Speaking to a Netroots gathering, the Minnesota senator called net neutrality the “free speech issue of our time” and condemned the FCC’s decision to “create essentially two Internets.” Franken also said of the FCC-approved union of Comcast and NBC, “I hate this merger,” adding “Now is the time to decide if we want four or five companies owning and delivering all of our information and entertainment.” Wired: The rules mark the “first time the FCC has ever allowed discrimination on the Internet” and they “will create essentially two Internets.” When it comes to the Comcast merger, Franken was even more vocal. “As you probably know, I hate this merger,” he told the group. Not only will it raise prices on TV subscriptions, it will give the combined entity incredible power to stifle competition from online sources like Netflix. Read more Related Entries January 19, 2011 House Huffs, Puffs, Blows Health Care Down January 19, 2011 Obama and Hu Play Up the Positive
Continue reading …Between Bill O’Reilly in this clip, CSPAN callers (who I’m convinced are often paid to call and start spewing talking points), and our elected representatives, we are witnessing the Great Revival of the Emergency Room Lie. It goes like this: Everyone has access to health care because emergency rooms have to treat people who walk through their doors. You can hear the expanded version in the video above, or tune into CSPAN between House votes on the replay of today’s shenanigans to hear your ‘everyday caller’ talk about it. With citations to the law, even. Ezra Klein would like us to remember young Diamonte Driver , the uninsured 12-year old who died from an abcessed tooth. He had access to emergency services. In February 2007, Deamonte Driver died of an infected tooth. But he didn’t really die of an infected tooth. He died because he didn’t have consistent insurance. If he’d had an Aetna card, a dentist would’ve removed the tooth earlier, and the bacteria that filled the abscess would never have spread to his brain. Deamonte Driver was 12. His insurance status wasn’t his fault. Because who thinks an abcessed tooth is something one can get treated in an emergency room, after all? Sure, Deamonte Driver had access to the emergency room. He even went to the emergency room, finally. He was there long enough to die. Washington Post, 2007: Twelve-year-old Deamonte Driver died of a toothache Sunday. A routine, $80 tooth extraction might have saved him. If his mother had been insured. If his family had not lost its Medicaid. If Medicaid dentists weren’t so hard to find. If his mother hadn’t been focused on getting a dentist for his brother, who had six rotted teeth. By the time Deamonte’s own aching tooth got any attention, the bacteria from the abscess had spread to his brain, doctors said. After two operations and more than six weeks of hospital care, the Prince George’s County boy died. Deamonte’s death and the ultimate cost of his care, which could total more than $250,000, underscore an often-overlooked concern in the debate over universal health coverage: dental care. That’s how that ‘everyone gets care in an emergency room’ thing works. No preventive. No basic services. You go when it’s escalated to an emergency, when it costs a fortune for treatment and the chances of death or permanent disability are even higher. Here’s something else that happens. Hospitals that handle large numbers of the poor and indigent in their emergency rooms end up closing, because they lack the funding to keep treating patients when they are not being paid. Martin Luther King Hospital in LA closed about six months after Deamonte Driver died. The most crucial closure was that of MLK’s emergency room , which shut its doors at 7 p.m. last Friday night. Plus, all of the facility’s inpatient care will be parceled out to other hospitals in the next 10 days, said Chernof. But an “urgent-care center” will operate in the hospital, he said — an on-site clinic that deals with non-emergency issues such as fever, rashes, burns, insect bites and fractures. And the medical center’s walk-in clinics — dealing with such specialties as HIV/AIDS, diabetes and infertility — will remain open. It is now 2011, and LA County Supervisor Mark Ridley-Thomas has been working to get Martin Luther King Medical Center re-opened. Ridley-Thomas’ foremost achievement, say his aides, has been his effort to restore in-patient medical services at MLK. Over the past year, a new board of directors has been established at the hospital, which will be independently governed as a nonprofit enterprise. The board, Harris said, will be tasked with managing and operating the facility, while the county will contract its services. “The other significant development related to the hospital in particular is that we have begun the process of building out the in-patient tower, the existing seismically compliant tower that is associated with the old hospital,” Harris said, adding that the top three floors of the six-floor building are a shell right now but the design stage is underway. Additionally, the south public health center, adjacent to the campus, broke ground last year and is about 50 percent complete , Harris said. The building is currently being weatherproofed. Interior work will proceed in the next few months. Completion is expected by April, with the center operating by September. County officials say they continue to receive cooperation from the state and while a possible repeal of the healthcare bill signed by President Barack Obama may have an impact on the county’s ability to have the hospital in full operation by spring 2013, they do not foresee it. That last paragraph hints at the reason they’ve been able to move ahead with re-opening this hospital. First, because their public health center will receive substantial federal funds under the portion of the Affordable Care Act funding community health centers, thanks to Senator Bernie Sanders. Second, because they can develop a financial plan that actually delivers health care before it becomes an emergency, and that delivery will be paid for under the Affordable Care Act. So much for the everyone gets care at emergency rooms nonsense, eh, BillO? This recycled Republican talking lie (not a point, just a lie) points to what liars they are about the ‘replace’ part of their repeal campaign pledge. They don’t want to replace anything. They think it’s just fine for people to go without routine, basic health care and head over to the local ER when something might be life-threatening. It all makes me sick, but I’m pretty certain Fox Fever is a pre-existing condition.
Continue reading …This interested me , because I was just thinking to myself that Glenn Beck was probably a dry drunk. If you know someone who’s successfully been through a 12-step program, you probably know what I mean. Because the AA veterans I know are some of the most truly compassionate, non-judgmental people I’ve ever met, and they have a real sense of humor about their shortcomings. They live their principles. Beck seems to think that speaking calmly and reasonably some of the time simply cancels out all the other hateful, divisive nonsense, and his new line is that it’s all just “political discourse.” That strikes me as nuts, because what Beck does is deliver his information is a very consistent frame: Certain people are doing unthinkable, illegal, immoral things that are undermining the Constitution and destroying our country. He insinuates this in such a way that any listener who thinks of themselves as a patriotic American simply has no choice but to hate and hopefully destroy the people Beck tells them to hate — because what moral person wouldn’t? Glenn Beck appeared on the “Today” show Wednesday to promote his new self-help book, “The 7,” and he wound up clashing with Meredith Vieira about his political views and saying that he used to be “a very bad man.” Beck appeared with his co-author, Keith Ablow. Vieira told Beck that, from his own account in the book, it seemed like he had been a “nasty guy” in the past. “I was a guy that I would’ve hated,” Beck said. “I was a very bad man.” That’s when Vieira turned to Beck’s professional life. She noted that one of the things he advocates in the book is letting go of anger, and that, especially in the wake of the Arizona shooting, critics have accused him of “adding to this dialogue with hatred.” She tried to run through a list of some of his more controversial statements, and they talked over each other as each tried to make their points. At one point, Ablow jumped in, defending Beck. “If you’re the therapist for the country, you have to tell the truth,” he said. “He says to the country…’you’re drunk.’ ” “Do you really think that people don’t know the things that I say?” Beck said, as Vieira started to highlight some of his statements. She asked him if he regretted any of them. He said that he didn’t regret any “jokes” he had made about people. “You don’t think that that contributes at all to a climate of anger or hate?” Vieira said. “Ask Jon Stewart that,” Beck said. “Ask The Simpsons that question.” “I’m asking you that question,” she replied.
Continue reading …Hmmm. Elisabeth Hasselbeck seems to have forgotten that she called Palin’s crosshairs ad ‘despicable’
January 20, 2011 No Comment
Click here to view this media Here’s Elisabeth Hasselbeck last night on Sean Hannity’s Fox News show, making excuses for Sarah Palin and her inexcusable “crosshairs” ads after the shooting of Gabrielle Giffords, one of the ad’s targets: HANNITY: You know, I fear we are getting to the point, you can’t say anything — you can’t say war room, you can’t say targeting. You can’t, you know, say, we are going to put a bull’s-eye on a map. HASSELBECK: Yes we can say that. And I will use yes we can. And this is why I believe and I think the more that we link and say, we cannot say anything — I mean, look, I grew up in a family that was based on speak kind words as much as possible and if you don’t, apologize. Work hard and operate with integrity. That goes without saying. I think most civil people in the United States of America agree that you shouldn’t go outside of those boundaries. Right now to even say that we have to curb what we’re saying only links any rhetoric to what happened in Tucson. There’s no link. We haven’t found a link. There’s no evidence that man even watched cable news. That he heard Sarah Palin say anything or saw the map with crosshairs. None. So the more that this conversation continues, in my opinion, it is a weak link that is trying to be strengthened by the left to Sarah and this man again. And here’s Hasselbeck last March, when she agreed with her colleagues at The View that the ads were outrageous and dangerous: Click here to view this media “This hasn’t been a great week in terms of, I think, the Constitution and where it says that you’re supposed to, you know, everybody is, has a mandate to have insurance. But I think the way some Republicans are handling this is nothing more than purely despicable,” Hasselbeck said. “The names that are next to and being highlighted by those crosshairs — I think it’s an abuse of the Second Amendment. I also feel as though every single person on here is a mother, a father, a friend, a brother, a sister, and to take it to this level is — it’s disappointing to see this come from the Party, and I would hope that leaders like Sarah Palin would end this.” Joy Behar thanked her for it, shaking her hand. “Republicans are not speaking out against this and you may be the first one to do it, and I salute you, my girl.” Whoopi Goldberg would say “Republicans, whatever comes from this it’s on your heads.” Something else Hasselbeck said was just flat-out bats–t crazy: HANNITY: It is very sinister to me because I think there’s an effort here to silence opposition voices. And, you know, to exploit a tragedy within two hours the way Paul Krugman did. Now, you really point out, this guy worshipped skulls, he is an atheist, he read Mein Kampf, The Communist Manifesto and smoked dope, and never listen to talk radio according to friends and never watch political debate and hated George Bush. But the narrative has been blame conservatives. HASSELBECK: But we never heard any of that for the first four days. You know, the left wing media, unfortunately Sean, and I’ve been trying not to have to blame anybody in this situation for, you know, wrecking the American people heard by unfortunately, they were so drunk on this cocktail of trying to convict Sarah Palin, that they neglected — when I say neglect, that is with a huge bet that I will say that, neglected to give the American people information because they weren’t searching for it. They had already found their killer. They had already given a man total justification for taking a gun and taking the lives of several human beings and then trying to take the lives of more. Awful, I mean, today we are blessed with the news, right? We have great news about Giffords. And I think that that should have been their first priority, giving us the news, making sure that we understood that the rest were safe. They had the killer. But if you are a crazy person out there, and you know that you have an automatic out to blame it on a politician, what do you think you are going to do? They are lucky that not one more person went out on a spree that day. What? Excuse me? Did I hear this right? Is Hasselbeck actually claiming that the people who warned against the potential for violence being inspired by Palin’s ads were actually giving an excuse to the killer? Not only is that more outrageously speculative than anything written yet about Loughner, it points the finger right back at herself — since at the time, she was one of the people criticizing Palin for the ads. I guess Hasselbeck is blaming herself for Jared Loughner. Who’da thunk?
Continue reading …
By Ron Kovic As this, the 43rd anniversary of my wounding in Vietnam approaches, and I once again try to find meaning in that day and the days which were to follow, my thoughts return to the northern bank of the Cua Viet River on Jan. 20, 1968. It is a day that will change my life forever. Related Entries January 18, 2011 What It Was Like to Be John F. Kennedy December 31, 2010 Raise Your Voices, Protest, Stop These Wars
Continue reading …
On Wednesday's CBS Evening News, anchor Katie Couric was dismissive of a vote by House Republicans to repeal ObamaCare as she asked congressional correspondent Nancy Cordes: “There is no chance this repeal will succeed, it's a largely symbolic measure. So what's the point?” Cordes described it as “the first step in their long-term effort to wipe this health care law off the books.” Cordes proclaimed that “The party line vote capped a vigorous debate….In which Republicans vilified the health care law , and Democrats exalted it.” However, only seconds earlier in the report, an image appeared on screen of the House of Representatives vote tally, showing that three Democratic members of Congress joined Republicans in voting for repeal. No sound bites of those three Democrats were featured. In a brief moment of balance, Cordes noted a particularly vicious attack by Democrat Steve Cohen of Tennessee during the floor debate: “A tentative agreement to tone down the rhetoric was shattered when one Democrat likened Republican claims about the law to Nazi propaganda.” What Cordes left out was the fact that Cohen also used the phrase “blood libel” in his rant, something which CBS attacked Sarah Palin for just days earlier. On the January 13 Evening News , correspondent Chip Reid claimed that Palin “ignited a new controversy by using the term” in her Facebook video response to the Tucson shooting. As NewsBusters' Scott Whitlock reported earlier , Wednesday's NBC Nightly News skipped Cohen's outrageous comments completely. Cordes quickly went back to focusing on the tone of Republicans: “The most vocal critics of the law were the dozens of new Republican members who made repeal a top campaign promise.” She added that “Democrats called the repeal vote pure politics.” Concluding the segment, Cordes asserted the futility of the repeal effort: “House Republicans say that the law is just too flawed, that tweeks aren't enough, and that they want to draft legislation to replace it. But as long as Democrats control the Senate, neither the repeal nor the replacement have any chance of becoming law.” Here is a full transcript of the segment: 6:35PM ET KATIE COURIC: Now to a different issue involving big money. Late today, the new Republican-controlled House voted to repeal health care reform. Congressional correspondent Nancy Cordes is on Capitol Hill tonight. Nancy, there is no chance this repeal will succeed, it's a largely symbolic measure. So what's the point? NANCY CORDES: Well, Katie, Republicans will contend that this was absolutely not for show, that it was just the first step in their long-term effort to wipe this health care law off the books. UNIDENTIFIED MAN [REPUBLICAN MEMBER OF CONGRESS]: On this vote, the yeas are 245, the nos 189. The bill is passed. CORDES: The party line vote capped a vigorous debate. MICHELE BACHMANN [REP. R-MN]: ObamaCare, as we know, is the crown jewel of socialism. CORDES: In which Republicans vilified the health care law, and Democrats exalted it. MIKE PENCE [REP. R-IN]: When you order every American to buy health insurance, whether they want it or need it or not, that's a government takeover of health care. ANTHONY WEINER [REP. D-NY]: Really? Who's taking over what health care plan? Who? We're offering people tax incentives – small businesses tax incentives to go buy private insurance plans. CORDES: A tentative agreement to tone down the rhetoric was shattered when one Democrat likened Republican claims about the law to Nazi propaganda. STEVE COHEN [REP. D-TN]: You say it enough, you repeat the lie, you repeat the lie, you repeat the lie, and eventually people believe it. The Germans said enough about the Jews, and the people believed it, and you had the Holocaust. CORDES: The most vocal critics of the law were the dozens of new Republican members who made repeal a top campaign promise. TODD ROKITA [REP. R-IN]: The people of Indiana sent me to Washington D.C. with very specific instructions – get the government out of our lives. CORDES: Democrats called the repeal vote pure politics. ELIOT ENGEL [REP. D-NY]: The American people want us to work together. This is not the way to do it. If there's a problem with the bill, we should tweak it. CORDES: House Republicans say that the law is just too flawed, that tweeks aren't enough, and that they want to draft legislation to replace it. But as long as Democrats control the Senate, neither the repeal nor the replacement have any chance of becoming law. Katie. COURIC: Nancy Cordes on Capitol Hill tonight. Nancy, thank you. — Kyle Drennen is a news analyst at the Media Research Center. You can follow him on Twitter here.
Continue reading …Polls show President Obama’s talk on Social Security is turning voters off to the Democratic Party’s handling of the program
January 20, 2011 No CommentSocial Security has been a bedrock of the Democratic Party since its inception, and I find this post by Dan Froomkin devastating. Obama’s Social Security Talk Is Turning Voters Off, Pollsters Say President Barack Obama’s apparent willingness to consider cuts in Social Security benefits may be winning him points with Washington elites, but it’s killing him with voters, who see the program as inviolate and may start to wonder what the Democratic Party stands for, if not for Social Security. That’s the conclusion of three top progressive pollsters who spoke to reporters Wednesday at a briefing sponsored by the Economic Policy Institute, the Century Foundation and Demos. “For the public, cutting benefits is the problem, not the solution,” said Guy Molyneux, a partner at Hart Research Associates. As a result, the pollsters said that any Democrat seeking elected office in 2012 should be begging Obama not to say anything about Social Security cuts in his State of the Union address later this month. A post-election poll by Celinda Lake’s Lake Research Partners found that, by a margin of 3 percentage points, Americans now trust Republicans in Congress more than Democrats when it comes to Social Security — surely the first time since the program became a signature issue for the Democratic Party in the 1930s. The poll found confidence in Democrats on the issue dropping 14 points just since January 2007, accompanied by a 13-point increase for Republicans. The public favors congressional Republicans over Obama on Social Security by an even larger 6-point margin. Obama’s 26-percent rating is not only less than half Bill Clinton’s (53 percent), it’s even lower than that of George W. Bush (37 percent), whose proposal to privatize the program went down in flames. It’s hard to overstate how shocking this new dynamic is. In the two previous low points for Democrats — June 1995 and April 2002 — Democrats still had a 10-point advantage on Social Security. That the public would trust Republicans more on this issue was, until recently, inconceivable. The pollsters had no doubt that the turnaround stems from statements by Obama and other Democratic leaders expressing their openness to cuts in Social Security. “It’s the rhetoric that says things like, ‘Everything is on the table,’” said Lake. “That’s not how the public feels. This isn’t a policy debate in the public’s mind, this is a core value.”… read on These results are depressing. To think that American believe Republicans, who clearly have been trying to destroy everything associated with FDR’s New Deal, are more trustworthy in dealing with Social Security is absurd. I think a lot of the blame can be laid at the feet of the ridiculous creation of the Cat Food Commission . Kowtowing to the Beltway media and the GOP on the issue of our national debt not only strengthened their position with Americans, but also weakened the outlook Americans have on the entire Democratic Party. Can you imagine what would have happened to America if Bush’s plan to privatize Social Security had not failed and millions of Americans had put their retirement into the hands of Wall Street at a time when they created a global financial collapse? Even if President Obama has no plans to cut benefits or even accept any of the recommendations that the commission proposed, (which he told us at the White House Bloggers meeting) it’s obvioulsy had a chilling effect on our nation and how the President is being perceived on this issue. The bipartisan fetish coupled with the neoliberal outlook on our economy can’t be minimized. Mr. President, I hope you address the issue of Social Security in your SOTU and assure the American public that you have no plans to cut benefits one iota. Ever. Politically it’s a winner since many seniors are voters — and morally, it’s just. The base wants to stand tall and fight with you all the way on this issue. James Gailbrath has an incredible piece that you’ve probably read already which bucks the Beltway conventional wisdom on Social Security and simply states that a case could be made to temporarily lower the age to 62, which would then help the economy recover. The answer is obvious. Older people who would like to retire and would do so if they could afford it should get some help. The right step is to reduce, not increase, the full-benefits retirement age. As a rough cut, why not enact a three-year window during which the age for receiving full Social Security benefits would drop to 62 — providing a voluntary, one-time, grab-it-now bonus for leaving work? Let them go home! With a secure pension and medical care, they will be happier. Young people who need work will be happier. And there will also be more jobs. With pension security, older people will consume services until the end of their lives. They will become, each and every one, an employer. A proposal like this could transform a miserable jobs picture into a tolerable one, at a single stroke. Thom Hartmann proposed this same type of fix back in 2009. As always, Thom Hartmann makes a lot of sense : One of the most powerful forms of stimulus we could apply to our economy right now would be to lower the current Social Security retirement age from the current 65-67 to 55, and increase the benefits back to where they were in inflation-adjusted 1960s dollars by raising them between 10 to 20 percent (so people could actually live, albeit modestly, on Social Security). The right-wing reaction to this, of course, will be to say that with fewer people working and more people drawing benefits, it would bankrupt Social Security and destroy the economy. But history shows the exact reverse. Instead, it would eliminate the problem of unemployment in the United States. All those Boomers retiring would make room in the labor market for all the recent high-school and college graduates who are now finding it so hard to find a job. Hartmann goes on in the article to discuss in detail about how lowering the retirement age would open up thousands of jobs nationwide, and how wages for working class Americans have been devastated since the days of Ronald Reagan and our old pal Alan Greenspan started gutting unions and trying to lower our standard of living. Now this is having an adult conversation on Social Security, but to the elitist gasbags it’s a nonstarter.
Continue reading …After Linking Conservatives to Hateful Rhetoric, NBC Skips Dem Who Compared the GOP to Nazis
January 20, 2011 No Comment
After spending close to two weeks bemoaning the state of political dialogue in America and wondering about its connection to the shooting of a Congresswoman, NBC has, thus far, completely ignored a Democratic Representative comparing the Republicans to Nazis and the Holocaust. On Wednesday, Tennessee Congressman Steve Cohen smeared, “They say it's a government takeover of health care. A big lie, like Goebbels…The Germans said enough about the Jews, and the people believed it and you had the Holocaust.” Both ABC and CBS reported the story, but NBC skipped it on Wednesday's Nightly News and on Thursday's Today show. Yet, on January 10, 2011 , NBC's Andrea Mitchell warned, “While there is no evidence [Sarah Palin's] Web site featuring a target on Giffords' district had anything to do with this attack, some are asking if today's political rhetoric is inspiring the lunatic fringe?” On Wednesday's Today , Today co-host Meredith Vieira hectored Glenn Beck: “I mean there are people who've criticized you and said…you're part of the problem in terms of anger…you've added to this dialogue of hatred.” In his speech, given on the floor of the House of Representatives, Representative Cohen compared the GOP position on health care to that of Nazi propaganda minister Joseph Goebbels. Considering the NBC's focus on the subject of hateful words, wouldn't this have been an important story to mention? Over on ABC, Jon Karl discussed the remarks on the Wednesday World News and the Thursday Good Morning America. Co-host Robin Roberts chided, “It's never a sign of civility to compare your opponent's tactics to those of the Nazis. But that is exactly what one Democratic congressman did.” Karl then explained, “Last night, the Anti-Defamation League condemned Congressman Cohen's words. Saying, quote, that 'invoking the holocaust and the Nazi effort to exterminate the Jewish people is offensive and has no place in civil political discourse.'” A CBS reporter referenced the comments on the Wednesday Evening News, but not Thursday's Early Show. Nancy Cordes observed, “A tentative agreement to tone down the rhetoric was shattered when one Democratic likened Republican claims about the law to Nazi propaganda.” A transcript of the January 20 GMA segment, which aired at 7:10am EST, follows: ROBIN ROBERTS: Politics, as you know, was put on hold in Washington, in the aftermath of the Tucson shootings. But the new civility seems to be at an end. In the House, voting Wednesday to repeal the health care law and the debate, at times, was, really, not so civil. Jonathan Karl has more. He joins us from the Capitol this morning. Good morning, Jon. JON KARL: Good morning, Robin. It's never a sign of civility to compare your opponent's tactics to those of the Nazis. But that is exactly what one Democratic congressman did. The Republicans hailed the vote, as a promise kept. REP. MIKE PENCE (R-IN): Today, House Republicans are going to stand with the American people and vote to repeal their government takeover of health care, lock, stock and barrel. KARL: Repeal will hit a brick wall in the Senate. But Republicans made it clear, they won't stop there. REP. MICHELE BACHMANN (R-MN): We will not stop until we repeal a President and put a President in the position of the White House, who will repeal this bill. Until we repeal the current senate, and put in a Senate that will listen to the American people. And repeal this bill. KARL: Their next plan of attack, starve health care reform of funding. For example, no money for IRS agents needed to implement the law's tax provisions. The debate was, for the most part, civil. But one Democratic Congressman accused Republicans of using Nazi-like tactics to make their case. REP. STEVE COHEN (D-TN): They say it's a government takeover of health care. A big lie, like Goebbels. You say it enough. You repeat the lie. You repeat the lie. You repeat the lie. And eventually, people believe it. Like blood libel. That's the same kind of thing. The Germans said enough about the Jews, and the people believed it and you had the Holocaust. KARL: Last night, the Anti-Defamation League condemned Congressman Cohen's words. Saying, quote, that “Invoking the holocaust and the Nazi effort to exterminate the Jewish people is offensive and has no place in civil political discourse.” Robin? ROBERTS: Jon, has the Congressman apologized at all? KARL: Absolutely not. In fact, he is standing by his words. And says that he has no intentions of apologizing. — Scott Whitlock is a news analyst for the Media Research Center. Click here to follow him on Twitter .
Continue reading …My sunny optimist self is pushing back against all the sad, bad news lately, so like it or not, I’m going to serve up some very, very good news to break up the flow. Beginning with the best news of all : Rep. Gabby Giffords stood up on her own yesterday, with help. Not only did she stand up to look at the mountains, but she scrolled through pictures on her husband’s iPhone, and may be moved to rehab in Houston as early as Friday . Ms. Giffords’s husband, Capt. Mark E. Kelly, a naval officer and astronaut who lives in Houston, said in the statement: “I am extremely hopeful at the signs of recovery that my wife has made since the shooting. The team of doctors and nurses at U.M.C. has stabilized her to the point of being ready to move to the rehabilitation phase. Their goal — and our goal — has been to provide Gabby with the best care possible.” Captain Kelly said the center in Houston had “a national reputation for treating serious penetrating brain injuries, and is also in a community where I have family and a strong support network.” To me, this is nothing short of a miracle. Less than 2 weeks after being shot, to stand on her own, to be nearly ready to move to the rehabilitation phase? Amazing. In other news, the Chinese pandas get to stay in Washington DC for five more years. This makes me happy. I love pandas. Joe Lieberman is officially gone in 2012 . Let the best liberal win that seat. In approval ratings-land, the honeymoon is over for congressional Republicans . Just 25 percent say that the Republicans in Congress will bring “the right kind of change” to the country. That’s compared with 42 percent who said that after Democrats took over the House in 2007, and 37 percent who said that after Republicans gained control in 1995. And attitudes about the Republican Party have declined, with 34 percent viewing the GOP positively and 40 percent negatively — down from its 38-37 percent favorable/unfavorable rating last month. By comparison, the Democratic Party’s fav/unfav in the current poll is 39-35 percent, up from its 37-41 percents score from last month. As the topper, the awesome news that Sarah Palin’s approval ratings are at an all-time low . Keep talkin’, Sarah. Here’s this wonderful tidbit for dessert. It seems that Glenn Beck and Sean Hannity have been dropped from their usual slots on right wing hate radio in Philadelphia. That’s two Philly stations that have dropped Beck. Keep going…
Continue reading …
enlarge Wow. Sounds like we’re really making some inroads with the Fox propaganda machine: A poll gauging public trust in TV news has found that PBS is the most trusted name in news, while trust in Fox News has dropped significantly. According to a survey from Public Policy Polling, “a year ago a plurality of Americans said they trusted Fox News. Now a plurality of them don’t. “In a survey taken a year ago, PPP found that Fox was the most trusted news network, with 49 percent saying they trusted the network, and 37 percent saying they did not. In the new poll, 42 percent said they trusted the network while 46 percent disagreed.The new reigning champion is PBS, which was not included in last year’s inaugural poll. The public broadcaster was found to be trusted by 50 percent of respondents, and distrusted by 30 percent — the closest any news network has come to gaining the trust of a majority of Americans. Fox News has found itself in roughly the same place, trust-wise, as NBC and CNN, but still above ABC and CBS, who were trusted by 35 and 36 percent, respectively, in the latest poll.PPP notes that trust in the network declined only marginally among conservatives, from 75 percent to 72 percent. “But moderates and liberals have both had a strong increase in their level of distrust for the network — a 12-point gain from 48 percent to 60 percent for moderates and a 16-point gain from 66 percent to 82 percent for liberals,” the institute reported.
Continue reading …