Home » Archives by category » News (Page 7741)
Leftist Blogger Dismisses Black Conservative, CPAC Speaker Herman Cain As ‘Minstrel’

The far-left's racially-tinged paranoia and hatred of black conservatives rears its ugly head from time to time, often without the notice let alone disapproval of the liberal mainstream media. Hermain Cain is just the latest target. The businessman, radio host , and potential 2012 presidential aspirant was the “minstrel show” entertainment of CPAC 2011, according to Alternet's Chauncey DeVega. [For full disclosure, Cain serves as the national chairman for the Business & Media Institute, a division of the Media Research Center, NewsBusters.org's parent company] DeVega opened his Feb. 12 blog post with a passing swipe at all black conservatives before focusing exclusively on Cain: As you know, I find black garbage pail kids black conservatives fascinating not because of what they believe, but rather because of how they entertain and perform for their White Conservative masters.

Continue reading …
Dick Armey: Just Let Medicare and Social Security be Voluntary

Click here to view this media Dick Armey makes me want to punch myself in the face every time I have to be subjected to his “Why can’t I opt out of Medicare and Social Security?” lament. In his latest appearance on CNN’s Parker/Spitzer yesterday, he did it again: ARMEY: I think they will do that. If it’s going to happen, if will come out of the energy of the newly elected Republicans. But quite frankly there is so much work that has to be done, start with rolling back the new commitments that can’t be fulfilled, which we did with the vote on Obamacare. But the fact of the matter is, on social security, just let it be voluntary on Medicare. I’ll give you one, Eliot. SPITZER: All right. OK. ARMEY: A simple little thing. SPITZER: It’s not going to work, but that’s — ARMEY: Why can’t the United States government allow Dick Armey, a 71-year-old fellow — SPITZER: Right. ARMEY: — who makes a darn good living — SPITZER: Right. ARMEY: — opt out of Medicare without being punished? Just let Medicare be voluntary. I promise you there are a lot of wealthy old geezers and their wives in America — PARKER: I don’t think there are enough. ARMEY: — that would say to the federal government don’t let us be a burden to you, we’ll take care of our own health care. But this government is so devoted to the requirement that we be submitted to their dictatorship of our health care that they can’t even let rich people out of Medicare. It’s goofy. Why can’t Eliot Spitzer just pick up the ball and run with it, instead of giving an anemic response about how Mitt Romney understands mandates? It would have been simple enough to answer him with the truth, which is that Medicare and Social Security work because they are NOT optional? Can you imagine what a mess Medicare would be if “rich old guys” like Dick Armey who makes a “darn good living” were optional? The adverse selection is bad enough now because it only covers the disabled and elderly, but allowing opt-outs would destroy it. Which is Dick Armey’s ultimate goal, of course. I keep thinking that if we actually had the same decibels on the left shouting out for Medicare for All as the “Obamacare” replacement, the country would at least start to become more informed about the underlying principles of health care risk pools and why rich old geezers can’t “opt out” of it. I would also say this: Dick Armey might just change his mind about opting out of Medicare if he were to be diagnosed with a chronic illness that would force him to spend all his ill-gotten gains on health care the way many people in this country do already. Just to reiterate some statistics as the House continues to focus on abortion and health care, personal bankruptcies are at an all-time high, and in 2009, 60% of them were because of medical bills . I will give Dick Armey this much. At least he’s honest about wanting the rich to be treated differently than everyone else. It’s not much, but hey, when you’re a corporate shill for Koch Industries it’s always good to throw just enough truth into the spin to sound credible. After Armey’s ridiculous rant about those terrible “entitlements”, he launches into a bunch of word salad about the fledgling Republican party. It’s almost like he’s confirming Michael Steele’s comment from 2009 when he said Republicans weren’t ready to govern yet. Oops, the Republican speech police will come after him for that comment, just like the NRCC did . Full transcript follows. SPITZER: It’s impossible for a budget to please everyone, but the budget proposed today by President Obama seems not to be pleasing anyone. This should make our next guest very happy, but does it? Dick Armey helped spearhead the Tea Party movement. His battle cry is for government to get small. Welcome, Dick. Great for you to come back and join us. DICK ARMEY, FMR. HOUSE MAJORITY LEADER: Thank you. PARKER: Welcome back. ARMEY: Thank you. PARKER: A friend of the show, are you happy? Did this make you happy? Is this the budget you’ve been dreaming about? ARMEY: What? PARKER: This budget of President Obama’s? ARMEY: No. No, you know, as — you know, I’ve observed for a long time the biggest problem with the president he just doesn’t get it. And what’s kind of distressing us and an awful lot of grassroots activists across the country and has for a long time is the haunting fear that frankly may be nobody in either party gets it. PARKER: Well, apparently not because nobody will talk about the big cuts that have to be made. ARMEY: Right. PARKER: The spending cuts, entitlements, defense. ARMEY: Right. PARKER: All this. And so what does that say to you that President Obama didn’t even mention cutting entitlements in this budget? ARMEY: Well, first of all, I think — let me take you back to the defining phrase of this grassroots revolution we’ve just seen bring to maturity and we in representation in the Congress of the United States. The defining phrase is constitutionally limited government. Now basically what they’re saying, what we hear in — we have many government programs, some of which ought to be trimmed back and some of which ought not to be trimmed back and some that are social security, we won’t even talk about them. What the grassroots activist is saying, we need you to examine the constitution of the United States, look at the legitimate history of the United States government at work with the private sector, discern what in fact has been productive for the overall community and what has not and then begin the process of returning the government to its excellent job of performance and its legitimate and necessary duties and a restraint to stay out of things that are none of its damned business. SPITZER: Can I ask you a question though, because first of all, I just got a, you know, footnote here describing the Tea Party as mature. I’m not sure I’d go with that one, but that’s a separate issue. ARMEY: The average age — SPITZER: I’m not talking about age. I’m talking about it measuring it another way. Here’s the thing that bothers me. You’ve been on the show a lot. It’s always good fun. Time and time again, you said wait until we win, we’re going to come out with a budget. We the Republican side that shows you we are serious about it. Put aside my personal views on this, now your side is only talking at most about $100 billion which is six percent of this year’s deficit. ARMEY: No. SPITZER: Doesn’t go anywhere near — let me finish — doesn’t go anywhere near the entitlements, doesn’t go near defense. I’m going to be bipartisan in my criticism here, I’m not seeing from your side of the aisle the integrity that you said we would see if you guys won. ARMEY: No. Actually what the Republicans in the House are now saying primarily in response to the requirement that they make some kind of peace with their new members, is $106 billion reduction in the continuing resolution for the last, let’s see, what is it? SPITZER: It’s $100 billion for the fiscal year. ARMEY: Seven months of this year. SPITZER: That’s six percent — six percent of the deficit. ARMEY: But that’s just for the continuing resolution. You also have Jeb Hensarling working on serious budget reform. You also have many, many members of Congress making a point very clear when it comes to that moment when indeed you feel like it is imperative that we raise the debt limit. Be prepared to show how serious budget reforms for the future and reforms that include the elimination of not only major programs but even full agencies of the government. SPITZER: Look, I have here what was in the continuing resolution that was passed by the House Budget Committee. Paul Ryan, everybody acknowledges, extraordinarily smart, he is your budget whiz. None of it goes to what is the serious dollars. It all comes out of the nondefense discretionary budget which is only 12 percent of our total budget. So what I’m saying here is when will your side, and I’m quoting our side to the fire as well, stand up on social security, Medicaid, Medicare and defense with serious change in the trajectory of the budget? ARMEY: I think they will do that. If it’s going to happen, if will come out of the energy of the newly elected Republicans. But quite frankly there is so much work that has to be done, start with rolling back the new commitments that can’t be fulfilled, which we did with the vote on Obamacare. But the fact of the matter is, on social security, just let it be voluntary on Medicare. I’ll give you one, Eliot. SPITZER: All right. OK. ARMEY: A simple little thing. SPITZER: It’s not going to work, but that’s — ARMEY: Why can’t the United States government allow Dick Armey, a 71-year-old fellow — SPITZER: Right. ARMEY: — who makes a darn good living — SPITZER: Right. ARMEY: — opt out of Medicare without being punished? Just let Medicare be voluntary. I promise you there are a lot of wealthy old geezers and their wives in America — PARKER: I don’t think there are enough. ARMEY: — that would say to the federal government don’t let us be a burden to you, we’ll take care of our own health care. But this government is so devoted to the requirement that we be submitted to their dictatorship of our health care that they can’t even let rich people out of Medicare. It’s goofy. SPITZER: You know what? Mitt Romney is going to answer that question for you because he, the conservative Republican understood the necessity of the individual mandate and why health insurance care won’t work without it. Mitt Romney got that. We have embraced a very conservative concept when it comes to that. But anyway — PARKER: Eric Cantor, the House majority leader, said today that they will be wading into the entitlements when the House Republicans put out their budget in the spring. But then Paul Ryan backed off of that a little bit and said, well, first we have to have a family conversation to decide where to go with these things. I don’t understand what they’re talking about in the conversation because the Tea Party movement grew out of this understanding that we’ve got to have this. ARMEY: I understand the Republican Party in the eyes of most grassroots activists including myself, fell into disrepute. I mean, they became careless, reckless and so forth and self-indulgent and shortsighted. They’re frankly almost as bad as the Democrats. I mean, it was quite frightening because this movement is a movement that was born out of despair on both sides of the aisle. And to a large extent this movement was devoted to the proposition that if you wanted to ever once again get to constitutional limited government, you had to rehabilitate the Republican Party. Now the rehabilitation of the Republican Party in office is just beginning and even people that within the context of the standards one might hold for the Republican Party in office, relative to their past performance of the last five, six, seven, eight years, Paul Ryan is a hero. Today, he’s taking baby steps but we’ll bring him along. PARKER: All right. Coming up, Dick Armey. Thanks so much for joining us. I hate to interrupt but we have to go.

Continue reading …
Renegade militia kills over 200 in S.Sudan: officials

By Jeremy Clarke JUBA, Sudan (Reuters) – Attacks by a renegade militia in south Sudan’s oil state of Jonglei have killed at least 211 people, a southern minister said on Tuesday, doubling earlier estimates of the death count. The violence has rekindled concern for the security of the underdeveloped region, where voters last month overwhelmingly chose to declare independence from the north in a referendum. South Sudan’s army said forces loyal to George Athor, a former army officer who launched a revolt after losing in last year’s elections, carried out attacks in Jonglei last week….

Continue reading …
Vets Sue Pentagon Over Sexual Abuse Cases

More than a dozen veterans are suing the Pentagon in a bid to change the way the military handles rape and sexual assault allegations. (Feb. 15)

Continue reading …
Toshiba to release its Windows 7 tablet in the second half of the year

We know, from the side that tablet up there looks a lot like Toshiba’s still unnamed 10-inch Honeycomb tablet , but it’s actually the company’s future Windows 7 slate , which we were told today won’t be hitting the market until the second half of 2011. The model Toshiba had on display was behind glass and wasn’t actually powered on, but we did confirm that it will have an 11.6-inch display and will be powered by Intel’s Atom Oak Trail processor. That’s all we were able to get out of the company, but apparently that very tablet was on display at CES, and Notebook Italia gathered there that it will have 64GB of storage and 2GB of RAM. So, what’s the hold up on the slate? According to Toshiba’s Marco Perino, the company’s putting a bit of “Toshiba flavor” on top of the OS to make it more touch-friendly. He also said that it may not come to all parts of the world as different regions will determine the local demand. We’re not sure anyone is holding their breath for this one, but we’ll keep you updated if we should hear more. Hit the break for a few more behind-glass shots of the tablet. Gallery: Toshiba Windows 7 tablet at MWC Toshiba to release its Windows 7 tablet in the second half of the year originally appeared on Engadget on Tue, 15 Feb 2011 17:11:00 EDT. Please see our terms for use of feeds . Permalink

Continue reading …
Do the Powers that Be Really Want to Deny Another Galileo?

Image: Galileo Project , Wikimedia, CC There’s really no rational way a human can dispute the fact that the vast majority of the world’s scientists believe that greenhouse gas emissions generated by man are warming the climate. It’s one of the most important findings of modern science, and it’s supported by an impressively massive body of evidence. But, as you know, many politicians — who represent large swaths of the nation — are in outright, public denial of these findings. As are innumerable leading industrial interests. Journalist Mark Hertsgaard has a question for … Read the full story on TreeHugger

Continue reading …
A closer look at the HTC Flyer’s screen, stylus, and Scribe

This morning HTC announced its 7-inch Flyer tablet , and unlike the hoards of Android tablets we’ve seen in the last couple of months, it’s got something that frankly reminds us a bit of Microsoft’s original tablet push… a stylus! The Flyer doesn’t come with just any old capacitive stylus, however — HTC has worked with N-Trig , the company that has made digitizers for convertible PCs like the Dell Latitude XT , to implement a much more accurate writing or doodling experience. And well, it basically makes it unlike any other Android tablet on the market right now. We spent some time with N-Trig and the Flyer today, focusing quite a bit on the new stylus and “Scribe” software , as HTC calls it — hit the break for some details on both the software and hardware and a short video of how that pen actually works when put to the screen. Gallery: HTC screen, stylus, and Scribe hands-on Continue reading A closer look at the HTC Flyer’s screen, stylus, and Scribe A closer look at the HTC Flyer’s screen, stylus, and Scribe originally appeared on Engadget on Tue, 15 Feb 2011 17:01:00 EDT. Please see our terms for use of feeds . Permalink

Continue reading …
A better way to push democracy, but the west’s love-bombing has risks too  | Jonathan Freedland

The pressing question is what those outside the Middle East can do if they want to see reform spread across the region They say that if failure is an orphan, then success has many fathers – and Egypt’s revolution has proved the truth of that aged wisdom all over again. The latest to file a paternity claim is Donald Rumsfeld, defence secretary to George W Bush. Out hawking his new memoir, Known and Unknown, Rumsfeld reckons it was Bush’s “freedom agenda” that paved the way for the current revolutionary spirit sweeping the Arab world. “What President Bush has done in Iraq and Afghanistan is to give the people in those countries a chance to have freer political systems and freer economic systems. There’s no question that the example is helpful in the region.” In this, Rumsfeld was a little late to the party. His neoconservative outriders had already been making the case even more forcefully. In the Washington Post Charles Krauthammer took the near-universal admiration for the crowds in Tahrir Square as belated endorsement of the Bush programme. Where once Bush, Tony Blair and the neocons stood alone, now “it seems everyone, even the left, is enthusiastic for Arab democracy”, wrote Krauthammer, adding generously: “Fine. Fellow travellers are welcome.” In Britain Melanie Phillips has expressed astonishment at the sight of progressives backing the Egyptian demands for regime change: hadn’t these same “bien-pensants” denounced the Bush-Blair pursuit of regime change in Iraq? There could only be one explanation for this sudden change of heart: the left opposed the removal of Saddam because he was anti-western, but supported the ejection of Hosni Mubarak because he was pro-western. Er, no. That’s not quite it. Those who cheered last week’s upheaval in Cairo did so because it was a revolution from within, driven entirely by the Egyptian people, and because it was conducted by peaceful means. To put it too mildly, neither of those two conditions applied in Baghdad in 2003. A foreign invasion and an internal, grassroots uprising are not the same thing: it is perfectly possible to oppose one and support the other. Nor can the Bush defenders get away with rewriting the history of the former president’s “freedom agenda”, pursued most vigorously in the first two years of his second term. Those who criticised it did not do so because they believed that Arabs were, in Krauthammer’s words, “uniquely allergic to democracy”. The objection was to a Bush mission fatally tainted by the conquest of Iraq: after the 2003 war, any talk from him of spreading democracy sounded like a threat of invasion. People yearned for freedom, to be sure; they just didn’t believe it was best imposed down the barrel of a gun. What’s more, the “freedom agenda” was always damagingly selective. While Bush urged democracy in, say, Iran, Dick Cheney was lavishing praise on the dictator of Kazakhstan . To those despots who favoured the west Washington showed a blind eye – with Mubarak himself the prime example. Indeed, some of us were arguing in the Guardian in February 2003 that if Bush were serious about spreading democracy to the Middle East, he needn’t go to the trouble of invading Iraq : he could start with Egypt, tying America’s billion-dollar handouts to the country to “democratic performance”, making the cash conditional on Cairo allowing a free press, independent judiciary and real elections. Besides, the Bush team itself didn’t truly believe in the “freedom agenda”. Already cooling on the idea when Mubarak responded to Washington’s pretty tame requests for reform with a middle finger, they gave it up once they saw where democracy could lead: having called for Palestinian elections in 2006, they recoiled at the sight of a Hamas victory. We heard a little less about freedom and democracy after that. All of which makes it a little rich for Rumsfeld and friends to claim that Tahrir Square provides them with delayed vindication. If Bush and Bushism had any role in last week’s upheaval it was negative, continuing to prop up a dictator so hated his people rose up to remove him. Who then has a better paternity claim for the change in Cairo and beyond, besides, of course, the people in the streets themselves? Julian Assange could make a decent case, arguing that it was his WikiLeaks revelations of the Tunisian first couple’s corruption and luxury lifestyle that inspired revolution in that country, sparking the fire that spread next to Egypt and appears to have taken hold in Yemen, Iran and Bahrain , where the same chant that once rang around Tahrir Square has been heard once more: “We demand the fall of the regime.” The most starry-eyed Democrats will want to notch this up as a win for Barack Obama, pointing to his landmark 2009 speech in Cairo and to the simple chronological fact that these revolutions have taken place on his watch. More neutral participants give him credit for making it as clear as he could to a longstanding ally that Mubarak had to go – even over the opposition of some of his own team, including the US special envoy to Egypt. Still, those mixed signals alone ensure that few will recall last Friday’s event as the Obama revolution. More pressing than the allocation of credit is the question of what those outside the region can do if they want to see reform entrenched in Tunisia and Egypt and spread beyond. We know that bombing doesn’t work too well – but nor does love-bombing. If the west, especially the US, backs dissenters too loudly, that allows a regime to cast them as foreign agents and traitors. That was one lesson of the crushed uprising in Iran in the summer of 2009. Robin Niblett, director of Chatham House , told me he’s reached the glum conclusion that if western governments want to help the Iranian opposition, the best they can do is stay well away. “I wouldn’t even touch Iran. All you do is strengthen the regime.” Instead, the west should look to enable, rather than to do, exercising what foreign policy circles think of as soft or smart power, rather than hard, military might. The aim should be to nurture what Niblett calls “the infrastructure of representative government” – the rule of law, a free press and judiciary, parliament – in countries that currently lack the democratic basics. That way, if and when revolution comes, it will have a chance to dig in, take root and survive. Obviously that won’t work with avowedly hostile regimes: Iran and Syria won’t allow foreign teams to come in and start training police or judges. But the west has leverage over the likes of Morocco or Jordan: as allies, they will find it harder to say no. This can’t be a task for the US alone. The European Union can contribute too: after all, soft power is what we’re meant to be good at. Right now, it is the peoples themselves who are rising up and demanding freedom. Our job is to stop backing the tyrants who have oppressed them – and to lend a hand where we can help. That would be a freedom agenda worthy of the name. Egypt Middle East Protest George Bush Donald Rumsfeld Hosni Mubarak Barack Obama United States US foreign policy European Union Jonathan Freedland guardian.co.uk

Continue reading …
Zinc Poisoning Linked to Popular Denture Creams

Zinc overdose from Fixodent and in the older formulation of Poligrip causes nerve damage in people who used large amounts of the products.

Continue reading …

There are very few Americans who believe that the maintenance of the American republic literally depends on their continued relevance. Journalists comprise a large portion of that relatively small group. So as technology has enabled public figures to circumvent traditional media, those journalists have raised the alarm that without the proper “filters” (them, of course) constitutional republicanism itself is at risk. ABC News's Devin Dwyer reported on Tuesday: But while these innovative communications tools [used by the Obama White House] ostensibly offer greater transparency and openness, critics say they have come at a troublesome expense: less accountability of the administration by the independent, mainstream press. Over the past few months, as White House cameras have been granted free reign behind the scenes, officials have blocked broadcast news outlets from events traditionally open to coverage and limited opportunities to publicly question the president himself. Obama's recent signing of the historic New START treaty with Russia and his post-State of the Union cabinet meeting, for example, were both closed to reporters in a break with tradition. And during a recent question and answer session with the president and visiting Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper, the White House imposed an unusual limit of just one question each from the U.S. and Canadian press corps. “The administration has narrowed access by the mainstream media to an unprecedented extent,” said ABC News White House correspondent Ann Compton, who has covered seven administrations. “Access here has shriveled.” The consequence of reduced access, from the perspective of traditional media, is that the president's statements cannot be vetted by reporters. But as was so clearly demonstrated in the run-up to the 2008 elections – and in post-mortems since then – journalists will only vet people they want to vet. Obama was not scrutinized by the traditional media so fond of their own roles in preserving political accountability and transparency. From exhortations of Obama's demigod status to the maintenance of CNN's ” Revered Wright-free zone ,” the press, on the whole, decided that it didn't feel like vetting Obama. Dwyer quotes one media scholar: “They're opening the door to kicking the press out of historic events, and opening the door to having a very filtered format for which they give the American public information that doesn't have any criticism allowed,” said University of Minnesota journalism professor and political communication analyst Heather LaMarre. But the press demonstrated its own willingness to filter out information damaging to then-candidate Obama. Reporters of course apply more scrutiny to the White House than the White House does, but to simply bestow the mantle of neutral arbiter upon the press that was so derelict in its duty as a political watchdog would be an exercise in willful blindness. While the “filter” provided by traditional media has for so long been given the presumption of political neutrality and granted unique credibility accordingly, the White House's new media messaging must necessarily compete on equal footing with billions of other messages swirling around the Web. Another media scholar in Dwyer's piece made this comparison: “If Nixon had announced he was going to start the 'Nixon channel' and said they were only going to put up stuff he approved of, people would have said, 'Oh my God, this is like Communist Russian state media,'” said David Perlmutter, director of the University of Iowa School of Journalism and Mass Communication. (No word on whether Perlmutter considered the ” Barack Obama's Plan for America ” Dish Network channel Soviet-esque.) That comparison would only have been accurate if a total of four websites were currently in existence. After all, a Nixon channel would only have had to compete with the networks and PBS. There is no comparing that dynamic with our current digital media environment. By removing traditional media filters from the equation, the White House is forcing its messaging to compete on a far more level playing field. That doesn't make the information coming from the White House any better or more honest, but it can no longer be given a rubber stamp of legitimacy by a press that has routinely incorporated its own political preferences into its role as an information “filter.”

Continue reading …