Decision Reversed, WI Protesters Permitted To Stay In Capitol Building Overnight
February 28, 2011 No Comment
enlarge While holding the Capitol building doesn’t guarantee a successful outcome for the Wisconsin protesters, it’s pretty clear that the odds of retaining collective bargaining rights drop precipitously if they’re ejected from the building. So this is very good news indeed: MADISON, Wis. — In a victory — at least a symbolic one — for Wisconsin’s public employee unions, the Capitol authorities announced on Sunday that demonstrators could continue their all-night sleepovers in the building and would not be forcibly ejected or arrested. Just one day earlier, the state agency that oversees the Capitol police had said that the overnight protests, which have occurred continuously for almost two weeks and have been the heart and soul of the demonstrations in Madison, would cease on Sunday. The agency is led by an appointee of Gov. Scott Walker, a Republican, whose plan to strip public employee unions of nearly all of their collective bargaining rights has led to huge rallies in opposition, with as many as 70,000 demonstrators marching around the Madison Statehouse. Union officials, who had denounced the plan to close the Capitol overnight as an effort to silence critics, called the reversal a capitulation by Mr. Walker’s administration. “Cooler heads prevailed,” said Jim Palmer, the executive director of the 11,000-member Wisconsin Professional Police Association. “They had said they were going to clear the place out, and then they thought the better of it. Now it’s clear that law enforcement professionals are running the show.” Officials from both the governor’s office and the Department of Administration, the cabinet-level state agency that had previously called for closing the Capitol, could not be reached for comment.
Continue reading …Decision Reversed, WI Protesters Permitted To Stay In Capitol Building Overnight
February 28, 2011 No Comment
enlarge While holding the Capitol building doesn’t guarantee a successful outcome for the Wisconsin protesters, it’s pretty clear that the odds of retaining collective bargaining rights drop precipitously if they’re ejected from the building. So this is very good news indeed: MADISON, Wis. — In a victory — at least a symbolic one — for Wisconsin’s public employee unions, the Capitol authorities announced on Sunday that demonstrators could continue their all-night sleepovers in the building and would not be forcibly ejected or arrested. Just one day earlier, the state agency that oversees the Capitol police had said that the overnight protests, which have occurred continuously for almost two weeks and have been the heart and soul of the demonstrations in Madison, would cease on Sunday. The agency is led by an appointee of Gov. Scott Walker, a Republican, whose plan to strip public employee unions of nearly all of their collective bargaining rights has led to huge rallies in opposition, with as many as 70,000 demonstrators marching around the Madison Statehouse. Union officials, who had denounced the plan to close the Capitol overnight as an effort to silence critics, called the reversal a capitulation by Mr. Walker’s administration. “Cooler heads prevailed,” said Jim Palmer, the executive director of the 11,000-member Wisconsin Professional Police Association. “They had said they were going to clear the place out, and then they thought the better of it. Now it’s clear that law enforcement professionals are running the show.” Officials from both the governor’s office and the Department of Administration, the cabinet-level state agency that had previously called for closing the Capitol, could not be reached for comment.
Continue reading …Maddow: Fox Isn’t a News Channel – It’s a ‘McCarthyite Chamber of Horrors’
February 28, 2011 No Comment
The presumptive face of the most biased and propagandist television news outlet in America had some harsh words for the media organization that bests hers in ratings virtually every hour of every day. In a piece published by the Daily Beast Sunday, Rachel Maddow hypocritically told Howard Kurtz that Fox News has “become a McCarthyite chamber of horrors… You can't really call yourself a news channel if that's what you broadcast”: In the Olbermann tradition, Maddow is increasingly denouncing Fox, saying that Glenn Beck, in monologues about Muslims, has been “running baroque conspiracies that are designed to freak people out about bogeymen coming to get them, conspiracies that are unsupported by the facts.” Fox, she charges, has “become a McCarthyite chamber of horrors… You can't really call yourself a news channel if that's what you broadcast.” Maddow's repeated attacks have not provoked a response from Fox. This coming from a woman that has recently been skewered by NewsBusters, Politifact, and the Baltimore Sun's David Zurawik for her highly-partisan, often false statements on air. In the past ten days alone, Maddow has come under fire for a number of clearly erroneous comments she's made about the union battle in Wisconsin. Kurtz even addressed this on CNN's “Reliable Sources” Sunday, but failed to point it out in his rather glowing column: While the host devours information online, stuffing printouts in thick folders, there are missteps. She touted an item on the website ChristWire urging Sarah Palin to speak out on Egypt—unaware that it was a satirical blog with such headlines as ARE FACEBOOK SEX GANGS USING “WIKILEAKS” TO TARGET YOUR TEENS? (Maddow good-naturedly confessed her error on Twitter.) Indeed, but that was weeks ago and clearly a trifle compared to what she stepped in last Thursday when she claimed Wisconsin had a budget surplus. As Kurtz was going to be interviewing Politifact's editor about this episode on the same day his profile of Maddow was to be published, it is quite curious why he didn't mention it in his piece. Consider, too, that Politifact has to date reviewed eleven statements by Maddow finding four false, one barely true, three half-true, two mostly true, and only one completely true. That means she was scored 100 percent right in only nine percent of their analyses. And this woman has the nerve to say Fox isn't a news channel.
Continue reading …The two think tanks, leaders in the conservative and libertarian movements, produced a short video recently examining some of the claims made by pro-union demonstrators and other public employee union backers. Among the claims they take on: public sector workers don't make significantly more than their private sector counterparts, collective bargianing is “not about money,” and attempts to rein in public employee unions are simply “union busting” measures. Check out the video below the break. Thoughts on the video, the claims made in it, or the debate generally?
Continue reading …NBC Mislabels Dem Mayor as ‘R’ After Providence Fires All Its School Teachers
February 28, 2011 No Comment
Continue reading …
Over the past three weeks of turmoil in Egypt hundreds were arrested and detained by security services. Many have yet to be released and are reported missing by their families. The Guardian is compiling a database of the detained with information from Egyptian human rights groups. Some have been released but others are still to be accounted for
Continue reading …Arguing with Rand Paul, Letterman Urges Tax Hike to Pay Wisconsin Workers and Displays Ignorance of Tax Burdens
February 27, 2011 No Comment
Catching up with a Thursday night appearance by Senator Rand Paul to plug his new book, Paul’s segment on the Late Show exposed David Letterman as an arrogantly ill-informed ally of Wisconsin’s public employee unions: “Why don't we just raise the taxes and let these folks have their collective bargaining, have their union representation and go back to their jobs? Raise the taxes on the wealthy.” When Paul tried to educate Letterman about how a small percent of the wealthy pay far more than their fair share, Letterman was an oblivious student as he baselessly countered: “I think there's something wrong with those numbers. I don't know what it is exactly, but I'm pretty sure there's something wrong with them.” Paul had outlined his wish to reduce government spending, prompting Letterman to retort: “What would be so wrong then in terms of leaving the public sector alone and reducing tax benefits for the wealthy and large corporations? Why couldn't you make up your money that way?” (Audio: MP3 clip )
Continue reading …Arguing with Rand Paul, Letterman Urges Tax Hike to Pay Wisconsin Workers and Displays Ignorance of Tax Burdens
February 27, 2011 No CommentCatching up with a Thursday night appearance by Senator Rand Paul to plug his new book, Paul’s segment on the Late Show exposed David Letterman as an arrogantly ill-informed ally of Wisconsin’s public employee unions: “Why don't we just raise the taxes and let these folks have their collective bargaining, have their union representation and go back to their jobs? Raise the taxes on the wealthy.” When Paul tried to educate Letterman about how a small percent of the wealthy pay far more than their fair share, Letterman was an oblivious student as he baselessly countered: “I think there's something wrong with those numbers. I don't know what it is exactly, but I'm pretty sure there's something wrong with them.” Paul had outlined his wish to reduce government spending, prompting Letterman to retort: “What would be so wrong then in terms of leaving the public sector alone and reducing tax benefits for the wealthy and large corporations? Why couldn't you make up your money that way?” (Audio: MP3 clip )
Continue reading …
Click here to view this media Fox News employee and Republican presidential contender Mike Huckabee said Sunday that President Barack Obama’s decision not to defend key parts of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) was actually alienating his African American base. In a Wednesday statement, Attorney General Eric Holder wrote , “the President and I have concluded that classifications based on sexual orientation warrant heightened scrutiny and that, as applied to same-sex couples legally married under state law, Section 3 of DOMA is unconstitutional.” Fox News’ Chris Wallace talked with Huckabee about the decision Sunday. “You say that that could destroy the president,” Wallace noted. “Isn’t that over the top?” “No,” Huckabee replied. “He alieniated the African American community. Overwhelmingly, they support traditional marriages more than Hispanics and more than whites.” “Within the white community it’s about 56 percent, 65 percent in the Hispanic, 75 in the African American community,” he explained. “He said he believes that it’s unconstitutional,” Wallace pointed out. “He said that because some lower court decided a part of DOMA was unconstitutional, that he would not enforce it,” Huckabee countered. “By that logic, then he should not try to implement Obamacare because some lower courts already decided that it is unconstitutional. That’s hypocritical.” “It’s hypocritical and it’s dishonest because when he ran for president, Chris, he said that he supported traditional marriage. He is on the record. Now, the question is, was he dishonest then, is he dishonest now or did he change his view? And if he did, when and why?” In fact, White House press secretary Jay Carney explained Wednesday that Obama’s views on gay marriage were separate and distinct from this decision. “I don’t think that what he is doing is constitutional,” the Republican presidential candidate added. “If a president begins to decide which pieces of the law he will choose to support or endorse or enforce, based on a lower court decision, not because it is actually bubbled up to a final adjudication, that is an unusual precedent for a president to take.” Wallace quickly pointed out that Huckabee had his facts confused. The Obama administration said that while the discriminatory law would no longer be defended in court, it would be still be enforced. “It’s really the same thing,” Huckabee insisted. “He has decided that this is a part of the law he doesn’t like so he is not going to recognize it. I don’t think a president in the executive branch can thumb his nose at a branch of government that is incomplete in its assessment of the law.”
Continue reading …Click here to view this media Fox News employee and Republican presidential contender Mike Huckabee said Sunday that President Barack Obama’s decision not to defend key parts of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) was actually alienating his African American base. In a Wednesday statement, Attorney General Eric Holder wrote , “the President and I have concluded that classifications based on sexual orientation warrant heightened scrutiny and that, as applied to same-sex couples legally married under state law, Section 3 of DOMA is unconstitutional.” Fox News’ Chris Wallace talked with Huckabee about the decision Sunday. “You say that that could destroy the president,” Wallace noted. “Isn’t that over the top?” “No,” Huckabee replied. “He alieniated the African American community. Overwhelmingly, they support traditional marriages more than Hispanics and more than whites.” “Within the white community it’s about 56 percent, 65 percent in the Hispanic, 75 in the African American community,” he explained. “He said he believes that it’s unconstitutional,” Wallace pointed out. “He said that because some lower court decided a part of DOMA was unconstitutional, that he would not enforce it,” Huckabee countered. “By that logic, then he should not try to implement Obamacare because some lower courts already decided that it is unconstitutional. That’s hypocritical.” “It’s hypocritical and it’s dishonest because when he ran for president, Chris, he said that he supported traditional marriage. He is on the record. Now, the question is, was he dishonest then, is he dishonest now or did he change his view? And if he did, when and why?” In fact, White House press secretary Jay Carney explained Wednesday that Obama’s views on gay marriage were separate and distinct from this decision. “I don’t think that what he is doing is constitutional,” the Republican presidential candidate added. “If a president begins to decide which pieces of the law he will choose to support or endorse or enforce, based on a lower court decision, not because it is actually bubbled up to a final adjudication, that is an unusual precedent for a president to take.” Wallace quickly pointed out that Huckabee had his facts confused. The Obama administration said that while the discriminatory law would no longer be defended in court, it would be still be enforced. “It’s really the same thing,” Huckabee insisted. “He has decided that this is a part of the law he doesn’t like so he is not going to recognize it. I don’t think a president in the executive branch can thumb his nose at a branch of government that is incomplete in its assessment of the law.”
Continue reading …