That taxpayer-funded leftist sandbox called National Public Radio promoted the latest work/wreck of “progressive art” on Saturday morning's Weekend Edition . In San Francisco, they're twisting the classic ballet The Nutcracker into a radical-left jeremiad. Anchor Scott Simon announced nonchalantly: “'Tis the season for The Nutcracker. One production in San Francisco is decorated with a grab-bag of liberal political causes. In the Revolutionary Nutcracker Sweetie, the ice caps melt during the dance of the snowflakes and Clara is an undocumented Latina maid.” Liberal reporters think liberals aren't at all noteworthy so they get no label. When the media elite announces something has “liberal causes,” it's extremely leftist. Reporter April Dembosky interviewed the show's writer and director, Krissy Keefer, about her twisted take on Tchaikovsky: KEEFER: We are a political dance company in that we try to make work that is socially relevant, that is responding to the real ideas and real needs of people today in the community. read more
Continue reading …Click here to view this media [h/t PoliticsUSA ] Howard Dean appeared on Face the Nation today to discuss anger on the left, the tax deal, and why primarying Obama is a bad deal. Yes, there is anger, but it’s still a bad deal for a number of reasons. History proves it and the polls don’t support it . From the transcript (PDF) : HOWARD DEAN (Former Presidential Candidate): I don’t think he’s going to face an opponent in the democratic primary. I think that would be bad thing for the country and I think it would be a bad thing for the Democratic Party. The history of people running against Presidents in their own party as the challenger, you loses and then the President is weakened and loses. Now the President has done some things that I think are terrific. This is not one of them. But I– I think he will not get an opponent. This is not to say that Dean endorses the tax cut idea. He doesn’t. BOB SCHIEFFER: What do you think is going to happen here, governor? Do you think in the end the House Democrats like Congressman Nadler will come around, just looking– HOWARD DEAN: Well here’s the– here’s the big problem with this, Bob. This is terrible for the country long term and it’s not just the things that Jerry was talking about. First of all we’re going to find out if the Republicans are serious about the deficits. This tax cut’s not paid for. And the biggest part of the deficit in– as– if you project out until 2018 is the Bush tax cuts. That is what causes sixty percent of the deficit. Second of all the two percent payroll tax sounds great but in fact they take it out of the Social Security Trust Fund. Now here we are complaining about the Social Security Trust Fund going broke and we take a hundred and twenty million dollars of rev- – a billion dollars of revenue out and use it for a– a payroll tax mitigation. This is a short-term Washington fix. It does nothing about the biggest long term threat to America which is the deficit. I don’t hear Republicans or Democrats talking about the deficit. There is no pain in this agreement. This is the easy way out for everybody. Much as everybody is complaining and hooting and hollering, this is an inside the beltway fuss and somebody needs to do something about the long term problems in this country, it’s not in this bill. Later in the transcript Dean discusses the political cost to the President as a result of his deal with the devil Republicans: The truth is I don’t think this is all that bad for the President politically because he– he is going to be seen as acting presidential and bringing both sides together and all that stuff. The thing that bothers me about it is we have yet to deal with the biggest problem that is facing this country, which is the size of the deficit and nobody is doing anything about it. Dean almost got to why this deal really does put Obama at a political advantage in 2012 when he addresses the deficit issues. There have been rising signals from the White House that this bandage (or punt, or Hail Mary pass or whatever you want to call it) on the tax cuts doesn’t come without another price: A call for both sides to sit down and overhaul the tax code. Republicans have responded by promising cuts of an immediate $25 million by slashing Congressional staff budgets. Ooooh, a whole $25 million? Sheesh, $25 million doesn’t even cover John Boehner’s green fees, much less make a dent in the budget. If you want symbolism, that $25 million is it, right there. The new Republicans in the House and Senate are hiring lobbyists as their chiefs of staff, so count on a fight over pork — with the GOP taking the lead. Suddenly the party running on fiscal responsibility in 2010 will be held to that promise in 2011, and they’ll surely break that promise right away, leading to disappointment and anger in the Tea Party ranks . Over the next two years, they and their corporate masters will be forced into the position of having to defend their porky ways, their penchant for deficit spending, and their empty rhetoric. Will we capitalize on that? To me, a fight worth having is the one that hurts the other side, not our own side. We have shameless corporate hacks in charge of the budget and appropriations process now. They’ve promised to try and de-fund the health care bill, which will not be progress in any form if they succeed. They want to undermine Medicare and Medicaid while continuing outrageous corporate welfare to multinational corporations who currently pay no tax. When viewed in that frame (and by the way, please read this George Lakoff column for more on how we’ve all failed to frame this debate properly), aiming our ammunition at the right wing seems like a more sensible thing than assuming the mantle of the minority and the aggrieved.
Continue reading …It only took three days, but someone at CBS News finally realized that at least one House Democrat on Thursday vulgarly referred to the President of the United States. Unlike most of his colleagues in the media, Bob Schieffer was so disturbed by this revelation that he asked two different Democrat guests about it on the most recent installment of “Face the Nation” (video follows with transcript and commentary): read more
Continue reading …Click here to view this media The roof of the Metrodome in Minneapolis collapsed early Sunday morning under the weight of 17 inches of snow. Fox obtained time lapse video taken from inside the building as the roof collapsed that looked like something straight out of a disaster movie. The Minnesota’s Viking’s Sunday game with the New York Giants has been rescheduled to be held Monday at 7:20 p.m. at Ford Field in Detroit. The New York Daily News reported: The Giants woke up in Kansas City Sunday morning to the news that the game couldn’t be played in Minnesota. Big Blue has been stranded in Missouri since Saturday by the historic blizzard that’s wreaking havoc in Minnesota. They were originally scheduled to play the Vikings in Minneapolis Sunday, but late Saturday night the game was pushed back to Monday at 8 p.m. Then the roof fell in, leading to the move to Detroit. The situation has become a logistical nightmare for the team and the league, which was told by Metrodome officials Sunday morning that their dome “will not be available.” The Teflon-coated fiberglass roof on what is now known as Mall of America Field collapsed under the weight of 17-plus inches of snow between 4 and 5 a.m. According to reports, there were “several tears” in the roof and snow on the field before it collapsed.
Continue reading …Click here to view this media Fareed Zakaria gave his take on CNN this morning on Obama’s compromise with Republicans on tax cuts and why China is leaving the United States in the dust. Obama should have gotten better deal on tax cuts : President Barack Obama should have negotiated a more fiscally responsible deal with Republicans on extending tax cuts, analyst Fareed Zakaria says. After insisting on the campaign trail in 2008 and through much of his first two years in office that extending tax cuts for high-income earners was irresponsible, Obama agreed to extend the Bush tax cuts for all Americans. “Obama was exactly right to try and make a deal with the Republicans. But it does seem somewhat lopsided in that the Republicans got exactly what they wanted, which makes one wonder whether there was a better negotiating strategy that might have been adopted,” Zakaria said. Read on… Transcript from Fareed’s Take in the clip above below the fold. The best that can be said about Obama’s compromise with the Republican Party on taxes is that it might not cause too much harm. The extension of unemployment benefits will keep putting money into the economy. There are some good provisions in the bill to encourage businesses to create jobs, but on the whole, a great chance has been lost to start putting America’s fiscal house in order. If we had repealed some part or the whole of the Bush tax cuts, it would have gone a long way toward reducing the structural budget deficit the United States has. And more importantly, what the bill does is to try one more time to encourage Americans to spend more money. Now, we got into this mess because Americans borrowed and spent too much and now, we’re trying to get out of it by borrowing and spending more. The Republican Party has come to power in the recent election by denouncing Keynesian economics, that is the government’s effort to stimulate the economy, but it turns out they are actually as committed to Keynesian economics as the Democrats. You see, John Maynard Keynes simply said that when businesses and consumers stop spending, the government has to step in. He advocated two kinds of government actions, public spending or tax cuts. The Republicans simply prefer the latter. In fact, the cost of their Keynesian bill is about the same as the cost of the Democrat’s stimulus bill of 2009, $900 billion. What no one is talking about as we add to the deficit by encouraging consumer spending is that the only path to long-term growth is to have consumers borrow less, get their balance sheets in order and for the economy to focus more on investments for the future in industries of the future. And while we shy away from that kind of thinking about government funding, the fastest growing country in the world, China, has uses precisely this approach to achieve its extraordinary growth rates and now, China is moving to a whole new level. Reuters reports this week on a plan by the Chinese government to invest $1.5 trillion over the next five years in strategic industries. Beijing wants China to move out of low wage manufacturing and has identified seven key areas where it wants to quadruple its output in five years. The targeted sectors are alternative energy, biotechnology, new generation information technology, high-end equipment manufacturing, advanced materials, alternative fuel and energy saving and environmentally-friendly technologies. So, the Chinese will now move into these sophisticated industries while lending us the money, which we will use to give ourselves a tax break. Someone in Beijing is laughing.
Continue reading …Click here to view this media At least one Supreme Court Justice will be attending next year’s State of the Union address. Justice Stephen Breyer suggested Sunday that other justices shouldn’t let President Barack Obama’s criticism of the court keep them away from the annual speech. “My job, Chris, is to write opinions,” Breyer told Fox News’ Chris Wallace in a rare interview. “The job of 307 million Americans is to criticize those opinions. What they say is up to them. The words I write are carrying out my job under the law as best I can. That’s true of my colleagues.” “I’ll go next year. I’ve gone every year. I think it’s very, very, very important, very important for us to show up at that State of the Union because people today, as you know, are more and more visual,” Breyer said. “I’d like them to read, but they are visual. And what they see in front of them in that State of the Union is the federal government, every part. The president, the Congress, the cabinet, military, and I would like them to see the judges, too, because federal judges are also part of the government. I want to be there,” he said. During his 2010 State of the Union address, Obama criticized the court’s Citizens United decision which said that corporate funding of independent political broadcasts cannot be limited. “With all due deference to separation of powers, last week the Supreme Court reversed a century of law to open the floodgates for special interests – including foreign corporations – to spend without limit in our elections,” Obama said. “Well, I don’t think American elections should be bankrolled by America’s most powerful interests, and worse, by foreign entities. They should be decided by the American people, and that’s why I’d urge Democrats and Republicans to pass a bill that helps corrects some of these problems,” he added. While Democratic lawmakers cheered for the president’s remarks, Justice Samuel Alito could be seen mouthing the words “not true.” Weeks later, Chief Justice John Roberts said the address had “degenerated to a political pep rally.” “The image of having the members of one branch of government standing up, literally surrounding the Supreme Court, cheering and hollering, while the court — according to the requirements of protocol — has to sit there expressionless, I think is very troubling,” Roberts said to University of Alabama law students. “That’s his opinion,” Breyer said Sunday. “He says what he thinks. I say what I think and what I think is what I said. I’ll be there next year.”
Continue reading …Click here to view this media Phil Donahue joined Eliot Spitzer and Kathleen Parker to discuss his long career as a talk show host, the dangers of media consolidation and his ouster from MSNBC during the run up to the invasion of Iraq for daring to speak out opposing it. You generally don’t find too many conversations like this one on cable news since I’m sure their bosses wouldn’t want to shine a light too brightly on the need to bust these companies up. Every once in a while one slips through like this one though. PARKER: If you think Oprah has the longest running syndicated talk show in history, think again. That particular honor belongs to our next guest. SPITZER: Phil Donahue invented the daytime confessional format, aiming both high brow and low in his 29-year long career. We spoke to him earlier. SPITZER: Thank you for joining us. It’s an honor to have you here. PARKER: I’m thrilled. I watched your show for years and years. I think my entire life. DONAHUE: Well, I thank you. You turned out anyway, didn’t you, watching me? PARKER: Do you sometimes think maybe you created a monster? DONAHUE: Well, I have said they are all my illegitimate children and I love them equally. But it is true that the game has changed, really quite something. In many ways it’s changed from when I went often the off the air which was ’96 with my daytime show. And even the cable, nighttime, your arena, since 2002, when I was on MSNBC, it’s totally different now, totally. PARKER: Is it meaner? Is it coarser? DONAHUE: Sure. First of all, I would never mention Bill O’Reilly on my MSNBC program in 2002. This is only eight years ago. Why would you mention the competition? People might — today, this group — SPITZER: They live off each other. DONAHUE: The shows have fallen back on each other and we are now being entertained by watching them fight with each other. PARKER: But guess what, you don’t see women doing that, do you? DONAHUE: I haven’t thought about that. SPITZER: Oh, sure you do. PARKER: Not really? SPITZER: I’m not going to name names. I don’t think there is a gender divide here. Some of the more vitriolic names right now may not be women, but I don’t think there’s a gender division. PARKER: I think some woman are vitriolic in their approach to interviewing and commenting. But I don’t think they go after each other. DONAHUE: You might want to watch “The View.” PARKER: Yeah. DONAHUE: Well that’s true, that is not a night time show. I don’t know if that makes a difference, but certainly they push back. SPITZER: I want to go back to Newt Minnow who way back in the 60s, I think it was, referred to TV as a vast wasteland. Are we doing better? Are the talk shows even though they’re edgy and they’re loud and the decibel level may be too high, do they contribute to our politics in a way or a bad way, do you think? DONAHUE: Well, as you know, I’m a brilliant man. SPITZER: We do know, that’s why I’m asking you this hard question. DONAHUE: Here’s the thing I’m having trouble with. You know, I — in — my first job was in a radio station, and I was the news director. I had never been a reporter. I was the news director, by the way, because I was the only man in the news department. It was a small radio station. And I covered the news, and I could stop the mayor. I was like — I looked 12 years old, and I couldn’t get over the power of this thing. And then I’m a slow learner. The First Amendment ensures that if anybody can be a reporter, even me, I took no test, I didn’t pee in a bottle, I just said I’m a reporter, and I was, that’s what you want, because you get a lot of people reporting then. And then somewhere in the middle of this large crowd will be found the truth. Today, that middle is occupied by five companies. So you don’t get to push back. There is — I have 900 channels on my TV, but 700 of them are selling the Botox machine. That is not good diversity. SPITZER: But right. But here’s where the new media, the technology maybe our saving grace. There has been this diffusion, this explosion in terms of the number of channels and the YouTubes and social media so everybody is a journalist, because everybody can talk to everybody. And you’re right. There is this enormous and dangerous concentration, but out of that voices will emerge, can we not hope, sort of — DONAHUE: You would hope. But let’s remember this, governor — every major metropolitan newspaper in this country supported the invasion of Iraq. SPITZER: Right. DONAHUE: I mean, think about that. This is the land of the first amendment. Cacophony of voices, arguing, growing — SPITZER: Let me raise something then that — DONAHUE: But this is corporate media. This is what you get. SPITZER: I want to raise something then that we weren’t going to raise, which is that you were pushed off the air because you opposed it. DONAHUE: I opposed the war. SPITZER: And is that one of the reasons they pushed you off? DONAHUE: Read the memo published by the “New York Times,” “Donahue’s anti-war voice is not going to work against the flag waving on the other station.” Donahue and any anti-war voice in 2002, remember, they’re all doing what I did now. The whole channel is now. You could not criticize this war four months before the invasion. It was not good for business. You had — General electric had no interest in featuring an old talk show host who was against the president’s war. It was — it was unpopular. You weren’t American. This is what you get with corporate media. It’s going to happen again. PARKER: Well, and, you know, when the Congress voted for it, too. But everyone did think there was something going on. It’s not like they were just maliciously going after another country. People were afraid, don’t you think? After 9/11 — DONAHUE: Are we so insecure? PARKER: Yes. DONAHUE: That when — PARKER: After we were attacked the way we were attacked, I think there was a low, low tolerance for any kind of risk. I’m not making a justification for war. I’m just saying what — DONAHUE: Are you making a justification for this war? PARKER: The mindset of the country at the time was such that — I mean, I wish you had been on the air doing your old show. DONAHUE: I do, too. But I didn’t make it to the invasion. I was gone three months — the invasion was March of ’03 and I was gone like in January. And the president — the president scared the hell out of the nation. PARKER: The nation was already scared. DONAHUE: He’s under your bed, he’s outside your window, he’s got mass destruction weapons. You could feel the heartbeat of the nation accelerate. It was a bloodlust — SPITZER: You are so right in what you’re saying is so important about the lack of tolerance for dissenting voices and your voice not going to be silenced. DONAHUE: Oh, thank you. SPITZER: It won’t be. I don’t care who does what. It won’t be silenced. PARKER: Phil Donahue, thank you for being with us. DONAHUE: Thank you both. PARKER: We’ll be back.
Continue reading …Imagine the year is 1942 and the German government runs a news bureau in Washington, D.C. collecting government secrets. Even FDR would have laughed at claims they were actual journalists, locked them up and thrown away the key. He would have been right. There's a huge difference between an individual or an organization reporting abuses in government or business one at a time and the same people stealing enough classified material to run a spy agency. But sleazy Julian Assange and his spy agency WikiLeaks are trying to pretend they are journalists. He even calls himself 'editor-in-chief,' sort of like Mata Hari calling herself H.L. Mencken or the Rosenbergs claiming to be Woodward and Bernstein. Assange even argued in a recent column that 'WikiLeaks coined a new type of journalism: scientific journalism.' As a sign just how far that profession has fallen, many in the media are agreeing with the spin. read more
Continue reading …Click here to view this media Apparently Bernie Sanders speaking out today about the terrible deal being struck to make sure that the rich in America get to keep their tax cuts hit a nerve with flame thrower Bernard Goldberg. He appeared on Fox with Megyn Kelly to promote his lastest op-ed where he said we should be building monuments to rich people and pissed and moaned about what percentage of the taxes they pay. Those poor downtrodden rich people that own most of the wealth in the country. How will they ever get by without the Bernard Goldbergs of the world looking out for them? It looks like his server is crashed but another site had a good portion of his screed posted here — Thank God for Rich People : I have an idea for a monument in our nation’s capital. I envision a big bronze and granite statue that would honor an entire group of Americans who are true heroes, and unsung heroes at that. It is time — no, make that long past time — to pay tribute to those this nation of ours owes a great debt; to those who give and give and give and in return get anything but our gratitude. This is an idea whose time has finally come. Right there, amongst the sacred national structures that honor great Americans, we need to build a shiny monument to … (this is where the drum roll would come in) The Rich – otherwise known in liberal circles as the filthy, no good, greedy, heartless rich. The statue could be simple and elegant: a smiling rich guy in a business suit holding hundred dollar bills in both hands, extended toward the blue sky. President Obama compromises with Republicans and gives the wealthiest two percent of Americans a temporary respite from a tax hike and listening to the yelps of the “progressives” you’d think he just tried to shut down WikiLeaks or something. The Left is bawling about how “we can’t afford” to give people “who don’t need it” a tax break. This argument makes perfect sense, of course – as long as income re-distribution is a central tenet in your theology. Never mind that liberals weren’t all that concerned about what we could afford when they passed a nearly trillion dollar stimulus package that didn’t stimulate very much or when they poured in billions of our tax dollars to bail out General Motors. It’s only now that they’re concerned about budgets because those nasty rich folks are getting a break. But I don’t want to pick a fight with my liberal friends over whether the wealthiest Americans “deserve” a tax break or not. I have come simply to praise The Rich, not to bury them. I offer a few numbers to make my case: Did you know that the top one percent of American wage earners (adjusted gross income) pay about 38 percent of all our federal personal taxes (according to the National Taxpayer Union)? The top one percent, by the way, account for 23.5 percent of all income — a substantial amount, yes, but considerably less than 38 percent. Or that the top five percent pay just under 60 percent? Or that the top ten percent pay about 70 percent of all the personal income taxes collected in this great land of ours? h/t Media Matters
Continue reading …