Tag Archives: office

Levi Johnston to Run For Mayor of Wasilla, Alaska; Reality Show to Document Campaign

Before his second broken engagement with Bristol Palin in as many years, there were whispers that Levi Johnston was planning a new reality show with her. Those rumors were half true. Bristol will be nowhere insight, but the former Playgirl cover model will soon be starring in a new show entitled Loving Levi: The Road to the Mayor’s Office . The premise: Levi Johnston is running for mayor of Wasilla, Alaska – the post famously held by Bristol’s mother, Sarah Palin, before she became Governor! No word if Brittani Senser will help him campaign, but it looks like his for office is actually happening. Executive producer Canaan Rubin says in a statement: “The docu-soap will follow the ever controversial, headline making, matinee idol, handsome father of one as he embarks on a run for mayor of Wasilla, Alaska.” “It will chronicle a ‘no-holds-barred’ period in Levi’s tumultuous life; co-raising his son Tripp, looking for love, and taking care of business for fellow Wasillians.” “He will give us a real inside look into who he is as a father, a skilled hunter, an avid dirt biker, and of course his journey down the road of small town politics.” ” Levi Johnston thinks he can take the office by representing the real citizens of Wasilla.” The statement ends: “If elected, Levi promises to serve his full term.” That’s a shot at Sarah Palin, who resigned Alaska Governor last summer to become a professional celebrity. Tank Jones will serve as Levi’s campaign manager. Shooting is underway: “They shot pre-production on the pilot today on Rodeo Drive [in Beverly Hills].” Ooh, the real Wasillans aren’t gonna like that one bit . Would you elect Levi Johnston mayor?

See more here:
Levi Johnston to Run For Mayor of Wasilla, Alaska; Reality Show to Document Campaign

Tony Blankley Destroys Ed Schultz in Debate About Clinton and Gingrich

MSNBC’s Ed Schultz on Monday absolutely got his head handed to him in a debate with syndicated columnist Tony Blankley. Clearly underestimating his opponent, Schultz rudely introduced the subject of a Republican proposal to not have the Congress come back for a lame duck session after November’s elections by saying, “No one knows better about shutting down Congress than someone who was right there working for Newt Gingrich when it happened before.” Not letting this stand, Blankley gave the “Ed Show” host a much-needed history lesson (video follows with transcript and commentary):   ED SCHULTZ, HOST: The GOP wants to work three weeks in four months. Got that? While railing about wasteful government spending with a straight face. I don’t know how they do it. It’s absolutely stunning. No one knows better about shutting down Congress than someone who was right there working for Newt Gingrich when it happened before. Tony Blankley was press secretary to the Speaker and he’s now a syndicated columnist. Tony, do you think, good to have you with us tonight. TONY BLANKLEY: Good to be here. SCHULTZ: You bet. Do you think it plays to the sensibilities of Americans to suggest a plan that, gosh, the Congress would only be in session to do something for the American people several weeks out of the next four months? BLANKLEY: Well, first of all, I’ve got to correct the record as I expected I would. Newt did not close down the government in ’95. The Republican Congress passed two bills and the President Clinton decided to veto them because he didn’t like what was in the bill, which was funding plus requiring to balance the budget in seven years. And by the way, if you dispute it, I do have in my hot little hands the transcript from Nightline of the night the government closed down with Cokie Roberts and President Clinton agreeing that he vetoed the bill. So, putting that aside, we didn’t want to close down the government. We wanted to balance the budget. For the record, here is that ABC “Nightline” transcript from November 13, 1995: COKIE ROBERTS, HOST: [voice-over] A political impasse over the budget- Pres. BILL CLINTON: I would be wrong to permit these kind of pressure tactics. Rep. NEWT GINGRICH: It’s very sad to see the President choose this political game. COKIE ROBERTS: [voice-over] -and federal services hang in the balance. Tonight, as the clock strikes 12:00, the government shuts down. ANNOUNCER: This is ABC News Nightline. Substituting for Ted Koppel and reporting from Washington, Cokie Roberts. COKIE ROBERTS: It’s after midnight in Washington, so the government must be closed, right? Well, technically right, but this is Washington, after all, and nothing is quite that simple. After casting his threatened vetoes, President Clinton and congressional leaders met tonight, trying to fix the mess they had made, but the meeting broke up not long ago, with only the promise to meet again tomorrow. Each side is trying to score political points in this budget drama without getting blamed for chaos. ‘Protector of Medicare’ is President Clinton’s chosen role, and he refused to sign the bill to keep the government going because it required Medicare recipients to pay more for some premiums than they currently expect to. Republicans playing ‘protectors of the purse,’ but both sides are worried that voters will see them as game-playing politicians, and an ABC News/Washington Post poll released tonight shows that’s exactly what voters do think. Nine times in the past 14 years, the government’s officially run out of money. Four times it’s actually shut down. This is becoming a well-worn script. But the poll also shows that Republicans get more of the blame for a possible shutdown; 46 percent say they’re at fault, 27 percent blame the President. Those numbers serve as a backdrop to the events of this very long day. Nightline correspondent Michel McQueen has our report. RADIO ANNOUNCER: Federal shutdown, will it happen? Stay tuned for instant updates. MICHEL McQUEEN, ABC News: [voice-over] As the sun rose, so did the volume in a divided Washington. Vice Pres. AL GORE: [NBC] They have not done their job. Now they’re trying to make an end run around the Constitution, around the normal procedures. Rep. ROBERT LIVINGSTON, (R), Chairman, Appropriations Committee: We’ve done a lot to work our way toward the President. He has not done thing toward coming toward us. MICHEL McQUEEN: [voice-over] Eight-thirty A.M., President Clinton vetoed the first of two bills at issue in the budget crisis, one that would raise the federal debt limit and require a balanced budget in seven years. Pres. BILL CLINTON: It would allow the United States to pay its debts for another month, but only at a price too high for the American people to pay. MICHEL McQUEEN: [voice-over] And as federal workers headed to the office, the confrontation over the other bill – providing money to keep the government operating temporarily – cast a shadow over the workday. 1st FEDERAL WORKER: I think it’s nonsense. I’m involved in personnel, so I’m the one who’s going to be going to my office to type up furlough letters, including to myself. 2nd FEDERAL WORKER: Reality is that the Congress and the President have to get together and come to terms on exactly, you know, what needs to be done to ensure that there isn’t a shutdown. Pres. BILL CLINTON: Thank you. MICHEL McQUEEN: [voice-over] Mid-morning. In a duel to seize the moral high ground, the President and House Speaker Newt Gingrich delivered speeches to friendly audiences. Pres. BILL CLINTON: As long as they insist on plunging ahead with a budget that violates our values, in a process that is characterized more by pressure than constitutional practice, I will fight it. I am fighting it today, I will fight it tomorrow, I will fight it next week, and next month. Rep. NEWT GINGRICH: We can balance the budget, we can save the Medicare trust fund, we can reform the welfare system if we can have an honest dialogue among ourselves as a people. MICHEL McQUEEN: [voice-over] At the Senate, the first sign of movement. Republican budget leader Pete Domenici offered a compromise to freeze Medicare premiums at their current level. Sen. PETE DOMENICI: Now, of late, and I don’t know whether this is acceptable across the board, but I’ve at least discussed, after talking with my staff, I’ve discussed with the Republican leader here and with others that perhaps the solution is to freeze that at $46.10. MICHEL McQUEEN: But at noon, despite the glimmer of progress, all signs still point to a government shutdown, with no clue about how long it will last, or what the long-term impact might be. And although Washington has seen these shutdowns before, nearly everyone agrees that this one is different. NORMAN ORNSTEIN, American Enterprise Institute: It has the potential of a serious disruption, and an historic change. You have a Republican Congress, especially a Republican House, bound and determined not to compromise and to push its vision of the budget and of the role of the federal government down the throat of the President of the United States, and you have a president saying, ‘I draw the line in the dust, and I won’t let this happen.’ HELEN THOMAS, United Press International: You always had the sense that it was very- it would be resolved very soon. There seems to be a different mood this time around, a real- there’s a real division of philosophy, I think, of government. It’s- it’s, I think, a real crisis. MICHEL McQUEEN: [voice-over] The real crisis for federal workers, like these in a Social Security office in Kansas City, was the fear of losing a paycheck. 3rd FEDERAL WORKER: When we go on furlough, then that means immediately we have no income, and even if it was just us, it would be one thing, but we have a child to take care of. MICHEL McQUEEN: [voice-over] And at this national park in Ventura County, California, rangers were preparing for limited operation. NATIONAL PARK RANGER: The areas will be closed off to the public, but we will maintain patrols of the area and maintain a patrol staff for emergency medical services, protection of the resource, and search and rescue operations. MICHEL McQUEEN: [voice-over] Back in Washington, twice as many people as usual showed up at the passport office, fearing the office would soon close. Two-thirty P.M. Presidential spokesman Mike McCurry threw cold water on a proposed compromise on Medicare and on the Congress’s overall approach to funding. MIKE McCURRY: The President is very concerned about 60 percent funding level. He has made that clear repeatedly in the statements he’s made the last two days, and that just is an unacceptable [crosstalk]. REPORTER: So that’s a veto. That means a veto, correct? MIKE McCURRY: It’s unacceptable. MICHEL McQUEEN: [voice-over] And with the White House unwilling to compromise, senators said they also were not interested, and that they would send the President their original funding bill. They pointedly noted they would remain on the job. Sen. BOB DOLE: We’re prepared to act up until midnight, or after, if necessary, to prevent a shutdown of the federal government. MICHEL McQUEEN: [voice-over] And the blame game continued. Rep. NEWT GINGRICH: We want the country to understand that the only way the government will close tomorrow is, it is President Clinton is determined to close it. MICHEL McQUEEN: [voice-over] And shortly before 9:00 P.M., congressional leaders reached out. Rep. NEWT GINGRICH: We want to go down and talk with the President about how to keep the government open, and to try to have a discussion about how we will get to a balanced budget and keep the government open, and the- he said no preconditions, and we said no preconditions. MICHEL McQUEEN: [voice-over] It was the Republicans who asked the President for the meeting, and while the phone call got them an invitation to the White House, it could not save their funding bill. Within the hour, the President issued a veto, his second of the day, guaranteeing a government shutdown at midnight.  Got that? Just as Blankley said, the shutdown was indeed caused by Clinton’s vetoes. Not surprisingly, the facts weren’t getting in the way of Schultz’s point: SCHULTZ: Well, let me, so you don’t have history revisionism going on here, Tony, the fact is is that it was Newt Gingrich who made the decision based on the action of President Clinton that okay, that’s it, we’re just going to shut her down. The President was not advocating shutting down the Congress. Is that correct? BLANKLEY: That is not, that is not true. Newt passed, we passed, we passed the bill with the money and the debt limit raise which is what was required. By the way, I have a Congressional Research Service study that says the same thing. Republicans passed the bill. The President vetoed it. For the record, here’s what that CRS study said: The most recent shutdowns occurred in FY1996. There were two during the early part of the fiscal year. The first, November 14-19, 1995, resulted in the furlough of an estimated 800,000 federal employees. It was caused by the expiration of a continuing funding resolution (P.L. 104-31) agreed to on September 30, 1995, and by President Clinton’s veto of a second continuing resolution and a debt limit extension bill. Schultz still wasn’t giving up: SCHULTZ: Was, was… BLANKLEY: That’s the record! SCHULTZ: I don’t want to spend too much time on history… BLANKLEY: I know! SCHULTZ: …but the fact is President Clinton was not advocating shutting down the Congress… BLANKLEY: And neither, and neither were the Republicans. SCHULTZ: …nor does he have the power to do that. BLANKLEY: He did by, by vetoing the bill. SCHULTZ: Oh, okay, Because he didn’t play ball the way you guys wanted to… BLANKLEY: Exactly. SCHULTZ: …that’s how you interpret it. BLANKLEY: There was a real argument to be had and you could haggle over it. We wanted cuts in medicare spending, he didn’t. But the fact is we, we passed the legislation that would keep the government open. He vetoed it because he didn’t like the other provisions that were in it. Indeed, and no matter how much folks like Schultz want to blame that government shutdown on Gingrich and the Republican Congress, it was in fact Clinton that forced it with his vetoes. Not accepting defeat graciously, Schultz foolishly came back for more, and once again got destroyed by the astonishingly more knowledgable Blankley: SCHULTZ: Okay, so the next point is this. How did the next election go for the Republicans after that? BLANKLEY: We held onto the House for another ten years. SCHULTZ: And how many seats did you lose? BLANKLEY: ’95 to 2006 before we lost it. Talk about walking into a gunfight with a knife. For the record, despite Clinton’s re-election in 1996, he had absolutely no coat-tail that year as the Republicans did surprisingly well in the Congressional balloting losing only six seats in the House while gaining two in the Senate. As such, on this subject, Schultz was once again all wet. Of course, there’s a much larger issue here. The media are realizing that this November is going to be very bad for the Democrats they support, and they’re pulling out all the stops to lessen the damage. This of includes revising history much as Schultz attempted here to blame everything that has gone wrong in this country – even a government shutdown fifteen years ago – on the GOP. Beyond this, as Gingrich is rumored to be a presidential candidate in 2012, there’s a new movement by so-called journalists to tarnish his record irrespective of the facts. In this instance, the paltry number of people watching fortunately had Blankley there to correct the record. Sadly, on this shill network, that is rarely the case. Bravo, Tony! Bravo!

More:
Tony Blankley Destroys Ed Schultz in Debate About Clinton and Gingrich

True Blood Sex and Violence Meter: Seduce and Destroy

After several weeks of fussin’ and fightin’, everyone on True Blood just wanted to get laid this week. Still, not everyone made it out of their long-rumored sexual assignations alive. Let’s tally up the new episode’s sex and violence to see which was on top (ahem).

Link:
True Blood Sex and Violence Meter: Seduce and Destroy

Twelve Opens to Horrible $463 Per Screen

Hoo boy: Joel Schumacher’s slick, abysmally reviewed privileged-teen drama Twelve earned an estimated $107,000 over its opening weekend — averaging out to a lower-than-anybody-expected average of $463 per screen. (And that figure’s on the high side; another analyst is calling it for $90,000, or $380 per screen.) It’s by far the worst opening of Schumacher’s career. Among films over-narrated by Kiefer Sutherland, meanwhile, it rests comfortably as No. 1 all-time. [ Box Office Mojo ]

Read the original post:
Twelve Opens to Horrible $463 Per Screen

Raise My Taxes, Mr. President!

We can’t afford the Bush cuts anymore. For the last few months, we have heard powerful, passionate arguments about the need to cut America’s massive budget deficit. Republican senators have claimed that we are in danger of permanently crippling the economy. Conservative economists and pundits warn of a Greece-like crisis, when America can borrow only at exorbitant interest rates. So when an opportunity presents itself to cut those deficits by about a third—more than $300 billion!—permanently and relatively easily, you would think that these very people would be in the lead. Far from it. The Bush tax cuts remain the single largest cause of America’s structural deficit—that is, the deficit not caused by the collapse in tax revenues when the economy goes into recession. The Bush administration inherited budget surpluses from the Clinton administration. What turned these into deficits, even before the recession? There were three fundamental new costs—the tax cuts, the prescription-drug bill, and post-9/11 security spending (including the Iraq and Afghanistan wars). Of these the tax cuts were by far the largest, adding up to $2.3 trillion over 10 years. According to the Congressional Budget Office, nearly half the cost of all legislation enacted from 2001 to 2007 can be attributed to the tax cuts. Those cuts are set to expire this year. The Republicans say they want to keep them all, even for those making more than $250,000 a year (less than 3 percent of Americans). They say that higher taxes will hurt the recovery. But for months now they have been arguing that the chief threat to the economy is our gargantuan debt and deficit. That’s what’s scaring consumers, creditors, and businesses. Given a chance to address those fears by getting serious about deficit reduction, though, they run away. Look by contrast at British Prime Minister David Cameron, a genuine fiscal conservative. To deal with his country’s deficit, which in structural terms is not so different from America’s, he concluded that he would have to raise taxes as well as cut spending. added by: TimALoftis

‘Media Mash’: Networks Celebrate Obama’s Birthday, CBS’s Smith Lobs Softball in Interview

After watching a highlight reel of network news reporters lamenting how President Obama was spending his 49th birthday alone and that the office is discernibly graying his hair, NewsBusters publisher Brent Bozell told Fox News viewers last night that the same media outlets ignored how, the day before Obama’s birthday, “The voters of Missouri absolutely crushed, clobbered, masaquered his ObamaCare program by 71 to 29 percent.” Bozell appeared on the August 5 edition of Sean Hannity’s program for the latest installment of “Media Mash,” a look at the media’s most egregious bias of the past week. The second topic in last night’s segment was this doozy from CBS’s Harry Smith: HARRY SMITH to President Obama:  Do you feel sometimes that your administration is not given the credit it deserves? President OBAMA: Yes. “You know, this wah-wah whining has got to stop. What they’re saying is that the media aren’t pro-Obama enough,” Bozell observed, adding: Look, the Obama people have got the political defibrillators out. He’s at 41 percent [approval] in the polls. George Bush didn’t get this low until the second term after Katrina…. They’re in an absolute free-fall. So what do they doing?  First they go to “The View,” and then they go to Harry Smith. It’s a likely progression.  For the full segment, click here for MP3 audio . To watch the video, click the play button on the embed above or click here to download the WMV video file . 

The rest is here:
‘Media Mash’: Networks Celebrate Obama’s Birthday, CBS’s Smith Lobs Softball in Interview

Ellie Kemper on Being the ‘Next Mindy Kaling’ and Steve Carell’s Office Replacement

Within the past two years, Ellie Kemper has gone from a regular UCB performer to a series regular on The Office with a book deal and feature film roles in Sofia Coppola’s Somewhere and the Kristen Wiig-penned Bridesmaids . It has been a meteoric rise Kemper was happy to modestly recount with Movieline this week at NBC’ s TCA event — before diving into those Steve Carell replacement rumors and revealing the sisterly bond she shares with one of The Office ‘s writers.

Read this article:
Ellie Kemper on Being the ‘Next Mindy Kaling’ and Steve Carell’s Office Replacement

Ariz. Sheriff Threatened with Justice Dept. Suit – CBS News

The Justice Department on Tuesday notified an Arizona sheriff's office known for its efforts against illegal immigrants that it has refused to cooperate with a civil rights investigation, is not in compliance with federal law and the department is threatening to sue. Since March 2009, the U.S. Justice Department has been investigating Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio's office in Phoenix for alleged discrimination and for unconstitutional searches and seizures. Arpaio says the inquiry is focused on his immigration efforts. Robert Driscoll, a Washington lawyer representing Arpaio, said Justice Department lawyers “have picked the man and the department and are trying to find a violation, rather than find a violation and then seeking to vindicate someone's rights.” “They have been investigating for two years,” said Driscoll, who added that most people assume it has something with racial profiling. But Driscoll said, “If it was going on now, presumably they would have evidence of this now.” In a letter, assistant attorney general Thomas Perez, head of the Justice Department's civil rights division, said the sheriff's office is not turning over material that Perez's lawyers are requesting. Over a year ago, Arpaio's lawyers asked that the Justice Department's Office of Professional Responsibility investigate alleged attorney misconduct regarding the investigation. In his letter to Arpaio's lawyers, Perez said such “unfounded allegations” are not a basis for refusing to cooperate with the Justice Department probe. In June, the office concluded that no civil rights division attorney at the Justice Department committed professional misconduct or exercised poor judgment in the probe of Arpaio's office. Perez gave the sheriff's office until Aug. 17 to turn over documents first requested last year in what the department calls an inquiry into claims of discrimination based on national origin. Arpaio and his legal counsel said a year ago that the sheriff's office would not cooperate with the inquiry. The office “has continued its unwarranted refusal to cooperate,” Perez wrote. In June, the office supplied a position statement regarding the operation of its jail facilities. The statement says “nothing at all about the allegations of discriminatory police practices,” and includes no agreement to provide access to sheriff's office facilities and personnel, Perez said in the letter to the sheriff department's legal counsel. The letter also said a limited production of accompanying documents fails to respond to the first request for material made 17 months ago. Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits discrimination in federally assisted programs on the basis of race or national origin. Perez pointed out that the sheriff's office signed contractual assurances under Title VI agreeing to allow examination of relevant records by the Justice Department. The Title VI implementing regulations require that every application for federal financial assistance be accompanied by an assurance that the program will be conducted in accordance with all requirements. added by: toyotabedzrock

Working From Home Increases Productivity, Keeps Workers Happy and is Good For the Environment

Mauricio Alejo in Wired Phil Daoust of the Guardian questions the traditional home-to-office commute, First there is the actual getting to work, with the unreliable bus or overcrowded train and the time it takes to get there. He asks: ” Do you arrive stressed, exhausted, ripped off, degraded, suicidal, homicidal or all of the above?” Once you get there, being in the office isn’t always a joy either. Shirley Borrett, head of the Telework Associ… Read the full story on TreeHugger

The rest is here:
Working From Home Increases Productivity, Keeps Workers Happy and is Good For the Environment

Why Is the ACLU a ‘Civil Rights Group’ When It Provides Legal Support for Jihadists?

When the American Civil Liberties Union sues the government for its right to defend the cleric that inspired the Fort Hood mass murder, couldn’t the media describe them as radical, or even left-wing? Instead, the headline in the Washington Post Wednesday was “Treasury sued over edict on radical cleric Aulagi: Rights groups say rule prevents challenge to effective death sentence.” The Post website is more direct: “Civil rights groups sue Treasury over targeting of terror suspects for killing.” Why aren’t groups that oppose terrorists positively defined as “civil rights groups”? What about the “civil rights” of terrorist victims like the murdered at Fort Hood? Post reporter Spencer Hsu lets the ACLU’s Anthony Romero claim that endangering the jihadist’s rights endangers us all: Civil liberties groups sued the Treasury Department on Tuesday over its refusal to permit them to challenge the federal government’s claim of authority to target U.S. citizens suspected of terrorism overseas for killing. The Center for Constitutional Rights and the American Civil Liberties Union filed the lawsuit against the department and its Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) in U.S. District Court in Washington. The groups say that without a change, it would be a crime for them to provide even free legal services to a citizen whom the government has designated a terrorist and is seeking to kill. Human rights lawyers said they were retained early last month by Nasser al-Aulaqi, the father of Anwar al-Aulaqi, a U.S.-born radical cleric based in Yemen whom U.S. authorities have called a propagandist for al-Qaeda who has helped plan attacks against the United States. “The government is targeting an American citizen for death without any legal process whatsoever, while at the same time impeding lawyers from challenging that death sentence and the government’s sweeping claim of authority to issue it,” ACLU Executive Director Anthony D. Romero said in a written statement. “Such an alarming denial of rights in any one case endangers the rights of all Americans.” The Post reporter doesn’t allow anyone to ask in the piece: isn’t it more accurate to suggest, based on real and deadly events, that it’s jihadists like Aulaqi who “endanger the rights” and even lives of Americans? The only real denunciation of Aulaqi is recycled from an old Treasury statement: Stuart Levey , Treasury’s undersecretary for terrorism and financial intelligence, said at the time of Aulaqi’s designation that “Anwar al-Aulaqi has proven that he is extraordinarily dangerous, committed to carrying out deadly attacks on Americans and others worldwide.” He added that Aulaqi “has involved himself in every aspect of the supply chain of terrorism — fundraising for terrorist groups, recruiting and training operatives, and planning and ordering attacks on innocents.” President Obama got as much grief, from the “human rights groups” in the piece: Human-rights groups say the Constitution and international law do not permit such broad action against civilians, and that lethal force outside a battle zone should be used as a last resort when a threat is imminent. “President Obama is claiming the power to act as judge, jury and executioner while suspending any semblance of due process,” said Vince Warren, executive director of the Center for Constitutional Rights. These radical lawyers can easily convince liberals that they are the true defenders of freedom, not the war-on-terror types, or in Obama’s case, the aftertaste-of-resistance-to-man-caused-disasters types. But the same media that thinks border control in Arizona is “very controversial” can’t seem to think the ACLU and its ilk aren’t doing anything that a majority of Americans might find  to be controversial — enabling terrorists and their “spiritual advisers.” 

See the original post:
Why Is the ACLU a ‘Civil Rights Group’ When It Provides Legal Support for Jihadists?