Tag Archives: dylan-ratigan

UNION: MSNBC Calls for Fashion Industry ‘Norma Rae’

MSNBC is very upset about one “highly-unregulated industry” and its “questionable and even abusive” working conditions. What industry? Coal mining or perhaps sewage treatment? No. Keli Goff, an author and political analyst who has a “Daily Rant” on MSNBC’s “Dylan Ratigan Show,” was complaining about the working conditions of models. That’s right, models. The people paid to walk down runways in designer clothing and be photographed for magazines and advertisements that as Goff put it, essentially are “paid for being beautiful.” Every industry has its own problems and accidents, but is the modeling industry really a “human rights” issue as MSNBC would have its viewers believe? Goff detailed “disturbing” complaints from models and promoted regulation and unionization of the industry. She even called for a “home-grown supermodel” to become the “Norma Rae of the fashion industry.” “Union! As Norma Rae said,” Goff declared. Norma Rae was a movie starring Sallie Field about a minimum-wage cotton mill worker, based on the life of an actual textile worker who battled to unionize her mill. But some of the conditions Goff mentioned cannot compare to the tough working conditions of many other industries. She complained about the lack of health insurance and worker’s comp for a model that had been burned by a photographers’ bulb, but didn’t mention whether or not the model could afford her own health care. According to San Diego Model Management, in most markets models make an hourly rate of $150 and usually have minimum number of hours (3-4) for print modeling. In bigger markets like New York City ” it’s not unusual for a model to make 5 or 6 thousand a day ,” the company’s website states. True, there are agency fees but the models definitely aren’t exactly scraping by on minimum wage. But it was the obsession with too thin models that really upset Goff and prompted her call for regulation of the U.S. fashion industry. “After being discovered walking down the street, [Gerren] Taylor walked in her first fashion show at the age of 12 and was strutting for high profile designers like Tommy Hilfiger by age 13. Her career however was over by age 14, having been told she’d become ‘too obese’ for runways. Taylor’s measurements: Six feet tall and a size 4,” Goff said. Goff continued: “Taylor’s story reinforces a reason the fashion industry needs regulation. Fashion’s developed a sick obsession with looking sickly thin in recent years.” Certainly, many designers are obsessed with thin but that problem shouldn’t be solved by regulation. Designers are in a business, and they sell a product. So if their product, in this case clothing promoted by very thin women, won’t sell, then they’ll have to change or lose business. Despite Goff’s support for Madrid and London regulations about size and age of models, the U.S. government should not be in the business of telling designers what size models they can hire to show off their clothing lines. Additionally, Goff cited concern about the fact that many models work long before they turn 18, but she didn’t mention anything in her “rant” about parental responsibility or involvement. It wasn’t until Dylan Ratigan asked about parents in his final question that she said they have often “relinquished” [control] and there isn’t much oversight “in the field.” Perhaps, Goff should have complained about the lack of parental involvement and called on models’ parents to be in control of protection their children instead of asking for the government to step in as nanny.

Read the original post:
UNION: MSNBC Calls for Fashion Industry ‘Norma Rae’

Cenk Uygur: The Next Leftist MSNBC Star?

Cenk Uygur (pronounced Jenk You-gurr) is profiled by media reporter James Rainey  in Wednesday’s Los Angeles Times, and it becomes quite clear the exotically-named Young Turks radio host could be the next leftist star at MSNBC. Since his friendship with Dylan Ratigan led to some guest-hosting gigs (in which he bested Ratigan in the ratings), Uygur is now part of the “family” of Bush-hating radicals: Cable executives hope fill-in hosts can at best hold on to the audiences they inherit. But MSNBC insiders said they believe Uygur did so well because many of those who watch his three-hour weekday Web program, (3 to 6 p.m. PDT) or clips on his YouTube channel jumped to MSNBC when Ratigan was out…. MSNBC President Phil Griffin called Uygur “part of our family” and expects him to get “more and more” air time, though he declined to specify in what time slots. Inside Cable News guesses it wouldn’t be any place in day time (might they dump the Hardball rerun at 7?) Or they could do an MSNBC version of  Red Eye in late night? In any case, Cenk wants to be seen on Obama’s left: “Obama spent the first two years of his administration practicing political unilateral disarmament,” he said in one salvo. “He laid down his arms to reach out to Republicans, and they ripped his arms off and clubbed him over the head with them.” Uygur has also offered these oddball utterances: Unlike Fox, MSNBC is “straight news.” He made this case with a straight face: “Is there a chance that Obama is actually more conservative than Reagan?” Days later, he added this Obama dismissal: “I didn’t realize we elected a Republican president.” As a Republican electoral wave approaches, the Tea Party is the “cancer of the Republican Party.” Most recently, he asked, “What black person, gay guy or girl, immigrant or Muslim-American in their right mind would vote for the Republican party? They might as well hang a sign around their neck saying I hate myself.” Eventually, MSNBC is going to be just wall-to-wall leftist wailers, many of them from failed talk-radio shows.

See original here:
Cenk Uygur: The Next Leftist MSNBC Star?

Ratigan: ‘Default Position’ In USA Is To Incarcerate Black Men

Dylan Ratigan’s “Daily Rant” segment was a treasure trove of controversial statements today.  You be the judge of which statement rates higher on the controversy-meter: Ratigan’s claim that the “default position” in the USA is to incarcerate black men rather than educate them; or Blogger Keli Goff’s suggestion that to end the cycle of poverty among African-Americans, and to avoid burdening taxpayers, kids should be taught in school that not everyone should have children. Ratigan’s rather-imprison-than-educate African-Americans accusation is refuted by the facts, starting with the fact that the school district that spends more per pupil than any other in the USA is . . . that of the federally-funded District of Columbia, whose students are predominantly African-American. As for the suggestion from Keli Goff [a youthful veteran of various Dem political campaigns], can you imagine the outrage and the accusations of eugenics if a conservative blogger, particularly one of pallor, proposed that kids be taught not to have children as a solution, among other things, for reducing the burden of African-Americans on taxpayers? Goff was responding to a Bob Herbert column noting the low high-school graduation rate among African-American males. KELI GOFF: . . . One high-school dropout ends up costing taxpayers more than $200,000 over his lifetime.  And yet African-Americans and religious black Americans in particular, still have a tough time tackling the issues of family planning and birth control . . . So what’s the solution? Well, I think it’s simple. I think we should start by putting the “plan” back in “family planning.” No, I’m not advocating that we start throwing condoms at five-year olds. I’m actually suggesting something much more revolutionary.  For starters, what if in childhood health classes we taught the idea that just as every person isn’t meant to grow up to become an astronaut, not every person is meant to grow up to become a parent? . . . DYLAN RATIGAN: How much of [the cycle of poverty] in your opinion is family-planning driven, how much of that is a function of systematic racism in our country and laws that are enforced to basically pick-up, harvest and incarcerate young black men , particularly in New York with the Rockefeller laws, and how much of it is a complete abandonment of education as a value system period in this country unless you’re rich? GOFF: Well first of all you can’t discount any of those issues, and a lot of them are intertwined, but we do have systematic racism in this country, we have a history in this country that has helped handicap — RATIGAN: Particularly for incarcerating black men! GOFF: Right, which has helped handicap our community. RATIGAN: Because in my opinion, has been a default position to incarcerate black men as opposed to educate and integrate black men into our economy!

Read the original here:
Ratigan: ‘Default Position’ In USA Is To Incarcerate Black Men

Media Use Crazy Weather to Hype Global Warming, Despite Admissions Weather Isn’t Climate

Last winter, as blizzard snowfalls piled up into several feet in the nation’s capital, conservatives mocked global warming alarmists for trying to link weather incidents to global warming. But as summer heat waves, volcanoes and sinkholes have appeared recently, climate alarmists proved they missed the point . A top Obama administration scientist attacked global warming skeptics during the winter by pointing out that “weather is not the same thing as climate.” ABC’s Bill Blakemore argued the same thing in order to defend the existence of manmade global warming on Jan. 8, 2010. But Associated Press, USA Today , The New York Times and The Washington Post have all promoted a connection between the extreme heat and weather around the world this summer and global warming. One CNN host asked if the events were the “apocalypse” or global warming. The Huffington Post proposed naming hurricanes and other disasters after climate change “deniers.” “Floods, fires, melting ice and feverish heat: From smoke-choked Moscow to water-soaked Iowa and the High Arctic, the planet seems to be having a midsummer breakdown. It’s not just a portent of things to come, scientists say, but a sign of troubling climate change already under way,” the AP wrote, sounding more like Al Gore than an objective news agency. AP cited the World Meteorological Organization, NASA and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) saying that “extremes” were expected in a warming scenario. But its report didn’t include any other viewpoints or propose other possible reasons for the weather events. And it failed to point out the scandals connected to IPCC, NASA and the warming movement as a whole. The 2009 ClimateGate scandal and subsequent scandals undermined the very credibility of the climate alarmist movement , but were underreported by the network news media. AP left out meteorologists who explained some of those events based on jet stream activity. According to New Scientist magazine, the jet stream is being blocked right now and has consequently slowed down. Meteorologists say that the jet stream’s slower movements are responsible for the deadly fires in Russia, the floods in Pakistan and other rare weather events. “The unusual weather in the US and Canada last month also has a similar case,” New Scientist wrote. Discover Magazine expounded on the New Scientist article saying “this happens from time to time, and it sets the stage for extreme conditions when weather systems hover over the same area.” Despite other explanations and viewpoints, The New York Times also linked weather to climate saying, “the collective answer of the scientific community [whether global warming is causing more weather extremes]” is “probably.” Like the Times, many news outlets promoted the connection between warming and weather, but were careful to briefly note that individual weather events cannot be proven to have been caused by global warming. Out of the Times’ 1,302 word article, only 113 words were used to offer a caveat saying it is difficult to link “specific weather events” to climate change and to quote a NASA scientist who admitted he hasn’t “proved it” yet. Semantics aside, those mainstream stories were nearly as biased in their coverage as blatantly left-wing websites like the Huffington Post. Huffington Post argued that ” global weirding ” incidents such as landslides, sinkholes and volcanoes are “consistent” with global warming. The site interviewed David Orr, a professor of environmental studies and politics at Oberlin College, who said, “you ask is this evidence of climate destabilization, the only scientific answer you can give is: It is consistent with what we can expect.” The complete list of “weird” stuff was heat waves, floods, landslides, wildfires, ice islands, sinkholes, volcanoes, dead fish and oyster herpes. Dead fish and oyster herpes? Huffington Post said, “These are certainly stories to be filed under weird: Although climate change can’t necessarily be held responsible, some scientists are suggesting it as the instigator of strange ocean occurrences.” The fact is that the alarmists and the news media will find someone to support claims that just about everything is correlated to man-made global warming. MSNBC host Dylan Ratigan even claimed that Snowpocalypse (the nickname for the blizzard activity on parts of the East Coast) was consistent with global warming. Media Says Warming Predictions ‘Supported’ by Weather Events, Push Government Action It has been a summer of wild weather and related disasters from fires in Russia, to giant sinkholes, to floods in Pakistan and Europe. All of this has sparked the news media’s desire to reignite the climate alarmist movement after a scandal-filled winter. The headlines said it all: “In Weather Chaos, a Case for Global Warming,” proclaimed one Times header. The USA Today warned, “Think this summer is hot? Get used to it.” The AP story hyping weather disasters’ correlation to warming was called, “Climate Change Predictions Supported By Summer of Fires, Floods And Heat Waves: IPCC.” “The weather-related cataclysms of July and August fit patterns predicted by climate scientists,” AP declared. The story criticized the U.S. unwillingness to cap carbon emissions. “The U.S. remains the only major industrialized nation not to have legislated caps on carbon emissions, after Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid last week withdrew climate legislation in the face of resistance from Republicans and some Democrats,” AP said. A bit later, they quoted a UN “specialist” who argued “much more needs to be done.” Perhaps under the strain of working at CNN, meteorologist Chad Myers actually switched views since 2008, when he said “to think that we could affect weather all that much is pretty arrogant.” But on Aug. 10, Myers said “Yes,” when asked if the weather phenomena were manmade. Myers, however, offered this qualification: “Is it 100 percent caused by man? No. There are other things involved. We are now in the sunspot cycle. We are now in a very hot sun cycle. We are, we are – many other things going on …” CNN host Fareed Zakaria also used the crazy weather to promote legislative action on emissions – pushing Cato Institute’s senior fellow Pat Michaels to accept the idea of a carbon tax. After another guest warned of devastation if we fail to act on the issue of global warming, Zakaria turned to Michaels and said: “You hear all this. Doesn’t it worry you? I mean, I understand your position, which is, you know, we don’t have a substitute for fossil fuels right now. But surely that isn’t an argument for stand pattism?” MICHAELS: No. ZAKARIA: Don’t you want to do something about this? MICHAELS: What I worry about more is the concept of opportunity cost. We had legislation, again, that went through the House last summer which would have cost a lot and been futile. And when you, when you take that away, or when the government favors certain technologies and politicizes technologies, you’re doing worse than nothing. You’re actually impairing your ability to respond in the long run, and that’s my major concern along this issue. ZAKARIA: But if you were to have a carbon tax, if you were to have a gas tax – MICHAELS: YOU, can put in the carbon tax… Zakaria pushed Michaels further, arguing that it is a “simple” law of economics to tax a behavior if you want less of it. But Michaels stressed that the problem is how high the tax would have to be to reduce carbon dioxide enough to make a difference, and the “political acceptability” of such a tax.” The CNN host’s biased segment, which included three panelists (Michaels included), used the apocalyptic weather as a set up: “It has been a scorcher of a summer. Record high temperatures all over the United States, huge chunks of glacier the size of four Manhattan islands breaking off Greenland. One-third of Pakistan is now under water. Fires burning out of control in Russia. Floods in Europe,” Zakaria said on Aug. 15. “So is this just another summer on planet Earth? Or is it the apocalypse? Or is it global warming?” His panel of guests was stacked 2-to-1 (3-to-1 if Zakaria is counted) in favor of legislative action to stop global warming and failed to consider that weather is not climate. NASA’s Gavin Schmidt and Jeffrey Sachs , director of The Earth Institute at Columbia University, were on the panel with Michaels. Zakaria accepted Schmidt’s views unquestioningingly, but then challenged and argued with Michaels’ points, going so far as to ask about his research funding. Schmidt is a favorite climate change expert for many news outlets, including the Times. He told the paper, “If you ask me as a person, do I think the Russian heat wave has to do with climate change, the answer is yes. If you ask me as a scientist whether I have proved it, the answer is no – at least not yet.” Environmental studies professor Roger Pielke, Jr. responded to that on his blog saying: “This neatly sums up the first of two reasons why I think that the current debate over whether greenhouse gas emissions caused/exacerbated/influenced recent disasters around the world is a fruitless debate.  It is not a debate that can be resolved empirically, but rather depends upon hunches, speculation and beliefs. Debates that cannot be resolved empirically necessarily involve extra-scientific factors.” In another post, Pielke criticized the World Meteorological Organization (which was cited by AP) for issuing a statement saying that the severe weather events “matches IPCC projections.” ” The WMO statement is (yet) another example of scientifically unsupportable nonsense in the climate debate. Such nonsense is of course not going away anytime soon,” Pielke said, noting that the IPCC didn’t make any projections for 2010. MSNBC Snows Viewers, Along with the rest of the Media During the winter, Sen. James Inhofe, R-Okla., poked fun at alarmists when his grandchildren built an igloo on the National Mall and called it “Al Gore’s New Home.” Fox News host Glenn Beck sarcastically made fun of an Al Gore “disappearance” (implying that since the snow started falling Gore wasn’t publicly warning about climate change) and Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. Kennedy wrote in 2008 that global warming had resulted in “anemic winters” in Washington, D.C. The 2009-2010 winter and its multiple blizzards contradicted Kennedy’s claims, Beck noted. Despite media and lefty claims , conservatives weren’t trying to say that the snowy winter disproved global warming. Rather they were arguing that strange weather should not be used as evidence to support climate change (summer or winter). But that was exactly what the left and the news media had been doing, and it is what they are doing again this summer. Alarmists like Al Gore, Bill Nye “The Science Guy,” and MSNBC’s Dylan Ratigan had claimed the severe weather was “consistent” with global warming. Gore blamed three straight days of rain on warming saying, “Just look at what has been happening for the last three days,” Gore said. “The so-called skeptics haven’t noted it because it’s not snow. But the downpours and heavy winds are consistent with what the scientists have long warned about.” Ratigan claimed that “these ‘ snowpocalypses ‘ that have been going through DC and other extreme weather events are precisely what climate scientists have been predicting, fearing and anticipating because of global warming.” His rant continued: “Why is that? The thinking that warmer air temperatures on the earth – a higher air temperature – has a greater capacity to hold moisture at any temperature,” Ratigan said. “And then as winter comes in, that warm air cools full of water, and you get heavier precipitation on a more regular basis. In fact, you could argue these storms are not evidence of a lack of global warming, but are evidence of global warming – thus the 26 inches of snowfall in the DC area and the second giant storm this year.” [Emphasis added] Ratigan also criticized a TV spot by Virginia Republicans designed to ridicule proposed climate change policies that could hurt the state’s job situation. Global warming alarmists in the media and academia proved last winter that they want it both ways: weather can “support” their opinions about global warming, but weather cannot disprove or discredit those same opinions. So they continue to link everything, even seemingly contradictory weather events like droughts and floods, to the problem of climate change. UN Climate Conference May Have Trouble in Mexico The recent media hype over unusual weather events may be designed to counter declining public fears over global warming. After all, unless the public thinks global warming is a threat they are unlikely to support costly government intervention or make drastic changes in their lives. After the flop at Copenhagen, proponents of global warming alarmism wanted the next UN Climate Change Conference, coming up this November/December, to move forward toward curbing emissions. But recent news reports indicate the Mexico meeting may not be as successful as they’d hoped . According to The Christian Science Monitor, the Cancun meeting scheduled to begin Nov. 29 and run through Dec. 10 seems “to have been thrown into reverse – at least for now.” “Unfortunately, what we have seen over and over this week is that some countries are walking back from the progress made in Copenhagen and what was agreed there,” Jonathan Pershing, leader of the U.S. negotiating team, said according to the Monitor. Like this article? Then sign up for our newsletter, The Balance Sheet .

See original here:
Media Use Crazy Weather to Hype Global Warming, Despite Admissions Weather Isn’t Climate

Dylan Ratigan Shouts Down Conservative Guest for Objecting to Liberal Dogma

On his July 20 afternoon program, Dylan Ratigan shouted down the Washington Examiner’s J.P. Freire for challenging the MSNBC host’s liberal orthodoxy and accusing him of giving more air time to the liberal panelist appearing opposite him. Eschewing any sense of balanced reporting, Ratigan thundered: “I said I’m in charge of the show. I decide who I’ll talk to. I might spend the entire time talking to Jonathan Capehart and not talk to you at all. And then you can choose never to come on my show again.” “I’m sorry, Jonathan was taking up a lot of my time earlier in the segment,” explained Freire. “Look at the amount of time he’s been talking and the amount of time I was talking.” Discussing institutionalized racism in America, Freire attempted to argue that a “government monopoly on education” hinders the ability of ethnic minorities to succeed, but the liberal agitator was only interested in Washington Post editorial writer Jonathan Capehart’s liberal spin on the issue and instructed Freire to “please be quiet” before berating him. “Who’s hosts the show, J.P.?” asked Ratigan. “Just because you’re on my show doesn’t mean you get as much time as you decide you want. Do you understand that?” Freire fired back: “What I’ll do is I’ll interrupt if I have something to say.”              “Right and I’ll tell you to be quiet if someone else is speaking,” sputtered Ratigan, who seemed all to eager to assert his authority with a conservative guest while defending the right of the liberal guest to speak freely. A transcript of the relevant portion of the segment can be found below: MSNBC Dylan Ratigan July 20, 2010 4:19 P.M. E.S.T. DYLAN RATIGAN: I’m not saying there’s some grand racist in the sky who is doing that. J.P. FREIRE, Washington Examiner associate editor: But it’s somehow systematic? RATIGAN: It’s systematic in that the way our education resources are distributed, the way our law enforcement practice is distributed, the way our populations are distributed, these things yield themselves out. That is not good for America, period. So how do you deal with that? FREIRE: Well look, I think that maybe the expectation is that a conservative is going to go on the air and say everything is hunky-dory. RATIGAN: Hold on, J.P. I like you, I like you, I like you, I’m not jumping to any conclusions about you, I’m taking your words at face value. I expect you’ll do the same with me. I want you to pretend you’re not on MSNBC; I want you to pretend you’re talking to your friends Dylan and Jonathan. Okay, can you do that? FREIRE: Yeah sure, absolutely. Yo Dylan and John, I was thinking today that the idea that there are so many systems in place that do make it so difficult for people that are underprivileged to succeed in this country is because we constantly put in place more and more systems and that more people are saying “hey, if we fiddle with these systems, maybe it will give us the right output.” The best way to allow people to rise up is by getting out of the way. It’s not that we’ve made it easier for white people to get along – RATIGAN: So how are we getting out of the way if we have 19,000 different school districts, some of which are incredibly well capitalized and can yield the finest education in the history of the world, and the vast majority of which have no money – FREIRE: Easy, a government monopoly on education. RATIGAN: Hold on a second. Say that again. FREIRE: A government monopoly on education is precisely how we make it more difficult for blacks and Latinos and many other ethnic groups and the poor to be able to rise up. I mean, that is how we get in the way. If we really want to – RATIGAN: So you’re saying the fact that rich people can take all of their kids out of the schools in the cities – FREIRE: Oh, heavens… RATIGAN: and leave ghetto schools uptown here in New York. No, not “oh heavens” J.P., I’ve lived in New York for almost twenty years, I have many friends who have children here, I have many friends who have grown up here and I can tell you the rich ones went to private schools and the poor ones didn’t and the more, anyway. You get the last word here, Jonathan. How do you view the systematic aspect of this? JONATHAN CAPEHART, Washington Post: Look, the systematic aspects, you laid them out, your graphics show the wide disparities there. My big concern is we spend a lot of time hurling accusations of racism and things like that and we allow that to get in way of having a really meaningful, deep conversation – FREIRE: A very difficult conversation. RATIGAN: J.P. please be quiet. FREIRE: I’m sorry, Jonathan was taking up a lot of my time earlier in the segment. RATIGAN: J.P., you know what? I want you to be part of this, I really really do. FREIRE: No, Jonathan has blockaded my entire part. RATIGAN: J.P., you’re not behaving in a way that’s constructive and I don’t know why that is but I do appreciate. FREIRE: Look at the amount of time he’s been talking and the amount of time I was talking. RATIGAN: Who’s hosts the show, J.P.? FREIRE: I’m just saying. RATIGAN: Who’s hosts the show, J.P.? FREIRE: If you’re saying it’s equal time, it should be equal time. RATIGAN: Did I say that? I said I’m in charge of the show. I decide who I’ll talk to. I might spend the entire time talking to Jonathan Capehart and not talk to you at all. And then you can choose never to come on my show again. FREIRE: I would never do that, I love being on your show. RATIGAN: Just because you’re on my show doesn’t mean you get as much time as you decide you want. Do you understand that? FREIRE: What I’ll do is I’ll interrupt if I have something to say. RATIGAN: Right and I’ll tell you to be quiet if someone else is speaking. FREIRE: Okay. RATIGAN: Coming up, I was concerned that might happen. –Alex Fitzsimmons is a News Analysis intern at the Media Research Center. Click here to follow him on Twitter.

Read more from the original source:
Dylan Ratigan Shouts Down Conservative Guest for Objecting to Liberal Dogma

Dobbs Calls MSNBC’s Ratigan ‘Insane and Inane’

In a July 9 post on www.loudobbs.com , Dobbs let fly bashing the staff at his one-time competitor for “two gems that can’t be ignored.” “MSNBC guest anchor Cenk Uygur filled in for the equally insane and inane Dylan Ratigan and pushed the crazy idea that President Obama is a conservative,” he wrote. The video of the segment is all there because Dobbs embedded it from the Media Research Center. Dobbs, who still has a talk radio show, then went on to criticize Uygur’s twisted logic that, Uygur’s words Obama “seems to have bought into the Republican talking point on deficits.” Then he went on criticize “the old-standby, Mr. Tingle Up His Leg Chris Matthews” for saying there are only two camps in the nation – “those who want things to improve and those who want to see the country, and therefore the president, fail.” Dobbs summed it up with a good question: “How can anyone watch this nonsense?” Dobbs, you may recall, was pushed out by CNN for his own opinionated statements that ran counter to lefty orthodoxy on immigration especially.

See the article here:
Dobbs Calls MSNBC’s Ratigan ‘Insane and Inane’

MSNBC’s Ratigan: American’s Don’t ‘Give A Damn’ About Iraq and Afghan Wars; Calls for Draft

On Thursday’s The Dylan Ratigan Show, MSNBC host Dylan Ratigan went after the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and complained about the lack opposition to the conflicts: “Why isn’t there an alarm that we’ve been perpetrating this war?… there aren’t enough people in this country that honestly give a damn. No one really cares.” His solution to the supposed apathy? A draft. Ratigan began his rant by describing the financial and human toll of the wars. He particularly highlighted “the innocent civilians that our bombs are killing. As many as 105,000 dead in Iraq, the number in Afghanistan approaching 13,000, that we have killed.” He argued: “We might even be creating more terrorists….being there may be doing more harm than good.” On his May 13 program , Ratigan condemned the U.S. military for “dropping predator bombs on civilians willy-nilly.” Describing the limited number of Americans who have loved ones on the front lines, Ratigan proclaimed: “…it’s a way for the politicians to isolate on the poorest and the most isolated group of soldiers they can get and protect themselves from our society, were they to understand how violent and oppressive the actions we are taking against our own people are in perpetrating these wars.” Ratigan then proposed: “…we have to raise the stakes on this to decide whether we get out or keep going. And the only way I can see to do that is to return the draft.” He further declared: “Maybe if the sons and daughters of more Americans families, like those of our politicians, were either being killed in combat or facing the stresses of endless repeat deployment, our policymakers would start questioning why we’re still there…” After a discussing the topic with a panel of military experts, Ratigan admitted: “I’ll be the first to tell you, I’m the most ignorant at the table when it comes to the strategic analysis of this topic.” Even so, he concluded: “…the solution is still fairly simple….Either you’re on the side that is with this and is for it and is in there supporting it, or you are there making a strong case not to be there….that means that you, if you’re willing to go, are willing to send yourself and your family members into combat. And on the flip side, in my view, are not willing to do that and as such wouldn’t want to send a fellow citizen.” An on-screen graphic read: “Get Out or Get In! End the Wars or Bring Back the Draft.” Here is transcript of the July 1 segment: 4:30PM DYLAN RATIGAN: Well, day four in our ‘Fix It Week’ garage. And today we tackle a true matter of life and death in this country, the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. One of them, already America’s longest war. The other, unfortunately, not far behind, long and costly. $731 billion spent so far in Iraq. $280 billion in our efforts in Afghanistan with no clear end in sight at the end of the deadliest month in the history of the war. The cost in American lives 4,396 soldiers dead in Iraq. 1,125 killed in Afghanistan. And then there are the innocent civilians that our bombs are killing. As many as 105,000 dead in Iraq, the number in Afghanistan approaching 13,000, that we have killed. There are two main problems with what we’re doing overseas, as I see it, and why we’re not doing it well. The first, we have no political will to shift from a strategy that has been repeating itself for years with no apparent end in sight. And two, there may not even be an honest understanding of our enemy and what a modern day insurgent war strategy is, let alone, how to actually fight an effective counterinsurgency. We all know about the heroin, the bribery, the rampant political corruption. But what about our overall strategy? And what we’re doing? We might even be creating more terrorists. Our leaders may not even understand the insurgency that they are fighting against. Think about how difficult it would be to launch a so-called counterinsurgency strategy if you haven’t been able to be truly honest about how a modern day insurgency works. Very few people, unrelated, using the internet and communications to disrupt society. Bottom line, us being there may be doing more harm than good. So why isn’t that conversation taking place in our Congress and in our homes? Why isn’t there an alarm that we’ve been perpetrating this war? Well, quite simply, like the cheap price of oil, there aren’t enough people in this country that honestly give a damn. No one really cares. They may say they care. But the politicians know, there’s no – the phone’s not ringing. No one really is expressing themselves. In fact, the number of active duty troops in Iraq and Afghanistan is at the lowest level since World War II. Which means the percentage of us that are exposed to the realties of war in this country, that we’ve been fighting for a decade, is the smallest it has ever been. Why is that? Well, more than a third of our soldiers have been sent back to the front lines multiple times. Some of the same soldiers sent back five and six times to the same war. Why is that? Well, it’s a way for the politicians to isolate on the poorest and the most isolated group of soldiers they can get and protect themselves from our society, were they to understand how violent and oppressive the actions we are taking against our own people are in perpetrating these wars. It means that the fewest number of Americans are truly feeling the brunt of our wars. Meanwhile, those who are feeling it, feel it harder than any troops in American history. I think we have to raise the stakes on this to decide whether we get out or keep going. And the only way I can see to do that is to return the draft. Maybe if the sons and daughters of more Americans families, like those of our politicians, were either being killed in combat or facing the stresses of endless repeat deployment, our policymakers would start questioning why we’re still there and come up with a different way to deal with insurgent warfare in the 21st century. [PANEL DISCUSSION WITH MILITARY EXPERTS] RATIGAN: I’ll be the first to tell you, I’m the most ignorant at the table when it comes to the strategic analysis of this topic. It’s why I asked these gentlemen to join me and benefit from it. But politically, for me, the solution is still fairly simple. I don’t see how, after all these years and all this time, we can continue these types of strategies without an either ‘get out’ or ‘get in’ strategy. Either you’re on the side that is with this and is for it and is in there supporting it, or you are there making a strong case not to be there. [ON-SCREEN GRAPHIC: The Fix Solution: Get Out or Get In! End the Wars or Bring Back the Draft] And explaining, not emotionally, but from a policy standpoint, why that is. And that means that you, if you’re willing to go, are willing to send yourself and your family members into combat. And on the flip side, in my view, are not willing to do that and as such wouldn’t want to send a fellow citizen. Either way, you have to let your politicians know how you feel. We, the people are critical to this process. Dylan.MSNBC.com has contact information for each and every member of Congress. Remember, you can get mad – or you don’t get mad, I should say, if you don’t get involved. This is a classic example.

The rest is here:
MSNBC’s Ratigan: American’s Don’t ‘Give A Damn’ About Iraq and Afghan Wars; Calls for Draft

MSNBC’s Dylan Ratigan Urges Homeowners to Stop Paying Mortgages As a Leftist Protest

MSNBC afternoon host Dylan Ratigan took to the ramparts of The Huffington Post on Thursday and urged home owners to stop paying their mortgages as a leftist protest against a government too cozy with the bankers. The title was “They Keep Stealing — Why Keep Paying?”    The crisis was all Wall Street’s fault, and now they’re back to paying themselves bonuses after a federal bailout. So stop paying them. (Notice Ratigan doesn’t suggest you protest Washington and TARP by refusing to pay your taxes.) This piece sounds like a direct-mail letter: You didn’t cause this mess. They did. Now you are struggling to make the same payments on this mortgage on your now overpriced home even in light of a crashing economy and massive deflation, all while the government does everything in its power to help Wall St. keep the bonuses coming. Well, it is becoming time to take matters into your own hands… I suggest that you call your lender and tell them if they don’t lower you mortgage by at least 20%, you are walking away. And if they don’t agree, you need to consider walking away. It probably doesn’t feel right to you. That is because you probably are a good person. But your mortgage is a business deal, and it is not immoral to walk away from a business deal unless you went in to the deal with the intention of defaulting . But somehow, even though the corporations are pumped to exercise their new rights, former bankers like Henry Paulson, current ones like Jamie Dimon and — get this — now even Fannie Mae execs want to keep you from exercising your rights. But before you let them (or anyone commenting below) force you into paying that $500k mortgage on a $300k house, ask them if they’ll push Jerry Speyer into “honoring his obligation” by breaking into his $2 billion personal piggy-bank to keep paying for Stuyvesant Town? Or how about asking Hank and Jamie to lecture fellow bailed-out CEO John Mack about how “you’re supposed to meet your obligations, not run from them”? Maybe make him use some of his $50+ million for those buildings he bought in San Francisco? And before shaming and punishing American homeowners, did they nag Steve Feinberg about helping “teach the American people…not to run away” by writing a check out of his billion-dollar pocket to cover all the stiffed landlords and vendors at Mervyn’s? After all, at least you aren’t single-handedly putting 1,100 employees out of work when you walk on your mortgage. As part of the deal for your house, your mortgage holder gets interest payments from you and they also use the note to your house for their capital reserves. In return, they take the risk of a foreclosure. In many states, you paid extra to have a non-recourse loan where the lender just gets the house back if you stop paying — your interest rate would’ve been much lower if you were held personally liable like a student loan. But if you still feel bad, then donate the money saved to charity instead of to their bonuses. Even if you agreed that everyone on Wall Street is a knave and a thief, Ratigan is still preaching that two wrongs make a right. Or, to be more precise, the second wrong helps the populist agitators regain “our captured government” from the financial elite. (Did he clear that phrase with Chris Matthews, because it sounds “dangerously anti-government,” doesn’t it?) Meanwhile, our captured government has made it clear that they want to further reward these banksters because there are clearly better ways to “save” the economy without rewarding those most responsible for the damage. Instead of claw backs for the past theft and strong financial reform for the future, they choose to cover-up the gross misuse of our tax money, making our country worse by helping the criminals on the backs of the most honest. But thankfully, in this country we still have the tools to fight back and regain our country. Our vote, our voice, our laws and what we choose to do with every penny we have that doesn’t go to taxes are the benefits of our hard-fought freedom, and in this battle we must use them all to fight back. It’s time for the citizens to once again own this place. [HT: Jack Coleman]

Visit link:
MSNBC’s Dylan Ratigan Urges Homeowners to Stop Paying Mortgages As a Leftist Protest

Rudy Giuliani, MSNBC’s Dylan Ratigan Eviscerate Joe Scarborough for Blaming Bush for Oil Spill

Former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani (R) and MSNBC anchor Dylan Ratigan on June 17 joined forces to lambaste “Morning Joe” co-host Joe Scarborough for continuing to defend President Barack Obama’s handling of the BP oil spill. Scarborough presented a litany of arguments in Obama’s defense, but Giuliani and Ratigan countered with specific examples of the president’s failed leadership. Regurgitating liberal talking points, Scarborough blamed the crisis on George W. Bush and Dick Cheney. “We hear that we had the technology to stop this,” Scarborough claimed. “In 2002, though, Dick Cheney and his energy task force said, ‘No, we’re not going to take an extra step.'” Giuliani responded with an eviscerating counter punch: “It’s important to know as part of the history of this but the reality is, he’s been president now for 18 months. It’s about time we stopped blaming Bush.” Scarborough thought that the former New York City Mayor would credit Obama for securing from BP a $20 billion victim compensation fund, but instead Giuliani criticized the president. “I say it was a good deal for BP,” retorted Giuliani. “If I can put even a tentative limit on the liabilities, I’ve helped save my company.” “Democrats only wanted $10 billion,” claimed Scarborough. “You can’t say something nice about the president?” “The president has so mishandled this that it will be impossible for me to even describe how horribly handled this was,” argued Giuliani. “BP would be more than willing to give $20 billion to get themselves somewhat off the hook.” When pressed by Scarborough, Giuliani gave a detailed explanation for how he would have handled the crisis differently: First of all, the first thing I would have done is to bring in experts from the industry who are independent source of advice for me…If your father or mother were sick, you would go get a second opinion from an expert doctor. Not from an academician which is what he did. Go ask the question. Has anyone done remediation before? Has anyone done it better than BP? Bring them in. Make them your eyes and ears. Have them watching everything. Maybe they could have gotten the estimate right of the amount of oil that was coming out. It was horrendous. This is a horrible case of malpractice, negligence, gross negligence. They were off by 60 times. That had to infect every wrong judgment you make. Instead of crediting Giuliani for articulating a coherent plan, Scarborough attempted to deflect and politicize the issue, wondering whether the “malpractice” was “shared by both political parties and the entire Washington establishment over 15 years that has allowed oil companies to drill in areas where they have no backup plan if something goes wrong?” Ratigan rushed to Giuliani’s defense, railing against Obama for failing to consult independent industry experts at the beginning of the crisis: I actually completely agree with the mayor which is we can talk all day about the problems but until you actually address the matter of the fact that oil continues to go into the Gulf of Mexico, and there are other ways to deal with it that have not been brought in, or have been brought in too late–that is shameful. When Giuliani took aim at Obama for addressing the oil spill as a political problem, Scarborough jumped to the president’s defense. “It is a political problem,” exclaimed Scarborough. “It’s a substantive problem, but it’s a political problem!” “He’s just dealing with it as a political problem,” countered Giuliani. “That’s why he went down there only a couple of times at the very beginning. Didn’t take charge. We had Gibbs saying for three weeks that BP was in charge. The speech last night, Obama said the federal government’s been in charge from the beginning. Well, nobody ever told anybody that for the first four weeks. Maybe they were in charge in secret.” Scarborough then claimed that Obama took charge early on, making the oil spill the “top priority for this government,” but Ratigan disagreed, proclaiming, “My biggest criticism of this administration which is why I agree with the mayor when it comes to the response is the incredibly incompetent appearance of the containment strategy.” The transcript of the segment can be found below: MSNBC Morning Joe 6/17/10 8:04 a.m. JOE SCARBOROUGH: $20 billion. MIKA BRZEZINSKI: That’s pretty good. RUDY GIULIANI, former New York City mayor: Even nowadays that’s real money. That’s real money. SCARBOROUGH: Let’s give the president– DYLAN RATIGAN: Unless you get it from the Federal Reserve, in which case it’s not real money. SCARBOROUGH: Mr. Mayor, let’s make headlines, let’s give the president credit right now for being able to get $20 billion from BP without a single lawsuit being filed. What do you say? BRZEZINSKI: Come on. SCARBOROUGH: That’s pretty good. GIULIANI: I say it was a good deal for BP. BRZEZINSKI: Why? GIULIANI: Divide it by four or five years. What do they make per year? Jim would know this. JIM CRAMER, CNBC anchor: They make $6 billion per quarter. GIULIANI: If I can put even a tentative limit on the liabilities, I’ve helped save my company. SCARBOROUGH: But they haven’t done that yet. They did not waive liability. GIULIANI: But that’s a pretty good indication of it’s going to be hard to get above that $20 billion. It gets them– SCARBOROUGH: Democrats only wanted $10 billion. You can’t say something nice about the president? BRZEZINSKI: There’s nothing nice here? SCARBOROUGH: You can’t say, “Mr. President, good job of getting $20 billion?” GIULIANI: The president has so mishandled this that it will be impossible for me to even describe how horribly handled this was. SCARBOROUGH: He got $20 billion from people in my backyard. That’s pretty good, isn’t it? GIULIANI: He would have gotten with the same leverage in a second. BP would be more than willing to give $20 billion to get themselves somewhat off the hook. Unfortunately, they stepped all over it with a comment that the CEO made. SCARBOROUGH: What would you have done differently as far as substance goes? GIULIANI: Every single thing from day one. First of all, the first thing I would have done is to bring in experts from the industry who are independent source of advice for me. I met with some of the– SCARBOROUGH: The president didn’t do that? GIULIANI: Two days ago I had dinner in Houston, with several people who were top people in the industry. Never reached out. Never, never asked, gee, has Shell done this before? Has Exxon done this before? If your father or mother were sick, you would go get a second opinion from an expert doctor. Not from an academician which is what he did. Go ask the question. Has anyone done remediation before? Has anyone done it better than BP? Bring them in. Make them your eyes and ears. Have them watching everything. Maybe they could have gotten the estimate right of the amount of oil that was coming out. It was horrendous. This is a horrible case of malpractice, negligence, gross negligence. They were off by 60 times. That had to infect every wrong judgment you make. SCARBOROUGH: Isn’t that malpractice, though, shared by both political parties and entire Washington establishment over 15 years that has allowed oil companies to drill in areas where they have no backup plan if something goes wrong? DYLAN RATIGAN, MSNBC anchor: I’ll do you one better. The American people consume four gallons of gasoline for every gallon of gasoline that exists on the Earth. We have the biggest subsidized cost of energy. We have a false price for energy in our country to this day. The cost of the wars is not in the cost of energy. The environmental liability is not in the cost of the energy. None of the liability associated with our lifestyle is actually priced in. For capitalism to work, you actually have to be paying the actual price that represents the actual cost. So if we were actually paying the real cost of energy, we would be incentivized, believe me, to come up with something else. But because of the government and the culture of political expedience subsidies of energy costs everybody’s happy to take it so we hire BP to the tune of $6 billion a quarter to figure out–which is not easy, by the way–the technology to drop 18,000 feet beneath the ocean surface to suck oil out so we can continue to enjoy our lifestyle. If you ask me whether it’s the obvious failure in the government–MMS is obviously conflicted. Whether it’s the obvious fact that we built a sports car that could basically do anything. They had the technology to go to the bottom of the sea but they didn’t have a braking system, no way to turn it off which is incredibly reckless. And you put it all together. You find yourself in a situation where everybody’s pointing fingers but no one is containing the spill. So I actually completely agree with the mayor which is we can talk all day about the problems but until you actually address the matter of the fact that oil continues to go into the Gulf of Mexico, and there are other ways to deal with it that have not been brought in, or have been brought in too late–that is shameful. SCARBOROUGH: Do you agree that there are because we have been are defending this White House saying on substance for the most part they’ve gotten it right, do you agree with the mayor that actually they haven’t gotten it right? CRAMER: I think the mayor is dead on when he says that if they had known that the spill could be 60,000 barrels, which was available if you talk to the former heads of Exxon or if you talk to Boone Pickens, which you asked me to do. (Inaudible) GIULIANI: And the people in the industry believe that he hasn’t talked to the industry because they’re bad guys. (Inaudible) GILUIANI: A bunch of bad guys. CRAMER: They’re all bad actors. GIULIANI: And from the point of view of crisis management, this is an F. You couldn’t have done it worse. Some day Harvard will do a study on if you have a crisis like this, these are the things that Obama did wrong. Here are the things to do right. I could go on and on; that was the first mistake that he made. The second mistake that he made was to kind of treat this as a political problem. Which he was doing right up until the speech the other night. Treat it as a political problem. SCARBOROUGH: It is a political problem. It’s a substantive problem, but it’s a political problem! GIULIANI: He’s just dealing with it as a political problem. That’s why he went down there only a couple of times at the very beginning. Didn’t take charge. We had Gibbs saying for three weeks that BP was in charge. The speech last night, Obama said the federal government’s been in charge from the beginning. Well, nobody ever told anybody that for the first four weeks. Maybe they were in charge in secret. SCARBOROUGH: Well, the president said himself though on April 22nd. BRZEZINSKI: Yes. I just pulled up that. SCARBOROUGH: On April 22nd he called all the agency heads in and he said, “Okay, listen. This is going to be very bad.” It’s before–it’s before the thing blew out of the water and said this is the top priority for this government. We have to focus on it. This is job number one. RATIGAN: Where is the containment strategy? GIULIANI: That’s worse because if this was job number one look at the horrible–if this is job number one which I don’t think it was because the president was off on vacation twice during all of this, if this were job number one– SCARBOROUGH: Did you go on vacation Mr. Mayor? GIULIANI: Did I go on vacation as mayor? No. SCARBOROUGH: Isn’t that a cheap shot? You never went on vacation? GIULIANI: Not in the middle of a crisis. SCARBOROUGH:  Ronald Reagan went on vacation. George W. Bush went on vacation. GIULIANI: Not in the middle of a crisis. This is the second time the president has done that, and I resent it. On Christmas day when we had Christmas bombing, he was on vacation. Remained on vacation for 11 days. SCARBOROUGH: It was Christmas! GIULIANI: He is the President of the United States of America. SCARBOROUGH: They got microphones in Chicago. GIULIANI: On Christmas evening, the first year that I was the mayor, I left my house and went to the hospital and I spent five hours there because I was the mayor of New York City and I should be on the spot taking charge of something from the very beginning. This has been a gross failure in crisis management. Could not have done it worse. SCARBOROUGH: Okay. I’m sorry. Didn’t mean to–   GIULIANI: : And you shouldn’t be on vacation when a crisis is affecting the country. RATIGAN: There are two problems here. One is the capping of the well which I think is BP’s problem. BP obviously was negligent in the construction of dealing the well. There’s a totally unrelated problem, which is the containment problem. And in order to deal with the containment problem, that is the government’s problem and you have to know what the flow rate is accurately and early in order to have a containment strategy. So my biggest criticism of this administration which is why I agree with the mayor when comes to the response is incredibly incompetent appearance of the containment strategy. SCARBOROUGH: That’s not monday morning quarterbacking? I mean, who knew? RATIGAN: The oil is still coming out, Joe. They could still bring–Matt Simmons knew. T. Boone Pickens knew. Booms, put booms around it. Drop a curtain. Put super tankers in the middle and start sucking the oil out. (Inaudible) RATIGAN: Booms, curtain, super tanker. Super suck technology. Next question. GIULIANI: And actually, Joe, it is worse if you’re right and they were in charge from the beginning because if they were in charge at the beginning they really didn’t know what they were doing. I actually don’t think they were in charge. I think their real failure was they trusted BP. And they shouldn’t have trusted BP but they trusted BP. SCARBOROUGH: And let’s just say that has been our one critique on substance that perhaps they–two things. One, they trusted BP too much from the beginning. Two, they made a political calculation that if “we go down there, we own the story. It’s not BP’s story. It’s our story.” That is a critique I think we’ll hear for some time. And can we go right now? Because this is a fascinating conversation. You’re actually the first person that’s come on this show and when I’ve challenged them give me substance. Actually you three guys, you’re talking specifics about what the president should have done. Let’s go to the barni-cam right now. Mike Barnicle. Is he wearing the white sox right now? Are you listening to this? MIKE BARNICLE, MSNBC contributor: Yeah I am. SCARBOROUGH: We’ve got three guys here that are loaded for bear. And they’ve got some specifics. What do you think?                          BRZEZINSKI: Taking shots. BARNICLE: Let’s place all of our faith in BP because they’ve done such a great job. They’re still using the same instruments on oil spills that they were using in California in 1969. If British Petroleum, which they used to call themselves, or any of these oil companies were in charge of technological advancements in our society we would still be using a rotary phone and looking at a 12-inch Bendix TV set. (Inaudible) SCARBOROUGH: Do we have the cameraman from “24” now? Mike Barnicle brings up a point but let me ask you again in the role of devil’s advocate. We hear that we had the technology to stop this. In 2002, though, Dick Cheney and his energy task force said, “No, we’re not going to take an extra step.” GIULIANI: I have no idea what Dick Cheney did, you know, five or six years ago. SCARBOROUGH: Isn’t that important to know? It’s part of the story. GIULIANI: It’s important to know as part of the history of this but the reality is, he’s been president now for 18 months. It’s about time we stopped blaming Bush. RATIGAN: Hang on, Mr. Mayor. I don’t mean to interrupt you but the North Sea has a totally different set of safety standards–totally different governmental standards. These standards have to be taken into consideration. –Alex Fitzsimmons is a News Analysis intern at the Media Research Center. Click here to follow him on Twitter.

Read the rest here:
Rudy Giuliani, MSNBC’s Dylan Ratigan Eviscerate Joe Scarborough for Blaming Bush for Oil Spill

"The Tale of Two Babies" the YouTube version!

This is courtesy of a new fan of this blog. Don’tcha just love the music?

Original post:
"The Tale of Two Babies" the YouTube version!