Tag Archives: analysis

Dylan Ratigan Condemns ‘Arizona’s Anti-immigration Law,’ Calls for Mob Rule to Overhaul System

You have to hand it to Dylan Ratigan. The MSNBC bloviator melded immigration reform, the military industrial complex, and congressional gridlock into a scatter-brained diatribe at the top of his eponymous program on Thursday. In the wake of President Barack Obama’s speech on immigration reform earlier in the day, Ratigan railed against “Arizona’s latest anti-immigration law” and praised Obama for “doing a good job, and a better job that almost any politician I’ve seen in a long time, in drawing our nation’s attention to the major broken systems in this country.” The former CNBC anchor who fancies himself a financial guru also babbled about a “War on Drugs that feeds money into the military complex but does nothing to defeat drug use or, for that matter, protect the border.” Then, interviewing Rep. Xavier Becerra (D-Calif.), Ratigan excoriated a Senate full of “weasels” that perpetuates an “utterly frozen process that allows the special interests to destroy our country and freeze our government.” Not surprisingly, Becerra, a strident supporter of comprehensive immigration reform, concurred with the unhinged talk show host: “Dylan, I don’t know if I could have said it better.” While claiming to criticize both sides of the aisle, Ratigan continued to cheerlead for the Democratic president, asking Becerra, “How do we – how do I in the media, how do you in the Congress – help this president try to lead us?” Without missing a beat, Becerra suggested dismantling one of America’s most treasured safeguards against tyranny – the Senate’s super-majority threshold for closing debate – and replacing it with what the Founding Fathers derided as “mob rule.” “Dylan all we have to do is get the public to tell the Senate to let us go back to majority rule,” proposed Becerra. Ratigan proved it is possible to misrepresent a popular state law, posit outlandish conspiracy theories about the military, and undermine the foundation of republican government over the course of a five minute rant. The transcript of the relevant portions of the program can be found below: DYLAN RATIGAN: A problem, of course, made more pressing by the controversy over Arizona’s latest anti-immigration law. The government expected to file a lawsuit, in fact, against that law in the coming days. First the president drew our attention to health care. All of our attention, whether we like it or not, remains on our financial system, corrupt and destroying our country as it is. And now immigration. While short on true fixes, at least Obama is doing a good job, and a better job that almost any politician I’ve seen in a long time, in drawing our nation’s attention to the major broken systems in this country. So when and if will we actually see reform? Will our lawmakers actually step up and do better on this effort when it comes to immigration, or will we just get another example of nothing more than “reform in name only” that perpetuates the most profitable aspects of illegal immigration, in this case cheap labor, and of course a War on Drugs that feeds money into the military complex but does nothing to defeat drug use or, for that matter, protect the border. Joining us now, California Congressman Xavier Becerra, an outspoken advocate for immigration reform. He’s also Chair of the House Democratic Caucus, excuse me. You have to be pleased with the president at least drawing everybody’s attention to this, and approaching honesty by acknowledging the mess, not only in immigration in this country, but in Washington and its total denial and inability to lead us to a solution. Do you agree with him? Rep. XAVIER BECERRA (D-Calif.): Dylan I do agree with him, and it takes courage to say those things to the American public because right now the public is so very frustrated. RATIGAN: How do we – how do I in the media, how do you in the Congress – help this president try to lead us? How do we come together in a way that resolves this in a way that is closer to fair than not? BECERRA: We shouldn’t let anyone kick the can down the road, as the president said. Everyone should be held accountable. In Congress, we need to see not just Democrats, we’re ready to go to work on this, but Republicans as well. And we know they’re out there. They were there three years ago. We know that there are some votes in the Senate that would want to do something but right now we need to see some courage on the Republican side in the Senate. Unfortunately right now, the Senate has become the graveyard for good ideas because Republicans are holding hostage any vote that doesn’t get to 60 in a house of 100. So you have to have the super-majority vote, and it makes it very difficult, if not impossible to get good ideas into law. RATIGAN: Should we throw out all the senators in November and start over? BECERRA: Well there’s some very good senators who are trying to do some things here, so no no. RATIGAN: How do we tell the difference, how to we figure out who the weasels are? Don’t tell me it’s the Democrats and the Republicans because I’ve been doing this long enough to know there are just as many weasely Democrats as there are Republicans. The trick is trying to tell which is which within the party. BECERRA: Dylan all we have to do is get the public to tell the Senate to let us go back to majority rule. In November, we’re going to operate on majority rule. Whatever individual wins more votes than the other, that person becomes the next congressman or the next senator. But in the Senate, you can have a majority and still not pass a bill to the president’s desk. So majority rule and we get a lot done. RATIGAN: So you would argue that the very same corrupt system that is bankrupting California, the need for a super-majority to do anything, and obviously nobody gets it, so special interests just continue to torch that state. And now the Senate has a duplication of that same utterly frozen process that allows the special interests to destroy our country and freeze our government. Is that basically what we’re dealing with here? BECERRA: Dylan, I don’t know if I could have said it better. Take a look at the Wall Street reform bill. The Senate is making it almost impossible for us to get there. There are more than 58 votes for a bill and we still can’t get it to the president’s desk. Hopefully soon the senators allow this bill to go the president and stop holding it hostage. –Alex Fitzsimmons is a News Analysis intern at the Media Research Center. Click here to follow him on Twitter.

More here:
Dylan Ratigan Condemns ‘Arizona’s Anti-immigration Law,’ Calls for Mob Rule to Overhaul System

AP Reports on Cuban Regime’s Latest Propaganda Exploitation of Elian Gonzalez

As is its custom from time to time, the Castro regime trotted out former refugee Elian Gonzalez for PR purposes yesterday. This time the cause of celebration was the 10th anniversary of the young man’s return to the Communist regime on June 28, 2000. Associated Press reporter Will Wiessert covered the story, which I found published at AOLNews.com with the headline, “A Decade Later, Elian Gonzalez Speaks Out.” Wiessert began by noting that “Elian Gonzalez says he’s not angry at his Miami relatives who fought to keep him in the United States” and that he was “thankful [that] ‘a large part of the American public’ supported him being reunited with his father in Cuba.” Later in his article, Wiessert insisted that “Cuba has worked to play down the public persona of both” Elian and his father since June 2000, but that “the latest anniversary of their triumphant return proved an exception.” The AP reporter was equally uncritical of the totalitarian regime in other parts of his report. For example, Wiessert noted that during Elian’s time in the U.S. that “[s]tate television crated a nightly ’round-table’ program that provided updates on the Gonzalez case and it endures today, though it now discuss all sorts of themes.” A roundtable public policy program hosted by the state media of a Communist regime? Yeah, I’ll bet that’s real fair and balanced. Wiessert also noted that Elian’s father Juan Miguel Gonzalez was “elected to parliament” following the custody struggle in 2000, but he failed to note that the Cuban parliament is window dressing for the Castro regime, and allows no opposition parties. Wiessert’s piece quoted a Castro regime official as well as a useful idiot who heralded the “love and justice” of the Castro regime: The latest event was organized by Cuba’s Council of Churches, which includes all major Cuban religions except the Roman Catholic Church, and was held at the Episcopal Santisima Trinidad Cathedral in Havana. The council staged a celebration in the same church days after Gonzalez’s return in 2000. “It was a triumph, not only of love and justice, but of logic over indecency of spirit, truth against evil,” Rev. Marcial Miguel Hernandez, president of the Council of Churches, told those assembled Wednesday night. A bit later, parliament head Ricardo Alarcon said that “for many in the United States, Elian’s case was the discovery of the reality that the imperial propaganda, the industry of deception, tried jealously to hide.” Yet no critics of the Castro regime were quoted in the story, even though Wiessert found space to quote propaganda from an official Castro regime newspaper: “The boy of yesterday is now a Cuban like any other,” said the Communist Youth newspaper Juventud Rebelde, adding that “a decade after being used as a toy by the enemies of the revolution … he is preparing to be a future officer of the Revolutionary Armed Forces.”

See the original post here:
AP Reports on Cuban Regime’s Latest Propaganda Exploitation of Elian Gonzalez

Scarborough: POTUS Entitled to ‘Happy Place’ But Boehner Has Bad Work Ethic

On day 72 of the continued Gulf of Mexico oil spill, “Morning Joe” host Joe Scarborough decided to open the show by continuing to bash Minority Leader John Boehner’s work ethic. This assault comes just ten days after his assertion that he wants his leader to have a “happy place to go to” and there is no problem with, “the president golfing every Sunday.” The former Republican congressman, who quit his job, ridiculed Boehner, saying “everybody on Capitol Hill knows about John Boehner, he’s not exactly the hardest worker in the world. He’s a guy that likes golf, and he’s a guy that likes, you know, socializing.” Scarborough made sure to address that even though he doesn’t know John Boehner personally, he was just “reporting” what he heard on the Hill. To Scarborough this analysis was imperative because, “If you’re going to bend history, if you’re going to pick up 40, 45 seats, it’s a 24/7 job.” So, let me get Scarborough’s math straight. Being the Minority Leader in the House of Representatives, a position of somewhat limited power, is a 24/7 job. But, the position of President of the United States, the “Leader of the Free Word,” is about a 6 day a week job and requires a “happy place to go to?”

CBS’s Katie Couric Fawns Over Left-wing Feminist and Her Outrageous Claims

“[Carly Fiorina’s] position on taxation would deprive women of childcare.” The Hyde Amendment “penalizes poor women terribly.” “You can’t be a feminist who says other women can’t” have an abortion. These are just some of the outrageous statements left-wing feminist Gloria Steinem made during an interview with CBS anchor Katie Couric on the latest installment of “@katiecouric,” which was posted to the CBSNews.com Web site on June 23. Couric’s responses to the “godmother of the modern women’s movement’s” absurd claims ranged from silent agreement to reflexive endorsement.              Although the former Playboy Bunny railed against the legislation that banned federal funding of abortion, Couric responded approvingly – “right!” – and changed the subject to the hockey mom every liberal feminist loves to hate: Since we’re on the subject of reproductive rights, can you be a conservative feminist? Sarah Palin recently, I think, rankled some traditional feminists by calling herself a feminist, despite the fact she doesn’t espouse many traditional feminist, uh, points of view. Instead of challenging Steinem’s feminist litmus test, Couric, turning to liberal activist Jehmu Greene, asked, “Do you agree with that?” “I would say that Sarah Palin does not represent many of those same sentiments,” Greene responded. The most vigorous defense Couric could muster on Palin’s behalf was, “In what way? I mean, why?” On Steinem’s bizarre correlation between low taxes and less access to childcare, the “Evening News” anchor uttered not a decibel of skepticism. Eschewing her journalistic duty to hold interviewees accountable for their pronouncements – particularly the outlandish and unsubstantiated ones – Couric once again undermined her credibility as a professional newswoman. Click here to view Katie Couric’s June 23 interview with Steinem and Greene in its entirety. –Alex Fitzsimmons is a News Analysis intern at the Media Research Center. Click here to follow him on Twitter.

Here is the original post:
CBS’s Katie Couric Fawns Over Left-wing Feminist and Her Outrageous Claims

On Networks, ‘Controversial’ Law Means Conservative Law

Liberals may like to boast of fighting the establishment and taking on the status quo, but it’s conservative laws that are 30 times more likely to be deemed “controversial” – at least by the mainstream media. In the past five years, when ABC, CBS, or NBC news reporters claimed a law was “controversial,” they were most likely referring to legislation backed by the right. This analysis looked at 110 news transcripts dating back to 2005 where the term “controversial” fell within three words of the term “law.” Of these transcripts, 62 referred to policies that were clearly liberal or conservative. Of the 62 ideologically identifiable “controversial” laws, 60 were conservative and only two were liberal. Whether it was NBC’s “Today” on Jan. 2, 2008, referring to the “controversial new law in Arizona [where] businesses can be shut down if they intentionally hire illegal immigrants,” or ABC’s “Good Morning America” on Dec. 23, 2005, discussing the “extension of the Patriot Act just days before the controversial law was set to expire,” conservative policies seemed to be more hot-button issues for the media than liberal policies. Arizona’s illegal immigration reform act was by far the law most frequently described as “controversial” by the news networks. Though the Arizona law was passed just two months ago, it was described by networks as “controversial” in 56 percent of the liberal or conservative transcripts studied. But the “controversy” over the law is largely media-driven, according to Bob Dane of the Federation for American Immigration Reform. Dane said the media have often mischaracterized the Arizona law. “I would say that the media has focused on all the wrong aspects of [the immigration law]. The criticism of the bill has been far more extreme than anything that is in the bill,” he said. Despite media claims that the law is “controversial,” polls show that Americans are solidly in favor of theArizona policy. After referring to “Arizona’s controversial new immigration law,” Brian Williams of NBC “Nightly News” on May 26 went on to report that “In our new NBC News/MSNBC/Telemundo national poll on this issue, we found 61 percent of people support the Arizona law, 36 percent oppose it.” By comparison, the networks branded few liberal laws as controversial. The recent health care reform law, which 55 percent of likely voters would like to see  repealed , wasn’t labeled “controversial” once. Neither was the auto bailout package, which 53 percent of Americans believe  was a bad idea. The only two liberal laws described as controversial in the transcripts were Oregon’s assisted suicide policy, which ABC’s “World News Tonight,” called controversial on Oct. 5, 2005, and a California law requiring serial numbers on bullets, which ABC’s “World News Sunday” called controversial on Oct. 14, 2007. Other conservative laws deemed controversial by the media included No Child Left Behind, a law banning partial-birth abortion and a law allowing oil exploration in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. Methodology: This study reviewed the transcripts of all 110 ABC, CBS and NBC morning and evening news transcripts, as well as NBC’s “Meet the Press” between June 1, 2005, and June 21, 2010, in which the term “controversial” was used within three words of “law.” Duplicate transcripts and those not referring to U.S. laws were excluded. Other transcripts were discarded for the following reasons: The term “controversial” did not modify the law or parts of the law referred to, or The transcript did not mention the name or a description of the law, or The law was called controversial by a guest or interviewee as opposed to a reporter, anchor, or host. The transcript referred to a law that was considered politically neutral (such as a driving regulation inConnecticutand laws banning certain dog breeds in various states). Of the 62 transcripts included in the final results of the study, all referred to policies that were clearly liberal or conservative. Sixty of the times reporters labeled a law controversial, it was a conservative policy and just two of the times it was a liberal policy.   Like this article? Sign up for “Culture Links,” CMI’s weekly e-mail newsletter, by  clicking   here.

See the original post:
On Networks, ‘Controversial’ Law Means Conservative Law

CNN Fails to Label Liberal Group Poised to Sue McDonald’s Over ‘Happy Meal’ Toys

As NewsBusters sister company CNSNews.com reported , the Center for Science in the Public Interest (CSPI), a liberal consumer advocacy group, is threatening to sue the McDonald’s Corporation for “unfair and deceptive” marketing practices unless the fast food company stops giving away toys in its “Happy Meals.” CNN’s “American Morning” on June 23 covered the story half-jokingly, but failed to identify the liberal tilt of organization. Co-host Kiran Chetry reported: “The Center for Science in the Public Interest is delivering a warning to McDonald’s about toys being used to make “Happy Meals” more appetizing to kids. They say “Happy Meals” are unhealthy.” Making no effort to apply an appropriate label to the organization, co-host John Roberts continued: “The group accuses the fast food giant of ‘unfair and deceptive’ marketing practices toward children. McDonald’s, of course, as you could image, rejects the accusations.” On the surface, CNN crafted the impression that CSPI is a quirky but sincere consumer advocacy organization, but underlying the group’s innocuous veneer are liberal activists willing to inject partisan politics into consumer safety.                   Referring to the Bush administration, CSPI Litigation Director Stephen Gardner told CNSNews.com: “Marketers of all kinds in this country, one, were lulled into a sense of true security under the prior administration when the federal agencies did absolutely nothing to protect consumers.” At the end of the segment, both Chetry and Roberts seemed dismissive of the lawsuit, but neither anchor was willing to inform viewers of CSPI’s liberal leanings and history of pushing a public policy diet heavy in government regulation . A transcript of the segment can be found below: CNN American Morning 6/23/10 7:56 a.m. KIRAN CHETRY, co-host: Welcome back to the most news in the morning. The food police have a beef with McyDees. The Center for Science in the Public Interest is delivering a warning to McDonald’s about toys being used to make “Happy Meals” more appetizing to kids. They say “Happy Meals” are unhealthy. JOHN ROBERTS, co-host: Yeah, they’re putting McDonald’s on notice, saying “drop the toys, or we’ll sue you.” The group accuses the fast food giant of “unfair and deceptive” marketing practices toward children. McDonald’s, of course, as you could image, rejects the accusations. CHETRY: They can’t get a break. First they tried to give away the glasses but they had to recall them because of cadmium in the paint on the “Shrek” glasses. ROBERTS: Well that definitely is a bad thing, but the toy? Come on. –Alex Fitzsimmons is a News Analysis intern at the Media Research Center. Click here to follow him on Twitter.

Here is the original post:
CNN Fails to Label Liberal Group Poised to Sue McDonald’s Over ‘Happy Meal’ Toys

MSNBC’s Scarborough Insults Republicans as ‘Genuinely Stupid’ for Criticizing Obama’s Oil Spill Response

Ad hominem attacks supplanted thoughtful discussion yet again on MSNBC’s “Morning Joe.” On Monday, co-host Joe Scarborough chastised Republicans as “genuinely stupid” for criticizing President Barack Obama’s handling of the BP oil spill, adding that the GOP must think the American people are “dumb as hell.” “The Republicans blaming Obama look genuinely stupid because of eight years of deregulation,” scolded Scarborough, who is developing a penchant for favoring personal attacks over rational debate. “Is Mitt Romney suggesting he’s more hostile to the oil industry than Barack Obama?” Scarborough sardonically asked an amused Mike Allen, Politico ’s chief political correspondent. “Do we want to go back and look at the money? And again, I’m not just knocking Mitt Romney, but when Republicans come out like Sarah Palin and suggest the president is too cozy with the oil industry, this suggests that they think the American people are dumb as hell.” Always eager to elevate the dialogue with enlightened commentary, co-host Mika Brzezinski characterized Republicans more bluntly, as “stupid.” Descending into a bizarre abyss of rants and insults, the “Morning Joe” regulars are becoming increasingly irrelevant as serious political analysts. The transcript of the relevant portion of the program can be found below: MSNBC Morning Joe 6/14/10 6:24 a.m. MIKA BRZEZINSKI: Also, looking at Mitt Romney, hitting the president hard on how he’s handled the oil spill. What’s the angle here? MIKE ALLEN, Politico ’s chief political correspondent: That’s right, Mika. The White House has thought for a while that Mitt Romney is the most likely opponent to the president. You never know a couple years out, but just looking at Republican Party history you kind of think that. And Mitt Romney’s been quiet, everybody knows him, he doesn’t need to establish his name ID. But you’re seeing him start to take some whacks at the president in very high-profile forums. This weekend he was at the state Republican convention in the state of Washington, and he really went after the president on his handling of BP, saying that it shows his inability to lead–he questioned his leadership ability. And of course that’s what Mitt Romney tells voters he has to bring to the table. JOE SCARBOROUGH: So, what did Mitt Romney say exactly he would have done that Barack Obama is not doing? ALLEN: He doesn’t of course. And when President Bush does interviews about his book this fall you can bet that that’s one of the first questions he’s going to be asked. SCARBOROUGH: Is Mitt Romney suggesting that he’s more hostile to the oil industry than Barack Obama? ALLEN: (laughter) SCARBOROUGH: Do we want to go back and look at the money? And again, I’m not just knocking Mitt Romney, but when Republicans come out like Sarah Palin and suggest the president is too cozy with the oil industry, this suggests that they think the American people are– BRZEZINSKI: Stupid. SCARBOROUGH: –dumb as hell. ALLEN: They may not want to go there. Democratic staffers are looking at polling that shows that voters are very receptive to the idea of saying we need to crack down on the companies that took advantage of the government. So, especially with swing voters, there’s not a lot of sympathy for oil companies obviously. BRZEZINSKI: Alright, Mike Allen thank you very much, we’ll see you in just a little bit. SCARBOROUGH: And by the way, really quickly, nobody’s going to be able to play this–really–come the fall, saying “oh, it’s all the Republicans” or these Republicans saying “it’s all the Democrats.” The Republicans blaming Obama look genuinely stupid because of eight years of deregulation. But as Dee Dee Meyers and other Democrats have admitted, that deregulation started in the 1990’s under Bill Clinton. You’ve had three administrations that have basically given oil companies a free pass. And Mike we always talk about the Wall Street Journal article. Five minutes– MIKE BARNICLE: Five minutes for an approval. SCARBOROUGH: for approval for some of these BP regulatory waivers. –Alex Fitzsimmons is a News Analysis intern at the Media Research Center. Click here to follow him on Twitter.

Read this article:
MSNBC’s Scarborough Insults Republicans as ‘Genuinely Stupid’ for Criticizing Obama’s Oil Spill Response

FIFA World Cup Update and Football Match Analysis: 12 June 2010

World Cup football news round up. Interesting or surprising opening matches in South Africa from England vs USA & France vs Uruguay to Argentina & S Korea. … FIFA World Cup Update and Football Match Analysis: 12 June 2010 …

Read more:
FIFA World Cup Update and Football Match Analysis: 12 June 2010

Donald Glover’s ‘Spider-Man’ Campaign: What Do You Think?

We headed to Times Square to see what moviegoers have to say about the ‘Community’ actor playing Peter Parker. By Rick Marshall Donald Glover Photo: Jason LaVeris/ FilmMagic Earlier this week, a fan campaign to cast “Community” actor Donald Glover as the star of the upcoming “Spider-Man” movie had the online world buzzing, with creators and fans alike weighing in on the idea of casting an African-American actor as the new Peter Parker. Earlier Wednesday (June 2), MTV News spoke to comic book historian Alan Kistler to get his take on the heated debate raging around the Twitterverse — a discussion that became one of the hottest topics on Twitter this weekend and resulted in a Facebook fan group more than 8,000 members strong at last count. “There is nothing in the comic or the origin of the character that has to do with what ethnicity [Peter Parker] is, the color of his skin or his background,” Kistler told MTV’s Splash Page. While the noted historian of all things superhero went on to offer further analysis of why an African-American actor playing the famous Marvel Comics character isn’t so unbelievable, we went to the streets to get your take on the possibility of Glover playing Spider-Man. In Times Square, opinions varied on whether the actor was a good fit for the role. Some hoped he’d find a way into the running for the role, which was recently rumored to be down to five actors — all white. Reactions to the “Community” actor’s campaign for the role ranged from “really cool,” to one fan anticipating mixed feelings about giving Peter Parker a new look in the movie world. “Some people might get mad because they’re changing the character, and then some people might not because it’s different, something new,” Joey Warren said. However, not everyone was buying the idea of giving Spider-Man a race-bending makeover. “I’m not sure if that’s a good look,” Christian Crawford told MTV News. “I don’t think that’s going to be a good look.” What do you think about casting Donald Glover or another black actor as Peter Parker? Let us know in the comments! For breaking news and previews of the latest comic book movies — updated around the clock — visit SplashPage.MTV.com . Related Photos Men Who Could Play Spider-Man

Continue reading here:
Donald Glover’s ‘Spider-Man’ Campaign: What Do You Think?

Hubble Spotted a Planet-Eating Star

The Hubble Space Telescope has captured evidence of a Sun-like star “eating” a nearby planet. Astronomers knew from the studies conducted that stars are capable of swallowing planets in orbit around them. However, this is the first time that the theory has visual evidence, first time the event has been “seen” so clearly. Hubble’s detection of the cloud enabled scientist to draw conclusions about how it was generated. The discovery was published in the “The Astrophysical Journal Letters.” Even though the planet was too far away for Hubble to take a picture of it, scientists used the analysis of the telescope’s data to create an image of it. According to the researchers, the planet is called Wasp-12 and it only has 10 million years left before it will be completely consumed. It is so close to its star that it completes an orbit in 1.1 Earth days and is superheated to more than 1,500C. The planet Wasp-12 is a dwarf star located more or less 600 light-years away in the constellation Auriga. Hubble Spotted a Planet-Eating Star is a post from: Daily World Buzz Continue reading