Fox's Shepard Smith claims that many of his fellow hosts are there strictly to entertain, and that he and they "serve different masters."

Courtesy of Time: 

Smith says he’s unbothered by the divergence between his reporting and Fox’s opinion slate. “We serve different masters. We work for different reporting chains, we have different rules. They don’t really have rules on the opinion side. They can say whatever they want. If it’s their opinion. I don’t really watch a lot of opinion programming. I’m busy.” He laughs, enigmatic punctuation that may indicate he’d been trying for a bon mot, or might just be a Mississippi-nice way of indicating he’s said what he’s going to say, bless my heart.

 .........

Unlike some portion of the audience that reflexively switches on Fox News, Smith is disengaged by politics. “I get it,” he says, “that some of our opinion programming is there strictly to be entertaining. I get that. I don’t work there. I wouldn’t work there. I don’t want to sit around and yell at each other and talk about your philosophy and my philosophy. That sounds horrible to me.” 

So to sum up, much of Fox News broadcasting is there simply to entertain, there are no real rules on the opinions side of things, and yet this is Donald Trump's go to source for news and policy advice.

Do you remember that 2012 study which found that people who watched Fox News were less informed than people who did not watch any news at all?

Well apparently that's not a bug.

It's a feature.

And now it features into how the president makes decisions which effect this country, and our world.

P.S. By the way since this story came out suddenly we are learning that Smith is going on a "previously planned vacation."

Thea last time I heard that phrase was when it was used to explain why Bill O'Reilly was not showing up to do his show after those sexual harassment allegations became public.

I hope that is not the case here as Shep is probably the last remaining actual journalist currently working at Fox News.

P.P.S. Here was Hannity's response.

While Shep is a friend with political views I do not share, and great at breaking news, he is clueless about what we do every day. Hannity breaks news daily-Warrant on a Trump assoc, the unmasking scandal, leaking intel, Fisa abuse, HRC lawbreaking, dossier and more REAL NEWS! 9p https://t.co/zJpnnyFTtP

— Sean Hannity (@seanhannity) March 16, 2018

I think Hannity is confusing "breaks news" with "pulls conspiracy theories out of my ass."

People Magazine reveals what former President Barack Obama really thinks of Donald Trump.

Courtesy of People Magazine: 

“He’s nothing but a bullsh–ter,” Obama told two friends early last November, describing an election night phone call with Trump, in which the businessman suddenly professed his “respect” and “admiration” for Obama—after years of hectoring. 

Speaking to PEOPLE for its new cover story on Obama and his wife Michelle adjusting to life outside the White House, the two friends quoted Obama’s blunt assessment of President-elect Trump. And how has Obama’s opinion changed since Trump been in office? “Well,” said one of the sources, “it hasn’t gotten any better.”

A third source close to Obama tells PEOPLE: “He’s deeply concerned with what he’s seen. But he’s also optimistic and heartened that citizens aren’t just watching it happen but engaging with neighbors and elected representatives at town halls.”

I can't imagine that anybody would find this surprising.

After all everything that Trump has done since taking office is to undermine Obama's policies, and destroy the American people's confidence in the office, and the reputation of the country around the world.

In my opinion Obama was being much too kind.

If I were Obama and somebody asked me about Donald Trump my response would be just one long primal scream at the top of my lungs followed by a quick punch in the throat for asking me such a stupid question.

Defining Democracy.

This needs to be shared.

With everybody.

Former Bernie Sanders supporter admits that he allowed himself to be brainwashed by Republican anti-Hillary propaganda.

Courtesy of Social Justice for All: 

Let me be as candid and transparent as possible: I was a very strong supporter of Bernie Sanders, and until the past four weeks, held out great hope that he would become our next President. Over the course of the past month, I have had to do a great deal of reflecting and ask myself where does this seemingly irrational antipathy for Hillary Clinton come from? Why have I participated in it? After doing some research and looking hard at systemic misogyny, I have had to confront myself with the truth that I bought into a narrative about Hillary Clinton that has been produced, packaged, and perpetuated by mostly the GOP with the help of many democrats and independents. 

This narrative is a 30-year-old vilification of a woman who is bright, independent, wealthy, and powerful — a woman who asks for what she wants and needs. How very dare you, Ms. Clinton? How dare you have a mind of your own? How dare you be bright and powerful? How dare you ask for what you want and need? Don’t you know these rights are still exclusively for white, Christian, cisgender, able-bodied, heterosexual men? 

My research indicates that the reality — the facts (I realize facts are immaterial when talking to many Trump supporters) — are that Hillary Clinton is one of the most honest politicians tracked by the Pulitzer Prize winning fact-checking project Politifact.

I never tire of sharing this graphic.

 The author sums up his remarks thusly: 

I truly believe that Hillary and her platform are beneficial to targeted communities: people of color, people in poverty, people with disabilities, veterans, LGBTQ people, and all of the intersecting identities thereof. She is a hard-working, fundamentally honest person for whom — as she so nicely framed it — “the service part has always come easier than the public part.” 

This article is actually from the beginning of this month, but I thought it important enough to share with all of you this morning. 

You see the thing that all of us who support Hillary have had to contend with is this deeply ingrained belief that Hillary is untrustworthy, a liar, a cheat, etc.

I actually came up against that with my own daughter who was adamant that Hillary was deeply, deeply flawed.

However when I asked her for examples she kept resorting to responses like "You just know by looking at her," or "You just feel it," and "Everything she says feels like a lie."

In the end she really could not provide any factual examples (Except the Bosnia sniper story. That really was bullshit.), in the end she had to admit that most of her "feelings" about Hillary's trustworthiness were the result of the opinions of her friends, and not really based on actual empirical evidence.

The thing that is so frustrating is that these opinions are baked into the narrative about Hillary Clinton.

And even after you reveal that the bakers were the folks at Fox News, or The Drudge Report, or Info Wars it is still a struggle to undo that perception and correct all of those lies.

Which of course is exactly what those bakers were counting on when they first fired up the ovens. 

Conservative media darling, and YouTube phenom, renounces conservatism due to its inherent racism.

Courtesy of CNN Politics:  

The 13-year-old Internet phenom who gained national attention criticizing President Barack Obama and briefly was a part of the Ted Cruz campaign is renouncing conservatism, saying he's looking to be a voice unbound by party ideology. 

CJ Pearson told CNN on Friday that concerns about the Republican Party's viewpoints on racial and gender disparity as well as youth issues convinced him he could no longer be a mouthpiece for conservatism. 

"I was tired of being a champion of a party that turned a blind eye to racial discrimination. Tired of being a champion of any cause that denies equal rights to every American. Tired of being a champion of a party that doesn't care about the issues important to young people," Pearson wrote in an email. 

The 13-year-old, African-American YouTube star from Georgia said in an interview that he began considering the change after a conversation with another teen friend, who asked why he doesn't speak out on racial discrimination -- to which he replied he was concerned his followers wouldn't be pleased.

Apparently the shooting death of Laquan McDonald, who was shot sixteen times by a police officer, proved too much for the teen.

And this kid was certainly not shy about sharing his opinions. His YouTube channel is full of angry diatribes against Hillary Clinton, President Obama, Bernie Sanders, you name it, and, if it's liberal, he trashes it.

You might also remember him as the kid who claimed that President Obama blocked him on Twitter.

So I guess the question that needs to be asked is, "If at 13 this kid can see the Republican party for what it is, what's stopping the rest of the country?"

Sadly I think I already know the answer.

Few remaining Palin-bots are excited by easily manipulated poll results which indicate that Sarah Palin is becoming popular again.

I told you I'd be back bitches!

Okay so there's this website which I am sure some of you know about that simply ADORES Sarah Palin, and continues to believe that she is someday going to fulfill her destiny and lead this country into ruin. (They seem blissfully unaware that Palin has already fulfilled her destiny to become a failed reality start and late night comedian punchline.)

Anyhow recently they stumbled across this polling website, ironically named "Elections Meter," and are now promoting it because it claims that Sarah Palin's poll numbers are currently at 55.6%.

According to the Palin-bot website: 

The new 6250+ aggregate vote EM Poll gives Palin a 55.62% approval rating. This is her fifth rating above 45% by one point or more increases in this poll since 2010, and shows the long struggle against media distortion she has had to undertake. Still, the slow and steady rise continues-as Palin's polling over the last six months indicates clearly. 

Undertake the long struggle she has done indeed, and her tenacity seems to finally be paying, off as voters now are seeing her in a substantially positive light again.The following factors may also have been significant contributors to her continuous rise.

Her strong statements on President Obama's handling of the economy during and after the 2012 election have clearly elicited a positive response. Voters look for strength of character and unwavering conviction which, whether one agrees with her views or not, Palin has in abundance.

Hang on a minute I'm fighting a losing battle against a case of the giggles. 

Okay so if you take the time to click the link to the polling website up top you will see in it's top right hand corner a blurb that states "Did you know that you can vote repeatedly?"

Now I don't want to accuse anybody who supports Sarah Palin of being unethical in any way, after all we don't have any "cough cough DWTS voting" evidence to support that, however it does suggest, and let me choose the kindest words possible for this, that the remaining Sarah Palin supporters are a bunch of desperately ignorant idolaters who will do ANYTHING to convince themselves that they have not wasted these past seven years supporting a woman who will NEVER do anything to earn even a scintilla of respect from the American voters.

See I can be diplomatic.

Fortunately for those of us who see Palin for what she is, there are still multiple occasions to see her name used as the butt of jokes. Like here on a new show on ABC called "Blackish" for instance. 

Yep, now these are people who recognize Sarah Palin's actual contribution to the world.

My daughter wanted to share this.

Recently my daughter has become very politically aware, and holy crap!

If you think I get opinionated and strident sometimes trust me when I tell you my kid can verbally work you over and leave you shaking in the fetal position in about five minutes flat.

She now has her own chair in my office where she sits to debate me.

Have to admit, it's kind of fun.

Is America crazy?

Courtesy of Common Dreams:  

Americans who live abroad -- more than six million of us worldwide (not counting those who work for the U.S. government) -- often face hard questions about our country from people we live among. Europeans, Asians, and Africans ask us to explain everything that baffles them about the increasingly odd and troubling conduct of the United States. Polite people, normally reluctant to risk offending a guest, complain that America’s trigger-happiness, cutthroat free-marketeering, and “exceptionality” have gone on for too long to be considered just an adolescent phase. Which means that we Americans abroad are regularly asked to account for the behavior of our rebranded “homeland,” now conspicuously in decline and increasingly out of step with the rest of the world.

In my long nomadic life, I’ve had the good fortune to live, work, or travel in all but a handful of countries on this planet. I’ve been to both poles and a great many places in between, and nosy as I am, I’ve talked with people all along the way. I still remember a time when to be an American was to be envied. The country where I grew up after World War II seemed to be respected and admired around the world for way too many reasons to go into here. 

That’s changed, of course. Even after the invasion of Iraq in 2003, I still met people -- in the Middle East, no less -- willing to withhold judgment on the U.S. Many thought that the Supreme Court’s installation of George W. Bush as president was a blunder American voters would correct in the election of 2004. His return to office truly spelled the end of America as the world had known it. Bush had started a war, opposed by the entire world, because he wanted to and he could. A majority of Americans supported him. And that was when all the uncomfortable questions really began.

Yeah you know after the election of 2004 I too thought that we must be crazy.

Here are a few of the questions that the author, Ann Jones, has been asked over the years:

• Why can’t you Americans stop interfering with women’s health care? 
• Why can’t you understand science? 
• How can you still be so blind to the reality of climate change? 
• How can you speak of the rule of law when your presidents break international laws to make war whenever they want? 
• How can you hand over the power to blow up the planet to one lone, ordinary man? 
• How can you throw away the Geneva Conventions and your principles to advocate torture? 
• Why do you Americans like guns so much? Why do you kill each other at such a rate? 
• To many, the most baffling and important question of all is: Why do you send your military all over the world to stir up more and more trouble for all of us?

You know in our defense I would like to suggest that America is not so much crazy, as it is schizophrenic. In many ways we are quite a reasonable, intelligent, progressive nation.

However sometimes we hear voices whispering in the dark. And those voices are not quite as reasonable, intelligent, nor progressive.

I call those voices "Republicans," and it seems to be that more and more these days they act like the Joker in "The Dark Knight" movie. And by that I mean, as Alfred Pennyworth explains, some men just want to watch the world burn.

So is America crazy?

Not always. But sometimes, yes most definitely.

Does Hell exist? And if it does how do you feel about your loved ones being sent there? One woman's response might shock you.

The video below is from the BBC program "The Big Questions" which is a remarkable program with the kind of format that we in the states cannot seem to pull off effectively.

I must admit that I am somewhat addicted to the program and have watched numerous episodes, many dealing with religion, Atheism, the bible, and many of the types of controversial topics that I like to discuss here on IM.

In the one below they are talking about he existence of Hell and have a variety of experts representing various religions, faiths, and the nonreligious to discuss the topic. There are also a couple of regular church members included as they also are asked to provide their opinions.

This woman, Liz Weston, who has already established her belief in Hell, is asked at the 3:50 mark how she could enjoy heaven knowing that many of her loved ones are being tormented in hell.

Her response is so bizarre and irrational to me that it makes my head ache. Here take a listen:

Wow! Here is what she says, in case you also cannot believe it:

Weston: "No, it won't. Because I will be with Jesus."

Host: "But the people that you love.."

Weston: "The person that I love the most is Jesus."

Host: "But what about the people you love in your life?"

Weston: "But I don't love them as much as I love Jesus. That's the point."

The rest of the conversation is well worth watching and I encourage you to do so, but it is this one back and forth that quite literally caused me one or two sleepless nights.

Simply put I have NO frame of reference to understand how somebody could look forward to living for eternity while believing that the people she one loved are punished in the most excruciating manner possible, simply because she will be in the presence of a person that she has never met, and has no reality based relationship with.

Essentially, despite what she might believe, everything that she believes is admirable about Jesus, and worthy of her love, is something she read in a book or was told by a representative of the religion named in his honer.

She has NO actual relationship with Jesus, and yet gaining access to HIM after her death is more important than what will happen to the people who have loved her all her life, and those she has laughed, cried, and struggled beside for her entire existence.

It makes me wonder if she is able to really form relationships here on earth, if she is always thinking of how much more fulfilling the one she has after she dies will be? I mean is it possible to truly love, when you care more for the possibility to a perfect love that lays behind death's door than you do about the ones you are having as a mortal on this tiny rock in space?

I am anxious to hear what you have to say, because in my nonreligious brain this feels like the very definition of insanity.

Alaska's Lisa Murkowski teams up with Democratic Senator to write opinion piece promising to take on SuperPACs. Oookay, what's the catch?

Courtesy of Alaska Dispatch:  

U.S. Sen. Lisa Murkowski, R-Alaska, is teaming with Sen. Ron Wyden, D-Ore., to clean up the indulgent and secretive excesses of so-called political Super PACs. She's pledged to take on the project early in the 113th Congress, and co-authored with Wyden an opinion piece on the subject published in the Washington Post. 

In their piece for the Post, released late Thursday to reporters, Murkowski and Wyden explain: 

"This influx of unregulated political cash stemming from the Supreme Court's 2010 Citizens United decision spawned a particularly vitriolic political cycle. Groups on both sides dumped some $6 billion into tearing down candidates for public office. The anonymity of much of this spending encourages ads that lower the level of political discourse and makes it harder, not easier, for Americans to make informed decisions.” 

However before you start thinking to yourself, "Finally a Republican who is ready to break ranks and think for herself, remember this:

Murkowski has herself benefited greatly from a Super PAC. Back in 2010, when independent expenditure groups got the green light to go hog wild, she was in a heated battle to keep her Senate seat from going to Alaska's tea party-backed challenger, Joe Miller. Miller won the primary, but Murkowski chose to stay in the race and mount a write-in campaign. With the help of a Super PAC called Alaskans Standing Together, largely funded by Alaska Native corporations reliant on federal money streams, Murkowski won re-election.

I am unable to put my suspicious nature concerning Lisa Murkowski aside (Remember she is the Senator who allowed energy lobbyists to write her a bill for her and also attempted to hamstring the EPA's ability to regulate greenhouse gases.), however I will say that she has broken ranks with the Republicans before, and I would expect that she will do so again as she may have one of the most primary proof Senate seats in the country.

After her trouncing of Joe Miller's vaguely bearded ass in 2010, I would be stunned if anybody from the right wanted to challenge her nomination again. And as for the Democrats, as much as it pains me to say, there just isn't anybody that I believe can really give her a run for her money.

So essentially Murkowski is free to finally vote her conscience. I don't expect that her conscience. will line up too well with most liberal ideals, but I also don't see her going all Teabagger on us either.

The only possible fly in Murkowski's political ointment is the fact that the Joe Miller crowd is now running the Alaska Republican Party.

As you know our elections are not exactly democratic so the people in charge of the vote tally (The Republicans) is also in charge of the outcome of our elections. However it would be an incredibly risky move for the Miller teabaggers to try and steal an election from Murkowski, who would have the support of the old Republican guard plus many Independents, not to mention more than a handful of liberals whose respect she earned by kicking Miller's ass.

Oh well, time will tell, but my money is still on the fact that Murkowski is, for all intents and purposes, essentially bullet proof. Which means that she could conceivably become one of the most influential members of the Senate.

Is the picture of Sarah Palin running in Iowa the worst job of photoshop EVER? Update!

"I'm hovering above the grass because I don't want to stain my shoes."

(H/T to Gretawire.)

This is such an amateurish job that I CANNOT believe that Van Susteren thought anybody would take it seriously.

So we all make noise about Palin looking sickly and possibly drugged yesterday and the day before, and then THIS picture suddenly shows up?

Didn't I have this effect on her once before when she was in Hawaii? Why yes I did!

Can somebody please ask Joe McGinniss if he is SURE that Sarah Palin does not read the blogs? Cause it kind of looks like she does!

I'm just saying.

Update:  Another picture and eyewitness account suddenly appears to prove that we bloggers are "just makin stuff up."

Okay gang, what do we think?

One of Sarah Palin's ghostwriters posts a pro-Reagan column on her behalf over at USA Today. Update!

Nothing about this article sounds anything like Palin, so it is completely unnecessary to sit and pick it apart. (Actually it does not even sound like RAM as there is virtually NO vicious jabs at liberals or overly defensive slams against Palin critics. I assume they must have hired somebody sane to help Sister Sarah.  Ha!  They won't last long!)

It is only newsworthy in the fact that SOMEBODY is still working behind the scenes to keep a positive picture of Palin in the media.  I assume this is happening while they try to drag her from under her bed, hose her off, slap another "road kill style" wig on her head , and get ready to push her back out in front of the cameras.

Well gee why not?  I mean that worked so well the last two times they did it, right?

However I do find fault with the whole premise of this article that Ronald Reagan was "America's Lifeguard."  However rather than give anybody who wrote it attention they so desperately crave by ripping it apart, I will take this opportunity to repost Rachel Maddow's brilliant evisceration of the Reagan legacy on Real Time last Friday night. (The last time I put it up HBO made YouTube take it down, but now since it is many days later they don't care as much.  If you did not watch it last time, please watch it now as it is amazing!)



By the way, just as a public service to anybody who may believe that I am too quick to assume that Palin does not write her own articles, I would like to present you with this column from back when Palin was the Governor of Alaska that, as far as anybody can tell, was written with no help from anybody else (Except perhaps Todd and God.)  Prepare to be amazed by the eloquence and mastery of the English language from the REAL Sarah Palin. (Update: Here is an explanation for Palin's "Who's your daddy" op-ed. Once you read it you will be even MORE amazed that anybody was ignorant enough to bring Palin to the national stage.)

Update:  Unsurprisingly it appears that Palin's ghostwriter is not exactly an ethical writer either as it appears they "borrowed" the reference of Reagan as "America's Lifeguard" from an AP review of a 1998 TV documentary called "Reagan" the first segment of which was titled, you guessed it, "Lifeguard."

Gee, even when Palin hires somebody to write something to make her look smart, they end up making her look like a plagiarist.  And really, does that surprise any of us?