Tag Archives: 911

‘Ground Zero’ or ‘ground zero’? AP, NYT Long Ago Opted for Lower Case

File this under “Fascinating Things You Learn When Researching Other Things.” The Associated Press’s infamous memo huffing and puffing about how it will henceforth describe the 13-story mosque/community center/kumbaya center that Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf would like to have built on a site two blocks away from where the World Trade Center Towers once stood opened with this sentence: We should continue to avoid the phrase “ground zero mosque” or “mosque at ground zero” on all platforms. Obviously the publicly announced editorial decision was news, but how about the lack of uppercase letters in “Ground Zero”? It turns out that both the AP and the New York Times routinely do not capitalize “Ground Zero,” making them grammar outliers. Here was one grammarian’s take on the matter in 2007 (bolded in final sentence is mine): Today’s topic is capitalizing tricky nouns like Ground Zero, Internet, and Earth. Ground Zero Since we’re coming up on September 11th, I was thinking about Ground Zero, and I realized that sometimes I see the words ground zero capitalized and sometimes I don’t. Back in 2001, it seemed as if the name Ground Zero got assigned to the site of the World Trade Center in New York almost immediately. Traditionally, ground zero means the site of a nuclear explosion, and sometimes it is used to refer to the site of a more general explosion or an area where rapid change has taken place. In those general instances, ground zero would be a common noun and wouldn’t be capitalized. On the other hand, although there are a few dissenters, most notably the New York Times, most people agree that Ground Zero is the name of the specific site of the former World Trade Center, and therefore it’s a proper noun that needs to be capitalized when it is used in that way . Besides the Times, the AP is not in the grammarian’s roster of “most people” who correctly capitalize “Ground Zero” as a specific place in Lower Manhattan. Perhaps they would prefer to be described at “the nyt and the ap.” This past Monday, referring back to something he wrote in 2002, the guy who runs TestyCopyEditors.com remined readers he doesn’t like the use of the term “Ground Zero” in uppercase or lowercase: “Ground zero” has a long history as a cliché but was occasionally useful in its original sense, meaning the point at which a nuclear explosion is triggered. To apply the term to the World Trade Center is to be needlessly vague about the nature of the attack. It also makes the term useless in its original sense, particularly in reference to the nuclear attacks on Hiroshima and Ngasaki, Japan, in 1945. That’s interesting. Maybe the term’s use first became popular in the establishment press once it was coined as a convenient shortcut to avoid using the the “T-word,” as in “the site of the 9/11 terrorist attacks,” or even to describe what occurred as “attacks” at all. If it was a strategy, it didn’t work out particularly well. Virtually everyone knows that “Ground Zero” in a story about New York City is where the terrorist attacks occurred. Here is a collection of current raw headlines found at the wire service’s main site at 5:20 p.m. in a search on “Ground Zero” (not in quotes, but capitalized): I count eight headlined instances of lowercase use of Ground Zero (the AP uses sentence case for its headlines). With the exception of one link to a multimedia item (“Plans for Ground Zero”) and links to two videos (“Obama backs mosque near Ground Zero” and “Obama Supports ‘right’ for Ground Zero Mosque”), “Ground Zero” is in lowercase format at all relevant underlying AP items listed above. So determined is the AP to keep “Ground Zero” in lowercase format that it revised the words in two paragraphs it directly quoted from a Rochester New Democrat and Chronicle editorial . The relevant paragraphs originally read as follows: The controversy over building a community center and mosque near Ground Zero cuts so deeply to the core of this country’s founding that President Barack Obama was right to weigh in. … That’s the rub. Many Americans view Ground Zero as hallowed ground, and building a mosque nearby seems beyond insensitive. In a roundup of editorials on various topics, the AP de-capitalized both uses of the term. This after-the-fact revision of another publication’s work seems to reflect a grim resolve that goes beyond the normal policing of grammar. If so, what’s the source? You’ll have to excuse me for believing that business arrangements similar to those  described here four years ago might have influenced the AP’s original decision-making process: Arab states have for decades paid substantial sums for control over content and other news-management privileges that I daresay would be refused at any price (with the mere request being treated as an earth-shaking scandal) if asked for by representatives of any Western country. Say it ain’t so, AP. Cross-posted at BizzyBlog.com .

See the original post:
‘Ground Zero’ or ‘ground zero’? AP, NYT Long Ago Opted for Lower Case

Mosque Leaders Are Not Planning to Move, and Other Cordoba House Developments! [Controversy]

Now that Barack Obama has opened his mouth on Cordoba House —aka Park51, aka (but not really) the ” Ground Zero Mosque “—the ugly story won’t be going away for a while. So, what’s the latest? More

For Bill Press, Ground Zero Is Sacred Until Conservatives Say So

Bill Press is confused. He can’t seem to decide whether Ground Zero is a sacred site. When he was using the memory of 9/11 as a political football to blast Glenn Beck, lower Manhattan was hallowed ground. But now that conservatives are making that claim, Press has proclaimed that the area “is not a sacred site.” Make up your mind, Bill! In June, Press compared Beck’s planned 8/28 rally at the Lincoln Memorial commemorating the anniversary of Dr. Martin Luther King’s “I have a dream” speech to an Al Qaeda “rally on September 11 – at Ground Zero.” “Sometimes you have to stand up and say, this is wrong – the wrong place,” he added. “It’s a slap to the American people… There are some places where cheap political tricks should not be allowed.” But now that the right is saying virtually the same thing about the Ground Zero Mosque, Press has proclaimed that “there’s only one reason to oppose this mosque, and that is to paint Islam as an evil religion and to paint all Muslims and equate them with a 19 terrorist who’s flew into that building. it is wrong. it is un-American and the people against it ought to be ashamed of playing a cheap political trick” (h/t Jamas Taranto ). Well which is it? Doug Powers writes : Tea Partiers are like Al Qaeda even though the only thing the Tea Party has in common with 9/11 is that it’s trying to prevent another one. In this case, Press is not condemning an entire group of people for the actions of a few, but rather demonizing an entire group of people for the actions of none of them. The Tea Party is comparable to the Islamic terrorists who murdered thousands on 9/11, but it’s un-American to criticize a mosque near Ground Zero because to do so is to blame an entire group for the actions of a few? This is hilariously misguided and insane even for Bill Press.

See the rest here:
For Bill Press, Ground Zero Is Sacred Until Conservatives Say So

Absurd Media Meme: Ground Zero Mosque Is Fine Because There Are Strip Clubs Nearby

There is a new media meme rearing it’s ugly head in the many discussions of the Ground Zero Mosque. A number of journalists seem to be suggesting that if critics oppose the construction of the Mosque, they should also be incensed by the presence of strip clubs, bars, and an off-track betting location in the area. ” Just How ‘Hallowed’ is the Ground Near Ground Zero? ” asks Time Magazine’s Madison Gray. “New York Doll’s Gentleman’s Club, and the Pussycat Lounge are two strip clubs that sit within a block of Ground Zero, but are not seen as a threat to the land’s hallowed nature,” Gray added. “So it seems to some, freedom of religion might be a problem, but a $10 lap dance is not.” Gee, could it have anything to do with the fact that pole dancers didn’t fly planes into the twin towers? For some, the right to build a mosque and the move’s moral implications are two distinct issues, and $10 lap dances have exactly nothing to do with either. Gray goes on: Then there’s Off Track Betting, where visitors to the sacred neighborhood are able to place bets on the horses without even breaking their solemn focus on the dump trucks and cranes that sit where the Twin Towers once stood. Think about it: where else can you show your reverence while at the same time putting all your faith in Fat Chance Cinnamon or Poco’s Black Charger? Let’s not forget Thunder Lingerie and More, where you can pay your respects to the 9/11 tragedy, then take in a peep show, or pick up a few naughty items for that trip back to the hotel. And most noticeable of anything you could see around this untouchable area are the dozens of street vendors who sit a stone’s throw away from Ground Zero capitalizing on the fact that it is one of New York’s most visited tourist attractions. Possibly millions of dollars change hands every weekend all in the name of capitalist gain and certainly not any reverence for the 2,700 who died in the space right behind them. So deciding exactly how “hallowed” the area near Ground Zero is might be up to the individual visitor. But one thing’s true: those who have already deemed it as such don’t seem to mind the seedy stuff nearby as much as they do a quiet, private house of worship. Surely Gray forgot to add that this particular “private house of worship” is devoted to the same religion in whose name those 2,700 Americans were killed, built where landing gear from one of the planes that hit the towers fell, scheduled to be opened on September 11 of next year, and named after the Islamic Caliphate who conquered much of Medieval (Christian) Spain. I say he must have forgotten to add those details since they would accurately frame the argument against the Ground Zero mosque, and surely he was not trying to intentionally distort that argument. Of course if he were, he would also have to explain why strip clubs have any bearing whatsoever on the sanctity of an historic or prestigious location. There are three strip clubs within a few blocks of the White House . Is Gray suggesting that the White House is not a sacred location? Gray cited a blogger at History Eraser Button, who posted photos of the various locations, and wrote, Look at the photos. This neighborhood is not hallowed. The people who live and work here are not obsessed with 9/11. The blocks around Ground Zero are like every other hard-working neighborhood in New York, where Muslims are just another thread of the city fabric. The Daily Caller’s Jim Treacher handily dismantles that line of argument: Which will come as a shock to the millions of Americans who assumed lower Manhattan was now an open pasture, populated solely by a handful of tonsured monks wandering around solemnly whispering, “Remember… Remember…” This stunning insight into the nature of modern American cities has impressed everyone from Charles Johnson to Roger Ebert. Don’t you see? People are selling stuff. People are buying stuff. People are taking their clothes off for money. Dude, that building they’re turning into a mosque? (Or not-a-mosque, depending on which one helps your argument.) That place was a Burlington Coat Factory! Sure, it shut down for good on the morning of September 11, 2001, when it was hit by wreckage from a plane flown into the World Trade Center, but up until then it was a Burlington Coat Factory. “Hallowed ground”? Ha! Humor aside, even given the astounding irrelevance of establishments at Ground Zero that don’t bear ideological similarity to perhaps the most infamous mass murderers in American history, journalists continue to peddle this nonsense. As Scott Whitlock reported yesterday , ABC’s Dan Harris parroted the line on “Good Morning America,” noting that “Defenders [of the Mosque] point out that also close to Ground Zero are two strip clubs, an adult/lingerie store and an off-track betting parlor.” And as Doug Powers succinctly put it , “This would be a logical rebuttal to Ground Zero mosque critics, provided the Twin Towers had been taken down by nine poll dancers, seven pairs of edible underwear and three bookies.” As it is, the line of argument has no bearing on the moral validity of the project. “It may be sacred ground,” writes Erin Einhorn for the New York Daily News, “but the streets surrounding Ground Zero are also a place where New Yorkers work, eat and buy shampoo.” Stop the presses. New Yorkers buy shampoo near Ground Zero? Amazing. Not that they buy shampoo in the general vicinity of where they live. Amazing that for much of the media, apparently this can actually pass for a valid argument in favor of the Mosque, or at least in opposition to its critics.

Originally posted here:
Absurd Media Meme: Ground Zero Mosque Is Fine Because There Are Strip Clubs Nearby

Daily Kos: Exposing Our Dumbest Quotes Ensures There’s ‘No Meaningful Dialogue’ of Right and Left

It’s bad enough that the Daily Kos posts outrageous claims like “the 9/11 attacks were horrific, but they were more about optics than actual harm .” When bizarre sentences like these are exposed, then the exposers are accused of being enemies of “meaningful dialogue.” What is meaningful in telling the families of the victims of 9/11 that their losses were more “optics” than “actual harm”? But that’s how the blogger “Something the Dog Said” tried to defend himself against my post on NewsBusters: Mr. Graham is using the quotes from my posts that are most likely to confirm his readers prejudice against the Left and Daily Kos. By doing so he makes sure there can be no meaningful dialog between the Right and Left. The Radical Right has been told [told us?] for 9 years that we, their fellow citizens, are the enemy along with Islam. We are somehow less American because we don’t agree with the jingoistic “Clashes of Civilizations” crap. The very crap that Osama Bin Laden has been purveying; they fail to realize that by giving credence to this terrorist asshat’s idea we help him build up his forces and make it more likely that some city, here or in Europe or Asia sees another horrific attack. It’s also puzzling how this Kosmonaut thinks he or she is conducting a “meaningful dialogue” by accusing his critics of purveying the same propaganda lines as Osama bin Laden. It’s never a good idea for someone at the Daily Kos to suggest someone else has been more uncivil than they have been. This person says conservatives make the bone-headed error of blurring them together with the terrorists — and then blurs conservatives together with the terrorists. But there was more attempts at self-defense against right-wing radicals: Those on the Radical Right are making a big deal about the fact that polls are finding that majorities of Americans are not in favor of the community center being built two blocks from the site of a terrorist attack that was nine years ago. To me that is a sad fact, one which until I saw the polling I would not have believed. Still it does not matter. You do not have rights in this country because the majority says so. You have rights because we all have them and they are written into our Constitution and supported by 200 years of case law. I expect that I am in for some interesting times. I will not back down from my position that the mosque associated with the community center has ever right to build where they please, just as a Catholic church or a Buddhist temple would. I will also not back down from calling out the hysterical fear the Radical Right is stoking against our fellow citizens who are practitioners of Islam. In the end I find this really kind of sad. I had a five e-mail back and forth with TJ [a conservative commenter] and we could not find a smidge of common ground. I listened to his points, but they were based on fear and skewed news sources, like National Review Online, Fox and Newsbusters. They were based on false memes that the Radical Right has been pushing all along and the macho attitude that we are going to kick some ass. Now one of the asses they want to kick is mine. I wish I had any confidence that the folks who commented on these posts read all of both of my articles. There’s several mistakes here: first, that anyone would find the Dog-Said articles more persuasive by reading them from beginning to end. Second, that my post in any way encouraged brutality against Dog-Said. My point in replaying these quotes is the same point we at NewsBusters continue to make when he highlight the Daily Kos. We don’t expect them to be anything less than full-throated leftists. But we do think that liberal pundits (like Bill Press) who claim that liberals don’t say vicious and hateful things need don’t seem to be reading or listening to the arguments of their friends and colleagues.

NY Times Reporters Hail Mayor Bloomberg’s Weepy Defense of Ground Zero Mosque

The front page of Wednesday’s New York edition of the New York Times featured the news that a controversial plan to build a mosque two bocks from Ground Zero was approved by the city’s landmarks commission: ” Mosque Plan Clears Hurdle In New York — Bloomberg Pleads for Religious Tolerance .” But reporters Michael Barbaro and Javier Hernandez actually led with NYC Mayor Michael Bloomberg’s weepy speech about religious tolerance, falsely asserting that that denying permission to build a 13-story Islamic center topped by a mosque would somehow be “denying the very constitutional rights” that New York City police and firefighters died protecting. And the Times again insinuated that opposition to the mosque is coming mostly from outsiders, while New Yorkers have gotten on with their lives and don’t oppose it — a half-truth at best, as shown by results of a poll of New Yorkers. Times reporters were very impressed with the speech. Both Jodi Kantor and Brian Stelter linked to speech coverage on their Twitter feeds, Kantor calling it a “must-read” and Stelter calling it ” worth reading .” Here’s the Times’s lead: As New York City removed the final hurdle for a controversial mosque near ground zero, Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg forcefully defended the project on Tuesday as a symbol of America’s religious tolerance and sought to reframe a fiery national debate over the project. With the Statue of Liberty as his backdrop, the mayor pleaded with New Yorkers to reject suspicions about the planned 13-story complex, to be located two blocks north of the World Trade Center site, saying that “we would betray our values if we were to treat Muslims differently than anyone else.” “To cave to popular sentiment would be to hand a victory to the terrorists — and we should not stand for that,” the mayor said. Grappling with one of the more delicate aspects of the debate, Mr. Bloomberg said that the families of Sept. 11 victims — some of whom have vocally opposed the project — should welcome it. “The attack was an act of war — and our first responders defended not only our city but also our country and our Constitution,” he said, becoming slightly choked up at one point in his speech, which he delivered on Governors Island. “We do not honor their lives by denying the very constitutional rights they died protecting. We honor their lives by defending those rights — and the freedoms the terrorists attacked.” Bloomberg’s idea of freedom is quite selective — he can get blubbery over building a mosque near Ground Zero, but as his mayoralty has shown, his love of liberty doesn’t extend to gun ownership, smoking in bars, or eating food made with hydrogenated vegetable oil. National Republican leaders, like the former House speaker, Newt Gringrich, and Sarah Palin, the 2008 vice presidential nominee, assailed the proposal, calling it offensive. On Friday, the Anti-Defamation League, an influential Jewish civil rights group, declared its opposition, distressing many in the interfaith community. For the second time in recent days, the Times misleadingly implies that it’s mostly a bunch of outsiders opposed to the plan: The disagreement has underscored how differently the World Trade Center site is viewed by those in New York and those outside of it. In the city, the space has returned, haltingly, to the urban grid, sprouting new office towers and train stops. But beyond New York’s borders, it looms as a powerful symbol of the war on terror and the lives lost on that day. A Quinnipiac University poll from early July found that while Manhattanites themselves approved of the project by a 46 margin, the outer boroughs of New York City (Brooklyn, The Bronx, Queens and Staten Island) oppose it. DNAInfo reporter Julie Shapiro wrote: ” New Yorkers as a whole weighed in against the mosque, with 52 percent opposing the plans and just 31 percent supporting the project .” The Times again danced around the fact that the funding of the project (Saudi Arabia is rumored to be involved) remains a secret: There were signs that the intense backlash had left moderate American Muslims uneasy about the plan for such a large center near ground zero. “There is some ambivalence within the community,” said Hussein Rashid, a visiting professor of religious studies at Hofstra University who specializes in Islam in America. “We still want to know who is going to be involved in this. So far, we have heard from just a few Muslim voices. If this is meant to be a community center, who in the community will be involved?”

See the original post here:
NY Times Reporters Hail Mayor Bloomberg’s Weepy Defense of Ground Zero Mosque

George Stephanopoulos Defends Ground Zero Mosque: What Better Way to Say Terrorists Haven’t Won?

Good Morning America’s George Stephanopoulos on Wednesday Defended the building of a mosque near Ground Zero as a monument to tolerance. Talking to conservative radio host Laura Ingraham, he proclaimed, ” This is a country founded on the notion of religious freedom. What better way to say they [the terrorists] haven’t won ?” Ingraham decried the plan for being so close to the site of 9/11 terrorist attack: “And I say the terrorists have won with the way this has gone down. 600 feet from where thousands of our fellow Americans were incinerated in the name of political Islam?” This prompted the ABC co-host to chide, “In the name of militant, radical Islam, not in the name of Islam.” Deborah Norville, a former co-anchor of NBC’s Today, also appeared and strenuously disagreed with Stephanopoulos. Pointing out that a Greek Orthodox Church destroyed on 9/11 has had trouble rebuilding, she contrasted, “And, yet, a mosque, with no presence in the area, has been given the green light by getting the landmark status of this building rejected. A lot of people look at that and go, where are our priorities?” This logic seemed to give Stephanopoulos pause. (His father is a Greek Orthodox priest.) He conceded, “That’s a good point. I’m all for getting St. Nicholas up again. No question about it.” A transcript of the August 4 segment, which aired at 8:12am EDT, follows: GEORGE STEPHANOPOULOS: Time now for our Morning mix, where we tackle the topics everybody is buzzing about. This week, uproar over that decision to build a mosque at Ground Zero. Mommy wars. Should breast feeding be mandatory? One super model thinks so. And why is Sarah Palin is happiest person in Alaska this morning? Levi is out of the picture. Joining me to talk about all this, Fox News contributor, Laura Ingraham. Also, the author of the new, number one New York Times bestseller The Obama Diaries. and Inside Edition anchor Deborah Norville. And let me talk about the decision to build a mosque. The clearance came yesterday, Laura. And this has created such passion here in New York City. LAURA INGRAHAM: There’s a disconnect, George, between the elites and the way they think about this. And, I think, most New Yorkers and most of the country. I know Michael Bloomberg was out there saying, our values need to be properly represented to the world. And if this mosque isn’t built, what is that going to say? The terrorists have won. And I say the terrorists have won with the way this has gone down. 600 feet from where thousands of our fellow Americans were incinerated in the name of political Islam? And we’re- and we’re supposed to be- we’re supposed to be considered intolerant if we’re not cheering this? STEPHANOPOULOS: But, what- But, what- In the name of militant, radical Islam, not in the name of Islam. And what better- This is a country founded on the notion of religious freedom. What better way to say they haven’t won? INGRAHAM: We don’t have to prove anything to anyone, I don’t think. DEBORAH NORVILLE: Here’s the point. There is a point, George. There’s a church that was buried when the second tower came down. STEPHANOPOULOS: St. Nicholas Church. A Greek Orthodox church. NORVILLE: St. Nicholas church. A Greek Orthodox church. That church has run into every conceivable impediment. And in nine years that this church, this place of worship has not been able to get the port authority and other agencies to get them the green light to rebuild. And, yet, a mosque, with no presence in the area, has been given the green light by getting the landmark status of this building rejected, a lot of people look at that and go, where are our priorities? STEPHANOPOULOS: [Pauses] That’s a good point. I’m all for getting St. Nicholas up again. No question about it. INGRAHAM: Yeah! Come on, Greek orthodox . But, it’s a finger in the eye, I think, of New York. New York is coming back. You know, we hope. And it’s vibrant, economically. A lot of stuff happening downtown. This is sacred ground. Okay? And I don’t think people across the country are protesting. STEPHANOPOULOS: Ground Zero is sacred ground. The actual Ground Zero. INGRAHAM: This is 600 feet. I think the legitimate question to ask, George, is why? Why do they want to build a $100 million, 15-story mosque, Islamic center? Why? Why there? And no one’s protesting it around the country, building mosques. I don’t think- I don’t think there are big sit ins at mosques. So, I don’t think we’re intolerant. NORVILLE: And here’s another point: There’s no funding for this. This is an idea. But the funding for this, this mosque, this Islamic center, is not in place. They’re going to be going to charities and other agencies. INGRAHAM: Saudi Arabia. NORVILLE: And the people trying to put this up there. Saying, we’re going to be strict about who is allowed to contribute. But, we’ve seen how agencies and organizations that have contributed to causes, that often times are in support of Muslim issues, sometimes later are found to have terrorist connections. STEPHANOPOULOS: And that means this conversation is not going away for a very long time.

Original post:
George Stephanopoulos Defends Ground Zero Mosque: What Better Way to Say Terrorists Haven’t Won?

Let’s Give Michael Bloomberg a Hand [Heroes]

Occasionally, New York City’s King, Mayor Michael Bloomberg , takes stands that aren’t the easiest, politically. Now that Cordoba House —the so-called ” Ground Zero Mosque “—will be constructed, let’s give the man major credit for his rigorous defense. More

SEC Claims Information Opacity, But Media No Longer So Concerned With Transparency

It seems that not even the truth can possibly overturn the narrative that President Obama and the Democrats in Congress have brought transparency to Washington. Last Wednesday I wrote about how the Dodd-Frank financial regulatory bill Obama signed into law last month contains a provision exempting the Securities and Exchange Commission from Freedom of Information Act requests. Such an exemption would surely have been grounds for a media outcry during the Bush administration, yet apart from The Wall Street Journal and CNN, only blogs have been following the developments. The latter opted simply to parrot the administration’s claims without challenge. Other media ouetlets, such as National Public Radio and MSNBC, completely ignored the controversy, in stark contrast to their extensive coverage of the Bush administration’s attempts to curtail the scope of the Freedom of Information Act. NPR’s Don Gonyea said “When conflicts arise over what should or should not be open, the administration does not hesitate to invoke the memory of 9/11. And while it’s true that 9/11 changed the security landscape, it’s also true that the administration was tightening the control of information much earlier . . .” Some journalists are simply accepting the official SEC double-talk at face value. Unlike The Wall Street Journal , which actually bothered to talk to people familiar with the SEC and the bill, CNN just repeated what Chairwoman Mary Schapiro said in her letters, starting off their story with: “The Securities and Exchange Commission was not seeking a blanket exemption from public information laws . . .” Contrast this “see no evil” approach with CNN’s coverage of similar controversies during the Bush administration. In August of 2007, CNN’s Jack Cafferty covered the Bush administration’s attempt to exempt the White House Office of Administration from FOIA, noting the administration’s claims that certain federal officers were exempt from the law. “What do you suppose is in the millions of missing White House e-mails that President Bush doesn’t want anyone to see?” Cafferty asked, rhetorically. And in March of 2004, CNN analyst Ron Brownstein hammered home the alleged lack of transparency in the Bush administration, as evinced by its stance on FOIA. “They’re [the Bush administration] very tough on executive privilege in general, and on the flow of information more broadly than that,” Brownstein claimed. “Everything from the Freedom of Information Act to the Cheney Commission on Energy.” But with Obama in office, CNN doesn’t seem to be particularly concerned about the SEC’s apparent disdain for transparency. All it’s doing is reprinting talking points, after all. MSNBC, another news outlet that has yet to devote a single word to the SEC exemption, was also far more concerned with openness during the previous administration. Mike Barnicle, guest-hosting Hardball in 2007, said in reference to Bush’s Office of Administration: “The White House says the Freedom of Information act doesn’t apply to the office that handles their e-mails, even though their Web site says it does. Are they breaking the law?” Meanwhile, Rachel Maddow claimed on the day after Obama’s inauguration that secrecy was “the hallmark of the Bush years, the thing that often made Bush administration law-breaking possible because nobody knew it was happening. The best tool that we, the people, have to break through government secrecy is often the Freedom of Information Act. It was treated as an annoyance, an obstacle to be overcome by the Bush administration.” Again, these are a concerns this cable network has yet to extend to the SEC. Chairwoman Schapiro has written letters to Sen. Chris Dodd (D-Ct) and Rep. Barney Frank (D-Ma) explaining that the law doesn’t really exempt them from responding to FOIA requests. She asserted that entities regulated by her agency under the new financial “reform” legislation must “be able to provide us with access to confidential information without concern that the information will later be made public.” Schapiro claimed in her letter that the provisions in question are “not designed to protect the SEC as an agency from public oversight and accountability.” The mainstream press has apparently decided to take her word for it. How nice of them. It’s not like federal bureaucrats have ever failed to follow their agency’s guidelines . . . This press’s attitude, of course, stands in sharp contrast to just a few years ago, when members of the media were outraged by Republican attempts to restrict FOIA requests. Many in the media have, like NPR, decried the Bush administration’s use of 9/11 to curtail transparency, but thus far no one has criticized the current administration’s use of financial reform for the same goals. The double standard is telling.

Read the original here:
SEC Claims Information Opacity, But Media No Longer So Concerned With Transparency

Gary Coleman’s “Wife” Wouldn’t Help Him When He Fell Because She Was Stressed Out By Blood

Gary Coleman’s wife was too freaked out by his bloody head injury to help when he had the fall that ultimately caused his death . The 911 call made by 24-year-old Shannon Price reveals she was reluctant to give him ANY aid — blaming the amount of blood for her inability to act quickly. Details under the hood. In the call to 911, Price tells the operator that Coleman was stricken while preparing her something to eat the evening of May 26 downstairs in their Santaquin, Utah, home. “He just got home, I heard this big bang, I went downstairs. Blood everywhere,” she says. “I don’t know if he’s okay. I’m not down there right now because I have a fever, if I get stressed out I’m going to faint.” Price says, “He fell. His head is bloody. There’s blood all over the floor. I don’t know what happened.” The operator asks, “Is there any way you can go down there at all?” Price replies, “I’ll try, I don’t know, I mean…” When the operator asks if anyone else is there who can go downstairs, Price says, “No,” and adds, “I’ve just been kind of sick. I don’t want to be traumatized right now.” Price then is heard saying, “Gary, are you okay?” and telling him, “Stay where you are” and “Don’t move, Gary.” The operator asks Price to tell Coleman to put pressure on his own wound. “Gary, you have to put pressure on your wound,” Price is heard saying. “He’s lethargic, I can’t really help him. I just need help quick.” The operator says help is on the way. “I just can’t be here with the blood,” Price says. “I’m sorry, I can’t do it. I can’t. … There’s blood all over and I can’t do anything.” Price then says, “I can’t drive” because she’s been sick with a fever. “I can’t do anything right now.” The operator asks Price “to at least give him a towel” so Coleman can apply pressure to his wound. Price replies, “Yeah, I’m just panicked. I don’t know what to do … I just don’t want him to die. I’m freaking out.” Next, she’s heard telling Coleman, “You have to put this on your head … Keep pressure on this, okay, hold this.” She tells Coleman, “You need to sit down. Sit down! Gary, sit down!” She tells the operator just moments before emergency crews arrive: “I’m gagging, I got blood on myself, I can’t deal.” Coleman, 42, was taken off life support two days later after doctors determined he’d suffered a brain hemorrhage and his condition worsened. An official cause of death is still pending an investigation. Police say there was nothing suspicious about his accident. Some people do get really freaked out by blood — but when it comes to a loved one, shouldn’t she have been doing everything in her power to make sure he was okay? The other development in this story, that has Price looking extra suspect, is that some reports are saying Coleman and Price were no longer married! “I can confirm they’ve been divorced since August 12, 2008,” attorney Randy Kester, who handled the divorce, was quoted by People . That means Price may not have had he authority to make any medical decisions on Coleman’s behalf – such as removing him from life support. Decisions such as funeral arrangements or those concerning his estate, may also be beyond her rights. Funeral plans have not yet been finalized, although the Price family may hold services by week’s end in Utah, according Kester. We still can’t believe this broad actually said she was ‘gagging’ because blood got on her — when the man who she was supposed to love was laying there dying! Source

Continued here:
Gary Coleman’s “Wife” Wouldn’t Help Him When He Fell Because She Was Stressed Out By Blood