Satellite TV channel’s Egyptian bureau closed and licenses and accreditation withdrawn from staff Egypt today shut down the operations of the Arabic satellite TV channel al-Jazeera, blaming it for encouraging the country’s uprising – and demonstrating that the repressive powers of central government are still functioning. The state-run Mena news agency reported that the information ministry had ordered “suspension of operations of al-Jazeera, cancelling of its licenses and withdrawing accreditation to all its staff, as of today”. The Egyptian government has never made a secret of its dislike for the channel, but the final straw may have been an interview it broadcast yesterday with the popular cleric Yusuf al-Qaradawi, who called on the Egyptian president, Hosni Mubarak, to leave the country immediately. Al-Jazeera has faced interference with its communications from Egypt since Friday. The Qatar-based channel immediately denounced the closure, but insisted that it would carry on regardless. “Al-Jazeera sees this as an act designed to stifle and repress the freedom of reporting by the network and its journalists,” a statement said. “In this time of deep turmoil and unrest in Egyptian society it is imperative that voices from all sides be heard. The closing of our bureau by the Egyptian government is aimed at censoring and silencing the voices of the Egyptian people. ” Al-Jazeera correspondents have been reporting round the clock, in Arabic and English, from Cairo, Suez and Alexandria since the unprecedented unrest erupted early last week. Qaradawi, often described as the spiritual leader of the Muslim Brotherhood – formally banned but still powerful in Egypt – addressed the president bluntly, saying: “Go away, Mubarak, leave the people alone. Enough – you’ve ruled for 30 years already. Dozens have been killed in one day. You cannot stay.” The Egyptian national, who now lives in Qatar, called on Mubarak to follow the example of the Tunisian president, Zine al-Abidine Bin Ali, and leave honourably. No country is more important to the Arab world than Egypt, and audiences across the region have been riveted by the unfolding drama on the satellite channel, popular precisely because it is so different from the normal run of self-censoring state media. It is not the first time Egypt has cracked down on al-Jazeera. The channel came under fire during the Israeli attack on Gaza in late 2008 amid charges that it was lionising the Palestinian Islamist movement Hamas and aggravating the rift between moderate and rejectionist camps in the Arab world. In 2006, its bureau chief in Cairo was charged with the false reporting of bomb blasts in the Sinai desert. Egypt also came under suspicion of jamming al-Jazeera broadcasts during the football World Cup in South Africa last summer. Al-Jazeera, which is owned by the emir of Qatar, is often accused of promoting populist and alternative agendas by attacking repressive regimes and supporting Hamas or Hizbullah in Lebanon. It was blamed for inciting unrest through its vivid coverage of the Tunisian uprising and was attacked by the Palestinian Authority over its recent coverage of the leaked Palestine papers. Egypt Middle East Al-Jazeera TV news Ian Black guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …ABC Pushes for Tax Hike on Capital Gains, Ignores Likelihood of Tax Revenue Loss
January 30, 2011 No Comment
Continue reading …
New David Brock Funding PAC To Compete With Conservative Special Interest Groups
January 30, 2011 No Comment
enlarge Interesting news from the Plumline’s Greg Sargent last yesterday about a major shift for Media Matters’ David Brock: It looks like David Brock is getting more serious about building a powerful apparatus on the left to go head-to-head with the flood of outside money conservative groups are planning to pump into the 2012 elections. I’m told that Brock has made some major staff shifts within his Media Matters empire in preparation for 2012, shifting key staff over to a new third-party spending vehicle he’s created to spend big money on campaigns this cycle, which is called American Bridge. Brock will move Media Matters’ top communications director, Chris Harris, over to American Bridge, and he’s installing a new president and CEO at Media Matters, Matthew Butler. That will allow Brock to focus more energy on building out the new effort and enlisting major donors to finance it. Also: In another indication that Brock is shifting his empire harder into politics, he has enlisted one of the key architects of MoveOn’s growth over the last few years — operative Ilyse Hogue — to oversee a new Media Matters operation dedicated specifically to taking action against right wing media. Brock outlined these and other staff shifts in a memo for staff this afternoon. Brock is a major Beltway player, and if his effort gains traction, it could have a real impact on the 2012 campaigns, helping to offset the lopsided advantage conservative groups are expected to enjoy. It’s also a sign that Washington’s power liberal types are getting serious about figuring out how to navigate the new, post-Citizens United landscape, which has clearly put them at a disadvantage.
Continue reading …
‘The youth are motivated to keep going, and the old political leaders have been left behind’ HAGGAG HAMD Agricultural supplies company employee and kung fu coach, 28 I was beaten yesterday by security; you can see where they broke my rib. But I don’t care – just look around you. The energy of the Egyptians is amazing. We’re saying no to unemployment, no to police brutality, no to poverty. We saw how scared Mubarak and his regime was; they’re being forced to listen to the people. Now the army is with us too, I’m sure of it. The job isn’t completed yet but we’re not losing any momentum. These protests will continue day after day until every bit of the regime falls. The psychological barrier between us and our president has been broken by teargas; the government created this uprising, and now they will face the consequences. MARIAM HAZEM HASSAN Student, 27 It’s the young who should be leading the nation; it’s our ideas that will shape the future. I go to an international school, and am part of a well-educated generation that was told that if we worked hard we would be able to influence things when we were older. But before today that never really seemed possible, all the doors were closed. Then we saw Tunisia, and now everything’s different: the youth have started this movement in Egypt, the youth are motivated to keep going, and the old political leaders have been left behind. I saw Mubarak’s speech; he’s trying to make us scared, fearful of the chaos. But actually they’re scared of us. People are still furious, and they want Mubarak to leave. I think that fury is going to culminate in something big in the next few days unless he does. AFAF MAMDOH Commerce student at Cairo University, 22 I watched [Mubarak's] speech and it was basically him saying screw you to the people. Well, guess what, we’re saying screw you to him too. We won’t stop sitting here until Mubarak gets on a plane. I’m going to have all of this week’s chants ringing in my ears for ever – down, down Hosni Mubarak – it’s not just enough for him to leave, we want him arrested by Interpol. It’s exhausting to sit through a whole night while gas and rubber bullets and live ammunition rain towards you. But it was also exhilarating, because this is a revolution without individual leaders; the Egyptian people are leading it. This is nothing to do with ElBaradei or the Muslim Brotherhood or any of the other political parties; they are absent. We are all just Egyptians, and we are standing together. MARWAN DJEDAOUNI Retired manager for Texas Instruments, 74 At my age I couldn’t go out but of course I support what is going on. I stayed inside and watched it on the BBC. Things have gone backwards in this country in the last 30 years. The current regime are thieves. You know it has just got much, much worse because there is so much more greed. We are all so sick of what is happening. Part of the problem is that people talk about opposition politicians but there are no opposition politicians in Egypt any more. I remember in the 1950s we had no political rights. Now we have rights but they are not worth anything. But if you ask me the question “Has something changed with the protests?”, then I have to answer, “No!” I cannot be an optimist in a country where out of 85 million only 8.5 million are doing well. MOHAMED EL-GAZZAR Works in marketing for a telecoms company, 37 I respect Hosni Mubarak; he’s our leader and he carries our nation’s history with him. But it’s clear there’s no future for him, and I only hope now that he leaves peacefully. We’ve had 30 years of emptiness and stagnation from one man, and now the demand for change is unstoppable. I didn’t come out on to the streets yesterday because it was a mess . But today feels different. The new regime will ensure our voices are heard. We mustn’t forget the role of the US and the UK in all of this. The hypocrisy of [President] Obama was amazing; your western capitals have supported this regime from the very beginning – now suddenly everybody is concerned for our rights and economic security. Where were they before? ATEF SEIF EL-DIN Electrical engineer, 47 I’ve never had any love for Mubarak or his system before, but my mind – like everyone else’s – has always been sealed from the possibility of change. And honestly, when I began chanting for my rights and the government security forces fired teargas at me, that seal was broken for ever. I’m here picking up the debris from Tahrir Square today because it is my duty. We’ve taken control of our streets from the police and whereas they threw bombs around, the people want to prove they can look after it better. This is our country; we’re not thieves, not looters, we’re just taking back what is ours from the forces of corruption. Trying to keep the square clean is a symbol of that. Interviews by Peter Beaumont and Jack Shenker Egypt Middle East Protest Peter Beaumont Jack Shenker guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …
The outcome of the wave of protests that has shaken Egypt remains unclear and discernible political leadership is yet to emerge What’s happening in Egypt and how serious is it? Since Tuesday student and opposition groups have been staging protests across Egypt inspired by the uprising that toppled the former president of Tunisia, Zine al-Abidine Ben Ali, a fortnight ago. On Friday, such was the intensity of the protests that President Hosni Mubarak, in power for 30 years, sacked his cabinet and made vague promises of reform. But, as the fifth day of protests showed yesterday, the gesture did nothing to placate the crowds. Like all Arab countries, Egypt has a large youth population which has grown angry about unemployment, poverty, rising food prices and an autocratic leadership seen as corrupt and stagnated. Who are the opposition? Almost everyone. In an unprecedented display of unity among disparate wings of Egyptian society, middle-class students and internet-savvy young people are protesting alongside older, hardened activists and those from less privileged backgrounds. In terms of official political opposition, however, the picture is less clear. The Muslim Brotherhood, Egypt’s largest – and banned – opposition group, has kept a low profile and chosen not to fully endorse the protests. Former UN nuclear chief and Nobel peace prize winner Mohamed ElBaradei is viewed by many as the strongest opposition candidate for this year’s presidential elections. He returned to Egypt on Thursday and called for Mubarak to stand down – only to be placed under house arrest. Is there a danger of an Islamist takeover? At the moment, the Muslim Brotherhood is playing catch-up with a young, leaderless protest movement. But chaos always opens opportunities and years of oppression by the government has angered and frustrated ordinary people. The brotherhood has enormous support among the poor, encouraged by the network of charities it runs. Observers have been debating the sincerity of the brotherhood’s apparent moves towards real political reform, and point to its inability to directly challenge Mubarak’s government. What are the implications for the Middle East? Egypt is the most populous Arab nation and, as the first to sign a peace treaty with Israel, a major Middle Eastern player. A change in regime could have a big impact on the fragile peace process. But the biggest fear is of a domino effect, similar to what happened in eastern Europe in 1989, when a successful uprising encourages other “people power” movements, leaving Arab autocrats nervous and oil prices in flux. And for the west? As reflected in the mild comments from Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton on Friday, western politicians need to achieve the right balance between backing the people’s legitimate demands and protecting their own interests. It is not good for western powers to lend their support to autocratic regimes. But it is in no one’s interest to have a political vacuum in countries where extremism and violence can flourish and where much of the world’s oil reserves are managed. Egypt Middle East Israel Middle East peace talks guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …
Click here to view this media Sen. Bernie Sanders talked to Ed Schultz about John Boehner and the Republicans wanting to destroy the social safety nets in America and their goal of privatizing Social Security and putting it in the hands of Wall Street and raising the retirement age. Sen. Sanders pointed out that there’s a very simple way to make sure Social Security remains solvent. Raise the income cap on the tax so it’s less regressive. SANDERS: Massive amounts of misinformation and disinformation. The truth of the matter is, Social Security today has a $2.6 trillion surplus. Social Security can pay out every benefit owed to every eligible American for the next 27 years, at which point it could pay out about 80 percent of all benefits. What does that mean? It means that within 27 years, we have to figure out how we deal with that gap. In my view, what you do is you lift the income cap so that people making more than $250,000 contribute more into the system. SCHULTZ: Yes. SANDERS: Right now, you‘re making $1 million—you‘re putting the same into the system as somebody making $106,000. Do it, problem solved, end of discussion. SCHULTZ: OK. So, their method is misinformation. Their goal is to do what, line the pockets of the big boys on Wall Street? SANDERS: Absolutely. Look, what the debate is about, Ed, is not really about the finances of Social Security. It‘s an ideological debate. You know as well as I do, these guys don‘t like government. They love Wall Street. If you destroy Social Security and people want to have a retirement account, you invest in Wall Street. Wall Street makes over a period of time tens and tens of billions of dollars. That, in fact, is the long-term goal. Second of all, if you have a Social Security system, as we have right now, which for 75 years, Ed—and people should appreciate that—has paid out every nickel owed to every eligible American in a very cost-effective way. You know what? People might actually have some faith in government. You can read the rest of the transcript for this segment here . Bernie made a lot of other great points as well on raising the retirement age and how these people out there protesting at these tea party rallies are being duped.
Continue reading …
Click here to view this media Democracy Now’s Sharif Abdel Kouddous and Amy Goodman talked to professor Juan Cole about the protests in Egypt and the position the US government now finds itself in with having to choose between human rights and a government that they’ve thrown their hat in with that supports Israel. Juan Cole: “Egypt is a Praetorian Regime” : SHARIF ABDEL KOUDDOUS: We’re talking today about Egypt, the unprecedented protests in the streets right now. We just got a report from Egypt from Ahmad Shokr in Cairo. We’re going to turn right now to Juan Cole, to Ann Arbor, Michigan. He’s a professor of history at the University of Michigan in Ann Arbor. He blogs at the very popular blog “Informed Comment.” It’s online at juancole.com. His most recent book is Engaging the Muslim World. Thank you very much for joining us, Juan Cole. We just had this breaking news from the Al Jazeera reporter on Twitter. He’s saying that the prominent Egyptian opposition politician Ayman Nour was struck in the head by a rock. He’s been hospitalized, and he’s semi-conscious. And also, the son of Ayman Nour was struck in the back of the head by a rock and is also now in the hospital. Can you talk about what is happening right now in Egypt? And put it in context of the greater Arab world, of what’s happening in Tunisia. JUAN COLE: The Arab world has seen, in the last three decades, a series of Arab nationalist regimes, relatively secular, which have become increasingly sclerotic. These were postcolonial societies, societies that had been under Western dominance often, which—and that dominance was opposed by nationalist movements, led by legends like Habib Bourguiba in Tunisia or Gamal Abdel Nasser in Egypt. And they were wildly popular in their day, because they were throwing off the West. But as time went on, the regimes that were set up became dominated by a kind of state elite, a relatively small group of people that benefited from state power, from the large public sector, from the throwing of contracts to particular individuals in the private sector. And they proved themselves unable to adapt over time to a globalizing world. SHARIF ABDEL KOUDDOUS: One correction, it’s just Ayman Nour who was struck in the back of the head. His son reported to Al Jazeera what happened. His son has not been injured. But, Juan Cole, can you talk about the Mubarak regime, who is Hosni Mubarak, how did he come to power, and his reign for—well, this year marks the 30th anniversary of his coming to power? JUAN COLE: Hosni Mubarak is a former air force chief of staff and general. He was trained in Moscow. He speaks good Russian. And he is the third in the series of military leaders of Egypt since 1952, or you could say the fourth, in some ways. In any case, they’ve all been military men. They’ve all come out of the military. They’re backed by the existing military. And that’s—so Egypt is a Praetorian regime, and this is sometimes forgotten now because Mubarak wears business suits and there’s an elected parliament, although the elections are widely believed not to be on the up and up. AMY GOODMAN: Juan Cole, I wanted to ask you about the U.S. role in the shoring up of Mubarak over these 30 years, the same question that I put to Ahmad Shokr, the more than $2 billion, second-largest recipient of U.S. foreign aid next to Israel, and what that means—President Obama’s speech there, what the U.S. relationship is, and if the U.S. said to Mubarak that they would withdraw aid, what you think he would do. JUAN COLE: Well, I think the U.S. aid is nice for the Egyptian elite to have. I don’t think it’s essential to them. It should be remembered that the U.S. aid is a little bit of a shell game, because Congress typically directs that all of the matériel come from the United States. So it’s actually aid to U.S. corporations, and then the Egyptians get some of it in the form of goods and so forth, military weaponry, which they mostly don’t need. I think the U.S. aid was initiated because Egypt made a peace treaty with Israel. It’s Congress’s way of more or less bribing Egypt to remain on good terms with Israel. A lot of it is military aid, so that the Egyptian military remains relatively strong. But that military has taken itself out of the game of Middle East politics. In some ways, it’s been absent from the great struggles—the Gaza war, the Lebanon war. Egypt kind of stands off and says, “Well, that’s really too bad. They shouldn’t be fighting like that.” So, in contrast to the kind of muscular nationalism of the 1960s, when Gamal Abdel Nasser made Egypt the center of the Arab world and in some ways also of Africa, now Egypt is—you know, its regime really has been taking a quiet bribe to turn inward, to concentrate on building up its tourist industry. And it has had some success in fostering economic growth in the past 10 years, although it’s the kind of growth such that a lot of the increased revenue is going to the elites, in any case. SHARIF ABDEL KOUDDOUS: Juan Cole, I want to play what President Obama had to say yesterday about the situation in Egypt. He made his first comments in response to a question about Egypt during a live YouTube interview. Take a listen. PRESIDENT BARACK OBAMA: It’s my main hope right now is, is that violence is not the answer in solving these problems in Egypt. So the government has to be careful about not resorting to violence, and the people on the streets have to be careful about not resorting to violence. And I think that it is very important that people have mechanisms in order to express legitimate grievances. As I said in my State of the Union speech, there are certain core values that we believe in as Americans that we believe are universal—freedom of speech, freedom of expression, people being able to use social networking or any other mechanisms to communicate with each other and express their concerns. And that, I think, is no less true in the Arab world than it is here in the United States. SHARIF ABDEL KOUDDOUS: That was President Obama speaking yesterday. Vice President Joe Biden also yesterday said that President Hosni Mubarak, who has ruled Egypt for 30 years, since 1981, was not a dictator. He made the comment in an interview on the PBS NewsHour. VICE PRESIDENT JOE BIDEN: Look, Mubarak has been an ally of ours in a number of things that he’s been very responsible on relative to geopolitical interests in the region, Middle East peace efforts, the actions Egypt has taken relative to normalizing relationship with Israel. And I think that it would be—I would not refer to him as a dictator. SHARIF ABDEL KOUDDOUS: That was Vice President Joe Biden. Juan Cole, your response? JUAN COLE: Well, Vice President Biden seems to be wanting to define a dictator not with regard to domestic policy, but with regard to the responsible role the regime plays in the international world system, you know, from Washington’s point of view. But certainly, from the point of view of human rights activists in Egypt, there are strong dictatorial tendencies in the Egyptian government. It’s seen a lot of phony elections. It’s used repressive techniques. In some instances, those repressive techniques have been directed against radical movements. The Egyptian Islamic Jihad of Ayman al-Zawahiri was active in Egypt in the 1980s and ’90s, blowing up things, shooting down tourists and others. And these same secret police were deployed at that time to track them down, arrest them, and really to eradicate them from the scene in Egypt. And this is one of the things that drives this regime’s repressiveness, is that it is afraid of Muslim fundamentalist movements. Whether they are radical—and there have been a number of important radical movements in Egypt that have resorted to violence—or whether they are social and political, as with the large and important Muslim Brotherhood movement, the regime is very afraid—and this comes out from U.S. cables that have been released by WikiLeaks—that the Muslim Brotherhood will find a way to take over. And, you know, when Khomeini overthrew the Shah in Iran in 1979, the first thing they did was execute a lot of the generals. And the generals in Egypt are bound and determined that a similar fate does not await them. AMY GOODMAN: Professor Cole, a confidential diplomatic cable, that was released by WikiLeaks in the latest release, was signed by the American ambassador to Egypt, Margaret Scobey, advising Secretary of State Hillary Clinton to avoid mentioning the name of the opposition leader Ayman Nour during her 2009 meeting with Mubarak, even though Nour’s imprisonment in 2005 had been condemned worldwide, not least by the Bush administration. Sharif just reported that Al Jazeera is saying that Ayman Nour was just attacked, hit in the head with a rock and now in hospital. Can you talk about the significance of this leaked memo and the significance of Ayman Nour himself? JUAN COLE: Well, Nour, at that time that the memo was written, had just been released from prison by Mubarak, and he leads a relatively small middle-class reform movement. And he did dare to challenge Mubarak in the 2005 presidential elections. And as you say, the Bush administration put pressure on Hosni Mubarak to open up those elections. The elections for president in Egypt prior to that had been largely symbolic. They had been a kind of referendum. And of course, in a referendum, you can’t really lose. So, Mubarak responded to this pressure by having the constitution changed so that a number of people could run for president, not just him. And Ayman Nour was one of the ones who ran, but he had been in prison. And Mubarak let him out of prison, let him run. He got seven percent of the vote. And then Mubarak promptly jailed him again after he lost the election. So, Mubarak’s response to American pressure at that time really made a mockery of it. And so, when he let Ayman Nour out of prison shortly before Hillary Clinton’s visit, he was concerned that the Americans not draw attention to this opposition figure, and he requested that no mention be made. And the Americans, you know, are in a difficult position in some ways in Egypt. On the one hand, you know, the State Department does do human rights reports. It does support a widening of civil liberties in these countries. On the other hand, Egypt is a central ally of the United States, and the U.S. would certainly be very unhappy to see it replaced by a Muslim Brotherhood regime that would abrogate the Camp David Accords, would adopt a hostile posture towards Israel possibly, would cease military cooperation with the United States. So, the U.S. is trying to navigate between the shoals of these various dilemmas. SHARIF ABDEL KOUDDOUS: Professor Juan Cole, thank you very much for joining us. Professor Juan Cole is a history—a professor of history at the University of Michigan. He blogs at “Informed Comment.” It’s online at juancole.com. His most recent book is Engaging the Muslim World.
Continue reading …Full video of ‘New Black Panthers’ scene reveals GOP attorneys orchestrating the affair
January 29, 2011 No Comment
Click here to view this media [Video from U.S. Commission on Civil Rights ] It was pretty obvious from the start that the whole New Black Panthers Party “voter intimidation” controversy was a Breitbart-like right-wing operation intended to gin up fear among white voters, made for heavy airplay on Fox News — and later, to become an Obama-bashing tool, especially in the hands of Bush-appointed right-wing operatives still inside the Justice Department . Now Ryan J. Reilly at TPM Muckraker has a great little scoop demonstrating that this whole scene in fact was being orchestrated by GOP attorneys: It turns out that the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, which has been devoting a great deal of energy to the matter, finally released the full two-and-a-half-minute video showing the New Black Panthers being chatted up by police outside the polling station in Philadelphia — and then afterwards, the “poll watchers” — lawyers hired by the GOP — orchestrating the scene: In the extended version of the footage, posted by the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights this month, a police officer tells Morse to back off. That’s when the commotion begins. The video shows someone off-screen to Morse’s left, telling the officer “I got him, I got him.” A man who appears to be Chris Hill, a Republican poll watcher who was accused of intimidating voters at the polls by another woman at the location, says “Put it down. You’ve got enough.” Then Bartle Bull chimes in. “Don’t you threaten him with your hands. You’re threatening him. Don’t you use your hands!” Soon an individual seems to grab Morse’s arm or his camera — the screen moves erratically. “I’m a fucking professional videographer,” Morse tells the person trying to stop him from filming. “I was paid… to come from L.A. today.” The U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, which has doggedly pursued the Justice Department’s handling of the New Black Panther Party voter intimidation case, released the final version of their report this week, complete with responses from all the commissioners on the panel. Two Democratic commissioners who have dissented from the investigation pointed out the additional footage in their reply and note that while the Justice Department handed over a full copy of the video, the Commission didn’t see fit to post it online until this month, far after the report had been finished. The video shows that the white Republican poll watchers who showed up to the majority African-American precinct knew exactly what kind of media sensation they had on their hands. “We’re on the same team,” says another Republican poll watcher off screen. “You’re fucking up the story. Don’t fuck up the story,” one unidentified poll watcher tells Morse. “You guys are lawyers, I’m a videographer,” Morse says. The USCCR issued its full report , including evidentiary material , earlier this week, and as you can see it’s a pretty divided affair, largely along partisan lines — though in fact conservative Bush appointee Abigail Thernstrom backs up her earlier concerns about the investigation with a brief but scathing dissent: This investigation lacked political and intellectual integrity from the outset, and has been consistently undermined by the imbalance between the gravity of the allegations and the strength of the evidence available to support such charges. Some commissioners offered serious, principled critiques of the process, and questioned the evidentiary record. Their views were contemptuously ignored by the commission’s majority. The majority charges that racial double standards govern the enforcement of the Voting Rights Act in the Holder Justice Department. If that can be convincingly demonstrated, it will be a grave indictment of this administration. But that evidentiary showing awaits further investigation by the Department of Justice and Congress. I applaud that investigation, and hope that it will shed more light on this important question than the tendentious report provided by the commission’s majority. Indeed. As we explained previously : So a little perspective is perhaps helpful here: There are indeed black racist hate groups (the United Nuwaubian Nation of Moors is another ). However, they are dwarfed both in size and in sheer numbers by white racist hate groups. Check the SPLC’s compendium of hate groups and you’ll see what I mean: they outnumber anti-white racists by about 99 to 1. Oddly enough, we never get any reporting about these hate groups from Fox News — except when they want to attack the Department of Homeland Security’s bulletin warning about the rising likelihood of violent terrorism from right-wing extremists . Then, they’re all too eager to simply whitewash away the very existence of white supremacists and far-right terrorists.
Continue reading …Liberals don’t want to ‘silence’ conservatives — they’d just like to have an honest democratic debate
January 29, 2011 No Comment
Click here to view this media Right-wingers seem to have a problem understanding how this whole free-speech thing works. They seem to believe, for instance, that it’s perfectly acceptable for them to say the most outrageous things imaginable as part of their rights to free speech — but if someone stands up and exercises their free-speech rights by criticizing what they said, then by God, they’re trying to take their rights away! Like those brilliant minds over at the Right Scoop : What is really at work here is the Left trying to control the speech of a small group of impressionable people – Republicans. They could care less about how civil the nation is but if they can keep the Republicans from name calling, they end up looking better than they would if Republicans constantly reminded America of their socialist agenda. This idea intrigues Fox’s Megyn Kelly yesterday morning, and so she invited Alan Colmes on to chew it over. She found she had more than she bargained for: COLMES: When Sarah Palin responds to the State of the Union address and uses the acronym WTF, and says it was a ‘WTF’ speech, that is really uncalled-for and over the top. That is — KELLY: Why can’t she say that? What is the problem with saying that? COLMES: I didn’t say she couldn’t say that. But I have a right to get on the air that’s absolutely absurd — let her say it! In fact, I want her to say more of that stuff! But we have the right to come on and say that’s absolutely absurd and ridiculous! I’m not saying anybody should be shut down. KELLY: Yes, but others are. You’re not. COLMES: Come on, who’s saying anybody should be shut down? KELLY: This call for civility. COLMES: Wait a minute, Megyn. Who’s trying to shut who down? Who’s trying to shut anybody down? Who? KELLY: Well, that’s the question. The theory is — the theory is that this call for civility in fact an effort to silence critics who — let me just finish the theory — this is from this article — the theory is — other conservatives have said this — that they’re trying to silence Republicans or conservatives or Tea Party people who have been — who have been successful in winning back control of the House, winning back more seats in the Senate, and they’re worried about how successful they might be in 2012. COLMES: Paul Broun of Georgia, the congressman who said that Obama was just spewing his venom, said the reason Democrats wanted to sit with Republicans was to shut them down, to shut them off, to silence them. That’s absurd! This is a crazy conspiracy right-wing theory that somehow is accusing the Left of when they call for civility, what they really want is to shut you up? No! What’s wrong with just calling for civility for its own sake? So we should be condemned because people on my side call for us to be civil? And they expand this into some kind of bad evil plot to shut you down? That’s crazy! Let’s stipulate, perhaps, that civility is a lofty but probably unreachable goal. But let’s also stipulate that democratic debate itself is impossible when one side threatens, intimidates, smears, and invokes violent eliminationist rhetoric against the other — especially if it simultaneously refuses to engage in a debate over the facts of the issues but instead devotes its energy to shrieking hysterically about false “facts” and conspiracy theories. Civility would be great. But honest, clear debate without the cloud of violence is what we desperately need.
Continue reading …Krauthammer Exposes Hypocrisy of Being Called ‘Cranky’ by WaPo Columnist
January 29, 2011 No Comment
In the middle of a rather comical exchange on PBS's “Inside Washington” Friday evening, Washington Post columnist Colby King accused fellow panelist Charles Krauthammer of being “cranky” concerning President Obama's State of the Union address. Not at all surprising to fans of the Fox News contributor, Krauthammer struck back and did so quite impressively (video follows with transcript and commentary): MARK SHIELDS, PBS: There are two kinds of conservatives historically. There’s what I call the five minutes to midnight conservative, that is things are bad and they’re dark and they’re going to get darker, or the five minutes to dawn conservative. And certainly I put in that second category Jack Kemp and Ronald Reagan, who between them put a smiley face on conservatism. And I think Paul Ryan, unfortunately for his national debut, someone who is well-regarded by many, fell into the category of the five minutes to midnight: things are dark and they’re going to be bleaker and this is the time for cold showers and root canal. GORDON PETERSON, HOST: Five minutes to dawn, five minutes to midnight? CHARLES KRAUTHAMMER, SYNDICATED COLUMNIST: There are two kinds of Democrats: those who spin and those who tell the truth. What we got from the President was a remarkable speech of spin. He didn’t, the main issue of the November election was debt, size of government, expansion of government. He didn’t even use the word “debt,” the President, until he was 35 minutes into the speech. And what he proposed was essentially nothing, the most trivial of cuts, in a speech in which the first half was all about new stimulus. It’s as if nothing had happened. It’s as if he was going to continue exactly as it was. It’s as if he thinks that the electorate is not serious when it says it wants serious government, shrinking of government and control of debt. NINA TOTENBERG, NPR: The electorate is not serious, and we see that all the time. They want it generically but not specifically. They are not willing to pay to trim programs from… KRAUTHAMMER: In those circumstances, a president should lead and not pander to the, an irresponsible electorate that allows three consecutive years of $1.5 trillion of debt. Everyone knows it’s completely unsustainable, or would you say otherwise? PETERSON: Colby, he’s talking about education , innovation, rebuilding the infrastructure of the country, but again, how you do that with a $1.5 trillion debt? COLBY KING, WASHINGTON POST: Gordon, there are two kinds of panelists. You have one set that are just cranky. Cranky, cranky, cranky. And then there are the other kind where the milk of human kindness just flows just so freely from them. I am the latter. Moments later: KRAUTHAMMER: Colby. KING: Sir. KRAUTHAMMER: Colby said it was a good speech. We really have to talk about the quote-unquote “investments,” which of course is what Democrats say when they want otherwise to say spending but they won't use the word. And then he said it was okay on that, except that it didn’t address spending, which is a bit like saying, “Yes, but other than that, Mrs. Lincoln, how was the play?” KING: Cranky, cranky, cranky. KRAUTHAMMER: Spending and debt is the issue of the day. That is the President’s own deficit commission had said, and I thought all of you un-cranky liberals had approved their conclusions. Indeed they had, which raises another interesting point. Totenberg said the electorate is not serious about trimming the budget. She later commented that the cuts being discussed are trivial because discretionary spending is a small part of the budget, and no one wants to talk about reducing entitlements. We've been hearing this a lot lately from liberal media members. Now that the Republicans control the House, folks that came out en masse against any plans to reform Social Security in 2005 are now teasing this subject again. As such, it is really the press that want entitlement cuts generically but are going to balk and balk loudly at the specifics. This is important because what we saw in 2005 is how powerful the media can be in impacting public opinion and preventing legislation. George W. Bush was re-elected with a strong mandate having been the first President since Roosevelt in 1936 to win back the White House while expanding his Party's majority in both chambers of Congress. The public was ready for significant Social Security reform, but the media wasn't having any of it. Instead, so-called journalists – led by minority leaders Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid – went on a full-court press to shamefully convince the American people the program was fiscally sound for decades to come, and Bush was lying about its imminent insolvency to scare the public into supporting his agenda much as he did with weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. Now, six years later, these same folks are mocking any attempts to cut spending by ridiculing Republicans for not going after Social Security and Medicare. It makes you wonder not only how they sleep at night, but also how they so effectively manage their hypocrisy instinctively knowing which side of an argument they need to be on when it fits the prevailing template. Gotta hand it to 'em – this takes talent.
Continue reading …