Tag Archives: bush

Obama Admin’s IT Outsourcing Assistance to Sri Lanka, Armenia Gets Little Press Notice

On August 3 (“U.S. To Train 3,000 Offshore IT Workers”), InformationWeek.com’s Paul McDougall reported that the U.S. Agency for International Development is operating at cross purposes with the Obama administration’s stated goal to keep high-tech jobs in the U.S. USAID has since attempted to do some backing and filling about the assistance it is providing in Sri Lanka, but its arguments may ring hollow, given McDougall’s report two days later that the agency is also helping to fund IT outsourcing efforts in Armenia. Here are the first four paragraphs of McDougall’s original August 3 report : Despite President Obama’s pledge to retain more hi-tech jobs in the U.S., a federal agency run by a hand-picked Obama appointee has launched a $36 million program to train workers, including 3,000 specialists in IT and related functions, in South Asia. Following their training, the tech workers will be placed with outsourcing vendors in the region that provide offshore IT and business services to American companies looking to take advantage of the Asian subcontinent’s low labor costs. Under director Rajiv Shah, the United States Agency for International Development will partner with private outsourcers in Sri Lanka to teach workers there advanced IT skills like Enterprise Java (Java EE) programming, as well as skills in business process outsourcing and call center support. USAID will also help the trainees brush up on their English language proficiency. USAID is contributing about $10 million to the effort, while its private partners are investing roughly $26 million. A short time later, Patrick Thibodeau at Computerworld (“Basic skills, not enterprise Java, in Sri Lanka”), relayed USAID’s contention that relevance of java to the Sri Lankan effort would only be in whatever coffee might be used to keep students awake and alert (that’s my “clever” interpretation, not his). He also offered a humanitarian justification for the effort: The U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID), which is helping to fund development of Sri Lanka’s offshore outsourcing industry, says it made a mistake in announcing that it would provide training on enterprise Java as part of a basic IT work skills program, an agency spokeswoman said today. … The inclusion of enterprise Java was curious because the USAID also said, in a subsequent follow-up blog post about this training, that the population in this area has “not been exposed to even basic IT technology.” … A USAID spokesman wrote this: “USAID’s partner in the project, a Sri Lankan company, initially requested to teach Enterprise Java to students that may qualify. However, after conducting due diligence, the partner found that the training programs must focus on fundamental computer skills, as the majority of prospective trainees lacked even basic experience with computers.” … The Northern area of Sri Lanka has seen much killing, including massacres. The war has been particularly brutal, with as many as 100,000 people killed over the course of the war and this in a country with a total population of just over 21 million. The war was settled last year and now the government is trying to stabilize this area with some economic development assistance. A correct translation of the bolded paragraph would be: They really wanted to do it, but they couldn’t. Even if the effort in Sri Lanka isn’t harmful to U.S. economic interests, the same probably can’t be said of what McDougall reported on August 5 (“Now It’s Armenia: USAID Funds IT In Eurasia”) about USAID’s involvement in Armenia: Even as controversy mounts over its funding of IT outsourcers in South Asia, the U.S. Agency for International Development has announced a program under which it will partner with the government of Armenia—a nation anxious to lure computer work from American shores–to promote the development of the country’s information technology industry. Jonathan Hale, USAID deputy assistant administrator for Europe & Eurasia, is on a four-day trip to Armenia to meet with government and private industry leaders in the country. On his agenda is a meeting with Armenian economic minister Nerses Yeritsyan. “We look forward to partnering with USAID on the IT sector, which has great potential as Armenia has an advantage in this sector,” Yeritsyan said in a statement released by USAID. “We want companies to come to Armenia and create their innovative environments,” Yeritsyan said. Among other things, Armenia is looking to establish itself as a center for low-cost IT and engineering work outsourced from the U.S. and other Western countries. … USAID, a taxpayer-funded federal agency, did not disclose how much it’s contributing to Armenia’s efforts to become a global IT competitor. Among the U.S. companies participating in the project is Oracle’s Sun Microsystems unit. Apart from what the Obama administration appears to be doing to ruin it, the more recent trend has been to pull call center work, much of which is related to IT support, back from overseas installations. I noted in a May 30 post (at NewsBusters ; at BizzyBlog ) industry reports that the call centers actually grew during the worst of the 2008-2009 recession as normal people define it . More tangible evidence of this trend is found at this link . Though it goes back to March of 2009, it cites eight specific and significant instances of companies each deciding to “onshore” hundreds of jobs in the U.S. that either had been outsourced overseas, or would have been in previous years. In the AT&T case cited at the link, thousands of jobs are involved. Though there have been stories in other tech publications about the Sri Lankan and Armenian situations since McDougall’s reports, the U.S. establishment press appears to be disinterested. A Google News search on “Sri Lanka outsourcing” (not in quotes) comes up with few results. A deeper dig into those results shows no U.S. establishment newspaper coverage. There is a mention at a blog post at the Seattle Post-Intelligencer , but it turns out to be from a commenter. Associated Press searches on ” Sri Lanka ” and ” Armenia ” (neither in quotes) return nothing relevant. Given “how American jobs disppearing overseas” was a popular establishment and sometimes valid media and Democratic Party theme during the Bush 43 years, it’s a little hard to handle any journalistic contention that a clearly proactive, government-sponsored effort to do just that isn’t sufficiently newsworthy. Cross-posted at BizzyBlog.com .

View post:
Obama Admin’s IT Outsourcing Assistance to Sri Lanka, Armenia Gets Little Press Notice

Raise My Taxes, Mr. President!

We can’t afford the Bush cuts anymore. For the last few months, we have heard powerful, passionate arguments about the need to cut America’s massive budget deficit. Republican senators have claimed that we are in danger of permanently crippling the economy. Conservative economists and pundits warn of a Greece-like crisis, when America can borrow only at exorbitant interest rates. So when an opportunity presents itself to cut those deficits by about a third—more than $300 billion!—permanently and relatively easily, you would think that these very people would be in the lead. Far from it. The Bush tax cuts remain the single largest cause of America’s structural deficit—that is, the deficit not caused by the collapse in tax revenues when the economy goes into recession. The Bush administration inherited budget surpluses from the Clinton administration. What turned these into deficits, even before the recession? There were three fundamental new costs—the tax cuts, the prescription-drug bill, and post-9/11 security spending (including the Iraq and Afghanistan wars). Of these the tax cuts were by far the largest, adding up to $2.3 trillion over 10 years. According to the Congressional Budget Office, nearly half the cost of all legislation enacted from 2001 to 2007 can be attributed to the tax cuts. Those cuts are set to expire this year. The Republicans say they want to keep them all, even for those making more than $250,000 a year (less than 3 percent of Americans). They say that higher taxes will hurt the recovery. But for months now they have been arguing that the chief threat to the economy is our gargantuan debt and deficit. That’s what’s scaring consumers, creditors, and businesses. Given a chance to address those fears by getting serious about deficit reduction, though, they run away. Look by contrast at British Prime Minister David Cameron, a genuine fiscal conservative. To deal with his country’s deficit, which in structural terms is not so different from America’s, he concluded that he would have to raise taxes as well as cut spending. added by: TimALoftis

As GM Plans IPO, AP Finally Makes Prominent Reference to Drivers’ ‘Resentment’ of Bailout

In what I believe is the first direct acknowledgment by the wire service of what so many have known for so long, the Associated Press’s Tom Krisher wrote the following in an August 5 story about plans for an initial public offering by government-controlled General Motors (bolds are mine throughout this post): Ever since the Obama administration gave the automaker a $50 billion dollar survival loan last year, many drivers have scorned the company and bought cars from rivals. Even though GM has cut costs, changed leadership, and reported its first quarterly profit since 2007, the resentment will linger as long as taxpayers have a 61 percent stake in the company. Actually, the “resentment” goes back to December 2008, when the Bush administration bowed to pressure to use Troubled Asset Relief Program funds to “temporarily” loan a combined $13.4 billion to GM and Chrysler. Also, the total bailout dollars involved are at least $63 billion when GMAC is included, as it should be. If you have relied exclusively on AP reports and its news feeds to subscribing publications since then, Krisher’s assertion that “drivers have scorned the company” would more than likely be the first time you have seen an AP reporter record that observation. Any AP reporter covering the company almost any time in the intervening 20 months could have observed the existence of the scorn and resentment. But if this factor has ever been directly cited by an AP reporter covering the car industry until now, I haven’t seen it. In January 2009, the first month after those “loan” funds were disbursed, year-over-year sales at GM fell 49% . In previous months, the struggling automaker’s year-over-year declines had been in the 30% range. In just one month, the company’s sales decline in the recessionary economy went from roughly matching those seen at archrivals Ford and Toyota to about what cratering Chrysler was experiencing. GM’s sales plunge of 42% during last year’s first five months was far worse than Ford’s or Toyota’s, though not quite as bad as Chrysler’s. During 2009, I only recall two instances where AP got into the neighborhood of explaining what was really going on. The first was in  a May 1, 2009 story in the wake of April’s sales releases: Detroit’s Big Three is becoming Ford and the other two. While its rivals stay afloat with billions in government aid, Ford grabbed a bigger slice of the American car market in April with record sales of its fuel-efficient Fusion. … Most of those gains (at Ford) came at the expense of General Motors and Chrysler, which unlike Ford are dependent on federal help. Later in the report, the AP’s Kimberly S. Johnson and Dan Strumpf quoted an analyst who tied Ford’s success to Chrysler being in bankruptcy court and GM’s near-certain arrival there. Clearly those concerns were relevant, but the unmentioned scorn and resentment were already quite visible. An early June 2009 Rasmussen poll confirmed it : “The government bailout and takeover of General Motors remains very unpopular among the public. Just 26% of Americans believe the bailout was a good idea, and nearly as many support a boycott of GM products.” The other instance of near recognition came in the eighth paragraph of an early November 2009 report (covered at NewsBusters ; at Bizzyblog ) about October’s sales results. In that item, Krisher and Dee-Ann Durbin wrote: Ford Motor Co.’s sales rose 3 percent and it gained U.S. market share for the 12th time in 13 months as its critically acclaimed vehicles continue to grab buyers from rivals. Ford has benefited from consumer goodwill because it didn’t take government bailout money or go into bankruptcy protection, as General Motors and Chrysler did. That’s fine, but it’s one thing to note that customers like the company that wasn’t bailed out. It’s quite another to assert that many resentful customers and potential customers abandoned GM and Chrysler because they were bailed out. Also, Ford wasn’t necessarily the only beneficiary of anti-GM and anti-Chrysler sentiment. So why now? Why did the AP have to wait for GM Chairman Whitacre to say what he said before acknowledging what all of us already knew? Has the wire service seen protecting the company as part of its mission until now? If so, why? Finally, Krisher cannot prove his claim in the opening excerpt that “the resentment will linger as long as taxpayers have a 61 percent stake in the company.” It’s very likely — I would suggest virtually certain — that the resentment will linger until the government sells its entire stake in the company. It’s also not unreasonable to believe that for some, especially those who remember how the government and the company “ripped off” unsecured bondholders during bankruptcy proceedings, the resentment will last a long, long time even if the government fully divests. Cross-posted at BizzyBlog.com .

Continued here:
As GM Plans IPO, AP Finally Makes Prominent Reference to Drivers’ ‘Resentment’ of Bailout

Bethenny Getting Married Season Finale: Finding a Balance

It’s all about balance. That’s what Bethenny Frankel learned on last night’s season finale of her reality show, as both business and baby beckoned. As usual, a THG intern has reviewed the episode in depth, sharing her snark with readers below. Take it away! I have to say that for a finale episode, this one was quasi-boring.

Cindy Sheehan Says Stop Voting for Either Wing of the War Party, Calls for Impeaching Obama

During the campaign, many colleagues and friends of mine, assured me that Obama was just saying this hostile crap to “get elected” and once he was elected that he would “do the right thing.” Well, first of all, why support such a pandering Jackwagon, and secondly, how has that ever worked? Three days after Obama swore to uphold and defend the Constitution, he drone-bombed a “target” in Pakistan killing 3 dozen civilians—and since that day he has elevated the art of drone bombings to new heights, while the so-called antiwar movement looks on in silent complacency and while Democratic operatives disguised as antiwar groups are hoping against hope that Obama comes out strong with a new antiwar marketing campaign to assure his “re-election.” Even though not one progressive issue has been propagated during his term, these war supporters are looking forward to another four years of the dance of death. Right foot kill—left foot torture—spin around for environmental devastation—allemande left for health care fascism—and shimmy right for bankster bailouts. Wasn’t eight years of this crap during the Bush stain enough for y’all? Many antiwar groups and people who claim they are for peace lose their minds during election season thinking that the razor-thin difference between the Democrat and Republican is enough to go ape-shit crazy in working for the Democrat. Just take the last two Democratic candidates, for example. Kerry and Obama both supported more war. An “antiwar” movement de-legitimizes itself when it works hard for a candidate who does not promise total and rapid withdrawal of troops from wherever they happen to be at the time AND does not promise to end war as an imperial tool of corporate conquest. The majority of the so-called antiwar movement, in fact, voted for a candidate that PROMISED to contract one war only to be able to profoundly EXPAND another. Obama all along said that he is not against all war, just “dumb wars.” If there existed an antiwar movement that had integrity—it would have said that “all wars are dumb,” and we withhold our support for just another dyed-in-the-wool warmonger. Read More at the Link: http://beforeitsnews.com/story/109/389/Cindy_Sheehan_Says_Stop_Voting_for_Either… added by: TomTucker

Nets Which Promoted NAACP’s Attack on Tea Party Treat Sherrod as Victim; NBC First to Voter Intimidation

ABC and CBS last week jumped to advance the NAACP’s charge of racism within the Tea Party movement with friendly stories which provided corroboration for the allegation as neither identified the left-wing group’s ideology. On Tuesday night, however, the ABC and CBS evening newscasts had a sudden concern for the accuracy of the racism charge leveled against a USDA official via video posted by BigGovernment.com , a group the networks were quick to label “conservative” as they painted Shirley Sherrod as a victim of distorted editing of the video of her remarks – as if the news media never does that. Meanwhile, the NBC Nightly News, which last week managed to refrain from promoting the NAACP’s anti-Tea Party agenda, ran a full story on Sherrod and BigGovernment.com’s “lie,” but also ran the very first broadcast network story on the Justice Department’s refusal to pursue the New Black Panther Party voter intimidation case. “We turn now to a story about race, politics and what constitutes a rush to judgment,” ABC anchor Diane Sawyer intoned. (Last week: “The NAACP has just adopted a resolution this evening at its annual convention condemning quote, ‘racist behavior by Tea Party members.’”) Jake Tapper referred to “a conservative Web site posting a video clip of Department of Agriculture official Shirley Sherrod at an NAACP event talking about meeting with a white farmer…” He noted the NAACP, which had condemned Sherrod, later in the day “reversed course, saying they’d been snookered by conservative media.” On CBS, Katie Couric announced: “Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack defended his decision to fire a black official who was accused of discriminating against a white farmer. But the ousted official denies the allegation and so does a farmer.” (CBS Evening News anchor Harry Smith last week: “The Tea Party movement has come under fire from the NAACP. The accusation: the party tolerates racism in its ranks.”) On Tuesday night, CBS’s Jan Crawford cited how Sherrod’s remarks “lit up the blogosphere after a conservative Web site this week aired it and suggested there was reverse racism in the administration,” but “Sherrod then angrily answered. She told CNN she was unfairly forced out by a White House skittish about issues of race.” Crawford also noted how the NAACP blamed distorted editing for fooling them: “They said the speech was deliberately edited to create a false impression of racial bias.” On NBC, Brian Williams set up a full report on the controversy unleashed by the video clip “posted on a conservative blog” and Mark Whitaker, the NBC News Washington Bureau Chief, fretted over lies on the Internet: Mark Twain said, a century ago, that a lie can get make its way half way around the world before the truth has its shoes on. That’s just been intensified, both in term of the viral nature of these stories, but also, as we’ve seen, the potential to edit them and distort them before they get out there.  NBC also aired the first broadcast network look at the New Black Panther Party case as Brian Williams introduced a full story from Pete Williams: Another story involving race and politics. It’s been gaining traction and attention. This started with amateur video of two men standing at the entrance of a Philadelphia polling place during the last presidential election. One of them was holding a club, many of those who’ve seen the video see it as a clear case of voter intimidation at a polling place. But the Justice Department did not, they dropped the case without saying much about it. From last week: July 13 : ABC Hypes NAACP Indictment of Tea Party as Racist, a Smear the Network Stoked July 14 : CBS Uses Al Sharpton to Boost NAACP’s Accusation Tea Party is ‘Tolerating Bigotry’ The MRC’s Brad Wilmouth provided these transcripts of the stories from ABC and CBS on Tuesday night, July 20: ABC’s World News: DIANE SAWYER: And we turn now to a story about race, politics and what constitutes a rush to judgment. It involves a black federal employee, a tape posted on the Internet, and what she says was misinterpretation about statements she made decades ago. And the White House reacted. Jake Tapper reports. JAKE TAPPER: It was combustible. A conservative Web site posting a video clip of Department of Agriculture official Shirley Sherrod at an NAACP event talking about meeting with a white farmer. SHIRLEY SHERROD, FORMER USDA EMPLOYEE, IN VIDEO: I was struggling with the fact that so many black people had lost their farm land, and here I was faced with having to help a white person save their land. So I didn’t give him the full force of what I could do. TAPPER: Last night, an Obama administration official called Sherrod in her car and demanded she pull over and type a resignation letter in her Blackberry. Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack said in a statement that “There is zero tolerance for discrimination” at his agency. None of them bothered to learn that the incident in question happened 24 years ago when Sherrod worked for a nonprofit. TAPPER ON PHONE TO SHERROD: The question is, why would you look at the white farmers differently than you looked at the black farmers? SHERROD: Because I always, up to that point, I felt they had all of the advantages. TAPPER: Then, in 1986, she changed her mind, as she said in the speech. SHERROD: That’s when it was revealed to me that it’s about poor versus those who have. TAPPER: In your view, your story was about how race shouldn’t matter with people. SHERROD: Right. And they turned it into saying that I’m a racist. TAPPER: And you’re not? SHERROD: You better believe it. TAPPER: And the white farmers in Sherrod’s story agree, and credit her with saving their farm. Roger and Eloise Spooner from Iron City, Georgia, consider Sherrod a friend. ROGER SPOONER, FARMER: If it hadn’t been for her, we would have, it wasn’t a matter of a few months and we would have lost it. TAPPER: And, Diane, earlier today, the NAACP was applauding Secretary Vilsack’s decision, but just a few minutes ago, they reversed course, saying they’d been snookered by conservative media, wanted Sherrod reinstated. Secretary Vilsack is standing by his decision. Diane? SAWYER: Quite a TV drama today. Thank you, Jake Tapper. CBS Evening News: KATIE COURIC: Meanwhile, in Washington today, Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack defended his decision to fire a black official who was accused of discriminating against a white farmer. But the ousted official denies the allegation and so does a farmer. Here’s our chief legal correspondent Jan Crawford. JAN CRAWFORD: It started with a speech by USDA official Shirley Sherrod describing her attitude 24 years ago toward a white farmer. SHIRLEY SHERROD, FORMER USDA OFFICIAL: And here I was faced with having to help a white person save their land. So I didn’t give him the full force of what I could do. CRAWFORD: That comment in a speech to the NAACP lit up the blogosphere after a conservative Web site this week aired it and suggested there was reverse racism in the administration. Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack reacted swiftly. He said today the USDA  had zero tolerance for discrimination and fired Sherrod for those comments. TOM VILSACK, USDA SECRETARY: When I saw the statements in the context of the statements, I determined that it would make it difficult for her to do her job as a rural development director. CRAWFORD: But, as with so many issues of race, there is a lot more to this story. Sherrod said later in the same speech she was wrong and ultimately helped the man save his farm. But that statement didn’t get out on the Internet. And when the farmer and his wife heard the charges against the woman who helped them 24 years ago, they were shocked. ROGER SPOONER, FARMER: She was just as nice as she could be to us. As far as race, I think somebody just wants to start something. CRAWFORD: Sherrod then angrily answered. She told CNN she was unfairly forced out by a White House skittish about issues of race. SHERROD, ON CNN: I had at least three calls telling me the White House wanted me to resign. CRAWFORD: Vilsack said the decision was his alone. VILSACK: So I made this decision. It’s my decision. Nobody from the White House contacted me about this at all. CRAWFORD: But in this growing controversy, this much is clear: Shirley Sherrod, now out of a job, helped Roger and Eloise Spooner. SPOONER: She saved our farm, 400 and some acres, almost 500 acres. She saved our farm. CRAWFORD: Now, while Secretary Vilsack said this issue is closed, but the cables having a field day and the blogs anything but done, the Secretary may be in for a surprise. Katie? COURIC: And, Jan, I know the NAACP initially condemned Sherrod’s remarks, but now that organization has put out a new statement. CRAWFORD: Katie, they just released a statement. They said they were snookered by these initial reports, they were completely changing course on this. They’re urging the Secretary to reconsider firing her, and they said the speech was deliberately edited to create a false impression of racial bias.

Go here to read the rest:
Nets Which Promoted NAACP’s Attack on Tea Party Treat Sherrod as Victim; NBC First to Voter Intimidation

Newsweek Mocks ‘Poor Little CEO’s,’ Attacks Private Sector

The news media love to bash businesses and support regulation, so Newsweek’s mockery of the CEO class and claims that they accomplished nothing between 2001 and 2009 shouldn’t be a surprise. In his July 20 ” Poor Little CEO’s ” story, Newsweek’s Daniel Gross, known for his ” tea bagging ” comments and staunch defense of Obama , derided a July 12 “Jobs for America” summit held by the U.S Chamber of Commerce, the Business Roundtable, and the National Federation of Independent Business. Gross mocked the jobs summit saying it was “a little like BP holding a deepwater-drilling safety summit.” He also blamed corporate America for a “lost decade” that ended with “the deepest recession since the Great Depression.” “Between 2001 and 2009, corporate America designed the playing field to its specifications – easy money from the Federal Reserve; lower taxes on capital gains, dividends, and income; an administration that let industry essentially write its own regulations,” Gross claimed. On the contrary, the Bush administration passed the Sarbanes-Oxley Act which policed mark-to-market accounting with criminal penalties, hardly a regulation “designed” to corporate America’s “specifications.” As for the “lost decade,” the Bush Administration oversaw 52 months of job creation in a decade despite constant media assault. Gross criticized both the Bush and Obama administrations for being “remarkably solicitous” to big business and for their regulatory policies not going far enough: “What’s more, many of the policies recently put in place are quite friendly to big business.” As an example he cited one company, General Electric, ignoring the many other businesses threatened by Obama’s policies. Friendly? A financial reform bill that includes a consumer financial protection bureau and the Volcker Rule is not “friendly.” Additionally, President Obama has hardly been “friendly” to businesses, from forcing the ouster of General Motors’ CEO to his constant anti-business rhetoric .

Go here to read the rest:
Newsweek Mocks ‘Poor Little CEO’s,’ Attacks Private Sector

Google, scarier than we all think?

SANTA MONICA, Calif., July 19 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ — Citing new information about Google's classified government contracts and the Internet giant's admitted Wi-Spying activity, Consumer Watchdog today said it is more imperative than ever for the Energy and Commerce Committee to conduct hearings into possible privacy violations by Google. In a letter to Committee Chairman Henry Waxman and Ranking Member Joe Barton, the nonpartisan, nonprofit public interest group's John M. Simpson wrote: “Based on today's Washington Post, it appears that Google holds classified U.S. government contracts to supply search and geospatial information to the U.S. government. In addition, White House records show that Google executives have been holding meetings with U.S. national security officials for undisclosed reasons. Finally, it also appears that Google's widely criticized efforts to collect wireless network data on American citizens were not inadvertent, contrary to the company's claims.” “As history has repeatedly shown, alliances between the U.S. intelligence community and giant corporations that collect data on American citizens can be a toxic combination where the U.S. Constitution is concerned,” the letter said. In a June 9 letter to the Energy and Commerce Committee, Google director for public policy Pablo Chavez asserted that Google “mistakenly included code in our software that collected samples of 'payload data'” from private WiFi networks. But review of a patent application from Google covering the gathering of WiFi data published Jan. 28 shows that the data collection program was a very deliberate effort to assemble as much information as possible about U.S. residential and business WiFi networks. The letter continued: “…what the patent does show is that Google's recent claims about how the Street View program was designed are not accurate, and that the company always intended to collect and store the 'packets' of wireless data that contain so-called payload information. “The patent makes repeated reference to 'capturing' packets, including paragraph [0055], which states that the system will enable geolocations so long as the equipment being used 'is able to capture and properly decode a packet…' “This raises serious questions about whether Google has engaged in a reckless effort to amass private data without giving any thought to the possible misuse of that information, and whether it can be trusted to safeguard the information it collects from the prying eyes of the U.S. government.” Read the patent here: http://insidegoogle.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/07/US20100020776.pdf Read the letter here: http://insidegoogle.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/07/LtrWaxman071910.pdf In addition, White House visitor logs show that Alan Davidson, Google's Director of Public Policy and Government Affairs, has had at least three meetings with officials of the National Security Council since the beginning of last year. One of the meetings was with White House senior director for Russian affairs Mike McFaul, while another was with Middle East advisor Daniel Shapiro. It has also been widely reported that Google has been working in “partnership” with the National Security Agency, the very same government body that illegally intercepted the private communications of millions of Americans during the Bush administration http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/googles-wi-spying-and-intelligence-ties-… added by: littlwarrior

Media That Accused Fox of Shilling for Bush Yawn at Zuckerman’s Ties to Obama

Days after Mort Zuckerman, the Editor-in-Chief of U.S. News and World Report,  claimed to be close to President Obama’s advisors, the national media have yet to express any interest. Of the few outlets that mentioned it, the White House’s denial was taken as gospel truth, and no more investigation was apparently warranted. What a difference when the sitting president is a Democrat. Under the Bush Administration, the media were obsessed with linking the White House to Fox News in an effort to accuse Republicans of spreading propaganda. Yet now that U.S. News is linked to Obama, suddenly such allegations are quickly dimissed. For a taste of the double standard, observe two different reports from Politico. First is a post on Tuesday concerning Zuckerman: Real Estate and media mogul Mort Zuckerman raised eyebrows all over yesterday with the claim on Fox that he “helped write one of [Obama’s] speeches,” and his subsequent refusal to go into it right now. Among those with reason to be puzzled, a White House source tells me, were Obama’s speechwriters, Jon Favreau and Ben Rhodes. Neither “has ever met or spoken to Mort Zuckerman” and the two have “been closely involved in every speech the President has given since 2005,” said the official. Zuckerman has met President Obama a few times and no doubt encountered other Administration officials, and he could well have suggested a theme to the president or another aide. But the question of what he “helped write”  remains a bit of a mystery. Those three small paragraphs comprise Ben Smith’s entire report. President Obama is denying the story, so that’s just that. Was that kind of trust extended to Republicans under President Bush? Not so much. Here’s Politico giving space to one Matt Stoller in 2007: First, we argued that Fox News is not a news channel, but a propaganda outlet that regularly distorts, spins, and falsifies information. Second, Fox News is heavily influenced or even controlled by the Republican Party itself. As such, we believe that Fox News on the whole functions as a surrogate operation for the GOP. Treating Fox as a legitimate news channel extends the Republican Party’s ability to swift-boat and discredit our candidates. In other words, Fox News is a direct pipeline of misinformation from the GOP leadership into the traditional press. So, we have a self-proclaimed fan of Obama working as Editor-in-Chief of a major newspaper, but Politico isn’t much worried about bias seeping onto his pages. But when Fox News is perceived as being in the tank for Republicans, it’s apparently okay to launch accusations against them. In 2002, the Washington Post’s Bob Woodward revealed that Fox News head Roger Ailes had written a letter to President Bush immediately after the attacks on September 11. Woodward portrayed it as improper contact between the White House and the press, but Ailes insisted it was nothing more than an emotional letter from a scared citizen following a terrorist attack. The media jumped all over the controversy with fervor. On November 21 of that year, PBS News Hour filed a report on the scandal, with host Terrence Smith asking bluntly “is that an appropriate role for a journalist,” which set up a nice tee for Woodward to reply “he’s not supposed to do it.” News Hour then provided input from Tucker Carlson: Roger Ailes is the editorial chief of fox news [sic], and this gives the appearance of partisanship. This is sucking up to power. Then CNN’s Arthel Neville: Does that shed new light on, “we report, you decide,” Jack? And of course an expert from Harvard: Mr. Ailes has had a very close relation with a number of Republican presidents. I doubt this is a letter — despite what he said in the Washington Post — I doubt this is a letter that he would have sent to [Democratic President] Bill Clinton. The current reaction to Zuckerman’s claim of advising public officials? Mostly crickets. Salon covered the incident if only to promptly insist “it is safe to say that this is not true” and Zuckerman’s rebuttal was “kind of sad.” A search for Mort Zuckerman on Google News reaps scant results, mostly from blogs, and certainly nothing like the accusations launched against Fox News. Curiously missing is someone to accuse Zuckerman of “sucking up” to Democrats. No one took to the airwaves of PBS to suggest he wouldn’t have offered speechwriting help to a Republican. And no one sat on the air at CNN asking if U.S. News & World Report could be trusted as unbiased news. Any news source that is perceived as being friendly to Republicans is presumed to be a propaganda wing for the GOP. Yet when a well-respected editor openly flaunts his support of a Democrat, the media’s reaction is a collective shrug. Americans will probably never get the truth about exactly how close Zuckerman is to the White House – and that’s the way the media want it.

See the original post:
Media That Accused Fox of Shilling for Bush Yawn at Zuckerman’s Ties to Obama

Fox News Anchor in Screaming Fit

|main|dl9|link4|http2F%2F www.bvblackspin.com 2F072Fmegyn-kelly-and-kirsten-powers-joust-over-new-black-panther-civi%2F Fox News reporter Megyn Kelly (pictured) and New York Post columnist Kirsten Powers went at it recently, regarding charges from a former Justice Department lawyer that civil rights cases where whites are the victims are ignored. The case involves allegations against two New Black Panther Party members who were accused of intimidating white voters near the entrance to the polling place of a largely black neighborhood. The men allegedly called white voters “white devil” and said that once Obama was elected, they would be “ruled by the black man, cracker.” The Bush Administration, who many observers agree had a terrible civil rights record, brought suit against the men. The new administration, including Attorney General Eric Holder, dropped the charges because they did not feel there was much of a case. “To some, the civil rights laws are not meant to protect all Americans, they are meant to protect certain Americans,” said former Justice lawyer J. Christian Adams, a conservative who helped prosecute the New Black Panther Party case. The case has taken on a life of its own in conservative circles and on Fox News, where Kelly and Powers went at it. The two women tried to talk over one another for most of the “interview,” while Kelly accused Powers of not being informed about the case: “You don't seem to know what you're talking about,” Kelly said. “Where was this outrage when the Bush Administration … was dismissing cases where black people were discriminated against?” Powers asked. “The minute I challenge you, you say I don't know what I'm talking about.” “Because you don't,” Kelly responded. At one point, Kelly threatened Powers, saying, “Don't make me cut your mic.” Although Kelly was louder, Powers held her own, saying the case was really about “the scary black man thing.” She also called Adams a “conservative activist posing as a whistleblower” and said this one case should not “provoke hysteria” as it has because action was taken in the form of an injunction. The Bush Administration, meanwhile, stocked the civil rights division with conservatives while failing to prosecute many civil rights cases involving blacks. “It's ridiculous to accuse the Obama Administration of not doing anything when they have,” said Powers. “Two wrongs make a right,” Kelly kept repeating. Mediaite columnist Colby Hall said the interview displayed “remarkably uncomfortable levels not normally seen on any cable news program.” added by: TimALoftis