Tag Archives: government

Arianna Huffington Whines When PolitiFact Doesn’t Support Her Half-Truth

In today’s “Careful What You Ask For” segment, liberal publisher Arianna Huffington is crying at her website because the folks at PolitiFact didn’t back up her statement that Halliburton has defrauded American taxpayers of hundreds of millions of dollars in Iraq. Making this most delicious, Huffington asked to be fact-checked by the group! For those that have forgotten, the former outspoken conservative was a guest on ABC’s “This Week” on June 6 when she get into the following squabble with Liz Cheney (video and transcript follow with commentary, relevant section at 7:30): ARIANNA HUFFINGTON: Right here, we have the poster child of Bush-Cheney crony capitalism. Halliburton involved in this, and we haven’t said about that. They after all were responsible for cementing the well. Here’s Halliburton, after it defrauded the American taxpayer hundreds of millions of dollars — LIZ CHENEY: Arianna, I don’t know what planet you live on, but that’s not — HUFFINGTON: — it’s involved again. I’m living on this planet. You’re living in a planet that is — CHENEY: — it’s — Arianna, what you’re saying — HUFFINGTON: — continuing — CHENEY: — has no relationship to — HUFFINGTON: It is completely — CHENEY: No relationship to the effects — HUFFINGTON: — Halliburton was involved in this. How can you say it is not? TAPPER: Well, Halliburton was cementing the pipe. HUFFINGTON: How can you say Halliburton has no relationship? CHENEY: Her assertion that Halliburton defrauded the U.S. government — HUFFINGTON: It did. It did. CHENEY: It was Bush-Cheney cronyism is the left talking point — HUFFINGTON: It was — hundreds of millions of dollars in Iraq. CHENEY: Arianna, is absolutely not true. It is absolutely not true. HUFFINGTON: OK, I’m so glad Politifact is going to be checking this. I’m so glad. CHENEY: Good. On June 9, PolitiFact acceded to her request: In evaluating Huffington’s statement, we’re most bothered by her use of the word “defrauded.” Some of the overbilling in Iraq appears to have been done from haste or inefficiency, or even in a desire to please military officials in the field without regard for cost. Whether the waste in contracting constitutes fraud is still being examined. “It’s a lot money being spent in a region of the world where we don’t have a lot of infrastructure for accounting for how the money is being spent. It will take years before we fully determine how we spent the money,” said Todd Harrison, a senior fellow for defense budget studies at the nonpartisan Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments. In ruling on Huffington’s statement, we find much in the public record to support her statement, most notably the Justice Department lawsuit. Certainly there have been hundreds of millions of dollars that Halliburton’s KBR attempted to charge the government that have been denied. Government audits of KBR’s work in Iraq will likely continue for some time, and we do not expect a final accounting on these fronts anytime soon. Huffington glossed over some of these points in her back and forth with Liz Cheney. There’s also much evidence that makes us believe that hundreds of millions of dollars were lost to waste and inefficiency, not deceitful fraud. So we rate Huffington’s statement Half True. Almost a month later, Huffington is whining about it at her website: Whenever I speak about the future of media, I get the most positive reaction when I talk about the urgent need to create an online tool that makes it possible to instantly fact-check politicians and commentators as they speak (a bubble pops up, containing the actual facts supporting or contradicting what’s been said). Truth 2.0. That’s why I had such high hopes when it was announced that PolitiFact.com, the Pulitzer Prize-winning fact-checking project of the St. Petersburg Times, was going to evaluate the truthfulness of statements made each Sunday an ABC’s This Week. It wasn’t going to be instant, but it was a step in the right direction. Then my dust-up with Liz Cheney on the show last month was given the PolitiFact treatment — and I saw firsthand why the pursuit of Truth 2.0 is going to be harder than we think. PolitiFact’s finding that my statement that Halliburton had defrauded American taxpayers of “hundreds of millions of dollars in Iraq” was “Half True” — after first documenting example after example of why it was completely true — was an object lesson in equivocation, and a prime exhibit of the kind of muddled thinking that dominates Washington and allows the powerful to escape accountability. Despite the ludicrousness of the Half True rating — and since I was in the final throes of finishing my new book — I let it stand, feeling that the absurdity of PolitiFact first making my case for me, then falling back on the safety of a split-the-baby conclusion spoke for itself. Then, over the weekend, I read this entry detailing PolitiFact’s readers’ reaction to the Half True finding. Rummaging through its Mailbag, PolitiFact quoted three readers who said I was right (while castigating the site for “rhetorical tap-dancing” and “falling victim to the ills of pious fairness”), one who said I was wrong, and one who thought Half True was “right on.” Because this kind of hedging-your-bets thinking runs rampant in our media and political circles, and allows the corrupt no-accountability status quo to continue wreaking havoc on our country — and with my book at the printers, and a long weekend on my hands — I’ve decided it’s worth returning to the scene of the crime to do a little CSI exam of the evidence and see what we can conclude from PolitiFact’s head-scratching conclusion. After equivocating her case, Huffington concluded: Which is why I’d like to borrow two of the busiest letters of the day, and take this BP: Beyond PolitiFact. In the end, this is not about me, or Liz Cheney, or even Halliburton. It’s about our accountability double standard. It’s actually not that complex, nor is it ambiguous. It’s plainly obvious and the American people know it. And the refusal of our political and media leaders to acknowledge it is contributing to the widespread anger and cynicism sweeping the country right now. As long as we allow truth backed up by a mountain of evidence to be, in the name of “pious fairness,” downgraded to Half True, that’s the way the planet we’re all living on is going to continue to operate. And that’s a fact. I guess she’s no longer “so glad Politifact is going to be checking” her!  In the end, Huffington asked PolitiFact to access the veracity of her statement. They complied, and came to the conclusion that she was only half right. And like a true liberal, she whined about it claiming that it’s an example of everything that’s wrong with the world. Don’t you love how the mind of a liberal media elite works?

Read more here:
Arianna Huffington Whines When PolitiFact Doesn’t Support Her Half-Truth

Can Excess Fruit Fight Urban Hunger?

Image credit: Food Forward Fresh fruit isn’t the first thing that comes to mind when I think about LA. Nevertheless, we’ve already heard about Fallen Fruit —an art project turned activist movement which aims to liberate unused ‘public’ fruit. (The movement eventually lead to a take over of LA Art Museum with some edible environmental art .) Another crew of Angelinos seeking to redefine their cities relationship to food is

See original here:
Can Excess Fruit Fight Urban Hunger?

Cate Blanchett Shines on Australia’s Second Largest Rooftop Solar Installation

Photo: Sydney Theatre Company Better known for lighting up the stage and screen, Oscar winner Cate Blanchett, (with husband and Co-Artistic Director of the Sydney Theatre Company) has teamed up with Australian federal government, the University of New South Wales and the NSW Government Architect’s Office to shine the light in a project known as, Greening the Wharf. The light in this instance will be sunlight. Or more precisely the capture of it. The Sydney Theatre Company’s blog on the matter notes that EnergyAustralia have calculates the 1,900-plus solar panels (and energy efficiency savings) will generate about 614,000 kWh a ye… Read the full story on TreeHugger

Originally posted here:
Cate Blanchett Shines on Australia’s Second Largest Rooftop Solar Installation

Pentagon buys $82 million a month in fuel from BP, despite spill

This is why our government is not taking action – The Pentagon is the largest user of oil in the world, more than any other single nation or corporation, and they get it from BP. http://rawstory.com/rs/2010/0705/spill-continues-pentagon-buying-bp/ added by: samantha420

White House Enacts Rules Inhibiting Media From Covering Oil Spill

The White House Thursday enacted stronger rules to prevent the media from showing what’s happening with the oil spill in the Gulf Coast. CNN’s Anderson Cooper reported that evening, “The Coast Guard today announced new rules keeping photographers and reporters and anyone else from coming within 65 feet of any response vessel or booms out on the water or on beaches — 65 feet.” He elaborated, “Now, in order to get closer, you have to get direct permission from the Coast Guard captain of the Port of New Orleans. You have to call up the guy. What this means is that oil-soaked birds on islands surrounded by boom, you can’t get close enough to take that picture.” As the segment continued, Cooper expressed disgust with this rule repeating several times, “We are not the enemy here” (video follows with transcript and commentary, h/t Cubachi via Hot Air ): ANDERSON COOPER, HOST: But we begin, as we do every night, “Keeping Them Honest”. This time, however, we’re not talking about BP. We’re talking about the government, a new a rule announced today backed by the force of law and the threat of fines and felony charges, a rule that will prevent reporters and photographers and anyone else from getting anywhere close to booms and oil-soaked wildlife and just about any place we need to be. By now, you’re probably familiar with cleanup crews stiff-arming the media, private security blocking cameras, ordinary workers clamming up, some not even saying who they’re working for because they’re afraid of losing their jobs. BP has said again and again that’s not their policy. Yet, again and again, it has happened. And we have seen it. But that’s BP. And now the government apparently is getting in on the act, despite what Admiral Thad Allen promised about transparency just nearly a month ago. Here is what he said back then. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) ADMIRAL THAD ALLEN (RET.), NATIONAL INCIDENT COMMANDER: I have put out a written directive — and I can provide it for the record — that says the media will have uninhibited access anywhere we’re doing operations, except for two things, if it’s a security or a safety problem. That is my policy. (END VIDEO CLIP) COOPER: Uninhibited access, unless it’s a security or safety problem. Well, the Coast Guard today announced new rules keeping photographers and reporters and anyone else from coming within 65 feet of any response vessel or booms out on the water or on beaches — 65 feet. Now, in order to get closer, you have to get direct permission from the Coast Guard captain of the Port of New Orleans. You have to call up the guy. What this means is that oil-soaked birds on islands surrounded by boom, you can’t get close enough to take that picture. Shots of oil on beaches with booms, stay 65 feet away. Pictures of oil-soaked booms uselessly laying in the water because they haven’t been collected like they should, you can’t get close enough to see that. And, believe me, that is out there. But you only know that if you get close to it, and now you can’t without permission. Violators could face a fine of $40,000 and Class D felony charges. What’s even more extraordinary is that the Coast Guard tried to make the exclusion zone 300 feet, before scaling it back to 65 feet. Here is how Admiral Allen defends it. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) ALLEN: Well, it’s not unusual at all for the Coast Guard to establish either safety or security zones around any number of facilities or activities for public safety or for the safety of the equipment itself. We would do this for marine events, fireworks demonstrations, cruise ships going in and out of port. (END VIDEO CLIP) COOPER: So, this is the exact same logic that federal wildlife officials used to prevent CNN on two occasions from getting pictures of oiled birds that have been collected, pictures like — like the — well, that we’re about to show you which are obviously deeply disturbing, pictures of oiled gulls that we just happened to catch. Suddenly, we were told after — after that day we couldn’t catch it anymore. So, keeping prying eyes out of marshes, away from booms, off the beaches is now government policy. When asked why now, after all this time, Thad Allen said he had gotten some complaints from local officials worried people might get hurt. Now, we don’t know who these officials are. We would like to. But transparency is apparently not a high priority with Thad Allen either these days. Maybe he is accurate and some officials are concerned. And that’s their right. But we’ve heard far more from local officials about not being able to get a straight story from the government or BP. I have met countless local officials desperate for pictures to be taken and stories written about what is happening in their communities. We’re not the enemy here. Those of us down here trying to accurately show what’s happening, we are not the enemy. I have not heard about any journalist who has disrupted relief efforts. No journalist wants to be seen as having slowed down the cleanup or made things worse. If a Coast Guard official asked me to move, I would move. But to create a blanket rule that everyone has to stay 65 feet away boom and boats, that doesn’t sound like transparency. Frankly, it’s a lot like in Katrina when they tried to make it impossible to see recovery efforts of people who died in their homes. If we can’t show what is happening, warts and all, no one will see what’s happening. And that makes it very easy to hide failure and hide incompetence and makes it very hard to highlight the hard work of cleanup crews and the Coast Guard. We are not the enemy here. We found out today two public broadcasting journalists reporting on health issues say they have been blocked again and again from visiting a federal mobile medical unit in Venice, a trailer where cleanup workers are being treated. It’s known locally as the BP compound. And these two reporters say everyone they have talked to, from BP to the Coast Guard, to Health and Human Services in Washington has been giving them the runaround. We’re not talking about a CIA station here. We’re talking about a medical trailer that falls under the authority of, guess who, Thad Allen, the same Thad Allen who promised transparency all those weeks ago. We are not the enemy here. Actually, Anderson, to this administration, anyone trying to tell the truth to the American people is the enemy. Maybe if folks like you would have accurately reported the background of Barack Obama when he was running for president he wouldn’t have assumed you were going to continue to misrepresent and ignore facts for his benefit after if he got elected. To anyone with even a lukewarm intelligence quotient, this was an eminently foreseeable consequence of the media treating candidate Obama like a rock star. If they had acted like journalists back then instead of groupies, maybe they’d be treated with more respect today.  Now that some press members actually want to act like reporters again and aggressively try to cover what’s going on in the Gulf Coast, the White House must feel somewhat spurned by his previously complicit press thereby necessitating rules to keep them from getting close to the truth now that they mysteriously seem interested in reporting it. Of course, those on the other side of the aisle are not at all surprised, for like so many of the promises this man made during the campaign, we didn’t believe his most transparent administration in history pledge either. Maybe in the future media won’t allow their love for a candidate to make them so gullible and compliant, but I wouldn’t count on it.

See the original post:
White House Enacts Rules Inhibiting Media From Covering Oil Spill

AP Quietly Lowers the ‘Normal’ Unemployment Bar to 6%

Those looking for evidence that there a move afoot in the establishment press to lower the bar for whatever economic accomplishments might be accomplished during the Obama administration will be interested in how the Associated Press’s report on the government’s June jobs report defined “normal” unemployment. Perhaps it’s valid for reporters Jeannine Aversa and Christopher Rugaber to refer to 6% unemployment as “normal,” if by that they mean “typical non-recessionary” or “long-term average” unemployment. But I couldn’t help but remember that during the Bush 43 and Reagan years, unemployment rates just above and occasionally even below that level were described by wire service reporters and other journalists as “persistent unemployment” — i.e., decidedly not “normal.” I quickly found several AP and other reports from those eras that confirmed my recall of what is now a demonstrated double standard. Here is the opening sentence from the AP report , followed by the term-redefining paragraph: A second straight month of lackluster hiring by American businesses is sapping strength from the economic rebound. … Unemployment is expected to stay above 9 percent through the midterm elections in November. And the Fed predicts joblessness could still be as high as 7.5 percent two years from now. Normal is considered closer to 6 percent , and economists say it will probably take until the middle of this decade to achieve that. “Closer to 6%” seems to imply that “normal” is really “slightly above” that level.  It’s legitimate to question whether there has really been an economic rebound when people who are looking for work aren’t finding it and so many others have abandoned their quest. The truth is that the number of people reported as working according to the Establishment Survey in yesterday’s Employment Situation Report is lower than it was a year ago , when the recession as normal people define it ended. It’s also worth remembering, assisted by an updated version of the indispensable chart from Innocents Bystanders , that the administration predicted that its stimulus plan would return the economy to the AP’s new “normal” by the first quarter of 2012, three years earlier than “the middle of this decade”: Oops. Here are some previous examples of situations described by the establishment press as “persistent unemployment”: October 7, 2003 — Both an AP story and an item at USA Today on California’s recall election told readers that “Californians face an $8 billion state budget deficit, persistent unemployment and struggling schools.” The Golden State’s unemployment rate in September 2003 was 6.4% . June 13, 2003 — A Reuters report on consumer sentiment relayed that “Consumer sentiment deteriorated sharply in early June, suggesting persistent unemployment is taking its toll on Americans’ expectations for the economy’s future.” The national unemployment rate in May 2003 was 6.1% . April 4, 2004 — A Fox News item to which AP contributed claimed that “there is evidence that persistent unemployment, despite other signs of a recovering economy, is taking its toll on the president’s popularity.” On April 2, the government reported a national unemployment rate of 5.7% . Going back further, in a March 29, 1987 book review at the New York Times (“No Time for Radicals”), Michael Janeway wrote this of author Robert Lekachman: “Under Ronald Reagan, the author writes, no god but that of the marketplace is worshiped, yielding ‘privatization, militarization, persistent unemployment, de-unionization, middle-class shrinkage, and the triumph of plutocracy.’ Mr. Lekachman’s cases in point, when backed by fact and figure, make for an intelligently passionate brief against the Reagan Administration.” Janeway didn’t dispute the factual accuracy of Lekachman’s claim about “persistent unemployment, which at the time was 6.5% . Gosh, who knew that “normal” was only a half-point or less below that of “a mean society”? But what was once “persistent unemployment” is now “normal.” No double standard there (/sarcasm). Oh, wait a minute. Maybe the AP pair is subtly informing us that as long as the Obama administration is in power and Democrats control Congress, “persistent unemployment” will be “normal.” If so, guys, thanks for letting us know. Cross-posted at BizzyBlog.com.

Read the rest here:
AP Quietly Lowers the ‘Normal’ Unemployment Bar to 6%

AP Report Understates the Financial Impact of LIHEAP’s Heap of Liars and Thieves

At the Associated Press, Kelli Kennedy’s Thursday report on fraud and abuse in the Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program ( LIHEAP ), which is well done in several aspects, nonetheless significantly understates the losses that are occurring in the program. The AP report deals with a now-released Government Accountability Office report on the results of investigations in nine states. Here are the first four paragraphs of Kennedy’s report (HT David Freddoso at the Washington Examiner), including reference to a woman who is LIHEAP’s version of a welfare queen: A federal program designed to help impoverished families heat and cool their homes wasted more than $100 million paying the electric bills of thousands of applicants who were dead, in prison or living in million-dollar mansions, according to a government investigation. The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services spent $5 billion through the Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Program in 2009, doling out money to states with little oversight of the program. Some states don’t verify applicants’ identifies or income. For example, the program helped pay the electric bill of a woman who lives in a $2 million home in a wealthy Chicago suburb and drives a Mercedes, according to the yet-to-be released report obtained by The Associated Press. The Government Accountability Office studied the program after a 2007 investigation by Pennsylvania’s state auditor found 429 applicants received more than $162,000 using the Social Security numbers of dead people. The GAO investigated Illinois, Maryland, Michigan, New Jersey, New York, Ohio, and Virginia, which represented about one-third of the program’s funding in 2009. The agency found improper payments in about 9 percent of households receiving benefits in those states, totaling $116 million. Unless someone can demonstrate that other states’ LIHEAP programs are airtight (good luck with that), the true losses in the program are far higher than the figure Kennedy cited. We already know from her report that Pennsylvania, which was outside the scope of GAO’s investigation, has had serious program problems. Since the states involved “represented about one-third of the program’s funding,” total losses to fraud and abuse are more than likely in the neighborhood of $350 million or three times higher than the reported $116 million. Kennedy should have included a sentence along these lines: “If the experience of these six states is representative of what is occurring in the program nationwide, annual LIHEAP losses to fraud and abuse are about $350 million.” LIHEAP’s long list of “not for profit” and corporate defenders at the Campaign for Home Energy Assistance are already defending the program in response to Kennedy’s report. The following is from a statement currently on the group’s home page : We are disappointed that LIHEAP funds may have gone to ineligible parties. In this economy, more and more households cannot afford to heat and cool their homes because of financial woes. The poor, vulnerable populations that this program serves should not be denied the assistance they needs because of some bad actors or some administrative mismanagement. They also believe that the program’s scope should be quintupled: At $5.1 billion in LIHEAP funding, only 1 in 5 eligible Americans are served, which means there are many people who need assistance and are not getting it. A question separate from AP’s report: What would happen to a business where 9% of payments to employees or vendors were improper? Answer: They’d be out of business. But in government, the easy answer is not to clamp down on fraud and abuse (later paragraphs in the AP article demonstrate a decided reluctance to do that on the part of those who should be doing it). Instead, its “answers” are to either raise taxes or borrow more money while constantly advocating even more spending. Meanwhile, the fraud and abuse go on and on. “Responsible government” and “Government oversight,” once again, are shown to be oxymorons. Cross-posted at BizzyBlog.com .

See more here:
AP Report Understates the Financial Impact of LIHEAP’s Heap of Liars and Thieves

More Washington Post Ethics Issues: Blogger’s Employment by White House Goes Unmentioned

You would think in the wake of the problems with   former Washington Post blogger Dave Weigel   in addition to   abandoned plans by the Post’s publisher Katharine Weymouth   to charge lobbyists and trade groups thousands of dollars for access “to top congressional and administration officials for $25,000 a plate” at a dinner party her home, the folks at the Post would be a little more careful with their ever-expanding empire of new media. But that’s not the case. According to   a July 2 article posted on RawStory.com by Ron Brynaer t, there is an undisclosed connection between the Obama White House and the Post. Brynaert notes   in the Post’s July 2 report from Ed O’Keefe , the whopping $38.7-million payroll of the Obama administration reveals there are three people that aren’t taking a salary, which O’Keefe fails to name. One of those is Patricia G. McGinnis, “Advisor to the Obama White House on leadership programs for Presidential Appointees.” But there is more to McGinnis, which Brynaert pointed out. ” McGinnis’ Georgetown biography notes   that she “is the former President and CEO of the Council for Excellence in Government, where she created and led a number of innovative programs to improve the performance of government, during her 14 year tenure” and also   ‘serves [as] a panelist and blogger for the Washington Post ‘On Leadership’ website.’ ” McGinnis was also listed as an unpaid adviser in 2009. Now this might have been nice to know because it violates the Post’s ethics policy, as Brynaert explained. “McGinnis was also listed as an unpaid adviser in the   White House payroll statistics released in 2009 ,” Brynaert wrote. “According to the Post’s   media ethics policy , ‘This newspaper is pledged to avoid conflict of interest or the appearance of conflict of interest, wherever and whenever possible. We have adopted stringent policies on these issues, conscious that they may be more restrictive than is customary in the world of private business.'” As for McGinnis’ content – there are indeed some glowing accounts of Obama,   which Brynaert has compiled , including one in January: “The first year of Obama’s presidency has produced an ambitious agenda for change, which congressional Republicans have resisted at every turn with chilling partisanship.”

Go here to read the rest:
More Washington Post Ethics Issues: Blogger’s Employment by White House Goes Unmentioned

Angry Keynesian: Krugman Threatens to ‘Punch’ Detractors ‘In the Kisser’

Paul Krugman is known for throwing a bomb or two from his platform in the New York Times, but it’s really tough to take him for a violent fellow. In his July 2 blog post , “I’m Gonna Haul Out The Next Guy Who Calls Me ‘Crude’ And Punch Him In the Kisser,” Krugman lamented criticism of his support for more stimulus spending. A July 1 editorial in The Economist noted that the economy needs more private spending, not more government spending. “Mr Krugman’s crude Keynesianism underplays the link between firms’ and households’ behaviour and their expectations of future tax and spending policy,” the editorial said. “For example, firms across the rich world are hoarding cash. Their reluctance to invest may have more to do with regulatory, financial and fiscal uncertainty than weak consumer demand (see article ). If governments address those worries, businesspeople may start spending.” But Krugman argued he does get it, but disagrees – although he didn’t seem to address this argument of long-term spending. Instead, he called for more Keynesian medicine . “All through this debate, a recurring theme among anti-Keynesians has been that Keynesians like me or Brad [DeLong of Grasping Reality with Both Hands ] are ignorant primitives who don’t know anything about modern macro,” Krugman wrote. “It’s really hard to see where that comes from, since I’ve done plenty of intertemporal optimizing in my time. Part of the problem seems to be that the people saying this are taken aback by what we’re saying because they don’t actually understand the implications of their own models .” Over the past couple years, Krugman has been an outspoken advocate of government stimulus spending, criticized a $775 billion stimulus plan for being too small , called for a second stimulus , and even claimed in 2008 that “we probably have $10 trillion of running room ” when asked how much the government could spend to turn the economy around. But that begs the question – could a conservative economist get away with suggesting he wants to “haul out the next guy who calls me ‘crude’ and punch him in the kisser? Doubtful.

More here:
Angry Keynesian: Krugman Threatens to ‘Punch’ Detractors ‘In the Kisser’

EPA blocked ships from cleaning Oil Spill

Lawrence Solomon, Financial Post