Tag Archives: online media

Time Deputy Managing Editor: America’s ‘Obsessed’ with ‘an Enemy That May No Longer Exist’

Posted on August 17, 2010 by Benny Hollywood| Leave a comment

Radical Islam, schmadical Islam. “[N]ine years after 9/11, the fight over the mosque near Ground Zero shows how obsessed we remain with an enemy that may no longer exist.” That’s the argument from Time magazine deputy managing editor Romesh Ratnesar in his August 17 online Viewpoint essay entitled, ” The ‘Ground Zero Mosque’ Debate: Exaggerating the Jihadist Threat. ” “The mosque’s critics and champions both say their goal is to counter radical Islam,” Ratnesar noted, arguing that both sides are all wet: The prevalence of such rhetoric on both sides of the mosque debate makes it seem as if the struggle against global jihadism hangs in the balance. The truth is that Osama bin Laden and his ilk face much bigger problems. The story of the past decade in the Muslim world is that of the widespread rejection — or “refudiation,” to borrow a phrase — of terrorism. A study by the Pew Research Center earlier this year found that support in Muslim countries for suicide bombings has fallen precipitously from post-9/11 levels. One-third of Pakistanis believed terrorism was justified in 2002; now just 8% do. For all our anxiety about the rise of religious extremism, no government in the Arab world has been toppled by forces sympathetic to al-Qaeda since 2001. And though some militant Muslims surely wish us harm, their ability to actually inflict it has eroded; it has been more than five years since the last successful al-Qaeda attack in the West. The eclipse of al-Qaeda has come about largely through revulsion at the jihadists’ indiscriminate slaughter of fellow Muslims, from Indonesia to Iraq. And yet we have failed to notice. Of course, while these development are welcome news, it doesn’t mean the threat of radical Islam is completely eradicated. Indeed, like cancers that go into remission, radicalism can spring back with a vengeance after suffering losses in a given period of time. But Ratnesar seems to think the worst is over and that the way to beat radical Islam is to pretty much “move on” from the issue: However the [Ground Zero mosque] dispute is ultimately resolved, its impact on the “threat” posed by radical Islam will be negligible. That’s because the threat is receding on its own. Allowing a place of worship to be built in lower Manhattan will constitute neither an American triumph nor a defeat. It will simply tell the world that this nation, wisely, has decided to move on. Photo of Ratnesar from his eponymous website .

Continue reading here:
Time Deputy Managing Editor: America’s ‘Obsessed’ with ‘an Enemy That May No Longer Exist’

→ Leave a comment

Posted in Hollywood, Hot Stuff, News

Tagged , , , , , , ,

Newsweek: Stay on Pro-Gay Marriage Ruling Will Hurt GOP Hopes for Big Social Conservative Turnout

Posted on August 17, 2010 by Benny Hollywood| Leave a comment

How dense and forgetful does Newsweek think socially conservative voters are? Apparently so much so that the magazine’s Ben Adler predicts yesterday’s stay on Judge Vaughn Walker’s ruling permitting same-sex marriages in California will blunt the hopes Republicans have of social conservatives coming out in force on Election Day to help push the GOP to victory in the midterms on Election Day. In his August 17 The Gaggle blog post, ” 9th Circuit Stays Pro-Gay Marriage Ruling, Takes Away GOP Issue, ”  Adler argues that: Social conservatives were set to use the images of gay couples getting married in California as grist to motivate their base to turn out in the midterm elections. Republicans look certain to gain seats in both Houses of Congress in November, as opposition parties typically do during midterms. Whether they will pull the inside straight they need to take over either, or both, the House and Senate, will depend on any number of factors, but turnout is sure to be one of them. Further, Adler maintained, because “the Democrats have not done much to invite images of an American Gomorrah” what with President Obama moving “very gingerly” and tentatively on issues like repeal of “don’t ask, don’t tell,” social conservatives need the visual impact of gay and lesbian couples at the altar this fall to incense social conservatives and drive them like angry hornets to the ballot box. Of course Adler’s argument completely leaves out a crucial driving force for social conservatives this November: ObamaCare and its pro-choice measures. Social conservatives are well aware that the president’s executive order was a fig leaf that supposedly pro-life “conservative” Democrats hid behind to vote for final passage on the president’s health care bill. Yet nowhere in his article does Adler consider ObamaCare’s unpopularity as a huge motivating factor for social conservative voters in a year when many Republican candidates are calling for outright repeal of the overhaul, including its abortion-subsidizing measures.

Visit link:
Newsweek: Stay on Pro-Gay Marriage Ruling Will Hurt GOP Hopes for Big Social Conservative Turnout

→ Leave a comment

Posted in Hollywood, Hot Stuff, News

Tagged , , , , , , , ,

CBS’s Schieffer: Obama Right ‘Intellectually’ on Mosque, Just Bad Politics

Posted on August 16, 2010 by Benny Hollywood| Leave a comment

Appearing on Monday’s CBS Early Show to discuss President Obama showing support for a controversial mosque being built near Ground Zero, Face the Nation host Bob Schieffer agreed with the President’s sentiment but lamented the political fallout: “The President said and made the right intellectual argument, but I’m not sure that it was great politics for him to say it at this particular time.”   Schieffer began by outlining White House talking points on the issue to substitute co-host Erica Hill: “The story they tell is the President thought this Ramadan dinner – these were dinners that were started after 9/11 by President Bush as an outreach to demonstrate that our problems are with terrorists, not with people who are Muslims – he thought this was an appropriate place to say what all Americans believe, in that everyone has a right to practice their religion in this country.” Schieffer later added: “I would agree with the White House.” At the same time, both Hill and Schieffer fretted over the political fallout, particularly Republican criticism. Hill teased the segment at the top of show by declaring that Obama’s “apparent defense of the proposed mosque at Ground Zero has Republicans howling.” Schieffer remarked: “Republicans are trying to take every advantage of this they can.” Continuing to worry about the political impact of the President’s comments, Hill asked: “And this could feed into the criticism of this current administration, that this is an administration that is out of touch, that is, in many ways, seen by folks across the country as being elitist. Is that what you’re hearing?” Schieffer replied: “Yes. Well, that’s exactly the spin that Republicans are trying to put on it, is that – you know, that the President’s not paying attention.”    Earlier, Schieffer described the anxiety of Democratic candidates: “But the response to this has, even from some Democrats, has been, ‘why did he have to say it at this particular time and about this particular site?’ ‘Yes, intellectually that is the correct argument,’ they say, ‘but is it entirely appropriate at this very special place, to try to link a Muslim worship center with this 9/11 ground?'” He later added: “…a lot of candidates around the country are saying, ‘look, with the economy in the shape it’s in, we need all the help we can get. And we really wish the President had not said this.'” Here is a full transcript of the August 16 segment: 7:00AM ET TEASE ERICA HILL: Political firestorm. President Obama launches a five-state political blitz today but his apparent defense of the proposed mosque at Ground Zero has Republicans howling. ED ROLLINS: First, Bob, it was probably the dumbest thing that any president has said or candidate has said since Michael Dukakis said it was okay to burn the flag. 7:01AM ET SEGMENT ERICA HILL: First, though, we do want to get you to this. President Obama heading to Wisconsin this morning. The purpose of his trip, though, could end up taking a backseat to the controversy over the building of a mosque in New York City. CBS News chief White House correspondent Chip Reid has the details. CHIP REID: The President heads out this morning on a three-day cross-country trip. He’ll be talking about the economy and raising money for fellow Democrats. The White House hopes this trip will help change the topic after a weekend of controversy over the President’s comments about building a mosque near Ground Zero. [ON-SCREEN HEADLINE: Obama & The Mosque; President’s Comments Could Derail Economic Message] The First Family spent a quick weekend on the Gulf coast of Florida, swimming, mini-golfing and boating. The visit was intended to highlight the fact that on most of the Gulf Coast, the water is clean and the beaches are open. But the President’s own comments over the weekend overshadowed the trip. Speaking at a White House dinner Friday celebrating Ramadan, the President waded into the already deepening political controversy over whether to build a mosque two blocks from the site of the 9/11 attacks in New York City. BARACK OBAMA: Let me be clear, as a citizen, and as president, I believe that Muslims have the right to practice their religion as everyone else in this country. REID: Saturday, the President seemed to back off from his initial comments, saying that while Muslims have the right to build the mosque, that doesn’t mean they should. OBAMA: I was not commenting, and I will not comment, on the wisdom of making a decision to put a mosque there. REID: White House officials insist the President is not backing down from his original statement, but some Republicans say the White House is trying to have it both ways. PETER KING [REP. R-NY]: The inference or the clear impression everyone came away with is that he was saying he was supporting the mosque at Ground Zero. And he can parse it later on, and sort of back away, but the fact is, that is clearly the impression, I believe, he wanted to leave. REID: The White House says the President has no regrets about his comments even though they turned a local issue into a national debate. Traveling with the President, Chip Reid, CBS News, Joint Base Andrews, Maryland.          HILL: And joining us from Washington now is CBS News chief Washington correspondent and host of Face the Nation, Bob Schieffer. Bob, always good to have you with us. BOB SCHIEFFER: Thank you, Erica. HILL: We know and you know, of course, from talking about this on your show yesterday morning, the firestorm that these comments have ignited, and really, shots coming from both sides. So, why would the President, especially in this time when Democrats are really fighting to hold control of Congress in November, why make these comments at this point? [ON-SCREEN HEADLINE: Obama & The Mosque; Will Comments Impact Midterm Elections?] SCHIEFFER: Well, that’s just the question I asked White House officials and some people in the administration last night. The story they tell is the President thought this Ramadan dinner – these were dinners that were started after 9/11 by President Bush as an outreach to demonstrate that our problems are with terrorists, not with people who are Muslims – he thought this was an appropriate place to say what all Americans believe, in that everyone has a right to practice their religion in this country. But the response to this has, even from some Democrats, has been, ‘why did he have to say it at this particular time and about this particular site?’ ‘Yes, intellectually that is the correct argument,’ they say, ‘but is it entirely appropriate at this very special place, to try to link a Muslim worship center with this 9/11 ground?’ And clearly, Republicans are trying to take every advantage of this they can. Now, what White House officials say is, ‘look, this next election is going to be about the economy. It’s not going to be about whether they should build a mosque at Ground Zero.’ But a lot of – a lot of candidates around the country are saying, ‘look, with the economy in the shape it’s in, we need all the help we can get. And we really wish the President had not said this.’ The White House will say, ‘if you do the right thing, the politics will take care of itself.’ Clearly, there are some Democrats who are worried about that, though. HILL: They are a little worried. And this could feed into the criticism of this current administration, that this is an administration that is out of touch, that is, in many ways, seen by folks across the country as being elitist. Is that what you’re hearing? SCHIEFFER: Yes. Well, that’s exactly the spin that Republicans are trying to put on it, is that – you know, that the President’s not paying attention. What really bothers some Democrats, though, is that when the President gets into something like this, when he makes a statement like this, it elevates it to a national issue and every single Democratic candidate running for office is now going to be asked about it and will now have to take a position on something that they were hoping they would be able to say, ‘this is just a local issue. It’s up to the folks in New York to decide what to do about this.’ Yes, I would agree with the White House. The President said and made the right intellectual argument, but I’m not sure that it was great politics for him to say it at this particular time. HILL: Bob Schieffer, always good to have you here. Thanks. SCHIEFFER: Thanks, Erica.

Read more:
CBS’s Schieffer: Obama Right ‘Intellectually’ on Mosque, Just Bad Politics

→ Leave a comment

Posted in Hollywood, Hot Stuff, News

Tagged , , , , , , , , , , ,

Newsweek Defends Obama’s Leisure But Mocked Bush’s Working Vacations at Texas Ranch

Posted on August 16, 2010 by Benny Hollywood| Leave a comment

While Newsweek’s David Graham is hard at work defending President Obama’s summertime leisure — “A Short History of Presidential Vacation Outrage” — by insisting that the press corps always complains about any president’s vacation habits, it’s instructive that he failed to indict his own magazine. “War on terrorism stalled, economy on precipice, time for a month on the Crawford ranch.” Accompanied by a disapproving down arrow, that’s how the August 5, 2002 Newsweek feature “Conventional Wisdom” derided President Bush’s working vacation a mere three months before midterm elections in his first term. Elsewhere in Newsweek’s coverage at the time, writers put the term working vacation into derisive quote marks, and otherwise presented President Bush’s time away from Washington, including a quasi-campaign swing called the “Heartland Tour,” as a nakedly political move to bolster his sagging approval numbers. From Martha Brant’s August 7 “Web exclusive” entitled “Look Who’s Back”: The White House went on the defensive: aides whipped up a WESTERN WHITE HOUSE logo to tack up behind the podium at the makeshift briefing room at the Crawford Elementary School. They cut his vacation short a few days, apparently so it wouldn’t be the longest on record (which is held by Richard Nixon at 31 days). The Republican National Committee did a focus group on the president’s vacation. Pollsters found that most people believe that the president is never really on vacation. That’s the line they’re sticking with this year. The president, Press Secretary Ari Fleischer explained the other day, “is going to bring the White House with him to Crawford.” But all their efforts didn’t stop Letterman from making fun of Bush’s vacation again this year. The other night he gave the “Top Ten Signs President Bush Needs A Vacation.” No. 7: It’s been, what, two weeks since he went fishing? Late-night comedy and the RNC focus group agree on one thing: Bush needs to remain proactive on vacation, especially now with the Iraq situation bubbling up and the economy flagging. This month Bush will meet with his defense secretary as well as the president of Mexico. He will host an economic forum at Baylor University in Waco. And he will visit at least 15 cities, spending about half his vacation time on public events in politically significant states. At least once a week, he’ll attend a so-called “political activity” (read: fund-raiser). But the main thrust of August is what the White House bills as Bush’s “Home to the Heartland” return tour. This is Hughes’s specialty: keeping Bush in touch with average people and their issues. He’ll appear at events with “real Americans,” as one top aide explained, and talk to them about their economic “concerns.” There’s nothing like a photo op with a prize-winning pig at the Iowa State Fair to get out the message: I’m not from Washington, D.C., where pork has a whole different meaning. A year earlier and prior to the 9/11 attacks, Anna Quindlen took a different tack, calling on President Bush in an August 27, 2001 piece to push for European-style August vacations for everyone: Mandate the closing of everything else in the country during the month. The liberals would love the energy savings, the lights off in office buildings, the fossil fuels unburned. Conservationists would be thrilled as national parks and forests revive without the tramp-tramp-tramp of millions of tourists. Health-care professionals would breathe a sigh of relief as Americans walked to the homes of friends, elevating their heart rates and, in the process, seeing people they’ve been meaning to get together with for ages. Republicans could tout the family-values aspect of four weeks in which parents would be more or less forced to stay home and talk to their children. And talk about community activism! Instead of government programs or even nonprofit organizations taking meals to the homebound by van, ordinary Americans could find it in their hearts to carry a nice plate of pasta next door. Newspapers and news magazines would close, too, and television could run previously shown programs. (Whoops! I guess someone already took care of that one!) George W could mash his finger without any snide Gerald Ford comments, and he could take his vacation without any editorializing. No press, no mail, no bills, no sweat. The stock market would have a much-needed timeout; so would Major League Baseball, especially those Tampa Bay Devil Rays. Sure, there would be opposition from conservatives who object to big government’s interfering with the right to develop blocked arteries and sleep difficulties. But research on work habits, as well as observation of the typical American tourist ripping though a European cathedral in record time, suggest that there’s a deep-seated inability to relax in the U.S. of Type A. Each president brings to the job his own ethos, his own character, his own karma. George W. Bush has it in him to become the Vacation President, to lead a grateful and very tired nation to a place in which its citizens can stop and smell the onion rings.  Fast forward nine years to President Obama’s second year in office, and Newsweek’s David Graham all but sighs at the supposed pettiness in the media when it comes to criticizing any president’s vacation habits: Despite White House spokesman Bill Burton’s suggestion that the Obamas are being harassed with unprecedented attack for their recent leisure travels, this is nothing new. As Kenneth Walsh says , criticizing the president’s cottage destination has become a cottage industry in D.C.: “No matter who is the president, the opposition party delights in criticizing him for taking time off, billing it as insensitive to the problems of struggling Americans, demonstrating aristocratic excess, or betraying some hedonistic character flaw.” The only thing new are the creative methods of finding fault with taking time off. Ironically what Newsweek is attempting to do is defend an approval rating-challenged liberal president by capitalizing on the public’s low approval of the press corps. This is further amusing given the magazine’s complaint in the February 1 “Conventional Wisdom” feature that Obama was too docile, not “fighting” hard enough. “Yo, professor: CW wanted someone to fight for us. Not lead a bloodless seminar,” Newsweek huffed as it lamented that “Obama celebrates first year [in office] by losing Kennedy seat to GOP. Will he finally take the gloves off?” Perhaps Newsweek is now convinced that the more pugilistic Obama sounds ahead of the midterms, the more damage he’s likely to do for his allies in Congress. 

Here is the original post:
Newsweek Defends Obama’s Leisure But Mocked Bush’s Working Vacations at Texas Ranch

→ Leave a comment

Posted in Hollywood, Hot Stuff, News

Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Civil Discourse is Overrated

Posted on August 15, 2010 by Benny Hollywood| Leave a comment

So Matt Lewis writes a column decrying, I think,  the Political climate’s nastiness . I say, I think, because after reading it, I’m not quite sure what he’s saying. Matt brings up two pieces of evidence: Matt Yglesias saying that lying is okay was one distressing example. Well, duh. Yglesias is a liberal and I have yet to read a liberal blogger who doesn’t believe the ends justify the means. There is no true objective truth, after all. And, really, lying is fine, if a greater truth is served yada yada. This is not new. Nor is it shocking. Everything from science (Al Gore and global warming) to social science (single mothering is as good as dual-parent families) to religion (Christianists!) to media coverage is manipulated to serve the statist i.e. Democratic good . And to make the arguments, lying isn’t just recommended, it’s necessary. Matt then notes a poll by  John Hawkins at Right Wing News  about the worst Americans in history. Well, that’s rather vague, right? Full disclosure: John invited me to participate and talked to me about the poll. Two things prevented me from answering: my internet went out for two days. Also, upon consideration, I was thinking about all the evil Americans and realized my scope and grasp of American history wasn’t broad enough. Who, for example, was the dumbass who convinced people that DDT was worse than dying from malaria and by extension participated in the deaths of over 25 million African children? That’s pretty evil (good intentions be damned) in my book. I don’t know the answer off-hand and immediately. Ugh, I’d have to go look. Also, is a dude who buried grandma and 20 bodies in the backyard more evil? How about Will Duranty who facilitated Stalin? And on and on. Well, this is how my mind works, which is why I fatigue myself and I realized I didn’t have the time or lack of laziness to do the poll. As it turns out, most of the people taking the poll,  Ed Morrissey included (though he didn’t participate), figured it was worst  American politicians  in history. Okay. Well fine. I looked at the list of what everyone came up with and rolled my eyes (with all do respect to the fine people who answered). It was just too modern-heavy. History and evil did not begin in the 1930s. But again, I had no desire to go sifting through American’s past and taking the time to consider measuring evil acts against one another. I suspect that my fellow busy bloggers felt the same way so went with what they knew. Fine. Ultimately, the poll was not some serious scholarly exercise, anyway. It was a fun diversion and interesting-inevitably, I wonder who chose whom and why. Sure, there were a lot of Democrats on there. I figure that conservative bloggers weren’t paying attention to the intention, but to the outcome of the actions taken. Thus, some beloved Democrat sacred cows made the list. Whatever. I don’t see either of the examples as evidence pointing to devastation of political discourse. I’m also not someone who has over-emphasized civility either. Civility ultimately serves the Left because they play by nasty dirty rules. They’ve got less game and so they only survive by cheap shots. I’ve played basketball with guys like these. And there’s two ways to go: Be so skilled that you annihilate them with pure awesome skill; and/or, elbow them in the mouth, hard, and let them know they will suffer pain if they try to hurt you. Think I’m base and crass? Well, I’ve been blind-picked and nearly knocked out. I’ve nearly had my nose broken. I’ve been clothes-lined. Nice does not always win. Some opponents only understand direct, hard, physical contact. And there are times when a foul is not only warranted but absolutely necessary. Sometimes fouls are required to win the game. And, by definition, a foul is breaking a rule. Ack! We’re conservatives. We should be goody goodies! My land! My heavens! A hard foul would be, why, it would be wrong! Not to mention uncivilized. Eek! And the political discourse! It will degrade. Oh phooey! As long as it’s legal and it’s the truth, a good punch can be extremely productive. Hard hits just must be used with intelligence and not serve as the whole game. The best players have great game. They win with skill and finesse and strength. They also know how to send a message-both psychologically and physically-and aren’t afraid to do it when necessary. Since when did opponents speak in honey hues and debate melodiously? Please. And as for  sounding  more moderate, I give you Christopher Hitchens who, with his acerbic wit and fierce intelligence can sound positively delightful while he’s eviscerating his opponent. The guy on the other side doesn’t even realize he’s holding his own entrails until he feels the last of his life drain out of him. Too many on my own side emphasize form over substance. They’ll watch a game that is played technically perfectly and then be astonished when a less skilled, but more fierce team wins. To make this post even unnecessarily longer, I’ll extend the basketball metaphor. Back in the day, Michael Jordan’s Bulls did not win the NBA championship. Jordan, without question, was incredibly skilled. He didn’t quite grasp teamwork. He also suffered a weakness: Dennis Rodman could get inside his head. Easily. The Pistons had a great team, to be sure. Great shooting. Great teamwork. Incredible defense. But their skill wasn’t their only weapon. Bill Lambeer talked more smack than anyone, used cheap shots effectively, and was a flopper-drawing phantom fouls that enraged opponents. Combine Lambeer with Dennis Rodman, and Michael Jordan was overwhelmed and non-stop frustrated. As a Detroit fan, it was beautiful to behold. As Jordan matured, he recognized that the game was more than spectacular, individual talent and gravity-defying finesse. Here’s another thing: In basketball, there is a winner and a loser. There are two teams. Some politicians and pundits get all mushed up and confused. They act as though we’re in a system where getting along means winning. No, it doesn’t. Getting along means Democrats winning, because getting along means compromising on government programs which, by definition, expands the size, scope and reach of the government. When compromise wins, government wins. People lose. So no. Time for decisive victory…for the American people. And I have bad news for those decrying the civility in the political discourse. Wait until the Democrats have obviously and completely lost. They will get crazier. These last two years have been the apex, the absolute zenith of big-government policies. When they lose, there will be a great gnashing of teeth. And in their impotence, there will be rage. Also, another warning. The Republicans have not quite found their soul yet. Time may demonstrate that they do not, in fact have a soul. As the Republicans fight for core values-you know, crazy, edgy stuff like fiscal discipline in contrast to “refining” programs-it will get nastier rhetorically. These primaries have been brutal. And memories are long. And there are those who will want revenge. Let’s hope the terror of unfettered Democrats keeps the Republicans focused. But I doubt it will. So expect more incivility on our own side. Politics ain’t beanbag. It’s a bloodsport. And it ain’t civilized. All the way back, I don’t see any evidence that Democracy has ever been a chummy process. It’s adversarial. Why? Because the debate is over ideas and the ideas drive policies and the policies do affect us. It’s  personal . Sometimes, that means it’s uncivilized. Crossposted at Liberty Pundits  

Visit link:
Civil Discourse is Overrated

→ Leave a comment

Posted in Hollywood, Hot Stuff, News

Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Reporters Visiting WH for Off-the-Record Visit Work For Pubs That Demanded Transparency During Bush 43

Posted on August 13, 2010 by Benny Hollywood| Leave a comment

File the news in this report filed late yesterday afternoon by Michael Calderone and John Cook at Yahoo’s Upshot Blog under “D” for Double Standards: White House reporters mum on Obama lunch, even as papers back transparency White House reporters are keeping quiet about an off-the-record lunch today with President Obama — even those at news organizations who’ve advocated in the past for the White House to release the names of visitors. But the identities of the lunch’s attendees won’t remain secret forever: Their names will eventually appear on the White House’s periodically updated public database of visitor logs. … The Obama White House began posting the logs in order to settle a lawsuit, begun under the Bush administration, from Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW), which sought the Secret Service’s White House visitor logs under the Freedom of Information Act. … And guess who filed briefs supporting that argument? Virtually every newspaper that covers the White House. The Washington Post filed an amicus brief in in February 2008 arguing that the names of White House visitors should be released, and it was joined by the Associated Press, Reuters, the Los Angeles Times, Wall Street Journal owner Dow Jones, USA Today, the Hearst Corporation, the New York Daily News, the Newspaper Guild, the Society of Professional Journalists, and a host of other news outlets. It’s unclear, of course, whether reporters for any of those newspapers attended the lunch — because none of them will say. Calderone found out anyway, and in a post early this afternoon , told us who was there: Ben Feller (Associated Press), Jonathan Weisman and Laura Meckler (Wall Street Journal), Michael Shear and Scott Wilson (Washington Post), Caren Bohan (Reuters), David Jackson (USA Today), Carol Lee (Politico), Peter Nicholas (Tribune Co.), Margaret Talev (McClatchy) and Julianna Goldman (Bloomberg). Several reporters on this list gave “no comments” to The Upshot on Thursday. The New York Times was invited but did not attend. White House reporter Peter Baker told The Upshot that the paper “politely declined because we’d like very much to talk on the record.” Readers here likely have memories of certain of the above reporters going out of their way to protect Barack Obama or to bash Bush 43. The appearance of Weisman’s name reminded me of an absolutely pathetic massage job he did when he was at the Washington Post . In August 2005, as seen here , Weisman turned what had been an upbeat item about July’s unemployment report by another Post reporter (“Job Growth Strongest in 3 Months”) into a co-written hit piece on Bush (“Economic News Isn’t Helping Bush; Job Growth Up Sharply in July, but Polls Show Dissatisfaction”). Here were most of the report’s three opening paragraphs: U.S. job growth jumped last month and the unemployment rate held steady … the government reported yesterday, the latest economic data to show the economy picking up steam. Yet President Bush’s economic approval ratings remain low, weighed down by anger over Iraq and concerns about lackluster wage increases and stubbornly high gasoline prices. “I feel the economy is just not as good as it should be,” said Adam Judis, 40, a Pasadena, Calif., computer consultant and political independent. “We’re spending too many lives, resources and money on Iraq. There has to be a point where we say we can’t help everybody. We need to help ourselves.” My reax at the time : The Post feels it’s their duty to massage the news for their print subscribers. They just couldn’t let the story go to print without throwing cold water on it, so they found one guy to change the subject to Iraq, and then presented poll results to “prove” that Bush really isn’t handling the economy well (even though the objective evidence says his administration is). This is a clearly conscious, obvious, and disgraceful effort to turn good news into bad news. You may be wondering what the economic news was that left Weisman unimpressed because of Iraq, gas prices, and supposedly flat wages: In July 2005 , the economy added 207,000 jobs, and the unemployment rate was 5%. Yeah, that bad (/sarc). Watch what Weisman writes at the WSJ warily. It probably wouldn’t be a bad idea to keep an special eye on each of the lunch’s attendees for the next few months. One other thought: Things are pretty bad in journalism when the security-leak sieve known as the New York Times leads the way in ethics by choosing not to participate in the off-the-record luncheon. Cross-posted at BizzyBlog.com .

Read more here:
Reporters Visiting WH for Off-the-Record Visit Work For Pubs That Demanded Transparency During Bush 43

→ Leave a comment

Posted in Hollywood, Hot Stuff, News

Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Time Magazine: ‘Is Rangel Simply Guilty of Business As Usual?’

Posted on August 13, 2010 by Benny Hollywood| Leave a comment

But everybody’s doing it! That excuse may not have gotten you out of hot water with your parents, but it seems to hold some sway with Time magazine, at least when it comes to ethically-challenged former House Ways and Means Chairman Charlie Rangel (D-N.Y.). Staffer Michael Scherer apparently drew the short straw for the August 13 assignment , in which he focused on just one of the numerous allegations of impropriety against Rangel: that he misused his congressional office to solicit contributions to the Charles B. Rangel Center for Public Service. Of course, there are other serious charges against Rangel — who used to chair the House committee responsible for federal tax policy — namely that he avoided paying taxes on property that he owns. From the July 29 Washington Times: The charges, detailed in a 40-page “Statement of Alleged Violation,” break down into four categories: that he solicited money for the Rangel Center from those doing business before his committee; that he made errors and omissions on his financial disclosure forms; that he was given use of a rent-subsidized apartment for an office; and that he failed to report rental income and and pay federal taxes on it. Curiously, Scherer failed to mention those three other categories in his blog post. 

See the original post here:
Time Magazine: ‘Is Rangel Simply Guilty of Business As Usual?’

→ Leave a comment

Posted in Hollywood, Hot Stuff, News

Tagged , , , , , , , , , , ,

Apparently Keith Olbermann Is a Fan of NB Publisher Brent Bozell

Posted on August 5, 2010 by Benny Hollywood| Leave a comment

Lefty blogs have been having a field day with a tweet that showed up on Glenn Beck’s “favorites” list – a list of tweets bookmarked, in a sense, by the user – directing followers to a white supremacist message board. Keith Olbermann picked up on the line of attack last night, crediting a website called “Stop Beck,” which he says noticed the tweet. Stop Beck came as close to stating that Beck was endorsing white supremacy as it possibly could, without actually saying it (“Why is Glenn Beck associating himself with white nationalists and white supremacists?”). Since Olbermann is endorsing the notion that a Twitter “favorite” denotes a positive association, we at NewsBusters must thank him for extending that courtesy to our publisher, MRC President Brent Bozell. This tweet , from @themick1962, showed up at the top of @KeithOlbermann’s favorites  (click the preview at top right for a larger image): “Brent Bozell’s Open Letter to WaPo Ed. Re: JournoList http://bit.ly/cnWvL0 Mandatory reading for ALL media types @KeithOlbermann #p2 #tcot” (h/t Tommy Christopher ). We agree wholeheartedly that Bozell’s open letter should be read by anyone with a vested interest in journalistic fairness and transparency. But we were a bit surprised to see that Olbermann feels the same way, given his usual disdain for NewsBusters, the MRC, and Brent Bozell. We’re glad to see he’s finally coming around. We were also somewhat surprised to see a Twitter user with the following bio appear among Olbermann’s favorites: “Unhyphenated American. Constitutional Originalism. Goldwater Con. Extremism in defense of liberty is no vice. Moderation in pursuit of justice is no virtue.” But perhaps we’ve got this all wrong. Maybe Olbermann wishes to qualify the notion that a “favorite” tweet on Twitter represents any sort of endorsement of a political position.

See the original post here:
Apparently Keith Olbermann Is a Fan of NB Publisher Brent Bozell

→ Leave a comment

Posted in Hollywood, Hot Stuff, News

Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , ,

USA Today Reporter: ‘Do You Care About the Nationality’ of Drunk Driver Who Kills a Loved One?

Posted on August 4, 2010 by Benny Hollywood| Leave a comment

On Sunday morning in northern Virginia, a drunk illegal immigrant — who had previously been convicted twice on DUI charges —  allegedly crashed head-on into a car full of nuns, killing one, Sister Denise Mosier, and injuring the rest. The Benedictine Sisters have since come out to say they are “dismayed and saddened” that the crime “has been politicized and become an apparent forum for the illegal immigration agenda.” USA Today religion writer Cathy Lynn Grossman picked up on that angle of the story yesterday, asking readers if they could forgive a drunk driver who killed a loved one of theirs, a perfectly legitimate query for a blog called “Faith & Reason.” But Grossman then gratuitously threw in a loaded question that confuses anger over lax federal enforcement of immigration laws with xenophobia, asking: Do you care about the nationality of the drunk who kills someone you love? Suspect Carlos A. Martinelly-Montano is an illegal immigrant from Bolivia and a repeat DUI offender — two convictions, one in 2007 and one in 2008 — with a revoked license. He doesn’t belong behind a wheel on Virginia roads and should either have been in jail or deported to Bolivia. There is plenty of blame to go around to both the Bush and Obama administrations and there’s also a legitimate concern by the Benedictine Sisters that this tragedy not be crassly politicized.  But isn’t it politicizing the tragedy for Grossman to suggest that it’s bigotry that informs the average person’s anger over the government’s failure to deport Martinelly-Montano? Isn’t it possible to grieve for Sister Mosier while simultaneously seeing her death as an event that would not have happened had Martinelly-Montano been deported two years ago? It’s entirely possible for a Christian to extend forgiveness and pray for Martinelly-Montano’s immortal soul while also expecting the government to do justice by enforcing immigration laws, particularly against illegal immigrants with two DUI convictions. Surely Grossman, a religion reporter, has to understand that.

Continued here:
USA Today Reporter: ‘Do You Care About the Nationality’ of Drunk Driver Who Kills a Loved One?

→ Leave a comment

Posted in Hollywood, Hot Stuff, News

Tagged , , , , , , , , ,

There Hollywood Goes Again; Director Joe Johnston: Captain America Won’t be ‘Flag-Waver’

Posted on July 21, 2010 by Benny Hollywood| Leave a comment

If insanity is defined as doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result, liberal Hollywood directors must be utterly certifiable. How else does one explain Hollywood’s penchant for de-Americanizing thoroughly patriotic superhero and/or comic book icons? Take Joe Johnston. The cinematic genius who gave the world “Jurassic Park 3” is directing a “Captain America” feature that will release in 2011, the 70th anniversary of the Marvel  superhero’s creation. Johnston told the audience at Comic-Con 2010 that Cap will not be a “jingoistic American flag-waver” but will instead be “re-interpret[ed]” as a “good person” in the World War II-set film. Noted Geoff Boucher of the Los Angeles Times blog Hero Complex : “He wants to serve his country, but he’s not this sort of jingoistic American flag-waver,” Johnston said. “He’s just a good person. We make a point of that in the script: Don’t change who you are once you go from Steve Rogers to this super-soldier, you have to stay who you are inside, that’s really what’s important more than your strength and everything. It’ll be interesting and fun to put a different spin on the character and one that the fans are really going to appreciate.” Boucher portrayed Johnston’s move as part and parcel of how modern-day directors have re-envisioned comic book staples such as Batman and Iron Man and defended him by adding: Some pundits will pounce on all of this as another desecration of an American touchstone, but how many of them have ever read the books?  The character, created by Jack Kirby and Joe Simon , was certainly un-conflicted about his country and its mission during the clear-cut days of the 1940s, but it didn’t always stay that way. In late 1974, for instance, in the months after President Nixon’s resignation, Steve Rogers chucked the star-spangled costume and changed his hero name to  Nomad (although, by 1976, Cap and original artist Kirby had the hero in Bicentennial mode). True, comic book writers and illustrators are not immune from making political statements with beloved characters. But that doesn’t mean those moves are rewarded with greater market share or even the sustained loyalty of longtime fans. There’s a reason that the “Nomad” experiment fell by the wayside.  What’s more, while Boucher equates Johnston’s move with say Jon Favreau’s take on Iron Man, it is arguable that Favreau’s vision of Tony Stark/Iron Man is a fundamentally patriotic libertarian-conservative American hero. Both movies were wildly successful in both the U.S. and foreign audiences. By contrast, “GI Joe: The Rise of Cobra” — which conservative pundit Greg Gutfeld panned as ” a Benetton ad with rocket launchers ” — earned slightly less than half worldwide as did “Iron Man 2.” What’s more, the opening weekend for “GI Joe” earned only $54.7 million in its opening weekend compared to the $128.1 million “Iron Man 2” raked in during its first weekend. American and foreign movie audiences love a good superhero action flick and it doesn’t hurt to have a thoroughly patriotic American protagonist to cheer for. Image via L.A. Times.

Go here to read the rest:
There Hollywood Goes Again; Director Joe Johnston: Captain America Won’t be ‘Flag-Waver’

→ Leave a comment

Posted in Hollywood, Hot Stuff, News

Tagged , , , , , , , , , ,