Krugman on the power play in Wisconsin: In principle, every American citizen has an equal say in our political process. In practice, of course, some of us are more equal than others . Billionaires can field armies of lobbyists; they can finance think tanks that put the desired spin on policy issues; they can funnel cash to politicians with sympathetic views (as the Koch brothers did in the case of Mr. Walker). On paper, we’re a one-person-one-vote nation; in reality, we’re more than a bit of an oligarchy, in which a handful of wealthy people dominate. Given this reality, it’s important to have institutions that can act as counterweights to the power of big money. And unions are among the most important of these institutions. You don’t have to love unions, you don’t have to believe that their policy positions are always right, to recognize that they’re among the few influential players in our political system representing the interests of middle- and working-class Americans, as opposed to the wealthy. Indeed, if America has become more oligarchic and less democratic over the last 30 years — which it has — that’s to an important extent due to the decline of private-sector unions. And now Mr. Walker and his backers are trying to get rid of public-sector unions, too. There’s a bitter irony here. The fiscal crisis in Wisconsin, as in other states, was largely caused by the increasing power of America’s oligarchy. After all, it was superwealthy players, not the general public, who pushed for financial deregulation and thereby set the stage for the economic crisis of 2008-9, a crisis whose aftermath is the main reason for the current budget crunch. And now the political right is trying to exploit that very crisis, using it to remove one of the few remaining checks on oligarchic influence. So will the attack on unions succeed? I don’t know. But anyone who cares about retaining government of the people by the people should hope that it doesn’t. This is exactly right. No, unions aren’t always perfect. So what? They’re all that’s left to protect the rest of us. Remember: The enemy of my enemy is my friend.
Continue reading …Clinton on Bahrain: ‘U.S. Can’t Determine Outcome’ Of Democracy Movements
February 21, 2011 No Comment
On This Week with Christiane Amanpour, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton on the growing democracy movement in the Middle East — and what it means to America. She says “in general” the United States is in favor of human rights and democracy, while recognizing that the process can be “hijacked” by other interests, using as an example the 1979 uprising in Iran that ended up with an extreme Islamist regime. All logical, of course, but I don’t think the U.S. will be treating this as respectfully as the recent events in Egypt: AMANPOUR: In the Middle East overnight, the popular uprising sweeping the region have taken their most violent turn yet. It happened in Libya. Protesters there have been calling for the removal of the strong man, Moammar Gadhafi, for the last five days. He’s been in power for more than 40 years. And eyewitnesses are reporting that the military has now been firing on protesters after gaining their confidence and being welcomed into the crowd . A doctor gave a dramatic radio interview. Let’s listen. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) (UNKNOWN): Oh, my god. They’re firing on the civilians here. They’re crazy. They’re going crazy here. (END VIDEO CLIP) AMANPOUR: There are reports of hundreds dead and thousands injured in Libya. In Yemen this morning, thousands marched again in the streets of the capital, Sana’a. The president, an important American ally in the war on terror, blamed the unrest on a foreign plot. And in Bahrain, home to the U.S. Navy’s Fifth Fleet, which protects crucial oil-shipping lanes, demonstrators retook the square where their calls for reform have now given way to calls for the king to step down. Bahrain, of course, is also a logistical hub and command center for U.S. operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. And last night, in a 180-degree turn, the crown prince offered to open up a dialogue with the protesters. ABC’s Miguel Marquez is there. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) MARQUEZ: Christiane, it is amazing, the difference that 24 hours makes. This time yesterday, this country appeared poised for civil war; now it is a celebration down here at Pearl Square, as you can see. And it appears we’re headed for a negotiated political settlement. In order the get the settlement they want, these protesters are now willing to stay for the long haul. You can see they’ve set up tents all the way around Pearl Square here. They’re even serving food out here. That tea, by the way, is called Freedom Tea, and they are very organized. This area over here is the men’s section. And then right back here, all these people in black, that’s the women’s section. The big question is, what will get these protesters to go home? They want a constitutional democracy. They want the king to back off of politics and become a figurehead. They want the prime minister, who’s been in power for 40 years, to go home. But so much blood has been spilled here in the past week, these protesters want a significant deal. Will they get it? It’s not clear. It’s not clear what will get them to stop protesting, pack up their tents, and go home . Christiane? (END VIDEO CLIP) AMANPOUR: And we’ll keep watching Bahrain and the other uprisings. President Obama has called Bahrain’s king — he did that on Friday — urging him to respect the rights of the protesters. The administration once again finds itself in a bit of a bind, as freedom activists face off against an authoritarian ally . Secretary of State Hillary Clinton walked a fine line when I spoke to her exclusively on Friday. (BEGIN VIDEOTAPE) AMANPOUR: Madame Secretary, thank you for joining us. CLINTON: Thank you for having me. AMANPOUR: About Bahrain. CLINTON: Uh-huh. AMANPOUR: How do you assess Bahrain right now? Is it stable? CLINTON: You know, Christiane, we’ve been very clear from the beginning that we do not want to see any violence. We deplore it. We think it is absolutely unacceptable. We very much want to see the human rights of the people protected, including right to assemble, right to express themselves, and we want to see reform. And so Bahrain had started on some reform, and we want to see them get back to that as quickly as possible. AMANPOUR: What will the United States do? And will it hold Bahrain to a similar standard, as it did Egypt? CLINTON: We — we try to hold everyone to a similar standard, but we cannot dictate the outcomes. We cannot tell countries what they’re going to do. We had, you know, no control over what happened in Egypt. AMANPOUR: As Americans sit and watch and try to make sense of what’s going on in the Arab Muslim world, is what’s happening — is the emerging new order, is it good for America? What should Americans make of it? CLINTON: Well, I think, in general, Americans are in favor of human rights, freedom, democracy. We know that ultimately the most progress that can be made on behalf of human beings anywhere is when those individuals are empowered, when they have governments that are responsive. That’s what we want to see. At the same time, we recognize that this process can be hijacked. It can be hijacked by both outside and inside elements within any country. I mean, what a tragedy to see what happened in Iran. There was a great deal of hope and pent-up feeling that the time had come in 1979, and look at what Iran is doing today. AMANPOUR: You want democracy. You speak about democracy. Can you control democracy? Should you control democracy? Or do you have to take the chips and let them fall where they may if you want democracy? CLINTON: Well, I think that, first, we have to start from the basic premise as to what democracy means, and democracy is not one election that then whoever wins it decides never to have another one. That is not what anyone wants. We want to work with those forces within societies that are yearning for change to make sure that they have the support needed and, frankly, the technical assistance, the financial assistance to be able to make it through to what is a good outcome, what they’ve asked for in their online blogs and in their posters and in their interviews. AMANPOUR: I want to ask you this, because it’s an in-depth interview that you’ve done in Bazaar. It’s a beautiful layout. I’m struck by the imagery, though. You are there, beautiful, but in a corner. CLINTON: You know, I just do what photographers tell me to do. It has no metaphorical meaning for me. (LAUGHTER) AMANPOUR: But I wanted to ask you, do you feel in a corner right now or on a tight rope, trying to balance the need for stability in countries where you have allies and interests, and your values, wanting democracy and all the human rights for the people there? Is that a struggle? CLINTON: Well, I think it is a challenge. And it is a challenge not only at this point of time in the Middle East; it is an inherent challenge in diplomacy, in America’s efforts in the world. We want to advance our security, our values, and our interests. And if there were one template that could be imposed on every situation, I wouldn’t need to have this job, and nobody else would have to, either. But this is often a balancing act and… AMANPOUR: Do you feel you’re at a turning point, at a sort of a tectonic shift in trying to figure out where the balance is, where your strategic interests lie? CLINTON: Well, Christiane, we deal with, you know, so many countries around the world, some of whom are closer to our values, who see their interests in ways we do and some of who — whom are on the opposite end of the spectrum. AMANPOUR: In the Middle East, America’s strategic interests have been with some of these autocratic rulers. They’ve helped you with Israel and peace in the region. They’ve helped you against terrorism. Do you believe that a democratic people could be a force for much more stability, longer-term stability? CLINTON: Well, ultimately, a really truly functioning, comprehensive democracy has historically been proven to be a greater force for stability. Navigating through what are difficult choices for societies that are doing that transition is something that the United States encourages, as we did after the fall of the Berlin Wall, and will continue to encourage. At the same… AMANPOUR: So here, will you be encouraging it here? CLINTON: Well, we have been. But at the same time, we are also knowledgeable enough about historical experiences to know that this is not an easy journey for any people to make. There are many threats and problems along the way. AMANPOUR: It is beyond dispute that the Obama administration scaled back their democracy and freedom agenda of the Bush administration. In Egypt, the funds for NGOs and the like, civil society, democracy-building, were cut back and furthermore were directed, when they were directed, to NGOs that were supported by the Mubarak regime. Was that a mistake? Clinton: Well, first of all, I just reject the premise. I think that there is… AMANPOUR: It’s — it’s indisputable. CLINTON: Well, it’s not. That’s just not — that’s just not the case. There were differences in approach under the same set of goals to try to promote democracy, economic opportunity, women’s rights, labor organizing. There are many different ways that I think all of us, different administrations, different experts, have struggled with. There is no debate that, for 30 years, Republican and Democratic administrations alike sent the same message to President Mubarak and the regime, that they had to change. And we were all trying different ways. You know, I think it’s fair to say that none of us were particularly successful, because we kept running into an absolute rejection that that was not going to be done in Egypt. But we tried many different approaches, and we’re going to try many different approaches in different settings, as well. AMANPOUR: The State Department just had an Arabic Twitter account, a Farsi Twitter account. This week, what do you expect to do with that? CLINTON: Have you — have you been following the Farsi Twitter account? AMANPOUR: I’m following it all. CLINTON: Excellent. Excellent. Well, what we expect to do is to be communicating through the new social media with literally millions of people around the world, because we want them to hear directly from us what our policies are. We want to use it to rebut some of the falsehoods and accusations that, unfortunately, are made against the United States. But mostly we want to be in the mix with this incredible, young, energetic population that is seeking the same rights to express themselves as young people in the United States seek. AMANPOUR: Thank you very much. CLINTON: Thank you very much. (END VIDEOTAPE) AMANPOUR: And this week, Secretary Clinton called on governments around the world to respect and promote free access to the Internet. And when we return, we’ll take you inside the revolution with the anonymous online revolutionaries who launched a movement.
Continue reading …Bozell Tackles Media Bias in Wis. Protest Coverage, Slams Media for Ignoring Docs Handing Out Fraudulent Sick Notes
February 21, 2011 No Comment
“The mainstream media was late to the party when it came to covering” the Wisconsin budget protests, Fox Business Network's Stuart Varney noted as he introduced NewsBusters publisher Brent Bozell earlier today on the February 21 edition of “Varney & Co.” But are the media now skewing coverage in favor of the perspective of the public sector labor unions, Varney asked. Most certainly they are, Media Research Center founder Bozell answered. [Video of the segment and
Continue reading …
enlarge A portrait of Brisenia Flores at the Community Center near her home, where she played daily. I drove out to Arivaca, Arizona, on Tuesday, the day after a jury convicted Shawna Forde of two counts of first-degree murder in the home-invasion shooting deaths of 9-year-old Brisenia Flores and her father, Raul Junior Flores. I went to take some pictures, look around, and get a feel for the landscape, both physical and cultural. Mostly, I wanted to see how the murders had rippled through the community, because distant rural places like this are always tight-knit communities where everyone knows everyone else. Everyone I talked to used the same word: “Devastating.” A woman at the community center just down the street knew Brisenia and her mother — who did volunteer work at the center — very well. She pointed to a picture of Brisenia hanging on a main beam inside the center, a black flower attached to a corner, and explained, “She came here every day.” Brisenia, she said, was bright and sweet and devoted to her parents, as they were to her. The murders, she told me, took place only two days before the start of the community center’s annual summer camp, where Brisenia always enrolled, and where all the kids in the camp knew her too. The center brought in grief counselors to try to help the kids understand what had happened to their classmate and friend. She said she kept trying to explain to them that they were never going to see her again, and they couldn’t grasp it. Finally, she said, she had to simply tell them straight out that she was dead. And then everyone cried. “It was horrible,” she said. enlarge Main Street, Arivaca Road, Arivaca. Arivaca is a little ranching community where the main activity is at the feed store during work hours and at the mercantile and bar the rest of the day. It mainly exists for services to ranchers in the Arizona desert. And it is only 28 miles, by the road to Sasabe (and slightly shorter as the crow flies) from the Mexico border. Thus, it used to be quite a popular thoroughfare for border-crossing immigrants, but everyone in town told me that most of that had gone away in the past couple of years, thanks to an intense increase in the presence of the Border Patrol in the area. And it was true: I passed a Border Patrol checkpoint going to and from Arivaca, and encountered probably 20 different BP vehicles in different locales along the 23-mile drive between the town and I-19. The immigrant traffic also drew people like Shawna Forde — people who hated immigrants crossing the border from Mexico and were determined to stop it. And so a little girl whose parents, and grandparents, and their whole extended family, had grown up American in Arivaca wound up becoming a victim of the radicalism and hatemongering turned to violence that always, inevitably accompanies the Nativist mindset. enlarge The Flores home in Arivaca. The Flores’ home was just down the dirt road from the community center about a mile, part of a rural neighborhood that northeast of the town itself, a bunch of small homes spread out on large tracts. The place had been mostly cleaned up since the tragedy, but there were little signs outside: plastic roses placed on the door the killers had come through; a child’s lamp, and a sign for a garden, and a teeter-totter. All the signs of a normal, simple, sweet life suddenly ripped away by something monstrous from out of nowhere. enlarge Plastic flowers left on the home’s front door. enlarge An item in the front yard. enlarge A child’s lamp in the front yard. enlarge Brisenia’s teeter totter. When a sweet, innocent life is cut short like this — especially by an act as monstrous as this one — it always horrifies us, just as the case of another Arizona 9-year-old slain by a madman, Christina Green, has resonated deeply with the public. And so often in such cases, the monstrousness and the tragedy simply overwhelm us, leaving us to throw up our hands and decide that it’s beyond our understanding, that there’s no explaining such events. But there’s no such mystery about what killed Brisenia. We know. We can see it clearly. And we need to be talking about it. The people who broke into her home late at night while she was sleeping with her new puppy on the living-room couch and cold-bloodedly shot her in the face while she pleaded for her life were people who did not see her, or her father or mother, as human beings. They were people who had become so accustomed to dehumanizing Latinos that they didn’t care about the devastation they brought to Arivaca and the lives of this family. They were so consumed by hate that they had no humanity left themselves. The dehumanizing language of scapegoating and eliminationism — the naming and targeting of other humans for the supposed social ills they incur, followed as always by words urging their excision from society, if not the world — is endemic on the American Right. And among right-wing extremists, it intensifies, grows and metastasizes into something lethal and monstrous. You can hear this very language in Shawna Forde’s 2007 appearance at a Yakima “town hall” forum on immigration: Click here to view this media Cerna: Shawna, let me ask you about the issue of economics. You’ve heard constraints from growers, you know, that the apple harvest is very important in this state, particularly in this region. What do you say to the growers? Forde: We’ve got a prison system. Let’s utilize it. …. Forde: I’d like to see two things on there. Not just about the people who came here legally, and are here legally, but how about the Americans who have been affected and died because of the illegal invasion in our country? How about our sovereignty? And securing our borders and protecting our nation is extremely important. And I know the Minutemen and many organizations will not stop — we will start at the local level and work our way up — we will not stop until we get the results that we need to have. This kind of language is not particularly rare — indeed, it is common on the American Right, particularly the Nativists who are eager to deport all of the nation’s undocumented immigrants, and it’s endemic to the Minuteman movement in general, where you can find similar eliminationism at every corner , including people like Chris Simcox: I feel that the people that are coming across, invading this country, I think that they should be treated as enemies of the state. We need to putting them in work camps. Anyone could walk through these borders of this country bringing bombs, chemicals, weapons of mass destruction. I think they should be shot on sight, personally. And their many followers: No, we ought to be able to shoot the Mexicans on sight, and that would end the problem. After two or three Mexicans are shot, they’ll stop crossing the border and they’ll take their cows home, too. The mainstream media, particularly the folks at Fox News, have refused to recognize that this is what’s occurring. Indeed, even at CNN, the only cable network to adequately report on the murder of Brisenia Flores, it’s completely ignored and glossed over. As C&L commenter Karen noted : No one is bothering to expose the actual ideology of this woman or her splinter group, or how they don’t care about Mexican life. …. The reporter calls this a “tragic and strange story.” Tragic yes. Strange? Why? It’s actually (sadly) banal. This shit goes on all the time. Murders like this happen every day. The only strange part is the involvement of splinter Minutemen, but that angle isn’t pushed. It’s the only angle that makes this a socially relevant story, and it’s glossed over like a tangential fact. Like the real story is the heartless shooting. As the folks at Presente observed after the verdict: Though we received a verdict that condemned these atrocious murders, we also recognize that the Brisenia Flores’ case is not the isolated incident that some media reports make it out to be. Rather, it has galvanized the attention of the entire Latino community across the country as it reflects the anti-immigrant, anti-Latino hatred organized by extremist groups. Latinos – the fastest-growing and largest ethnic minority group in the U.S. – understand and experience the phenomenon of hatred that has rapidly expanded in the nation. In fact, Latinos are closely watching media outlets that provide a platform for hatred promoted by extremist groups like MAD and the Federation for American Immigration Reform – a group Forde represented on a PBS show, for instance. Latinos are closely watching those media outlets that irresponsibly allow hateful groups attack to Latinos and immigrants, fanning the flames of fear and violence in our communities. The details revealed in the murder trial have touched us all in a deep and unique way. These important details reflect the deepening and mainstreaming of the most noxious and dangerous strands of hatred in the United States. They move us to continue efforts to make sure there are no more hate-crimes and to take action in condemning media outlets that help disseminate hatred. In life, Brisenia Flores was ordinary and happy little girl living in the Arizona desert. In her tragic death, she has become a powerful symbol of our own lost humanity. The bitter fruits of dehumanization always strike at our hearts. If we choose to turn away, we can easily focus on the pain and not on the meaning. But if little Brisenia’s death can transcend that choice — if we look it in the face and understand how this happened, and why — then it will not be nearly so meaningless.
Continue reading …
An Egyptian newborn named Facebook will grow up in freedom – including the freedom to change her name An Egyptian man, caught up in enthusiasm over the revolt against Mubarak, and mindful of the role that social media played in its success, has named his newborn daughter Facebook . One’s first reaction is “poor little thing”, but after all, worst case, they are syllables in a foreign language – better than many names one could think of. And besides, awareness of the role of Facebook pages in promoting the revolution may be a living cultural current in Egypt all her life – perhaps the name will be a constant inspiration and a spur to action. It’s not as if the name, given in a moment of fervour, obliges her to act out all that goes with it. Her father was thinking of Facebook as a place where people can plan political action, not as the site of romantic entanglement or drunken exhibitionism that it is for most of us most of the time. People can be selective – the Byron for whom patriotic Greeks still name their children is the foreign poet who lent his name to the Greek national cause, and then died of fever conveniently quickly. The name is not burdened for them with any factional associations that it might have acquired had Byron lived long enough to get caught up in post-independence politics. It certainly has little to do with his self-dramatising, sometimes scabrous, work, or with his scandalous bisexual romantic entanglements. Once given, a child’s name has a life of its own – after a while, it is what that child is called and not what was being thought of when the child was named. Latin American or African children named after Lenin are no more expected to be finely versed in What Is to Be Done? or Left-Wing Communism – an Infantile Disorder than African-Caribbean children called Winston are to have read A History of the English-Speaking Peoples . Names reflect the enthusiasms of the parents at the time of naming – they do not determine the course of a child’s life. Christian churches may from time to time try to say that children can only be baptised with the names of an approved list of canonical saints. In the event, this has never really stuck. Purely legendary saints such as Christopher may be dropped from official prayers , but no one – as far as I am aware – has ever tried to stop boys being named after him. Some names are taken straight from fiction – Wendy was a childhood nickname of JM Barrie which he used for the heroine of Peter Pan – but only the most punctilious of vicars would try to ban it. The theory is, presumably, that only an authenticated saint’s name is good enough – but this is just a piece of magical thinking. Like most trans people I know, I got to choose my name when I transitioned as an adult. A lot of my trans friends, as it happens, have chosen exotic names, though the only Lucretia and Drusilla I know were cis women, neither of whom showed any inclination to incest or poisoning. In my own case, what started as a literary joke rapidly got shortened to make a good byline. Almost no one calls me Rosalind any more except as a tease. The child Zowie Bowie grew up to be the film director Duncan Jones – we are not bound by our parents’ whims and enthusiasms or even their sense of what gender we are. The child Facebook Jamal Ibrahim will grow up in freedom – including the freedom, we hope, to abbreviate “Facebook” to the initials FB should that seem preferable to her, or lose it altogether. Egypt Arab and Middle East protests Facebook Social networking Social media Words and language Middle East Protest Roz Kaveney guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …The Tea Party Network’s Howard Kurtz Takes Issue With Ed Schultz Siding With Wisconsin Protesters
February 21, 2011 No Comment
Click here to view this media Howard Kurtz must not watch any of MSNBC’s daytime coverage if he’s going to paint the entire network as liberal and siding with the union members because of Ed Schultz’s coverage of the protests in Wisconsin. Apparently he missed this . Click here to view this media If he wants to paint Ed Schultz, Cenk Uygur, Rachel Maddow and Chris Hayes who’s filling in at night once in a while with that brush, that’s fine. But don’t pretend that most of the rest of their coverage has been anything other than either a mixed bag, full of half truths and false equivalencies or downright hostile the the people out there on the streets. And you’ve just got to love someone from a network that’s been openly promoting the astroturf “tea party” AND that has just hired Erick Erickson and Dana Loesch for some (cough) fair and balanced commentary, taking issue with Ed Schultz advocating for the union members. So promoting the Koch brothers and their corporate funded protests and hiring a couple of flaming right wingers as part of your “Best Political Team on Television” is a-okay, but promoting working people who don’t want their collective bargaining rights taken away is something a network anchor shouldn’t be advocating for. Gotcha Howard. Transcript via CNN below the fold. KURTZ: Now, Christina talked about conflict driving, you know, a lot of media coverage. And there’s been a lot of that in recent days in Wisconsin, where the new Republican governor, Scott Walker, not only trying to cut public employees’ benefits, but limit their ability to do collective bargaining. MSNBC has been all over this story, and Ed Schultz, the liberal host, has not only done his show from Madison, he seems to be functioning as a correspondent, and you would have to say kind of taking the side of the public union protesters. Let’s take a brief look at Schultz. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) ED SCHULTZ, HOST OF THE ED SCHULTZ SHOW: You want to turn your back on firefighters? You want to turn your back on police officers? You want to turn your back on nurses? You want to turn your back on brothers and sisters who have stood in solidarity to fight for middle class in America? Is that wrapping yourself in the flag? CROWD: No! (END VIDEO CLIP) KURTZ: Does it seem to you, Michael Medved, that MSNBC is taking one side of this debate in Wisconsin? MEDVED: Well, there is no doubt that they are. And look, one of problems here is that this is a kind of thing that is a bipartisan challenge. Andrew Cuomo in the state of New York is actually getting serious, it would appear, about doing the same kinds of reforms of the pension problems that Scott Walker is a little bit ahead of curve on. Look, just to disagree a little bit with John, where he says that there is no real urgency — that President Obama is right to say you need to be more patient — we are coming up to this debt extension vote. In other words, if we don’t raise the debt ceiling, the government goes into default. And that is very, very serious. I think that everybody can agree on that. And so, the need for some kind of plan to go forward, at least for the near-term future is immediate, it’s pressing and yes, it’s dramatic. And we all know that the press loves to cover dramatic things like Wisconsin and like confrontations on Capitol Hill. ARAVOSIS: I think it’s a bit of a phony analogy in the sense that I do want my government solving the problem of Social Security and Medicare and Medicaid in the next two weeks to deal with this sort of phony deadline we’ve been given with the budget limit. That’s — KURTZ: It’s a deadline that it is extended routinely. MEDVED: What’s phony about the deadline? ARAVOSIS: Two weeks? Michael — MEDVED: What’s phony about the deadline? (CROSSTALK) ARAVOSIS: Fair enough. Fair enough. But I don’t think we should be solving them by putting a gun to our heads and saying, you know what, you better come up with an answer on a huge problem in two weeks or else. BELLANTONI: They did have a year on this deficit commission. They did come out. (CROSSTALK) KURTZ: All right. Well, it’s going — we’re not going — ARAVOSIS: It’s not resolve yet. KURTZ: All right. It’s not going to be resolved in two weeks. It’s not going to be resolved here.
Continue reading …Brent Bozell to Discuss Biased Media Coverage of Wisconsin Budget Protests: 10:45 a.m. on Fox Business Network
February 21, 2011 No Comment
NewsBusters publisher and Media Research Center founder Brent Bozell will appear on “Varney & Co.” on the Fox Business Channel at about 10:45 am ET today
Continue reading …
The main headlines on Al Jazeera English, featuring the latest news and reports from around the world.
Continue reading …
British newspapers are reporting some truly shocking details about what happened to CBS's Lara Logan when she was attacked in Egypt after President Hosni Mubarak resigned. Originally revealed by the Sunday Times (subscription required), the following appeared in Monday's Daily Mail: According to one source, reported in The Sunday Times newspaper, sensitive parts of her body were covered in red marks that were originally thought to have been bite marks. After further examination they were revealed to be from aggressive pinching. It has also been revealed that she was stripped, punched and slapped by the crowd, which was labelling her a spy and chanting 'Israeli' and 'Jew' as they beat her. And medical sources have revealed
Continue reading …
Montana State Representative thinks global warming is a good thing for Montana. He has even proposed legislation called ” an Act Stating Montana’s Position on Global Warming ” that says: (a) global warming is beneficial to the welfare and business climate of Montana; (b) reasonable amounts of carbon dioxide released into the atmosphere have no verifiable impacts on the environment; and (c) global warming is a natural occurrence and human activity has not accelerated it. What could be more reasonable and sensible? That’s why I’m
Continue reading …