Attorney General Jeff Sessions to Obama DoJ Appointees: GTFO

Posted on March 10th, 2017 by Tracy Connors

Jeff Sessions (29090205550)

Nope. The headline of this piece is purposely misleading. But now that I’ve gotten your attention, let me see if I can keep it for a paragraph or eleven.

Most people only read headlines. I’d link to studies proving this, but anyone with a twitter or FaceBook account who pays even a modicum of attention to current events knows this to be true.

Don’t believe me? Just pop over into the trending topics feed (which is where I found the story I’m using to prove my point) and you’ll witness people losing their minds in reaction to a headline that has been framed to fire up outrage because that means clicks! Mind you, those clicks don’t translate to people actually reading through the article. I’m going to guess, based upon absolutely nothing, only 15% of people who share something because the headline elicited some variation of the following reaction; ZOMG! THIS IS INSANE/EVIL/CRAZY EVERYONE MUST KNOW ABOUT THIS IMMEDIATELY AND I MUST BE THE FIRST ONE TO TELL THEM!, actually bothered to read even a paragraph of the article before they RTed or shared it.  

I feel it is my duty to point these stories out from time to time in order to try to stop the outrage sharing madness. Today I was presented with an excellent example: Here’s the headline from The Hill

via screengrab

Wow, this must be a big deal! If this was just business as usual it wouldn’t really constitute news and no paid Hill staff writer would waste a moment of their time on it, right?


From The Hill article (emphasis mine):

Attorney General Jeff Sessions has asked dozens of U.S. attorneys appointed by former President Obama to submit their resignations, the Department of Justice announced Friday.

U.S. attorneys are normally replaced at the beginning of new administrations. Of the 93 U.S. attorneys, 46 remain from the past administration, according to the Department of Justice (DOJ).

This really isn’t news, this is non-news (not to be confused with fake news). This is what happens every time a new Administration comes to Washington. I have to wonder if perhaps someone pointed this out to the fine folks over at The Hill, because they’ve since added a juicy tidbit to the story that does make it news:

The call for resignations applies to Preet Bharara, the U.S. attorney for the Southern District of New York, the New York Times reported.

The move is a surprise, as Bharara reportedly met with Trump after the election and agreed to remain in his position during the Trump administration. Sessions also asked him to stay, the prosecutor told The New York Times.

Good on The Hill for adding some actual news into a piece that originally lacked it.

But I have no doubt that The Hill would have left the original, non-news story version of the piece up because of what a headline like that can be turned into by leftist sites and social media pages that traffic in outrage.

These outrage merchants have spun the normal practice undertaken by every new Administration into sensational story of PURGES! and have fed that malarky to their frothing audiences and they are sharing the crap out this garbage.

This is not news, this is non-news.

Learn to recognize it, and dismiss it and your blood pressure levels won’t fluctuate wildly throughout the day.

Featured image By Gage Skidmore from Peoria, AZ, United States of America (Jeff Sessions) [CC BY-SA 2.0], via Wikimedia Commons

Tags: , , , , , , ,

Fake News the Latest Lyrical Logic Lesson from Remy (video)

Posted on March 10th, 2017 by Tracy Connors

Remy does an excellent job here explaining CNN’s continued inability to comprehend why President Trump, and others, feel that they deserve the moniker “fake news” or if you prefer “really fake news.”

Even the dumbest among us, looking at you Brian Stelter, should be able to follow Remy’s lyrical logic.

Tags: , , , , ,

Starbucks Joins the War on Whiskey

Posted on March 9th, 2017 by Fingers Malloy

Americans are ruining whiskey. Flavored “whiskeys” like Fireball, Jack Daniel’s Tennessee Honey and Jim Beam Apple are favorites among people who like their whiskey to taste like schnapps.

So now that whiskey ruining is becoming increasingly popular in the U.S.,  Starbucks is trying to cash in (in a big way) on the flavored-whiskey craze — not with coffee flavored whiskey, but with whiskey flavored coffee.

From CNBC:

Starbucks’ newest limited edition brew doesn’t taste like hugs or Christmas — it tastes like whiskey.

The coffee chain debuted two new whiskey-barrel-aged flavored beverages this week: A “Barrel-Aged Cold Brew” and a “Barrel-Aged Con Crema.” The cold brew is served in a sidecar glass with an oversized cube of ice, just like a cocktail might. The crema comes in a little glass mug with a handle. Both are only sold at the Starbucks Roastery store in Seattle, Washington.

Call me old fashioned, but I believe the only time your coffee should taste like whiskey is if, you know, it actually contains whiskey! Here are a couple of rules to live by when it comes to whiskey:

  1. There is only one acceptable flavor for whiskey… and it’s whiskey flavored whiskey.
  2. Beverages that are whiskey flavored should only be flavored with… wait for it… whiskey.

And I don’t want to hear that people like to have something whiskey flavored without the alcohol. You know who spouts similar ridiculousness? O’Doul’s drinkers who claim they like it because they get to have something that tastes like beer without the alcohol. Friends don’t let friends sound like an O’Doul’s drinker. (Or drink it.)

This Starbucks whiskey flavored coffee costs $10 for an 8 ounce serving. Pro tip, go buy a $2 coffee at Dunkin’ Donuts and bring your flask. It will taste better.

To summarize — apparently ruining whiskey isn’t enough, now we have to ruin coffee too. Good on you, Starbucks. I knew you could figure out a way to charge $10 for a cup of coffee.

You’re history’s greatest monster.


Tags: , , , , ,

Monica Crowley Drops by Hannity to Address Plagiarism Allegations

Posted on March 8th, 2017 by Fingers Malloy

Friend of the show Monica Crowley was a guest on Hannity last night to address the plagiarism allegations that lead to her stepping down from a position in the Trump Administration. After taking a moment to pay tribute to her late brother-in law, Alan Colmes, Monica opened up about what happened to her:

“Well, look. What happened to me was a despicable, straight up, political hit job. Okay, it’s been debunked. My editor has completely supported me and backed me up. There is a very toxic, and it’s getting increasingly toxic and poisonous atmosphere of personal destruction, in Washington and the media. But now it’s at a whole different level.”

An excellent piece written by Andrew C. McCarthy at National Review breaks down the plagiarism allegations made by CNN, and how they were debunked by copyright attorney, Lynn Chu. As Monica said to Hannity, this toxic atmosphere is pushing smart and good people out of government service. Monica Crowley is one example.

And that’s a shame.

Tags: , , , , , , ,

Jason Chaffetz fails to explain concept of trade-offs

Posted on March 7th, 2017 by Tracy Connors

Congressman Jason Chaffetz (R-UT) early today on CNN, bricked what should have been a gimme layup. Instead of explaining the idea of trade-offs: if your budget is limited you will have to make choices based upon that limitation. Sometimes that choice may include whether you will pay your health insurance premium or purchase a new iPhone. A person who prioritizes having insurance over having the latest and greatest phone (laptop, sneakers, designer jeans, etc) will choose to pay their premium, whereas a person with different priorities may choose to purchase the gadget. Neither actor is wrong or irrational per say, they are simply making choices based upon personal value judgements.

Chaffetz’s bungled answer sent internet morons digging and guess what they found? Pictures of Chaffetz using an iPhone! This proves, um I’m not exactly sure what this proves, Chaffetz has health insurance through his job as a Congressman (thank us taxpayers very much Congressman) so he hasn’t been put into a position where he needed to decide between buying a new phone or paying his premium.

This is what happens when you’re afraid to discuss hate facts. Here’s one that is applicable to the discussion at hand: the majority of people living below the poverty line can (in most cases, yes I know there are exceptions but focus people!) absolutely afford to pay for their premiums. How do we know this? Census data tell us that people living below the poverty line have smartphones, cable television, DVRs, computers etc. they have chosen to prioritize these things over health insurance.

Whenever anyone even attempts to point this out, they are called heartless, cold-blooded, evil, mean, blah blah etc. It may be a harsh thing to say but it’s the truth, and the truth not only doesn’t care about your feelings, the truth doesn’t give a shit about your bank account. If you choose to buy a tv and pay for cable, and a phone and pay for service, in lieu of paying for insurance, you’re telling the world that you don’t place a high value on insurance. So when the Democrats begin to whine about this, which they most assuredly will, they need to be repeatedly asked: why should a complete stranger be forced to foot the bill for people who value their healthcare less than they value a cell phone?



Tags: , , , , ,