Pro-Veteran Spokesman Is Unhappy Sarah Palin Is Stealing His (Rolling) Thunder

Rolling Thunder is a non-profit organization which is dedicated to advocating on behalf of Prisoners of War and larger veteran issues and is best known for its annual motorcycle rides in Washington, D.C. on Memorial Day. Turns out that potential GOP candidate Sarah Palin has announced plans to attend the Rolling Thunder event at the Washington Mall this weekend, which according to Rolling Thunder spokesperson Ted Shpak, is a big distraction.

During an interview with MSNBC’s Andrea Mitchell, Shpak seemed particularly miffed that Palin was planning on attending the rally and made the point that she wasn’t invited. Rolling Thunder does not endorse candidates and seemed annoyed that his cell phone would not stop ringing since this news broke.

However, not everyone associated with Rolling Thunder seems annoyed by Palin. ABC News blog The Note reports that some chapters are very excited to be joined by the GOP presidential hopeful:

“I think that’s wonderful,” said Gerri Tramel, president of one of Rolling Thunder’s Tennessee chapters. “Anybody that’s involved — Republican, Democrat, independent, whatever — if you’re involved with our veterans, I think that’s wonderful. Not just Sarah Palin — anyone that’s a politician.”

For more than 20 years, as many as half a million motorcycle riders from across the country have descended on Washington, D.C., during Memorial Day weekend to raise awareness about prisoners of war and those missing in action. Rolling Thunder announced Thursday that Palin accepted an invitation to participate in its May 29 rally. She’ll kick off her One Nation Tour the same day, a bus trip along the northeast coast that aims “to educate and energize Americans about our nation’s founding principles.”

Asked how Palin came to be involved with the rally, Rolling Thunder spokeswoman Nancy Regg said, “I honestly don’t know.”

Watch the interview with Shpak below, courtesy of MSNBC:

LA Times Columnist: Obama Pauses While Speaking Due To ‘Intellectual Stammer’

Our President, you may have noticed at some point or another, tends to stammer a bit when he speaks. Not during his speeches, really, but when he’s speaking off the cuff. Personally, we’ve never found it too distracting or particularly glaring, but, you know. It’s a thing he does from time to time. Well, the Los Angeles Times, in an opinion column, has decided to defend Barack Obama’s tendency to pause or sometimes tumble over his words by chalking it all up to a phenomenon the paper has decided to call “The Intellectual Stammer.”

Which is to say, ahem, um, that, rather, um… We’ll just let writer Meghan Daum explain:

But consider this: It’s not that Obama can’t speak clearly. It’s that he employs the intellectual stammer. Not to be confused with a stutter, which the president decidedly does not have, the intellectual stammer signals a brain that is moving so fast that the mouth can’t keep up. The stammer is commonly found among university professors, characters in Woody Allen movies and public thinkers of the sort that might appear on C-SPAN but not CNN. If you’re a member or a fan of that subset, chances are the president’s stammer doesn’t bother you; in fact, you might even love him for it (he sounds just like your grad school roommate, especially when he drank too much Scotch and attempted to expound on the Hegelian dialectic!).

So, he’s an awkward nerd, basically, is what they’re saying here. (We say this with love.)

The invention of the Intellectual Stammer stands out to us because 1) that’s hella creative and 2) it’s indicative of a bias, we think, where Obama is concerned. Despite the reality that Obama and his predecessor are more alike than many would like to admit, and that both men are Ivy-educated politicians with a tendency to hem and/or haw when they speak, we can’t recall an instance of a paper coming to a certain someone’s defense in such an imaginative manner.

h/t LA Times

Shocking: Video Shows SWAT Team Gunning Down Iraq War Veteran

A recent rport has revealed that Jose Guerna, the Iraq War Veteran killed in a Tucson, Arizona SWAT team raid did not even fire one shot before he was killed.

Guerna was accused of drug smuggling, robbery and human trafficking but despite the SWAT team’s initial reports that he fired the first shots, a more conclusive investigation has revealed that he not only had the safety on his gun but was asleep until his wife warned him that the SWAT team was storming his house.

A startling video depicts the event. It was taken from the head-cameras of one of the SWAT team members and shows a short warning siren followed by almost inaudible yells before the team breaks down the door and starts firing. The entire video is 54 seconds long, but in that time the SWAT team fires over 70 shots, 60 of which hit Mr. Guerna.

The SWAT team lawyer, Mike Storie stated that the men were just in their actions as Mr. Guerna did have a weapon and the team had no way to know that the safety was on. The team had a warrant and Storie noted that weapons and body armor were found in the house, although he declined to comment on whether the team had discovered drugs.

Guerna’s wife alleges that the actions of the team were criminal assault and her lawyer, Chris Scileppi told ABC news that although medical personnel arrived shortly after the attack, they were not allowed inside the house to treat Mr. Guerna for an hour and 14 minutes. Storie defended this by saying that the SWAT team was trying to protect medical personnel, as there was the potential that there were other armed men in the house.

Watch the video and see for yourself. Was Guerna an innocent victim or did the SWAT team do the right thing?

(h/t  ABC)

The Kudos Files: Hugo Lindgren Has Re-Energized New York Times Magazine

Here at Mediaite, we like to give credit where it’s do and point out when those working within this strange little media bubble are producing good work. Such is the case with The New York Times Magazine, which, we’ve happily noticed, has experienced a revitalization under the watch of editor Hugo Lindgren.

Lindgren, for those unfamiliar, has been in the business for quite some time, having previously worked in editorial positions at New York Magazine and George in addition to acting as executive editor of Bloomberg Businessweek. Lindgren was named editor of The New York Times Magazine in September 2010, replacing Gerry Marzorati, who had been at the magazine’s helm for seven years.

Shortly after coming aboard, Lindgren shared his plans for the magazine, which included new features and a whole new look. And, in our opinion, he delivered. A look through any of Lindgren’s columns from “The 6th Floor” reveal an editor who is excited about his work, and proud of his magazine’s content, be it a brief rundown on his weekend reading or a collection of stunning photographs.

Oh, and, for the sake of encouraging creativity and stifling eye rolls, he’s also taken it upon himself to come up with a list of words and phrases his writers should avoid when crafting their stories.

We reached out to Adam Moss, New York magazine editor in chief, where Lindgren worked as his second on command, and a former editor at The New York Times Magazine. “I’m really liking what my old friends and colleagues are doing over there,” he told us. “It’s exciting to see how the magazine evolves.”

One major factor in the magazine’s continued success is its design director, Arem Duplessis. In June of 2009, the magazine underwent a redesign, introducing a smaller product with a streamlined, more modern aesthetic. Six months after the magazine’s new look was revealed, Duplessis gave SPD a refreshingly in-depth and candid interview about the process. Here, he tackles the “Questions for…” section:

Our readers are very passionate about this page. We found out the hard way by introducing a “cinematic approach” to the photography. Seems readers missed seeing the feet of the subject and wanted the old format back. We accommodated that request, and of course, I heard complaints asking why we abandoned the new format. Seems some people took a liking to it. If you try and please everyone, you lose every time, as we all know.

(The entire interview is worth a read, especially if you’re a design or typography nerd.)

Wait…Did Whoopi Goldberg Really Fart During A Live Taping Of The View?

Dr. Oz was a guest on yesterday’s episode of The View , and naturally, started talking about farting. “How many of you have passed gas already since you’ve been out here?” the daytime talk show asked the ladies of The View which elicited expected giggles and guffaws from the cohosts and audience alike. But it was Whoopi Goldberg who took things to the next level when she owned up to it. Daytime talk show hijinks focosed on farting? Who knew they were targeting the nine year-old boy demo?

Watch the clip below:

(H/T HuffPost)

Karl Rove To Greta: ‘I Don’t Think [Palin] Thinks The Rules Apply To Her’

At this point in the 2012 political scene, it’s no secret that Karl Rove isn’t Sarah Palin’s biggest fan. But just in case it’s been forgotten, Rove made that once again abundantly clear on tonight’s On the Record, where he compared Palin to failed Democratic candidate George McGovern, questioned her understanding of how presidential primaries work, and told Greta van Susteren he doesn’t see her thinking “the rules apply to her.”

With renewed speculation that Palin may run for President, van Susteren asked Rove to evaluate the possibility of Palin putting together a successful campaign for the primaries. “I think it’s the emergence of a potential race,” Rove said of her weekend bus tour, adding that, given that the tour isn’t going to go to most primary states and will do no real fundraising, it appears “she thinks the rules don’t apply to her.” “She doesn’t need to have the traditional trappings of a presidential campaign,” he elaborated, including “no finance committee” nor the need to “go shake a lot of hands in Iowa, New Hampshire, South Carolina.” “Is she right in thinking [the rules don't apply]?” van Susteren asked.

Rove didn’t give a yes or no question to that, but noted that Palin was captain of her own ship, and but added the caveat that, if she believed large crowds on a tour were an indication she would do well in a primary she was wrong, noting that some of the biggest crowds in modern history came out for George McGovern, who lost a landslide defeat against Richard Nixon in 1972. “There’s a difference between crowds and what you need for a campaign,” Rove warned. That said, he argued there was a chance that Palin had hit on something completely new in politics, noting her presence on Facebook and Twitter without “being inside the Beltway.” Overall, he didn’t seem too confident that this campaigning would work out, but definitely left the door open for the possibility that Palin’s new media campaigning would revolutionize the political landscape.

The segment via Fox News below:

Glenn Beck Gives Bill O’Reilly (Mostly Joke) Speculation On What GBTV Programs Will Be Like

Glenn Beck is in the sunset of his career at Fox News, and with news that he is launching his own internet channel, he preempted his usual Friday appearances on The O’Reilly Factor to discuss the details of the mysterious “GBTV.” But Bill O’Reilly succeeded little in getting actual details on the show, and instead got a laundry list of comical show ideas that involved a “Spooky Dude” George Soros special and a superhero series based on Beck.

“If it’s on the internet, it must be true,” Beck said of his new endeavor. O’Reilly told him he received much mail asking what Beck was going to do next, and was even asked earlier today on Don Imus’s show, where he responded he expected Beck to launch a clothing line entitled “Apocalypse Now.” “I’ve got a metal detector and then I’m going to the beach,” Beck responded in jest, though later clarified that GBTV was, in fact, a reality.

O’Reilly suggested that the network need a “theme” and asserted that he knew Beck would end up with his own network eventually (“are you asking me for a job?” Beck replied). Beck suggested it would be “all cartoons,” and later adding he would have to have a villain for his children’s show, which, of course, would end up being George Soros.

The segment via Fox News below: