Tag Archives: country

Gulf Oil Plume Gone, Eaten By Newly Discovered Microbes

Analysis by Berkeley Lab revealed the dominant microbe in the dispersed Gulf of Mexico oil plume was a new species, closely related to members of Oceanospirillales family. Image: Terry Hazen via Science Daily . In what seems a deus ex machina or perhaps deus ex gaia moment, scientists from Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory report that the miles-long deep sea oil plume which resulted from the BP oil spill has essentially vanished, apparently eaten by micro… Read the full story on TreeHugger

Continue reading here:
Gulf Oil Plume Gone, Eaten By Newly Discovered Microbes

7 Green College Campus Programs Making the Grade

Photo via Jessica.Tam @ Flickr A single college or university can produce an almost immeasurable amount of waste each year — and when you multiply that by all of the schools in the country, and the world, those numbers add up. But some schools are taking their conservation efforts beyond recycling bins and CLF bulbs with everything from on-campus community gardens and programs that reach out to student renters to bike incentive programs for commuters — and that’s success you can count on…. Read the full story on TreeHugger

Read this article:
7 Green College Campus Programs Making the Grade

Can psychedelic drugs treat depression?

– Pamela Sakuda, 57, was anxious and depressed. After two years of intensive chemotherapy for late-stage colon cancer, and having outlived her prognosis by several months, she'd finally lost hope. She was living in fear and was worried how her impending death would affect her husband. Sakuda's doctor prescribed antidepressants, but they didn't do any good. So, at her wits' end and feeling that she had nothing to lose, Sakuda volunteered for an experimental depression treatment being studied at UCLA. In January 2005, with a pair of trained therapists at her side, Sakuda took a pill of psilocybin — a hallucinogen better known as the active ingredient in “magic mushrooms.” It may seem far-fetched that a psychedelic drug associated with muddy hippies at Woodstock would help a cancer patient at a university hospital. Yet it's an increasingly familiar scene. Although mind-bending drugs such as psilocybin are still used most often by people looking to get high, researchers around the country have begun to explore whether these and other illegal drugs can help treat intractable depression, anxiety, and other mental-health problems. added by: singrrr

ABC Singles Out ‘Hard-line, Tea Party Conservative,’ Ignores Antics of Florida Democratic Candidate

Good Morning America’s Jon Karl on Tuesday characterized a Republican senatorial candidate in Alaska as a “hard-line, Tea Party conservative” and someone who ” has also been known to attract assault weapon-baring weapon supporters at his political rallies .” He added, “In a recent interview on ABC’s Top Line, [candidate Joe Miller] suggested that unemployment benefits are unconstitutional.” [MP3 audio here .] Karl played a clip of Miller asserting, “The unemployment compensation benefits have got to- first of all, is not constitutionally authorized. I think that’s the first thing that has to be looked at. So, I do not favor their extension.” Yet, Karl and GMA ignored one of the day’s other big primaries, involving Democratic senatorial candidate Jeff Greene. The Florida hopeful has endured gaffes revolving around drugs, strippers and Mike Tyson. But, Karl made no mention of this. And while Miller was at least making a constitutional argument, wouldn’t the colorful, controversial statements by Greene also warrant a mention? Instead, Karl pivoted to the GOP’s primary in Arizona and used more ideological labeling: “Senator John McCain up against another Republican, who has carved a position even further to the right.” A transcript of the August 24 segment, which aired at 7:09am EDT, follows: DAVID MUIR: We’re going to turn to politics this morning. And three states are holding primaries today. And the stakes are high for former Alaska Governor Sarah Palin. She’s not on the ticket. But she is throwing her support behind candidates in the race. And the big question this morning, does that endorsement actually help? Senior congressional correspondent Jonathan Karl now in Washington. John, good morning. JONATHAN KARL: Good morning, David. And today, we’ll see how much political clout Sarah Palin has in her own state. She has taken sides in the Republican Senate primary in Alaska, launching a tough attack against her state’s Republican incumbent senator. It’s momma grizzly versus momma grizzly. Sarah Palin is trying to oust Alaska’s Republican Senator Lisa Murkowsi. Palin has endorsed Murkowski opponent Joe Miller, suggesting that unlike Murkowski, he’s tough enough to take on the President. SARAH PALIN: He’s got the backbone to take on Obama’s radical agenda. By contrast, Lisa Murkowski has voted with the Democrats more than any Republican up for re-election this year. KARL: The race is a test of Palin’s clout in her own backyard. Palin scored some impressive victories earlier this year in the lower 48. Providing critical endorsements to Nikki Haley for governor in South Carolina, and Carly Fiorina for Senate in California. But, lately, Palin’s been on a losing streak. Over the last five weeks, Palin-endorsed candidates have lost in Georgia, Tennessee, Kansas, Colorado and Washington State. Palin’s candidate in Alaska is a hard-line, Tea Party conservative . In a recent interview on ABC’s Top Line, he suggested that unemployment benefits are unconstitutional. JOE MILLER: The unemployment compensation benefits have got to- first of all, is not constitutionally authorized. I think that’s the first thing that has to be looked at. So, I do not favor their extension. KARL: Miller has also been known to attract assault weapon-baring weapon supporters at his political rallies. MUIR: And, Jon, while we’ve been following that race in Alaska, I know you going to be following what’s going on in Arizona, too. Senator John McCain up against another Republican, who has carved a position even further to the right. KARL: That’s right. And this has been a tough challenge FOR john McCain against J.D. Hayworth, a former Republican congressman. McCain has spent a staggering $21 million to fend off this Hayworth challenge. But, also important to point out, David, McCain is yet another Sarah Palin-endorsed candidate. MUIR: $21 Million. More than he spent in any of his Senate campaigns. But, I want to ask you about the stem cell judgment from the federal judge, too, while we have you. It’s going to be the big issue in Washington today. Blocking President Obama’s executive order last year that had expanded embryonic stem cell research. What does that mean for labs this morning? And what was behind the decision. KARL: Well, this is a major decision. Scientists are scrambling to figure out what the implications are. But, it effectively puts an end, at least temporarily, to all federally-funded embryonic stem cell research. It is a temporary injunction, David. The judge said he believes as a lawsuit challenging the Obama policy goes forward, that all federal funding of research must stop because he believes there’s a good chance that the policy will be overturned by the court.

See original here:
ABC Singles Out ‘Hard-line, Tea Party Conservative,’ Ignores Antics of Florida Democratic Candidate

NBC’s Chuck Todd Projects ‘Democrats Are In Deep, Deep Trouble’

If Democrats weren’t nervous about November’s midterm elections yet, they could soon be, especially when you consider that even their allies in the liberal media are starting to forecast doom for them, as NBC’s Chuck Todd did on Tuesday’s Today show, going as far to predict “Democrats are in deep, deep trouble.” Todd, appearing in the 7am half hour of this morning’s Today show explained to viewers that ” The Tea Party has provided an enthusiasm boost to the Republican Party,” however he reminded Democrats that they still had “six weeks to turn this around” but then added that “if they don’t, they are headed for an historical defeat in November.” Interestingly though Todd and his NBC colleague Kelly O’Donnell, in her set up piece, didn’t exactly paint a big Republican win as a defeat for liberals, as they couldn’t even bring themselves to attach that label to any Democrats running in 2010. While Todd and O’Donnell used the “conservative” label a total of four times between them, neither of them used the “liberal” label even when they discussed Florida Representative Kendrick Meek who has a lifetime ACU rating of 7 and a lifetime ADA rating of 92 percent.  The following O’Donnell set-up piece and Todd segment were aired on the August 24 Today show: ANN CURRY: Now to politics. Voters are heading to the polls in five states today headlined by primaries in Florida and Arizona that pit the political establishment against Washington outsiders. NBC’s Kelly O’Donnell is in Phoenix this morning, with details on this. Kelly, good morning. [On screen headline: “Primary Day, Incumbents Battle Outsiders In November Preview”] KELLY O’DONNELL: Good morning, Ann. That’s right. From Phoenix to Florida to Fairbanks voters are deciding some of the most talked about races this year. They include well-known incumbents and some very interesting outsiders and including is John McCain, who will start right here. He has spent more than $20 million in campaign cash and some of that was left over from his presidential run in 2008. Senator John McCain says he has something to prove. JOHN MCCAIN TO VOTER: Thank you very much. O’DONNELL: Going for a fifth term in this anti-incumbent year. (Begin ad clip) MCCAIN: I appreciate your support. I ask for your vote. (End clip) O’DONNELL: Means fighting off a conservative challenger and that requires fighting against Barack Obama once again. MCCAIN: I’m running against his policies and what he and his administration have done to this country, but at the same time I’m running for Arizona. I’m running for jobs. I’m running for keeping people in their homes. J.D. HAYWORTH: I’d really be honored to have your support in the primary. O’DONNELL: Opponent J.D. Hayworth, a former congressman, accuses McCain of supporting amnesty for illegal immigrants. HAYWORTH: This is really true. O’DONNELL: McCain exposed a 2007 TV show where Hayworth was a pitch man on how to get free government money, hardly the Tea Party conservatism he talks about today. HAYWORTH: Even if they have some concerns about me and even shocking for me to feel that my personality may rub people the wrong way, the fact is they know I will vote against amnesty. O’DONNELL: Turning to Florida’s crowded senate race, Democrats are caught in a class struggle. KENDRICK MEEK: I’m the true candidate for the middle class. O’DONNELL: Miami Congressman Kendrick Meek has moved from long shot to leader in the polls up against self-made billionaire Jeff Greene, who’s glitzy social life gets him attention. The winning Florida Democrat will be in a three-man race in November against Tea Party conservative Marco Rubio and Governor Charlie Crist, who quit the Republican Party to run as an independent. And there’s a cold snap in Alaska’s Republican Senate primary. UNIDENTIFIED MAN: Hi, Senator. How are you? O’DONNELL: Incumbent Lisa Murkowski. LISA MURKOWSKI: I’m not working for the party. I’m working for Alaska. O’DONNELL: And Sarah Palin is working against Murkowski with a Facebook page endorsement of challenger Joe Miller. Palin writes, “Alaskans can trust Joe to not shed his conservative antlers in D.C.” And there’s some history there. Palin defeated Senator Lisa Murkowski’s father when Palin became governor. So there’s been a long rivalry there. And of course it all ties back here. Palin, of course, was here in the spring trying to help out her former running mate, at a time when he looked very vulnerable as one of the incumbents who was being targeted this year. But a lot has changed. Today McCain is the frontrunner with a double-digit lead. Ann? ANN CURRY: Alright Kelly O’Donnell this morning. Kelly thanks. Chuck Todd is NBC’s political director and the chief White House correspondent for NBC News. Chuck, good morning. CHUCK TODD: Good morning, Ann. CURRY: We just heard from Kelly that John McCain is ahead, at least according to the polls, by double digits. But he had to spend like $20 million while his opponent spent just about $3 million. So what does that tell us about what’s going on in Arizona, Chuck? TODD: Well look, John McCain had to do this the old-fashioned way in politics, he’s winning ugly. The $20 million was necessary. He always had about 35 to 40 percent of the Republican conservative electorate down there that wasn’t crazy about him, was upset about him on immigration, on taxes, on a number of issues. And so McCain had to disqualify J.D. Hayworth. And here is what we found out, Ann. As upset as voters are these days about Washington politicians, infomercial hucksters are even worse and that’s what McCain did. He completely disqualified J.D. Hayworth. The big question, Ann, that a lot of people in Washington have is, which John McCain comes back to Washington? Is it this new consistent conservative and is a consistent thorn in the side of President Obama or is it the guy from the early part of this decade who was unpredictable and he didn’t know which side of the aisle he’d come down on a different issue? CURRY: Let’s, let’s talk, move on to Florida. Why should the whole country be paying attention to what’s happening there? TODD: Well look this Democratic Senate primary, it’s kind of nuts, it’s kind of this, but a Kendrick Meek win, by the Miami congressman, means the Democratic establishment cannot flee the Democratic nominee there. They can’t go over to Charlie Crist. And the big picture is this. Florida held up the country on who was gonna be president in 2000. Because we don’t know which way Charlie Crist is gonna vote, if he’s gonna be with the Democrats or the Republicans, on election night if he wins – and there’s no guarantee he’s gonna win, this is gonna be a nutty three-way race, maybe the best campaign in this state since Claude Pepper lost because his sister was a thespian. But what we won’t know is whether, is whether, who’s gonna control the Senate? Charlie Crist could hold that up for weeks. CURRY: On the question of who is gonna control the Senate and actually Washington, are incumbents as weak as we thought they were going to be, Chuck? And what, what is what you’re looking at in terms of these races telling us about the true party of the Tea Party, true power of the Tea Party? TODD: Well look, here’s, here’s what we know. Look incumbents are not getting defeated in these primaries at a clip that a lot of people expected. There’s been a few high-profile exceptions. But the bigger picture is this. Democrats are in deep, deep trouble. The Tea Party has provided an enthusiasm boost to the Republican Party. They are as excited about voting as the Republicans have been since 1994. Democrats have about six weeks to turn this around because if they don’t, they are headed for an historical defeat in November. Losses that could not just include control of the House but also the Senate with or without this, the, what happens with Charlie Crist in Florida. It is that bad right now for Democrats, Ann. CURRY: Alright, on that note we’ve got leave it. Chuck Todd, always a pleasure. Thanks. TODD: You got it.

Here is the original post:
NBC’s Chuck Todd Projects ‘Democrats Are In Deep, Deep Trouble’

New MRC Report Exposes The Real Radio Hatemongers

The so-called “news” media have spent much of the past two decades demonizing the rhetoric of conservative radio talk show hosts as mean-spirited, divisive or a menace to civil discourse. But these same journalists — who gleefully castigate Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Mark Levin and other conservatives — are silent about the vile and vicious rhetoric that spews from the Left’s leading radio talk show hosts. Since late 2007, the Media Research Center has collected numerous examples of the outrageousness of left-wing radio hosts. And, unlike the Left — which attempted to smear Rush Limbaugh with phony quotes — readers can find an audio or video of every one of these quotes (46 in all) posted at our Web site: www.MRC.org . MRC’s new report includes examples of over-the-top rhetoric from left-wing hosts Mike Malloy, Stephanie Miller, Randi Rhodes, Ron Reagan, Jr., Ed Schultz and Montel Williams, all of whom currently or at one time broadcast to a national audience on either the Air America network or via XM and/or Sirius satellite radio. A few of the choicer examples: ■ Conservatives Want to Kill Barack Obama: “I really think there are conservative broadcasters in this country who would love to see Obama taken out.” – Ed Schultz, August 11, 2009. (Listen to the MP3 audio ). ■ Conservatives Are Terrorists: “Do you not understand that the people you hold up as heroes bombed your goddamn country? Do you not understand that Glenn Beck and Sean Hannity and Rush Limbaugh and Bill O’Reilly are as complicit of the September 11, 2001 terror attack as any one of the dumbass 15 who came from Saudi Arabia?” – Mike Malloy, January 19, 2010. (Listen to the MP3 audio ). ■ Conservatives Want You to Die: “If, in fact, the GOP doesn’t like any form of health care reform, what do we do with those 40 to 60 million uninsured?…When they show up in the emergency room, just shoot ‘em! Kill them!…Do we have enough body bags? I don’t know.” – Montel Williams, July 21, 2009. (Listen to the MP3 audio ). ■ Conservative Congresswoman Would Have Liked the Holocaust: “[Representative Michele Bachmann is] a hatemonger. She’s the type of person that would have gladly rounded up the Jews in Germany and shipped them off to death camps….This is an evil bitch from Hell.” – Mike Malloy, October 17, 2008. (Listen to the MP3 audio ). ■ Dick Cheney Eats Babies: “Cheney, by the way, looks very ruddy. I couldn’t get over that. Like, he must have feasted on a Jewish baby, or a Muslim baby. He must have sent his people out to get one and bring it back so he could drink its blood.” – Mike Malloy, October 22, 2009. (Listen to the MP3 audio .) ■ Dick Cheney Should Die: “He is an enemy of the country, in my opinion. Dick Cheney is an enemy of the country….Lord, take him to the Promised Land, will you? See, I don’t even wish the guy goes to Hell, I just want to get him the hell out of here.” – Ed Schultz, May 11, 2009 (Listen to the MP3 audio ). ■ Rush Limbaugh Should Die: “I’m waiting for the day when I pick up the newspaper or click on the Internet and find that he’s choked to death on his own throat fat, or a great big wad of saliva or something, whatever. Go away, Limbaugh, you make me sick.” – Mike Malloy, January 14, 2010. (Listen to the MP3 audio ). ■ Michele Bachmann Should Die: “So, Michele, slit your wrist! Go ahead! I mean, you know, why not? I mean, if you want to — or, you know, do us all a better thing. Move that knife up about two feet. I mean, start right at the collarbone.” – Montel Williams, September 2, 2009. (Listen to the MP3 audio ). Even more disturbing quotes can be found in the full report posted at MRC.org , some with very strong language. Keep these examples in mind the next time you hear a liberal huff and puff about how conservative radio hosts are supposedly ruining the quality of American public discourse. They need to clean up their own house, first.

Read this article:
New MRC Report Exposes The Real Radio Hatemongers

NYT: ‘More Americans – Not Just the Rich – Will Have to Pay More Taxes’

The New York Times on Tuesday declared what most conservatives knew would happen if Democrats took control of both Congress and the White House: “more Americans – and not just the rich – are going to have to pay more taxes.” In its editorial comically titled ” A Real Debate on Taxes ,” the Times predictably argued for a total elimination of the Bush tax cuts, although it favored some partial delay to this given the precarious state of the economy. That in itself was humorous as the Times clearly seems to get that raising taxes is indeed economically damaging. Yet maybe more telling was how this “real debate” didn’t once involve the spending side of the budget: President Obama is right when he says the country cannot afford to extend all of the tax cuts. He wants to let the tax cuts expire on the top 2 to 3 percent of American households (couples making more than $250,000 a year, individuals making more than $200,000) and permanently extend them for everyone else. The problem is that a permanent extension of the so-called middle-class tax cuts is also unaffordable. It makes sense to extend them temporarily, because the weak economy needs the boost. But more revenue will be needed in years to come to keep rebuilding the economy and meet health care and other obligations to retiring baby boomers. That means more Americans – and not just the rich – are going to have to pay more taxes. For all the politicians’ talk about deficits, no one is saying that. Hmmm. So, tax cuts for low, middle, and upper-middle income wage earners boosts the economy? But more “revenue” is needed to “keep rebuilding the economy and meet health care and other obligations to retiring baby boomers?” Why not just continue to allow Americans to keep more of their own money to give the economy a “boost” while working on ways for the federal government to exist on less revenue? How about exploring avenues to reduce the “obligations to retiring baby boomers” for example? As is typical from left-leaning publications, such logic was never broached. In fact, the words “spending,” “expenditures,” and “outlays” were nowhere to be found in this “real debate”: An honest debate needs to start with the numbers. The tax cut packages of 2001 and 2003 – heavily skewed to high earners – cut taxes by $1.65 trillion. In 2001, supporters argued that with the budget in surplus, the cuts were affordable. In 2003, they argued that the cuts would spur investment and growth and pay for themselves.   How does one have an “honest debate” by completely misrepresenting who benefited from the Bush tax cuts? As NewsBusters reported on August 11, the liberal think tank the Brookings Institution has concluded that 82 percent of the Bush tax cuts would go to low, middle, and upper-middle income wage earners in the next ten years if they were extended. Only 18 percent goes to couples making over $250,000 a year and singles over $200,000. With this in mind, it is certainly not “honest” of the Times to depict the Bush tax cuts as “heavily skewed to higher earners.” In fact, it’s an out and out lie! But there’s more: Since 2002, the federal budget has been chronically short of revenue. According to calculations by the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, if the tax cuts of the Bush years had never been enacted, publicly held debt at the end of 2009 would have been about $5.2 trillion, or 37 percent of gross domestic product. Instead, it was $7.5 trillion, or 53 percent of G.D.P. (it now stands at 60 percent).   Don’t you love that phrase “short of revenue?” Let’s examine just how “short of revenue” our government has been since 2002. Total unified tax collections that year were $1.853 trillion with outlays of $2.011 trillion.  By 2007 just prior to the beginning of the recession, revenues grew to $2.568 trillion, a 39 percent jump in only five years. Does that sound “short of revenue” to you? After all, if spending during this period had only grown at the rate of inflation, we would have had a $250 billion surplus! Heck, spending could have increased by five percent per year during this period and we still would have had a balanced budget! Yet, according to the Times, the problem was that we were “short of revenue.” BUT, there was even more fun to come: Tax cuts for low-, middle- and upper-middle-income taxpayers should be temporarily extended because those taxpayers tend to spend most of their income and the economy needs consumer spending. That would cost roughly $140 billion next year, but the spur to the economy is more important than the budgetary impact. Tax cuts for the rich can safely be allowed to expire because wealthy taxpayers tend to save rather than spend their tax savings. The revenue from letting these expire – nearly $40 billion next year – would be better spent on job-creating measures. Remember how the Times earlier said the Bush tax cuts were “heavily skewed to high earners?” If this were true, then how coming extending these cuts to low, middle, and upper-income taxpayers would cost roughly $140 billion next year while extending those for “the rich” would cost nearly $40 billion? Using the Times’ own numbers, these combined cuts would cost about $180 billion next year with only $40 billion – or 22 percent – going to “the rich!” Doesn’t that mean that 78 percent goes to low, middle, and upper-middle income taxpayers? So exactly how were the Bush tax cuts “heavily skewed to high earners?” Unfortunately, that’s a question the shills at the Times will likely never answer!

Read the original:
NYT: ‘More Americans – Not Just the Rich – Will Have to Pay More Taxes’

Forced Bonhomie Between Rachel Maddow and NBC Colleague Richard Engel Results in Cringe-Inducing TV

Alas, it wasn’t supposed to end this way, MSNBC’s Rachel Maddow lamented to NBC foreign correspondent Richard Engel in Baghdad last week after the departure of the last American combat brigade from Iraq. Engel recounted his experiences covering the war, getting into Iraq on false pretenses just before the US-led invasion in 2003 and spending considerable time in the country thereafter (first part of embedded video) — MADDOW: So you were here throughout for the first five, six years of the war? ENGEL: Yes. I took little breaks but, straight, I was here 10, 11 months a year. MADDOW: So when you, thinking now in August 2010, this is ending. I mean, Operation Iraqi Freedom ends now and did you have any idea this is the way that it would end? ENGEL: It’s ending with a little bit of a whisper. MADDOW (plaintively): Yeah. … and not with that Saigon-style rout I so anticipated … ENGEL: I mean, if you remember back, the huge media coverage, there were cameras everywhere, there were hundreds of embeds. Well, look at the media circus now? (turns around, arms raised for emphasis) This is it. There’s nobody here. (turning to face Maddow directly) I mean, we’re on a big base. When the war began there were cameras and cameras (repeating himself) and embeds and hundreds of reporters (ditto) fighting with each other to be part of this. … unlike those who parachute in long after the dust has settled … MADDOW: Hmm hmm. ENGEL (apologetically, arms extended to Maddow, damage control instinct kicking in): I’m really glad that you came … … why would you think otherwise …? ENGEL: … and I’m glad we’re covering it, but there’s nobody here. MADDOW (wanly): Yeah. ENGEL: So it’s ending so quietly. So I didn’t expect that it would end like that. At the start of the next segment of her show on Aug. 19, Maddow lobbed a shot back across Engel’s bow (second part of clip) — MADDOW: We’re at the Palestine Hotel with (gesturing toward Engel) some jerk who we picked up on the street …  …. “nobody” here, huh …? The following night, on Aug. 20, Engel walked with Maddow through a Baghdad marketplace and stressed once more how he was really, really happy she was there (third part of clip) — MADDOW: Can we walk? ENGEL: Yeah, please do. … whatever … MADDOW: So when you, when you’re out in Baghdad, making this decision to take me here and do these things today … ENGEL (interrupting): I’m delighted that you are here … … again, why on earth would you think otherwise …? ENGEL: … I really am, we haven’t done this and we don’t do this enough … … Let’s mark our calendars and do it again, same time next decade …

Read more here:
Forced Bonhomie Between Rachel Maddow and NBC Colleague Richard Engel Results in Cringe-Inducing TV

On Letterman, Brian Williams Cheers ‘Fruits’ of ‘Clinton Economy’ and Ridicules Tea Party

Appearing on the Late Show on Monday night to plug his Friday night Dateline on the 5th anniversary of Katrina, NBC Nightly News anchor Brian Williams bizarrely asserted “we’re still enjoying the fruits really of the Clinton economy,” claimed Tea Party activists who say “we want our country back” want it back “from the Trilateral Commission” and ridiculed their presumed hypocrisy as he insisted “you see a lot of signs, ‘Federal Government Out of My Social Security,’ ‘Federal Government Out of My Medicare and Medicaid.’ But for the federal government, of course, those programs would not exist.” Plus, he passed along how “I’m hearing a few people say” that President Barack Obama won’t run for re-election because he “wants to somehow transcend the presidency,” citing a British columnist who contends he was “never supposed to be an ordinary President.” Williams considered the possibility Obama could be as consequential as Jimmy Carter or Bill Clinton: “Jimmy Carter converted the post-presidency, redesigned the idea of an ex-President. Solving diseases and bad elections around the world. Bill Clinton with the Clinton Global Initiative trying to do the same thing.” When David Letterman raised the disparity between gluttonous Americans and kids starving around the world, Williams rued self-centered Americans as he incongruously touted: “We’ve had a good run here. We’re still enjoying the fruits really of the Clinton economy.” Huh? The current economy is doing well? And I thought the line was that Bush drove the economy into the ditch and we’re all being saved by Obama? (Or was he saying the Clinton years made us selfish?) Letterman soon wondered: “When they say ‘we want our country back,’ who, what, what are they talking about?” That prompted an answer from Williams which sounded more like derision than impartial reporting: “If you ask them, they would say from, ‘from the Trilateral Commission, from the big bankers, from the Council on Foreign Relations.’” Williams sounded like he’s still living in the 1980s. The condescending duo soon latched on to supposed Tea Party hypocrisy, which really just proved their hostile naivete as Williams showed quite an imagine as to the signs held up at Tea Party events and dismissed it all as simply anger caused by people upset by the bad economy: DAVID LETTERMAN: And again the popular inconsistency that is cited is “we don’t want the nationalized health care. But by god we still want our Medicare and our Medicaid.” How do they reconcile that? BRIAN WILLIAMS: Well, you see a lot of signs, “Federal Government Out of My Social Security,” “Federal Government Out of My Medicare and Medicaid.” But for the federal government, of course, those programs would not exist. A lot of it is just raw anger being translated onto signs and in slogans because people are on the downside of a bad economy. So much for “still enjoying the fruits of the Clinton economy.” From the Monday night, August 23 Late Show with David Letterman on CBS: DAVID LETTERMAN: There are two food channels, two food networks. One’s motto is “Stay hungry.” “Stay hungry.” There are cupcake shows, there are cupcake wars, there are cake shows, there are let’s build a cake. “Who can build a cake that looks more like a reclining chair?” And then there’s one show where a guy goes out and eats as much as can. “Bring me all the food in your house. I’ll eat it.” Three million people in this country do not get enough to eat and every six seconds, an infant in this world dies of starvation. How, how do you explain the disparity? BRIAN WILLIAMS: Ask your friends at the World Food Program and they’ll tell you the same thing. We’re a highly generous nation. And we like to think of ourselves as a very generous people. But we’ve had a good run here. We’re still enjoying the fruits really of the Clinton economy. And an ethos — I still come back to this that says you’re the star. It’s about you. Listen to the commercials on all those channels and the message is all in the first person in ways we never ever used or would dream of in the time of say Mad Men, for a modern television reference. So I think it’s that. I think out of sight, out of mind, however, is what sends children around the world to bed hungry and kills them ultimately. …. LETTERMAN: Now when the Tea Party formed, or when I think it formed, or when I read about the formation of it, I thought this is great. This is great. People have gotten together and said “holy god, we’ve lost all our money, our pension funds are gone. Nobody seems to know where the money goes. The government raises all this money to bail out huge corporations, our money is still gone. Our retirement funds, everything is gone. We don’t like this. We think we can do a better job. We’re going to form another political party.” That’s great. That’s all part of the luxury of being born in this country. You can do that. You should do that. We thrive on that sort of thing. Now I hear them saying things like “we want our country back.” And I’m having trouble deciding who took it, where did it go. You know, when they say “we want our country back,” who, what, what are they talking about? WILLIAMS: …You’ve latched on Dave, in what is Topic 5 for those playing our home game, you’ve latched on to sloganeering, which is as fine as an American tradition as any Tom Jefferson was involved in. And it makes people feel better to say “take our country back.” If you ask them, they would say from, “from the Trilateral Commission, from the big bankers, from the Council on Foreign Relations.” …. LETTERMAN: A friend of mine, I said there’s going to be a Tea Party convention up the road. I said go there and let me hear what they’re saying. Do they have a platform? Do they have solutions? And she said “well, no, not so much. It was more about we want our country back and are you with us and this and that and attracting support.” Which I understand is part of a growing movement. But to get any kind of traction, don’t you want to hear, oh here’s what we’re going to do different. I mean let’s face it, you could get elected, Harry Truman could get elected, and because of the politics of the day and the bureaucracy, it’s going to be a pretty tough slog for anybody. WILLIAMS: …People’s anger goes to their money. They do kind of generically want control back. They see a government so big and yet a government that says, “wait a minute, stop an oil leak a mile down under the water. Oh, we have nothing for that, that’s BP’s technology. We’re going to put an admiral here in charge and watch BP for you, but I swear we’ve got this covered.” LETTERMAN: And again the popular inconsistency that is cited is “we don’t want the nationalized health care. But by god we still want our Medicare and our Medicaid.” How do they reconcile that? WILLIAMS: Well, you see a lot of signs, “Federal Government Out of My Social Security,” “Federal Government Out of My Medicare and Medicaid,” but for the federal government, of course, those programs would not exist. A lot of it is just raw anger being translated onto signs and in slogans because people are on the downside of a bad economy. …. WILLIAMS: I think you’re going to see anger, in some form or fashion, translated at the ballot box. LETTERMAN: And projecting from that, are we looking at a one-term President? WILLIAMS: You know what, and I think the British Telegraph last night online there was a column saying he wants to be. And I’m hearing a few people say this, that he wants to somehow transcend the presidency. He was never supposed to be, or so this columnist’s theory goes, never supposed to be an ordinary President. And so this would be extraordinary to not do the expected thing and run for a second term. To kind of be a different kind of figure. Jimmy Carter converted the post-presidency, redesigned the idea of an ex-President. Solving diseases and bad elections around the world. Bill Clinton with the Clinton Global Initiative trying to do the same thing. So I’m not putting any credence in this column. I think we have to assume, because he’s a politician and he’s an incumbent President, he is running for re-election.

See the original post:
On Letterman, Brian Williams Cheers ‘Fruits’ of ‘Clinton Economy’ and Ridicules Tea Party

WaPo Sees ‘Anti-Muslim’ Sentiment in Opposition to Tennessee Mosque; Reporter Omits Zoning, Traffic Concerns of Critics

“Nowhere near Ground Zero, but no more welcome: Outcry over mosque proposals in Tennessee and elsewhere could be a sign of rising anti-Muslim sentiment across the country.” With those words, the front page headline* and subheader for an August 23 Washington Post story by Annie Gowen conflated the controversy over the Ground Zero mosque with opposition to other mosques across the fruited plain, namely one planned for Murfreesboro, Tennessee, from where Gowen filed her story.  Gowen waited until 27th pragraph in the 41-paragraph story to introduce the man spearheading the opposition, “a stocky 44-year-old correctional officer named Kevin Fisher” who “spent his formative years in Buffalo, where a home-grown terrorist cell of Yemeni Americans was uncovered in 2002.” Yet long before she ever got around to quoting Fisher, Gowen set out to portray the opposition to the mosque as the work of intolerant, ignorant rednecks. “It shouldn’t be surprising that there’s a negative reaction to this mosque…. [Y]ou can connect it to this global media event in New York, it just reinforces this siege mentality local residents have,” Gowen quoted Richard Lloyd of Vanderbilt University in paragraph 16. In the preceding paragraph, Gowen cited a recent Pew poll that found one in five Americans believe Barack Obama is a Muslim as one reason for why “the change in tone” regarding Muslim Americans has been “striking” according to “religious scholars and other experts.” When Gowen finally got around to quoting Fisher, she left a lot to be desired in terms of capturing the subject’s opposition to the proposed mosque. For example, Gowen failed to note that Fisher also opposed a Bible theme park that had been planned for the city and that many of his objections to the mosque are grounded not in fear of radical Islam or sharia law but in zoning and traffic issues pertaining to the 52,900-square foot size of the planned facility. By contrast, Elisabeth Kauffman of Time noted these concerns in her August 19 story : But if some people in Murfreesboro want the county to reject construction of the new mosque, they also wanted — and won — rejection of a proposed Bible theme park in the city. “It isn’t about Islam or religion, it’s about where they want to build,” insists Kevin Fisher, an organizer of opposition to the mosque who says he also opposed the Bible park because developers wanted to build too close to a subdivision. Along with worries over increased traffic on a road he says is already too dangerous, Fisher says the Center’s plans to one day have a cemetery could generate soil and water contamination. Ayash says that while one member of the Center is already buried on the property, without a coffin, “in accord with Islamic custom,” it all took place with county and city approval and within health guidelines. Fisher says that’s not good enough. “Each of my concerns is based on legitimate issues. This has nothing to do with anti-Islam; it’s not racism. I’m African-American, I know what it’s like to be discriminated against. I wouldn’t do that to someone.” Still, Fisher concedes he didn’t object to the construction of the new Grace Baptist Church at the same corner. “That’s a much smaller building [than the 52,000 feet complex the Center might one day build] and they don’t plan a cemetery.” *The online headline for the story is considerably less weighted with the loaded language of the print headline: “Far from Ground Zero, other plans for mosques run into vehement opposition.”

More:
WaPo Sees ‘Anti-Muslim’ Sentiment in Opposition to Tennessee Mosque; Reporter Omits Zoning, Traffic Concerns of Critics