I just read a column over at Media Matters that was written by Bill the falafel man O'Reilly, saying in effect that MSNBC was wrong to fire Phil Donahue, and replace him with Keith Olbermann. He also wants Donahue back at his 8 PM time slot, and wants Olbermann fired. When I got up from the floor because I was laughing so hard, I began to wonder why O'Reilly would do this. Then my brother said that Olbermann has the guts to stand up to O'Reilly, and take him on. Also, Olbermann is cutting into O'Reilly's lead in the ratings, and poor old Billy don't like it one bit, so that's why he wants Donahue back, so he can again get his precious ratings back. For weeks now O'Reilly has waged some kind of guerilla war against both Olbermann and Al Franken. He all but accused Franken of money laundering, and said his ratings are going down the tubes. What O'Reilly failed to mention was that in select cities like New York, and other places, Franken has about a 3-1 listener advantage.
In case you haven't noticed, the netroots have taken huge strides over the past two weeks. Here's a quick rundown.
The Filibuster - The Senate was flooded with calls during the filibuster, despite a complete lack of leadership from NARAL, PFAW, and the groups.
Glenn Greenwald and the Dewine Amendment - Glenn Greenwald uncovered the fiasco of the Dewine amendment, which got major media coverage and substantially advanced the story on wiretapping. He is now blogging questions for the Judiciary Committee, here and here.
The MyDD poll - Chris Bowers led the first open source polling operation ever, funded and designed by you. This data revealed that there is no national consensus behind the Iraq war, the failure of the Homeland Security's persuasive authority, as well as partisan attitudes behind security concerns. (And there's more to come.)
SOTU parody - James Adomian released a hilarious SOTU parody, which has been seen 160,000 times so far (44,000 times on our internal host, before we moved it too youtube).
Three simple images. Dora, Eric from Chips, and a serial killer. Now guess – who looks “reasonably suspicious” of not having papers and therefore should be stopped and questioned by the Arizona police as per it’s new law, SB1070?
That’s the question Daily Show host Jon Stewart asked on the show last night, referencing the images above. Calling out the “draconian new immigration law” for being an affront to democracy by requiring people to carry their documents on them, he likened it to a time in the pre-civil rights era when newly freed black slaves were required to carry IDs. Jokes apart, the staged sketch gave us a little taste of what life could be like if SB1070 was, in fact, enforced in Arizona. It was the same question posed to Governor Jan Brewer, when signing the bill into law, to which she replied, “I don’t know what an undocumented immigrant looks like?”
Confusion around the bill is rife. In an interview on MSNBC’s Hardball with Chris Matthews, co-sponsor of the bill Senator Huppenthal agreed that it would be racial profiling were officers to check the status of someone based on “reasonable suspicion”, thereby going against the statute of the bill that he signed into law. About 8 mins. into the clip, Chris Matthews asksSenator Huppenthal -
Under the law you passed and was signed by the governor this week, can a police officer who spots a car with five or six people in it, who he thinks because of instinct, experience, whatever, evidence, whatever you use— can he stop that car and say, I think these people are here illegally, I‘m going to stop and check them? Can he under the law do that, without any crime involved? Can he do that?
After hedging the question, Senator Huppenthal answered-
You know, the racial profiling was illegal before this bill. It‘s illegal after it. The bill itself makes it illegal…No, he cannot. That would be – that would just simply be racial profiling, and that would not be permitted under the law.
SB1070 is going to have ripple effects. For the state of Arizona, for its potential copycat effect across the nation, and for the ideals of equality and justice. Take action now and stop this dangerous law from being implemented.
Isn't YouTube great? Better enjoy it while you can folks, because if this bill passes it won't exist in any recognizable form. The same big business lobbyists who masterminded the Internet Blacklist Bill are back. To be exact this bill (S. 978) will make it a felony crime to stream copyrighted content, like music in the background of a YouTube video, or a news clip, <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110601/01515014500/senators-want-to-put-people-jail-embedding-youtube-videos.shtml">TechDirt points out you could even go to jail for posting a video of your friends singing Karaoke:</a>
<blockquote>The entertainment industry is freaking out about sites that embed and stream infringing content, and want law enforcement to put people in jail over it, rather than filing civil lawsuits.... We already pointed to one possibility: that people embedding YouTube videos could face five years in jail. Now, others are pointing out that it could also put kids who lip sync to popular songs, and post the resulting videos on YouTube, in jail as well.</blockquote>
And here's the kicker, this new felony would hold criminal penalties worse than the crime of child molestation: 5-10 years in prison.