/2/2014 @ 7:16 pm

  155. When do you expect them to be rescued from the Chinese ship?

    Comment by Sammy Finkelman (bf7669) — 1/2/2014 @ 7:18 pm

  156. Probably when the Polar Star gets there. She’s enroute McMurdo now.

    http://coastguardnews.com/coast-guard-icebreaker-visits-honolulu/2013/12/13/

    Comment by Steve57 (eb0f3a) — 1/2/2014 @ 7:39 pm

  157. http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/01/02/rescue-ship-aurora-australis-slowed-to-a-crawl-fighting-heavy-sea-ice-to-reach-open-water/

    I think they’re safe already. /sarc off

    Comment by gary gulrud (e2cef3) — 1/2/2014 @ 8:10 pm

  158. The Aurora Australis has even less shaft horsepower than the Xue Long. 13,400 vs. 17,700. What the hell are these people thinking.

    And it’s moving at 1/4 knot. It’s supposed to be able to do 2.5 knots in 4 ft of ice.

    Well, at least she’s making headway. That could change, but for now she is. At the very least these warmist idiots should get a nice big bill from the Chicoms and the Aussies for causing a lot of people a lot of trouble at great risk just to make some stupid point about a fictional climate problem.

    Comment by Steve57 (eb0f3a) — 1/2/2014 @ 9:07 pm

  159. It’s probably best to compare the ships in terms of Kilowatts, as that’s how the Chicom and Aussie ships are rated.

    The Aurora Australis makes 10,000kW total.

    The Xue Long makes 13,200.

    The Healey, which isn’t built to take on 10 ft thick ice, is rated at 34,560kW. And the Healey has been to the North Pole.

    It’s seems to me kind of nuts to try to take on ice that thick with the boats they’re using.

    By way of comparison the Polar Star can make 18,000kW on diesel engines or 56,000kW on her gas turbines. Which is the kind of power you need to get through ice like this.

    Comment by Steve57 (eb0f3a) — 1/2/2014 @ 9:25 pm

  160. Ooh, yeah. Those warmist idiots should get a nice big bill from the Chinese and the Aussies for pulling this stupid stunt. Via Instapundit

    http://pjmedia.com/instapundit/181977/#respond

    http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/somethings_cracking_and_its_not_the_ice_around_the_warmists_ship/#.UsOUhnAuxZ8.facebook

    Pierre Gosselin wonders whether this expedition was doomed by wishful thinking and cost-cutting:

    The first error expedition leaders made was under-estimating the prevailing sea ice conditions at Mawson Station, their destination. The scientists seemed to be convinced that Antarctica was a warmer place today than it had been 100 years earlier, and thus perhaps they could expect less sea ice there. This in turn would allow them to charter a lighter, cheaper vessel.

    This seems to be the case judging by their choice of seafaring vessel. They chartered a Russian vessel MS Akademik Shokalskiy, an ice-strengthened ship built in Finland in 1982. According to Wikipedia the ship has two passenger decks, with dining rooms, a bar, a library, and a sauna, and accommodates 54 passengers and a crew of up to 30. Though it is ice-reinforced, it is not an ice-breaker. This is a rather surprising selection for an expedition to Antarctica, especially in view that the AAE website itself expected to travel through areas that even icebreakers at times are unable to penetrate, as we are now vividly witnessing. Perhaps the price for chartering the Russian vessel was too good to pass up.

    What made the expedition even more dubious is that Turney and his team brought on paying tourists in what appears to have been an attempt to help defer the expedition’s costs and to be a source of cheap labor. According to the AAE website, the expedition was costed at US$1.5 million, which included the charter of the Akademik Shokalskiy to access the remote locations. “The site berths on board are available for purchase.” Prices start at $8000!

    The expedition brought with it 4 journalists, 26 paying tourists.

    Here it seems that the obvious risks and hazards of bringing tourists to the world’s harshest environment in a budget-priced vessel unable to handle ice-breaking may have been brushed aside, or at least played down. Was this reckless on the part of the expedition? That Antarctica is a harsh environment was in fact known to expedition leader Chris Turney: Bild online here quotes Turney: “In the Antarctic the conditions are so extreme that you can never make forecasts.” Is this an environment you’d want to bring unfamiliar tourists in – on a vessel that cannot even break ice?

    Yet this guy Chris Turney did make forecasts. Based entirely upon his gaia worshiping faith in AGW.

    The author of the Aussie blog has the same question I did.

    Who paid for all this? Who pays the millions for the rescue?

    Comment by Steve57 (eb0f3a) — 1/4/2014 @ 12:11 am

  161. There’s more. Apparently the fact these idiots thought they could sail the Antarctic without an actual, no kidding ice breaker because of AGW meant that they seriously disrupted research at the French, Chinese, and Australian Antarctic research stations. A lot of scientific research equipment was onboard those ice breakers when they had to rush to the rescue of the Ship Of Fools.

    Research that had been planned for years won’t get done, thanks to the warmists.

    Yes, definitely, make them pay.

    Comment by Steve57 (eb0f3a) — 1/4/2014 @ 12:17 am

  162. The climate jockeys should check out Lake Superior. If I remember correctly she freezes over 2 times in 20 years, this year makes it 2 in 5 years.

    Comment by mg (31009b) — 1/4/2014 @ 12:26 am

  163. Ok, now the Chicom ship is stuck too. Misery loves company.

    Comment by gary gulrud (e2cef3) — 1/4/2014 @ 4:04 am

  164. More of that special Dustinesssssss…

    Comment by Colonel Haiku (756c13) — 12/31/2013 @ 4:40 pm

    Sorry I didn’t reply sooner, but I haven’t been around much.

    You do realize that my first comment said nothing critical of your favorite person in the world, and then you attacked me for a comment I left months ago as well as a comment I left years ago. I explained my side of those views you brought into the thread, and instead of responding in an intelligent way, you mocked me for saying anything at all on the topic you brought up.

    If you were not interested in discussing what you brought up, then you were trolling.

    Dustin,

    C’mon, bud, cool your jets with the sanctimony.
    Mitt Romney has been an exemplary man whose business successes have created tons of jobs and opportunities for people. His contribution of wealth creation speaks for itself.
    And he has given lots of his own money to various charities.

    I do not equate a millionaire politician giving money at some cocktail party, and then seeing to it that the voters hear of this donation, as anything remotely on par with fighting in Vietnam. I do not see how this view is falsely elevating ideals or hypocritical, so I don’t really understand this sanctimony insult you attempted.

    Military service is great, but it is not for everyone. And there really are many ways that a person can serve one’s country.

    I agree completely, yet I said this in the comment you are responding to, even providing several examples. Teaching or being a police officer or a defense attorney, if done with selfless regard for our society, make the grade for me. And there are other ways, but they require material sacrifice and selflessness to make my grade. You do recall that it’s my opinions about merit you are telling me I should or shouldn’t have, after all. I’ve got nothing against actions intended to enrich oneself and bring success, but they are not selfless. I don’t wind up holding a ton of faith in someone’s devotion to this country unless they’ve earned it somehow, and the how is basically a ‘I’ll know it when I see it’. Most people are not good enough for my vote for something like President, whether that’s ‘fair’ or not.

    I’m wondering why you insulted me over a comment you apparently didn’t finish reading. But as you always seem eager to denigrate others I suppose I don’t really want insight into how you think.

    Something just occurred to me. As we are currently on alert for sanctimony, ask yourselves if you would say the same about MSNBC’s petty and nasty racism if instead of being directed at Romney’s family, it was directed at the family heritage of a Romney critic.

    Comment by Dustin (303dca) — 1/4/2014 @ 5:58 am

  165. 162. The climate jockeys should check out Lake Superior. If I remember correctly she freezes over 2 times in 20 years, this year makes it 2 in 5 years.

    Comment by mg (31009b) — 1/4/2014 @ 12:26 am

    The climate jockeys also need to check out the kind of ice breaking capability you need on the Great Lakes.

    http://www.uscg.mil/d9/cgcMackinaw/

    The Coast Guard is required by law to maintain a heavy ice breaking capability on the Great Lakes to assist in keeping channels and harbors open to navigation in response to the reasonable demands of commerce to meet the winter shipping needs of industry. The new USCGC MACKINAW (WLBB-30) is the only U.S. heavy ice breaking resource assigned to the Great Lakes.

    None of the ice breakers used to rescue the passengers of the Akademik Shokalskiy are heavy ice breakers. They wouldn’t even quite make the cut as medium ice breakers.

    Not like the Mackinaw is the kind of ship you’d send to the Antarctic. Much like the Baltic-class ice breakers you’ll find the Scandinavian countries, Russia, etc., building they can break heavy ice but they don’t have the sea keeping ability.

    Interestingly, the Mackinaw uses ABB Azipods for propulsion.

    http://gcaptain.com/abbs-azipod-technology-bound/

    One of the main dangers of operating in heavy ice is rudder damage. Azipods eliminate the need for a rudder. They don’t eliminate the possibility of propeller damage, but you can’t have everything. Usually the propellers and the rudder (if you have one) is protected from the ice as much as possible by the shape of the hull. But in order to work, they have to be exposed to the water. One of the key principles of avoiding rudder (and propeller) damage is KEEP MOVING. Skillful handling will minimize the danger. Once you’re stuck in the ice, things are entirely out of your hands. Now the propulsion and steering systems that were exposed to the water are now exposed to the encroaching ice. Your inability to maneuver means you can do nothing to keep it away. The Akademik Shokalskiy and the Xue Long are older ships. If they’re stuck in the ice for a significant period of time I’d suspect they may not be able to extricate themselves because of rudder damage, and possibly propeller damage.

    163. Ok, now the Chicom ship is stuck too. Misery loves company.

    Comment by gary gulrud (e2cef3) — 1/4/2014 @ 4:04 am

    The thing is the French, Chinese, and Australian vessels responded to the distress call. So I can find no fault in anything they did. It is entirely the fault of the leadership of the Ship of Fools. And they and the warmists in general must finally be held to account for their irresponsibility. Chris Turney attempted to blame global warming for their predicament.

    http://www.theguardian.com/science/antarctica-live/2014/jan/04/antarctic-expedition-was-worth-it-chris-turney

    Antarctic expedition: ‘This wasn’t a tourist trip. It was all about science – and it was worth it’
    Chris Turney, leader of the Australasian Antarctic Expedition, says his critics are wrong: the team was prepared, the risks were known, and much was achieved

    This guy, like all warmists, contradicts himself here from year to year, month to month, day to day, moment to moment, and when being interviewed from paragraph to paragraph.

    Then insists he was being consistent all along and his critics who have noticed his hypocrisy are wrong.

    His previous comments acknowledge that “in the Antarctic the conditions are so extreme that you can never make forecasts.”

    Yet he now defends himself by saying the risks were known and he took all proper precautions. WTFO?!?! He took a mere ice strengthened ship into a region where he himself has previously acknowledged even ice breakers can’t at times operate. He says to the Guardian reporter:

    Unfortunately, events unfolded which no amount of preparation can mitigate.

    …Unluckily for us, there appears to have been a mass breakout of thick, multiyear sea ice on the other side of the Mertz Glacier; years after the loss of the Mertz Glacier tongue. There was nothing to suggest this event was imminent.

    This is why you don’t make forecasts. This is why you charter an ice breaker. This is why you don’t take paying tourists along to defray the costs (there is evidence that the need to entertain the tourists with side expeditions delayed the ship from departing as ice conditions worsened.)

    He needs to pay, and he needs to pay big. Not just to the Chinese, the French, and the Aussies.

    As predicted:

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/01/04/usa-to-the-rescue-us-coast-guard-ice-breaker-asked-to-assist-antarctic-rescue-vessels-trapped-in-ice-due-to-spiritofmawson-fiasco/

    Not a hard prediction. The Polar Star will no doubt be the only heavy ice breaker south of the equator. If anyone doesn’t own a calendar, it happens to be January. Winter in the North. And they’re busy doing what they were built to do. And that doesn’t involve rescuing the first responders who got in trouble trying to save gaia-worshipping idiots from their delusions in the Antarctic Summer ice.

    The Australian Maritime Safety Authority’s Rescue Coordination Centre (RCC Australia) has requested the US Coast Guard’s Polar Star icebreaker to assist the vessels MV Akademik Shokalskiy and Xue Long which are beset by ice in Commonwealth Bay.

    The US Coast Guard has accepted this request and will make Polar Star available to assist.
    The Polar Star has been en route to Antarctica since 3 December, 2013 – weeks prior to the MV Akademik Shokalskiy being beset by ice in Commonwealth Bay. The intended mission of the Polar Star is to clear a navigable shipping channel in McMurdo Sound to the National Science Foundation’s Scientific Research Station. Resupply ships use the channel to bring food, fuel and other goods to the station. The Polar Star will go on to undertake its mission once the search and rescue incident is resolved.

    Now the Ship of Fools is delaying and otherwise screwing up US-funded research in the Antarctic. In addition to increasing the cost of the deployment, due entirely to a lack of preparation on the part of Chris Turney, as the Chris Turney v. Chris Turney debate timeline amply demonstrates.

    Make these fools pay for their foolishness.

    Comment by Steve57 (eb0f3a) — 1/4/2014 @ 3:28 pm

  166. Steve, it is very unfortunate how the ‘global warming’ expedition has interfered with more serious scientific research in the Antarctic.

    I see this as an illustration of a long term trend, actually, where grant money that could go to many other things has been sent to ‘climate research’ in order to create political talking points.

    I think we all realize air pollution is bad, for example. Whether it’s heating the earth or not, it wouldn’t be bad to reduce it. But many efforts that would reduce the actual pollution go by the wayside for ‘statement science’.

    BTW I’m glad you’re commenting more and hope that means you’re doing better.

    Comment by Dustin (303dca) — 1/4/2014 @ 3:33 pm

  167. I watched Melissa Harris-Perry’s tearful apology. Meh. I could respect her if she were straight-up honest and unequivocally stated that her inappropriate comments were in direct response to Mitt Romeny’s Republican affiliation. If he were a Dem, the prevailing commentary from the left would be what an act of love and generosity adopting a black baby would be.

    We didn’t see race of politics, Melissa: We saw love. You saw a political tool fresh for the wielding. Own it.

    Comment by Dana (9a8f57) — 1/4/2014 @ 4:44 pm

  168. The Ozzie ship is clear of ice on her way home. SDA has her ship cams up. She’ll be back on task in a couple weeks.

    164. Of the three amigos(see, I can be kind) at least the Colonel has the balls to apologize, eventually, under duress.

    But this devotion to effete, directionless, fruitless pragmatism has become embarrassing.

    Comment by gary gulrud (e2cef3) — 1/4/2014 @ 4:49 pm

  169. Winnipeg, Canada, got colder than part of the surface of Mars (where the Rover is)

    Comment by Sammy Finkelman (dec35d) — 1/4/2014 @ 5:18 pm

  170. Dustin… though we agree on more things than we disagree on, there’s not much to gain in discussing some subjects with you. One thing I have come to understand is that your judgements about personal character are demonstrably ill-considered and should be taken with a grain of salt.

    Comment by Colonel Haiku (22e735) — 1/4/2014 @ 6:11 pm

  171. Well if one understands the Shokaisky mission as a pligrimage rather then research it all becomes clear,

    In the 90s, when the Dems ran against two vets, including one who had been grievously injured, it didn’t matter, in 2000 when Gore who did serve in Vietnam, it was played up, and 2004, do we even need to revisit it, and of course, in 2008, it didn’t matter again,

    Comment by narciso (3fec35) — 1/4/2014 @ 6:22 pm

  172. I suppose I find it more interesting to converse on the subjects of the various tangents this thread has gone off on because the main subject is actually old news.

    Back during the height of the Cold War the Soviets had more people working on disinformation in the West than spying on the West.

    What you saw on MSNBC is simply a continuation of that campaign. The Soviets would smear anyone who threatened to get in the way of their agenda, in attempt to destroy their reputation and their influence. The MFM has been immersed in that muck for years, and simply has absorbed the method and the ethic behind it. Yes, they’re racists. But the real message is that if you threaten the prog agenda they will go after you, your children, and your grandchildren. You not only will never be a private person, but your family will be fair game for the rest of their lives as well.

    Here is Marc Lamont Hill defending the practice on CNN. He doesn’t know it, but he is.

    http://nationalreview.com/corner/367305/cnn-contributor-calls-romney-family-photo-exploitive-andrew-johnson

    A family photo is a spectacle? If you are a warped leftist it is. The Romneys apparently do this every year, and it only became a “spectacle” when one of the Romney children adopted a child, thus giving leftists an opportunity to attack the Romneys for the crime of being white. Therefore everything they and by extension the GOP is racist. I don’t know how twisted you have to be to think that who Ben and Andelynne Romney choose to adopt is remotely a political story. It isn’t; they were never named in the story. No doubt most MSNBC viewers are convinced Mitt Romney adopted a black grandchild. As if the law even remotely allows for someone to adopt a grandchild.

    If anyone is focused on the racism expressed by MHP and her panel then you’re missing the forest for the trees. This is not an isolated incident.

    Remember this, when the NYT crowdsourced their scrutiny of Sarah Palin’s emails?

    http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/06/09/help-us-investigate-the-sarah-palin-e-mail-records/?_r=0

    June 9, 2011, 1:36 pm 155 Comments
    Help Us Review the Sarah Palin E-Mail Records
    By DEREK WILLIS

    On Friday, the State of Alaska will release more than 24,000 of Sarah Palin’s e-mails covering much of her tenure as governor of Alaska. Times reporters will be in Juneau, the state capital, to begin the process of reviewing the e-mails, which we will be posting on NYtimes.com starting on Friday afternoon.

    We’re asking readers to help us identify interesting and newsworthy e-mails, people and events that we may want to highlight.

    I forget how many reporters belonged to the thundering herd that the MFM sent to report on the oh-so-critical story of emails of someone who hadn’t been a politician for years. I should think the fact they have the time to do that but not report on Benghazi or the IRS targeting of conservatives would have demonstrated to the public that keeping them informed is not the primary objective. But, no.

    Or remember when author Joe McGinnis rented the house next door to the Palins so he could spy on them for an unauthorized biography Conde Nast hired him to write?

    Or remember when the bureaucrats in the state of Ohio went out of its way to dig up dirt on Joe the Plumber, deciding that since he had made himself a public person by daring to speak out of turn when Barack Obama campaigned on his street the public deserved to know every less than favorable detail about Joe’s past.”

    There is a madness to their method, yes. But method there is. If you’re focusing on the madness, in this case the racism, you’re missing the big picture. And the big picture hasn’t changed for 50 years. Where have you guys been?

    Not that the racism isn’t real, and a very revealing part of the story.

    http://tv.yahoo.com/news/msnbc-host-makes-fun-mitt-romney-black-grandson-023826137.html

    “One of these things is not like the others, one of these things just isn’t the same,” panelist Pia Glenn offered as a caption for the photo, which the Romneys tweeted on Christmas Eve. (Lyrics of the original Sesame Street song are, “One of these things just doesn’t belong.”)

    “And that little baby, front and center, would be the one,” Glenn said.

    …Glenn acknowledged the controversy on Twitter Monday but fell short of apologizing, instead blaming the producers of the show for springing the photo on her and the panelists.

    She wrote in response to a critic, “”Really? You think I’m a producer on the show? You think I chose that photo & new [sic] it was coming?”

    That’s her excuse? She was surprised; didn’t know the picture was coming?

    Does she go full-on racist every time someone surprises her? I suggest no one give her any surprise gifts or throw any surprise parties for her lest you be subject to a barrage of profanity and slurs.

    That seems to be epidemic at MSNBC. Maybe Alec Baldwin should have tried that when he was eventually fired by MSNBC, but only after weeks of quietly hoping the storm would blow over, for attacking a reporter as a c***s***ing f*g**t.

    “C’mon, the guy surprised me. You think I new [sic] it was coming? I’m not homophobe. It’s just that the photographer came out of nowhere and I reacted like anyone else would have if they didn’t expect it.”

    Comment by Steve57 (eb0f3a) — 1/4/2014 @ 8:22 pm

  173. 171. Well if one understands the Shokaisky mission as a pligrimage rather then research it all becomes clear,

    Comment by narciso (3fec35) — 1/4/2014 @ 6:22 pm

    True dat. But if we’re going to have a state sponsored religion it’s not going to be this one.

    Make this idiot pay the freight.

    Comment by Steve57 (eb0f3a) — 1/4/2014 @ 8:24 pm

  174. And the MCA universal heiress, Van Den Heuvel, sort of made Perry’s apology moot,

    Comment by narciso (3fec35) — 1/4/2014 @ 8:27 pm

  175. http://therightscoop.com/melissa-harris-perry-panelist-levels-racism-charge-against-republicans-mere-minutes-after-hosts-apology/

    Comment by narciso (3fec35) — 1/4/2014 @ 8:30 pm

  176. Of all people. http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2014/01/05/alec-baldwin-mocks-melissa-harris-perry-if-i-cry-will-i-be-forgiven-a

    Actually, I agree with him. Snark included. Apologies are at best meaningless and worthless except as minor social courtesies when, for example, you bump into somebody. At their worst, and as practiced by a-holes like Melissa Harris-Perry, they are a cynical perversion of Grace Hopper’s “It’s better to beg for forgiveness than to ask for permission”.

    Comment by nk (dbc370) — 1/5/2014 @ 7:49 am

  177. Help Us Review the Sarah Palin E-Mail Records

    Even more so in the context of witnessing the opposite of that, referring to several years of the MSM and its white-gloved treatment of Obama, etc, I truly, actively hope for the ongoing financial belly flop of many newspapers and other facets of the media.

    There was a time years and years ago when I thought the mainstream media tended to be innocuous at best, while partisan in general. Now I don’t think it’s even innocuous.

    BTW, current news report about Obama flying out of Hawaii yesterday and leaving his wife behind as a present (or “present”) to her, so she can stay in Hawaii to celebrate her birthday — which isn’t until January 17 — seems to sort of confirm the reliability of a piece in the National Enquirer several days ago.

    When the full story of Obama comes out in the future, the scroungy, disreputable nature of who we Americans picked as the 44th president will become more and more obvious. That’s why November 2008 was a watershed moment — a sea change for the worse — which this nation will never live down.

    Comment by Mark (58ea35) — 1/5/2014 @ 8:30 am

  178. 174. And the MCA universal heiress, Van Den Heuvel, sort of made Perry’s apology moot,

    Comment by narciso (3fec35) — 1/4/2014 @ 8:27 pm

    I can only conclude that MHP was crying to keep her job. I think someone from big NBC pressured the people at MSNBC to clean up their act. So they had MHP cry and apologize. Then had their guest nullify the apology and reassure their viewership they still hate the criminally white, racist GOP no matter what they just heard from the host.

    Comment by Steve57 (d35759) — 1/6/2014 @ 10:57 am

  179. I may be alone in believing that MHP’s tearful on- air apology was genuine and sincere and that she does now understand and greatly regrets the negativity and hurtful jokes about trans-racial adoptions in general that arose from the Romney photo segment. But it still does not account for why someone with such obvious immaturity, poor judgement and un-self awareness as she, is in possession of a microphone on a national cable channel talk show–even MSNBC.

    Comment by elissa (27bbc2) — 1/6/2014 @ 11:14 am

  180. Her apology may be heartfelt but that doesn’t necessarily mean she controls the content, guests, or the direction of her show.

    http://www.nationalreview.com/article/367610/rachels-show-eliana-johnson

    Rachel’s Show
    Maddow is part of the new matriarchy running NBC News behind the scenes.
    By Eliana Johnson

    …Sources say it is Maddow rather than Phil Griffin who provides MSNBC’s editorial direction, and that she also holds considerable sway over personnel decisions. “I know I’m never going to get freakin’ talking points from Phil,” Maddow told The New Yorker last year. “Can you imagine? Like, what would they be?”

    Behind her back, colleagues call her “the queen,” a not so subtle suggestion that Maddow gets what Maddow wants. And what she wants is a network filled with young wonks such as Chris Hayes, Ezra Klein, Alex Wagner, and Harris-Perry, whose highbrow intellectualism can, she hopes, push the Democratic party, and the country, to the left.

    …Maddow, by contrast, is motivated by ideology. “If you debate for a living, you’re going to lose sometimes. Sometimes your preconceptions are wrong — that has never happened to her one time,” says a former colleague. “She is actually not that interested in reality; she is the most ideological person I’ve ever met. That is not somebody you want in charge of your programming, because she might put on a great show, but she cannot make rational decisions — her agenda is changing America. . . . She really thinks she is changing America for the better. You can’t have somebody like that in charge of your programming.”

    Comment by Steve57 (d35759) — 1/6/2014 @ 11:35 am

  181. Also, who knows what exactly MHP was crying about. That they meant to insult Romney, but instead people took it as an attack on the child?

    Again, who knows? But she seems fine with the direction of her show. And Van Den Heuvel did go on to negate whatever value her apology may have had.

    Comment by Steve57 (d35759) — 1/6/2014 @ 11:41 am

  182. All part and parcel of the white male dominated heteronormative rape culture we live in.

    Comment by daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 1/6/2014 @ 12:17 pm

  183. Elissa, I believe she “meant” what she said and also believed that her tears confirmed the genuiness of her apology. While I certainly cannot ascertain the motive of her heart, I believe her political philosophy – by default – has a built in self – deception in order to continually justify the double standards she maintains (as well as the network she works for).

    Clearly in this case, the usual spin of double-standard and self-deception slammed into reality. The question is, why was she so shocked by the reaction considering it is the left’s business as usual response to most things the right does?

    The important question, however, is where was her personal indignation and outrage against her colleagues for going after Trig and Sarah Palin?

    Comment by Dana (d0789a) — 1/6/2014 @ 2:49 pm

  184. Dana, you make excellent points. I believe she “meant” what she said, too, but then she said a lot of things. So it’s hard to tell what exactly she was getting emotional about. She really seemed to start to lose it when she was talking about “transracial” (is that a word?) adoption and how she never meant to imply that such families are in any way comedic. And her personal philosophy. But she seemed fine when she was talking about the Romney family. Ultimately it’s a fool’s errand. I’m sure she was sincere about something. I just don’t know what exactly what it was and I don’t care.

    MHP was yukking it up along with everyone else when they were making fun of the kid. And right after her apology Katrina Vanden Heuvel called the Republicans a bunch of racists. So the show was right back on to its original track anyway.

    I don’t know if MHP has creative control over her own show. But even if she doesn’t schedule her own guests and even if she doesn’t control the content (i.e. even if she didn’t choose the Romney family Christmas card to mock) she seems fine with it and I could care less if every once in a while she has to apologize when a particular attack doesn’t work out as well as she had hoped.

    Comment by Steve57 (d35759) — 1/6/2014 @ 7:23 pm

  185. Why you continue to posit that Vanden Heuvel’s insults somehow negate MHP’s apology or its sincerity escapes me, Steve. They are two different people, albeit radical leftists, each who speaks for herself, yes?

    Comment by elissa (f188df) — 1/6/2014 @ 7:59 pm

  186. Maybe they are merely ignorant, instead of malicious;

    http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2014/01/rachel-maddow-is-crazy-too.php

    Comment by narciso (3fec35) — 1/6/2014 @ 8:24 pm

  187. elissa, since MHP’s show (like many others on MSNBC like Sharpton’s) is about the perpetual racism of the GOP it doesn’t really matter if she has guests on her show to deliver the message while giving her plausible deniability.

    It’s what her show is about. Even if she’s not the one saying it.

    She’s cool with it. If a host disagrees with a guest they dispute what the guest is saying. MHP doesn’t. And as I said I don’t know if she controls the content of her show or schedules her guests. But she’s a team player.

    So what does it matter if she was sincere about something when she was apologizing?

    Perhaps she is sincerely sorry she used that picture and she truly regrets bringing the infant into it. But that amounts to apologizing for a tactical error. Whoever is running things on that show hasn’t lost sight of the objective; smearing the GOP as racist. Apparently they all realize that using Mitt Romney’s new grandson is the wrong way to go about it. But they will continue to go about it.

    That’s why Vander Huevel’s insults negate the effect of MHP’s apology (I’m not making a judgement about the sincerity of it; I have no way of knowing if MHP was 100% sincere, 0% sincere, or somewhere in between and, frankly, I don’t care). Whoever is running the show wanted the viewers to know that the Kieran Romney/apology bit didn’t distract them one bit from their mission.

    These guests know exactly what they’re there to talk about. In fact, before I cancelled my cable, I’ve seen guests walk off when they find out that the producers who asked them to be on the show to talk about one thing either wittingly or unwittingly got them on the show under false pretenses so the host could ambush them about something else. Guests who aren’t known commodities get pre-interviewed to get a feel for what they’ll say on a topic. If it isn’t what the host or whomever controls the shows wants to hear, then the guest will get a call back unscheduling them.

    These particular guests are a known commodity. Vander Hueven was scheduled on MHP’s show to say precisely what she said.

    Comment by Steve57 (d35759) — 1/6/2014 @ 8:40 pm

  188. Vander Heuvel.

    Comment by Steve57 (d35759) — 1/6/2014 @ 8:42 pm

  189. Recall this incident from the 2012 campaign?

    On Tuesday, the Romney campaign blasted a nasty, controversial pro-Obama super PAC ad that blamed Mitt Romney for the death of a steelworker’s wife after Bain Capital closed his plant and he lost health insurance.

    …President Barack Obama’s campaign had been pleading ignorance, distancing itself from the super PAC ad.

    But earlier this year, the Obama campaign featured the same worker, Joe Soptic, as a prominent part of its own attack on Romney’s handling of GST Steel as the CEO of Bain Capital.

    …On CNN’s “Starting Point,” deputy campaign manager Stephanie Cutter said she “didn’t know the facts” of Soptic and his wife.

    Soptic, though, was featured in an Obama campaign attack ad and conference call [AUDIO HERE] on May 14, in which he told the story of his wife’s cancer.

    “I couldn’t afford to buy it for my wife,” Soptic says on the call of his inability to purchase health insurance for his wife. “I had to put her in a county hospital because she didn’t have health care. When the cancer took her away, all I got was an enormous bill.”

    “Thank you, Joe,” Cutter says on the conference call. “We really appreciate you … sharing your experiences.”

    Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/joe-soptic-romney-obama-ad-campaign-priorities-usa-2012-8#ixzz2pga4HpRC

    Sometimes if you want to say something, it’s best to pretend to take the high road and have a proxy act as your attack dog and take the low road for you.

    That’s Vander Heuvel’s job on MHP’s show.

    Comment by Steve57 (d35759) — 1/6/2014 @ 9:02 pm

  190. This was posted at Gateway Pundit and perhaps explains more clearly what is largely my take on the issue. Although I think I’ve been pretty clear; the whole point of MHP’s show (if not the whole point of MSNBC in general) is to smear “the criminally white, racist GOP no matter what.”

    http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2014/01/rush-to-accept-melissa-harris-perry-apology-misses-chance-to-confront-left-on-race-baiting/

    …Harris-Perry apologized, as she should have, for using a child for a political attack and for hurting the feelings of mixed-race adoptive families. What she should have included in her apology was what the segment was about: a race-baiting attack on Republicans and conservatives.

    The failure of conservatives, including Mitt Romney, to push back on this illustrates why, in part, Republicans and conservatives consistently lose racial minority voters.

    For decades, liberals have falsely painted Republicans and conservatives as racists. Election after election Republicans and conservative send up candidates who, with rare exception, fail to fight back at such poisonous tactics…

    Let’s be clear. The people smearing the GOP as racist know it’s not true. But they also believe, and events have borne out that belief, that it’s an effective tactic. So they use it.

    MHP discovered using Mitt Romney’s grandchild to smear the GOP as racist on her show (recall how one of her guests said that photo was representative of what stands for diversity in the GOP) was taking it too far. So she apologized and then Katrina Vander Heuvel got everything right on track.

    Peddling a falsehood that they know is a falsehood; the idea the GOP is racist. And they’ve been quit open. They don’t care that it’s not true. They just care that the smear works.

    http://www.politico.com/arena/perm/Mary_Frances_Berry_91E3D9D5-C40D-440C-9D48-1C50CBC60C87.html

    Mary Frances Berry Professor of American Social Thought and History, U. Penn. :

    Tainting the tea party movement with the charge of racism is proving to be an effective strategy for Democrats. There is no evidence that tea party adherents are any more racist than other Republicans, and indeed many other Americans. But getting them to spend their time purging their ranks and having candidates distance themselves should help Democrats win in November. Having one’s opponent rebut charges of racism is far better than discussing joblessness.

    I’ve brought up this quote before, and I’ve gotten push back along the lines of, “Mary Frances Berry probably isn’t so such a well connected Democratic insider that she knows they’re only smearing the tea party as an election year tactic.”

    It’s frustrating that even informed people could be so naive. It’s like dealing with people who think you’ve got to be paranoid that Obamacare is part of deliberate plan to bring about single payer. You can show them videos of Democrats saying exactly that, including Barack Obama who was recorded telling a union audience he’s a proponent of single payer but it may take 10 or 15 years to bring the American around to it. But the moment Barack Obama gives a “who are you going to believe, me or your lying eyes and ears” speech (i.e. a “believe what I’m saying out of necessity this moment, not what I said in that ‘we’re all friends here’ moment of unguarded honesty when I didn’t know I was being recorded” speech) people will choose to believe the current lie than the past truth.

    But lest there be any doubt, there were two topics under discussion on Politico’s “The Arena,” a “daily debate with policy makers and opinion shapers,” that July day in the run-up to the 2010 election. And Mary Frances Berry was participating in the discussion, “will branding the tea party ‘racist’ work?”

    In other words, everyone knew the Democrats were smearing the TEA Party as racist as an election year strategy. Mary Frances Berry didn’t need to be a well connected Democratic party insider (although she is) and she wasn’t revealing some secret strategy. It was common knowledge. The question under discussion was “will it work?” MFB simply came down on the side that it would work because it A) distracted from Obama’s dismal failures such as joblessness and B) kept Republicans chasing their tail as the Democrats and their propaganda/information warfare wing the MFM constantly demanded they denounce the entirely fabricated racism of the TEA Party. All that did was confirm in the minds of minority voters that the GOP must be rife with racism because GOP candidates confirmed that impression by denouncing those elements. And it kept the issues on the back burner.

    That is exactly what’s going on with this MHP/Romney family photo/apology diversion. If anyone thinks that what MHP needed to apologize for was using Mitt Romney’s grandchild to smear the GOP with the charge of racism I’m afraid they’ve lost sight of the big picture.

    Comment by Steve57 (d35759) — 1/7/2014 @ 1:17 am

  191. ==Although I think I’ve been pretty clear; the whole point of MHP’s show (if not the whole point of MSNBC in general) is to smear “the criminally white, racist GOP no matter what.”==

    Yes you’ve been “pretty clear” and argued this point thoroughly and at length— but of course I don’t think I’ve ever seen anyone here disagree with this assessment of MSNBC’s despicable all racist all day programming. However, until you moved the goalpost, I believe what we were actually discussing was MHP’s need to personally issue an apology to the Romney family for a specific exceptionally egregious show segment, and specific slurs that she herself personally perpetrated against the Romneys on a specific day over a specific photograph and a specific baby. This specific short chain of events made Drudge, the headlines on Yahoo, and most of the major networks. If you can’t see that to the vast breadth of decent America Mitt and his family came out both sympathetically and poignantly as the winners– and MHP and her network came across as the small pathetic losers on this, then I fear it is you who have “lost sight of the big picture.”

    Comment by elissa (3c2f35) — 1/7/2014 @ 6:54 am

  192. However, until you moved the goalpost, I believe what we were actually discussing was MHP’s need to personally issue an apology to the Romney family for a specific exceptionally egregious show segment, and specific slurs that she herself personally perpetrated against the Romneys on a specific day over a specific photograph and a specific baby.

    If you read my comment #172 you’ll see I don’t even find that subject remotely interesting, which is why I prefer it when the thread goes off topic and we can discuss those side topics instead.

    Honestly, It’s difficult for me to express just how irrelevant MHP’s apology is in the scheme of things. I suppose a historical analogy would be if Yamamoto offered a personal, sincere apology for his role in the Pearl Harbor attack which was “many people found offensive and broke the ground rules, and for that I am sorry.”

    Then right back to doing his part in the Japanese war effort.

    If you can’t see that to the vast breadth of decent America Mitt and his family came out both sympathetically and poignantly as the winners– and MHP and her network came across as the small pathetic losers on this, then I fear it is you who have “lost sight of the big picture.”

    We can hold our heads in defeat in 2014, knowing we took the high road. That will a great comfort elissa.

    Meanwhile, the smear campaign continues.

    http://newsbusters.org/blogs/kyle-drennen/2014/01/06/nbc-touts-democratic-strategy-paint-republicans-party-rich

    NBC Touts Democratic Strategy to ‘Paint Republicans as the Party of the Rich’

    In a report for Sunday’s NBC Nightly News, White House correspondent Kristen Welker eagerly promoted efforts by President Obama to use class warfare against Republicans leading up to the 2014 midterm elections: “President Obama will aim to reboot his presidency this year after a rocky 2013. The first item on the agenda will be extending unemployment insurance benefits….In his weekly media message, Mr. Obama blamed Republicans for leaving those benefits out of last month’s budget deal.” [Listen to the audio or watch the video after the jump]

    A clip played of Obama ranting: “And denying families that security is just plain cruel. We’re a better country than that.” Moments later, Welker proclaimed: “The President will also renew his call for an increase in the minimum wage in his State of the Union address. Another piece of a Democratic strategy designed to paint Republicans as the party of the rich ahead of the fall elections.”

    Read more: http://newsbusters.org/blogs/kyle-drennen/2014/01/06/nbc-touts-democratic-strategy-paint-republicans-party-rich#ixzz2pjYvziVL

    This stuff works, elissa.

    After 14 months, one Pittsburgh businessman still wonders: If everyone like him had voted in 2012, how differently might 2013 have turned out?

    The lifelong Democrat, who runs a five-man machine shop, regrets not voting for president in 2012.

    He admits President Barack Obama’s assault on Mitt Romney’s character cast just enough doubt in his mind that he believed the Republican nominee would favor Wall Street over Main Street, put Washington into political deadlock and keep the economy stubbornly at a standstill.
    He also believed he could keep his health-care plan — the one he liked — under Obama.

    “For me, the class-warfare slogans were just enough to keep me at home,” he explained, adding that he’ll never do that again.

    Read more: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2014/01/05/democrats_continue_class_warfare_rhetoric_121130.html#ixzz2pjc8iiuZ
    Follow us: @RCP_Articles on Twitter

    Not to mention the race-warfare slogans. As Obama said when he addressed a Latino organization before the last election, “help me punish our enemies.”

    Let me move the goalposts to comment #123, in which I tried to connect this to what I see as the big picture.

    But I would like to point out that what these cretins are saying is exactly the same thing the more mainstream MFM outlets are saying…

    Even more important, what these cretins on MSNBC are saying is no different from what the Democratic party leadership is saying. Unless conservatives adopt the entire liberal program of race, gender, and gender orientation identity politics they will be denounced as racist, sexist, homophobic, and islamophobic.

    I thought the big picture involved winning the 2014 election. And in order to do that the GOP needs to counter the divide and conquer, class and race smear campaign that kept Obama in the WH in 2012.

    That said I’m sure the vast majority of decent Americans would think that “Mitt and his family came out both sympathetically and poignantly as the winners– and MHP and her network came across as the small pathetic losers on this.”

    If they ever heard of the dust up. Which no doubt they haven’t.

    I really don’t see how the big picture involves who comes out looking more classy and sympathetic, a cable show with something like 5 viewers or the family of somebody who won’t be running for anything in 2014.

    Comment by Steve57 (d35759) — 1/7/2014 @ 9:38 am

  193. I have to admit I’m confused by the moving the goalposts accusation. In comment @123 I was agreeing with you, elissa.

    25. I think respectable blogs need to just stop linking to these cretins, and respectable people need to just quit cluck clucking and eye rolling over them. Most of the hosts on there are evil nasty racist people but I am convinced MSDNC mostly does it for link bait since they know nobody watches them when it’s aired the 1st time.

    Comment by elissa (7635d7) — 12/30/2013 @ 2:48 pm

    I agreed no one should to link to MSNBC. And went on to explain how from my perspective that tempest in a teapot wasn’t the important thing (although tempest is too strong a word, and a teapot is too large considering MHP’s viewership).

    So I’m at a loss to understand why MHP’s apology is remotely important. Sincere, insincere, whatever. No one is going to see that, either.

    Comment by Steve57 (d35759) — 1/7/2014 @ 9:55 am

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.


Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.6841 secs.