Friday Links and Open Thread

  • Thursday’s numbers: O’Reilly-Tucker Carlson-Sean Hannity 1-2-3.
  • Concha: Slate reports Colmes death by calling him ‘patsy’, ‘buffoon’.
  • Lean Forward: Ari Melber gets weekly show for 100 days.  Flashback.
  • Spicer excludes CNN et al from press gaggle; CNN media critic reacts.
  • Video: Kimberly Guilfoyle and Sean Hannity
  • Survey says: Coop, Tucker Carlson, Sean Hannity top most-trusted list.
  • As cable news gets nasty, Zurawik implores pundits to stop the Hitler talk.
  • Cillizza: Trump election making cable news great again (i.e. more partisan).
  • Zucker play:  CNN may boycott the White House Correspondents’ Dinner.
  • Pundit for sale: Ed Schultz, a progressive on MSNBC, now an RT Trump fan.
  • Lean Forward:  Maddow, Matthews, BriWi anchor Trump address coverage.
  • CNN anchor wants tolerance of men exposing privates in girls’ locker rooms.
  • Video: Anna Kooiman on Aussie TV.  Tucker: an FNC moneymaker.
  • Video: Tucker grills DNC advisor calling Trump for bathroom policy.
  • Megyn and the battle for NBC’s future.  Venezuela’s CNN ban spurs blowback.

45 thoughts on “Friday Links and Open Thread”

  1. Chris Cuomo is an embarassment to himself, his family and his employers. Mabye he’s spent too much time around Anthony Weiner.

      • I think that Cuomo was arguing that the possibility of a boy with gender dysmorphia dressing in the middle of a locker room with his genitalia in full view is so remote as to be an unreasonable fear.

        I agree, it’s probably less likely than a lot of people think, simply because the impetus of people who identify utterly with the opposite sex is to completely assimilate those gender characteristics and with that cohort.

        As with Cuomo, that’s just my feelings though. That pushes away pragmatic concerns that even accidentally seeing or exposing flesh isn’t too difficult a feat (in locker rooms particularly) into a kind of shrug that says “it’s just the human body and the sight of it ain’t going to kill any healthy kid who is taught that anatomy is not inherently shameful.

        That leaves out too the plethora of phenomenon that have come about such as being gender neutral and gender fluid.

        I don’t have any trouble with anyone who has surgically transitioned to another sex using the corresponding facilities. I do think special arrangements are as accomodating as we need to get for those who haven’t for one reason or another.

        This way also honors the wishes of others who are showing a sense of propriety that no amount of common sense would argue as being old fashion or repressive.

        • I’ve seen enough on TV to be glad trans-gender kids have opportunities to be themselves that never existed until recently. Hardly a new phenomenon, but the details of dealing with this group of people in open society are new and are in flux. In the 60’s the man that later became my boss had to bail one of his top level managers out of jail after the fellow was arrested in a woman’s restroom wearing a dress. As my boss was telling me the story in the 70’s the oddness of it struck me and all I could think of was sinister motives. Clueless that such behavior grew out of an identity eastablished in childhood. I would say my knowledge and opinions have changed so much in the last five years, i am not willing to say they are settled about the restroom issue.

        • It’s less likely in spades.
          Protecting the behavior that Might happen then Invites the behavior.
          In gaming terms its taking advantage of an Exploit.
          And it would be exploited in spades should this reasoning hold sway.
          The barn door would opened ( like that pun ) and the people that suffer would not be the ones protected. That is the exploit.

  2. One thing i’ve notice lately about the MSM, in particular CBS, NBC, and PBS of whom I watch, is their fostering reports of Trump administration infighting. The supposed conflicts between Bannon & Priebus and Sessions & DeVos looked like wishful-thinking, phony-baloney based on CPAC appearances today.

  3. That Tucker interview was really something. Why do these numbskulls continue coming on Tucker? They get skewered-completely & totally. I watched this interview while waiting for a flight this morning & laughed out loud when the “settled science” comment was made. Leftists have gone absolutely mad!

    • As most of us probably know by now the core issue is does Title IX, which bars sex discrimination in education, cover transgender students — i.e., does Title IX include sexual identity.

      Some of Tucker’s arguments — e.g., preference for women owned small businesses — are beyond the scope of Title IX and this Supreme Court case. But his point could perhaps become relevant later as future challenges arise if the school board loses.

      A more relevant question was about women’s sports. Here again sports not related to a college is beyond the scope of the case. Caitlyn Jenner shouldn’t expect a tryout with a WNBA team anytime soon.

      If a ruling is due by the end of June, it begs the question, “Will Neil Gorsuch be confirmed by then?” Apparently if there is a ruling of 4-4, then transgender high school student Gavin Grimm’s victory in the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals stands — or so it seems.

      • I don’t know how you could avoid a discussion of what does or doesn’t constitute gender in this, or how that determination will effect other public policy.

        It’s the question underpinning the “right”.

        • As to any discussion about ‘gender,’ I assumed most of us who have an interest in this case know that a North Carolina law requires transgender people to use bathrooms in government buildings that correspond with the gender listed on their birth certificates.

          But the issue debated on TV most of the time is does Title IX, which bars sex discrimination in education, cover transgender students — i.e., does Title IX include sexual identity?

          Not 100% certain what you are asking. What is it about “gender” that was left unsaid?

          I’ll do a Google searching to see if I can find whose argument about ‘gender’ you are referring to.

          • I was replying to your statement that some of Tucker’s argument were outside of some parameter designated by Title IX.

            That was not the only context of the argument.

          • OIC.

            I agree that some of Tucker’s arguments were broader in scope that just this case before the SC. For example, some of the protections afforded women in schools do not extend to the market place.

          • Watched the video again.

            Tucker’s guest was caught flat-footed when asked to explain what prevents a male student from going to the coach for the women’s field hockey team and saying to the coach,
            “I’m a woman and I want to join your team”
            saying the less ludicrous statement,
            “I’m transitioning to a woman and I want to join your team.”

            I’m surprised the guest did not have the answer (which I admit to not being aware of just like Tucker).

            Namely, the NCCA has clearly defined policies to address the very question Tucker asked. (News to me.)

            At the risk of oversimplifying the policy, it hinges primarily on whether the student is undergoing hormonal treatment for gender transition.

            I see no reason why these kinds of requirements couldn’t be used for the other issues Tucker mentioned (e.g., admission to women’s colleges or joining a professional sports team).

            I will defend Tucker against any accusation he was using a red herring because I don’t think he knew he was raising an issue for which a solution was already in place.

          • I think that’s as sound a system as the sports world could come up with.

            That said, it still wouldn’t be a red herring even if Tucker had known about it, because there are still some valid questions around the biology of that ole Y chromosome. It would be interesting to see just how well biological women who have transitioned into males and who undergo ongoing hormone hormone therapy compete on male sports teams.

            I think the guiding ethos will be “this is the best we can do” or the closest we can get to parity. That’s okay as long as it doesn’t descend into absolute idiocy and sophism, which seems to be the direction these new rights and protections take.

          • IMHO……..CT a side……..this is a trap……the Republicans are just waiting for a chance to get rid of Title IX……..using it for things it was NEVER meant to cover will give them the opportunity they need.

          • There is no need to apply Title IX to anything except what the law specifies. The same with Title VII. If some feel a need to expand the scope of either law, the laws either need amended, or new laws passed.

      • Transgendered , Lesbian, Gays, etc are not a Federal Protected Class that is regulated under Title IX.
        That takes Title IX out of this discussion and NO amount of rhetoric will change that fact.

        • I disagree if you are referring to the Supreme Court case — which I was.

          It is all about whether transgender students qualify for Title IX protection against discrimination. Looks like we may be headed toward a divided court — but hard to predict until we hear the oral arguments.

          Or to put it another way, will the SC interpret “sex discrimination” to include claims based on gender identity?

        • You are correct. This is Title IX: “No person in the United States shall, on the basis of sex, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any education program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance.” The law, as written, applies to males and females. Those who claims otherwise are perpetuating a fraud on the people.

    • It’s ironic to me that they call Obama’s edict to public schools “guidance”.

      Try not comporting with that guidance.

  4. My dad still ringing loudly in my ears. “what? You think you got it bad. Stupid kid, look over there at that guy, he has it much worse than you.”
    Thought of this reading the account on Drudge of CNN’s 2 hour broadcast of the DNC chairMAN sweepstakes. Pobrecitos.

  5. Steve Bannon yesterday at CPAC on the media: “If you look at the opposition party and how they portray the campaign, how they portrayed the transition and now they’re portraying the administration, it’s always wrong. … They’re corporatist, globalist media that are adamantly opposed — adamantly opposed to an economic nationalist agenda like Donald Trump has.”

    • Just let em keep pushing this stuff for a couple more months, we’ll be due for some endless Trump. Cruz went ballistic when he saw this ruling. They just can not stop/help it/themselves.

  6. Wonder how many people at FOX are saying, “yeah, I’m the one who first suggested moving Tucker into the 9 PM slot.”?

      • And on a broader scale, it’s hard to single out a bad programming move…whether or not some of us may not like a certain anchor.
        Hannity to 10; Megyn (now Tucker) to 9; Martha to 7 (better than Greta); The Five to 5; Outnumbered to 9 a.m..

        How many examples can you find on CNN or MSNBC — and I’m not even a hater like many commenters here at J$P?

        Tapper never quite lived up to the hype. Neither has Erin Burnett. Same goes for Lemon, Cuomo and AC360 was fading until the 2016 spike for almost all cable shows.

        Over at MSNBC Morning Joe still has a reasonably high profile even with the usual unspectacular morning ratings for cable news. Rachel has had a good 2016. But who else?

  7. Today’s most popular links:
    5 CNN may boycott
    4 resurfaces
    3 RT Trump fan
    2 men exposing privates
    And the most popular link in today’s links…
    1 Megyn and the battle for NBC’s future

Comments are closed.