COUNTERCOLUMN: All Your Bias Are Belong to Us

The man who coined the phrase "nattering nabobs of negativism" is no more.

Though as a conservative, he was not a member of the New York Times' tribe, they understood him better than most, and nail the essence of the man in the final two graphs.

Splash, out

Jason

Labels: in memoriam, The media, the New York Times, William Safire

If PTSD and "Military Sexual Trauma" are such widespread phenomena among women veterans, and if this soldier's profile is so similar to others, as the article states, why is it they keep interviewing the same Angela Peacock?

I think Paul Reikoff keeps her number on speed-dial. A rapid-deployment victim. The poster girl for PTSD.

Angela's on the prayer list, big time. Lord knows lots of veterans have had trouble coming home. But come on, CNN! Up your game! Do your own research! Don't get led around by the nose by the Huffington Post/IAVA axis!

I already started a tag with her name. I'm thinking I'm gonna have to start a Google Alert to track Angela Peacock sightings!

Splash, out

Jason

Labels: Angela Peacock, CNN, Paul Rieckoff, soldiers' issues, The media, veterans

The great Michael Yon takes a vivid look at how the British Army public affairs machine is interfering with the press.

Labels: Afghanistan, Great Britain, soldiers' issues, The media

but I do want to pause to reflect, with gratitude, on the risks many of them take and the hardships they endure to bring us the story.

This is the story of CNN camerawoman Margaret Moth, who nearly lost her life in the service of the cause of an informed public.

Splash, out

Jason

P.S., As I recall, there was some fantastic journalism coming out of Sarajevo at that time, and Christiane Amanpour was responsible for a lot of it. She's not perfect, but she's got balls of solid rock. Well, ovaries of solid rock. Whatever.

Labels: The media

The Columbia Journalism Review's Mike Hoyt asks the question.

No time to do a detailed blog today. Off to AT in the morning.

Discuss.

Splash, out

Jason

Labels: Columbia Journalism Review, Iraq, The media, Tom RIcks, Warfighting, Washington Post, writers

As if to underscore the notion that liberals can't even cover the smallest subjects without lying about them, here's Talking Points Memo on the photography of US dead and dying soldiers and marines in the War on Terror:

Yesterday, War Department Secretary Gates excoriated the Associated Press for publishing a photo the the dying Lance Cpl. Joshua M. Bernard in Afghanistan (above left). WTF! For those of you with short memories or who were not alive in 1968, I can tell you that photos of dying American soldiers in Vietnam were a regular part of the day's news.

Here's the photo TPM's writer, John Taplin, runs to illustrate his point.



The photograph, taken in 1965 or 1966, I believe, by Time Life's Larry Burrows, was one of the most famous photos of the war. Here's the lie: No one in the photograph was dying.


One commenter, Ripper McChord, has it about right:

A Marine's life belongs to the country. His death is his own. I've interviewed th parents of dead servicemen and this is a personal grief that only Gold Star families know.

A right to watch his last minutes?

No. certainly not. Perhaps a privilege--if he or his parents so allowed, but they directly asked for privacy.

A duty to watch his death? Only if your a voyeuristic moron who's never seen a car accident or watched "Saving Private Ryan." Can anyone really say that encroaching on the sacred sacrifice this young man made actually shows them something they haven't seen in a thousand horror movies or enlightens the public debate one iota? Like hell. If that's your argument, you're just mirroring the anti-abortion activists who put photos of bloody fetuses on billboards for shock value and politics.

Lance Cpl. Joshua M. Bernard was a human being who volunteered to serve you and me. His life and death deserve more consideration than crass political sport.

That said, I do not support a blanket ban, imposed by our government, on publishing images of dead and dying troops. Such images have been a part of war reporting since the camera appeared on the battlefield, and unpleasant and gruesome as they are, I believe that the images taken of dead soldiers at Gettysburg, Petersburg, Fredericksburg, and later and famously, the photos of American dead on the beach at Buna should be part of the record.

The SecDef should confine his efforts to the pursuit of war, not telling journalists what they may or may not publish. There should be narrow exceptions made in order to protect operational security and to protect the integrity of the family notification process.

I think the final call should be made by the fallen service member's family, and by the enlisted members of the fallen service member's unit. NOT by the media outlet, and not by the Secretary of Defense

Splash, out

Jason

Labels: Media, soldiers' issues, the fallen, The media

The New York Times Public Editor looks into how the Times ran an article with seven factual errors in it.
Not a huge deal in my book. Just an interesting look at how the sausage is made.

It's amazing to me how newspaper folks can be ready to commit sepukku over trivial shit like whether Cronkite was 64 or 65 years old when he retired, while at the same time glossing over the institutional biases that lead to David Carr mis-analyzing the entire war - and then not giving a shit, Purple Stars, Congressional Medals of Honor for Songwriters, Sadr Stupid, and this whole bag of shit.

Splash, out

Jason

Labels: New York Times, The media

This one with a South Florida connection: A Navy commander has filed a complaint with the Miami Herald over reporter Carol Rosenberg's offensive and degrading behavior and questioning.



Full complaint here.

I don't know if he would have much standing, since they don't have the same employers. And I don't like the precedent of government officials suing newspapers for allowing their reporters to create a hostile work environment. Still, if she is interfering with the AP photographer's work, and publicly inferring that the Navy officer is gay - knowing that if the reputation stuck, he would lose his career, Rosenberg comes extremely close to committing a couple of torts.

If these reports are true - and there are apparently lots of witnesses, Rosenberg is sullying the Miami Herald brand. Her reporting is not to be trusted. She seems to have come unglued. She should be fired. It's not like there aren't good, underemployed journalists out there to replace her with.

Way to cultivate your sources, moron!

Splash, out

Jason

Labels: culture, journalism, law, Miami Herald, Navy, Sex, stupid, The media

This time the Boston Globe, being led around by the Huffpo/Paul Reikhoff press operation, hits on the 'women homeless vets' angle.

Let's take a look:

The number of female service members who have become homeless after leaving the military has jumped dramatically in recent years, according to new government estimates, presenting the Veterans Administration with a challenge as it struggles to accommodate the hundreds of thousands of returning veterans from Iraq and Afghanistan.

As more women serve in combat zones, the share of female veterans who end up homeless, while still relatively small at an estimated 6,500, has nearly doubled over the last decade, according to the Department of Veterans Affairs.

For younger veterans, it is even more pronounced: One out of every 10 homeless vets under the age of 45 is now a woman, the statistics show.

Well, women make up 9% of homeless veterans under 45. But they make up 15% of the military. So the real story is that women are vastly underrepresented among the ranks of the homeless. But that doesn't make for a sexy, sensational headline that homeless advocacy groups can leverage into increasing funding.

The trend has alarmed top lawmakers and veterans groups, who fear that the federal government - which is already straining to care for new veterans suffering from post-traumatic stress disorder, brain injuries, and other physical ailments - is ill-prepared to deal with the special needs of female veterans who find themselves on the street.

What special needs? I think they'd have the same special needs as male homeless vets. They may be more likely to have children with them, but I don't see anything quantifying that, other than Riekhoff's assertion (though IAVA's backgrounder says that 23% of homeless women in the VA's programs have children. This does not mean that the children are homeless, though.)

Many of them are like Angela Peacock, a former Army sergeant who was diagnosed with PTSD when she returned from Iraq in 2004 and became addicted to pain-killers.

If there are so many thousands of homeless women veterans, why is it the Globe couldn't find anyone except Peacock, who, coincidentally, has already been featured in a documentary, and been the subject of an extensive writeup in the Huffington Post.

Incidentally, Paul Rieckhoff, the director of the nonpartisan group Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America, also keeps a blog on the Huffington Post.

Because that's what "nonpartisans" do. Keep blogs on Huffington Post.

Moreover, most homeless vets... apparently about 130,000 on any given night, if the figures in the story are to be believed, are men over the age of 45. (My own belief is that a large number of these homeless vets are liars).

I'm not pooh-poohing Peacock's experiences. Nor belittling the plight faced by female veterans undergoing a tough time. Just noting that the same people seem to show up in newspapers quite a bit. It's as if IAVA hands out Peacock's phone number with its press releases and backgrounders.

Splash, out

Jason

Labels: Angela Peacock, Army, Paul Rieckoff, soldiers' issues, The Left, The media, veterans

The increasingly unhinged Matt Yglesias is at it again, this time leveling his sights on those evil Jew neocons, spreading their wicked ideologies like a cancer on the body politic.

It’s actually true that neocon bashing is a bit on the tiresome side. That said, I think it really has to be understood as a vital social necessity. Adherents of a deranged and sociopoathic “neocon” conception of America’s role in the world continue to be tremendously influential in our society. They have columns at The Washington Post and dominate the foreign policy coverage on Fox News. They have The Weekly Standard and Commentary and a healthy slice of The New Republic. And most important, as best as anyone can tell their ideas remain utterly dominant in the Republican Party.

The JOOOOOS! The JOOOOOOOOS are infesting our media!

Seriously, Matt. Sociopathic?? I'm not sure just how many layers of arrogance and idiocy to peel back, here. But let's start by saying that both the terms neoconservative and sociopathic have meanings. And Matt clearly has a twisted, lazy-man libtard idea of both of those definitions.

There is simply no way on earth that neoconservatism can be expressed or labeled sociopathological. None.

Look:

From Dictionary.com:

–noun Psychiatry.
a person, as a psychopathic personality, whose behavior is antisocial and who lacks a sense of moral responsibility or social conscience.

Neoconservative:

–noun
moderate political conservatism espoused or advocated by former liberals or socialist

s.

Ok, I guess there may be some pathology imported from libtards and socialists. But that's an unsatisfying definition. In order to be a meaningful geopolitical model, neoconservatism must have a definition beyond that of describing the former persuasions of its adherents. I submit this definition from Wikipedia:

Neoconservatism is a political philosophy that emerged in the United States of America, and which supports using American economic and military power to bring liberalism, democracy, and human rights to other countries.

Close enough to be useful. And clearly, as far as batshit-whacked libtards are concerned, there is nothing more clearly sociopathological, nothing that bespeaks the lack of a moral compass or sense of social responsibility, then the belief that the US should spread liberalism, democracy, and respect for human rights to the rest of the world. JFK was clearly, as far as Yglesias must be concerned, a sociopath.

Yglesias lets the mask slip: Sure, you can make a case that neoconservatism is misguided, that it doesn't work in practice, that those swarthy brown little sub-human ragheads overseas are not ready for democracy and they will only devolve into a howling mob of Israel-hating, genocidal whackjobs. I don't believe any of those things are necessarily true, but one could build and argue a respectful and rational case for them.

But the ONLY way anyone could seriously assert that neoconservatism is pathological is if they actually hated Western values.

Yglesias has already demonstrated himself so full of shit he can't draw a distinction between the Bush White House and the inhuman, brutal, murderous thugocracy in power in North Korea.


Splash, out

Jason

EDIT: I should note that I do think there have been true sociopaths in public life. William Ayers would be one example. Marion Barry.

Unlike Yglesias, I know what words mean, I don't throw words around lightly, and I don't use specific diagnoses as a political club without understanding the term.

Back in my reporting days, there would be no way I could get away with that garbage. Because I had real editors who cared about the truth. (That's you, Adam, Maggie, and John!). I don't know who the adult supervision is at The Atlantic, but I'd get pretty tired of lazy-assed hatchet men like Sullivan and Yglesias screwing up my brand pretty fast.

This guy needs an editor.

Labels: bloggers, foreign policy, The media, Yglesias

From the A.P.

BEAUMONT — Relatives of a slain sailor are calling the 29-year-old’s death a hate crime.
Rose Roy of Beaumont said her nephew, Navy Seaman August Provost III, had complained a year before about being harassed for being gay.
Roy said she advised Provost to report and document the incidents, but she said the military did little to help.
“He went to the Navy to serve and protect,” she said in an interview with Beaumont’s KFDM News, “he didn’t get protected at all.”
Roy told The Associated Press that the military’s “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy discouraged her nephew from asking for help.

What did I tell you? What the fuck did I tell you five years ago? Yeah, I called it. And for calling it exactly like it was, I got accused, at the time, of penning "homophobic rant."*

At any rate, the conclusion that the DADT policy is to blame is utter hogwash. That's not the military's policy that discouraged her nephew from asking for help. It is the UCMJ, which is the law of the land. The military has zero choice in the matter, and absent a change in the law, approved by Congress, Provost would have been in the exact same predicament had DADT never been enacted.

I get pretty tired of dumbass reporters getting led around by their noses.

The 29-year-old Houston native was found dead Tuesday at Marine Corps Base Camp Pendleton, north of San Diego. Roy said the family was told that Provost was shot three times, had his hands and feet bound, his mouth gagged, and body burned.

Just terrible. But that problem is a hell of a lot bigger than DADT. Indeed, had the military still had a blanket ban on gays serving, August Provost would probably still be alive today.

Democratic Rep. Bob Filner of San Diego said Thursday he wants a Defense Department investigation into the death, after leaders of the city’s gay community asked him to intervene.
Investigators have called the sailor’s death a random act unrelated to his sexuality and have taken a “person of interest” into custody. Inside sources describe possible suspects as a construction worker, a police officer, a cowboy, and an Indian chief. No charges have been filed.

I'm taking some liberties with the last part.

Incidentally, although the Navy Department has long had a 'witch-hunt' culture, to my eye, there is no reason why a commander needs to take a complaint over sexual harrassment as an admission of homosexuality, leading to a discharge. It is entirely possible to investigate the harrassment without looking into homosexual conduct itself.

I haven't been directly confronted with the issue. I've had troops who I'm reasonably sure were gay, but I didn't care, had no reason to look into it, had other things to worry about, and it wasn't a problem in the unit. I suppose had I heard the first rumblings of any kind of harrassment problem, I could have let the word out through my First Sergeant that I would not condone or permit a hostile work environment for ANY reason, and that furthermore I would consider any male on male harrassment of any soldier on the basis of homosexuality to be a tacet admission of homosexual interest on the part of the harrasser, and simply proceed with discharge papers.

**See also this reaction by Bill Cameron

Splash, out

Jason

Labels: Army, culture, gays, law, Politics, soldiers' issues, The media, UCMJ

"If I've lost Helen Thomas, I've lost Dingbat-America."

Labels: health care, Helen Thomas, Obama, Politics, The media

Andrew Sullivan continues his demented obsession over Sarah Palin's vagina.

Labels: Palin, Palin's Vagina, Sullivan, The media

Supports mandatory health coverage for employees.

So states the triumphant lead written by a libtard at The Hill, who can't see what's really going on.

With Wal-Mart’s endorsement of a legal requirement that employers provide health benefits to their workers, the nation’s largest employer has broken from the business community.

The so-called employer mandate is adamantly opposed by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the National Federation of Independent Business and virtually every major business trade association in Washington. But the backing of Wal-Mart, which employs about 2 million people, could give a big boost to President Obama and Congress’s effort to levy such a requirement on companies.

Moreover, Wal-Mart declared its support for the employer mandate in a joint letter to Obama with the Service Employees International Union (SEIU) and the liberal Center for American Progress, which is run by John Podesta, a close associate of the White House.

“We are entering a critical time during which all of us who will be asked to pay for health care reform will have to make a choice on whether to support the legislation,” says the letter, signed by Wal-Mart President and CEO Mike Duke, SEIU President Andy Stern and Podesta.

He just doesn't see that by doing this, Walmart is sticking a shiv into the ribs of their small town, mom and pop competitors, already reeling in a down market, who simply cannot afford to provide health insurance to their employees. The cash just isn't there for it in these small businesses.

Walmart knows this, and knows that thousands and thousands of their competitors are teetering on the edge. A mandatory health insurance requirement will push them out of business... leaving them with a bigger market share, whether the economy recovers or not.

But Jefferey Young, reporter extraordinaire, doesn't see that he's being played like a violin, the poor little darling.

Splash out

Jason

Labels: business, economy, The media, Wal Mart

I don't buy the whacky conspiracy theories being passed around by libtards mourning the WaPo's decision to let Dan Froomkin go. It's not like he's the only journo to get a pink slip this year.

But if your own ombudsman tries to get some insight into an editorial decision at the newspaper - only to be met with a wall of silence - then what is the use of having an ombudsman?

The editor-in-chief and publisher should put the word out: This ombudsman works for my readers, and therefore works for me. If you stonewall my ombudsman, you're stonewalling me, and I won't have it.

I

nstitutionally, The Post is now responding by circling the wagons -- ironic for a news organization that insists on transparency from those it covers. Its initial statement on June 18 from spokeswoman Kris Coratti lacked substance (“Editors and our research teams are constantly reviewing our online content to ensure we bring readers the most value...while balancing the need to make the most of our resources”).

I was off much of this week with a minor medical problem. But when I was able to start querying editors yesterday, a wall of silence was erected. Raju Narisetti, the managing editor who oversees the Web site, declined to go beyond last week’s PR statement. Online Opinions Editor Marisa Katz, after talking Thursday with the Washington CityPaper, said she had been instructed not to respond to additional queries. And Editorial Page Editor Fred Hiatt, who had previously responded to questions from me and other journalists (including the CityPaper on Thursday), today said he was unable to comment.

Readers should revolt until they have the publisher's attention.

Post Pulitzer-winning columnist Gene Weingarten, who expressed “respect” for Froomkin and regret that White House Watch was ending, said: “I don't know why Froomkin's column was dropped, but I can tell you that the diabolical conspiracy talk is nuts. Froomkin wasn’t dropped because he is too liberal; things just don’t work that way at the Post.”

Yeah, no shit. This is the same paper that syndicated Ted Rall for years.

Labels: bloggers, newspapers, Ted Rall, The media, Washington Post

So asks Megan McArdle.

I'll tell you why. Because, by and large, our financial media sucks.

Here's my comment, crossposted from her blog.

Tanta. She was doing the heavy lifting for our intellectually bankrupt financial press when it counted. Too bad all of you guys were too busy playing stenographer for your sources to notice when it could have counted.

But financial journalism as a whole is pretty useless.

They flopped on the S&L scandal until it was too late.
They whored themselves out hawking Internet stocks and funds at the worst possible time. Check out The Fortune Tellers for details.

They elevate chronic money-losers like Jim Cramer and idiotic concepts like Mad Money. Ed Slott should have Cramer's show. But he won't.

They promote self-promoting mental midgets like Suze Orman, who couldn't plan her way to Starbucks for a cup of coffee, rather than real planners.

They sat approvingly on the sidelines while Dave Ramsey insisted growth stock mutual funds average a return of 12% per year while leading hapless investors out of their guaranteed contracts, whole life insurance, fixed annuities, bonds, and EIAs like the the Pied Piper leading children to oblivion, and fell all over themselves quoting how much good he's done, when taking his advice was devastating to families in 1999 and devastating in 2007-2008, and never once called him on it.

You pay lip service to 'buy and hold' investing, but every cover on the big-circ glossies screams '10 mutual funds to buy now'

Your covers feature flights to safety AFTER the market crashes, and feature aggressive investments AFTER large rises in the market.

The financial media is the reason real-life, real-world investors only realize less than a quarter of actual market gains (I'm citing DALBAR here.).

Elaine Garzarelli makes one lucky call in 1987, and you idiots are still calling her for market predictions, 22 years later. How did that work out last time, when Smart Money called her? In their December 2007 issue, She recommended Lehman Brothers, Bear Stearns, Merrill Lynch and predicted Dow 16,000.

I guarantee you she'll still be getting calls from drooling reporters 5 years from now, if she's still working, and hasn't been shot by a client.

Smart money regards the financial media as a contrary indicator. The media is always the second dumbest guy at the poker table. The only dumber guy at the poker table is the guy who reads them.

They're asleep at the switch, by and large, while our pension crisis continues to build. They're asleep at the switch even now, while unrealistic GMIB riders threaten to cut the legs out from under major, major insurance companies, while there isn't close to enough capital in reserve at state insurance funds to make up the shortfall.

The financial media doesn't deserve Pulitizers. It deserves a kick in the nuts by an outraged public.

Splash, out

Jason

Labels: bloggers, economy, finance, journalism, McCardle, Media, public relations, The media

Our President, answering an Austrian reporter's question:

"I don't know what the term is in Austrian."

But what's even funnier? The press's adoring coverage of the gaffe:

Headline:

Obama Again Invokes Personal Diplomacy to Avert NATO Stalemate

Lede: President Barack Obama waded into a diplomatic stalemate for the second time on his European trip and once again succeeded in bringing his more senior peers into harmony.

It's like reading a Nork press release describing the Dear Leader's daily bowel movement.

And what was the price extracted from the west? A groveling apology to the Muslim world for printing some cartoons.

Smart. Tough. I don't know what the word is in Luxembese.

Splash, out

Jason

Labels: foreign policy, Obama, Obama Glurge, The media

An old friend sends me this piece on the old "White Phosphorus Is Used Against Civilians" chestnut written by Juliet Lapidos over at Slate:

Actually, though it's obvious the reporter does better than a lot of folks in reporting the issue, the two hours she spent reporting this piece wasn't enough to make up for her utter lack of background knowledge on the topic.

As a result, she can't tell shit from shinola when assessing her source documents, and therefore seems to place the idiotic allegations of Human Rights Watch at the same level with military doctrine and the Law of Land Warfare and the long experience of fire support experts.

Finally, she falls flat on her face with this passage:

White phosphorus has an iffy legal status.

No, dumbass. It doesn't. It's perfectly legal to use on the battlefield. As you yourself note:

No treaty bans the use of white phosphorus against strictly military targets, although there is a debate over whether it ought to be classified as a chemical weapon and prohibited under the Chemical Weapons Convention.

Yes. The debate is between sober, informed people who understand the munition and its uses on the battlefield on one hand, and ignorant morons on the other. Your problem, Julia, is that you still can't tell the difference.

Protocol III of the Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons outlaws the use of "incendiary weapons" on civilians or on military targets located within a concentration of civilians. The protocol, however, specifically excludes munitions that "may have incidental incendiary effects, such as illuminants, tracers, smoke or signaling systems."

And herein you falsify your own assertion. White Phosphorus, as used by U.S. and Israeli forces in the smoke/signal/illumination role, is exempt from the convention.

Why?

Because on the urban battlefield, white phosphorus saves lives, you dolt!

Splash, out

Jason

Labels: Iraq, Israel, law, Media, soldiers' issues, The Left, The media, Warfighting

This time it's all about how Hugo-Bama is the most wonderfulest, bestest dad in the whole world.

From the article:

The Obamas paid for the swing set, which was made and installed by Rainbow Play Systems of Brookings, S.D. The company's Web site says it's the most trusted brand name in wooden swing sets.

Wow! If it's on the company's Web site, it MUST be true!

So in this day and age, this is the kind of story that warrants the time and effort of an AP reporter. This is the best they could come up with?

I think there needs to be a few more layoffs.

Splash, out

Jason

P.S., This pathetic licking of Obama's boots by the media calls for a new tag: Obama Glurge!

Labels: Obama, Obama Glurge, The media

I see a bright future for AP reporter Darlene Superville. At Tiger Beat!

Superville is happily smoking a cigarette in bed with a dreamy look on her face after writing this fellative hosannah-in-the-highest about our Dear Leader, Hugo-bama, and his sparkling spectacular balls.

The governors' dinner was "a great kickoff of what we hope will be an atmosphere here in the White House that is welcoming and that reminds everybody that this is the people's house," Obama told the state chief executives after they had dined on Maryland crab, Wagyu beef, Nantucket scallops and citrus salad.

"We are just temporary occupants. This is a place that belongs to the American people and we want to make sure that everybody understands it's open," he said.

At the dinner in the State Dining Room, the Obamas looked comfortable, chatting and smiling with their guests.

Huuuuuuurrrrrrl.

Some Obama guests say he immediately puts them at ease. He indulges them and serves cookies, too.

HHHGGGGGGLLLLLLUUUURRRRRGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGG!!!!!!!!!!111!!!11!!!

"Sometimes when you're in the presence of the most powerful person in the world, in the most powerful democracy in the world ... I was in awe that I was comfortable," said Honda, chairman of the Asian Pacific American Caucus. "I think that's his style and how he grew up, who he is.

Better.

Better get me a bucket I'm gonna throw up.

"He's down to earth and engaging," Honda said.

Fucking Pravda at it's worst couldn't provide an unwitting parody of itself better than the AP.

Rep. Trent Franks, R-Ariz., was among those invited for the Super Bowl. He said Obama, an avid sports fan, joined his guests for most of the game between the Arizona Cardinals and ultimately triumphant Pittsburgh Steelers.

"It wasn't a circumstance where he came in and said 'Hi' and then left," Franks said. "He actually stayed and watched the game."

Well, golly freakin' gee-whiz! What a guy! Someone make him leader of the free world!

Sen. Amy Klobuchar, D-Minn, said Obama was very cordial, and he and the first lady made guests feel comfortable. The president talked to everyone before the game started, she said, including a 12-year-old boy who asked Obama where the bathroom was.

"My favorite part was when he personally served us cookies—oatmeal raisin—when we were watching the game," she said.

AAAAAAUGGHHH! My eyes!!!!!!!!!!

What liberal media?

Must... inject self... with... insulin!

Splash, out

Jason

Labels: Associated Press, stupid, The Left, The media