Tag Archives: Obama

Matthews: Obama Should Replace Rahm Emanuel With Bloomberg, Gates With Hillary

Chris Matthews must really be getting tired of watching the man that used to give him tingles up his leg continue to get crushed in the polls, for on Friday he recommended a serious shakeup in the Obama administration. First, he want’s Defense Secretary Robert Gates to be replaced by Hillary Clinton. “With her at the Pentagon, he would forge confidence in Middle East policy,” said the “Hardball” host. But the real surprise was Matthews calling for New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg to either replace Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner or Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel (video follows with transcript and commentary): CHRIS MATTHEWS, HOST: Let me finish with tonight with a plan to strengthen America’s ability to solve its problems. It’s tough and it’s water tight. President Obama has many strengths as this country’s head of state. He’s clear minded, gifted in intellect, artful in presenting issues and his vision of leadership. However, these past two years have been a shakedown cruise. We have seen the weaknesses in this ship of state. It’s come time to shake up. This president needs to put a firm Democratic brand on his defense policy. He was smart to keep Robert Gates in the Pentagon, but Gates is a holdover from the Bush era. There’s no real connection between what the country voted for in 2008 and what we’re getting in terms of security policy. Obama needs to bridge that gap, and he needs to pick a Democratic ally as defense chief. That Democratic ally is Hillary Clinton. With her at the Pentagon, he would forge confidence in Middle East policy. Friends of Israel would know we have someone in charge of America’s military forces who has an instinctive concern for the Jewish state. A proven track record of support, it will help get the deal cooked over there and getting that deal is the very stuff of American greatness. Now to the tough one, the economy. There’s one person in this country with a track record, the communications pizzazz to help make, carry out and market the historic recovery program still needed. His name is Michael Bloomberg. Look, you can say this is outlandish that he would never take the job at Treasury or as White House chief of staff, but there is a precedent. James Baker. He made Reagan a success and Barack Obama needs a Jim Baker, someone to focus the energies of this administration on economic reconstruction, period. Someone to lay down the same strong chain of command on domestic policy that Hillary Clinton will define on the national security front. This is the answer. Enough of the solo act. President Obama needs to build a team, a phalanx, a political policy power that takes his idealism and makes it deliver in strength abroad, jobs and renewed economic confidence at home. Makes you wonder what’s happened to Matthews since Tuesday. After all, on that evening’s “Hardball,” he called Obama “almost pluperfect.” How can someone so spectacular on Tuesday need a shakeup in his administration three days later?

Go here to read the rest:
Matthews: Obama Should Replace Rahm Emanuel With Bloomberg, Gates With Hillary

"Clean Coal" Positioned To Be The High End Energy Product No One Can Afford

Taylorville Illinois Energy Center, a proposed “clean coal” power plant. Image credit: Illinois Times Southern Illinois has vast, easily accessible coal reserves. That coal may be sulfurous and wet and salty; but ,Southern Illinois also has good geologic features for CO2 sequestration, plus Presidential root tendrils are there. These aspects explain, in a last-year kind of way, why Obama’s Energy Department supports this $3.5 billion fantasy. (Several major conceptual design changes have been made since the Bush Ad… Read the full story on TreeHugger

The rest is here:
"Clean Coal" Positioned To Be The High End Energy Product No One Can Afford

American Academy of Pediatrics: Media Portrayal of Sex ‘Unhealthy’

Calling media portrayals of sex “unhealthy,” the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) has issued new guidelines calling on all media outlets to present human sexuality in a healthy, scientifically accurate manner. At the same time, the group pomoted the use of contraceptives among teenagers and denigrated abstinence-only education.   “There is a major disconnect between what mainstream media portray – casual sex and sexuality with no consequences – and what children and teenagers need – straightforward information about human sexuality and the need for contraception when having sex,” the AAP  said .    “Television, film, music, and the Internet are all becoming increasingly sexually explicit, yet information on abstinence, sexual responsibility, and birth control remains rare,” said the AAP.   The organization, with 60,000-plus members, said that because children and young adults spend an inordinate amount of time interacting with various media, it was important for the portrayals of sex in that media to be accurate and responsible.   “American children and teenagers spend more than 7 hours a day with a variety of different media. Those media are filled with sexual messages and images, many of which are unrealistic,” the AAP said. “Talk about sex on TV can occur as often as 8 to 10 times per hour. Between 1997 and 2001 alone, the amount of sexual content on TV nearly doubled.”   This proliferation of inaccurate sexual messages has had documented effects on youth sexual behavior, the AAP reported. Kids exposed to sexual material on television are almost twice as likely to engage in sexually risky behavior at a younger age than youth whose parents limit their exposure to sexually saturated media.    Other studies have shown that exposure to sexualized media content doubled the risk of teen pregnancy. “Clearly, the media play a major role in determining whether certain teenagers become sexually active earlier rather than later, and sexually explicit media may be particularly important,” the AAP stated.   These negative trends are happening at a time when public sexual education has favored a scientifically unfounded, abstinence only approach, said the organization, adding that as public policy has avoided providing youth with accurate information about sex, the media have become the sexual educator of “last resort.”   “Because so many sex education programs have recently been focused on abstinence only, the media have arguably become one of the leading sex educators in the United States today,” the AAP said. “Yet, parents and legislators fail to understand that although they may favor abstinence-only sex education (despite the lack of any evidence of its effectiveness), the media are decidedly not abstinence only.”   In fact, the American media can be among “the most sexually-suggestive media in the world,” according to the AAP. The effect of this is that media can act as a “super-peer” on youth, exerting an influence on sexual behavior stronger than that of a child’s parents.   One major problem – labeled “dangerous” by the AAP – with the media’s portrayal of sex is the lingering myth that access to contraception affects sexual behavior patterns. Because the media play such a large role in providing information about sex to young people, this dearth of accurate information about contraceptives leaves teens at a disadvantage as they become sexually active.   “The United States is the only Western nation that still subscribes to the dangerous myth that giving teenagers access to birth control – and media represent a form of access – will make them sexually active at a younger age,” the AAP explained.    In response to these twin problems, the AAP called on media to do two things: remove some inappropriate sexual content from programming likely to be viewed by children and substitute it with accurate, educational information about sex.   “Pediatricians and child advocacy groups should encourage the entertainment industry to produce more programming that contains responsible sexual content and that focuses on the interpersonal relationship in which sexual activity takes place,” the AAP said.    “Similarly, Madison Avenue and advertisers need to be encouraged to stop using sex to sell products,” said the group.   In addition to changing media programming, the AAP also called for comprehensive sex education in schools and increased advertisements for contraceptives.   “Pediatricians should urge the broadcast industry to air advertisements for birth control products,” the AAP said.    Dr. Vic Strasburger, the policy’s lead author, said that scientific studies showed that increased advertising for birth control would lead to “one thing and one thing only” – increased use of contraception.   “The research is quite clear, the media represent one access point for children and teenagers about birth control and giving teenagers access to birth control does one thing and one thing only – that is it makes them more likely to use birth control when they begin having sex,” Strasburger told CNSNews.com.    “As parents and as adults, we couldn’t be doing a worse job,” Strasburger said. “We do a terrible job of preparing kids to be happy, healthy, sexual adults.” Crossposted at NB sister site CNSNews.com  

Continued here:
American Academy of Pediatrics: Media Portrayal of Sex ‘Unhealthy’

CNN’s ‘Glass One-Quarter Full’ Spin: Emphasize Private Job Gains

The Bureau of Labor Statistics released its “all-important” jobs report on Sept. 3, the morning before Labor Day weekend. CNN rapidly found the ” bright spot ” in a report that showed a net loss of 54,000 jobs and a higher 9.6 percent unemployment rate . “American Morning” co-anchor Kiran Chetry announced the report by saying “It’s good news, but it’s not good news.” Still, she maintained the mainstream media’s spin by focusing on private-sector jobs gains of 67,000 even though that is cold comfort to the 14.9 million people who are unemployed. That CNN segment ignored negative information that would have provided important context. The BLS reported that there are still 1.1 million discouraged workers (too discouraged to even look for work) and another 1.3 million people working part-time who want full-time work instead. Chetry and fill-in co-anchor Ali Velshi discussed the breaking news report with two guests who were even more upbeat: Leigh Gallagher of Smart Money magazine and Shawn Tully of Fortune magazine. Tully told CNN viewers, “This is actually not such bad news because we are looking at unemployment rates in the U.S. we really haven’t seen since the early 1980s. And in the early 1980s the comeback was extremely strong, unemployment dropped very, very sharply. In the U.S. we’ve never had 10 percent unemployment rates for long periods.” Conservative economists argue that Reagan’s tax cuts were part of the reason the unemployment rate dropped and the economic comeback happened. President Obama has not proposed dramatically cutting tax rates and, in fact, seems willing to let the more modest tax cuts of President George W. Bush expire at the end of 2010. Tully told CNN “we’re now in the upcycle,” and said a double-dip recession was unlikely. Gallagher happily noted that the unemployment report beat expectations. But neither CNN host nor their guests pointed out how high real unemployment is or how many jobs we would need per month to “catch up” the 8.4 million jobs lost in the recession. According to CNBC’s Rick Santelli the increase of 0.1 percent to a 9.6 percent unemployment rate just means “real unemployment is in the teens.” Bloomberg said that the underemployment rate is now 16.7 percent . CNBC’s Erin Burnett also brought context to the story on MSNBC, saying that news was “definitely better than expected,” but cautioned that it doesn’t make up for what has been lost. “I would note though, we obviously lost 8.4 million jobs during the financial crisis so to catch up with that you need to have 200,000 jobs or more [added] a month,” Burnett said. The media’s desperate attempts to positively spin jobs reports since Obama was elected contrast with the way they tried to talk down the economy during the Bush presidency. ABC, CBS and NBC failed to criticize Obama even while on his watch the most jobs had been lost in a year since 1940 . The mainstream media have also given Obama a pass on grandiose promises about how many millions of jobs the stimulus package would create. Contrast that with the media’s coverage of unemployment under Republican President George W. Bush when unemployment was roughly half of what it is now. In Feb. 2006, when 193,000 jobs had been added and the unemployment rate dropped to 4.7 percent: the lowest rate since July 2001 . CBS and ABC evening shows ignored the drop in unemployment, while CNN found “mixed” news in the report. A January 2006 Special Report from the Business & Media Institute found that the networks in particular emphasized layoffs in a year that 2 million new jobs had been created . Negative stories about corporate layoffs and outsourcing made up more than half the stories on jobs or unemployment. Like this article? Then sign up for our newsletter, The Balance Sheet .

67% of NYC Residents Oppose Ground Zero Mosque According to NYT Poll

A new poll released by the New York Times Friday is sure to rock the liberal media’s world: “Two-thirds of New York City residents want a planned Muslim community center and mosque to be relocated to a less controversial site farther away from ground zero in Lower Manhattan.” Another finding likely to particularly upset the shills at MSNBC:  One-fifth of New Yorkers acknowledged animosity toward Muslims. Thirty-three percent said that compared with other American citizens, Muslims were more sympathetic to terrorists. And nearly 60 percent said people they know had negative feelings toward Muslims because of 9/11.   Here are more of the surprising details: Over all, 50 percent of those surveyed oppose building the project two blocks north of the World Trade Center site, even though a majority believe that the developers have the right to do so. Thirty-five percent favor it. The poll, however, reveals a more complicated portrait of the opposition in New York: 67 percent said that while Muslims had a right to construct the center near ground zero, they should find a different site. Most strikingly, 38 percent of those who expressed support for the plan to build it in Lower Manhattan said later in a follow-up question that they would prefer it be moved farther away, suggesting that even those who defend the plan question the wisdom of the location. And this is the point the mosque’s backers in the media – in particular the shills at MSNBC such as Chris Matthews, Keith Olbermann, and Ed Schultz – have missed: this issue isn’t about Constitutionality or rights.  Most people outside the liberal press are intelligent enough to understand that developers have the right to build this mosque if its zoning is approved. They just question the wisdom of doing so. If an overwhelming majority of New Yorkers can understand the difference between having the right to do something and whether or not it would be appropriate, why can’t media members? 

Continue reading here:
67% of NYC Residents Oppose Ground Zero Mosque According to NYT Poll

David Brooks Writes Alternate History in Which Obama Cuts Taxes, Vetoes Big Spending Bills

This is a sad time to be David Brooks, the New York Times house conservative. The souring economy (along with other poor administration decisions) has caused a big drop in the popularity of his beloved Barack Obama with his party facing electoral disaster at the polls this November. So what to do? Why, engage in fantasy by writing an alternate history in which an all-wise Obama cuts taxes and vetoes big spending plans passed by the Democrat congress. Here is some of the comedy gold Brooks dreamed up in his alternate history universe: …He told his aides to put away the history books and reject the New Deal comparisons. Unlike in 1932, Americans today have a raging distrust of Washington, he observed. Living through a crisis caused by excessive debt, they will viscerally recoil at the prospect of federal debt without end. “Somehow,” Obama concluded, “we have to address the crisis without further terrifying the American people.” The stimulus package, he continued, should rely heavily on cutting payroll taxes. This, he argued, will send a quick jolt to the economy without concentrating power in Washington. It will deliver a sharp psychological boost to the middle class. It might even be bipartisan. Obama noted that John McCain had a $445 billion stimulus plan along these lines and his fellow Republican senator, Mel Martinez, a $713 billion plan. Yes, in this Brooksian alternate history the same Barack Obama who won’t even extend the Bush tax cuts will go completely against his proven character and cut taxes. And now more from the fantasy world whirling around inside of Brooks’ fervid imagination: In March, Congress passed an omnibus spending bill, stuffed with earmarks. Obama vetoed it. As for ObamaCare, it was put on the backburner by the politically savvy Obama in this alternate history: April brought the cruelest fight: whether to spend the rest of the year getting health care reform or a new energy policy. Obama decided to do energy first. The economy was uppermost on everybody’s mind. Americans were wondering where new innovations would come from, what new jobs would emerge.   Left out of this alternate history is Brooks’ real history of gullibly swallowing the economic excuses of this administration in early 2009. Here is how Brooks was wooed with his very own wall chart by Obama bigwigs back then after he very briefly objected to the policies back then: The White House has produced a chart showing nondefense discretionary spending as a share of G.D.P. That’s spending for education, welfare and all the stuff that Democrats love. Since 1985, this spending has hovered around 3.7 percent of G.D.P. This year, it’s about 4.6 percent. The White House claims that it is going to reduce this spending to 3.1 percent by 2019, lower than at any time in any recent Republican administration. I was invited to hang this chart on my wall and judge them by how well they meet these targets. (I have.) In my own alternate history, a skeptical David Brooks tells the Obama insiders: You expect me to buy into your absurd projections because they are on a chart? That’s really laughable so why don’t you take your chart and stick it where the moon don’t shine. Of course, that happened only in the alternate history. In real life, that chart could still be on David Brooks’ wall.

Read more from the original source:
David Brooks Writes Alternate History in Which Obama Cuts Taxes, Vetoes Big Spending Bills

Newsweek Insults Barack Obama As an ‘Anchor Baby’

In a list of famous Americans with a parent (or both) born in another country, the un-bylined last page “Back Story” of this week’s Newsweek listed “BARACK OBAMA (Kenyan Father)” on the page headlined: “What’s So Scary About an ‘Anchor Baby’?” The brief text below the headline, and on top of the diaper, made clear the magazine’s attempt to undermine those suggesting citizenship should no longer be automatically conferred on anyone born within the United States: There’s a movement afoot to alter the 14th amendment, the one that guarantees citizenship to anyone born on U.S. soil. Combine this with anti-immigrant policies like Arizona’s and you begin to question the idea of America as a melting pot — as a nation of mothers and fathers welcomed here to seek better lives. But the country has benefited richly from their sons and daughters (right). An “anchor baby” is a child born to parents in the U.S. illegally, so is the magazine suggesting that Obama’s father, as well as parents of the 32 others in their list, were all illegal aliens at the time of the births of their famous offspring? Talk about flinging scurrilous allegations and encouraging the “birther” crowd. Larger jpg image of the page (50 Kb), full size jpg image (1 Mb). I scanned the page and the blotches/darkness within the white areas are from bleed through from the other side of the very thin paper Newsweek uses. Imagine the reaction of the left and Newsweek if a conservative figure had called Obama an “anchor baby.” They certainly would consider it one more insult to add to the right’s “lies” about Obama. The “anchor baby” list with Obama appeared in the very same Newsweek, the September 6 issue, featuring a cover story by Jonathan Alter on the “lies” told about Obama: The outlandish stories about Barack Hussein Obama are simply false: he wasn’t born outside the United States (the tabloid “proof” has been debunked as a crude forgery); he has never been a Muslim (he was raised by an atheist and became a practicing Christian in his 20s); his policies are not “socialist” (he explicitly rejected advice to nationalize the banks and wants the government out of General Motors and Chrysler as quickly as possible); he is not a “warmonger” (he promised in 2008 to withdraw from Iraq and escalate in Afghanistan and has done so); he is neither a coddler of terrorists (he has already ordered the killing of more “high value” Qaeda targets in 18 months than his predecessor did in eight years), nor a coddler of Wall Street (his financial-reform package, while watered down, was the most vigorous since the New Deal), nor an enemy of American business (he and the Chamber of Commerce favor tax credits for small business that were stymied by the GOP to deprive him of a victory). And that’s just the short list of lies. The 32 on the list (not online) in addition to Obama: Henry Ford, Walt Disney, Alex Rodriguez, Frank Sinatra, Joan River, Fred Astaire, Dean Martin, Vera Wang, Bobby Jindal, Colin Powell, Olympia Snowe, Frank Zappa, Henry Mancini, Eugene O’Neill, Henry Heinz, Groucho Marx, George Gershwin, Leonard Nimoy, Nikki Haley, Rene Zellweger, John Cassavetes, Ray Bradbury, Michelle Kwan, Spiro Agnew, Joan Baez, Oscar Hijuelos, Ralph Nader, Norah Jones, Larry King, Eric Holder, Benny Goodman and Narcisco Rodriguez. Spiro Agnew (“Greek Father”)? Not a name you’d think Newsweek would tout. Earlier, my post on Newsweek’s previous edition: “ Newsweek Ranks U.S. the 11th ‘Best Country’ – Bush’s Fault, But Obama Can Stem the Slide ”

See the original post:
Newsweek Insults Barack Obama As an ‘Anchor Baby’

Feingold On His Tough Re-Election Race: I Blame George Bush!

A recurring rubric at James Taranto’s Best of the Web Today column at the Wall Street Journal online, is “We Blame George W. Bush,” for tongue-in-cheek examples of the former prez being blamed for things palpably beyond his purview.  Let’s add another one to the list.  Dem senator Russ Feingold has blamed his tough re-election race on, yes, W. Let’s think about that. If Bush were such a bad president.  If his policies were so disastrous for the country. Wouldn’t that boost the chances of an incumbent Dem senator who, like Feingold, had voted against Bush policies every step along the way? Hey, I don’t try to understand Dem logic: I just report it.  Feingold made his logic-defying allegation on this evening’s Ed Show. ED SCHULTZ: Even the progressive Russ Feingold is in a real tough fight for his seat in Wisconsin.  Senator Feingold is a progressive—as progressive as you can get— he voted against the Iraq war, he voted against the Patriot Act, he voted against the Wall Street bailouts; all very strong progressive positions. But somehow we’ve gotten to the point where the less a candidate knows about Washington it seems the better off they are, and now Feingold, a guy who has always fought the good liberal fight is up against a candidate who is trying to buy the election so he can go to Washington and extend the Bush tax cuts for the rich. Senator Russ Feingold joins us tonight, here on the Ed Show. Senator, good to have you with us tonight.  You know, you have been one of the most hard-working guys out there.  You do over 70 town hall meetings a year.  What are you hearing in Wisconsin? And why are you polling below 50%? RUSS FEINGOLD: Well, this is a year of challenges because of the mess that was left us from the Bush years. Wait a second! If Bush were so awful, and you fought Bush every step of the way as Ed documented, wouldn’t that make you a winner in Wisconsin?  Could it possibly be that, now under Obama and a Dem congress, W [to quote those old Cross Your Heart commercials] is looking “suddenly shaplier”?

Excerpt from:
Feingold On His Tough Re-Election Race: I Blame George Bush!

Prestigious and Notable Zombies

link: http://www.bite.ca/bitedaily/2010/09/prestigious-and-notable-zombies/ added by: romanswietlik

Connecting the Dots-The Big Money Behind theTea Party

This may have been reported before but it's worth another look. Recently a journalist at the New Yorker Magazine researched where the money funding the Tea Party comes from. Not surprisingly it's source is a large petroleum interest, Koch Industries. ” In Washington, Koch is best known as part of a family that has repeatedly funded stealth attacks on the federal government, and on the Obama Administration in particular. With his brother Charles, who is seventy-four, David Koch owns virtually all of Koch Industries, a conglomerate, headquartered in Wichita, Kansas, whose annual revenues are estimated to be a hundred billion dollars. The company has grown spectacularly since their father, Fred, died, in 1967, and the brothers took charge. The Kochs operate oil refineries in Alaska, Texas, and Minnesota, and control some four thousand miles of pipeline. Koch Industries owns Brawny paper towels, Dixie cups, Georgia-Pacific lumber, Stainmaster carpet, and Lycra, among other products. Forbes ranks it as the second-largest private company in the country, after Cargill, and its consistent profitability has made David and Charles Koch—who, years ago, bought out two other brothers—among the richest men in America. Their combined fortune of thirty-five billion dollars is exceeded only by those of Bill Gates and Warren Buffett. The Kochs are longtime libertarians who believe in drastically lower personal and corporate taxes, minimal social services for the needy, and much less oversight of industry—especially environmental regulation. These views dovetail with the brothers’ corporate interests. In a study released this spring, the University of Massachusetts at Amherst’s Political Economy Research Institute named Koch Industries one of the top ten air polluters in the United States. And Greenpeace issued a report identifying the company as a “kingpin of climate science denial.” The report showed that, from 2005 to 2008, the Kochs vastly outdid ExxonMobil in giving money to organizations fighting legislation related to climate change, underwriting a huge network of foundations, think tanks, and political front groups. Indeed, the brothers have funded opposition campaigns against so many Obama Administration policies—from health-care reform to the economic-stimulus program—that, in political circles, their ideological network is known as the Kochtopus. It is a sorry day in America when two bastards and their money are allowed to tear down a successful democracy for their own selfish interests. http://dccc.org/blog/archives/big_oil_billionaire_koch_brothers_funding_swift-bo… added by: Mark701