Tag Archives: arguments

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

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

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

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

→ Leave a comment

Posted in Hollywood, Hot Stuff, News

Tagged , , , , , , ,

Thomas Frank, Posterboy for Liberal Media Elitism, Ends Wall Street Journal Column

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

With the media elite once again reminding the unsophisticated rubes in flyover country of their intellectual and cultural inferiority as it pertains to sensitivities regarding Islam, it seems a good time to review the recent movements of one of the most condescending liberal elitists of the contemporary commentariat: Thomas Frank. The columnist recently left the Wall Street Journal for Harper’s Magazine. Frank, you may remember, penned the 2004 book “What’s the Matter with Kansas,” which explored the baffling (for Frank) tendencies of rural populations between the two coasts to vote Republican. By Frank’s account, their political views ran directly against the grain of their own interests. (Never mind that a very similar book could easily be written about wealthy professionals who, against their own interests, vote for Democrats seeking to raise their taxes and increase regulations on their employers.) Always teeming with a patronizing sense of moral superiority, Frank has characterized conservatism as “institutionally opposed to those baseline good intentions we learned about in elementary school.” Charles Krauthammer once said that conservatives think liberals are stupid, and liberals think conservatives are evil. Well Thomas Frank thinks the conservative elites are evil, and the conservative masses are stupid. Frank has dubbed ” demented logic ” the notion that Barack Obama – not George W. Bush – is responsible for the state of the economy, and has bemoaned the fact that, in his words “half our political system is dedicated to the destruction of the government.” That’s right. He fails to meaningfully distinguish between constitutional constraints on federal power and “the destruction of the government.” Frank’s seemingly willful ignorance on the intricacies of conservatism have irked a number of commentators, who note that he simply makes no effort to offer a nuanced argument. His ham-handed approach came under a good deal of fire after he released his book “The Wrecking Crew: How Conservatives Rule”. Reason’s Jesse Walker wrote of the book: Frank, formerly the editor of the radical journal The Baffler and currently the token lefty on the Wall Street Journal op-ed page, doesn’t just fail to distinguish between crony capitalism and free markets. He actively refuses to recognize the difference. “Laissez-faire,” he admits, “has never described political reality all that well, since conservative governments have intervened in the economy with some regularity.” Yet that doesn’t prevent him from declaring a little later that “what makes a place a free-market paradise is not the absence of government; it is the capture of government by business interests.” If you relied on Frank for your information, you would never dream that the idea of laissez faire initially emerged not as a defense against left-wing regulators, who were scarce in the 18th century, but as a critique of subsidies, government-imposed monopolies, and what Adam Smith called the “mean and malignant expedients of the mercantile system.” In other words, the “free-market paradise” was supposed to be an alternative to “the capture of government by business interests.” In other words, for all his pontificating on the horrors of the absence of government intervention in the economy, Frank seems to be quite confused about what exactly constitutes a free market. This is a fairly representative sample of the intellectual caliber of his arguments. Given all this blather and his consistently derisive – if often erroneous – criticisms of conservatives, it should not have been surprising when the Huffington Post penned a short piece on Frank’s move to Harper’s devoid of any ideological labels. That fact should also tell you pretty much all you need to know.

Visit link:
Thomas Frank, Posterboy for Liberal Media Elitism, Ends Wall Street Journal Column

→ Leave a comment

Posted in Hollywood, Hot Stuff, News

Tagged , , , , , , ,

N.J. Supreme Court’s refusal to hear gay marriage case raises question of Christie’s influence | NJ.com

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

http://www.queerty.com/did-some-of-new-jerseys-supreme-court-justices-refuse-gay… The New Jersey Supreme Court doesn't give interviews, so no one can ask whether the tribunal balked on the gay marriage issue because it was afraid of the reaction of Gov. Chris Christie. “There won't be any comment,” says Winnie Comfort, a spokeswoman for the court. “Of course, people are free to speculate. There is nothing we can do about that.” Comfort made the comments in response to remarks by legislators who raised the issue of whether the court — or, at least, three members — might have been afraid to touch the gay marriage case because Christie can remove them by appointing other justices. The way he did to Justice John Wallace, the court's only African-American. Both state Sen. Raymond Lesniak (D-Union) and Assemblyman John D. McKeon (D-Essex) told The Star-Ledger's Matt Friedman the decision raised the question of whether Wallace's ouster led three non-permanent court members to duck the issue. Those members — Chief Justice Stuart Rabner and Justices Roberto Rivera-Soto and Helen Hoens — voted against a motion to have the court immediately revisit its earlier decision in the Lewis vs. Harris case that, in 2006 ruled the Legislature must provide marriage-like rights to same-sex couples. The court then left the details up to lawmakers and they decided to create “civil unions” rather than extend marriages to gays and lesbians. The three judges who don't have to worry about reappointment — Justices Virginia Long, Jaynee LaVecchia, and Barry Albin dissented from the order. They wanted arguments on the motion to go forward. Coincidence? “I think the three justices who voted against the motion looked over their shoulders and saw Chris Christie,” says Frank Askin, a Rutgers Law School professor and constitutional scholar in Newark. “There is no question in my mind that fear of what the Governor would do played a part in that decision.” Michael Drewniak, Christie's spokesman, declined to answer questions about the decision. The state court action contrasts with the robust ruling handed down by federal Judge Vaughn Walker who overturned a California plebiscite — Proposition 8 — banning gay marriages. Forget worrying about a governor, Walker rejected the will of the state's voters because, he ruled, Proposition 8 “violates the due process and equal protection rights” of gays seeking to marry. Walker's decision chews through the arguments of opponents of gay marriage, refuting contentions gay marriages are unstable and that children raised by gay parents do less well than kids from heterosexual households. He also makes it obvious supporters of Proposition 8 were trying to inject their religious views into law. “The evidence presented at trial,” Walker wrote, “fatally undermines the premises underlying proponents' proffered rationales for Proposition 8.” New Jersey once had a supreme court willing to render significant decisions. Under chiefs like Joseph Weintraub, Richard Hughes, Robert Wilentz, James Zazzali and Deborah Poritz, the state's highest court was a national leader in individual rights. It is often in state courts that individual rights are most effectively protected. New Jersey's decisions on school funding and fair housing — also now endangered — went far beyond what the federal courts would do. Even Walker's decision, for all the hype it has generated, could set back the cause. Rutgers Law Professor Carlos Bell, an expert on gay marriage, explains it could lead to an adverse decision by a conservative U.S. Supreme Court: “That is why most of the other same-sex marriage lawsuits (including New Jersey's Lewis v. Harris) have been brought in state courts alleging violations of state constitutions. When a case is decided on state constitutional grounds, it cannot be appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court. “It is likely the court will hear the Proposition 8 case. The upside for gay people of a favorable decision is tremendous: It would mean same-sex couples all over the country would have to be afforded the opportunity to marry. But the downside is also great: It would mean a Supreme Court decision, which would likely stay on the books for a long time, holding gay people are not entitled to marry under the federal constitution.” Maybe too much has been read into the state court action. Even Steve Goldstein, the chairman of Garden State Equality, the state's leading proponent of gay rights, says “it's not a dooms-day scenario — we'll get our day in court.” Perhaps. But a lot is at stake, and one has to wonder — do the three judges up for reappointment really think Christie will keep them no matter what they do? This looks more like an opportunity to make history rather than curry favor. added by: toyotabedzrock

→ Leave a comment

Posted in Celebrities, Hot Stuff

Tagged , , , , , , , , , ,

WaPo: Reid Paints Angle as ‘Dangerously Reactionary,’ and That’s ‘Not Especially Difficult Work’

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

Saturday’s Washington Post put the Harry Reid-Sharron Angle race on the front page with the headline “In a tight spot, Sen. Reid colors his foe ‘wacky,’ reactionary” . Post reporter Amy Gardner makes it all about the attack on Angle, not on Reid’s record: Few places are as aptly named as a divey little bar in southwest Las Vegas called The Hammer.That’s where the campaign brain trust of Senate Majority Leader Harry M. Reid (D) unwinds over beer and nachos after long days spent trying to discredit his Republican opponent, former state assemblywoman Sharron Angle. All summer long, Reid’s small army of young, eager staffers has bombarded Nevada voters with unflattering, sometimes distorted allegations about Angle. They have scoured old newspapers, government transcripts and video archives for anything she has said or done that might be turned against her. In television and radio ads, Reid’s aides have tried to create and then exploit perceptions that Angle is a dangerous reactionary. It has not been especially difficult work . Angle, a “tea party” favorite, has said many controversial things in her years as a politician. A conservative who is deeply skeptical of government, she called for a phaseout of Social Security and proposed eliminating the departments of Education and Energy. Most recently, Reid claims to have uncovered information that links Angle to an obscure political movement called Christian Reconstructionism, which holds that government should rule according to biblical law. Why is the Post covering a campaign by the Majority Leader of the Senate entirely focused on laying all his opposition research out on the table? Gardner would only address Reid’s record by underlining he doesn’t want to talk about it: He is gaffe-prone, as when he said recently that he didn’t know “how anyone of Hispanic origin could be a Republican.” And in an anti-incumbent year, Reid has chosen not to run on his credentials as one of Washington’s most powerful politicians. Instead, his campaign strategy has been to use his formidable resources to diminish his opponent rather than to promote himself. This is the Post’s first (and so far only) mention of Reid’s gaffe, plopped in paragraph 8, safely inside the paper on page A-5. There’s no mention of Reid’s gaffes about how Obama won election because he was a “light-skinned black” with “no Negro dialect.” There’s no mention of Reid claiming the war in Iraq was “lost” and the surge accomplished nothing. But the Post is more interested in Reid’s Sharron Angle packets: This month, The Washington Post received a 27-page packet linking Angle to Christian Reconstructionism. Similar material appeared in reports by other news outlets. Within days, newspapers, television stations and political bloggers in Nevada began buzzing about Angle’s ties to this largely unknown conservative movement, which says politicians should follow biblical law and should not separate their Christian beliefs from their secular duties. The Reid packet strongly implies that Christian Reconstructionism is a dangerous secret society intent on turning the United States into a theocracy. This is something of a stretch. At its peak in the 1990s, the Christian Reconstructionist movement was small and mostly ignored. The group’s founder, R.J. Rushdoony, tried to start a political party, but it went nowhere. When Rushdoony died nine years ago, the movement dried up. It is true that some of Angle’s views mirror those of Christian Reconstructionists. She has called government entitlement programs a violation of the First Commandment and has objected to church-state separation. The Reid material also points out that Angle was an early member of the Independent American Party of Nevada, the state’s affiliate of the Constitution Party, which seeks “to restore our government to its Constitutional limits and our law to its Biblical foundations.” Of course, to any group of secular leftists, it’s frightening for any conservative politician to talk about God, regardless of whether the Rushdoony arguments have a scintilla of merit. The Post’s video detailing Reid’s opposition research shows footage of Angle talking to CBN about how God called her to the Senate race, and then includes Reid “tracker” footage of Angle telling some elderly women that the left dominates academe, and the media also bends to the left. Apparently, the Washington Post considers this contention “wacky” and “reactionary” — even as its Harry Reid coverage proves it.

Continued here:
WaPo: Reid Paints Angle as ‘Dangerously Reactionary,’ and That’s ‘Not Especially Difficult Work’

→ Leave a comment

Posted in Hollywood, Hot Stuff, News

Tagged , , , , , , , ,

For Two Days in a Row, MSNBC’s Contessa Brewer Presents a One-Sided Debate on Gay Marriage

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

As the anchor of MSNBC’s noon news hour, Contessa Brewer could not openly advocate for supporters of gay marriage – but she definitely seemed to give generous credence to their views on Thursday and Friday. Furthermore, she made snide comments about opponents of same-sex marriage, providing an opposition to their arguments but not seriously questioning proponents of same-sex marriage. Brewer obviously has strong views on this particular issue, and as a news anchor seems to have trouble keeping her personal opinions out of her news desk duties. In the little time allotted during each show to the same-sex marriage debate, Brewer hosted three pro same-sex marriage guests and none from the opposition. On Thursday, her guest was a retired female Presbyterian minister who is facing a church trial for conducting multiple gay marriages, having already been acquitted in 2008 before the Presbyterian Church (USA) Supreme Judicial Council. On Friday, Brewer hosted the two plaintiffs of the recent Proposition 8 court case, Jeff Zarrillo and Paul Katami – a homosexual couple hoping to marry soon. Brewer also marginalized the arguments of same-sex marriage opponents with snide remarks and loaded questions. “Opponents of same-sex marriage often argue it undermines the institution, and the family,” she remarked on her Thursday news hour. “So my big question today: Isn’t divorce a bigger threat to marriage in America?” When one of her viewers who opposes gary marriage wrote in that having two same-sex parents would “mess up the child development for life,” Brewer cynically quipped “I guess he hasn’t seen what happens with step-families integrating. Typically you have two dads and two moms.” On Friday, Brewer seemed to be pushing for a quick end to the stay on same-sex marriages in California, apparently using one of the Left’s favorite arguments in equating the current legal battles with the civil rights struggles of the 1960’s. “You know, those against gay marriage are arguing the worst that happens if the state is kept in place is that same-sex couples will have to wait longer for their nuptials,” she summarized. “So my big question today: Isn’t justice delayed justice denied?” she asked, quoting the mantra of the civil rights movement. A transcript of both segments, which aired on August 12 and 13, is as follows: MSNBC NEWS HOUR 8/12/10 12:00 CONTESSA BREWER, MSNBC anchor: A Presbyterian minister in [California] is facing charges from her own church. The authorities believe she violated the church rules by presiding over the weddings of gay couples. Her trial begins later this month in Napa, California, and Rev. Jane Spahr joins me now. Reverend, it’s good to talk to you today. Rev. JANE SPAHR: Thank you, Contessa. Great to be here. BREWER: You have been through this before in 2008, when you were acquitted, I understand, from marrying a lesbian couple. So what’s this renewed fight about in the Presbyterian church? SPAHR: Well the renewed fight is really about all these marriages that I did with so many of my friends who – they’re legal. They were from those dates from June 17th to November 4th in which the state has said “Yes, all these are legal.” So it’s been an amazing time to be able to marry so many of my wonderful friends. BREWER: What’s the official stance of the Presbyterian Church on same-sex marriage? SPAHR: Well there really isn’t a stance yet, there hasn’t been a ruling on that, so what it is, I think for me, is, as pastors, we should be able to marry the people who come to us, and that is, for me, I take over a year to meet with couples, to work with them, to talk with them about their love, and it’s been an amazing time to be able to do that. So what I say to people, “It doesn’t matter what your sexual orientation is. It matters to me that you have a healthy, just, loving, mutual relationship. So that’s why I meet with couples. So I say “It doesn’t matter to me.” What matters to me is that the church could be there to help people have the healthiest, most loving relationships. BREWER: Given your stand on this, and given that you have been a long-time advocate on behalf of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender communities, do you think that you’re a good fit with the Presbyterian Church? SPAHR: Well I think every church has the opportunity to become open and welcoming, to really follow the founder of our Church, which said, “You all come, and be, and be who you are, and love who you are.” When people love who they are, then they can be free to serve in such a healthy and wonderful way. So I think it’s time for the churches to say “Welcome home.” BREWER: But given how many people base their opposition to gay rights on religious or moral principles, what would you say to them, and what would you expect to happen in this trial? Again, it’s a church trial, coming up later this month. SPAHR: Well again, people will be able to hear the stories of some 11 couples, be able to hear about their love, and to be able to know that we too are people of faith. We too are faithful people. We too care. My friends, Sarah and Sherry, the first couple that was ever named, I’ve been with them through all the things they’re bearing, their fathers, being with them to see their daughters raised, so it’s for people to see us as they really are. (…) 12:05 BREWER: Opponents of same-sex marriage often argue it undermines the institution, and the family. So my big question today: Isn’t divorce a bigger threat to marriage in America? (…) 12:52 BREWER: And Terrance thinks differently. He says “I believe if a child is raised around two fathers or two mothers that will mess up the child development for life.” I guess he hasn’t seen what happens with step-families integrating. Typically you have two dads and two moms.   MSNBC NEWS HOUR 8/13/10 12:00 CONTESSA BREWER: In the meantime, good Friday the 13th. I’m Contessa Brewer, covering the big news, coast to coast. And on the West Coast, a massive tug-of-war is erupting over the gay marriage fight in California. Opponents want a federal appeals court to act now, before a hold on those weddings expires. …there will be mass confusion about whether the couples are indeed legally married. The judge’s decision to hold off ’till next week not going over well with some. (Video Clip) UNIDENTIFIED MALE: We’ve been here for two hours this morning, and we’ve watched so many straight people walk in and get married in front of us. It’s so “in your face,” that once again, “no you can’t.” (End Video Clip) (…) 12:01 BREWER: You know, those against gay marriage are arguing the worst that happens if the state is kept in place is that same-sex couples will have to wait longer for their nuptials. So my big question today: Isn’t justice delayed justice denied? (…) 12:02 BREWER: Joining me now, Paul Katami, Jeff Zurrillo. They are the plaintiffs in the case to overturn Proposition 8. Gentlemen, good to see you. Let me ask you that question. Do you think justice delayed is justice denied? JEFF ZARRILLO: Martin Luther King said it very well, in his letters to Birmingham, justice delayed is justice denied, and that’s exactly what’s happening here.   BREWER: Do you have – do you think optimistic feelings about what happens now with the appeals court? Paul, weigh in. PAUL KATAMI: We’re absolutely optimistic. We know that we put on a fair and balanced court case. We won on the merits of that case, so now the law is on our side. We know that history is on our side, so it’s just a matter of getting to that finish line and we’re very confident we’ll get there. BREWER: You know, it’s interesting that the opponents who have filed the suit, guys, say that the judge’s decision that said voters made this Proposition 8 based on anti-gay morality, they said the judge’s statement was cruel because the people of California have actually enacted into law some of the nation’s most sweeping, most progressive protections of gays and lesbians. Do you feel protected in California? ZARRILLO: It’s really not about feeling protected as much as it is about separate, yet unequal, and that’s what we are, we are a separate yet unequal category. We are second-class citizens in the state of California. And what we really are looking for is just our equal rights, just like every other American is afforded at birth, according to our Constitution. KATAMI: I think it’s important to remember also that we’re not trying to create a new law or import a law into our Constitution. This was a law that was found in our Constitution, and so we are just trying to reiterate that that law belongs to us fundamentally, so it’s important to remember that our Constitution actually has this law in it. And we’re just wanting it to be applied to us. BREWER: Alright, gentlemen. Jeff, Paul, thank you both. I appreciate your time.

See original here:
For Two Days in a Row, MSNBC’s Contessa Brewer Presents a One-Sided Debate on Gay Marriage

→ Leave a comment

Posted in Hollywood, Hot Stuff, News

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

CBS’s Erica Hill: GOP ‘Extreme Right;’ Dems Just Need to Alter Message ‘A Little Bit’

Posted on August 10, 2010 by Benny Hollywood| Leave a comment

During a discussion of the upcoming midterm elections on Monday’s CBS Early Show, co-host Erica Hill asked Republican strategist Kevin Madden: “…when you look at this from the Republican perspective… there is some competition from the Tea Party, from those perhaps to the extreme right…is this race Republicans to lose, and if so, what do they have to do to hold on to it?” Hill picked up the “extreme right” label from her other guest, Democratic strategist Tanya Acker, who had just ranted: “I think that it’s very evident that we’re running against a group of Republican candidates, in large part, who’ve really positioned themselves at an extreme end of the right – of the right wing, which is really where not most of the country is….what Democrats have to do is talk about what it is they’re standing for and why it is the country doesn’t want to go back to a time when, frankly, a lot of us were much worse off.” Madden responded to Hill by pointing to the left-wing agenda of the Democrats: “…independent voters…they’ve abandoned Democrats, in large part because of the spending, because of the deficits, because of a very left of center agenda….it is a very good place to be right now when you’re the alternative to a Democrat agenda.” Instead of challenging Acker on the Democrats “very left of center agenda,” Hill gently wondered: “What about the President? He’s doing a lot of fundraising, does he need to, though, work on a little bit different message or is he doing the right thing?” Acker reasserted her previous point: “…the real competition here is for the moderates, is for independents. And in order for Democrats to successfully get them back on board, they’re going to have to explain why the alternatives are far too extreme.” Hill moved on, pressing Madden on Republican policy proposals: “Kevin, in terms of a message from your end, from the Republican side, there’s been a lot of criticism, and we heard it from the President…that Republicans aren’t presenting new ideas….are they presenting their ideas, though, at this point, solidly enough?” Madden replied: “…the Democrats want to spend more, they want to grow the size of the government. We presented alternatives….we’re for smaller government, we’re for lower taxes, and we’re for less spending; and that we are the better party to lead the country in the right direction.” Here is a full transcript of the August 9 discussion: 7:08AM ET ERICA HILL: Joining us now is Republican strategist Kevin Madden, also in Washington this morning, and from Los Angeles, Democratic strategist Tanya Acker. We’re going to get a closer look at what both sides need to do in these upcoming elections from the both of you this morning. Tanya, I want to start with you. as we just heard this two-point message here, don’t go back and things would be even worse were the Democrats not in charge. Is that enough for voters at this point or does there need to be a little alteration, perhaps, of the message? TANYA ACKER: Well, I think the Democrats have to focus on getting that message out very clearly in the first instance. Because look, I think that it’s very evident that we’re running against a group of Republican candidates, in large part, who’ve really positioned themselves at an extreme end of the right – of the right wing, which is really where not most of the country is. I mean, you’re talking about candidates who want to do things like take the country back to a time before Social Security, who want to really overturn a lot of the things that – reforms that the country’s really behind. So I think the Repub – what Democrats have to do is talk about what it is they’re standing for and why it is the country doesn’t want to go back to a time when, frankly, a lot of us were much worse off. HILL: Kevin, when you – when you look at this from the Republican perspective- KEVIN MADDEN: Mm-Hm. HILL: -there are some of those messages, there is some competition from the Tea Party, from those perhaps to the extreme right, as Tanya mentioned, but essentially is this – is this race Republicans to lose and if so what do they have to do to hold on to it? MADDEN: Well, look, to Tanya’s point and to your question, I think that this race is really going to be won – I think this – these elections, these midterm elections are really going to be decided in the middle. And right now those independent voters that were a big part of the Democrats’ successful coalition by – of winning in 2008, they’ve abandoned the – the White House, and they’ve abandoned Democrats, in large part because of the spending, because of the deficits, because of a very left of center agenda. So I think where Republicans feel we have an opportunity is talking to those voters and persuading them that the Democrats have taken the country in the wrong direction. The country’s on the wrong track. That we’re spending too much money, deficits are going too high, and that we can do a better job. And right now we – we have to go out there and talk about a proactive agenda, but it is a very good place to be right now when you’re the alternative to a Democrat agenda. HILL: It’s interesting because in some ways it sounds like 2008 all over again. You talk about the moderates, there was so much talk about moderates and independents, of course, during the 2008 elections, which worked out well for the Democrats, Tanya. This time around, I know you said they need to alter the message perhaps a little bit, but what about the President? He’s doing a lot of fundraising, does he need to, though, work on a little bit different message or is he doing the right thing? ACKER: I think that right now – I mean, look we’re seeing that the President is not – is having some troubles in the polls. He’s certainly polling lower than he has at any time during his presidency, and which is not unusual for any President at this point in his term. But I think that where we’re really seeing President Obama be effective is in – is in fundraising. And in order for Democrats to get the message out there, there’s no question that they’re going to need a lot of money. Because again, as Kevin pointed out, and as you pointed out, the real competition here is for the moderates, is for independents. And in order for Democrats to successfully get them back on board, they’re going to have to explain why the alternatives are far too extreme.                  HILL: Kevin, in terms of a message from your end, from the Republican side, there’s been a lot of criticism, and we heard it from the President in Bill’s package, that Republicans aren’t presenting new ideas. I know that you – you disagree with that. MADDEN: I disagree with that, yes. HILL: But are they presenting – are they presenting their ideas, though, at this point, solidly enough? MADDEN: Yes, I – I do believe so. Look, when John Boehner handed the – the gavel to Nancy Pelosi in 2008, he said – 2006 – he said, look, we are going to be an opposition party but we are going to disagree with you on substance. And if you look at the health care debate, you look at the stimulus debate. Republicans presented the American public alternatives. They presented a vision for what they would do, where they would take the country in a different direction. And I think in large part that’s going to be where you can win in the arguments in 2010. Is that we can say, look, the Democrats want to spend more, they want to grow the size of the government. We presented alternatives. The entire – during this entire debate, that said we’re for smaller government, we’re for lower taxes, and we’re for less spending; and that we are the better party to lead the country in the right direction. HILL: Well, everyone will be trying to get their messages out, especially as we ramp up with three months to go. Tanya Acker, Kevin Madden, always good to have your insight with us. MADDEN: Great to be with you. ACKER: Good to see you. CHRIS WRAGGE: Safe to say it’s going to be an interesting November. HILL: I think we can say that, yes.

Read the original here:
CBS’s Erica Hill: GOP ‘Extreme Right;’ Dems Just Need to Alter Message ‘A Little Bit’

→ Leave a comment

Posted in Hollywood, Hot Stuff, News

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

Mel Gibson Allegedly Threatens To Kill Girlfriend In Leaked Tape

Posted on July 12, 2010 by Benny Hollywood| Leave a comment

Gibson was dropped by his talent agency over the weekend. By Gil Kaufman Mel Gibson Photo: Michael Caulfield/OG/Getty Images The newest bombshell in the slowly unfolding Mel Gibson meltdown is the leak of yet another portion of a tape recording obtained by RadarOnline.com in which the actor is heard seemingly acknowledging that he had battered the mother of his 8-month-old daughter before twice threatening to kill her. In an excerpt released Monday (July 12), the eight-minute recording reportedly captures a conversation between Gibson and then-girlfriend Oksana Grigorieva in which the Academy Award-winning actor/director is heard yelling at Grigorieva that she “deserved” to be hit after she criticized him for allegedly punching her in the face and breaking two of her teeth. Gibson is at the center of a domestic-violence investigation by the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department and the latest tape, if corroborated, could be a powerful piece of evidence against the actor in the criminal probe, according to Radar. On the tape, portions of which leaked last week , Gibson is heard getting increasingly angrier as the unmarried couple argue, screaming, ranting and huffing out of breath in a hoarse voice and at one point saying to Grigorieva, “You need a f—ing bat in the side of the head. All right? How about that?” as she remains calm in spite of his wrath. “What kind of a man is that?” Grigorieva says near the end of the excerpt. “Hitting a woman when she’s holding a child in her hands? Breaking her teeth twice in the face! What kind of man is that?” “Oh, you’re all angry now!” Gibson responds. “You know what, you … f—ing deserved it!” He also alludes earlier to killing and burying Grigorieva, and she appears to taunt him by saying, “You’re gonna answer one day, boy, you’re gonna answer.” Seemingly infuriated by that comment, he asks if she’s threatening him and she responds, “I’m not the one to threaten.” At that point, Gibson makes what can only charitably be construed as a death threat when he says, “Threaten you? I’ll put you in a f—ing rose garden, you cu–! You understand that? Because I’m capable of it. You understand that? Get a f—ing restraining order? What are you gonna get a f—ing restraining order for? For me being drunk and disorderly and hitting you? For what?” When asked about the tapes’ authenticity last week Gibson’s spokesperson, Alan Nierob, offered a “no comment” to MTV News. Over the weekend, Gibson was reportedly dropped by his longtime talent agency, William Morris Endeavor Entertainment, in the wake of the scandal, which includes allegations that he repeatedly used racist and sexist slurs against Grigorieva during their arguments. The Hollywood Reporter reported that unnamed sources at WME said it was Gibson’s misconduct that caused the break, with that source opining “there’s nothing to do for Mel Gibson at the moment … no one will touch him with a 10-foot pole.” On the tape, Grigorieva repeatedly asks Gibson to get help, urging him to take medication, to which he huffs, “I need a woman! Not a f—ing little girl with a f—ing dysfunctional cu–! … You need a f—ing doctor. You need a f—ing brain transplant.” The couple are in the midst of a difficult custody battle of their daughter, with Grigorieva filing a restraining order against her ex as well as a follow-up complaint on July 5 that triggered the domestic-violence investigation. L.A. County Sheriff’s Department spokesman Steve Whitmore would not tell The Associated Press whether the Radar recordings would become part of the investigation. “Everything is part of the investigation,” he said. “Anything that is connected to the case we will investigate.” He also did not give a timeframe on how long the investigation might take, but once completed, evidence will be turned over to the Los Angeles County District Attorney’s office, which will decide whether to pursue criminal charges. Gibson’s lawyers have reportedly claimed that Grigorieva tried to extort more money from the actor as part of their settlement. He claims on the tape that Grigorieva used him to get her music career started, and she responds that she doesn’t care if he doesn’t spend another dime on it. “Gold digger, cu–, whore, and you’ve just proved it!” he screams. “Because I’m saving my life and daughter’s life. … You almost killed us, did you forget?” she responds as Gibson lets out the kind of maniacal, whooping laugh he perfected in his role in the “Lethal Weapon” movies.

See more here:
Mel Gibson Allegedly Threatens To Kill Girlfriend In Leaked Tape

→ Leave a comment

Posted in Celebrities, Gossip, Hollywood, Music

Tagged , , , , , , , , ,

‘The Lottery’ Exposes Truth About Public Schools

Posted on July 9, 2010 by Benny Hollywood| Leave a comment

The children eager to attend Harlem Success Academies don’t care about partisan politics or ideological turf wars. They just want the best education possible. “ The Lottery ,” a new documentary by Madeleine Sackler, showcases families desperate for an alternative to the New York Public School system. The film, playing an exclusive engagement through July 15 at the Starz FilmCenter in Denver , follows four such families who enter a lottery system so their children can attend a prestigious charter school. Strip away the interpersonal dynamics and you’ll find a full-throated argument on behalf of charter schools. And those who think only Republicans support school choice measures will be surprised to see a large  number of Democrats eager to give charter schools a try. It’s an alternately fascinating and maddening film experience, and Sackler delivers the material with an elegant touch. It’s also a must-see for parents with school-age children – or just taxpayers saddened at the thought of children not reaching their potential. The families included here put a human face on the issue, but the film would be better served if we got to know them a little better. The quick glimpses at their lives – and dreams – tell us just enough about the stakes at play. Sackler intersperses sobering statistics throughout her film, showing how the charter schools in question offers a major upgrade from the status quo. But the film’s twin highlights come when Eva Moskowitz, the articulate founder of Harlem Success Academies, takes on her critics at two public forums. Viewers may lunge for their blood pressure meds as union lackeys play fast and loose with the facts, and double down on the race card, in order to defend a broken system. “The Lottery” is the second recent documentary to slam teachers unions. “The Cartel” examined New Jersey’s disgraceful public school system, blaming unions for much of the waste and horrific grades. “Waiting for Superman,” another documentary trumpeting the need for educational reform, will be released this fall. It’s hardly an accident. Parents are fed up with the sorry state of modern education and see school choice as a possible way out. And documentary filmmakers are following suit. “The Lottery” doesn’t traffic in the bait-and-switch stylings of a Michael Moore opus, but it’s still a one-sided affair. It isn’t entirely Sackler’s fault. The director recently told this critic she tried – and tried – to include union backers in the film for an entire year. But those sources refused to participate. Still, more neutral education experts might have added context to the arguments on display. And while Moskowitz is an ideal spokeswoman for the charter system, she’s given too much screen time given her intimate connection to the school in question. “The Lottery” is the kind of film that could very well change some stubborn hearts and minds. Political ideology – and knee-jerk sympathies – fall aside when you see families crying in relief as their names are plucked from “The Lottery.” Crossposted at Big Hollywood

View original post here:
‘The Lottery’ Exposes Truth About Public Schools

→ Leave a comment

Posted in Hollywood, Hot Stuff, News

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

NBC and ABC Barely Touch Kagan Hearings, CBS Promotes Her As ‘Very Agile’

Posted on June 29, 2010 by Benny Hollywood| Leave a comment

While ABC’s Good Morning America and NBC’s Today spent little time on the confirmation hearings for Supreme Court nominee Elena Kagan on Tuesday, the CBS Early Show featured a report from legal correspondent Jan Crawford, who cheered Kagan finally being able respond to Republican “attacks” in a “very agile” way. Good Morning America devoted only a single news brief early in the 7AM ET hour to the hearings as news reader JuJu Chang noted how Kagan “will be questioned by Republicans who say she is too liberal and too political.” Chang added: “Kagan promised to take a modest approach to judging.”   On Today, correspondent Kelly O’Donnell offered only a brief 7:09AM report on the hearings: “Weeks after her nomination, seated in silence for hours, finally Elena Kagan gets to make her case….[she] describes herself as a daughter of the American dream.” O’Donnell described the arguments from both sides of the aisle: “No surprise, Democrats praised her intellect and the chance to broaden the Supreme Court….Saying they would be respectful, Republicans did not hesitate to get tough. From abortion rights to immigration, they found various ways to call her liberal.” In an 8:04AM news brief, news reader Natalie Morales declared: “Republicans portrayed Kagan as a liberal activist with no judicial experience. Kagan promised an even-handed approach to the law.” In contrast, the Early Show devoted a full 7:10AM segment to Kagan, as fill-in co-host Chris Wragge proclaimed: “Day two of Elena Kagan’s Senate confirmation hearings get underway this morning and the gloves are expected to come off.” Crawford began the report that followed by observing: “After nearly two months of public silence while Republicans attacked her, Elena Kagan was sworn in and answered back. She vowed to uphold the law fairly.” Crawford previewed Tuesday’s hearings: “…today the questions and the fireworks begin. Republicans say the questions won’t be easy, as they try to paint her as a liberal activist.” Wragge asked about the tone of the hearings: “…every word yesterday from Elena was just so measured and so deliberate. Can we expect more of that today with every response from the questions she’ll be fielding?” Crawford replied: “No, it’s going to have a very different tone today….they’re really going to start pressing her on all these issues….what we’ll see today is how agile and how effective she is at answering those and responding to those, engaging these senators without saying anything that can be held against her.” Wragge concluded the segment by asking Crawford to predict Kagan’s performance. Crawford responded by gushing: “I think she’s going to do, actually, very, very well. I’ve seen her argue before the Supreme Court. She’s very agile , she spars with those conservative justices very well, so I don’t think these Republicans are going to have too much of an easy time, you know, pressing her on some of these issues.” Here is a full transcript of Crawford’s June 29 report: 7:10AM CHRIS WRAGGE: Day two of Elena Kagan’s Senate confirmation hearings get underway this morning and the gloves are expected to come off. CBS News chief legal correspondent Jan Crawford is on Capitol Hill with a look at today’s session. Jan, good morning. JAN CRAWFORD: Good morning, Chris. Well, you know Elena Kagan really stayed out of the public eye for two months and Americans finally got a glimpse of her, but today, she’s going to face a lot of questions from the Republicans on this side of the aisle and they’re going to see if she can handle the heat. After nearly two months of public silence while Republicans attacked her, Elena Kagan was sworn in and answered back. She vowed to uphold the law fairly. ELENA KAGAN: I will listen hard to every party before the court and to each of my colleagues. CRAWFORD: And she told a bit of her life story. KAGAN: My parents lived the American dream. They grew up in immigrant communities. My mother didn’t speak a word of English until she went to school. But she became a legendary teacher and my father a valued lawyer. CRAWFORD: Kagan sat stoically for hours while senators gave their opening statements, but today the questions and the fireworks begin. Republicans say the questions won’t be easy, as they try to paint her as a liberal activist. JEFF SESSIONS: It’s not a coronation, as I’ve said, but a confirmation process. Serious and substantive questions will be asked. CRAWFORD: But Democrats will be ready to come to her defense. CHARLES SCHUMER: She is brilliant, she is thoughtful, and I think she is straight out of central casting for this job. SESSIONS: But proving that to the senators is what Elena Kagan is going to have to do and it all starts, Chris, in just a couple of hours. WRAGGE: Jan, the last thing I would ever do is sit here and say this has got to be pretty easy on someone, but every word yesterday from Elena was just so measured and so deliberate. Can we expect more of that today with every response from the questions she’ll be fielding? CRAWFORD: No, it’s going to have a very different tone today, Chris. You know, yesterday, her face – I mean, she really showed no expression all day, she just sat there and listened to these senators deliver these long opening statements. So today they’re really going to start pressing her on all these issues that they’ve got ready. So what we’ll see today is how agile and how effective she is at answering those and responding to those, engaging these senators without saying anything that can be held against her. WRAGGE: And quickly, on a separate note here, I want to talk about this Supreme Court ruling. They ruled that had state and local governments cannot ban guns. Now what’s the importance, if you can just tell us quickly, of this 5-4 decision? CRAWFORD: Chris, this was a huge ruling that basically extended gun rights nationwide. It said cities and states across the country cannot flatly outright ban handguns, that you have a fundamental right to own a gun in your own home to protect yourself. WRAGGE: Can I ask you real quickly, you know Elena Kagan very well. How do you think she’ll perform today? CRAWFORD: I think she’s going to do, actually, very, very well. I’ve seen her argue before the Supreme Court. She’s very agile, she spars with those conservative justices very well, so I don’t think these Republicans are going to have too much of an easy time, you know, pressing her on some of these issues. WRAGGE: Alright, Jan Crawford, thank you very much. We look forward to your report later on today. CRAWFORD: Thanks, Chris.

View original post here:
NBC and ABC Barely Touch Kagan Hearings, CBS Promotes Her As ‘Very Agile’

→ Leave a comment

Posted in Hollywood, Hot Stuff, News

Tagged , , , , , , , , , ,

Leaked Draft Treasury Docs: Majority of Employer Health Plans Won’t Be ‘Grandfathered’

Posted on June 12, 2010 by Benny Hollywood| Leave a comment

Earlier this year, in his “Can we lose health coverage? Yes we can” column, syndicated columnist Deroy Murdock made a point asserted in dozens if not hundreds of columns and reports during the hide-and-seek legistlative process that ultimately led to the passage of what is commonly known as ObamaCare: The President’s core promise relating to the statist health care legislation that ultimately became law in March — namely that “If you like your health care plan, you will be able to keep your health care plan. Period. No one will take it away. No matter what” — could not and would not be kept. In that column, Murdock quoted Cato Institute analyst Michael Cannon as follows: “Obama’s definition of ‘meaningful’ coverage could eliminate the health plans that now cover as many as half of the 159 million Americans with employer-sponsored insurance, plus more than half of the roughly 18 million Americans in the individual market. … This could compel close to 90 million Americans to switch to more comprehensive health plans with higher premiums, whether they value the added coverage or not.” In a late Friday afternoon blog post followed by a fuller early evening report , David Hogberg and Sean Higgins at Investors Business Daily confirmed that Obama’s never-credible core promise is on the brink of being shattered, and that the employer-related calculations by Cato’s Cannon were essentially correct (graphically illustrated by IBD at the top right): Internal administration documents reveal that up to 51% of employers may have to relinquish their current health care coverage because of ObamaCare. Small firms will be even likelier to lose existing plans. The “midrange estimate is that 66% of small employer plans and 45% of large employer plans will relinquish their grandfathered status by the end of 2013,” according to the document. In the worst-case scenario, 69% of employers — 80% of smaller firms — would lose that status, exposing them to far more provisions under the new health law. …. The 83-page document, a joint project of the departments of Health and Human Services, Labor and the IRS, examines the effects that ObamaCare’s regulations would have on existing, or “grandfathered,” employer-based health care plans. Draft copies of the document were reportedly leaked to House Republicans during the week and began circulating Friday morning. Rep. Bill Posey, R-Fla., posted it on his Web site Friday afternoon. … In a statement, Posey said the document showed that the arguments in favor of ObamaCare were a “bait and switch.” … (A White House) source conceded: “It is difficult to predict how plans and employers will behave in the coming years, but if plans make changes that negatively impact consumers, then they will lose their grandfather status.” … In total, 66% of small businesses and 47% of large businesses made a change in their health care plans last year that would have forfeited their grandfathered status. When one looks at the list of what would cause a plan to get de-grandfathered compiled by Hogberg and Higgins, it’s easy to see why the percentages are so large. The referenced Treasury document (an 83-page PDF ) lays out how employers might react to the new law on Page 36: Page Plan sponsors and issuers can decide to: 1. Continue offering the plan or coverage in effect on March 23, 2010 with limited changes, and thereby retain grandfathered status; 2. Significantly change the terms of the plan or coverage and comply with Affordable Care Act provisions from which grandfathered health plans are excepted; or 3. In the case of a plan sponsor, cease to offer any plan. Option 1 would be nice, but as the IBD reporters noted in the bolded paragraph in the excerpt above, most employers would have run afoul of it during the past year. This means that they would have been forced into Options 2 or 3. Employers choosing Option 2 would have to buy pre-designed and very expensive coverage through the bill’s health insurance exchanges. Employers choosing Option 3 would force their employees to buy pre-designed and very expensive coverage through those same exchanges. If the legislation stands, the end result over a not very long time will be that the large majority of employers and employees will be stuck in the exchanges, the roach motels of health care — Once you go in, you can’t come out. Statist mission accomplished. The Associated Press has noticed the story too, but with the weakest of headlines: “Health overhaul to force changes in employer plans.” The content isn’t much better. Earth to AP reporter Ricardo Alonso-Zaldivar: ObamaCare, as predicted by so many during the previous year by experts most of the establishment press willfully ignored, will cause many employers to drop their insurance entirely. Cross-posted at BizzyBlog.com .

More:
Leaked Draft Treasury Docs: Majority of Employer Health Plans Won’t Be ‘Grandfathered’

→ Leave a comment

Posted in Hollywood, Hot Stuff, News

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