Tag Archives: events

10 Green Events During Fashion’s Night Out in New York City

Images via Fashion’s Night Out Fashion’s Night Out is an evening dedicated to revitalizing the fashion industry: consumers are encouraged to come out and shop at the hundreds (if not thousands) of participating stores around the globe, this Friday, September 10. While the event welcomes consumerism, there are plenty of ways to take part without over-spending, or even shopping for that matter. In New York, listen to free live music, mingle with a favorite fashion designer, and take part in a bevy of green fashion and bea… Read the full story on TreeHugger

More:
10 Green Events During Fashion’s Night Out in New York City

On This Labor Day, Demand Safe Green Jobs, And Honor Those Who Work With Their Hands

There is a price to pay for cheap energy and gas for our cars that goes beyond dollars, as we saw this year with the 29 dead miners in West Virginia and the 11 on the Deepwater Horizon platform in the Gulf. American labor used to make things and fix things, and used to be proud to do it, for a decent wage. … Read the full story on TreeHugger

View original post here:
On This Labor Day, Demand Safe Green Jobs, And Honor Those Who Work With Their Hands

On James Lee and the Events at Discovery Communications Headquarters

photo: Michael Graham Richard As most readers have probably heard or read by now, yesterday was a dramatic day at the Silver Spring, Maryland headquarters of TreeHugger’s parent company, Discovery Communications. Early in the afternoon a lone man, later identified to be James J. Lee , entered the building, brandishing a pistol and carrying explosives, and began taking hostages. The situation ended four hours later with the hostages unharmed and Lee losing his… Read the full story on TreeHugger

Excerpt from:
On James Lee and the Events at Discovery Communications Headquarters

Teaching Lefties a Lesson With the Discovery Wacko: Modeling v. Mirroring

One failure of logic is to generalize from the anecdotal to the whole. Conservatives, who know rules of logic-we have Thomas Sowell after all (see what I did there?)-understand this. So, when it comes to rhetorical arguments or situations where some weirdo commits some random badness, they tend to blame…well, the perpetrator. It’s also just fundamental fairness. The left, in contrast, has spent the last year and half trying to pin every act of terrorism and evil on the vast, white, racist, homophobic, bigoted Tea Party. They do it without shame. They impugn, malign and besmirch repeatedly. Best Tea Party sign? “You’ll say I’m racist anyway.” Lefties generalize from anecdotes unless the crazy person is one of their own (and yes, that was just a generalization). Then, of course, the crazy is an “outlier”. He’s a  depraved individual . And often, there are  compelling reasons for the outburst. Those compelling reasons  demand more examination . And upon examination, well, it turns out the context is  complex and nuanced . Enter the Discovery Building bomber-hostage taker-gun nut. The blogger Atrios was quick to point out that the guy with a clear eco-terrorist bent was just a “crazy individual”. What ensued were two responses: Rise above it and model good behavior or get dirty and use the opposition’s tactics of smearing the whole with the actions of one. Ace chided Mary Katherine Ham and  Michelle Malkin for letting the Left off the hook . (Michelle said that she’s “not playing the opportunistic blame game.”) They get to have it both ways he said and they won’t learn to stop using their unfair tactics if they’re never called on it. Michelle said (and I’m paraphrasing) it doesn’t matter, the Left never learns. To which  Ace responded thusly : No they never learn, but they can be forced to go on record w statements that lunatics’ lunacies are not due to “rhetoric.” I happen to agree with Ace on this. I’ll tell you why, but first a detour of explanation. One of my children has autism. An autistic child is inside his own head and lacks a certain self-awareness. So, for example, when the child does repetitive behaviors called “stimming” like rocking in place or flapping his hands in front of his eyes, he doesn’t realize what he’s doing. A parent might say, “Johnny, stop swaying” or “Stop flapping” and the child will continue. He doesn’t know that he’s doing anything. Modeling normative behavior can help- but only if the child is aware of the normative behavior . That is, if he is not “seeing” it, he cannot model it. He is internally focused and that’s the problem. So how do you get that child out of his head? You mirror his behavior. Try it some time. A child who is swaying or flapping will show a dawn of awareness when the parent or teacher mirrors what the child is doing in front of his face. So, in my house, I will start flapping my hands in front of my face and my son will get a sly smile of awareness and he’ll stop. He gets out of his own head for a minute, registers his behavior and quits. It is very effective. In fact, it is far more effective than modeling…until the unwanted behavior stops. Once the child stops the asocial behavior, he will start watching for different behavior. Awareness comes first. You can see where I’m going with this.  From what I can tell, and it’s a scientific fact to boot, leftists lack empathy . That is, they cannot put themselves in someone elses’ shoes and modify behavior based on how they would feel if the behavior was turned toward them. They are rather autistic about their intellectual and social behavior. They’ll tar and feather a whole segment of people based on the action of one crazy and not even bat an eye. However, when their own crazy gets caught, they want the more reasonable and reasoned and logical response of not smearing a whole group of people (say, all people who watched and liked the Al Gore movie  An Inconvenient Truth ). Modeling has not helped the left. They simply do not see good behavior. They’re too into their own lefty world where their own asocial behavior is reinforced and fed (for example, Journolist). What is the answer then? Mirroring. At every opportunity, people on the right need to illustrate the absurd by being absurd. A crazy dude who hates babies and loves squirrels? Why, he’s a typical environmentalist! I mean, how is he different from Keith Olbermann and Dylan Ratigan? They’re all crazy, anger-lust filled wackos who would love for the world to be rid of humans and populated with trillions of squirrels. The funny thing is that conservatives and libertarians on Twitter are in on the joke. Well, most of them are. They get that the smear is unfair and ridiculous. They understand that it’s childish and a little silly. They have also learned that modeling fairness to the lefties does not work. They simply are too inside their own experience. So, mirroring it is. When lefties start holding to fairness in reporting and thinking, when they start viewing right-leaning outliers as the work of crazy outliers, it will be time to start modeling good behavior. I understand the notion of being above it and acting in a manner in which you want others to act. I get not getting dirty. I also know that playing nice hamstrings the right and gives the left license. So, as long as the mirroring is conducted in a self-aware, joking manner, I say have at it. Court Jesters, parody, and all manner of humor have always been used to reveal absurdity and bad behavior. Until the left mends their mendacious ways, mirroring is the best medicine. Crossposted at Liberty Pundits  

Follow this link:
Teaching Lefties a Lesson With the Discovery Wacko: Modeling v. Mirroring

Pelley’s Pathetic Puffball: Mosque Developer Didn’t Have Choice Of Where To Put It

Could Scott Pelley possibly be this naive, or was he willingly playing the role of MSM cheerleader for the developer of the Ground Zero Mosque? In the course of a chummy interview of GZM developer Sharif El-Gamal aired on Sunday’s 60 Minutes, Pelley produced a pearl.  Instead of asking a probing question, the CBS “reporter” served as an advocate for El-Gamal’s position when it came to the siting of the mosque. Pelley, on his own initiative, asserted: “You don’t have your choice of putting this anywhere you want to. There aren’t many spots.” Right.  Not many.  Only tens of thousands of commercial sites in Manhattan.  The mosque men didn’t want to put it near Ground Zero.  Pure coincidence, I tell ya.  They were virtually forced to site it there by the vicissitudes of the merciless real estate market. Hard-hitting stuff, Scott.  Mike Wallace is surely proud.

Read the original post:
Pelley’s Pathetic Puffball: Mosque Developer Didn’t Have Choice Of Where To Put It

WaPo’s Capehart Lauds Ken Mehlman By Comparing Him to a Recovered Segregationist

Former Republican National Committee chairman Ken Mehlman’s declaration that he is homosexual caused gay-left Washington Post editorialist Jonathan Capehart to embrace Mehlman…and compare him to the most hardline segregationist. Once again, in Sunday’s newspaper, racism and opposition to the sin of homosexuality were shamelessly equated on Mehlman’s “road to redemption” — but the Sunday edit left out Capehart’s praise for ex-conservative David Brock: Now that Mehlman has made his journey, I am happy that he has already started down the road of redemption. As Ambinder reports, Mehlman has been a de facto strategist for the American Foundation for Equal Rights . That’s the group behind the landmark lawsuit against California’s Proposition 8 banning same-sex marriage. He must keep at it if he is to overcome the deep resentment and distrust that now greets his coming out. It’s possible. Just look at George Wallace and David Brock. Wallace, the legendary Alabama politician, was a progressive who became a rabid segregationist in the 1960s. The dude was way on the wrong side of the civil rights movement at many of its pivotal moments. But when he ran for a final term as governor in 1982 he won with 90 percent of the African American vote . Wallace garnered that vote by spending years making amends — real and symbolic — and asking forgiveness. Brock also reconciled his antagonistic past. After being a significant cog in the “vast right wing conspiracy,” he wrote a 2002 biography that exposed his hidden homosexuality and his role in said conspiracy to take down the Clintons. Part of his redemption was creating in 2004 Media Matters the indispensable progressive website that now monitors the right wing misinformation machine he helped create. Mehlman is the highest-ranking Republican to come out of the closet. (Move over, Mary Cheney.) If he maintains his high-powered efforts to bring his party to the fight for marriage equality, gay men and lesbians will thank Mehlman for his help when same-sex marriage is legal in the United States. It’s not going to happen with Democrats alone, folks.

Originally posted here:
WaPo’s Capehart Lauds Ken Mehlman By Comparing Him to a Recovered Segregationist

Flashback: After Katrina, Sensationalistic Media Accounts Earned Press a D-Minus

Five years ago on Sunday, Hurricane Katrina smashed into the Gulf coast, devastating much of the region, and most memorably New Orleans. Yesterday was an occasion to look back at what went wrong in the city, and hope that the same mistakes are not made again. One of the most notorious failures surrounding Katrina was the media’s coverage of the situation in New Orleans. One “well-known [television] anchor,” actor and filmmaker Harry Shearer recalled in an interview with Daily Finance’s Jeff Bercovici, claimed the “the emotional stories are more compelling for our audience.” Hence, the media mostly ignored the larger issues facing the city – survivors still stranded on rooftops, the reasons for the levy’s failures – in favor of more sensationalistic, occasionally outright false stories. Shearer gives the media’s coverage – with the notable exceptions of only a couple outlets – a D-minus. Shearer told Bercovici: The [New York] Times did okay. I think the rest of the press gets a D, and probably a D-minus for their efforts at patting themselves on the back about how well they did speaking truth to power. Anderson Cooper … giving a lecture to [Louisiana senator] Mary Landrieu, like that’s the person you need to lecture. It was grandstanding and showboating in place of telling a story — partly because they left. They left. Water leaves, story over. The [New Orleans] Times-Picayune won two Pulitzers for their work because they couldn’t leave. They lived there. They had to stay. In addition to the Times’s coverage, Shearer also praised the work of Michael Grunwald, who covered Katrina for Time and the Washington Post. But he went on to blast the press’s shallow approach to post-Katrina coverage, claiming that news consumers saw “lots of images of people destitute and unhappy but never [got] to find out why.” W. Joseph Campbell, communications professor at American University and author of “Getting it Wrong: Ten of the Greatest Misreported Stories in American Journalism” (hint: Katrina is one of the 10) agrees with Shearer. In the book, he wrote that post-Katrina media coverage “was in important respects flawed and exaggerated. On crucial details, journalists erred badly, and got it wrong.” They reported snipers firing at medical personnel. They reported that shots were fired at helicopters, halting evacuations from the Convention Center [in New Orleans]. They told of bodies being stacked there like cordwood. They reported roving gangs were preying on tourists and terrorizing the occupants of the Superdome, raping and killing. They said children were victims of sexual assault, that one seven-year-old was raped and her throat was slit. They reported that sharks were plying the flooded streets of New Orleans. Those reports were all wrong, and they contributed mightily to the public (mis)perception of the situation in New Orleans. At his blog, Media Myth Alert , Campbell added no single news organization committed all those errors. And not all those lapses were committed at the same time, although they were largely concentrated during the first days of September 2005. In any case, I write, the erroneous and over-the-top reporting “had the cumulative the effect of painting for America and the rest of the world a scene of surreal violence and terror, something straight out of Mad Max or Lord of the Flies.” Estimates of Katrina’s death toll in New Orleans also were wildly exaggerated. U.S. Senator David Vitter, a Louisiana Republican, said on September 2, 2005, that fatalities in the state could reach 10,000 or more. Vitter described his estimate as “only a guess,” but it was nonetheless taken up by the then-New Orleans mayor, Ray Nagin, and reported widely. In all, the death toll in Louisiana from Katrina was around 1,500. About the inaccurate estimates of fatalities, the Times of London said it had become clear by in mid-September 2005 “that 10,000 people could have died only if more than 90 per cent of them had locked themselves into their homes, chained themselves to heavy furniture and chosen to drown instead of going upstairs as the waters rose.” But the Times rationalized the flawed reporting, suggesting that it was inevitable: When “nature and the 24-hour news industry collide, hyperbole results.” A weak excuse, that. Besides, post-Katrina reporting from New Orleans was more than hyperbolic: It described apocalyptic horrors that the hurricane supposedly unleashed. “D-minus” is none too generous. As usual, the media adopted the role of the nation’s finger-pointers in New Orleans in Katrina’s aftermath, singling out a number of people and institutions they thought deserved blame. Ironically, of all the failings in the days after the hurricane hit, the media’s will inevitably be remembered as among the most grave.

See more here:
Flashback: After Katrina, Sensationalistic Media Accounts Earned Press a D-Minus

A Revealing AP Slip? A Strange Stray Question Mark Appears in Report on Ground Zero Mosque Imam

An interesting character made an appearance in a Saturday evening Associated Press report by Cristian Salazar on Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf: It’s not a one-time accident. The same paragraph carried at Google’s version of the story has the same extra character: The question mark is actually well-placed, as the following paragraphs from Salazar’s report demonstrate (bolds are mine throughout this post): … With Rauf largely absent from the debate, opponents have scoured past statements and critics portray the imam as tone-deaf to the sensitivities of families who lost relatives on Sept. 11. They argue he should forthrightly condemn Arab political movements such as Hamas that the U.S. government has designated as terrorist organizations. Asked in June by WABC-AM whether he believed the State Department was correct in designating Hamas as a terrorist organization, Rauf gave a winding response: “I am not a politician. … The issue of terrorism is a very complex question. … I do not want to be placed … in a position of … where I am the target of one side or another.” … After the Sept. 11 attacks, Rauf was called on repeatedly by news organizations to help explain to Americans why the U.S. was so hated by some factions in the Muslim world. Some of his comments then have now been seized on by critics as evidence of anti-American views. “We tend to forget, in the West, that the United States has more Muslim blood on its hands than al Qaida has on its hands of innocent non-Muslims,” he said in a 2005 lecture in Australia. “You may remember that the U.S.-led sanction against Iraq led to the death of over half a million Iraqi children. This has been documented by the United Nations.” Salazar and the other AP contributors to the report (Religion Writer Rachel Zoll, AP writer David B. Caruso, and AP Investigative Researcher Randy Herschaft) “somehow” missed this item from just three weeks after the 9/11 terrorist attacks, in a 60 Minutes interview: BRADLEY: Are — are — are you in any way suggesting that we in the United States deserved what happened? Imam ABDUL RAUF: I wouldn’t say that the United States deserved what happened, but the United States policies were an accessory to the crime that happened. BRADLEY: OK. You say that we’re an accessory? Imam ABDUL RAUF: Yes. BRADLEY: How? Imam ABDUL RAUF: Because we have been an accessory to a lot of — of innocent lives dying in the world. In fact, it — in the most direct sense, Osama bin Laden is made in the USA. As to the stray question mark, I’d like to think that an AP gremlin– or perhaps one of the report’s three other contributors — is asking Salazar, “Who do you think you’re fooling?” The story as carried at both sites has been saved at my web host ( here and here ) for fair use, discussion, and future heckling purposes. Cross-posted at BizzyBlog.com .

Originally posted here:
A Revealing AP Slip? A Strange Stray Question Mark Appears in Report on Ground Zero Mosque Imam

Is Bloomberg Supporting Ground Zero Mosque for Business Reasons?

In recent days, New York Mayor Mike Bloomberg has become a beloved press figure as a result of his unshaking support for the Ground Zero mosque. Isn’t it fascinating how in this environment where rich people are being demonized at every turn all you need to do is a support a popular liberal cause and your financial sins are instantly forgiven? With this in mind, the good folks at Big Journalism have uncovered some rather startling financial connections between this media mogul and the Arab world that haven’t raised any eyebrows from journalists that love to follow the money when there’s a conservative at the other end of the smoking wallet. Consider the uproar last week surrounding News Corporation’s contribution to the Republican Governors Association. As you read Mondo Frazier’s marvelous piece  “Follow the Money: Could Mayor Bloomberg’s Media Business Interests in the Middle East Have Anything to Do with His Support of the Ground Zero Mosque?” ask yourself why the seemingly always curious press have ignored any examination of this billionaire’s motives: On October 2, 2009, The Dubai Chronicle reported Chairman and President of Bloomberg LP Peter T. Grauer met with UAE Vice President, Prime Minister and Ruler of Dubai His Highness Sheikh Mohammed bin Rashid Al Maktoum at Maktoum’s Emirate office. According to the Dubai Chronicle, Grauer gave a presentation of Bloomberg future expansion plans in the ‘area of business information’ in the United Emirates, North Africa, and India. Grauer stated the UAE was a great place to expand, the UAE’s “logistic facilities” the ‘biggest incentive for investors and companies to expand their businesses in the country and the region beyond’. “Particularly since the meltdown of the western capitalist system, there has been an increasingly large focus on the virtues of Islamic finance. Today, there is no one single provider of information that caters to the Islamic finance market. So by Bloomberg being here, we are in the process  of building out an Islamic finance product. We are very confident that we can build a product that meets the needs of the market right now.” -Max Linnington, Regional Head of Bloomberg Middle East and South Asia on the company’s plan to build a Bloomberg hub in Dubai at the Dubai International Financial Centre(DIFC), October 29, 2009 But there’s more: On March 10, 2010, the Khaleej Times reported Bloomberg Set for Dubai expansion in bid to double revenues by 2014 . “Bloomberg, a leading global provider for financial data and news services, plans to “significantly boost regional operations from its Dubai hub as it is bullish about growth prospects of the emirate as a global financial center, a top executive said.” The coincidences continue: the Mayor’s company is banking on “doubling revenues by 2014″ in a region that just happens to be largely populated by Muslims. As I said at the top, this is the kind of smoking gun the press would normally attack like a pack of hungry wolves. Couldn’t all the international publicity Bloomberg is now getting for being America’s foremost supporter of this mosque be doing wonders for his position in the Arab world? Mightn’t that dramatically help his media company’s push into this region? Why hasn’t this gotten the kind of coverage News Corp’s contribution to the RGA got last week? After all, the point made by folks on the Left was that News Corp’s reporting can’t possibly be taken seriously if it’s making such a large donation to one political Party. Shouldn’t the same be true for Bloomberg? If his media company has recently invested time and money in the Muslim world, and could benefit tremendously from the favorable publicity he’s getting concerning his advocacy of this mosque, shouldn’t his veracity be similarly questioned? This seems especially the case given further revelations about News Corp’s connections to Saudi billionaire Al-Waleed bin Talal. For those that missed it, former Bush administration official Dan Senor was on Fox & Friends Monday, and he made a comment about Al-Waleed’s financing of the Ground Zero mosque. This led liberal media members – including Comedy Central’s Jon Stewart – to point out that Al-Waleed is the biggest shareholder in News Corp. Missing in this newest Fox News gotcha was that it actually demonstrated FNC’s ability to separate the interests of its largest investor from its reporting. Think about it: if Fox was doing Al-Waleed’s bidding, its hosts and contributors wouldn’t be attacking a mosque their largest investor was funding. That would quite literally be biting the hand that feeds them. Quite the contrary, as the news outlet that has been the most outspoken against the location of this Islamic center, Fox has taken a position that can’t be at all popular with its largest shareholder. Maybe someone should inform Stewart and all the other Fox haters in the media of this delicious dichotomy. Which brings us back to New York’s mayor: if the press think FNC is incapable of separating its reporting from its political contributions, shouldn’t they have similar concerns that Bloomberg can’t separate his business interests from his mayoral decisions? Or do such conflicts of interest only arise for conservatives?

Link:
Is Bloomberg Supporting Ground Zero Mosque for Business Reasons?

Reporter Who Smeared Tea Party With False Accusations of Violence Has ‘No Regrets’

A reporter for the St. Louis paper the Riverfront Times has a message for all the members of the Tea Party movement he smeared with false accusations of political violence: “I have no regrets.” Chad Garrison penned a blog post last week speculating that a member of the Tea Party had firebombed the office of Rep. Russ Carnahan, D-Mo. “Given what we know of [the perpatrator] – 50, white, angry – he certainly fits the demographics of a Tea Party member,” Garrison wrote. ” “On second thought,” he added, “maybe he’s not a Tea Party member. Firebombing your opponent’s office seems a little too, um, sane for that group.” But it turns out the man was actually a disgruntled former Carnahan staffer and blogger for the left-wing site Talking Points Memo, not a member of the Tea Party. Members of the movement asked Garrison to retract. His response: you people have no sense of humor. “As to the legions of Tea Party adherents who are calling for my head: No, I have no regrets,” he said in an email. “I was having fun – at their expense.” In case you’re wondering (I was), the Riverfront Times does not bill itself as a sort of localized version of the Onion – it’s not a satirical publication. There also was no notice on Garrison’s piece that what followed was just a joke. So this apparently is the journalistic standard RFT imposes on its employees. They can smear entire political movements by speculating – without evidence and, it turns out, contrary to the facts – that its members are violent. When they’re called out for their sloppy and borderline-unethical reporting, they can just claim they were joking. How professional. As usual, Ace does a fantastic job of illustrating the utter absurdity of the whole debacle. I’ll let him close it out: Again.. I’m sure this is sick-funny but I’m a little too stupid, I’m afraid, to understand the humor here. It’s like that intellectual humor, you know, like on Frasier. Oh That Reminds Me… I heard a joke once. It was pretty funny. Stop me if you’ve heard this one before: Knock knock. — Who’s there? Boo. — Boo who? Boo who we’re going to take the country back and leave you with nothing but your hot hysterical tears as you sob to yourself that your New God is dead and make hesitation-cuts on your wrists with a straighrazor. Pretty good one too, right? I like the “boo hoo” part. And also, the part where you die broken and alone.

Go here to read the rest:
Reporter Who Smeared Tea Party With False Accusations of Violence Has ‘No Regrets’