Tag Archives: government

Revolutionary Rot, But News It’s Not: AP Ignores Venezuela’s ‘Battle for Food’

Late last year, a story carried by the wire service AFP reported on an announcement by Venezuela’s Hugo Chavez that his government would launch “a new chain of government-run, cut-rate retail stores that will sell everything from food to cars to clothing.” Chavez reportedly said that these “discount socialist stores” would show people “what a real market is all about, not those speculative, money-grubbing markets, but a market for the people.” This initiative was on top of Chavez’s creation of Mercal (link is to the Venezuelan home page, complete with “The Bolivarian Government of Venezuela” logo), a state-run network of grocery stores , seven years ago. How is this great leap forward into state control working out? A June 18 Reuters dispatch carried at CNBC reports that the government can’t even keep its food fresh. But that’s okay. The wire service takes a while to get there, and even then a bit of interpretation is necessary, but eventually we learn that the Chavez “solution” to that thorny problem is to seize replacement goods from private merchants: Hugo Chavez Spearheads Raids as Food Prices Skyrocket Mountains of rotting food found at a government warehouse, soaring prices and soldiers raiding wholesalers accused of hoarding: Food supply is the latest battle in President Hugo Chavez’s socialist revolution. Venezuelan army soldiers swept through the working class, pro-Chavez neighborhood of Catia in Caracas last week, seizing 120 tons of rice along with coffee and powdered milk that officials said was to be sold above regulated prices. “The battle for food is a matter of national security,” said a red-shirted official from the Food Ministry, resting his arm on a pallet laden with bags of coffee. It is also the latest issue to divide the Latin American country where Chavez has nationalized a wide swathe of the economy, he says to reverse years of exploitation of the poor. Chavez supporters are grateful for a network of cheap state-run supermarkets and they say the raids will slow massive inflation. Critics accuse him of steering the country toward a communist dictatorship and say he is destroying the private sector. They point to 80,000 tons of rotting food found in warehouses belonging to the government as evidence the state is a poor and corrupt administrator. Jose Guzman, an assistant manager at a store raided in Catia, watched with resignation as government agents pored over the company’s accounts and computers after the food ministry official and the television cameras left. “The government is pushing this type of establishment toward bankruptcy,” said Guzman, who linked the raid to the rotten food scandal. “Somehow they have to replace all the food that was lost, and this is the most expeditious way.” Brilliant. The Reuters report goes on to inform readers that “Food prices are up 41 percent in the last 12 months during a deep recession,” that Chavez has “revived threats to take over the country’s largest private food processor, miller and brewer, Polar,” and that “government now controls between 20 percent and 30 percent of the distribution of staple foods.” A search on “Venezuela” at the Associated Press’s main site indicates that though there are several stories on developments in that country, the wire service has not reported on this latest ratchet-up of the country’s ongoing socialist horror show. It would be unfair to contend that AP is ignoring Venezuela, but its headlines and/or its dispatches have displayed an annoying tendency to downplay the significance of what should be seen as scary developments. For example, a June 14 story with a misdirecting headline (“Venezuela takes control of another private bank”) would appear to be about government seizure of a financially troubled enterprise. The real story is that the the bank’s owner/former owner “just so happens” to be “a minority shareholder of Globovision, the country’s last TV channel that takes a stridently anti-government line.” A June 8 AP report on the country’s inflation casually notes that “The government has sought to confront inflation with a range of measures including recent seizures and shutdowns of businesses that authorities accuse of driving up prices.” Pray tell, what does seizing and shutting down businesses, thereby restricting supply, have to do with fighting inflation? The wire service also gives a virtual PR voice to Chavez statements that appear at first glance to be ploys designed to position his government as the virtue police. In a deceptively titled June 11 report (“Chavez targets alcohol, smoking in Venezuela”), AP reporter Jorge Rueda uncritically relays Chavez’s assertion that “the transition (to socialism) requires a moral crusade to change Venezuelans’ values.” Readers have to get to Rueda’s final paragraphs before they understand what this appeal to virtue is really all about : Chavez has also recently used the issue in his criticisms of the country’s largest food producer, Empresas Polar, which sells the country’s leading brand of beer, Polar. Chavez has ordered the expropriation of some of Polar’s warehouses, and has warned he could decide to take over more of the company. If the government did take over the Polar brewery, it would be shut down, Chavez has warned. Addressing Polar’s president, Lorenzo Mendoza, during Thursday’s speech, Chavez said: “I don’t know what you’re going to do … with your little Polar.” He used the term “Polarcita,” which Venezuelans often use for the small beer bottles that are popular in the country. Here’s an idea: If CNN, which yesterday declared its independence and fired the Associated Press , wants to make a mark with its own wire service efforts, it might want to consider dispatching correspondents to Venezuela to catch the world up on the slow-motion horror there that the AP and broadcast TV networks have either ignored or downplayed for years. Cross-posted at BizzyBlog.com .

Excerpt from:
Revolutionary Rot, But News It’s Not: AP Ignores Venezuela’s ‘Battle for Food’

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

Rasheed Wallace Starting Game 7 for Celtics

Filed under: Celtics , Lakers , NBA Injuries , NBA Playoffs , NBA Finals LOS ANGELES — To nobody’s surprise, Doc Rivers is going with the veteran. The Boston coach confirmed before Thursday night’s Game 7 of the NBA Finals that he will start Rasheed Wallace at center against the Lakers in place of injured Kendrick Perkins . Wallace, a 15-year veteran, is the only player on either team to have played in a Game 7 of the NBA Finals, taking the floor for Detroit in a 2005 loss at San Antonio. “He’s old,” Rivers said of Wallace, 35. “I figured I’d play the oldest guys. I just think it’s a good combination with Kevin because of the size, with (Lakers center Andrew) Bynum ‘s size. I just think it’s a better fit for us.” The 6-foot-11, 230-pound Wallace will take over for the 6-10, 265-pound Perkins, who was lost in Game 6 with torn ligaments in his right knee. The other candidate to go against the 7-foot, 285-pound Bynum was 6-9, 289-pound Glen Davis , who will come off the bench in the big game at the Staples Center.

Read this article:
Rasheed Wallace Starting Game 7 for Celtics

Smooth John Cena Talks Challenge of Fatal 4-Way and Future of WWE

Filed under: Pro Wrestling FanHouse had the opportunity to chat with John Cena before he participated as a celebrity judge along with Tony Parker and Erin Andrews in the Gillette Fusion ProGlide “Ultimate Summer Job” Contest on Tuesday. In our interview, John Cena discussed why he’s always been a baby-face (in the literal sense), what he’s expecting at the Fatal 4-Way event, and who he believes is a rising star in WWE. We also got his thoughts on Bryan Danielson’s disputed release from WWE and what the future holds for his beloved Boston Celtics . At WWE’s newest pay-per-view, Fatal 4-Way (Sunday, June 20 at 8 p.m. ET), Cena will defend his WWE Championship against Edge, Sheamus and Randy Orton in the main event. Our complete interview with the world champ is below.

Read this article:
Smooth John Cena Talks Challenge of Fatal 4-Way and Future of WWE

Rep. Joe Barton Apologizes to BP’s Tony Hayward for White House "Shakedown"

BP CEO Tony Hayward is in the midst of a harsh grilling today on Capitol Hill, where he is testifying House Committee on Energy and Commerce hearing on “The Role of BP in the Deepwater Horizon Explosion and Oil Spill.” But not long after the hearing began, Hayward got something not many expected from lawmakers: An apology. Rep. Joe Barton, a Texas Republican, apologized to Hayward for what he described as a “shakedown” at the White House yesterday. He was referring to the deal worked out between the Obama administration and BP to set up a $20 billion fund administered by a third party to pay for damages from the catastrophic oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico. “I'm ashamed of what happened in the White House yesterday,” Barton said. “I think it is a tragedy of the first proportion that a private corporation can be subjected to what I would characterize as a shakedown, in this case, a $20 billion shakedown.” He complained that “the attorney general of the United States, who is legitimately conducting a criminal investigation and has every right to do so to protect the interests of the American people, [is] participating in what amounts to a $20 billion slush fund that's unprecedented in our nation's history, that's got no legal standing, and which sets, I think, a terrible precedent for the future.” “I apologize,” Barton added. “I do not want to live in a country where any time a citizen or a corporation does something that is legitimately wrong is subject to some sort of political pressure that is — again, in my words, amounts to a shakedown. So I apologize.” “I'm speaking now totally for myself,” he noted. “I'm not speaking for the Republican Party.” Not long after Barton spoke, the White House released a statement calling his comments “shameful.” “What is shameful is that Joe Barton seems to have more concern for big corporations that caused this disaster than the fishermen, small business owners and communities whose lives have been devastated by the destruction,” said Press Secretary Robert Gibbs. “Congressman Barton may think that a fund to compensate these Americans is a 'tragedy', but most Americans know that the real tragedy is what the men and women of the Gulf Coast are going through right now. Members from both parties should repudiate his comments.” According to the Associated Press, Barton has taken more than $100,000 in political contributions from oil and gas interests since the beginning of 2009, more than all but one other member of the House Energy and Commerce Committee. At the hearing, Rep. Ed Markey (D – MA) said he “could not disagree more strongly” with Barton's comments. “Not only is the compensation fund that was created yesterday at the White House in an agreement reached between BP and President Obama not a slush fund and not a shakedown, rather it was the government of the United States worked to protect the most vulnerable citizens that we have in this country right now – the residents of the Gulf,” he said. “American citizens are being harmed,” Markey added. “We cannot wait, as unfortunately so many victims of the Exxon Valdez had to wait years to see those families compensated. We can't lose sight of fact that the 1984 Bhophal disaster and lawsuits related to it, were only settled last week. We have to make sure American citizens are protected.” “The families of the Gulf will be crushed financially unless this compensation fund is put in place,” said Markey, arguing that the history of Gulf families will be “permanently altered” without action. Markey added that the creation of the slush fund reflected “American government working at its best” to ensure that families do not become “roadkill” as a result of corporate practices. As Markey spoke, Barton leaned back in his chair reading what appeared to be the newspaper Investor's Business Daily. added by: TimALoftis

See the original post:
Rep. Joe Barton Apologizes to BP’s Tony Hayward for White House "Shakedown"

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’

Chris Matthews Crams Year’s Worth of Anti-Tea Party Cliches into One Hour Special

What do Tea Partiers, Truthers, birthers, Birchers, militias, Pat Buchanan, Jerry Falwell, Barry Goldwater, Joe McCarthy, Father Coughlin, Glenn Beck, Rush Limbaugh, Sarah Palin, Michelle Bachmann, Ronald Reagan, Strom Thurmond, Rand Paul, Alex Jones, Orly Taitz, and Oklahoma City bomber Tim McVeigh all have in common? Approximately nothing, but don’t tell Chris Matthews. The MSNBC “Hardball” host spent the better part of an hour last night trying to associate all of these characters with one other. Of course he did not provide a shred of evidence beyond, ironically, a McCarthyite notion that all favor smaller government, and are therefore in league, whether they know it or not, to overthrow the government. Together, by Matthews’s account, they comprise or have given rise to the “New Right.” The special was less a history of the Tea Party movement than a history of leftist distortions of the Tea Party movement. As such, it tried — without offering any evidence, mind you — to paint the movement as potentially violent. Hence, after Matthews tried his hardest to link all of these characters, he went on to paint them all as supporting, inciting, or actually committing violence. Matthews trotted out Mark Potok of the Southern Poverty Law Center to claim that “one spark” could set the militia movement off into a violent frenzy. But Matthews used the statement not to indict the militias Potok was discussing, but rather as evidence that the Tea Party movement at-large is a violent one. Set aside for a moment the fact that Potok is nothing but a partisan hack with a pathetic track record of predicting violence, the B-roll footage while the thoroughly-discredited Potok was making these predictions was footage of the 9/12 Tea Party rally in Washington. This is what Matthews did throughout the special: splice together clips of militias firing weapons with Tea Party protesters in order to create a mental association between the groups. That there is no evidence whatsoever linking Tea Parties to militia groups, nor incidents of violence occurring at rallies, did not dissuade the former Jimmy Carter staffer. Matthews simply chose the unseemly route of trying to associate the numerous characters in his special without any evidence to back up his claims. The only connection that Matthews managed to legitimately draw between the Tea Party and militia groups — indeed, between any of the long list of characters mentioned above– is their aversion to government intervention in their daily lives. That’s right, in the same segment in which Matthews ragged against the late Joe McCarthy, he associated Tea Parties with the Hutaree Militia because both have a distaste for big government (the latter much stronger than the other, obviously). By Matthews’s logic, every American who has qualms with some element of capitalism is complicit in, and supports, openly or not, radical anarcho-socialist violence perpetrated at the G-8, or any other incident of leftist violence (and there have been many of late). Matthews himself has touted the wonders of the ” social state .” So he must support, or at least acknowledge the justifiability of folks who wish to violently overthrow the government and impose a socialist system. That is the only logical conclusion, if we accept Matthews’s premises. Such hypocrisy is rife in the special: if folks associated with the Tea Party use words like “revolution,” they must be literally advocating violence, whereas when mainstream leftists literally advocate violence , they are not worth mentioning. The special’s rank hypocrisy continues right through Matthews’s final monologue. “Words have consequences,” he states. “You cannot call a president’s policies ‘un-American,’ as Sarah Palin has done,” he claims. Or, Matthews forgot to add, as Salon Editor Joan Walsh and Time columnist Joe Klein have done, the former on Matthews’s show and the latter on another MSNBC program. You can’t “refer to the elected government as a ‘regime'” by Matthews’s account, unless, presumably, you are Chris Matthews or a host of other MSNBC personalities , in which case it is permissible. Given that the special really offered no new insight into the Tea Party movement — just the same cliches the Left has regurgitated since the fall of last year — it is hardly surprising, though worth mentioning, that neither Matthews nor any of his cohorts seem to remember their total lack of concern over the potential for anti-government violence during the Bush administration. A movie depicting the assassination of George W. Bush , the plethora of signs at anti-war rallies calling for his death , the litany of incidents of violence committed by leftist groups in the recent past — none of these things were particularly worrisome for the Left throughout Bush’s term. In all of these ways, the “Rise of the New Right” special was just more of the same.

More here:
Chris Matthews Crams Year’s Worth of Anti-Tea Party Cliches into One Hour Special

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.

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

Biking, Walking Gets More Bucks, Keeps Going Up

Photo by rkimpeljr via flickr. It may seem like an, “Oh, duh,” with the government the last to confirm the news, but a 15-year report released by the U.S. Department of Transporation and the Federal Highway Administration shows a 25% increase in trips by bike and walking since 2001. The National Bicycling and Walking Study: 15-Year Status Report has been following the action since 1994, and the news is (mostly) good – in the U.S. we’ve reversed a trend of decreasing trips by biking and walking. And the Obama Administration spent $1.2 billion on bike and walk programs in 2009… Read the full story on TreeHugger

Read the rest here:
Biking, Walking Gets More Bucks, Keeps Going Up

Senators propose granting president power to shut down Internet in times of crisis

A new U.S. Senate bill would grant the president far-reaching emergency powers to seize control of or even shut down portions of the Internet. The legislation announced Thursday says that companies such as broadband providers, search engines, or software firms that the government selects “shall immediately comply with any emergency measure or action developed” by the Department of Homeland Security. Anyone failing to comply would be fined. That emergency authority would allow the federal government to “preserve those networks and assets and our country and protect our people,” Joe Lieberman, the primary sponsor of the measure and the chairman of the Homeland Security committee, told reporters on Thursday. Lieberman is an independent senator from Connecticut who caucuses with the Democrats. Because there are few limits on the president's emergency power, which can be renewed indefinitely, the densely worded 197-page bill (PDF) is likely to encounter stiff opposition. TechAmerica, probably the largest U.S. technology lobby group, said it was concerned about “unintended consequences that would result from the legislation's regulatory approach” and “the potential for absolute power.” And the Center for Democracy and Technology publicly worried that the Lieberman bill's emergency powers “include authority to shut down or limit Internet traffic on private systems.” The idea of an Internet “kill switch” that the president could flip is not new. A draft Senate proposal that CNET obtained in August allowed the White House to “declare a cybersecurity emergency,” and another from Sens. Jay Rockefeller (D-W.V.) and Olympia Snowe (R-Maine) would have explicitly given the government the power to “order the disconnection” of certain networks or Web sites. On Thursday, both senators lauded Lieberman's bill, which is formally titled the Protecting Cyberspace as a National Asset Act, or PCNAA. Rockefeller said “I commend” the drafters of the PCNAA. Collins went further, signing up at a co-sponsor and saying at a press conference that “we cannot afford to wait for a cyber 9/11 before our government realizes the importance of protecting our cyber resources.” Under PCNAA, the federal government's power to force private companies to comply with emergency decrees would become unusually broad. Any company on a list created by Homeland Security that also “relies on” the Internet, the telephone system, or any other component of the U.S. “information infrastructure” would be subject to command by a new National Center for Cybersecurity and Communications (NCCC) that would be created inside Homeland Security. The only obvious limitation on the NCCC's emergency power is one paragraph in the Lieberman bill that appears to have grown out of the Bush-era flap over warrantless wiretapping. That limitation says that the NCCC cannot order broadband providers or other companies to “conduct surveillance” of Americans unless it's otherwise legally authorized. Lieberman said Thursday that enactment of his bill needed to be a top congressional priority. “For all of its 'user-friendly' allure, the Internet can also be a dangerous place with electronic pipelines that run directly into everything from our personal bank accounts to key infrastructure to government and industrial secrets,” he said. “Our economic security, national security and public safety are now all at risk from new kinds of enemies–cyber-warriors, cyber-spies, cyber-terrorists and cyber-criminals.” A new cybersecurity bureaucracy Lieberman's proposal would form a powerful and extensive new Homeland Security bureaucracy around the NCCC, including “no less” than two deputy directors, and liaison officers to the Defense Department, Justice Department, Commerce Department, and the Director of National Intelligence. (How much the NCCC director's duties would overlap with those of the existing assistant secretary for infrastructure protection is not clear.) The NCCC also would be granted the power to monitor the “security status” of private sector Web sites, broadband providers, and other Internet components. Lieberman's legislation requires the NCCC to provide “situational awareness of the security status” of the portions of the Internet that are inside the United States — and also those portions in other countries that, if disrupted, could cause significant harm. Selected private companies would be required to participate in “information sharing” with the Feds. They must “certify in writing to the director” of the NCCC whether they have “developed and implemented” federally approved security measures, which could be anything from encryption to physical security mechanisms, or programming techniques that have been “approved by the director.” The NCCC director can “issue an order” in cases of noncompliance. The prospect of a vast new cybersecurity bureaucracy with power to command the private sector worries some privacy advocates. “This is a plan for an auto-immune reaction,” says Jim Harper, director of information studies at the libertarian Cato Institute. “When something goes wrong, the government will attack our infrastructure and make society weaker.” To sweeten the deal for industry groups, Lieberman has included a tantalizing offer absent from earlier drafts: immunity from civil lawsuits. If a software company's programming error costs customers billions, or a broadband provider intentionally cuts off its customers in response to a federal command, neither would be liable. If there's an “incident related to a cyber vulnerability” after the president has declared an emergency and the affected company has followed federal standards, plaintiffs' lawyers cannot collect damages for economic harm. And if the harm is caused by an emergency order from the Feds, not only does the possibility of damages virtually disappear, but the U.S. Treasury will even pick up the private company's tab. Another sweetener: A new White House office would be charged with forcing federal agencies to take cybersecurity more seriously, with the power to jeopardize their budgets if they fail to comply. The likely effect would be to increase government agencies' demand for security products. Tom Gann, McAfee's vice president for government relations, stopped short of criticizing the Lieberman bill, calling it a “very important piece of legislation.” McAfee is paying attention to “a number of provisions of the bill that could use work,” Gann said, and “we've certainly put some focus on the emergency provisions.” added by: samantha420