Comments on what I've read, seen, heard and watched this week.

A friend passed this Jewish Telegraphic Agency (JTA) article on to me regarding What Jewish groups have (and haven’t) said about Donald Trump. http://www.jta.org/2015/12/15/news-opinion/politics/what-jewish-groups-have-and-havent-said-about-donald-trump

Telling that among the four groups not condemning this outrage are AIPAC and the Republican Jewish Coalition. And for Federation to stay silent is a shanda. Despite the fact that Federation says it usually stays out of the political discussion unless “the issue merited it”, make no mistake, this issue merits it.

That these organizations cannot denounce Trump, when even Netanyahu has, demonstrates their true tenor. Unbelievable!

Salon.com ran this piece about how Rubio and Cruz are spilling national security secrets out in the open at the debates and on the weekend network news talk shows.

 http://www.salon.com/2015/12/17/how_the_feud_between_rubio_cruz_has_exposed_our_national_security_secrets/

As far as I'm concerned Salon is really barking up the wrong tree. Enough about this secret stuff these esteemed senators are leaking on national TV. We need to talk about Hillary's emails.

After Tuesday's debate, Salon also posted an article about Carly Fiorina's incredible penchant for lying. 

http://www.salon.com/2015/12/17/carly_fiorina_is_a_liar_and_everyone_should_finally_just_say_it_loudly/

The real story in this article is not Fiorina’s outrageous lies or her incredibly arrogant, belligerent push back when confronted with the facts. No, the real story here is the media's inability to call her on it out of some attempt at fairness. Except, perhaps for Mother Jones who headlined: 

"Carly Fiorina Really Likes to Make Shit Up"

The Washington Post reported that Vladimir Putin, in a news conference, tacitly endorsed Donald Trump, saying he is the "absolute leader" in the U.S. presidential race. 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/putin-no-major-gaps-with-washington-over-efforts-to-end-syria-conflict/2015/12/17/a178255e-a431-11e5-8318-bd8caed8c588_story.html?postshare=441450393336549&tid=ss_fb

For most of us, this would seem like the worst endorsement possible. But with Trump, you don't know. Will be interesting to see how he deals with it.

BTW, don't know about you but it sure looks like Vladimir has had some face work done. Just saying.

MediaPost.com, a media/ad industry news source, reported that the Las Vegas Review-Journal, Nevada's largest newspaper, has been purchased by......SHELDON ADELSON!!!

 http://www.mediapost.com/publications/article/265039/adelson-bought-las-vegas-review-journal.html

Nevada is a state that went to Obama in the last two elections. I have a sneaking suspicion the Review-Journal will not be endorsing Hillary in 2016. As the article reports, media ownership is not new for Adelson. He owns three papers in Israel, one nicknamed "Bibiton" for its unencumbered support of Netanyahu. And, apparently in Israel Adelson's point of view is not limited to the editorial pages but influences news coverage as well. It's good to be מֶלֶך (or at least filthy rich)!

In the New York Times, Roger Cohen wrote about the devastating and lasting effects of Rabin's assassination in a column entitled The Assassination in Israel That Worked.  http://www.nytimes.com/2015/12/18/opinion/the-assassination-in-israel-that-worked.html?smprod=nytcore-iphone&smid=nytcore-iphone-share

I know there will be pushback from this statement, but: Any reasonable and thoughtful supporter of Israel will read this and weep for what is, but what might have been.

Flipping through the channels on the TV yesterday, I noticed that CNN was running live coverage of a Trump rally in Arizona. Through the miracle of the DVR, I was able to determine when the coverage started and ended. Appalled at what I saw, here's what I posted on Facebook.

Finally, I watched the debate on Tuesday, tweeting and commenting along the way. What I heard and saw was a stage full of misguided, pandering, lying, uninformed, disingenuous, and frankly dangerous candidates - which I summed up in the following post.

Trump Finally Says Something True – Still Gets Slammed

Donald Trump says outrageous things. But, most of what he says is not true.  In fact, according to Politifact, fully 75% of Trump’s statements are “Mostly False”, “False” or “Pants on Fire” false, while nothing is completely “True”: 

Source: Politifact.com

Some of the most memorable statements (with the Politifact rating where available): 

•    "The Mexican government ... they send the bad ones over." "The Mexican government forces many bad people into our country." (Pants on Fire)
•      The unemployment rate may be as high as "42 percent." (Pants on Fire)
•      "I will be the greatest jobs president that God ever created." (Unrated)
•     "The birther movement was started by Hillary Clinton in 2008. She was all in!"  (False)
•      "Hillary Clinton was the worst Secretary of State in the history of the United States. There's never been a Secretary of State so bad as Hillary. The world blew up around us. We lost everything, including all relationships. There wasn't one good thing that came out of that administration or her being Secretary of State." (Unrated)
•      John McCain… "has done nothing to help the vets." (False)
•    "He's (John McCain) not a war hero. He's a war hero because he was captured. I like people that weren't captured, OK, I hate to tell you." (Unrated) 

For the most part, Trump says whatever he thinks, sources like Politifact report on the veracity of the statements, and Trump’s poll numbers go up.

But here’s the thing: Trump said something the other day that was absolutely factually correct. And that factually correct statement created a firestorm.

What truth did Trump utter in this interview with Bloomberg’s Stephanie Ruhle that led to the controversy?

“When you talk about George Bush — I mean, say what you want, the World Trade Center came down during his time.”

Since Trump said this only a day or so ago, Politifact hasn’t had a chance to chime in. But, based on my understanding of history, this statement is true – the World Trade Center was attacked while George W. Bush was president (Ironically, if the statement is evaluated by Politifact and holds up, it will be the only “True” Trump statement they’ve rated).

After his impolitic (for a Republican candidate) remark, here’s the interviewer's follow up:

Ruhle: “Hold on. You can't blame George Bush for that.”

Trump: “He was president, okay? Blame him, or don't blame him, but he was president. The World Trade Center came down during his reign.”

So what happened? The media headlines said Trump blamed Bush for 9/11, or at least suggested he blamed Bush. And there were the expected responses from Republicans: 

•      Jeb Bush: “How pathetic for @realdonaldtrump to criticize the president for 9/11. We were attacked & my brother kept us safe.”
•      George Pataki: “Another day, another outrageous outburst from @realDonaldTrump. I saw firsthand President Bush's leadership on 9/11; @realDonaldTrump Al-Qaeda is responsible for the attacks of 9/11- not President Bush”
•      Rudy Giuliani: “It also came down when I was mayor, I haven’t had anyone blame me.”
•     Representative Peter King:  “…to blame George Bush for what happened on September 11 shows a lack of knowledge and it’s too much of a cheap shot at the president.” 

Bottom line:  Despite all the pushback, Trump stated a fact -- George W. Bush was president on 9/11. He did not “blame” Bush (although that might have been his implication). The reporter brought up “blame” and Trump picked up on that ­­– but still didn’t specifically “blame” Bush.

By the way, Jeb's “he kept us safe” comment is not new; he used it in the last Republican debate (to a fair amount of Democratic derision). Of course, not really mentioned in any of the coverage or discussion was that little report from August 6, 2001 entitled “Bin Ladin Determined To Strike in US”.  Never mind.

The Daily Show with Trevor Noah - Must See TV?

After returning from two weeks in Japan I finally had the opportunity to watch an episode of the new Daily Show with Trevor Noah. I only watched one episode because my Direct TV DVR makes a distinction between The Daily Show with Jon Stewart and The Daily Show with Trevor Noah and didn't record The Daily Show with.. while I was away (yeah, I know I could watch episodes online, but c'mon, I'm old and old people need the big screen. Plus The Daily Show with... is supposed to be a news show, faux or not, and who wants to watch two week old news). 

I'm not sure about the rest of you, but after watching that one episode, perhaps Direct TV is correct in making the distinction.

I didn't laugh. Noah seems uncomfortable. And his accent feels strange in a way that John Oliver's doesn't. It probably didn't help that I watched E12 which had a clearly wasted Jack Black as the guest.

Many of the reviews I've read give Noah a pass, so I will too: 

• Vanity Fair: Though there was an air of something forced and synthetic about the show last night, we’d be wise to remind ourselves that this was Day One after 16 years."Stewart had 16 years";
• Indie Wire: Noah's take on "The Daily Show" will evolve... "I think if any show launches in its fully matured form, that's not necessarily a good sign because it won't necessarily keep evolving, and I think the best shows do evolve."
• Hollywood Reporter: Noah's Daily Show debut was not about intimacy. It needed to be quite the opposite. It was about being as broad and welcoming as possible, reassuring a nervous fan base that even if the guy at the desk is more dimpled-and-dapper and even if the world is spinning in a different direction, it's still The Daily Show. Check back in a few weeks or months, and maybe it will be time to review The Daily Show With Trevor Noah.

But, at least to this point, while the DVR will keep recording, and I will check back in a few weeks or months, I'm not sure that The Daily Show with Trevor Noah will be must see TV for me.

MSNBC - All News? All Afternoon - The Sad State of Affairs at MSNBC

Say what you want about the old MSNBC "Lean Forward", progressive position; the fact is it had lively discussions, excellent hosts and guests, and provided a good counterpoint to the Fox News right-wing lunacy. 

Here are some quotes from their own, "Lean Forward" promotional material - their version of a Mission Statement:

• We all want to live in a Nation that's better tomorrow than it is today.
• But for the past 20 years, we've been recycling the same conversations.
• Enough with the arguments. It's time to advance the issues.
• MSNBC has evolved into a trusted destination for American Progress.
• But while history has gotten us this far, our best days are still ahead.
• We're for people who believe in progress.
• We're for people who believe in the promise of America.
• We're for people who believe forward is the only way to go.

Sure, the "Lean Forward" MSNBC was at time cringe worthy, over the top lefty, and sure I didn't agree with everything presented, but it was a good TV place for folks of a certain ilk.

But, alas, there apparently wasn't enough of this ilk to sustain a viable business enterprise for the powers that be at NBC News.

MSNBC's decision to go all news in the afternoons is basically unwatchable. (I use "news" in the broadest sense of the word). They've become a bad CNN imitation (imagine something worse than CNN) and will drive off whatever small, but loyal liberal audience they had. And, over time this new format as a lead-in will affect the audience of the legacy politics shows that follow. That's a shame.

Let's take today as an example. As I'm writing this, MSNBC has been spending an enormous amount of time on the BREAKING NEWS of the day --- from their sister network, E! of all places. (The fact that they have to constantly promote their "sister" networks, and that E! is one of them, is more cringe worthy than anything they did in the past). 

And what exactly is the BREAKING NEWS: 

Lamar Odom has opened his eyes and is speaking! 

This coverage is accompanied by all the normal cable news accoutrements:  Live remotes from Las Vegas; interviews with witnesses (in this case, The Love Ranch's owner); and medical expert talking head commentary. And. to ensure that we viewers are fully up to date on the legal aspects of this BREAKING NEWS, MSNBC reported that because Chloe Kardashian (really!) and Odom never officially divorced, Kardashian would have legal authority in the event someone has to make an "end of life" decision to remove Odom from life support. Wow, news we can use!

If all this was not bad enough, MSNBC brought back the completely discredited Brian Williams to be the BREAKING NEWS anchor. I guess NBC management, in their obvious infinite wisdom, thought 1) we wouldn't remember;  or 2) MSNBC is so trivial, it really doesn't matter what they do.

Sad.