Home » Posts tagged with » media (Page 720)

It really sickens me to listen to the hypocrisy of western politicians calling for both sides to “exercise restraint” in the popular protests that are now sweeping across the Arab world ( Death tolls rise in Bahrain and Libya , 19 February). These same politicians have maintained a deafening silence for years when it suited them to support a swath of autocratic (often oil-rich) Arab governments. I think in particular of Libya, which I recently visited as an academic from a leading UK university. Having moved from pariah to western friend, it was awash with new American oilmen making big bucks and contractors building the first western hotels. But those few frightened Libyans who would risk talking to me spoke of 40 years of totalitarian rule, political prisoners, torture and the complete impossibility of change. In the last couple of days one of my Libyan students here in the UK managed to contact his family in the east of the country (internet down, many tele phones cut off and no journalists) and they spoke of cold-blooded massacres by “foreign mercenaries brought in from neighbouring countries”. The words of that student, in tears in my office, still ring chillingly in my ears: “He [Gaddafi] is completely mad. This is not in like Egypt or Tunisia. He will massacre every one. May God help us all!” Name and address supplied • What are teargas canisters and “crowd control ammunition” ( UK supplied weapons used in Bahrain crackdown , 18 February) if not weapons “which might be used to facilitate internal repression”? Why were licences for them approved after the government had “closely consider[ed] allegations of human rights abuses”? Allan Baker Kettering, Northamptonshire Libya Bahrain Egypt Tunisia Middle East Protest guardian.co.uk

Continue reading …
Howard Kurtz in Lara Logan Segment Says Schlussel’s Conservative, Doesn’t Mention Rosen’s Liberal

Howard Kurtz devoted a good part of “Reliable Sources” Sunday to the attack on CBS's Lara Logan when Egypt's Hosni Mubarak resigned as President. As he addressed some disgraceful comments made about the incident by members of the media, Kurtz made it clear to viewers that Debbie Schlussel was a conservative, better never once depicted Nir Rosen as a liberal (video follows with transcript and commentary): HOWARD KURTZ, HOST: After CBS's Lara Logan was beaten and sexually assaulted in Cairo, a journalist named Nir Rosen, who's written for “The New Yorker” and “The Nation” among others, lost his job at NYU Fellow for tweeting the following, Lara Logan had to outdo Anderson, meaning Anderson Cooper who was roughed up in Cairo. It would have been funny if it happened to Anderson too. Nir Rosen went on Cooper's 360 and here's what he had to say. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) ANDERSON COOPER, HOST “ANDERSON COOPER 360″: Nir, how do you explain your tweets? NIR ROSEN, FREELANCE JOURNALIST: I don't have an explanation. I was a jerk. It was 2:00 in the morning and I was being thoughtless, forgetting that I wasn't just talking to a couple of people, that I was talking, in theory, to hundreds of thousands of people. (END VIDEO CLIP) As that clip was playing, the chyron at the bottom of the screen said, “Nir Rosen, Freelance Journalist.” Nothing about him being a liberal: KURTZ: Mary Elizabeth Williams, what he wrote was appalling, but he apologized profusely. Was this an overreaction for him to lose his job? MARY ELIZABETH WILLIAMS, SERVED AS CULTURE CRITIC FOR PUBLIC RADIO INTERNATIONAL'S “THE TAKEAWAY”WILLIAMS: And he also — he apologized. He expanded upon that in salon.com this week, where he said, again, that he apologized, but then he also backhandedly started talking about how he was so outraged that this attention only comes when, as he put it, the pretty blond lady has something happen to her. So is the outrage justified? It depends on who you're talking to. I know he's received threats. I think people have harassed him. That's never excusable. That's never the right reaction. Should he have lost his job. Yes, I think he should have because I think what he said was despicable. KURTZ: All right. Tweeting at 2:00 in the morning in dangerous. Now watch how Kurtz made it a point that Schlussel was conservative: KURTZ: Donatella Lorch, a conservative blogger named Debbie Schlussel wrote the following: “So sad, too bad, Lara. No one told her to go there. She knew the risks. And then this. How fitting that Lara Logan was 'liberated' by Muslims in Liberation Square while she was gushing over the other part of the liberation. Hope you're enjoying the revolution, Lara.” What are we to make of that? While he was speaking, this was on the screen clearly denoting Schlussel as a “Conservative Political Commentator”: As such, two mentions of Schlussel's political leaning but nothing about Rosen's. Why, Howie?

Continue reading …
Rumsfeld: WMD issue was ‘the big one’ in deciding to invade Iraq

Click here to view this media Former Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld said Sunday that the Bush’s administration’s erroneous belief that there were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq was not the only reason for invasion, but it was “the big one.” “I think the concern I had that the information we had was imperfect,” Rumsfeld told CNN’s Candy Crowley. “It was more than imperfect,” Crowley interrupted. “Some of it was just flat wrong.” An Iraqi defector, codenamed Curveball, who allegedly helped convince the Bush administration that Saddam Hussein had a secret stash of biological and chemical weapons, admitted this week that he made it all up. Rafid Ahmed Alwan al-Janabi told The Guardian that he invented the stories to help topple Saddam Hussein, but was shocked when the US used tales as an excuse to go to war. “Well, the intelligence community talks to hundreds of people,” Rumsfeld explained. “They have human assets such as this man. Some are honest. Some are dishonest. Some do it for money and some do it for self-aggrandizement and some just lie.” “Did anyone say ‘give me the person who gave the intelligence’ because sitting here listening to you, to me, the fault of the war was the intelligence community — the false premise of the war?” Crowley asked. “Well, first of all, there were a variety of reasons for the war, not simply WMD,” Rumsfeld replied. “If you looked at the resolution from the Congress, there were multiple reasons, and if you looked at the UN resolution, there were multiple reasons so it wasn’t a sole reason.” “But it was the big one,” Crowley observed. “No question it was the big one,” Rumsfeld agreed. “I think probably people would argue to you that we wouldn’t have gone in had we said ‘no, they didn’t have weapons of mass destruction,’” Crowley noted. “I think that’s probably right. A great many people would not,” Rumsfeld admitted.

Continue reading …
Democratic Party:  Want To Know Why You Struggle During Elections?  Stop Using GOP Terminology

Click here to view this media (h/t Heather at VideoCafe ) It’s a well-known truism in public relations, advertising and most importantly, politics: He who controls the framing wins the argument. So perhaps it’s not a surprise that the DLC is closing its doors under Harold Ford’s chairmanship . Because, honestly, is there a bigger Republican in the Democratic Party than Harold Ford? As a favorite and repeated member of David Gregory’s Meet the Press round table, Ford is the GOP Party’s best advocate, routinely undermining Democratic principles and platforms by not only accepting GOP framing, but actively pushing it . How sick is it that the purported spokesperson for the Democratic Leadership Council does nothing more than echo the pandering Lindsay Graham ? Once again, the very young, well-compensated Ford has no problem with extending the age of full benefits for Social Security to 70. Well, when the most arduous thing you do at work is pucker up to Republican memes, I’m sure you can imagine another 30 years of working. But tell me, Harold, what about the vast majority of people who rely on Social Security as the primary source of income in their retirement? Should we make truck drivers stay on the road to the age of 70? What do we say to those with back-breaking blue collar jobs? Suck it up until you’re 70? Should my grandmother have been doing the surprisingly physical work of nursing terminal patients in her 70s? My mother is not yet 70. By Ford’s calculation, she should still be working, the freeloader, instead of caring for my grandmother, allowing her the dignity of remaining at home despite her age-related dementia. Harold, you selfish prick, do you consider anyone’s situation beyond your own cushy existence when speaking out AGAINST the Democratic platform? As George Lakoff says : Democrats help radical conservatives by accepting the deficit frame and arguing about what to cut. Even arguing against specific “cuts” is working within the conservative frame. What is the alternative? Pointing out what conservatives really want. Point out that there is plenty of money in America, and in Wisconsin. It is at the top. The disparity in financial assets is un-American – the top one percent has more financial assets than the bottom 95 percent. Middle-class wages have been flat for 30 years, while the wealth has floated to the top. This fits the conservative way of life, but not the American way of life. Democrats help conservatives by not shouting out loud, over and over, that it was conservative values that caused the global economic collapse: lack of regulation and a greed-is-good ethic. Democrats also help conservatives by what a friend has called “Democratic Communication Disorder.” Republican conservatives have constructed a vast and effective communication system, with think tanks, framing experts, training institutes, a system of trained speakers, vast holdings of media and booking agents. Eighty percent of the talking heads on TV are conservatives. Talk matters, because language heard over and over changes brains. Democrats have not built the communication system they need, and many are relatively clueless about how to frame their deepest values and complex truths. And Democrats help conservatives when they function as policy wonks — talking policy without communicating the moral values behind the policies. They help conservatives when they neglect to remind us that pensions are deferred payments for work done. “Benefits” are pay for work, not a handout. Pensions and benefits are arranged by contract. If there is not enough money for them, it is because the contracted funds have been taken by conservative officials and given to wealthy people and corporations instead of to the people who have earned them. Democrats help conservatives when they use conservative words like “entitlements” instead of “earnings” and speak of government as providing “services” instead of “necessities.” I’ve been really angry by the lack of progressive voices on these shows. And Harold Ford–the ultimate in entitlement figures–is emblematic of the dangers inherent in a system that gives Ann Coulter a platform but still blackballs progressives like Markos Moulitsas. Please Democrats, for the love and continuation of this democracy, STOP USING REPUBLICAN MEMES!

Continue reading …
Lindsay Graham is happy he’s rich enough to have his Social Security age raised to 70

Click here to view this media (h/t Heather for vid ) Goober Graham was in rare form this morning on Meet The Press when he glorified the Cat Food Commission which wasn’t even agreed upon by the members on its own committee. Does your cat like Friskies, Fancy Feast or neither? Graham declared that we should raise the retirement age to 70 years old in an effort to save a program that’s not in jeopardy and when speaking made it seem like Reagan and Tip O’Neal did that very thing. My friend Dave Johnson writes a great post called: Blaming Social Security For Deficits Is Like Blaming Iraq For 9/11 (And Unions In WI) If he wanted to be taken slightly serious he would read Robert Reich’s piece that explains the problem is really all about Inequality. So what did Greenspan’s commission fail to see coming? Inequality. Remember, the Social Security payroll tax applies only to earnings up to a certain ceiling. (That ceiling is now $106,800.) The ceiling rises every year according to a formula roughly matching inflation. Back in 1983, the ceiling was set so the Social Security payroll tax would hit 90 percent of all wages covered by Social Security. That 90 percent figure was built into the Greenspan Commission’s fixes. The Commission assumed that, as the ceiling rose with inflation, the Social Security payroll tax would continue to hit 90 percent of total income. Today, though, the Social Security payroll tax hits only about 84 percent of total income. It went from 90 percent to 84 percent because a larger and larger portion of total income has gone to the top. In 1983, the richest 1 percent of Americans got 11.6 percent of total income. Today the top 1 percent takes in more than 20 percent. If we want to go back to 90 percent, the ceiling on income subject to the Social Security tax would need to be raised to $180,000. Presto. Social Security’s long-term (beyond 26 years from now) problem would be solved. So there’s no reason even to consider reducing Social Security benefits or raising the age of eligibility. The logical response to the increasing concentration of income at the top is simply to raise the ceiling. So simple that it’s laughable we’re having this debate with these liars. At a time when this country needs jobs most of all with such a high unemployment rate that is hurting working American families, Republicans only seem to want to add to their living burden by attacking Social Security, which is a program that doesn’t add any money to the deficit and isn’t in trouble for decades. MTP transcript: SEN. GRAHAM: And let’s put Social Security on the table in a rational way, like Ronald Reagan and Tip O’Neill did. There’s no reason not to adjust the age over time for people under 55 to 69 or 70. You and I can afford some means testings to our benefits. That will save Social Security from bankruptcy. It’s headed toward across-the-board cuts in 20 years. So I applaud what you’re doing with the other senators, but let’s do put Social Security on the table. Me and Senator McCain are going to work on a solution. I’d like to share it with you. MR. GREGORY: Senator Durbin? SEN. DURBIN: David, if I could say this about Social Security. MR. GREGORY: Yeah. SEN. DURBIN: I–first, I want to thank my colleague for the kind words. Social Security does not add one penny to the deficit. Social Security untouched will make every promised payment for more than 25 years. But the deficit commission was given a charge, add 75 more years of solvency to Social Security. It came up with an approach. I think, frankly, another commission, Pete Domenici and Alice Rivlin’s commission, came up with a better approach. We need to move on Social Security, but let’s put it on a track that runs parallel but separate to deficit reduction. The Social Security program, as it’s currently put together, does not have any impact on the def MR. GREGORY: Senator Graham, is that–I mean… SEN. GRAHAM: If I could just–well, that–let’s just… MR. GREGORY: …few people believe that there’s not an arithmetic problem with Social Security. SEN. GRAHAM: You know, when I was 21 and 22, my parents died, I had a 13-year-old sister. I was in law–college in law school. If it weren’t for survivor benefits coming to my sister from my parents’ contribution, we would have had a hard time making it. Today I’m 55, I don’t have any kids. You know, we’re, we’re paying more in benefits than we’re collecting in taxes in about five years. In 2037, maybe even sooner, you have to cut benefits by a third across the table. All I’m suggesting is let’s do with Social Security what Ronald Reagan and Tip O’Neill did. Let’s get it in a sustainable glide path. You know the age has to be adjusted for all entitlements, including Medicare. To go 67 to 69 like Reagan and Tip O’Neill did, for people under 55, is amenably doable. It’s easy for Goober to say to raise his age for acceptance into the program since his security is already set in stone up to 70. He could walk away today and never have to work another day in his life and not worry about his bills. He didn’t even hide that fact when he said that he could afford the age increase. Glad to hear from a rich Republican gasbag that his security is already insured. Do they believe that Americans should keep working until they can’t even pick up a pencil? Dick Durbin correctly stated that Social Security shouldn’t be included in any deals which Gregory took a big exception to. What is it with these Beltway media hounds that they feel Americans should be crippled in their old age? Is Graham willing to raise the payroll tax like Reagan did? Is he willing to raise corporate taxes like Reagan did? After all, in 1982 Reagan signed into law two tax increases – one of which was later characterized in a Treasury Department report as the heftiest peacetime tax hike in American history. All told, he gave back roughly one-third of the tax cuts enacted a year earlier. Then, in 1983, breaking a campaign promise to go after entitlement programs, he saved Social Security with a $165 billion bailout by signing a hike in payroll taxes and ushering a new category of recipients into the program: newly hired federal workers. That year, he also hiked the federal gasoline tax. In 1984, he signed a deficit-reduction bill that mandated yet another tax increase. That was just the first term. After his reelection, Reagan signed the Tax Reform Act of 1986, which imposed the largest corporate tax hike in history ($120 billion over five years), while closing $300 billion in corporate loopholes. In that same law, Reagan agreed to exempt millions of low-wage earners from paying any income tax. In today’s conservative parlance, such deeds would be assailed as “socialism.” He lies right into the camera when he says that after 2037 we’ll have to cut benefits by a third. Why do Republicans hate the American worker? Really, that’s what it comes down to. There is no shared sacrifice when it comes to old age in America and Graham, who was pillered by the tea Party in 2009 should know better. Well, it’s Goober after all. You know, if Andrea Mitchell can start changing her tune on Social Security , why can’t Gregory or the GOP?

Continue reading …
What Your Representatives Did While You Were Asleep

Click here to view this media Here are some of the things your House of Representatives did early this morning: Voted to strip funding from just about every EPA project, including air quality, emissions, and water pollution monitoring. Defunded NOAA Stripped funds to administer the Affordable Care Act. Eliminated funds for the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Continued $53 billion in oil subsidies Tried to eliminate Davis-Bacon rules for government projects (that failed) Stripped federal workers of their salaries in positions within agencies targeted for defunding Of course, yesterday they defunded Planned Parenthood, FCC allocations for enforcement of Net Neutrality rules, and the entire Affordable Care Act. They also managed to pass a budget 235-189 after the sorriest bunch of bullsh*t debate this writer has ever observed. The vote was down party lines, with the exception of 3 Republicans who voted against it. The most entertaining part of the whole entire screwed-up process was watching Republicans make love to Big Oil while the whole world watched. Oh, note to the Tea Party…hahahahaha!!!! They only managed to cut $60 billion. Broken promises, broken promises. And so soon in your young reign of terror. I hope it was good for them. I felt screwed without even so much as a kiss on the cheek. With that said, all props to Rosa DeLauro for her 3AM rant with energy, passion and focus. Enjoy that moment. There weren’t all that many.

Continue reading …

Fox Lies!

No Comment
Fox Lies!

Click here to view this media Fox Business reporter Jeff Flock got a bit more than he bargained for in Madison today as some of the locals voiced their opinion of Fox’s reportage. One guy in a wool cap was particularly in-your-face about it.

Continue reading …
Krauthammer Rips Krugman’s Claim Republicans Are Stealing Food From Babies and Pregnant Women

New York Times columnist Paul Krugman on Friday made the idiotic claim that House Republicans are stealing food from babies and pregnant women. Later that evening, appearing on PBS's “Inside Washington,” syndicated columnist Charles Krauthammer demonstrated just how foolish Krugman's assertion was (video follows with transcript and commentary): GORDON PETERSON, HOST: New York Times columnist Paul Krugman: “House Republicans are literally stealing food from the mouths of babies — nutritional and pregnant women and very young children, one of the items on their cutting block — so they can pose, falsely, as deficit hawks.” Peterson got that quote wrong. Here’s the correct one from Krugman’s column Friday: House Republicans, in particular, are literally stealing food from the mouths of babes — nutritional aid to pregnant women and very young children is one of the items on their cutting block — so they can pose, falsely, as deficit hawks. But I digress: CHARLES KRAUTHAMMER: Let me explain to you what these cuts are, the so-called cuts. Obama increased the baseline budget of all of the departments by an average of 24 percent in two years. If you add in stimulus, it’s over 80 percent. The cuts are from this artificially inflated, hugely inflated, baseline he created it. If you compare, for example, the home heating oil subsidy, it is cut in half, that’s the worst. It’s a barbarian measure? NINA TOTENBERG, NPR: It’s his cut, too. KRAUTHAMMER: It’s because since 2009, it’s been doubled. So all that’s happening is with the cut you are going back to pre-recession levels. The norm. These are called Draconian cuts. COLBY KING, WASHINTON POST: That is the difficulty in talking about this issue. Yes it’s right about that particular provision, but there also other provisions in the debate where it’s not, your scenario does not apply. For example, if you are going to zero out spending for the Presidio, a small item, the impact has nothing to do with the baseline budget. It is because somebody wants to do that. Or if you want to cut out money for enforcement of the SEC. These are legitimate issues to talk about. TOTENBERG: Or you cut out enforcement of Medicare fraud. KING: Don’t trivialize the debate over food for infant children. Those are important discussions, but that’s not the only discussion. The bigger ones will come later. KRAUTHAMMER: I’m trying to say that with all of the cuts, we are higher than we were in 2008 and 2009, and I didn’t hear any of you complaining in those years about women and children going hungry. Indeed. One of the things that worried conservatives regarding the explosion in spending in the past two years was that the claim much of it was emergency oriented to end the recession was absolute nonsense, and instead the raised level of outlays would become the new baseline from which future budgets would start. As we can now see from the squawking of people like Krugman, King, and Totenberg, that's exactly what's happened. These folks totally ignore that the budget has grown by a staggering 41 percent in the past four years, and that much of the additional spending was sold as temporary. Now that Republicans – and voters in the last elections! – want to cut this budget back down to something approaching pre-recession levels, the Left and their media minions are predictably accusing them of stealing food from babies and pregnant women. It would be laughable if it is wasn't so serious.

Continue reading …

Proportional

No Comment
Proportional

Click here to view this media Bahrain’s Special Envoy to the United States, Latif Al-Zayani thinks the force used to attack and sometimes kill protesters in Bahrain has been “proportional” and “legal”. The clip above with Suzanne Malveaux this morning. But he said essentially the same thing to Candy Crowley of CNN on Thursday night. Candy Crowley: “There does not seem to have been any harm done on the other side of this conflict. And yet we’re told that three protesters were killed. Is it possible that this was an overreaction? Could it have been dealt with in some other way?” Latif Al-Zayani: “No, actually. In our procedure, we always use force that is proportional. The force was proportional, minimum possible. Tear gas were—was used to be effective enough to disperse the people.” No mention of the use of rubber bullets, beatings against women and children during the crackdown at Pearl roundabout. And nothing at all of course about the live ammunition now being used. Watch this video below from earlier today and ask yourself if this looks “proportional”. The sooner these murderous scumbags are forced out of power the better. WARNING: GRAPHIC And seen from another angle, video taken by Simeon Kerr of the Financial Times.

Continue reading …
Someone Please Explain to Bill Maher That Social Security Is Not Responsible for Our Deficit Problems

Click here to view this media While I agree with Bill Maher that we do have a problem with the costs of Medicare and Medicaid and defense spending and I agree that our budget should not be balanced on the backs of the poor, what the hell is it going to take to get through to Maher that Social Security is not to blame for the deficit? It’s running a surplus. Maybe someone can send him this article by Robert Reich — Budget baloney: Social Security isn’t to blame for deficit : Social Security won’t be a problem for another 26 years, and even then, the problem can be solved. New Jersey Governor Chris Christie, a Republican presidential hopeful, says in order to “save” Social Security the retirement age should be raised. The media are congratulating him for his putative “courage.” Deficit hawks are proclaiming Social Security one of the big entitlements that has to be cut in order to reduce the budget deficit. This is all baloney. In a former life I was a trustee of the Social Security trust fund. So let me set the record straight. Social Security isn’t responsible for the federal deficit. Just the opposite. Until last year Social Security took in more payroll taxes than it paid out in benefits. It lent the surpluses to the rest of the government. Now that Social Security has started to pay out more than it takes in, Social Security can simply collect what the rest of the government owes it. This will keep it fully solvent for the next 26 years. But why should there even be a problem 26 years from now? Back in 1983, Alan Greenspan’s Social Security commission was supposed to have fixed the system for good – by gradually increasing payroll taxes and raising the retirement age. (Early boomers like me can start collecting full benefits at age 66; late boomers born after 1960 will have to wait until they’re 67.) Greenspan’s commission must have failed to predict something. But what? It fairly accurately predicted how quickly the boomers would age. It had a pretty good idea of how fast the US economy would grow. While it underestimated how many immigrants would be coming into the United States, that’s no problem. To the contrary, most new immigrants are young and their payroll-tax contributions will far exceed what they draw from Social Security for decades. So what did Greenspan’s commission fail to see coming? Inequality. Remember, the Social Security payroll tax applies only to earnings up to a certain ceiling. (That ceiling is now $106,800.) The ceiling rises every year according to a formula roughly matching inflation. Back in 1983, the ceiling was set so the Social Security payroll tax would hit 90 percent of all wages covered by Social Security. That 90 percent figure was built into the Greenspan Commission’s fixes. The Commission assumed that, as the ceiling rose with inflation, the Social Security payroll tax would continue to hit 90 percent of total income. Today, though, the Social Security payroll tax hits only about 84 percent of total income. It went from 90 percent to 84 percent because a larger and larger portion of total income has gone to the top. In 1983, the richest 1 percent of Americans got 11.6 percent of total income. Today the top 1 percent takes in more than 20 percent. If we want to go back to 90 percent, the ceiling on income subject to the Social Security tax would need to be raised to $180,000. Presto. Social Security’s long-term (beyond 26 years from now) problem would be solved. Bingo.

Continue reading …