Tag Archives: interview

Student Sues for $1 Million challenge made on Dateline NBC

A Texas law student who took a defense lawyer's $1 million challenge from a “Dateline NBC” interview is suing for the money he claims he is owed. Dustin Kolodziej of the San Antonio area said attorney James Mason offered in a “Dateline NBC” interview he would pay $1 million to anyone who could prove him wrong in claiming his client, Nelson Serrano, could have made it from Florida's Hartsfield-Jackson International Airport to the La Quinta Inn, a 3-mile distance, in under 28 minutes, The Atlanta Journal-Constitution reported Monday. “I challenge anybody to show me. I'll pay them a million dollars if they can do it,” Mason told the interview. Serrano was convicted of killing four people in Bartow, Fla., in 1997 and the prosecution's case hinged on his ability to reach the inn in the time frame. Kolodziej said he got off a plane at the airport, took his car from the parking garage and made it to the inn in just 19 minutes, capturing the whole experience on a camcorder. However, Mason refused to pay the $1 million reward, claiming the offer was a figure of speech. Kolodziej's lawsuit, filed in U.S. District Court in Atlanta, alleges breach of contract, claiming Mason's statements on “Dateline” constituted a verbal contract. “What this case boils down to is would a reasonable person believe that this is legitimate,” said David George, a lawyer for Kolodziej. “Think about the context. He's on 'Dateline,' national TV, and his client is on death row. That is not a joking context.” added by: Stoneyroad

CBS’s Schieffer Interviews Eric Holder, Ignores Black Panther Case

While devoting all of Sunday’s Face the Nation to an interview with Attorney General Eric Holder, CBS host Bob Schieffer failed to ask a single question about the Obama Justice Department dropping a voter intimidation case against the Black Panthers or allegations that the department has adopted a policy of ignoring such cases. Schieffer discussed a range of topics with Holder, from the federal lawsuit against Arizona’s immigration law, to a potential criminal investigation into BP, to the trial of terrorist Khalid Shaik Muhammed and closing Guantanamo Bay. At the end of the interview, Schieffer even asked about Holder’s infamous comment that the United States was a “nation of cowards” when it came to discussing race. However, the Face the Nation host failed to use that comment as a transition to the Black Panthers case, despite the fact that former DOJ attorney Christian Adams recently testified before the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, accusing the department of adopting a policy of refusing to pursue voter intimidation cases that involved black defendants and white victims. On Holder’s “nation of cowards” comment, Schieffer asked: “A lot of people criticized you for that. A lot of people applauded you for saying that. Are you sorry now that you said that or what exactly did you mean by that and how do you feel today after some time has passed?” Holder responded: “I was trying to say in that speech is that we should be honest with one another…we ought to have the strength of character to say that which we really feel….To just have an open, honest dialogue about something that I think for too long we have not been willing to discuss.” Schieffer wondered: “Do you see any sign that we are doing better on that?” Holder remarked: “I think the fact that we have an African American as president, perhaps an African American as an attorney general, is a spur in that regard.” Here is transcript of the July 11 exchange between Schieffer and Holder on that topic: 10:51AM BOB SCHIEFFER: You know, early on in the administration, you created quite a stir when you said in a speech that we’ve become a ‘nation of cowards’ because we weren’t talking enough about race. A lot of people criticized you for that. A lot of people applauded you for saying that. Are you sorry now that you said that or what exactly did you mean by that and how do you feel today after some time has passed? ERIC HOLDER: You know, I think that this is – ours is a great nation, but one of the great things that we have always tried to – we’ve always wrestled with, from the inception of this nation, is the question of race. If one looks at the history of this country in the 19th century, race was, I think, the dominant issue. Look at the history of this country in the 20th century, race was one of the dominant issues. It remains an issue that, I think, still divides us. And if you look at the demographic changes this nation is about to undergo, we have to have, I believe, an open and honest discussion about race, ethnicity, the diversity that we are about to see, an unprecedented diversity in this country, can be a great source of strength for this nation, but if not dealt with appropriately, can also be something that is very divisive. And what I was trying to say in that speech is that we should be honest with one another and not feel that we have to retreat into our cocoons and only say that which we consider to be safe, that we ought to have the strength of character to say that which we really feel and people who are receiving it should understand that those things are said in good faith. To just have an open, honest dialogue about something that I think for too long we have not been willing to discuss. SCHIEFFER: Do you see any sign that we are doing better on that? HOLDER: Well, slightly. I think certainly that speech that I gave generated some conversation. I’m not sure I heard all the applause that you were talking about with regard to those remarks. I think perhaps we are getting to a place where – a better place. I think the fact that we have an African American as president, perhaps an African American as an attorney general, is a spur in that regard. But I think there’s still a lack of desire. And understandable, I think, in some ways. People feel uncomfortable talking about racial issues out of fear that if they express things, they will be characterized in a way that’s not fair. I think that there is still a need for a dialogue about things racial that we’ve not engaged in. SCHIEFFER: Mr. Attorney General, thank you for being with us in Aspen. HOLDER: Thank you.

Link:
CBS’s Schieffer Interviews Eric Holder, Ignores Black Panther Case

Sarah Palin: ‘You Don’t Wanna Mess With Conservative Women!’

In a new video out today, Conservative bombthrower Sarah Palin sends a warning message to big-government liberals: “You thought pitbulls were tough? Well, you don’t wanna mess with the Mama Grizzlies!” The video celebrating Conservative women’s activism was released by Palin’s political action committee, SarahPAC. “It seems like it’s kind of a mom awakening in the last year and a half,” says Palin, as clips of women activists at political speeches and Tea Party rallies flash over the screen. “Where women are rising up and saying ‘No — we’ve had enough, already.’ Because moms kind of just know when something’s wrong.” The inspiring message in the video contrasts with attacks against Conservative women that are regularly launched by media and political figures on the left. In May, liberal talker Mike Malloy called Rep. Michelle Bachmann, R-Minn., a “phony-ass broad” and a “skank.” Last October, Keith Olbermann referred to Conservative columnist Michelle Malkin as “a mashed-up bag of meat with lipstick on it.” And last September, Ed Schultz dismissed the brilliant attorney and former State Department official Liz Cheney as “daddy’s little girl” — a reference to her father, former Vice President Dick Cheney.

Read more here:
Sarah Palin: ‘You Don’t Wanna Mess With Conservative Women!’

CBS’s Couric to Netanyahu: ‘Should You Be More Strongly Advocating’ on Obama’s Behalf?

In an interview with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu on Wednesday, CBS Evening News anchor Katie Couric noted President Obama’s unpopularity in Israel and pressed Netanyahu to remedy that fact: “To change public opinion in your country, should you be more strongly advocating on his behalf?” Couric preceded that question by citing a recent poll of Israelis, which she seemed perplexed by: “Can you explain this to me, then? In a poll conducted a month ago – just a month ago – 71 percent of the Jews in Israel surveyed said they dislike President Obama; 47 percent expressed a strong dislike.” Earlier in the interview, Couric tried to gauge Netanyahu’s feelings toward Obama: “Do you trust Barack Obama?…surely there have been disappointments with the Obama administration. Can you just be candid with me and tell me how the administration has disappointed you?” While Couric asked about Israeli “disappointments” with Obama, she never cited any specific Obama administration policies or actions as the cause of those disappointments. On Wednesday’s Good Morning America on ABC, co-host George Stephanopoulos repeatedly badgered Netanyahu on ways to improve the U.S.-Israel relationship, placing no responsibility on President Obama to repair the alliance: “One analyst said, this is a false calm. Suggesting that you can’t or won’t deliver what President Obama is calling for in the peace process. So, what concrete steps are you prepared to take?” Here is a transcript of the first part of Couric’s July 7 interview with Netanyahu: 6:39PM ET KATIE COURIC: In other news, it appeared yesterday that President Obama had accepted an invitation from Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to visit Israel. But today the White House said the trip, is, quote, ‘not on the books for this year.’ So have the two leaders really patched up their differences? That was part of the conversation when I interviewed the Prime Minister this afternoon here in New York. Do you trust Barack Obama? NETANYAHU: I trust Barack Obama, the President of the United States, to carry out with me the policies that have joined Israel and the United States in what Barack Obama has called the ‘unbreakable bond.’ We have common goals, common interests, and we now have a job to do to get on with our common goal of achieving peace with security. I trust we’ll be able to do that together. COURIC: While you want to accentuate the positive, clearly – that’s part of your mission here in the United States – surely there have been disappointments with the Obama administration. Can you just be candid with me and tell me how the administration has disappointed you? NETANYAHU: You know, you remind me of the Israeli press. They say ‘how come you had a good meeting with President Obama?’ Well, because I did. Because we actually see eye to eye on some central issues. The quest for peace, the danger of Iran, the need to bolster security for Israel and the region. That’s the truth. We do see it. Have we had differences? Of course we had. But I think some differences- COURIC: Some awkward moments? NETANYAHU: Yes, of course we had. So what? Even they are magnified and distorted. I think the President has a fine mind, and I can relate to it. COURIC: Can you explain this to me, then? In a poll conducted a month ago – just a month ago – 71 percent of the Jews in Israel surveyed said they dislike President Obama; 47 percent expressed a strong dislike. NETANYAHU: Well, maybe they don’t have the opportunity to have the kind of conversations that I had. And maybe they’re not aware, also, of the ongoing cooperation between Israel and the United States in the fields of security, intelligence. The fact that the Iron Dome program to protect against missiles is something that has been bolstered by this administration and by this president. We have a common goal to achieve a secure peace. I’m looking forward to working with him to achieve it. COURIC: Well, to change public opinion in your country, should you be more strongly advocating on his behalf? NETANYAHU: You know, I invited the President to Israel. I hope that he finds an appropriate time to come. I think that when people get to know him, and first lady Michelle Obama was very kind to my wife, they gave us a very warm reception. I hope I’ll be able to – we’ll be able to reciprocate in Israel.      COURIC: And later in this broadcast, what Prime Minister Netanyahu thinks the U.S. and Israel can do to curb Iran’s nuclear ambitions.

The rest is here:
CBS’s Couric to Netanyahu: ‘Should You Be More Strongly Advocating’ on Obama’s Behalf?

Rush Limbaugh: Obama Created Recession As ‘Payback’ For Racism

Rush Limbaugh said on his July 2 radio show that he believes Obama tanked the economy on purpose, both as “payback” for 230 years of racial oppression and because Obama simply doesn't like America. He railed: “Who is Obama? Why is he doing this? Why? Why is he doing it? Is he stupid? Is it an accident? Is he doing it on purpose or what have you? … I think we face something we've never faced before in the country — and that is, we're now governed by people who do not like the country, who do not have the same reverence for it that we do. Our greatest threat (and this is saying something) is internal.” Limbaugh went on to compare Obama to the Black Panthers: “So in this interview with J. Christian Adams yesterday talking about [how] he and his line attorneys were told to just drop the case against the New Black Panthers for voter intimidation in Philadelphia, he said that there were people in the office, DOJ, who said, 'Well, you know, those people suffered the indignity of slavery, discrimination, segregation and so forth.' He said somebody else said, 'This is payback,' meaning, 'All right, look. We don't care if it's the New Black Panthers or whoever it is. Black people in this country have never, ever had a fair shake. This is payback. O.J. Simpson was payback. How does it feel?' That word 'payback' is not mine, [but] it is exactly how I think Obama looks at the country: It's payback time… There's no question that payback is what this administration is all about, presiding over the decline of the United States of America, and doing so happily.” added by: singrrr

Was Maddow’s Criticism of Sharron Angle Also a Swipe at Olbermann?

You might wonder the same after hearing what Rachel Maddow said in response to GOP Senate candidate Sharron Angle’s contentious interview with Las Vegas Sun columnist and local cable show host Jon Ralston. Maddow, as is her wont, criticized Angle for avoiding left-leaning media prior to Ralston interviewing her June 29 — followed by Maddow criticizing Angle after the interview. Suffice it to say, had Ralston ended up begging for mercy from Angle, Maddow would have accused Angle of torture. “But when Sharron Angle’s political career ended last night on local television in Nevada,” Maddow said on her show Wednesday, “it was a perfect case study in what happens if you don’t ever talk to people with whom you disagree.” After showing excepts from the interview, Maddow also said this (first part of embedded video) — MADDOW: But the bigger story here and the more unexpected story here is how curdled and pitiful and inbred policy and even argument itself gets when it is never exposed to opposing views, how weak the political and rhetorical muscles get when they are allowed to atrophy. So, I lament the no-argue bubbles . I lament the reluctance of conservatives and Republican politicians in particular to come on this show, in part because arguing is fun and talking to people with whom you disagree is fun. But also because it makes us all better at what we do. And that’s good for us and if you are a politician, that is good for the country. That being the case, how could Maddow miss the fact that her MSNBC show is preceded every weeknight by the best example of a “no-argue bubble” on television — “Countdown with Keith Olbermann”. In June, for example, “Countdown” had 54 guests, according to OlbermannWatch.com . Of that 54, 38 were described as liberal/progressive, 11 were Democratic politicians, and five were Democratic strategists. The number of Republican politicians, according to Olbermann Watch — zero . Republican strategists — zero . Guests described as conservative or traditional — zero . Same thing happened in May with the least happy warrior on television, aside from the obvious exception of Olbermann’s red-faced, bellicose colleague Ed Schultz. As noted again by the intrepid observers at Olbermann Watch, Olbermann had 52 guests that month. Of them, 9 were Democratic pols, 11 were Democratic strategists and 32 described as liberal/progressive. The number of Republican politicians — zero . Republican strategists — zero . Conservative/traditional — zero . “Curdled and pitiful and inbred,” indeed. Olbermann’s weak stomach for dissent became so conspicious that he was obligated to address the issue in a promo that ran in May (second part of embedded video). In the promo, Olbermann claims that “the premise of the guests is often misunderstood as some sort of, you know, political reinforcement or (sarcastically) Keith gets only the guys who agree with him. I ask a lot of these questions to find out whether or not I’m wildly incorrect about something. The point of the show is to illuminate. It is not to throw off heat. It is to throw off light.” As if the two are mutually exclusive, a belief belied by the presence of that warm, glowing orb in the sky on a clear day. And seldom does an illuminating cross examination in court, “the greatest legal engine ever invented for the discovery of truth” as described by jurist John Henry Wigmore in 1904, not generate heat. All three of the guests shown in Olbermann’s promo were Democratic politicians and the promo was justifiably slammed by NewsBuster Mark Finkelstein, who pointed out the fatal flaw in Olbermann’s unctuous claim — “He’s unlikely to find out if he’s wrong if he hand picks guests who think he’s right !” Seeing how Maddow was careful to limit her lament about “no-argue bubbles” to conservatives and Republican politicians, Olbermann may not take offense at Maddow the way he did after Donny Deutsch stated the obvious by including Olbermann in a list of “angry talkers” in media. To her credit, Maddow does include occasional conservatives as guests and frequently mentions that others were invited and turned her down. “I lament the reluctance of conservatives and Republican politicians in particular to come on this show,” Maddow said on Wednesday, “in part because arguing is fun and talking to people with whom you disagree is fun.” But while Maddow doesn’t share Olbermann’s aversion to opposing views, it’s what she does after the occasional conservative appears on her show that has others keeping their distance. Best example — Maddow’s shabby misquoting of Pat Buchanan in July 2009, after what he stated as a hypothetical she claimed on her show four days later that he stated as fact. Not surprisingly, Buchanan hasn’t been back on her show since. (h/t, Tim Graham)

Original post:
Was Maddow’s Criticism of Sharron Angle Also a Swipe at Olbermann?

BREAKING: Ask BP Questions for LIVE VIDEO Interview

Google, YouTube and the PBS NewsHour are teaming up to bring you into BP headquarters in Houston, Texas for an exclusive interview with Bob Dudley, Chief Executive for BP’s Response. Dudley will respond directly to your questions and concerns in a live session moderated by the PBS NewsHour’s Ray Suarez. Starting now, submit your questions and vote the best ones to the top. Then join us for the live interview tomorrow, Thursday, July 1, at 3:30 pm ET where you can watch the interview LIVE on NewsHour.PBS.org and YouTube. added by: captainplanet71

Top 10 ‘The Hills’ Moments, From Speidi’s Wedding To Lauren’s Farewell

We pick the best so far, as the reality series celebrates its 100th episode on Tuesday. By Jocelyn Vena Audrina Patridge, Brody Jenner and Kristin Cavallari Photo: MTV We’re more than halfway through the final season of “The Hills” and Tuesday’s (June 29) show will mark the 100th episode of the MTV reality series. Even with Lauren Conrad long-gone, Speidi, Stephanie, Audrina, Kristin and the rest of the crew have been up to some serious shenanigans this season. Leading up to the show’s pivotal 100th episode, MTV News is giving you a cheat sheet of the show’s top 10 moments — a list of some of this season’s top moments so far is on the way — all to help you get caught up before the “Hills” finale airs July 13. #10: Stephanie Pratt’s Interview With Kelly Cutrone After landing a coveted job interview with People’s Revolution PR maven Kelly Cutrone, Pratt seemed at a loss as to how to actually leave a good impression on your potential boss. For one, telling her your objective is to become a handbag designer? Bad idea. Did she get the job? Of course she did — then she lost it. #9: Justin Is Christened Justin Bobby Before Audrina brought her new guy over to meet Lauren Conrad and Lo Bosworth, the two pals went back and forth over what to call him. “His name is Justin, but he, like, wants to change it to Bobby,” Lauren explained to Lo. When the hairstylist/drummer arrived at the girls’ apartment, Lo asked if it was OK to call him Justin Bobby , bestowing him with the most memorable nickname in “Hills” history. #8: Heidi Crashes LC’s Work Party As an intern at Teen Vogue, Lauren was just hoping to stay in the good graces of her boss, Lisa Love. Her party-girl roommate, Heidi Montag, however, just wanted to have a good time. She showed up uninvited to the bash with a small entourage and nearly ended Conrad’s internship. #7 & #6: Holly Gets Tipsy, Heidi Marries Spencer While it was probably shocking for bride-to-be Montag to watch her sister Holly’s drunken antics at her rehearsal dinner , it was probably even more shocking for viewers who realized that Heidi and Spencer really did intend to get married. #5: Kristin Declares War There has been bickering on “The Hills,” but nothing seemed quite as vicious as the fight between Kristin Cavallari and Audrina , who fought over Justin Bobby at a rooftop party during season five. Plus, until then, we’d never heard any of the show’s stars utter anything as juicy as Kristin’s now infamous “It’s on, bitch!” #4: Heidi Moves Out After many ups and many more downs, the dynamic duo that was once Lauren and Heidi really began to fall apart, when one major down, Spencer Pratt, came between the roomies. Heidi moved out of her apartment with LC to pursue her relationship with Spencer. And although the once-close pair sometimes crossed paths, their friendship was never the same. #3: LC Chooses Love Over Paris Maybe Lisa Love was right when she predicted LC was “going to always be known as the girl who didn’t go to Paris.” But at the time, Conrad really thought she had something going on with boyfriend Jason Wahler. Her pal Whitney Port went instead and Lauren had a pretty terrible summer. #2 & #1: LC, Heidi Reconcile, LC Exits It was the moment that had Heidi, LC and “Hills” fans in tears. For a brief moment, the onetime besties reconciled and reminisced about what had made them friends in the first place: They actually liked each other. But the brief reconciliation was too little, too late. What is your favorite moment from “The Hills”? Let us know in the comments! “The Hills” airs Tuesdays at 10 p.m. ET on MTV.

Follow this link:
Top 10 ‘The Hills’ Moments, From Speidi’s Wedding To Lauren’s Farewell

Democrats and Double Standards at the NYT: ‘Respected Voice’ Robert Byrd vs. ‘Foe of Integration’ Strom Thurmond

The New York Times marked the death early Monday morning of veteran Democratic Sen. Robert Byrd of West Virginia, who served a record 51 years in the U.S. Senate, with an online obituary by former Times reporter Adam Clymer. While acknowledging Byrd’s Klan past and his pork-barrel prodigiousness, Clymer’s lead also emphasized Byrd’s proud fight as the keeper of Congressional prerogatives. The obituary headline was hagiographic: ” Robert Byrd, Respected Voice of the Senate, Dies at 92 .” While Clymer’s opening statement on Byrd wasn’t exactly laudatory, it did not match the paper’s hostile treatment of the passing of two veteran Republican senators accused of racial prejudice: Sen. Strom Thurmond of South Carolina and Sen. Jesse Helms of North Carolina. Clymer’s lead paragraph: Robert C. Byrd, who used his record tenure as a United States senator to fight for the primacy of the legislative branch of government and to build a modern West Virginia with vast amounts of federal money, died at about 3 a.m. Monday, his office said. He was 92. The bulk of Clymer’s obituary for Byrd may have been written some time ago, as is customary. Clymer retired from the Times in 2003, after a career of bashing President Bush and prominent conservatives , while defending old-guard Democrats like Sen. Ted Kennedy. Clymer acknowledged what he called Byrd’s changing perspective, moving from conservative to liberal over the years, and in the 16th paragraph brought up Byrd’s membership in the Ku Klux Klan in the 1940s and his filibuster of the 1964 Civil Rights Act. Mr. Byrd’s perspective on the world changed over the years. He filibustered against the 1964 Civil Rights Act and supported the Vietnam War only to come to back civil rights measures and criticize the Iraq war. Rating his voting record in 1964, Americans for Democratic Action, the liberal lobbying group, found that his views and the organization’s were aligned only 16 percent of the time. In 2005, he got an A.D.A. rating of 95. Mr. Byrd’s political life could be traced to his early involvement with the Ku Klux Klan, an association that almost thwarted his career and clouded it intermittently for years afterward. …. Mr. Byrd insisted that his klavern had never conducted white-supremacist marches or engaged in racial violence. He said in his autobiography that he had joined the Klan because he shared its anti-Communist creed and wanted to be associated with the leading people in his part of West Virginia. He conceded, however, that he also “reflected the fears and prejudices” of the time. After noting criticism from watchdog groups over Byrd’s reputation as the “king of pork,” Clymer followed up: West Virginians were grateful for the help. Senator John D. Rockefeller IV, Democrat of West Virginia and the state’s junior senator since 1985, said Mr. Byrd had meant “everything, everything” to the state. Mr. Byrd knew, he said, that “before you can make life better, you have to have a road to get in there, and you have to have a sewerage system and all those things, and he has done that for most of the state.” Bob Wise, a Democrat who was West Virginia’s governor from 2001 to 2005, once said that what Mr. Byrd had done for education — “the emphasis on reading and literacy” — mattered even more than roads. And Clymer’s dubious observation that Byrd “was never a particularly partisan Democrat” would surprise many familiar with Byrd’s non-stop excoriation of Bush over the Iraq War. Byrd authored a 2004 book titled “Losing America: Confronting a Reckless and Arrogant Presidency.” Clymer mentions the book but leaves off the provocative subtitle, simply calling it “Losing America.” He was never a particularly partisan Democrat . President Richard M. Nixon briefly considered him for a Supreme Court appointment. Mr. Dole recalled an occasion when Mr. Byrd gave him advice on a difficult parliamentary question; the help enabled Mr. Dole to overcome Mr. Byrd on a particular bill. In contrast is the Times’s treatment of veteran Republican Sen. Jesse Helms of North Carolina, who died on Independence Day 2008. The headline: ” Jesse Helms, Unyielding Beacon of Conservatism, Is Dead at 86 .” Steven Holmes’s obituary for Helms began: Jesse Helms, the former North Carolina senator whose courtly manner and mossy drawl barely masked a hard-edged conservatism that opposed civil rights, gay rights, foreign aid and modern art, died early Friday. He was 86. Clymer’s Byrd obituary didn’t mention that Byrd, like Helms, voted on a measure to bar the National Endowment for the Arts of funding “obscene” or “indecent” work. Clymer also wrote the obituary for centennial Republican Sen. Strom Thurmond, who died on June 26, 2003. Like Byrd, Thurmond was a former segregationist (he made his mark as the States’ Rights Candidate in 1948 and became a Republican in 1964) who later reconciled with blacks and became proficient in earning pork for his state. The Times’s headline the following day left no room for doubt: ” Strom Thurmond, Foe of Integration, Dies at 100 ,” although Clymer’s lead sentence didn’t mention race. (Hat tip Mark Finkelstein of NewsBusters .)

See the article here:
Democrats and Double Standards at the NYT: ‘Respected Voice’ Robert Byrd vs. ‘Foe of Integration’ Strom Thurmond

Sheryl Crow: Tea Partiers are too ‘Uneducated’ to ‘Understand What’s Happening on Wall Street’

Pop-star and courageous anti-toilet-paper crusader Sheryl Crow apparently has a new political concern: Tea Partiers. The country crooner told CBS journalist Katie Couric that Tea Party members are uneducated, angry and potentially dangerous in an interview with Glamour magazine this June. After Crow complained in the interview that Americans have become too blasé about politics, and that nobody has taken to the streets to cause “a riot or a revolution,” Couric correctly pointed to the Tea Party as an example of modern day activism. “What do you think of the Tea Party movement? Because that is the specific sort of group of people who would say we’re out there, we’re getting involved in the process…,” asked Couric. “I appreciate the fact that those people are out there and that they are fired up,” responded Crow, before adding that Tea Partiers “haven’t educated themselves…they’re just pissed off.” “My main concern is that [the Tea Party is] really fear-based,” said Crow, a cancer survivor and environmental activist. “What’s coming out of the Tea Party most often, especially if you go onto YouTube, and you see some of the interviews with these people who really don’t even know what the issues are, they’re just swept up in the fear of it and the anger of it.” “They’re not sure what they’re angry at,” Crow continued. “[T]hey don’t understand what’s happening on Wall Street.” The singer also worried that the “uneducated” and “angry” Tea Partiers could even become dangerous. “[K]nowledge is power, and anything less than that when it comes to anger can be dangerous,” said Crow. But before she snubbed the education level of Tea Partiers again, maybe Crow should have checked out this New York Times poll , which found Tea Party members to be “more educated than the general public.” The Grammy-award winning songstress could also serve to learn a thing or two from the Tea Partiers – in the past she’s come under fire for her own bone-headed remarks. In 2007, Crow was mocked across the political spectrum for suggesting in a Huffington Post column that people should use “only one square [of toilet paper] per restroom visit” in order to conserve trees. Other ideas in Crow’s 2007 column included using a reusable “dining sleeve” instead of a dinner napkin, and a creating a “greenest lifestyle” contest for aspiring musicians. Crow later backed away from her statements, claiming they were merely brilliant satire written in order to bring attention to the dire threat of climate change. Later in her June Glamour magazine interview with Couric, Crow slammed Karl Rove and other conservatives for harping on her toilet paper idea. She claimed this was done “[j]ust to discredit me and to make me look silly.”

The rest is here:
Sheryl Crow: Tea Partiers are too ‘Uneducated’ to ‘Understand What’s Happening on Wall Street’