Tag Archives: crisis

Why Hasn’t Racism Been Blamed For Obama’s Poor Response to the Oil Spill?

When Hurricane Katrina destroyed New Orleans in 2005, numerous media members blamed racism for President Bush’s supposedly poor response to the disaster. According to LexisNexis, there were almost 1,000 reports in the nine weeks following the storm’s passage through the Gulf of Mexico that tied racism to the government’s post-hurricane strategy. Five years later, as oil slams the same region and polls show the public actually more unhappy with the response to this crisis than they were after Katrina hit, no such nefarious connection is being espoused. Why? Consider the media firestorm the following remark by rapper Kanye West set off just a few days after the hurricane hit New Orleans (video follows with transcript and commentary): I hate the way they portray us in the media. If you see a black family, it says they’re looting. See a white family, it says they’re looking for food. And you know that it’s been five days because most of the people are black. And even for me to complain about it, I would be a hypocrite because I’ve tried to turn away from the TV, because it’s too hard to watch. I’ve even been shopping before I’ve even given a donation. So now I’m calling my business manager right now to see what is the biggest amount I can give, and just to imagine if I was down there, and those are my people down there. So anybody out there that wants to do anything that we can help with the set up the way America is set up to help the poor, the black people, the less well-off as slow as possible. I mean, the Red Cross is doing everything they can. We already realize a lot of people that could help are at war right now, fighting another way, and they have given them permission to go down and shoot us…George Bush doesn’t care about black people. Moments after this was uttered on live television, CNN’s Larry King asked guest Jesse Jackson about it: LARRY KING, CNN: Jesse, I understand that Kanye West, a rapper at the NBC telethon tonight, unscripted, said that President Bush, George Bush does not care about black people. Do you have that feeling? JESSE JACKSON: Well, he responded mighty late and mighty slow. There was one response to the tsunami and some years ago to the — a response to the Armenian earthquake crisis, but he came in five days late, with platitudes. And in the case of 9/11, he came in two days later and embraced all those who were involved. There’s a sense of alienation, a sense of distance, and we don’t feel good about it. I hope that there will be renewed commitment, not to just involve Mr. Bush and Mr. Clinton, but why not involve people like Congressman Bennie Thompson from Mississippi and Cynthia Cleo Fields (ph) and Senator Bigenfiggis (ph). We… KING: But you don’t… JACKSON: … ought to have a sense of being a part of this, and we’re not. KING: You don’t think he doesn’t care? JACKSON: Well, he does not show it. And that’s the — that’s the rub. And we need to know, we need to have access for dialogue, and we don’t have it. CNN was all over this story doing numerous segments about it in the coming days, but the supposedly most trusted name in news was certainly not alone in advancing this truly disgraceful theory. All three broadcast network news divisions reported this possible connection as did most American newspapers such as the New York Times, the Washington Post, USA Today, the Los Angeles Times, the Chicago Tribune, etc. Magazines also did stories about what the disaster said of race relations in this country. The disgusting notion that Bush’s response was due to racism was espoused for years by press members and still is to this very day. Potentially even worse, this assertion helped make Bush a lame duck less than a year into his final term while assisting the Democrats to take back Congress in 2006 as well as the White House in 2008. As a result, this ugly contention will likely be a part of our 43rd President’s legacy unless sane minds in the future fight to counter it.   Yet, no such connection to the government’s pathetic response to the current disaster in the very same region is being made. Why?  Consider that a recent CBS News/New York Times poll found: Just 32 percent say Mr. Obama has a clear plan to deal with the oil leak, while 59 percent (including 64 percent of Gulf coast residents) say he does not. The numbers are not much better among those who watched the president’s Oval Office speech on the spill last week, with 35 percent of that group saying he has a clear plan and 56 percent saying he does not. If Bush was still President, would media blame racism for his lack of a plan? As the answer seems an almost certain “Yes,” why is that?  Regardless of the reason, the press would be dead wrong just as they were about Bush’s response to Katrina. Despite their assertions, whatever the White House did or didn’t do after that hurricane hit had ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with the race of those effected. That was a disgusting assertion back then that should never have been made or advanced by anyone in our media. BUT, if they were going to make such a connection then, and would if Bush was still in the White House, that they’re not espousing it now despite how absurd it would be makes the way they treated our 43rd President even more reprehensible.   Less so is the lack of curiosity about what is the reason for Obama’s pathetic handling of this crisis. Former New York City major Rudy Giuliani said on MSNBC’s “Morning Joe” last week that the response to this oil spill would have been swifter and better coordinated if it happened in the Atlantic Ocean and was impacting the East Coast. Assuming he’s right — and I believe he is — why would that be? Should government’s response to a disaster relate to what states are impacted by it? Such does seem to be the case with the current Administration which seemed quite disinterested in the recent devastating floods in Tennessee. Not surprisingly, the press also largely ignored that disaster. So what gives here? Are some people in this country entitled to greater federal assistance in an emergency than others? Aren’t we all Americans, or are some inherently more so? Finally, if folks in the media believe as I do that this response would have been different if the spill was battering East Coast beaches with oil, where are the questions and the investigations into why that is, or is such curiosity only acceptable when a Republican is in the White House?

Go here to see the original:
Why Hasn’t Racism Been Blamed For Obama’s Poor Response to the Oil Spill?

ABC’s Tapper: A ‘Good Week’ for White House After ‘Gift’ From Joe Barton

On Friday’s Good Morning America on ABC, White House correspondent Jake Tapper described  White House reaction to Republican Congressman Joe Barton calling BP’s $20 billion escrow fund the result of a government “shakedown”: “…the argument they’re making, that the Republican Party is too close to corporate America…..And they’ve been given this great foil by Joe Barton.” When co-host George Stephanopoulos wondered if the Obama administration was at all concerned about being seen as anti-business, Tapper recited the White House spin: “…they say, at the end of the day, there were inequities throughout the Bush years and they need to correct those inequities. It was the wild west. And they’d rather be on their side, taking on corporate America, than on the Republican side, in their view, defending it.” Later, Tapper concluded: “…they think it was a good week. The President’s trip down to the Gulf, the speech, the $20 billion escrow fund and then this gift from Joe Barton ….they feel like they had a good week. Perhaps their first good week since this crisis began.” At the top of the show, co-host Robin Roberts described the “political firestorm” surrounding BP CEO Tony Hayward’s Thursday testimony on Capitol Hill and Barton’s comments. Later, Stephanopoulos argued that the “beating” Hayward got by members of Congress was “overwhelmed” by Barton. In a report that followed, correspondent Jonathan Karl declared: “Hayward did find one friend on Capitol Hill, Republican Joe Barton.” Turning to Tapper, Stephanopoulos began by noting how Democrats “pounced” on Barton. Tapper quoted a tweet from White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs: “He said, ‘Who would the GOP put in charge of overseeing the energy industry and big oil if they won control of Congress? Yup. You guessed it, Joe Barton.'” Here is a full transcript of the June 18 Stephanopoulos and Tapper exchange: 7:08AM ET GEORGE STEPHANOPOULOS: Let’s go to Jake Tapper at the White House. And Jake, they just pounced yesterday when they heard that apology. JAKE TAPPER: That’s exactly right. Vice President Biden made comments. And then take a look at this tweet from White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs. He said, ‘Who would the GOP put in charge of overseeing the energy industry and big oil if they won control of Congress? Yup. You guessed it, Joe Barton.’ And that’s the argument they’re making, that the Republican Party is too close to corporate America, corporations throughout the world, like BP. And they’ve been given this great foil by Joe Barton. STEPHANOPOULOS: Are they concerned at all about the argument that the White House is overstepping its bounds? That the President is just viscerally anti-business, which you’ve heard from many Republicans. TAPPER: Well, a senior White House official I spoke to said that they – they’re careful to walk the line and not be anti-business, they invite businesses to be part of discussions. But they say, at the end of the day, there were inequities throughout the Bush years and they need to correct those inequities. It was the wild west. And they’d rather be on their side, taking on corporate America, than on the Republican side, in their view, defending it. STEPHANOPOULOS: And, Jake, how about the Left? You know, I think the White House was hoping – they kept calling the speech the President gave on Tuesday night an ‘inflection point,’ that it would be a turning point for the President. Yet, they were met by a chorus of criticism, not only by – from conservatives, but also liberals. Concerned by that at all? TAPPER: They are concerned by that. But they think it was a good week. The President’s trip down to the Gulf, the speech, the $20 billion escrow fund and then this gift from Joe Barton, which has really been a lightning rod for the Left, far more than the White House. So I think they feel like they had a good week. Perhaps their first good week since this crisis began. STEPHANOPOULOS: You’re going to have a chance to put a lot of these questions in a big exclusive on Sunday. TAPPER: That’s right, we have an exclusive with White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel. So we’ll talk to him on Sunday. And then we’ve got a great roundtable, as well, George. STEPHANOPOULOS: Okay, Jake, we’re looking forward to that.

Continue reading here:
ABC’s Tapper: A ‘Good Week’ for White House After ‘Gift’ From Joe Barton

Drake’s Family Tree Extends From Childhood Pals To Kanye West

Lil Wayne, Jay-Z, Bun B and many others are also influential in Drizzy’s hip-hop journey. By MTV News staff Hip-hop phenom Drake might only be 23 years old, but his roots in the rap world run quite deep. His debut album, Thank Me Later (which dropped this week) is the result of years of studying with a handful of masters, toiling in the mixtape circuit and traveling across North America in an effort to synthesize his unique style and build his credibility. But who is connected to the man born Aubrey Graham? As you can see in his hip-hop family tree , there are quite a few branches in Drake’s musical story. October’s Very Own (Drake’s personal crew) Noah “40” Shebib : Drake’s musical partner produced the bulk of Thank Me Later , and in the past, he served as the rapper’s road manager, engineer and lifeline as he ran up thousands of dollars on his credit card for the two to follow Lil Wayne on tour while they worked on So Far Gone. Oliver El-Khatib : Oliver functions as Drizzy’s creative director, weighing in on the majority of decisions in the lyricist’s career outside the recording booth. He posts to the OVO blog frequently, highlighting the tastes of the collective, from fashion to music. Oliver introduced Drake to the music of now tourmate Francis and the Lights. Niko : One of Drake’s longtime friends from Toronto, Niko introduced the rapper to his own barber when the former “Degrassi” star needed a fresh look. The two are often together, and in his Thank Me Later album credits, Drizzy tells his friend he thought he was an only child until he met Niko, whom he calls “my closest confidant.” Instrumental Allies (Kick-started Drake’s career) Jas Prince : The son of legendary Houston hip-hop pioneer J. Prince, the younger Jas found Drake on MySpace and urged Lil Wayne to listen to the upstart artist. Lil Wayne : The Cash Money Records superstar took Drake under his wing and offered the then-unknown rapper recording advice, telling his prot

Continue reading here:
Drake’s Family Tree Extends From Childhood Pals To Kanye West

MSNBC Declares Barton’s Comments a Big Victory for Dems; Bring on Van Jones Afterwards

If you take MSNBC’s Luke Russert’s words at face value, you would think the Democrats are going to win big this November–all thanks to Rep. Joe Barton’s (R-Texas) comments on the Obama administration’s treatment of BP, and their “shakedown” of the company via the escrow fund. “A lot of Democrats see this as the ammunition they need to directly tie the Republican Party with that of big oil,” Russert summarized. Barton expressed his disapproval at the hearing for the White House’s treatment of BP in forcing them to agree to the $20 billion escrow fund, calling it a “shakedown.” MSNBC anchor Contessa Brewer was visibly irritated during her news hour with the statement, and Russert called it a “really big blunder.” However, as NewsBusters reported , MSNBC’s own Ed Schultz was ecstatic yesterday over the very actions of the White House, and spoke positively of the “shakedown.” Russert mentioned comments from multiple Republicans distancing themselves from Rep. Barton’s comments, including House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-Ohio). “One Republican I spoke to said ‘This was absolutely one of the worst things that could have ever happened to us. We essentially gave the Democrats an early Christmas gift with this one’,” Russert reported. ‘This is great news for the White House,” Russert continued. “They’ve been coming under attack for not taking an authoritative leadership position–they can now spin this as a political issue.” Russert also mentioned Rep. Michelle Bachmann (R-Minn.) who called the escrow fund a “redistribution of wealth” fund, and essentially put her in the same camp with Barton. “A really big political victory today for Democrats on Mr. Barton’s slip-up,” Russert concluded. MSNBC then brought on Gov. Haley Barbour (R-Miss.), but lost him in the middle of his segment. The network then switched to liberal guest Van Jones, who defended the Obama administration’s response to the disaster. “There is a whole ideology at play here that says ‘We hate the federal government. The federal government is a problem’,” Van Jones added. “The last time I checked, the federal government was America’s government. America’s government does not need to be weakened and undermined.” The transcript of the segment, which aired on June 17, at 3:42 p.m. EDT, is as follows: MSNBC anchor CHRIS JANSING: BP’s CEO Tony Hayward, since 10:00 this morning, with a couple of breaks, maybe an hour and forty-five–he has been on the hot seat for four hours, give or take, and one huge piece of controversial statements that came out of this didn’t come from him but came from a Congressman Joe Barton who called the agreement to set off fund to pay the people who have been hurt by this a “$20 billion slush fund.” He accused the White House of a shakedown and he apologized to BP for what happened in setting that up. Now he came back in just about the last half hour. He said in case anything was misconstrued, he is fully behind this investigation of BP’s actions and that there is no doubt in his mind that BP is responsible for this spill. Let’s go to our Capitol Hill correspondent Luke Russert, and this has set off a storm of controversy, Luke. LUKE RUSSERT: It absolutely has, Chris. A really amazing subplot within the hearing. Mr. Barton saying that he is apologizing to BP for the White House making them set up this escrow fund. A lot of Democrats see this as the ammunition they need to directly tie the Republican party with that of big oil.  Mr. Barton’s comments have not just upset Democrats, they have upset a lot of his fellow Republicans. One Republican from Florida, Jeff Miller, someone who’s from the area that’s directly affected by this spill, calling on Mr. Barton to resign as chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Committee. Also John Boehner, the Republican Majority Leader of the Republican party, the Minority Leader of the Republican party saying, quote, that he does not agree with the characterization that Mr. Barton made. He himself tried to distance himself from those comments. Really quite extraordinary, party leaders trying to keep Joe Barton away. Barton is from Texas. Records have shown that he is a friend of big oil. Since 1989, he has gotten well over a million dollars in donations from the folks attached to the oil industry, or the oil companies themselves. So it’s not too shocking he would probably make a statement like that. That being said, a huge political firestorm up here on Capitol Hill, one that is so big that even the Vice President had this to say at a press conference at the White House this afternoon. (Video Clip) Vice President JOE BIDEN: And I find it outrageous to suggest that if in fact we insisted that BP demonstrate their preparedness to put aside billions of dollars–in this case $20 billion–to take care of the immediate needs of people who are drowning. These guys don’t have deep pockets. The guy who runs the local marina, the guy who has one shrimping boat, the guy who has one small business–he can’t afford to lose ten, twelve, fifteen thirty thousand dollars a.month. RUSSERT: There you have Vice President Biden speaking out very forcefully about Mr. Barton’s comments. Now we should say that Mr. Barton just apologized at the committee hearing, saying that he was sorry if anyone misconstrued his comments earlier, and that he does–that BP is in fact responsible for this spill. But the damage has really been done. One Republican I spoke to said this was absolutely one of the worst things that could have ever happened to us. We essentially gave the Democrats an early Christmas gift with this one. A really big blunder on Mr. Barton’s part, Chris. Now Michelle Bachmann from Minnesota has also dived into this, saying that this escrow fund was a “redistribution of wealth fund.” You’re going to see Democrats in the next few days really trying to paint Republicans as the party of big oil, something they have desperately wanted to do. This is great news for the White House. They’ve been coming under attack for not taking an authoritative leadership position–they can now spin this as a political issue. They were very quick to release a statement against Mr. Barton. As you saw, the Vice President speaking out forcefully right there, this will now become “Republicans are with big oil, we’re with the residents of the Gulf, who are on the Democratic side.” A really big political victory today for Democrats on Mr. Barton’s slipup. JANSING: Thanks very much, we appreciate it, Luke.We want to talk now to Gov. Haley Barbour, he is at a new Toyota plant that is opening in Blue Springs, Mississippi. Something interesting here, because one of the groups of people we’ve seen in the past will probably have a little understanding of what the BP execs have gone through with these hearings are some of the Toyota execs who have been in the hot seat before. And I do, governor, want to ask you, of course, about what’s going on there with the Toyota plant. But let me ask you first if you have had a chance to watch any of these hearings today, and if so , what do you think about them? Gov. HALEY BARBOUR: We have had the pleasure in Mississippi of announcing that Toyota decided this morning, and announced this morning, that they will go forward with the start of operations for their new facility in Blue Springs, Mississippi, and begin it in February of 2011, just over a near from now. They will have Corollas coming off the assembly line here, 2,000 jobs for us in this plant plus more than that in supplier facilities around North Mississippi. It’s a big day for us, we have been celebrating, I haven’t been paying attention to Congress. JANSING: Well let me tell you a little bit about what was said there, maybe you had a chance to hear a little bit of what Luke Russert said. Because I think it certainly is relevant to your constituents who may have claims against BP. He said he thought this $20 billion in escrow was in fact a shakedown by the White House, that it’s a $20 billion slush fund, and he apologized to BP. What do you think about that? BARBOUR: Well first of all, it’s not $20 billion. I mean, when I heard this announced by the President, it concerned me that BP was going to have $20 billion taken and put into an escrow account. BP owes the people of Mississippi every bit of damage that’s been done. It’s BP’s responsibility to pay, we expect them to pay, we’re going to demand that they pay. But if the government had taken $20 billion of working capital from them, we were worried they couldn’t drill wells. Now we found out what the facts are, that it’s not $20 billion now, it’s $3 billion in the next quarter, $2 billion in the following quarter and then $5 billion in 12, $5 billion in 13, $45 billion at 14. That makes me feel much better, it makes me know that BP is going to be able to operate so they can generate the revenue to pay the people of Mississippi what BP owes them. Because BP is responsible for paying all the claims for all the legitimate damages that’s been done. JANSING: So in other words you think that what the White House has arranged, that this escrow fund– BARBOUR: She must not have liked my answer, I lost her. JANSING: Well, that was not the case, I want to make sure that he understands that it was nothing about his answer, I’m not quite sure why his ability to listen dropped out. I’m sorry, tell me again where we’re going? JANSING: We’re going to go now to Van Jones, who joins us live. Thanks very much for joining us, I’m sorry for the little bit of confusion, apparently our previous guest had some IFP problems. Have you had an opportunity to be listening to these hearings? JONES: I have. JANSING: You’ve been sitting there listening. So tell me what you think about this controversy, real controversy, false controversy, about the $20 billion fund? JONES: I think a real controversy, I mean, I was stunned and shocked. I don’t think any American official should be apologizing to this corporation that you saw all day long, here’s the head of this corporation, a multinational corporation that’s come to our country. As best we can tell, they corrupted our government. They slagged up our coastline. The criminal negligence has resulted in the death of innocent workers. America’s beauty, environment, workers, economy, all at risk. And the first thing out of the Republican leader’s mouth is to say “I’m sorry” to you? I think he has to apologize for the apology. But I think this is not just an accident. Night and day to hear the governor of Mississippi, who yesterday was attacking the first victory for America in this fight–getting this escrow fund is the first victory–you heard the governor of Mississippi who was just on this show yesterday attacking that. You have Michelle Bachmann calling it a redistribution of wealth fund. This is outrageous. This is the first glimmer of hope for the people in that region, there will be money on the table to help them get through this tough time. You have one party who is consistently, not just this official, but consistently, attacking this result. On the one hand, you’ve got the President of the United States who says he wants to kick some ass, and now you’ve got the other side saying apparently they want to kiss some ass. A pparently they believe there’s nothing a multinational corporation can do that’s wrong and nothing that the American government can do that’s right in this catastrophe. JANSING: Let me tell you what Senator John Cornyn had to say. Because he kind of gave a little bit of a defense of that statement. He said he believes that the president has made this a political issue. And he’s trying to deal with it by showing how tough he’s being against BP. He’s gone from being Commander in Chief to Claims Adjustor in Chief.  JONES: First of all, in this situation, one of the biggest catastrophes to ever hit our country, we should be proud that our President has stood up. With his address to the country, he said, “I’m going after BP. I’m going to make sure they’re responsible. The next day he brought them into the office. He said “Listen, you’re going to have put $20 billion on the table to make sure that this is going to be handled the right way. They said, “Yes, sir.” He said $100 million to make sure that our workers are going to be taken care of. Yes sir. $500 million to make sure that the help is assessed properly. Yes sir. He is getting this corporation to finally step up and do the things that they should do. Now, I cannot understand why we have people in our government who want American government to be weaker in the face of this crisis. We need America’s government to be stronger. This is not an accident. There is a whole ideology at play here that says “We hate the federal government, the federal government is a problem.” The last time I checked the federal government was America’s government. America’s government does not need to be weakened and undermined. America’s government needs to be strong enough to protect us from these kinds of predatory multinational corporations coming over here hurting the American people. JANSING: Well I’m curious about how you think, then, that these kinds of hearings play into that. I was checking out the British newspapers to see how they were covering this. And one of them said this was a public flogging of Tony Hayward. And I guess there are two general schools of thought. One is that this is nothing more than a chance for all the members of this committee to grand stand, to get their names in the local paper. Nobody thought we were going to get anything new out of Tony Hayward. Nothing is accomplished here, and they could be better, their time could be better spent working on the very real problems that have come out of this. On the other end of the spectrum is the idea that, you know what, this is an example for other CEOs. You do what BP did, and this is what’s going to happen. You, you’re going to end up sitting there and have all the nation watching you. Where do you come down on that?  JONES: Well, first of all let’s be clear. We did not know that this CEO was going to sit there and stone wall and stonewall. And he went to talk to the President and came out of that with real victories for the American people. The first glimmer of hope, the first victory for America in the past 60 days was yesterday. So there’s no reason to think he wouldn’t sit down and be forthright. He made a decision to sit there and look like he’s at the principal’s office, just waiting for for bell to ring and mom to come and get him. That was his choice. But he could have actually given the American people some comfort, some answers. We are 60 days into this process. He knows more than he said. And I think that what we’ve got to understand is that going forward, you’re going to see a big contrast. You’re going to have some people in American politics, who I hope they keep talking, that are going to make it clear. In the choice between standing with this multinational corporation, this oil company, or standing with the American people, they’re going to find every excuse to defend and apologize for–literally apologize for this corporation’s egregious, disgusting behavior. And you’re going to have other people who stand with the American people. That’s going to be the contrast going forth. It turned into theater because, again, this corporation refused, once again refused, to do the minimum, the minimum that would have been decent and respectful to the American people.

Read the original:
MSNBC Declares Barton’s Comments a Big Victory for Dems; Bring on Van Jones Afterwards

Jeremy London Kidnapped, ‘Forced’ To Smoke Drugs

‘Party of Five’ star escaped bizarre kidnapping last week; alleged kidnapper is in custody. By MTV News staff Jeremy London Photo: Charley Gallay/WireImage Jeremy London — the actor best known for his roles in “Party of Five” and Kevin Smith’s “Mallrats” — was robbed and abducted by a man in Palm Springs, California, on Thursday night, beginning a five-hour ordeal in which he was held at gunpoint and forced to smoke drugs. Palm Springs police told RadarOnline that London, 37, was attempting to change a flat tire on his vehicle when several men stopped to help him. After London offered to drive the men home, one of them — a man identified as Palm Springs resident Brandon Adams — pulled a gun on the actor, then forced him to drive his own vehicle, smoke drugs and buy alcohol. “[During the kidnapping] he was forced to smoke dope [crack cocaine or amphetamines] and then purchase booze and hand it out in a gang area of Palm Springs,” Sergeant Steve Douglas told Radar. London managed to escape around 3 a.m. Friday, Douglas added. The actor’s vehicle was later recovered in the Palm Springs neighborhood where Adams lived. Adams was arrested and charged with several felonies, including kidnapping for ransom with injury, strong arm robbery, carjacking, receiving stolen property and taking a vehicle without the owner’s consent. Adams pleaded not guilty, The Associated Press reported Thursday, but remains in custody with bail set at slightly more than $500,000. A publicist for London confirmed to the AP that the actor was indeed the kidnapping victim and that he is working closely with police in their investigation, adding that he is currently at “an undisclosed location with family and friends.” In the past, London has struggled with drug abuse. In an April interview with People magazine , he said he had spent time in a rehabilitation center due to a prescription drug addiction. In 2004, he was arrested for allegedly driving with a suspended license and carrying controlled substances.

Read more:
Jeremy London Kidnapped, ‘Forced’ To Smoke Drugs

Annoying Soccer Horns — Banned from NBA Finals

Filed under: Kobe Bryant , NBA , TMZ Sports Horny NBA fans are about to get a rude awakening — those obnoxious World Cup horns are officially vuvuzela non grata at the big Game 7 tonight in Los Angeles. TMZ spoke with a rep for the STAPLES Center in L.A. — where the deciding game between L.A.… Read more

More:
Annoying Soccer Horns — Banned from NBA Finals

ABC Focuses Oil Spill Blame on BP and Coast Guard, Not Obama; CBS Gives President ‘C’ for Response

On Thursday’s Good Morning America on ABC, co-host George Stephanopoulos laid blame on BP and Coast Guard Admiral Thad Allen for mishandling the Gulf oil spill response but depicted the Obama administration as having done everything it could. In contrast, on the CBS Early Show, guests from both sides of the aisle gave the President a ‘C’ grade for his response.   At the top of Good Morning America, Stephanopoulos described how BP CEO Tony Hayward would be facing a “public execution” in Thursday’s congressional hearings and how Michigan Democratic Congressman Bart Stupak promised to “slice and dice” Hayward. In a report that followed, correspondent Jonathan Karl furthered the theme of courageous Democrats standing up to the big oil villain: “Tony Hayward may be the most hated man in America. And he’s heading right into a buzz saw of congressional outrage. In his prepared testimony, Hayward declares, ‘I am deeply sorry.’ But the chairman of the committee says that’s not enough.” A clip of Democratic committee chairman Henry Waxman was played. Minutes later, Stephanopoulos interviewed Louisiana Plaquemines Parish President Billy Nungesser and wondered: “…with everything the President and BP announced this week, do you think this is on the right track now?” After Nungesser expressed doubt about local fisherman being reimbursed for financial losses and a lack of organization in the response, Stephanopoulos deflected any criticism away from President Obama and suggested another target: “The White House has approved the building of berms, they’ve sent the boom down there, Admiral Allen is on the scene every day. Are you saying he is not giving you the help you need? And do you think he should keep his job?” Nungesser replied: “I don’t know if it’s Admiral Allen. I don’t know if the chain of command. Something’s not working.” Stephanopoulos pressed further: “So how does it get done? Is Admiral Allen the right man for the job right now?” The headline on-screen during the segment read: “Desperation On the Gulf; Residents Want More Action.” Meanwhile, on the Early Show, co-host Harry Smith invited Republican strategist Dan Bartlett and Democratic strategist Rob Zimmerman to grade President Obama’s handling of the disaster. Bartlett replied: “Well I think, Harry, anything above maybe a C-minus would be difficult to score.” Smith joked: ” ‘Gentleman’s C,’ we’ve heard that before.” Zimmerman actually graded on the same curve: “Harry, I’d have to agree with Dan. I’d give him a C on this, a C at this point.” Unlike the more generic ABC headline, the on-screen headline on CBS read: “Disaster in the Gulf: Day 59; What’s Next Step for Obama Administration?” Barlett later questioned the wisdom of the White House using the crisis to push controversial cap-and-trade energy legislation. Smith agreed with that concern, asking Zimmerman: “…you have to confess….At the end of the speech he says, ‘Well now it’s time for us to think about energy policy and this is a perfect, perfect jumping-off point,’ was that, as you watched, were you thinking, ‘Boy that’s a good idea,’ or were you thinking, ‘Not now, not now!'”   Zimmerman argued: “But unless we, in fact, put in place an aggressive energy policy, we run the risk of this tragedy happening all over again.” Smith agreed: “That goes without saying.” However, he reiterated: “But from a political standpoint, it’s not as if he’s saying, ‘Okay, I’ve solved all the problems, I have got the bully pulpit, I’ve got the momentum. Now’s the time to jump on this.'” On Tuesday, while the Early Show and NBC’s Today challenged White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs on the administration’s response, former Democratic strategist Stephanopoulos lobbed softballs to the Obama staff member. 

Read the rest here:
ABC Focuses Oil Spill Blame on BP and Coast Guard, Not Obama; CBS Gives President ‘C’ for Response

ABC Touts Entrepreneur Seeking Backing of Government ‘Lawyers and Lobbyists’

The day after President Obama’s oil spill speech — in which the President pivoted from the ongoing mess in the Gulf of Mexico to his call for ending our “addiction” to fossil fuels — ABC’s World News obliged the White House’s agenda with a profile of solar cell manufacturer Natcore , whose president, Chuck Provini, says he can cut the costs of solar cells (which are right now too expensive to be economically viable without government subsidies). But the problem, as ABC correspondent Dan Harris helped frame it, is that this entrepreneur was getting nothing but “blank stares” from the “congressional staffers, lawyers and lobbyists” he met with in Washington, D.C. — as if a venture capitalists and other private investors wouldn’t be tripping over themselves to get in on the ground floor of a process that could actually make solar power viable. And the hero of the story, as ABC told it, is China’s dictatorship, which has made a deal with the company and will now gain the “hundreds of jobs” that U.S. officials have supposedly squandered by not bankrolling Provini: DAN HARRIS: There was, however, one place offering help: China. The government flew him over there and made him a very generous offer. (to Provini) Would you say that the Chinese officials made your life easy in this process? CHUCK PROVINI, via Skype: It’s been a pleasure. They’ve been gracious. They’ve cut through red tape. HARRIS: He is about to cut a deal to open a factory that will create hundreds of jobs – jobs that could have been created here….Critics say the federal government needs a big, bold plan to dramatically ramp up our use of clean energy. Until then, they say, we’re going to see a lot more American companies like Natcore exporting their promising ideas to places like China. Does ABC really think that good business ideas require the support of lobbyists, lawyers and congressional staffers? That the free market cannot innovate and economize with at “big, bold” government “plan?” MRC’s Brad Wilmouth caught the story from the June 16 World News with Diane Sawyer: DIANE SAWYER: And, in his speech last night, President Obama used the moment to call for less dependence on foreign oil and fossil fuels and making sure that China doesn’t get all the new jobs in wind and solar power. But Dan Harris heard a story today of one company, one big idea, but in America, no one to say give it a try. DAN HARRIS: Natcore is a small company based in New Jersey that says it’s come up with an innovative new approach to make solar technology better and cheaper, one that its scientists are very excited about. The president of the company – this guy, Chuck Provini – says he was determined to set up shop here in America. CHUCK PROVINI, NATCORE SOLAR: I live here in New Jersey. I’m a former Marine. I consider myself a good American and a patriot. We wanted to do business in the States. HARRIS: He went to Washington, D.C., and met with congressional staffers, lawyers and lobbyists, but says he couldn’t get the help raising the money that he needed. [to Provini] Were you met with blank stares? PROVINI: They were very polite. We got polite letters, polite conversations, but it was obvious that there was a major disconnect. HARRIS: There was, however, one place offering help: China. The government flew him over there and made him a very generous offer. Would you say that the Chinese officials made your life easy in this process? PROVINI: It’s been a pleasure. They’ve been gracious. They’ve cut through red tape. HARRIS: He is about to cut a deal to open a factory that will create hundreds of jobs – jobs that could have been created here. (to Provini, via Skype) You’re now in China, as we speak, in the middle of the night, and you’re not far away from inking a final deal.                                  PROVINI: Well, I’m really curious as to how you found me at 2:00 in the morning in Jujo City. HARRIS: To be fair, it is hard for the U.S. to compete with China’s dictatorial government, which essentially runs the entire economy. But still, critics say the federal government needs a big, bold plan to dramatically ramp up our use of clean energy. Until then, they say, we’re going to see a lot more American companies like Natcore exporting their promising ideas to places like China. Diane? SAWYER: A real cautionary tale about the need for a fast track here in America. Dan Harris reporting.

Go here to see the original:
ABC Touts Entrepreneur Seeking Backing of Government ‘Lawyers and Lobbyists’

Rudy Giuliani, MSNBC’s Dylan Ratigan Eviscerate Joe Scarborough for Blaming Bush for Oil Spill

Former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani (R) and MSNBC anchor Dylan Ratigan on June 17 joined forces to lambaste “Morning Joe” co-host Joe Scarborough for continuing to defend President Barack Obama’s handling of the BP oil spill. Scarborough presented a litany of arguments in Obama’s defense, but Giuliani and Ratigan countered with specific examples of the president’s failed leadership. Regurgitating liberal talking points, Scarborough blamed the crisis on George W. Bush and Dick Cheney. “We hear that we had the technology to stop this,” Scarborough claimed. “In 2002, though, Dick Cheney and his energy task force said, ‘No, we’re not going to take an extra step.'” Giuliani responded with an eviscerating counter punch: “It’s important to know as part of the history of this but the reality is, he’s been president now for 18 months. It’s about time we stopped blaming Bush.” Scarborough thought that the former New York City Mayor would credit Obama for securing from BP a $20 billion victim compensation fund, but instead Giuliani criticized the president. “I say it was a good deal for BP,” retorted Giuliani. “If I can put even a tentative limit on the liabilities, I’ve helped save my company.” “Democrats only wanted $10 billion,” claimed Scarborough. “You can’t say something nice about the president?” “The president has so mishandled this that it will be impossible for me to even describe how horribly handled this was,” argued Giuliani. “BP would be more than willing to give $20 billion to get themselves somewhat off the hook.” When pressed by Scarborough, Giuliani gave a detailed explanation for how he would have handled the crisis differently: First of all, the first thing I would have done is to bring in experts from the industry who are independent source of advice for me…If your father or mother were sick, you would go get a second opinion from an expert doctor. Not from an academician which is what he did. Go ask the question. Has anyone done remediation before? Has anyone done it better than BP? Bring them in. Make them your eyes and ears. Have them watching everything. Maybe they could have gotten the estimate right of the amount of oil that was coming out. It was horrendous. This is a horrible case of malpractice, negligence, gross negligence. They were off by 60 times. That had to infect every wrong judgment you make. Instead of crediting Giuliani for articulating a coherent plan, Scarborough attempted to deflect and politicize the issue, wondering whether the “malpractice” was “shared by both political parties and the entire Washington establishment over 15 years that has allowed oil companies to drill in areas where they have no backup plan if something goes wrong?” Ratigan rushed to Giuliani’s defense, railing against Obama for failing to consult independent industry experts at the beginning of the crisis: I actually completely agree with the mayor which is we can talk all day about the problems but until you actually address the matter of the fact that oil continues to go into the Gulf of Mexico, and there are other ways to deal with it that have not been brought in, or have been brought in too late–that is shameful. When Giuliani took aim at Obama for addressing the oil spill as a political problem, Scarborough jumped to the president’s defense. “It is a political problem,” exclaimed Scarborough. “It’s a substantive problem, but it’s a political problem!” “He’s just dealing with it as a political problem,” countered Giuliani. “That’s why he went down there only a couple of times at the very beginning. Didn’t take charge. We had Gibbs saying for three weeks that BP was in charge. The speech last night, Obama said the federal government’s been in charge from the beginning. Well, nobody ever told anybody that for the first four weeks. Maybe they were in charge in secret.” Scarborough then claimed that Obama took charge early on, making the oil spill the “top priority for this government,” but Ratigan disagreed, proclaiming, “My biggest criticism of this administration which is why I agree with the mayor when it comes to the response is the incredibly incompetent appearance of the containment strategy.” The transcript of the segment can be found below: MSNBC Morning Joe 6/17/10 8:04 a.m. JOE SCARBOROUGH: $20 billion. MIKA BRZEZINSKI: That’s pretty good. RUDY GIULIANI, former New York City mayor: Even nowadays that’s real money. That’s real money. SCARBOROUGH: Let’s give the president– DYLAN RATIGAN: Unless you get it from the Federal Reserve, in which case it’s not real money. SCARBOROUGH: Mr. Mayor, let’s make headlines, let’s give the president credit right now for being able to get $20 billion from BP without a single lawsuit being filed. What do you say? BRZEZINSKI: Come on. SCARBOROUGH: That’s pretty good. GIULIANI: I say it was a good deal for BP. BRZEZINSKI: Why? GIULIANI: Divide it by four or five years. What do they make per year? Jim would know this. JIM CRAMER, CNBC anchor: They make $6 billion per quarter. GIULIANI: If I can put even a tentative limit on the liabilities, I’ve helped save my company. SCARBOROUGH: But they haven’t done that yet. They did not waive liability. GIULIANI: But that’s a pretty good indication of it’s going to be hard to get above that $20 billion. It gets them– SCARBOROUGH: Democrats only wanted $10 billion. You can’t say something nice about the president? BRZEZINSKI: There’s nothing nice here? SCARBOROUGH: You can’t say, “Mr. President, good job of getting $20 billion?” GIULIANI: The president has so mishandled this that it will be impossible for me to even describe how horribly handled this was. SCARBOROUGH: He got $20 billion from people in my backyard. That’s pretty good, isn’t it? GIULIANI: He would have gotten with the same leverage in a second. BP would be more than willing to give $20 billion to get themselves somewhat off the hook. Unfortunately, they stepped all over it with a comment that the CEO made. SCARBOROUGH: What would you have done differently as far as substance goes? GIULIANI: Every single thing from day one. First of all, the first thing I would have done is to bring in experts from the industry who are independent source of advice for me. I met with some of the– SCARBOROUGH: The president didn’t do that? GIULIANI: Two days ago I had dinner in Houston, with several people who were top people in the industry. Never reached out. Never, never asked, gee, has Shell done this before? Has Exxon done this before? If your father or mother were sick, you would go get a second opinion from an expert doctor. Not from an academician which is what he did. Go ask the question. Has anyone done remediation before? Has anyone done it better than BP? Bring them in. Make them your eyes and ears. Have them watching everything. Maybe they could have gotten the estimate right of the amount of oil that was coming out. It was horrendous. This is a horrible case of malpractice, negligence, gross negligence. They were off by 60 times. That had to infect every wrong judgment you make. SCARBOROUGH: Isn’t that malpractice, though, shared by both political parties and entire Washington establishment over 15 years that has allowed oil companies to drill in areas where they have no backup plan if something goes wrong? DYLAN RATIGAN, MSNBC anchor: I’ll do you one better. The American people consume four gallons of gasoline for every gallon of gasoline that exists on the Earth. We have the biggest subsidized cost of energy. We have a false price for energy in our country to this day. The cost of the wars is not in the cost of energy. The environmental liability is not in the cost of the energy. None of the liability associated with our lifestyle is actually priced in. For capitalism to work, you actually have to be paying the actual price that represents the actual cost. So if we were actually paying the real cost of energy, we would be incentivized, believe me, to come up with something else. But because of the government and the culture of political expedience subsidies of energy costs everybody’s happy to take it so we hire BP to the tune of $6 billion a quarter to figure out–which is not easy, by the way–the technology to drop 18,000 feet beneath the ocean surface to suck oil out so we can continue to enjoy our lifestyle. If you ask me whether it’s the obvious failure in the government–MMS is obviously conflicted. Whether it’s the obvious fact that we built a sports car that could basically do anything. They had the technology to go to the bottom of the sea but they didn’t have a braking system, no way to turn it off which is incredibly reckless. And you put it all together. You find yourself in a situation where everybody’s pointing fingers but no one is containing the spill. So I actually completely agree with the mayor which is we can talk all day about the problems but until you actually address the matter of the fact that oil continues to go into the Gulf of Mexico, and there are other ways to deal with it that have not been brought in, or have been brought in too late–that is shameful. SCARBOROUGH: Do you agree that there are because we have been are defending this White House saying on substance for the most part they’ve gotten it right, do you agree with the mayor that actually they haven’t gotten it right? CRAMER: I think the mayor is dead on when he says that if they had known that the spill could be 60,000 barrels, which was available if you talk to the former heads of Exxon or if you talk to Boone Pickens, which you asked me to do. (Inaudible) GIULIANI: And the people in the industry believe that he hasn’t talked to the industry because they’re bad guys. (Inaudible) GILUIANI: A bunch of bad guys. CRAMER: They’re all bad actors. GIULIANI: And from the point of view of crisis management, this is an F. You couldn’t have done it worse. Some day Harvard will do a study on if you have a crisis like this, these are the things that Obama did wrong. Here are the things to do right. I could go on and on; that was the first mistake that he made. The second mistake that he made was to kind of treat this as a political problem. Which he was doing right up until the speech the other night. Treat it as a political problem. SCARBOROUGH: It is a political problem. It’s a substantive problem, but it’s a political problem! GIULIANI: He’s just dealing with it as a political problem. That’s why he went down there only a couple of times at the very beginning. Didn’t take charge. We had Gibbs saying for three weeks that BP was in charge. The speech last night, Obama said the federal government’s been in charge from the beginning. Well, nobody ever told anybody that for the first four weeks. Maybe they were in charge in secret. SCARBOROUGH: Well, the president said himself though on April 22nd. BRZEZINSKI: Yes. I just pulled up that. SCARBOROUGH: On April 22nd he called all the agency heads in and he said, “Okay, listen. This is going to be very bad.” It’s before–it’s before the thing blew out of the water and said this is the top priority for this government. We have to focus on it. This is job number one. RATIGAN: Where is the containment strategy? GIULIANI: That’s worse because if this was job number one look at the horrible–if this is job number one which I don’t think it was because the president was off on vacation twice during all of this, if this were job number one– SCARBOROUGH: Did you go on vacation Mr. Mayor? GIULIANI: Did I go on vacation as mayor? No. SCARBOROUGH: Isn’t that a cheap shot? You never went on vacation? GIULIANI: Not in the middle of a crisis. SCARBOROUGH:  Ronald Reagan went on vacation. George W. Bush went on vacation. GIULIANI: Not in the middle of a crisis. This is the second time the president has done that, and I resent it. On Christmas day when we had Christmas bombing, he was on vacation. Remained on vacation for 11 days. SCARBOROUGH: It was Christmas! GIULIANI: He is the President of the United States of America. SCARBOROUGH: They got microphones in Chicago. GIULIANI: On Christmas evening, the first year that I was the mayor, I left my house and went to the hospital and I spent five hours there because I was the mayor of New York City and I should be on the spot taking charge of something from the very beginning. This has been a gross failure in crisis management. Could not have done it worse. SCARBOROUGH: Okay. I’m sorry. Didn’t mean to–   GIULIANI: : And you shouldn’t be on vacation when a crisis is affecting the country. RATIGAN: There are two problems here. One is the capping of the well which I think is BP’s problem. BP obviously was negligent in the construction of dealing the well. There’s a totally unrelated problem, which is the containment problem. And in order to deal with the containment problem, that is the government’s problem and you have to know what the flow rate is accurately and early in order to have a containment strategy. So my biggest criticism of this administration which is why I agree with the mayor when comes to the response is incredibly incompetent appearance of the containment strategy. SCARBOROUGH: That’s not monday morning quarterbacking? I mean, who knew? RATIGAN: The oil is still coming out, Joe. They could still bring–Matt Simmons knew. T. Boone Pickens knew. Booms, put booms around it. Drop a curtain. Put super tankers in the middle and start sucking the oil out. (Inaudible) RATIGAN: Booms, curtain, super tanker. Super suck technology. Next question. GIULIANI: And actually, Joe, it is worse if you’re right and they were in charge from the beginning because if they were in charge at the beginning they really didn’t know what they were doing. I actually don’t think they were in charge. I think their real failure was they trusted BP. And they shouldn’t have trusted BP but they trusted BP. SCARBOROUGH: And let’s just say that has been our one critique on substance that perhaps they–two things. One, they trusted BP too much from the beginning. Two, they made a political calculation that if “we go down there, we own the story. It’s not BP’s story. It’s our story.” That is a critique I think we’ll hear for some time. And can we go right now? Because this is a fascinating conversation. You’re actually the first person that’s come on this show and when I’ve challenged them give me substance. Actually you three guys, you’re talking specifics about what the president should have done. Let’s go to the barni-cam right now. Mike Barnicle. Is he wearing the white sox right now? Are you listening to this? MIKE BARNICLE, MSNBC contributor: Yeah I am. SCARBOROUGH: We’ve got three guys here that are loaded for bear. And they’ve got some specifics. What do you think?                          BRZEZINSKI: Taking shots. BARNICLE: Let’s place all of our faith in BP because they’ve done such a great job. They’re still using the same instruments on oil spills that they were using in California in 1969. If British Petroleum, which they used to call themselves, or any of these oil companies were in charge of technological advancements in our society we would still be using a rotary phone and looking at a 12-inch Bendix TV set. (Inaudible) SCARBOROUGH: Do we have the cameraman from “24” now? Mike Barnicle brings up a point but let me ask you again in the role of devil’s advocate. We hear that we had the technology to stop this. In 2002, though, Dick Cheney and his energy task force said, “No, we’re not going to take an extra step.” GIULIANI: I have no idea what Dick Cheney did, you know, five or six years ago. SCARBOROUGH: Isn’t that important to know? It’s part of the story. GIULIANI: It’s important to know as part of the history of this but the reality is, he’s been president now for 18 months. It’s about time we stopped blaming Bush. RATIGAN: Hang on, Mr. Mayor. I don’t mean to interrupt you but the North Sea has a totally different set of safety standards–totally different governmental standards. These standards have to be taken into consideration. –Alex Fitzsimmons is a News Analysis intern at the Media Research Center. Click here to follow him on Twitter.

Read more:
Rudy Giuliani, MSNBC’s Dylan Ratigan Eviscerate Joe Scarborough for Blaming Bush for Oil Spill

Bachmann Responds to ‘F— Michele Bachmann’ Concert Fliers: ‘We Don’t See an Outrage Coming from the Media’

It is way beyond comprehension – the dislike, hatred for Rep. Michele Bachmann, R-Minn., a relative backbencher in terms of congressional clout , but a strong outspoken conservative leader. Fliers ( posted below fold ) have been surfacing around Minneapolis and St. Paul, Minn. advertising a “F— Michele Bachmann 2010” tape party featuring the hip-hop artist G-Biz . And on Sean Hannity’s June 17 radio program, the Minnesota congresswoman responded to it and likened it to other shots taken at her. “It was just brought to my attention yesterday,” she said. “This is part of a pattern. I know you reported on this before – the Playboy article. They have highlighted various conservative women and talked about very lewd, derogatory, hateful violent things that they wanted to do toward those women. I was one of those women and this is a concert series, as you said, where they’re using degrading terminology. Also in Minneapolis, there’s a comic book series that was written showing me in a similar light.” Flier Posted Below Fold