Tag Archives: Breaking News

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

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

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

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

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

Bartiromo: Stimulus Likely Didn’t Save Economy –- Fed Did; Warns Obamanomics Stunting Job Growth

While some on the left side of the aisle in Congress are getting all starry-eyed about prospects of more federal stimulus spending, the first round of stimulus under President Barack Obama may have done even less to help the ailing economy than supporters claim. On MSNBC’s July 9 broadcast of “The Daily Rundown,” co-hosts Chuck Todd and Savannah Guthrie interviewed CNBC “Closing Bell” anchor Maria Bartiromo from the Aspen Ideas Festival in Aspen, Colo. And Bartiromo offered her views why the economy didn’t spiral out of control any more than it did. She said according to some on Wall Street, it wasn’t Obama’s $787-billion “stimulus” that included a huge bulk of state government bailout spending, but instead action by the Federal Reserve to put more liquidity in the economy. “Look, there’s no doubt about it – we were close to going off a cliff the weekend at Lehman Brothers declared bankruptcy, Merrill [Lynch] was sold and AIG acquired by government,” Bartiromo said. “You know, I mean I think we were very close and the economy needed stimulus in a big way. It’s arguable whether that stimulus that helped the economy was really because of the stimulus plan or really because of the Federal Reserve. I think most people on Wall Street will believe and will tell you that it was really the Fed action in terms of giving greater access to the banks to overnight lending that really, really got us out.” “But you know – it doesn’t matter,” she continued. “I mean, here we are and we are still in a very weak situation in the U.S. economy and the recovery is quite fragile and I think at this moment in time, many people are worried that in fact it may not necessarily officially be a double-dip recession that we’re headed toward but we are looking at another leg down.” Guthrie asked why that if corporate earnings look strong, as they’re expected to, aren’t these corporations doing more to hire and lower the overall unemployment rate in the United States. According to the “Closing Bell” host, business is looking overseas because of the uncertainty the Obama administration has put into the economy with taxes and health care. “I think right now you have hit on the one very bullish part of the economy and that is the corporate sector,” Bartiromo said. “We’re heading into a new quarter where we will get  quarterly earnings and probably will be a better than expected. And the reason is because corporations have cut to the bone. They have cut employees. They have cut R&D spending. They’ve cut anything they can. They cut all the fat out so we are talking about enormous cash levels. What they’re doing with the cash is another question. They’re sitting on it. They’re not investing in the U.S. economy. They’re actually following the growth overseas. PepsiCo [is] building 13 plants in China. GE building more places, businesses in India. You are seeing businesses follow the growth outside of the United States. But absolutely – that is the positive. The reason that they’re not hiring right now is because there is a tremendous amount of uncertainty. And that has everything to do with the policies coming out of this administration. Higher taxes in 2011, higher expenses as a result of health care costs. That’s why they’re not hiring. ” So what can be done to encourage more hiring with all this cash on the books by major businesses? According to the “Closing Bell” host, business needs more incentives to hire and she rattled off some for MSNBC viewers. “One they could do soon is not allow the Bush tax cuts to expire in 2011,” she said. “Giving some – the end of the 2010, giving some confidence that they won’t have that added expense. A lot of people are worried about that. Now, Tim Geithner had an important interview with Larry Kudlow last week and Geithner said that he is prepared to keep capital gains and dividends taxes at 20 percent. This was very, very positive and I think that is part of the reason the market has been rallying the last three days because there was an expectation that capital gains taxes would go all the way up to 39.6 percent. If, in fact, the administration keeps it at 20 percent, I think that’s very positive.”

Excerpt from:
Bartiromo: Stimulus Likely Didn’t Save Economy –- Fed Did; Warns Obamanomics Stunting Job Growth

Imagine If a Conervative Had Said It: Child- and Cop-killer Edition

Remember when media liberals were insisting ( falsely, by the way ) that RedState’s Erick Erickson had advocated shooting a census taker? Well imagine that a journalist had approached, say, Dick Armey and the following exchange had ensued. Then try to imagine what the media’s response would be. JOURNO: Obviously you don’t believe in killing census workers. ARMEY: Umm, not in that context, no sir. No, no. JOURNO: Okay, in what context? ARMEY: Just for the sake of this interview, no context. I don’t believe in that. There are too many other government forces out here that are much more powerful that I as a man would focus on. I wouldn’t focus on the census workers, sir, I’d focus on the police. Replace “census workers” with “babies” and “government” with “white,” and you have the exact statement from Malik Zulu Shabazz, leader of the New Black Panther Party, made in an interview with Mediaite’s Tommy Christopher (video below the fold). “So,” writes Tabitha Hale at RedState, “just for the sake of this interview, killing white babies is not okay. But those other times, in the proper context? It’s totally okay. You know, as long as the crackers are out of the way.” Mark Potok, please call your office . Oh the howling that would ensue if any Tea Party leader, let alone the head of a prominent organization like FreedomWorks, made a statement like that. “Killing census workers is not as productive as killing cops,” is what it would, rightly, be boiled down to. Shabazz is saying that he considers violence towards police officers to be a more productive activity in battling white people than killing their children. Phew. What a relief. Where is the media on this? Where is Chris Matthews to devote an entire hour-long special to the dangers of militant black supremacy groups, as he did with the Tea Party? Where is Rachel Maddow to devote an hour of her time to warning viewers that violent rhetoric can incite violent action, as she did in the context of the Oklahoma City bombing, naturally blaming it on conservatives? Where is Joe Klein to remind us of the definition of sedition — “conduct or language inciting rebellion against the authority of the state, in his words — and to accuse these groups of ” rubbing right up close ” to doing just that? Where are the host of media personalities who painted the Hutaree militia and a vague threat of “right-wing extremism” as the biggest threat to American peace since 9/11? They are all silent, because accusing the New Black Panthers of fomenting violence does not fit the narrative — it does not serve their political ends. And this is not some obscure member of the group holding a sign demanding that we “water the tree of liberty” — to use a Tea Party equivalent. This is the leader of a prominent (for a wacky fringe group) organization issuing a thinly-veiled endorsement of violence against police officers. The lack of condemnation even remotely similar to the hit jobs on the Tea Party movement is quite telling.

Continued here:
Imagine If a Conervative Had Said It: Child- and Cop-killer Edition

Washington Post Hysterically Explains Why Tan Tax Isn’t Racist

If you thought ObamaCare’s new tax on tanning salons was racist, the Washington Post wants to set you straight: it ain’t! The reason according to a piece published at the Post’s website Thursday evening: the government didn’t INTEND to disadvantage white people with this law. It’s just an unfortunate consequence. I kid you not.  But this gets better, because the Post quoted a Harvard professor that said this is similar to crack cocaine laws that clearly disadvantage black people more than white people (h/t Jillian Bandes ): The case can seem deceptively simple: Since patrons of tanning salons are almost exclusively white, the tax will be almost entirely paid by white people and, therefore, violates their constitutional right to equal protection under the law. But does the argument have any merit? Not remotely said Randall Kennedy, a professor at Harvard Law School specializing in racial conflict and law. “There is no constitutional problem at all, because a plaintiff would have to show that the government intended to disadvantage a particular group, not simply that the group is disadvantaged in effect,” he said. Kennedy said that this is why courts have upheld a raft of other laws that also happen to have a disproportionate impact on particular groups. For example, laws that impose higher penalties for possession or trafficking of crack cocaine as opposed to powder cocaine resulted in far harsher sentences for African Americans compared to whites. And laws that offer preferential treatment for veterans are much more likely to benefit men than women. But in both cases judges ruled that, because lawmakers did not intend to disadvantage black people or women when drafting those laws, they are legal. You got that? So quit you’re whining about this new tan tax, Snooki!

See more here:
Washington Post Hysterically Explains Why Tan Tax Isn’t Racist

MRC-TV: Bozell Discusses Obama’s NASA Chief on ‘Fox & Friends’

“You would think that if you are NASA, your mandate is return us to the moon, take us to Mars…. No, according to the President of the United States, the mandate of NASA is to make Muslim people feel better about themselves,” NewsBusters publisher Brent Bozell quipped this morning on “Fox & Friends.” The Media Research Center founder was referring to the under-reported story of how NASA administrator Charles Bolden told Arab news network al-Jazeera in an interview that President Obama had tasked him with outreach to the Muslim world to “find a way to reach out to the Muslim world and engage much more with dominantly Muslim nations to help them feel good about their historic contribution to science, math, and engineering.” “We have to hitch a ride with the Russians if we want to go to outer space, but the mandate of NASA is to make Muslims feel better about themselves. You figure that one out,” Bozell complained, adding, “You’d think that might be a news story.” For the full “Fox & Friends” appearance, click here for MP3 or here for WMV video , or watch the embedded video above at right.

Go here to see the original:
MRC-TV: Bozell Discusses Obama’s NASA Chief on ‘Fox & Friends’

Playboy Offends Itself in ‘Shocking Breach’ of Standards

It must be difficult to offend a company that makes its money off pictures of naked women (to be fair, there are also articles … apparently). The folks at Playboy Portugal managed to do just that. On Wednesday, news broke that the Portuguese edition of Playboy magazine published several photographs depicting Jesus Christ observing pornographic scenes . On Thursday, the parent company, which licenses the Playboy name to international publishers, distanced itself from the controversy. “We did not see or approve the cover and pictorial in the July issue of Playboy Portugal,” Playboy’s vice president of public relations, Theresa Hennessy, reportedly told the gossip blog Gawker in an email. “It is a shocking breach of our standards, and we would not have allowed it to be published if we had seen it in advance. Hennessy told Gawker the magazine would be “terminating our agreement” with the Portuguese publisher. ( Visit Gawker for the full statement . Content warning: some readers may find Gawker’s photo offensive.) As of Friday morning, however, the Playboy website still listed Playboy Portugal among its 27 international editions. 

View original post here:
Playboy Offends Itself in ‘Shocking Breach’ of Standards

Ken Low dead at 45

Mr Ken Low, 45, assistant chief executive of the Singapore Tourism Board (STB), was a bachelor. His body was cremated on Thursday. The man behind the branding that boosted Singapore#39;s tourist draw through the “Uniquely Singapore” and the latest “YourSingapore” campaigns died suddenly on Wednesday. “The entire Singapore Tourism Board is shocked and deeply saddened by the news of Ken#39;s sudden passing,” said STB#39;s chief executive, Ms Aw Kah Peng. Mr Low was a man who wore many hats, inc

Read the original:
Ken Low dead at 45

Time: ‘Is Bobby Jindal Making Sense?’

While the media have apparently given up — if they ever seriously attempted — on holding the Obama administration to account for its handling of the Gulf oil spill cleanup, Republican governors in the Gulf are a different story, particularly Louisiana’s Bobby Jindal, a potential 2012 presidential hopeful. In a short post at Time.com entitled “Battlefield General: Is Bobby Jindal Making Sense?” , writer Alex Altman cast doubt on Jindal’s handling of the oil spill cleanup while suggesting the conservative governor is hypocritical for his complaints about Obama’s handling of the disaster at the federal level: The notion that Washington should lead is not the only puzzling position taken by Jindal, a small-government conservative. An advocate of offshore oil exploration, he points to environmental devastation as a consequence of the government’s “lack of urgency” but opposes a moratorium on deepwater drilling. More important, in the throes of a crisis, a governor admired for his grasp of policy has sometimes sacrificed caution for speed. For weeks, Jindal blistered the government for dithering over his signature initiative, a plan to build sand berms to safeguard the state’s marshland. The proposal was finally okayed despite objections raised by scientists who questioned the $360 million project’s efficacy. When the Interior Department later halted the sand dredging to protect the existing barrier-island system, Jindal fumed at the “red tape and bureaucracy.” On July 6, the governor railed at the Army Corps of Engineers for denying a local parish’s request to protect coastal waters by constructing rock dikes. (A Corps commander said the measure might do more harm than good.) Of course it’s perfectly legitimate for journalists to raise questions about how Gulf state governors have handled their share of the BP oil spill cleanup, but Altman’s piece assumes the federal government’s response is virtually flawless and Jindal’s disagreements with its strategy and tactics are suspect. What’s more, Altman’s swipe at Jindal’s conservatism distorts the true conservative position that Jindal is staking out. Jindals complaints have largely been that the Obama administration’s regulatory micromanagement has gummed up cleanup efforts. It’s not so much that Jindal wants the federal government to solve the problem as he wants the feds to quit hampering private industry and local governments from solving the problem due to mindless red tape. Time is not alone in setting its sights on bashing Jindal. Last month, Newsweek’s Sharon Begley took a much more stringent tone in her criticism of Louisiana’s Republican governor: Scientists are such spoilsports, always insisting on gathering data on the likely effects of a strategy before implementing it. Politicians are more inclined to just go for it, especially when they’re desperate. Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal is desperate: millions of gallons of BP’s crude are launching an amphibious assault on his beaches and wetlands. So let’s do the math: desperation + a pol’s “do something” mentality = a loony decision to build 14-foot sand berms to protect the state’s coastline—a decision that bodes ill for the many others the state will face as BP’s oil gushes at least until August. Before this, Jindal was known to scientists as the governor who in 2008 signed a law allowing the state’s public schools to teach creationism (excuse me! “intelligent design”) in their classrooms. The difficulty he has distinguishing science from faith reared its ugly head again when he cast about for a way to hold back BP’s oil. Emissaries from Jindal’s office have made regular pilgrimages to the Netherlands to consult with engineers about protecting the state’s coasts from the next Katrina. Van Oord, a marine engineering and dredging company that is constructing the artificial Palm Islands for Dubai, proposed building what amounts to artificial sandbars. “If you ask a Dutch company that builds artificial islands in Dubai how to protect marshlands and barrier islands,” says coastal geologist Rob Young of Western Carolina University, “of course they’ll say, ‘Let’s make an offshore island!—and shall we put a palm tree on it for you?’ When a politician is faced with an economic or social mess, the “just try something” mentality can be justified. Policies on these fronts cannot be accurately predicted for the simple reason that human behavior is involved. No amount of science can reliably forecast the effects of, say, financial or health-care reform, so a reasonable case can be made for “do something.” Not so when we’re talking about the laws of physics and chemistry rather than human behavior. In these cases, ignoring the science makes politicians seem like petulant children.

View original post here:
Time: ‘Is Bobby Jindal Making Sense?’

Leftist AOL Contributor Attacks Pope, Equates Him With Hezbollah Leader

AOL News contributor Paul Wachter launched an inflammatory attack on Pope Benedict XVI in a Thursday post where he also defended recently-fired CNN editor Octavia Nasr for her eulogy of Hezbollah’s spiritual leader. After hinting that the network “overreacted,” Wachter suggested that CNN should also fire “anyone who speaks highly of the pope, who…has contributed to the deaths of millions from AIDS.” Wachter began his commentary, ” Octavia Nasr Firing: Should CNN Also Ax Anyone Who Praises the Pope? ,” by recounting the former Middle Eastern affairs editor’s Tweet where she expressed how she was “sad to hear of the passing of Sayyed Mohammad Hussein Fadlallah.. One of Hezbollah’s giants I respect a lot.” He then echoed Nasr’s own synopsis of the Hezbollah spiritual leader: “Fadlallah left a complex legacy. He was staunchly anti-Zionist, a defender of suicide bombings and approved of the suicide attacks on American barracks in Beirut during the United States’ ill-fated intervention in Lebanon during the country’s civil war. But he also championed women’s rights under Islam and spoke out against honor killings.” The writer, who also contributes to left-leaning publication such as New York Time Magazine, The Atlantic, and The Nation, then launched his attack on the Pope, and lumped in Jerry Fallwell for good measure at the end: An argument can be made that CNN has overreacted here , but if Nasr must go, is it too much to ask that the network at least be consistent going forward? Should it, for instance, also fire anyone who speaks highly of the pope, who covered up the clerical rape of young boys and whose anti-contraception proselytization has contributed to the deaths of millions from AIDS? Or anyone at the network who had a kind word for Jerry Fallwell, who said the United States was getting its just deserts with the 9/11 attacks and that the anti-Christ was among us, disguised as a Jewish man? So Wachter believes it’s a matter of established fact that the pontiff “covered up the clerical rape of young boys”? That’s not surprising, given the secular anti-Catholic company he keeps. As for the wild accusation that Benedict contributed to the deaths of millions from AIDS, it was CNN itself that came out on Wachter’s side last year after the Pope stated that condoms “increases the problem” of AIDS during his first trip to Africa. Correspondent Zain Verjee couldn’t seem to find any health “experts” who agreed with the Catholic leader during a March 17, 2009 report . CNN commentator Jack Cafferty condemned the pontiff’s remarks a day later , concluding that “it is past time for the Catholic Church to enter the 21st century, or at least try to drag itself out of the 13th century.” All of this came despite the fact that Dr. Edward Green of Harvard’s AIDS Prevention Research Project cited how the ” the best evidence we have supports the pope’s comments .” In any case, there’s little risk of Wachter’s hypothetical situation of a CNN employee praising the Pope happening any time soon, given the network’s slanted coverage of the priest sex abuse scandal so far during 2010 .

Read more here:
Leftist AOL Contributor Attacks Pope, Equates Him With Hezbollah Leader