Tag Archives: Breaking News

Brzezinski: Invite Iran To Conference On Afghanistan’s Future

Great idea.  While we’re at it, let’s invite al Qaeda to a conference on Israel’s future . . . On Morning Joe today, Zbigniew Brzezinski recommended that the US organize an “international conference” on Afghanistan’s future—and invite Iran to participate. The former Carter National Security Advisor didn’t say what positive contribution he might expect from a country working in defiance of international sanctions to develop nuclear weapons and that has stated its desire to wipe Israel off the map.  ZBIGNIEW BRZEZINSKI:  I think we have to have some sort of an international conference drawing in the neighbors of Afghanistan into the process regarding the future of Afghanistan.  That means, among others, the Iranians. So, there are a number of things we need to do, difficult as they are, to achieve the objectives the president has set for himself. Zbig’s daughter Mika could be heard uttering a [quizzical?] “hmm” in response.  Will any of the MSM pick up on Brzezinski’s suggestion?  Might Pres. Obama take a cue from Carter’s man?

Visit link:
Brzezinski: Invite Iran To Conference On Afghanistan’s Future

WaPo Paints the Spitzer-Parker Show as a ‘Democrat’ and a ‘Conservative’

The Washington Post Style section promised an article on CNN’s new Eliot Spitzer-Kathleen Parker chat show with this front-page blurb: ” Odd couple on CNN: New show pairs a conservative with a Democrat.” Inside, in an article surprisingly shy on her typical snark, TV columnist Lisa de Moraes also described the pairing as the “disgraced/rehabbed former governor Eliot Spitzer, the New  York Democrat” vs. “Pulitzer-prize winning conservative columnist Kathleen Parker,” syndicated by the Washington Post Writers Group (this could explain the lack of snark against Parker, if not Spitzer.) The TV columnist made no attempt to assess whether conservatives felt she was one of them (they don’t). She did see this as a turnabout for “Crossfire”-canceling CNN president Jon Klein, but she reproduced his sales chat without much objection: In an interview with The TV Column, Klein said that Spitzer and Parker “can address an appetite that is not being satisfied now — the 99 percent of the country not watching” the other 8 o’clock cable news shows. “We’d like to begin the long, slow, steady process of reaching the underserved. . . . We think America’s ready for that. . . . I can’t think of two people better suited than these super-intelligent, ultra-opinionated but rational individuals .” Leave it to Klein to make a talk-show sound like a soup kitchen. The cable-news “underserved”? Then, he tops that by making them sound like a super-ultra comic-book pairing, a pundit Wonder Twins? In TV terms, they’re green-as-Shrek rookies, but Klein isn’t bothered:  Klein said he’s not worried that neither Spitzer nor Parker has extensive on-air hosting experience yet are joining forces for a new show in a punishing time slot. “We cast a very wide net, and after looking at scores of potential anchors, Kathleen and Eliot demonstrated they belong at the head of the pack,” he said. I’m sure you could find the same sales talk when CNN acquired Campbell Brown from NBC. That’s pretty empty blather — and at least Brown was a broadcaster, with no vice-squad “buzz.” Actually, Spitzer also had a Washington Post connection to tame the poison tip of the de Moraes pen: Recently, Spitzer has been doing the old phoenix-rising-from-ashes thing as a TV personality, as have so many fallen men before him. He got high marks when he subbed on MSNBC. (Spitzer is also a contributor to Slate.com, which is owned by The Washington Post Co.) Parker made the show sound like it would merge “Crossfire” with “Take 5,”  the hip-friends pundit show they tried with Jake Tapper in 2001. Parker told The TV Column the show’s goal is “to change people’s mind.” To that end, they are rounding up a stable of regular contributors for the show. “We’re looking for the smartest, coolest, hippest, funniest friends.” What she likes about the new show, she said, is that “we are from such different worlds in every way….And, I informed Eliot, there are lot more people like me than him.” This apparently means there are more opportunistic moderates (some who trash popular conservatives to get famous on TV and in the WashPost) than there are partisan liberals with a zipper problem. At least de Moraes rehashed Klein’s old trash talk when he killed “Crossfire” that “CNN is a different animal. We report the news. Fox talks about the news.” Klein told the Post writer “We think Eliot and Kathleen are a can’t-miss show. It’s like your favorite blog — you think, ‘I can’t really understand how to think about what’s going on today until I’ve checked out XYZ blogger.’ We think that’s how their show is going to feel.” Lisa went really, sadly soft here, or an editor slashed some copy: right next to Klein’s “different animal” boasting in the New York Observer in 2005  is his blogger-bashing: He dismissed bloggers as “guys in pajamas” (he coined the phrase while defending Mr. Rather on Fox News) and told NPR that pundit shows on cable news were “crack.” And: “There is always going to be an important role for the guys who grab the cameras and shoot the pictures of stuff that’s actually happening,” he said. “What happens after that in the great repurposing engine that is cable news and the blogosphere is out of our hands.” Already, Mr. Klein’s flip comments had hit the blogosphere. Mickey Kaus at Slate seemed all shook up that former Crossfire conservative Tucker Carlson had been unceremoniously released from service. “Boy, people at CNN do not like Jonathan Klein!” Mr. Kaus wrote. “Doesn’t he realize it’s hard to be a highly unpopular boss in the Web era, especially at a big media enterprise the press will pay inordinate attention to? Ask Howell Raines.” “It’s a little early for Mickey to be rooting for my downfall,” said Mr. Klein, who said he didn’t have time to read blogs. But earlier, Mr. Klein had been happy to compliment the blogs with an easy backhand: “I don’t think that blogging, which is, you know, glorified Web-site hosting — that’s what it is. I had a blog for a while, but I just didn’t have time,” he said. “I don’t think that blogs topple news organizations because of the difficulty of sifting through reliable information and mere opinion. But they certainly have arrived on the scene as a player.”

Read the rest here:
WaPo Paints the Spitzer-Parker Show as a ‘Democrat’ and a ‘Conservative’

earthquake Rochester NY June 23 2010

Reports of earthquake have been heard in Hackensack, Manhattan and Brooklyn, as well as Rochester, N.Y., and Erie, Pa. The U.S. Geological Survey said the rare earthquake struck the Ontario-Quebec border region of Canada, just north of Ottawa. The midday quake was felt in the city of Toronto in Canada and in a number of U.S. states, including Michigan, Vermont, New Jersey and New York. There were no immediate reports of injuries or damage, but the Bergen County administration building in Hack

Excerpt from:
earthquake Rochester NY June 23 2010

earthquake in Michigan June 23 2010

On Wednesday June 23, 2010. A magnitude-5.0 earthquake struck at the Ontario-Quebec border region of Canada on Wednesday, shaking homes and businesses from Toronto to the states of New York and Michigan, according to the U.S. The magnitude 5.0 quake – initially reported at 5.5 but later downgraded – hit around 1:41 p.m. today, according to the U.S. Geological Survey. Its epicenter was near the border of Quebec and Ontario, about 24 miles from Cumberland, Ontario. The depth was 11.2 miles. Fol

See the original post here:
earthquake in Michigan June 23 2010

Will Petraeus Do a Better Job in Afghanistan Than McChrystal?

Link:
Will Petraeus Do a Better Job in Afghanistan Than McChrystal?

CNN Mocks Obama Golfing During Oil Spill: ‘Just Plug the Darn Hole Mr. President’

CNN on Tuesday actually noticed the absurdity of folks bashing BP CEO Tony Hayward for yachting on the same day President Obama was golfing. National correspondent Jeanne Moos surprisingly began her “American Morning” piece, “It’s the yachting versus golf smack down, round one.” After showing average Americans complaining about Hayward’s R&R, Moos quipped, “But before you could spell BP CEO, President Obama’s golfing came under attack.” Children were shown expressing their displeasure with the Golfer in Chief, “In the two hours it takes to golf or to go yachting another one to 10,000 gallons of oil can leak out.” This led Moos to marvelously conclude, “Just plug the darn hole Mr. President” (video follows with transcript and commentary, h/t Hot Air’s Ed Morrissey ):  JEANNE MOOS, CNN NATIONAL CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): It’s the yachting versus golf smack down, round one. BP’s CEO gets pummeled for taking a day off to watch his yacht race. UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: How dare he just take off. UNIDENTIFIED MALE: The height of stupidity. UNIDENTIFIED MALE: How do you spell fool? MOOS: But before you could spell BP CEO, President Obama’s golfing came under attack. UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Almost five hours on the golf course with Biden. UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: And it should have been eight times between — MOOS: Actually, seven times. CBS White House correspondent, Mark Knoller, says already President Obama has played 39 rounds of golf compared to the 24 George Bush played his entire presidency, including some that got into a Michael Moore film. UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Stop these terrorist killers. Thank you. Now watch this drive. MOOS: Some equate President Obama’s golf to Tony Hayward’s yachting, two different men, two different jobs, one management style, the president’s defenders note a big difference. UNIDENTIFIED MALE: That’s the thing. He didn’t create that mess that is there. What do they want the man to do? Put a wet suit on and go down there and fix the pipe. MOOS: Meanwhile, Politico pondered the really important question, why is Tony Hayward’s yacht named Bob? Wondering if it had anything to do with the Bill Murray movie, “What About Bob?” Sailors so scared he has to be lashed to the mast. Now, Tony Hayward is being lashed. UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: I really think it was a disgrace. MOOS: On the other hand, surprisingly (ph), it was the first day off he’s had in two months. UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I really don’t care. UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Too bad. Look what he did. UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I’ll be damned if his life is a day off (ph). UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I think he’s probably do for a little down time. MOOS: But down time on the water can be a downer. Remember when presidential candidate, John Kerry, went wind surfing and it ended up in an attack ad. BP CEO is being mocked in an animation by a Taiwanese tabloid website. He sits on the beach, sending out a drink to a guy — drowning an oil from the mounts of bays (ph). UNIDENTIFIED KID: My mom doesn’t take a break like every two months. You don’t really need to take a break every two months to go and see a yacht race. UNIDENTIFIED KID: In the two hours, it takes to golf or to go yachting another one to 10,000 gallons of oil can leak out. UNIDENTIFIED KID: President Obama, I’m not sure he should actually be golfing right now. MOOS: Just plug the darn hole Mr. President. Jeanne Moos, CNN, New York. Readers should notice at 1:37 a screen shot of a NewsBusters piece on this subject published Sunday. Thanks for the plug, Jeanne – and NICE report. 

Here is the original post:
CNN Mocks Obama Golfing During Oil Spill: ‘Just Plug the Darn Hole Mr. President’

MSNBC Looks to Lefty Ed Schultz for Reaction on Obama’s ‘Brilliant’ Firing of McChrystal

Only 70 minutes after President Obama explained his decision to fire General Stanley McChrystal, Wednesday, MSNBC turned to leftist host Ed Schultz for analysis. Schultz gushed that the decision proved Obama is “brilliant on the basics.” He enthused, ” Well, as commander in chief, I think it’s probably President Obama’s finest hour ,” because it displayed toughness. Host Tamron Hall knocked McChrystal, referencing his role in the investigation of Army Ranger Pat Tillman. She derided, ” So, we know that McChrystal has a lot of, if you will, Xs on his report card. ” Hall and Schultz continued to frame the discussion from how it impacted the left. She worried, “For those on the left and progressives who are not happy with this war this Afghanistan who were disappointed when the President decided to commit more troops, what does that say that he’s emphasizing that this is not about policy, that he’s committed to the direction he’s chosen with this unpopular war?” Later in the hour, Hall brought on Ryan Grimm of the liberal Huffington Post to discuss McChrystal. MSNBC apparently spans the spectrum of the left and the far left. A transcript of the June 23 segment, which aired at 2:22pm EDT, follows: TAMRON HALL: We’re getting more reaction to the breaking news that top U.S. Commander in Afghanistan General Stanley McChrystal has been relieved of his command. He’s said to be replaced by General David Petraeus. Let’s bring in MSNBC’s Ed Schultz, the host of the Ed Show to react to it. Ed, I know you’re listening to a lot of callers on your radio show. You’ve got thoughts on this. What do you make of the President’s decision and what are the callers saying? ED SCHULTZ: Well, as commander in chief, I think it’s probably President Obama’s finest hour, because he’s answering a lot of critics with about how you wasn’t tough enough or couldn’t make a decision. Didn’t have any experience. This man went back to the basics. The President showed us that he’s brilliant on the basics. It’s about team. It’s about the civilian control, it’s about the democracy and how we work. And we’re not going to have anybody in a position of leadership and authority to go off and do what President- do what General McChrystal did. So I think the President was very clear and I personally got a sense in watching the President today that, you know, it just wasn’t the Rolling Stone article. It’s like there was other stuff there. That there’s a lot of stuff- HALL: Well, we know what happened last fall in London with the remarks made there. Also, the Pat Tillman investigation and what it has revealed, as well. So, we know that McChrystal has a lot of, if you will, Xs on his report card. SCHULTZ: True. And- But even beyond those as we know publicly there’s somewhat of a pattern there, I just got a sense that there was a little bit more and the President had somewhat of an angst about him. You know, I’ve had enough of this. He actually went back and paralleled a quote of President Truman about, you know, it’s not one person, not one war, something like that. But the President went to the basics: Trust, loyalty, the conduct code, deep rooted with the privates. All the way through, the discipline. You lose the discipline, you lose the break down of completing the mission and you compromise the mission. And now of course the story is General Petraeus, who I think, ironically, is probably going to get more bipartisan support than anything else in Washington. HALL: [Laughs] And you very well may be right on that as he’s been praised by Republicans many times over and some Democrats. But, let me ask you this: People talked about and have talked about the President’s response to the oil disaster. The critics say he’s shown weakness. His numbers show that most Americans are not confidence in the way he’s handled this. Where does this position him now? I know there are two very different issue, but it is about leadership with both. SCHULTZ: Well, I think the President personally did show leadership in the gulf from day one. He’s dealing with a multinational. There were contracts in it place that had to be adhered to when there is an oil spill and certain mechanisms had to kick in. No one predicted early on what this was going to evolve to. HALL: right. SCHULTZ: The administration was lied to by BP. First they said there wasn’t that much coming out and it grew as the days went on. And I thought the proper reaction was there by the President. So, I think he’s being wrongly criticized for it. The President goes out and gets $20 billion from a company that’s butchering our environment and the Republicans are criticizing him for it. I find it absolutely amazing. It just goes to show how divided we are in this country. HALL: And let me bring up something the President said regarding the transition from McChrystal to Petraeus. He said, “This has nothing to do with policy, nothing to do with personal insult.” For those on the left and progressives who are not happy with this war this Afghanistan who were disappointed when the President decided to commit more troops, what does that say that he’s emphasizing that this is not about policy, that he’s committed to the direction he’s chosen with this unpopular war? SCHULTZ: The President wants a successful mission. He’s going to get the right people in the right place to finish the job. And I’m sure that he probably turned to General Petraeus and said this is what the mission is, can you get it done. Petraeus went along with it, obviously. It’s about team, it’s about working together. The President was very clear that he encourages debate, but he does not want division. And you certainly don’t go out and air dirty laundry. Now, your question about the left. There are a lot of Americans out there who believe that this mission is a fool’s errand in Afghanistan. We’ve got a lot of issues at home, we’re gutting our infrastructure. But the President, to me, seemed very committed today to knowing that this is the strategy that we have to follow in his best judgment to make sure that we fight the terrorists on their turf. And so I thought the President was very clear on where he’s going on this.

Continued here:
MSNBC Looks to Lefty Ed Schultz for Reaction on Obama’s ‘Brilliant’ Firing of McChrystal

Silent on Obama Judicial Nominee’s Wild Legal Theories, Will Media Report Professional Misconduct?

Did you know that President Obama has nominated for a federal judgeship someone who believes a serial killer and rapist’s “sexual sadism” should be a cause to give him a less serious punishment? Probably not, since the media have given it almost no coverage . Robert Chatigny, nominated for the Second Circuit Court of Appeals, believes that sexual sadism should be what’s known as a “mitigating factor” in determining guilt and punishment for murder and rape. Counterintuitive as it may be, he thinks sexual sadism should be cause for a lighter sentence. On top of all this, today NewsBusters sister site CNS News reported that 13 years before Chatigny delayed the execution of one Michael Ross, a serial killer and rapist, he had served as Ross’s private defense attorney. Apparently he forgot to recuse himself. Will the media report this tidbit? CNS News reporter Fred Lucas wrote today , President Barack Obama’s nominee to serve on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit, Robert N. Chatigny, did legal work as a private defense attorney in 1992 for convicted serial killer Michael Ross and then, in 2005, as a federal district judge, led a proceeding that resulted in a delay in Ross’ execution. Chatigny says he forgot about the earlier work and should have recused himself from the matter. “Had I recalled it, I would have recused myself,” Chatigny wrote in a questionnaire last month for the Senate Judiciary Committee… In a written response to questions from Republicans on the Senate Judiciary Committee, Chatigny wrote, “I recalled my prior involvement only after one of the complainants amended his initial complaint to include a claim based on my prior involvement. Until then, I had no recollection of it.” Regardless of whether Chatigny is telling the truth about his poor memory span, isn’t this massive conflict of interest worth a report or two from major media outlets? The Senate will vote on his nomination soon. His record seems relevant. But apparently few in legacy media agree. Chatigny’s beliefs regarding sexual sadism have no grounding in any legal standard or precedent; he said so when asked by Sen. Jeff Sessions. He, Chatigny, just sort of thought it up and decided to implement the standard on his own. He is the product of the activist philosophy liberals strive to create in the judiciary. The media’s continued refusal to call Chatigny out on his reporting just demonstrates that they are, by and large, on board with this philosophy. Telling, though hardly surprising.

Visit link:
Silent on Obama Judicial Nominee’s Wild Legal Theories, Will Media Report Professional Misconduct?

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

MRC’s Bozell: Comedy Central’s ‘JC’ Has No Advertiser Support

Of the more than 300 corporate sponsors who have sponsored Comedy Central in the past, not a single one has indicated their intention to buy advertising time on the planned “JC” program should it ever be set to go to broadcast. That’s the victorious announcement today from Citizens Against Religious Bigotry (CARB), a group co-founded by NewsBusters publisher Brent Bozell and a handful of other social conservative activists. “The sponsors understand what the programming department at Comedy Central does not: Religious bigotry is bad business,” Bozell noted in a statement. “With literally zero advertiser support for this program, the only reason Comedy Central would put it on their broadcast schedule is in an effort to offend Christianity and Christians. There is no valid business reason for airing ‘JC,'” the Media Research Center founder argued.  Full the full press release, click here . For a complete listing of member organizations, and advertisers that were petitioned, visit www.CitizensAgainstReligiousBigotry.org .

Originally posted here:
MRC’s Bozell: Comedy Central’s ‘JC’ Has No Advertiser Support