Tag Archives: Cnn

Margaret Carlson: Only ‘Completely Masochistic’ Voters Would Elect ‘Almost Wacky’ Republican Sharron Angle

During the “Last Word” segment on Bloomberg Television’s Political Capital on Friday, Bloomberg News columnist Margaret Carlson – formerly of CNN and Time magazine – tore into Nevada Republican Senate nominee Sharron Angle – who will be taking on Harry Reid in November – as Carlson charged that Angle is “on the fringe, almost wacky,” and asserted that Nevada voters would have to be “completely masochistic” to vote for her. Carlson: You can’t beat somebody with somebody who’s as on the fringe, almost wacky, as Sharron Angle, unless the voters turn completely masochistic. She’s not just against (MEANT TO SAY “in favor of”) abolishing EPA, Energy, Education, phasing out Social Security, and getting rid of the income tax, she wants our nuclear waste to go to Nevada. Fellow panel member Kate O’Beirne of the National Review responded: “I’d hoped over the years I had built up Margaret’s tolerance for conservative women, but, sadly, that’s apparently not the case.” Below is a transcript of the relevant portion of the Friday, June 11, Political Capital on Bloomberg Television: MARGARET CARLSON: Harry Reid went to bed as happy as a man can be who’s in the crosshairs of the Republican party on Tuesday night because the least electable candidate won that race, Sharron Angle. You know, the old saying, “You can’t beat somebody with nobody,” you can’t be somebody with somebody who’s as on the fringe, almost wacky, as Sharron Angle, unless the voters turn completely masochistic. She’s not just against abolishing EPA, Energy, Education, phasing out Social Security, and getting rid of the income tax, she wants our nuclear waste to go to Nevada. You know, I’m happy to send it there, as most people who aren’t in Nevada are. AL HUNT: That’s very generous of you, Margaret. Let me ask Kate, do you agree Harry Reid now is looking a lot better? KATE O’BEIRNE: Al, I’d hoped over the years I had built up Margaret’s tolerance for conservative women, but, sadly, that’s apparently not the case.

View post:
Margaret Carlson: Only ‘Completely Masochistic’ Voters Would Elect ‘Almost Wacky’ Republican Sharron Angle

Kathy Griffin: Puts Levi Johnston on TV as ‘Middle Finger’ to Palin, ‘Strong Conservative’ Means ‘Idiot’

As left-wing comedian Kathy Griffin appeared on Friday’s Larry King Live on CNN, after the conversation turned to her “My Life on the D List” show’s trip to Wasilla, Alaska, featuring Levi Johnston, host King asked her about her “attraction” to Johnston, referring to talk of a relationship between the two which is rumored to just be a publicity stunt. The left-wing comedian asserted that “every time that I’m with Levi and put him in the public eye, I feel that it’s my very subtle middle finger to Sarah Palin.” Griffin then added, “Yeah, go ahead, Tweet me, Palin freaks, I don’t care anymore.” A few minutes later, as the subject turned to her taking her show to a Senate hearing about the Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell policy on gays in the military, Griffin recounted her meeting with Republican Representative Michele Bachmann, whom she referred to as a “moron,” and, after she seemed to perceive that King was uncomfortable with the insult as he noted that Bachmann has been on the show before and is a “strong, conservative person,” Griffin shot back: “Oh, boy, I didn’t know it was “Be Kind to Bachmann Day” because my word for that is ‘idiot.’” Below is a transcript of relevant portions of the Friday, June 11, Larry King Live on CNN: 9:28 p.m. KATHY GRIFFIN: Have you been to Wasilla? LARRY KING: No. GRIFFIN: It blows. I’m not gonna lie. KING: Yeah? GRIFFIN: It blows chunks, yeah. It’s not what we want the country to be like, when Sarah Palin said, you know, I would run the country, you know, you betcha, the way I run Wasilla, that’s not what we want. It’s a lot of boredom and then some crystal meth. Hey, go ahead, write your letters, I don’t care anymore. Go ahead, Tweet me about it. KING: What’s your attraction to Levi? GRIFFIN: I get him in a way that Bristol never did. And also, every time that I’m with Levi and put him in the public eye, I feel that it’s my very subtle middle finger to Sarah Palin. Yeah, go ahead, Tweet me, Palin freaks, I don’t care anymore. KING: Have you been intimate with Levi? GRIFFIN: Yes, I have. I’ve seen his Johnston. Have you? KING: No. GRIFFIN: It goes on and on- KING: Yeah? GRIFFIN: -for days. KING: Do you love him? GRIFFIN: Yeah. KING: He’s younger than you. GRIFFIN: Like a, like 30 years, not even that much. KING: Would you be serious with him? GRIFFIN: Yeah, that’s right, I would be very serious, in a committed, monogamous relationship. KING: Well, how’s it going, then? GRIFFIN: It’s, well, you know, now that I got a painting from Erik Menendez, I feel that I’m seeing other people. I mean, I’m torn. It’s like the Thornbirds, you know what I mean? It’s like a forbidden love. … 9:32 p.m. KING: You took the show to Washington for an episode. What was that like for you? GRIFFIN: It was fantastic because I learned a lot about how things work on the Hill, and I’m, you know, doing whatever I can to help repeal Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell. I have many, many friends in the military after having been to Iraq and Afghanistan and Kuwait and all those places.

Congrats To Arianna On Her ‘Best’ Webby!

One has to give credit where credit is due. The Huffington Post is 2010’s ‘People’s Voice Winner for Best Political Blog’ and Arianna Huffington will receive her Webby Monday night in New York City. We are in awe of her humility… ‘I need to decide what this year’s speech should be, and would love your input. Submit your five-word speech in the comments section. We’ll publish the best ones on Monday… and if I end up using yours Monday night, you’ll get a signed copy of my new book, Third World America, as soon as it is published in September. ‘Okay, HuffPosters… start your creative engines!’ — Arianna Huffington , Help, I Need a Five-Word Speech for the Webby Awards! One can only be judged in this business by the accolades of one’s peers, and here’s a taste of the acknowledgments of those who admire the non-partisan, tolerant, inclusive Huffington Post most. Remember, Ms. Huffington once said that the fact Republicans read her site “is a reflection of our traffic, our brand, and the fact that we are increasingly seen … as an Internet newspaper, not positioned ideologically in terms of how we cover the news.” Those who voted for HuffPo’s victory are quite aware of their celebrated reputation for journalistic integrity… Huffington Post Defends Clooney’s “Faked-Up” Blog Entry Huffington’s House of Horrors The Huffington Post Slammed for Content Theft Plagiarism At The HuffPo Stossel Talks Politics With Huffington The Huffington Post as a News Source: An In-Depth Look The Missing Dirt On Arianna Huffington HuffPo Hugs a Domestic Terrorist : Bill Ayers Has a Column at Huffington Post The HuffPo Gets to Question Obama — Making History The Huffington Post’s War on Medical Science: A Brief History Huffington Post Smear of Gibson Uses Doctored Video For Huffington Post, Left Is Right The Puffington Host: The Many Versions Of Arianna Huffington, And Their Consequences Huffington Post: “Palin Will Run in ‘12 on More Retardation Platform” HuffPo Retracts False Limbaugh Quotes; When Will CNN & ThinkProgress? HuffPo’s Misogyny: The NSFW Path to Liberal Journalism Success” Arianna Huffington’s Journalism Charity Helps Nobody but Herself “How I Did It,” by Arianna Huffington Has the Huffington Post Become a Magnet for Israel Haters? Some of our older and more traditional news outlets are nowhere near as celebrated and respected as the Huffington Post (which has only been around since 2005). We should all strive to become Arianna Huffingtons. The world of journalism would be a better place for you and for me. h/t Huff-Watch

Original post:
Congrats To Arianna On Her ‘Best’ Webby!

Media Continue War against BPA; Claim It Causes ‘All Sorts’ of Health Problems

Toys, food, packaging. Chemicals are in them all. The media make a living by sensationalizing the potential dangers of just about everything in our modern world. Bisphenol-A (BPA), a chemical found in many plastic items, was no exception . The news media have been scaremongering about BPA for years, even going so far as to compare it to tobacco at one point, but a cautious tone from the government and left-wing junk science prompted recent hyperbole from reporters. Reuters warned of a ” potential carcinogen in my soup ,” June 9. News website Newser.com took the fear-mongering a step further calling BPA ” a known carcinogen ” in a May 19 story about the “dangerously high” levels of BPA in canned food and drink. But according to the American Chemistry Council, a trade group representing the chemical industry, BPA is not a known carcinogen. Its website says “based on sound, robust scientific evidence, some government bodies around the world have concluded that BPA is not carcinogenic in humans .” The Food and Drug Administration’s (FDA) latest report on BPA, a chemical used to harden plastic and a primary ingredient in the plastic resin that protects the flavor of food in metal cans, said that studies “have thus far supported the safety of current low levels of human exposure to BPA.” New results from the National Toxicology Program caused FDA to request more research about the effects of BPA and recommended “reasonable steps” to “reduce” exposure, particularly in infants and children. FDA made it clear that BPA has not yet been proven harmful to humans at current levels. Scientific evidence hasn’t prevented the news networks from trying to scare the public away from BPA. In an interview on the Feb. 25 CBS “Early Show,” food critic Katie Lee told co-anchor Harry Smith to avoid plastic containers for leftover food because they usually contain BPA. “And that’s been shown to cause liver disease, heart failure, all sorts of things,” Lee claimed. Smith chimed in saying, “I think it’s already been banned in Canada.” Smith was wrong about Canada – they didn’t ban the chemical outright, rather they banned the chemical from use in baby bottles. Neither Lee nor Smith consulted any scientists, or mentioned anything about the many studies that have confirmed the safety of BPA. Health News Digest pointed out that more than 5,400 scientific journal articles have been published on the safety of BPA. The FDA has deemed BPA safe for years, only choosing to caution people about “some concern” relating to children and infants in 2010. The FDA made it clear that more research was needed before the agency would decide to regulate the chemical. But that hasn’t stopped the network news media from warning viewers not to use BPA products because they “cause” health problems. Jeff Stier of American Council on Science and Health reacted to the May 2010 canned good study saying, “Of course BPA is ‘linked’ to obesity and cancer, because these people linked it. There’s no causal relationship, but you can say there is a link between anything you want, just based on animal studies.” A Junk Science Study Stirs Up Media against BPA In May 2010, the left-wing, pro-regulatory group U.S. PIRG sent out a press release about the National Workgroup for Safe Markets’ study of canned foods and drinks in which they claimed “alarming levels” of BPA were present in common canned foods. “BPA is a synthetic sex hormone and exposure to low doses has been linked to abnormal behavior, diabetes, heart disease, infertility, developmental and reproductive harm, and obesity, which raises the risk of early puberty, a known risk factor for breast cancer,” the PIRG released claimed. That press release also touted liberal Sen. Dianne Feinstein’s, D- Calif., support for legislation to ban BPA in cans and other food and beverage containers. Feinstein is trying to add an amendment to ban BPA to S. 510, the FDA Food Safety Modernization Act . The media quickly repeated the scary study’s findings that BPA was found in 92 percent of canned goods tested. Reuters hyperbolically headlined its story: “Waiter, there’s a potential carcinogen in my soup.” CBS “Morning News” warned that “A new study finds food and drink from metal cans may be contaminated with a chemical linked to a number of disorders. And some lawmakers want the chemical banned.” While CBS’s Sandra Hughes mentioned that the study was tiny – only 50 cans were tested – she expressed no skepticism about the results on May 19. Her story was also stacked against BPA with two interviewees in favor of avoiding canned foods or banning the chemical, and only a statement from the Chemical Industry Council. On May 18, CNN took the study seriously enough that Elizabeth Cohen impractically advocated that people should “start your own garden” just before saying that the people who wrote the study “think that a lot of BPA can make you infertile.” Robert L. Brent, MD, PhD, D.Sc., and adviser to the American Council on Science and Health condemned the study as a lot of hype designed to frighten the public. Brent said, “The National Workgroup for Safe Markets publication wasn’t intended to educate the public about risks, but to frighten unsophisticated scientists and the public. We should respond to such garbage with good science.” He explained that human exposure to BPA has “been exhaustively studied.” After mentioning different studies that have bee done, Brent said “the important point is that human serum concentrations of BPA are very, very low, far below any expected toxic effects.” “The overwhelming scientific evidence points to the conclusion that at current human exposure levels, BPA is not toxic – and specifically is not linked to the myriad diseases outlined in the National Workgroup for Safe Markets report released earlier this week,” Brent concluded. Coca-Cola also hit back against the study telling Reuters, “A person weighing 135 pounds (61 kg) would need to ingest more than 14,800 12-ounce cans of a beverage in one day to approach the FDA’s acceptable daily limit for BPA consumption.” But Reuters buried Coca-Cola’s statement and other information about the large amounts of BPA that would have to be ingested to be compared to rodent tests, waiting until the 38 th paragraph of its 55 paragraph story to bring it up. BPA Scare: 2008-2010 Journalists have hyped the dangers of BPA for years, despite evidence to the contrary. Back in April 2008, NBC’s “Today” warned about the reproductive dangers of ingesting BPA from reusable plastic water bottles. NBC had already campaigned against ordinary plastic water bottles, arguing that they were bad for the environment. But the miniscule levels of BPA found in reusable water bottles is thousands of times less than what levels linked to rodent health problems, according to Dr. Gilbert Ross of ACSH. But that didn’t stop “Today” from warning against many types of water bottles, including the popular Nalgene brand. “[I]n the meantime, you can always check that number on the bottom [the indicator of what type of plastic used is],” reporter Michelle Kosinski said, “or just go back to old-fashioned glass.” Some reporters have advocated a return to glassware without stating the obvious inconvenience (try biking with a heavy glass water bottle) and danger (glass shatters). In 2009, the crusade against BPA continued. MSNBC’s Dr. Nancy Snyderman, raised concerns about BPA saying “It’s a synthetic estrogen that some scientists believe can be linked to everything from breast cancer to obesity. We associate it with plastic water bottles, but now Consumer Reports says that BPA is even in canned foods.” But even Snyderman had to admit the study was inconclusive and based on “soft science.” Her guest New York Times columnist Nicholas Kristof continued to hype the danger by comparing BPA to tobacco: “To me, it feels a little bit like tobacco in the 1970s when, you know, there is growing evidence and scientists understand the causal pathways and we don’t entirely understand at what dosage and at what stage of life those adverse consequences really build up.”  Like this article?  Sign up  for “The Balance Sheet,” BMI’s weekly e-mail newsletter.

Read more here:
Media Continue War against BPA; Claim It Causes ‘All Sorts’ of Health Problems

Gulf’s Oil-Soaked Birds: Rescue or Kill?

By Eliott C. McLaughlin, CNN June 10, 2010 6:18 p.m. EDT A brown pelican coated in heavy oil tries to take flight on East Grand Terre Island, Louisiana. Some experts see it as a well-meaning flight of fancy. To others, cleaning a bird soaked with oil from the Gulf of Mexico is the only chance it has for survival. In the case of the brown pelican, removed last year from the endangered species list, it may be the only way to save the entire lot. “It's like triage on a battlefield. You have to weigh where you can have your best success,” said Ginette Hemley, the World Wildlife Fund's senior vice president for conservation strategies and science. Earlier this week, a German biologist painted a less rosy picture in an interview with the magazine Der Spiegel. Silvia Gaus of the Wattenmeer National Park said it was more humane to euthanize the birds because they will suffer a painful death regardless of whether the oil is scrubbed from their feathers. “According to serious studies, the middle-term survival rate of oil-soaked birds is under 1 percent,” Gaus told the magazine. “We, therefore, oppose cleaning birds.” The statement spotlighted a similar statement in 2002 from the World Wildlife Fund, which said it was reluctant to advise cleaning birds after the Prestige spill off the coast of Spain. In that incident, a sunken tanker dumped about 20 million gallons of oil off the Galician coast. The fund issued a statement earlier this week saying its 2002 remarks could not fairly be applied to the situation in the Gulf of Mexico. Thursday marked Day 52 of the gusher. “In many cases, WWF believes there is value in trying to clean and rehabilitate wildlife, especially if productive, viable adult animals can recover from exposure to oil,” the release said. “But every situation is different, and it is too soon to fully calculate the impact the Gulf spill will have on the long-term viability of populations of many species in the region.” Hemley said it could take up to three years to determine the spill's total impact on wildlife. According to Wednesday's U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service numbers, rescue officials have collected 1,075 birds. Of those, 442 were alive and “visibly oiled.” Another 633 were found dead, and 109 of those were visibly oiled. The report states BP's Deepwater Horizon spill is not responsible for all dead birds. “How long will the birds survive that have been cleaned and released? We don't know yet,” Hemley said, explaining it depends on a variety of factors. Included are how quickly the bird was saved, the bird's age and size and the length of exposure to the oil, she said. Lee Hollingsworth, a wildlife adviser with the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds in Wales, said other concerns are the level of saturation and how much oil a bird has ingested. Seabirds' feathers are weatherproofed by natural oils, stimulated by a gland in their lower back. This is why birds nuzzle their tail feathers when they're preening, Hollingsworth said. “If that gland is damaged,” he said, “then that no longer secretes oil.” Other rescue methods, such as holding the birds in captivity to protect them or moving them to a new habitat, can be dangerous as well, he said. Captivity is stressful, and changing a bird's environment introduces it to new prey and predators, whereas it was accustomed to its food and enemies in its natural habitat. Many birds are quite specialized, he said, and don't do well in artificial, foreign or zoo-like environs. The Welsh society joined the World Wildlife Fund in 2002, saying that heavily oiled birds could not be helped. But on Thursday, Hollingsworth said the 8-year-old statement was specific to the situation in Spain, which happened in chilly November. The Gulf is warm, which could bode well for the birds, he said. “The majority of [birds affected by the Prestige incident] didn't survive anyway. That, again, is due to the ingestion of oil and weatherproofing,” he said. Hollingsworth said many people cleaning birds are working for charities that don't receive much government funding, and it's important for such groups to prioritize their efforts and target areas where they'll do the most good. In the Gulf of Mexico, that may mean focusing on brown pelicans. The birds, which are native to the Atlantic Coast and eastern Gulf, spent almost 40 years on the endangered species list until last year . “The chances of success increase every time we deal with one of these unfortunate situations. … Hopefully we're getting better at this. –Ginette Hemley, World Wildlife Fund When salvaging just a few birds is so vital to the survival of a species, Hollingsworth said, “something has got to be done, and of course it's worth saving the bird.” Despite conflicting studies on the viability of washing birds, there are plenty of success stories. The International Bird Rescue and Research Center, which is working in the Gulf, cites several examples on its website. After the 2000 Treasure spill off the coast of South Africa, rescuers saved 21,000 African penguins and released about 19,500 birds back into their colonies, according to the center. The website notes rescuers also saved 32 snowy plovers after the 1999 New Carissa spill off the Oregon coast, 180 king eiders after a 1996 spill near Alaska's Pribilof Islands and 175 waterfowl after California's Santa Clara River spill of 1991. “It may seem like a small number but it was significant to us, as we knew what those animals endured being covered in very heavy and thick oil,” wrote Jay Holcomb, the center's executive director. Hemley said the wildlife fund would generally “err on the side of recovering birds.” After all, she said, it's not costly to rinse the birds and let them rest before scrubbing them with Dawn, the dishwashing liquid whose motto once was, “Takes grease out of your way.” Rescuers are always looking to improve on their methods for saving animals, and they've learned a lot since the 1969 Santa Barbara oil spill off the coast of Southern California, she said. “The chances of success increase every time we deal with one of these unfortunate situations,” Hemley said. “Hopefully we're getting better at this.” added by: EthicalVegan

Daily Kos Mourns ‘Such a Good-Natured Woman,’ That Helen Thomas

Even as she sneered that the Jews should “get the hell out of Palestine,” Helen Thomas could easily find fervent defenders in the hard-left environs of the Daily Kos. Some of them couldn’t believe such a sweet and good-natured woman would be demonized. The blogger “General Choomin” literally claimed that on Tuesday night:  This diary is mostly about the smear campaign aimed at Helen Thomas and how right wing propaganda easily mixes with Israeli propaganda. It is a story that people would label me as crazy if I didn’t have the facts to back it up. How could such a good natured woman have so many people denounce her without even knowing the effort that went into it? How could so many people turn their backs on her even though she served her country in a way that most civilians never could ? Perhaps these people should try being on the other end of one of her rants before they try to paint her as Sweet Polly Purebred. “Chipoliwog” agreed on Tuesday that Helen the “patient heroine” had been wronged and her legacy of greatness was unappreciated:  Yesterday, the world lost the voice of one of it’s greatest journalists. Lost to the exigencies of political correctness. Hoisted on her own petard. Gone is the legacy of over 60 years of aggressive truth seeking journalism. Fearlessness in the face of power. A voice that had garnered the respect and fear of 12 or more Presidents of the United States. So undaunted by power that she would even ask a hard question immediately after being praised by such Presidents. Gone is the patient heroine that endured the blatant humiliation of the just previous President who banished her to the back of the room and not once called on her during his term. [ Not true . Just wrong.] Ms. Thomas’s mistake has been seized upon but her apology has not. Her legacy of speaking truth to power, of shining the light on corruption, and the propensity of Man’s inhumanity to Man is snuffed out. This blogger should have really headlined this blog “This Will Induce Vomiting.” The Kosmonauts were upset that Barack Obama wasn’t risking his own image by joining them publicly in hailing her as a brave and truthful freedom fighter:   What I had hoped for in the election of Barack Hussein Obama was that integrity and authenticity would rule the day. What I wanted to hear from the President was that Helen screwed up and perhaps seriously. But to remind the American people that this person should be remembered for her long enduring accomplishments in defense of freedom. Instead, what we got was him either playing the same game or being played by that game. So White House press corps, in the era of false equivalency passing for journalism, who among you can ever presume to rise to Ms. Thomas’s mantle? Who will speak truth to this and future Presidents? Who will be the gadfly when others are sycophants? On Monday, “Sluggahjells” was the first Kosmonaut to the barricades, smelling an AIPAC conspiracy to gin up a mob against this wonderful journalist: Whether you believe her statements or not, Thomas knows that saying things like that in public would come with the risk of dealing with a mob like [CNN’s Ed] Henry and all using the chances they can get to rid of her once and for all. Especially when AIPAC always hovering around. There just seemed like there was no way she was going to survive this one. Still though, thank you DC Stenography society of stupidity for going after an 89 year respected wonderful journalist instead of doing your job and calling out your other colleagues who said controversial cringe like things about Muslims over the years.

Excerpt from:
Daily Kos Mourns ‘Such a Good-Natured Woman,’ That Helen Thomas

CNN’s Sanchez Highlights ‘Big Oil’ Cash to Republicans, Omits Obama

On Wednesday’s Rick’s List, CNN’s Rick Sanchez twice highlighted how “several Republicans want to keep the cap on what oil companies pay for spills at $75 million” and how apparently that’s about “how much they [oil companies] spend on campaign contributions to politicians each year,” but omitted that President Obama was the top recipient of money from BP during the 2008 election cycle. Sanchez first made those statements during a segment just after the beginning of the 3 pm Eastern hour, as he reported on left-wing organization Code Pink’s interruption of a hearing of the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee earlier on Wednesday. Before playing a clip of the protest, the CNN anchor stated how Diane Wilson “disrupted a Senate hearing this morning by pouring oil all over herself.” He continued that Wilson “was arrested, but not before she interrupted Republican Senator Lisa Murkowski, who is tied, many would argue, to big oil in Alaska.” Sanchez didn’t mention that the protester is one of the co-founders of Code Pink . However, CNN.com’s article on the protest did acknowledge that Code Pink released a statement from Wilson on her publicity stunt. After playing the clip of the protest, the anchor tried to further tie Murkowski and other Republican senators to the oil industry: “Murkowski, by the way, is one of several Republicans who want to keep the cap on what oil companies pay for spills at $75 million. Imagine that for a moment- they would only pay $75 million, if they chose to, after all the damage that’s been done in the Gulf of Mexico, which is, ironically enough, about how much they spend on campaign contributions to politicians each year.” Speaking of campaign contributions to politicians, a May 5 article on CNN.com recognized that “the top recipient of BP-related donations during the 2008 presidential election was Barack Obama, who collected $71,000, according to the nonpartisan Center for Responsive Politics.” Despite all his attention on Republicans, Sanchez didn’t give this key detail. The same Center for Responsive Politics noted on its OpenSecrets.org website that “individuals and political action committees affiliated with oil and gas companies have donated $238.7 million to candidates and parties since the 1990 election cycle.” That’s just under $12 million per year over 20 years, so one wonders where the CNN anchor got his figure from. Sanchez didn’t use his “tied to big oil” line during his recap of the report just after the top of the 4 pm Eastern hour, but repeated his statement about Murkowski and the “several Republicans.” He again failed to mention Wilson’s membership in Code Pink. SANCHEZ: First of all, I want to show you something that might illustrate the frustration with the oily mess in Gulf of Mexico the best. this is Diane Wilson, a distraught shrimper. She wrote a book about the environmental impact in the Gulf. She disrupted a Senate hearing this morning by pouring oil all over herself right there in front of all these folks. She was arrested, but not before interrupting Republican Senator Lisa Murkowski of Alaska. Here it is. SENATOR LISA MURKOWSKI: It’s been a couple weeks now since you have been before the committee. I think last time you were here, the oil from the (unintelligible)- DIANE WILSON (off-camera): We’re tired of the bailouts and we’re tired of being dumped on in the Gulf. I’m a commercial fisherman from the Gulf of Mexico, and we’re tired of being dumped on. SENATOR JEFF BINGAMAN (off-camera): Let me announce to the protesters to please exit the room and allow us to proceed with our hearing. MURKOWSKI: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. SANCHEZ: ‘We are tired of being dumped on.’ Murkowski, by the way, is one of several Republicans who want to keep the cap on what oil companies pay for spills at $75 million. Imagine that for a moment- they would only pay $75 million, if they chose to, after all the damage that’s been done in the Gulf of Mexico, which is, ironically enough, about how much they spend on campaign contributions to politicians each year.

Link:
CNN’s Sanchez Highlights ‘Big Oil’ Cash to Republicans, Omits Obama

Lindsay Lohan’s Lawyer Says SCRAM Bracelet Detected Alcohol

Actress avoided jail time after posting $200,000 bail for the violation. By Mawuse Ziegbe Lindsay Lohan at the 2010 MTV Movie Awards Photo: Kevin Winter/ Getty Images In the wake of Lindsay Lohan ‘s SCRAM alcohol-monitoring bracelet being set off, her lawyer says the device did detect the physical presence of alcohol. As The Associated Press reports, Shawn Chapman Holley issued a statement Tuesday saying the SCRAM bracelet indicated the presence of “a small amount of alcohol” on Sunday night. The troubled actress avoided jail time Tuesday after posting $200,000 bail for violating a court order banning her from consuming alcohol. While the fact that the device was set off may appear problematic, Lohan’s lawyer declined to confirm whether alcohol was indeed present in the actress’ system: “Having just received the report, I am not in a position to speak to its accuracy or validity, however Ms. Lohan maintains that she has been in complete compliance with all of the terms of her probation and her bail.” The SCRAM bracelet detects alcohol consumption through the measurement of the wearer’s perspiration. The device then sends information about the blood alcohol content to Alcohol Monitoring Systems, which manufactures the bracelet. As the bracelet not only detects alcohol from ingesting beverages, wearers are told to avoid consuming products that may also contain alcohol, such as mouthwash, cologne and perfumes. Lohan is familiar with the SCRAM bracelet, as the actress volunteered to wear the device following her 2007 DUI arrest. Lindsay’s estranged father, Michael, also weighed on in the actress’ situation. CNN reports that the elder Lohan said in a written statement that his daughter’s violation demonstrates that Lindsay needs help. “It’s FINALLY clear and obvious that Lindsay has a severe addiction problem,” Michael Lohan asserted in a statement to CNN. “How many mountains do I have to shout from? How much longer do I have to get slammed for trying to bring attention to this horrible situation, to get my daughter the help she needs, because I love and care about her.” The actress took to Twitter to deny that she had violated her probation. “My scram wasn’t set off,” Lohan tweeted. “It’s physically impossible considering I’ve [done] nothing for it to go off-All of these false [reports] are absolutely wrong.” Lohan is due back in court July 6. Related Artists Lindsay Lohan

Read the original here:
Lindsay Lohan’s Lawyer Says SCRAM Bracelet Detected Alcohol

Sarah Palin wants Obama to call her

(CNN) – Sarah Palin says its time for President Barack Obama to pick up the phone and make some calls – maybe even to her. In her latest post on Facebook, the former Alaska governor takes aim at the president for not speaking directly with BP CEO Tony Hayward during the ongoing Gulf Coast crisis. Obama told NBC Tuesday that he has not spoken with Hayward because “when you talk to a guy like a BP CEO, he's gonna say all the right things to me – I'm not interested in words, I'm interested in actions.” Palin wrote that Obama's comments amount to “further proof that it bodes well to have some sort of executive experience before occupying the Oval Office,” and added that the president should call experts who lived through the 1989 Exxon-Valdez oil spill in Alaska – including herself. “We've all lived and worked through the Exxon-Valdez spill,” she wrote. “They can help you. Give them a call. Or, what the heck, give me a call.” “Based on my experience working with oil execs as an oil regulator and then as a Governor, you must verify what the oil companies claim – because their perception of circumstances and situations dealing with public resources and public trust is not necessarily shared by those who own America's public resources and trust,” Palin added. In the lengthy Facebook post, the former vice presidential nominee also revives battles of the 2008 presidential campaign while targeting Obama's lack of executive experience. “My experience (though, granted, I got the message loud and clear during the campaign that my executive experience managing the fastest growing community in the state, and then running the largest state in the union, was nothing compared to the experiences of a community organizer) showed me how government officials and oil execs could scratch each others' backs to the detriment of the public, and it made me ill,” she said. added by: TimALoftis

CNN’s Gupta: Womb is a ‘Sacred Space’ and a ‘Safe Refuge’ for ‘Babies’?

CNN anchor Dr. Sanjay Gupta refreshingly made an implicitly pro-life argument during a report about how toxic chemicals possibly affect the unborn children: “Here in the womb, enveloped in darkness and warmth, a baby’s life begins in earnest. It is a sacred space: pristine, insulated, more than nine months of safe refuge from the world outside ” . Dr. Gupta made that statement as he gave a voice-over for the first segment of his “Toxic Childhood” special, which first aired on Thursday evening at 8 pm Eastern. CGI of a baby in the womb played as he described the “sacred space.” The anchor continued on this note in his first question to Dr. Frederica Perera of Columbia University: ” We imagine a baby sort of nice and safe and tucked away in the womb , impervious to all the assaults that occur on the body. You say, not so fast?” So Gupta twice referred to the unborn human as a “baby.” Despite this pro-life language, the CNN anchor failed to mention the liberal affiliation of the Environmental Working Group, an organization whose study he cited during the report, and how they are a project of the Tides Foundation . On two earlier occasions as well, Gupta leaned towards the pro-abortion side. During a December 19, 2008 segment , he included only one pro-life voice among several statements and clips from pro-abortion groups opposed to the expansion of health care workers’ right not to participate in controversial procedures such as abortion and in-vitro fertilization. The doctor also failed to correct former President Clinton after he repeatedly referred to human embryos as not being fertilized during a March 11, 2009 interview. Over the past year, CNN has slanted several times towards the pro-abortion position. Correspondent Carol Costello’s June 2, 2009 report highlighted a prediction by former Washington Post reporter Cynthia Gorney that there would be a “huge backlash” against pro-lifers after the murder of late-term abortionist George Tiller. CNN senior legal analyst Jeffrey Toobin fretted in a November 23, 2009 column that “abortion, as the academics like to say, is being marginalized.” Earlier in 2010, CNN.com attacked black pro-lifers and anchor Kyra Phillips conducted a softball interview of a woman who Tweeted her abortion as it took place. On the other hand, CNN’s Anderson Cooper spotlighted a woman who decided not to abort her infant daughter despite her severe genetic defects during a June 2, 2009 interview .

View post:
CNN’s Gupta: Womb is a ‘Sacred Space’ and a ‘Safe Refuge’ for ‘Babies’?