Tag Archives: pbs

Charles Krauthammer Rips Liberal Media for Being Obsessed with Sarah Palin

Charles Krauthammer on Friday tore into the liberal media for being obsessed with former Alaska governor Sarah Palin. After Krauthammer scolded the “editorial judgment” of the producers of PBS's “Inside Washington” for week after week prominently displaying her as the “only representative of conservatism of any importance” in this nation, the Washington Post's Colby King proved his point (video follows with transcript and commentary): read more

More:
Charles Krauthammer Rips Liberal Media for Being Obsessed with Sarah Palin

Katy Perry BANNED from Sesame Street..THAT’s RIDICULOUS!

Katy Perry made a video with Elmo for Sesame Street that was banned from airing on PBS because of the skimpy dress she was wearing. This has created a lot of controversy. Do you think they should have played it? added by: eightimprov

Krauthammer Smacks Down WaPo’s King Over Palin and Tea Party Agenda

Charles Krauthammer on Friday had a heated debate with the Washington Post’s Colby King over what the Tea Party stands for as well as who its leader is. As the panel on PBS’s “Inside Washington” discussed Delaware Republican senatorial nominee Christine O’Donnell’s surprising victory Tuesday, the conversation naturally gravitated towards the conservative movement reshaping the face of politics.   “They [the Tea Party] have a litmus test that goes into being right to life, social conservative issues that they’re strong on,” said King. Krauthammer pounced, “Look, I hate to say this, but I think that is completely wrong.” The battle was on (video follows with transcript and commentary):  COLBY KING, WASHINGTON POST: They [the Tea Party] have a litmus test that goes into being right to life, social conservative issues that they’re strong on. No, they would get rid of the IRS if they could. There is no room, there is no room for compromise because compromise is a bad word as far as they’re concerned. CHARLES KRAUTHAMMER: Look, I hate to say this, but I think that is completely wrong. The Tea Party has distinguished itself in being almost exclusively about governance, the reach of governance, taxation, economic issues. It is not the social conservatives. In fact, that is what distinguishes it. And I think the other element that is being missed here is it arose spontaneously as a reaction to an extremely aggressive, extremely ambitious left liberal administration that instead of, for example, attacking tax reform – which had it tried that at the beginning of its administration would have had bipartisan agreement and great success, as Reagan in ’86 – it decided it wants a reform of health care which nobody at the time thought was the major issue in the time of economic recession. KING: You just can’t rewrite the rules. I mean, Sarah Palin didn’t even come to the state of Maryland but endorsed the Republican opponent of Governor Ehrlich only on the basis of a checklist. KRAUTHAMMER: Palin is not Tea Party. She is not Tea Party the titular head or at all. KING: She is a major… KRAUTHAMMER: The Tea Party is a spontaneous, leaderless movement which is economic and not social conservative. KING: I get mail all the time from the Tea Party of Florida for example there, Tea Party spokesman from around the country, they, they exist as a unit. As readers can see, Krauthammer might think the Republican Party would have been better suited if Mike Castle won Tuesday evening, but he still is an outspoken conservative ready to smack down media members when they’re wrong. Despite many Tea Party supporters’ disappointment over his views on O’Donnell, America would be far better off with more straight-shooting commentators like Krauthammer.

Visit link:
Krauthammer Smacks Down WaPo’s King Over Palin and Tea Party Agenda

PBS Humorist Andy Borowitz Makes Crack About FNC as ‘Fake News’

On Friday’s Need to Know program on PBS, humorist Andy Borowitz devoted his regular “Next Week’s News” fake news segment to the story that he is supposedly leaving the show after this week. After showing clips of himself from previous episodes, he ended the segment by taking a shot at Fox News Channel as he joked that he will be moving to FNC next week because he so enjoys making up “fake news.” Borowitz: “Now, what’s next for Andy Borowitz? Well, I love doing two minutes of fake news each week, but it’s whetted my appetite to do fake news on a full-time basis. And so, starting next week, I’m moving to my new home: The Fox News Channel.” Below is a complete transcript of the Friday, September 17, “Next Week’s News” segment from PBS’s Need to Know program: JON MEACHAM: It is our sad duty to report that this is the last time we’ll be able to feature the prognostication skills of Andy Borowitz. Andy is moving on from Need to Know. ALISON STEWART: And while there are a few of you who will say it’s not a moment too soon, we speak for your legions of fans who’ll say we’ll miss you on Need to Know. The news of the future will not be the same without you, Andy. ANDY BOROWITZ: Well, thank you so much, Alison and Jon. It’s been great. Well, tonight is, how do I put it, it’s bittersweet for me because this is the last edition of “Next Week’s News.” Now, I’ve had a great time doing this segment, but I’ve been offered a new challenge that, well, I just couldn’t turn it down. More about my decision in a moment. But first, let’s take a look back at some very special moments from “Next Week’s News.” (CLIPS ARE SHOWN WITH THE SONG “GOD LIFT US UP WHERE WE BELONG” PLAYING) BOROWITZ: Good times. Now, what’s next for Andy Borowitz? Well, I love doing two minutes of fake news each week, but it’s whetted my appetite to do fake news on a full-time basis. And so, starting next week, I’m moving to my new home: The Fox News Channel. Alison, Jon? MEACHAM: We’ll be watching. Thanks for everything, Andy.

Read more from the original source:
PBS Humorist Andy Borowitz Makes Crack About FNC as ‘Fake News’

Mark Shields: Obama Created More Jobs In 2010 Than Bush Did In Eight Years

Mark Shields on Friday demonstrated just how far a liberal media member is willing to go to support President Obama and the Democrat Party. Appearing on PBS’s “Inside Washington,” Shields actually made the case that despite a 9.6 percent unemployment rate, and growing fears of a double dip recession, Americans should be uplifted by the fact that more private sector jobs have been created this year than during the entire Bush administration. Showing just how adept he is at repeating Democrat talking points, Shields even said this with a straight face (video follows with transcript and commentary):  MARK SHIELDS: I think the President’s task right now is compared to the situation the nation is comparable to a subway train that has stopped suddenly between two scheduled stops and the lights go out. And what the American people are looking for just as the passengers on that train are looking for is a voice that comes on and says, “This is what happened, this is what’s being done about it, and this when we are going to get out.” And, I mean, just the simple fact that more jobs in the private sector have been created in this year, 2010, this terrible year, then were created in the eight years of George W. Bush’s administration is something to think about and to mention. To paraphrase Hillary Clinton, any American buying this nonsense would have to have a willing suspension of disbelief. After all, when Obama took over the White House, the unemployment rate was 7.7 percent. There are now almost three million more Americans out of work than when the 44th President was sworn in. As for the private sector, it has shed over 3 million workers since January 2009. Does Shields really believe the 763,000 employees added to such payrolls in the past eight months is something to brag about given that with population and labor force growth, the economy has to produce at least 150,000 jobs a month just to keep the unemployment rate from rising? Or is it necessary for the most highly-skilled liberal shills to ignore such facts when they’re inconvenient? 

Read more:
Mark Shields: Obama Created More Jobs In 2010 Than Bush Did In Eight Years

Monica Crowley Smacks Down Eleanor Clift Over Racism in the Tea Party

Conservative radio host Monica Crowley on Friday smacked down Newsweek’s Eleanor Clift over racism in the Tea Party. In the second segment of “The McLaughlin Group,” the host addressed July’s controversial resolution by the NAACP condemning so-called racist elements within the Tea Party. Liberals Clift and Clarence Page of the Chicago Tribune predictably supported the NAACP while bashing the conservative organization. Crowley with the support of Pat Buchanan defended the Tea Party while calling the NAACP irrelevant. With McLaughlin surprisingly taking Crowley and Buchanan’s side, sparks flew in an oftentimes heated discussion (video follows with partial transcript and commentary):  MONICA CROWLEY: Look, the Tea Party has an issue with the content of Obama’s policies, not the color of his skin, and I find it amazing that the NAACP would waste its time on nonexistent racism in the Tea Party when there are so many problems that still plague the black community like black on black violence, like fatherlessness, like education and drugs and guns in the inner cities. And so it seems to me to be a straw man that the NAACP set up because they are less willing to really confront all of those vexing problems in the black community. JOHN MCLAUGHLIN, HOST: Exit question. CLARENCE PAGE: I think they are confronting them, but they don’t get the publicity until they attack the Tea Party. But believe me, they are dealing with those problems. ELEANOR CLIFT: Let’s have you do a radio show on what they’re doing on all those other issues. CROWLEY: And I have, Eleanor, I have. But you clearly don’t listen to it. After McLaughlin asked what kind of damage has the NAACP’s resolution done to race relations in this country, the sparks really flew: CLIFT: The NAACP is not hurting race relations. We have a very active faction on the right using racial issues as a wedge to try to defeat Democrats and a black president and I think that is where… CROWLEY: Oh boy. CLIFT: You’re gonna say that’s not true? CROWLEY: Well, I’m saying that you are making our point that when the left goes out there and stokes these kinds of racial issues when they don’t exist, what happens is it dilutes real racism and that’s the danger. CLIFT: Oh, so this is called stoking? CROWLEY: Yes. After some crosstalk, Page pressed the issue: PAGE: Well, I was just going to say, these are, these are kind of a smokescreen, they’re kind of totems. The NAACP is as important to the base of the Democratic Party as the Tea Party is to the base of the Republican Party and so that so never the twain shall meet. But, for you to say racism is not a problem anymore, that’s exactly the kind of thing… CROWLEY: No, that’s not what I said. I said nonexistent racism in the Tea Party. I didn’t say racism doesn’t exist in America. PAGE: Nonexistent racism in the Tea Party. That’s the same thing. From the vantage point of African-Americans and most liberals, they would say, “No way.” And that’s the real problem, Clarence. This comes from the vantage point of African-Americans and most liberals despite  lacking evidence to support that position:  CROWLEY: That’s not what I said. Let’s be clear. MCLAUGHLIN: Can we restore order here? CROWLEY: My point was that when we start slapping on the racist label, whether it’s on the right or the left, we end up diluting real racism. MCLAUGHLIN: President Obama said he was introducing a post-racial America. Do you think this action by the NAACP… PAGE: When did he say that, John? MCLAUGHLIN: …has torpedoed that? PAGE: When did he ever say that? MCLAUGHLIN: In his speech, in his speech on race. PAGE: No, no, he was introducing a post-racial America. CLIFT: The media announced that. PAGE: The media said that. MCLAUGHLIN: On the basis of his speech. That’s correct! Whether Obama specifically said that in his March 2008 speech in Philadelphia is somewhat irrelevant if that’s the way media reported it at the time:   PAGE: No, this is important, John, because Barack Obama… MCLAUGHLIN: You mean he doesn’t stand for a post-racial America? PAGE: Throughout Barack Obama’s campaign, I defy you to find me where he ever said it. No, he only talked about race when he had to, and that was after Reverend Wright.  MCLAUGHLIN: Well, he gave a 35, 45-minute speech on race, remember that? PAGE: Yes he did, he never said anything about a post-racial society. MCLAUGHLIN: I think he said it. PAGE: Go back to that speech and find me the bite. MCLAUGHLIN: Does he in the mind of Americans stand for a post-racial America? The answer is yes. PAGE: That’s different. MCLAUGHLIN: The NAACP torpedoed it, yes or no? PAGE: They did not torpedo it, not at all. MCLAUGHLIN: I think they torpedoed it. PAGE: Americans still view Barack Obama basically as the embodiment of racial progress. He didn’t have to say it. BUCHANAN: John, you’re right. Stick to your guns, you are exactly right. It damaged the whole idea of a post-racial America for no reason whatsoever. PAGE: We’ll be post-racial when we’re post-racist. MCLAUGHLIN: How much damage, on a ten scale? Is it cataclysmic damage? BUCHANAN: I think the series of things that’s not only Rev. Wright, but it’s Sgt. Crowley and this and the Black Panther thing has severely damaged what everybody hoped would be a post-racial America. (CROSSTALK) CLIFT: When a political party stops using race as a wedge, not because that party is racist… BUCHANAN: You all don’t use race as a wedge? For heaven sakes. CROWLEY: Eleanor, come on! In the end, what happened on that set was the embodiment of the condition of race relations in this nation today, as Left and Right have a diametric view of the problem as well as the causes. Yet, maybe most telling was how both Clift and Page blamed the media for the perception that Obama was going to create a post-racial America. They, of course, were quite correct in their accusation, but neither chose to accept responsibility despite their shameless. I wonder why that is?

More:
Monica Crowley Smacks Down Eleanor Clift Over Racism in the Tea Party

Charles Krauthammer Smacks Down Mark Shields Over Rostenkowski’s Legacy

Syndicated columnist Charles Krauthammer on Friday smacked down PBS’s Mark Shields in a discussion about late Sen. Dan Rostenkowski’s legacy. As the conversation on this week’s “Inside Washington” turned to the passing of the former powerful Democrat, Shields swooned liked so many of his colleagues:  Danny Rostenkowski was a throwback…he worked across the aisle. I mean, he was just phenomenal that way. There was no ideology to him. And, you want to know how politics has changed? Danny Rostenkowski used to go back to Chicago by car. You know who rode with him? Bob Michel, the Republican leader rode with him and back, and Henry Hyde, the conservative leader, and they were friends.   With the ball nicely set up on the tee, Krauthammer ripped a monster drive down the middle of the fairway (video follows with transcript and commentary): MARK SHIELDS: But on Danny Rostenkowski, just one word. I have already spoken positively and emotionally about Charlie Rangel and I won’t do that again. But Danny Rostenkowski was a throwback, he was a guy’s guy, he liked a steak, he liked a good story, he liked to tell a good story. And, and he worked across the aisle. I mean, he was just phenomenal that way. There was no ideology to him. And, you want to know how politics has changed? Danny Rostenkowski used to go back to Chicago by car. You know who rode with him? Bob Michel, the Republican leader rode with him and back, and Henry Hyde, the conservative leader, and they were friends. Can you imagine now under this present climate these guys being together for twenty minute subway ride? GORDON PETERSON, HOST: Danny liked a good steak but did he bring home the bacon? CHARLES KRAUTHAMMER: Bob Michel rode in his car and I am sure they had a lovely time with a lot of stories, but that is why the Republicans were in the minority for 40 years until he was taken over by Newt Gingrich who had an agenda, a Contract With America, and brought the Republicans in to power in the House. So I know how if you are a Democrat, it’s lovely if you have working across the aisle if you are in charge of the aisle. Indeed. The Left and their media minions just love bipartisanship and working across the aisle when they control both chambers of Congress. Yet when Republicans are in control, not so much. Bravo, Charles.  

See the original post:
Charles Krauthammer Smacks Down Mark Shields Over Rostenkowski’s Legacy

PBS Reporter Waters Down Liberal Bias of Ninth Circuit Court

Reporting a U.S. District Court judge overturning California’s Proposition 8, PBS correspondent Spencer Michaels noted that if the case is appealed to a higher court, the U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals would handle it. Michaels watered down the court’s infamous history of liberal rulings, saying that though it may be liberal, it is not more so than any other U.S. Circuit Court. The Ninth Circuit has “kind of a liberal bias – at least that’s the charge,” Michaels quickly corrected himself. “In actual fact, they probably aren’t any more liberal than any other court,” he insisted of the circuit with the dubious distinction of being the most-overturned of any by the Supreme Court. The Ninth Circuit has a long history of being stacked with liberal judges since the days of President Carter, and infamously struck down “under God” from the Pledge of Allegiance in 2002. The Court has arguably inched to the right with the addition of moderate and conservative judges, but is still widely regarded as the most liberal of the circuit courts. James Taranto, member of the editorial board of the Wall Street Journal, described the court as “notoriously liberal,” in his piece about the reversal of Proposition 8. Ashby Jones, writing for the WSJ’s law blog, said that the court has a reputation for being “packed with liberal judges.” The sentiment isn’t confined to conservative-friendly publications. The Los Angeles Times reported last year that 15 of the court’s 16 cases reviewed by the U.S. Supreme Court were reversed. “Judicial analysts attribute the high reversal rate at least partly to the 9th Circuit’s reputation as a liberal-dominated bench, even though more recent conservative appointments have diluted that influence,” the paper reported. Indeed, the New York Times reported this past spring that “outside experts who have examined the circuit for quantitative evidence of its leanings say that over all, it is indeed the most liberal circuit – but not by all that much.” A transcript of the segment, which aired on August 4 at 7:10 p.m., is as follows: JUDY WOODRUFF, PBS anchor: And as you suggest, the proponents of Proposition 8 had already served notice that they plan to appeal. What is their recourse here? SPENCER MICHAELS, PBS correspondent: Well, they’re going to go to the Ninth Circuit, which is California and the rest of the West’s appellate court in the federal system. That court has a kind of a liberal bias, at least that’s the charge. In actual fact, they probably aren’t any more liberal than any other court. They’re going to take up this case, and from there, what one of the lawyers I talked to today said, is that what happens in the Ninth Circuit is going to be very, very important, that they will set precedent. And if they set a precedent that makes the Ninth Circuit different than the rest of the country, then the Supreme Court will want to step in and settle this issue. You can’t have gay marriage approved in the Ninth Circuit and not in the rest of the country. So the Supreme Court will want to get involved in that. So that’s probably what will happen. It probably will go to the Supreme Court eventually. The people who are in favor of gay marriage aren’t really happy to go to the Supreme Court at this point. They know the make-up of that court, and they probably figure that they don’t have a big chance of winning. WOODRUFF: And Spencer, you were saying in your report a few minutes ago that it’s not clear the effect this is going to have on the other 49 states right now. What is your understanding of that? MICHAELS: Well as I said, right now this court is just a district court, a trial court – it doesn’t present a precedent. If it goes to the Ninth Circuit, then there is a precedent involved, and the Ninth Circuit rules in most of the states west of the Rockies. But the rest of the country is not bound by the Ninth Circuit. So the U.S. Supreme Court would have to make a decision for the rest of the country.

Visit link:
PBS Reporter Waters Down Liberal Bias of Ninth Circuit Court

Gibbs Evades Question of Whether Obama Agrees With His Medicare Director That Health-Care System Must Redistribute Wealth

White House spokesman Robert Gibbs has evaded answering the question of whether President Barack Obama agrees with Dr. Donald Berwick, his newly appointed administrator of Medicare and Medicaid, who has insisted that health-care systems must redistribute wealth. “Excellent health care is by definition redistributional,” Berwick said in a speech delivered on July 1, 2008. When asked directly at the July 7 White House press briefing whether Obama agreed with this, Gibbs would not answer the question. Instead, he parried it with jocular statements about the provenance of the quote.

Tavis Smiley: Just Because Gulf Residents Depend on Oil Drilling as Part of Their Economy ‘Doesn’t Make It Right’

Apparently, Tavis Smiley of PBS knows what’s best for Gulf residents, even if it would mean widespread unemployment. Smiley hosted a Wednesday night interview with Rep. Henry Waxman (D) on his show, where the liberal Californian admitted that while alternative energy sources need to be explored and developed, America still needs to drill for oil, albeit safely. But Smiley wondered aloud how American can move beyond politics and transcend its oil-dependent energy policy. He thought Obama’s Oval Office speech was one that “most people, left and right, seem not to like.” “How do you move beyond the politics to make that happen?” Smiley then asked Waxman, even though, as he himself claimed, most of the country was not enamored with Obama’s words. Smiley also brought up the Gulf residents’ clamors to keep oil drilling alive there. “I say this respectfully, because I understand how their economy works down there,” he said, before asking why Gulf residents are hesitant to “move beyond oil drilling.” “This oil’s in Florida now, as you know, this oil’s in Texas now, it’s all over the place in the Gulf. And yet the people in that region don’t want to stop oil drilling,” the PBS host pointed out to allege hypocrisy on the part of Gulf residents who also attack BP. “Well, they’re dependent on oil as part of their economy,” Waxman explained. “But dependence doesn’t make it right, though,” Smiley preached from his Los Angeles soapbox. “Well it makes it understandable,” Waxman offered. At the end of the discussion, Waxman slammed the Republicans for blaming Obama for the federal response to the Gulf disaster. Smiley added in his two cents. “I think it’s laughable, beyond laughable, that many persons on the right demonize government all day long until they want government to do what they want government to do.” The transcript of the segment, which aired on July 8 at 12:38 a.m. EDT, is as follows: REP. HENRY WAXMAN: But we need to move away from oil. And that’s why I strongly support the idea of broader legislative solution that will have us use alternatives to oil, to reduce the carbon emissions from other sources, especially coal and some of the utilities, to hasten the development of automobiles that are either electric or hybrid, so that’s not strictly using oil. Those are the things we need to do, it’s not going to happen overnight. But we’re not getting started, because of a lot of opposition, primarily because of the oil companies. TAVIS SMILEY: Respectfully, though, screw the oil companies. If this disaster with BP doesn’t allow the American people to see this is what can happen, this is what happens, this is happening because of our dependence on oil, screw the oil companies. I don’t want to hear that. I’m asking, respectfully, when it is and how it is that the American people and that our leaders in government circumvent the oil companies and say this is what we’re going to do for the sake of the American people? REP. WAXMAN: Well the President has been very clear. For the sake of the American people, our economy, our national security, to create more jobs, we need a comprehensive energy climate change bill that will move us away from these contributors of carbon emissions, and oil and coal are the major sources of these carbon emissions. You asked, though, the question directly – should we all feel blameworthy for what happened? And I don’t quite accept that. We are dependent on this transportation source for our motor vehicles. That’s – I can’t blame people for vehicles that use oil. I blame government and leaders for not moving us away from that and developing a different strategy. Now that we have leadership from President Obama, it is so difficult. Now the House passed a bill. We’re waiting for the Senate. And maybe they will get their act together and pass legislation. But if we don’t do it, as years go by, things don’t change overnight. It’s going to take a period of transition. And we need to drill for oil. I think it’s a mistake to say that there’s something wrong with drilling for oil. We’ve got to drill for oil. But if we’re going to have drilling for oil, we’ve got to make sure it’s done safely to protect the environment as best we can from this drilling itself. TAVIS SMILEY: How do you explain to the American people how it is that the folks in the Gulf – now I say this respectfully, because I understand how their economy works down there – but how do you, to your point now that you think we do need to drill for oil, just to do it safely, how do we explain to the American people who are watching this disaster in the Gulf who don’t understand how something this devastating could be impacting – this oil’s in Florida now, as you know, this oil’s in Texas now, it’s all over the place in the Gulf. And yet, the people in that region don’t want to stop oil drilling. I mean, it’s like on the one hand they’re demonizing – I shouldn’t say demonizing – they’re going after BP, I want to underscore again, as they should. They’re going after BP. But at the same time, I don’t hear voices, a chorus of voices saying we’ve got to move beyond oil drilling. REP. HENRY WAXMAN: Well, they’re dependent on oil as part of their economy. TAVIS SMILEY: But dependence doesn’t make it right, though. REP. WAXMAN: Well, it makes it understandable. SMILEY: Okay. REP. WAXMAN: And they’re not against oil drilling. And I’m not against oil drilling per se, although I think the moratorium makes a lot of sense until we can make sure it’s done safely. We have oil drilled, and we’re not going to stop drilling for oil, this is an important resource that we need to use, and we need to move away from. But we need it now. And I’d rather develop more American oil, than have to be importing more, although we’re never going to be self-sufficient. The statistics, which I think are pretty dramatic – we have three percent of the world’s oil resources in this country, and we consume 25 percent. Well there’s no way in the world we’re going to be independent of importing oil, unless we get away from using oil. SMILEY: So how do you move beyond then, finally here, how do you move beyond the politics, to your point earlier, President Obama is trying to do that, in the speech that most people, left and right, seem not to like, at least in that speech – he tried to raise the issue of different energy sources, a different direction for our energy program in this country, and the minute that he did that, as you well know being on the Hill, he got accused of playing politics and trying to insert a political agenda into a controversy. So how do you move beyond the politics to make that happen? REP. WAXMAN: I just want to point out something that is obvious, I think that most people that have – there’s nothing he can do that he’s not criticized about. You would think in a disaster like this, the country would be united and try to help do whatever we need to do to clean it up and to respond to it. Rather than BP, blame BP, we have Republicans say “Oh, it’s Obama’s fault!” Well what did he do? Now the government has a lot of responsibility, because we have a government agency that’s supposed to supervise the safety of this drilling. And that agency has failed miserably, and in fact there were even scandals associated with the Mineral Resources Development Agency. And the President is trying to change that, and restructure it, and make sure he’s got better people in there. But they blame President – even the governor of Louisiana who is a very active Republican, congressman, very active Republican, says “Oh, they’ve got to build a certain, certain rock pile of some sort,” and the scientists tell us that’s a mistake. But he’s saying the federal government is not doing what we need to do. Well, I think so much of that has become politicized, and it shouldn’t be. Everything is not political, and it’s – everything’s not partisan, but if you listen to the complaints, every time President Obama makes a move, somebody wants to blame something on him, even though he had nothing to do with it. SMILEY: Well, we do agree on that point. I think it’s laughable, beyond laughable, that many persons on the right demonize government all day long until they want government to do what they want government to do. But I digress.

Originally posted here:
Tavis Smiley: Just Because Gulf Residents Depend on Oil Drilling as Part of Their Economy ‘Doesn’t Make It Right’