Tag Archives: politics

NBC Exec Jeff Zucker to Step Down

Posted on September 24, 2010 by Benny Hollywood| Comments Off on NBC Exec Jeff Zucker to Step Down

NBC Universal CEO Jeff Zucker announced Friday he will be stepping down from his position when Comcast completes its takeover of NBC. Oddly, this occurred on the very same day CNN fired Jon Klein, the president of CNN/US. The New York Times Media Decoder blog reported moments ago: In an interview at NBC’s executive offices, Mr. Zucker, who is 45, said the decision to leave the only employer he has ever worked for – a decision that he acknowledged was not his own choice – became inevitable after a meeting two weeks ago with Steve Burke, Comcast’s chief operating officer. “We had both gotten to the same place,” Mr. Zucker said. “He made it clear that they wanted to move on at the close of the deal and I was completely comfortable with that.” Asked to identify the biggest mistake of his tenure, Mr. Zucker said, “The thing I regret most is not moving quickly enough” to fix NBC Entertainment. He said he detected some glimmerings of a turnaround in prime time this fall, though “we have a long way to go.” Apparently Zucker is most proud of what he did for NBC’s “Today” show: On the other side of the personal ledger, Mr. Zucker said the highlight of his career remained his days producing the “Today” show, which catapulted to unchallenged leadership and record profits during Mr. Zucker’s two stints as executive producer. He called that “the most fun job I had” and added: “In my heart I am a producer.” This certainly isn’t surprising, as most insiders view Zucker as having been instrumental in developing Katie Couric’s career. As for his future?  “Am I interested in politics? Yes,” he said. “Is it something I am going to do right away? No.”  Swell – another media member likely going through the revolving door into politics. What a surpise.

See the original post here:
NBC Exec Jeff Zucker to Step Down

Comments Off on NBC Exec Jeff Zucker to Step Down

Posted in Hollywood, Hot Stuff, News

Tagged , , , , , , , , ,

Limited Edition M9 Titanium: For the rich Leica Aficionados

Posted on September 24, 2010 by Benny Hollywood

The Leica M9 Titanium is a limited range finder camera from Leica. It’s built for the top 500 Leica Aficionados across the globe. It’s worth 22 thousand euros and will be shipped world wide this November 2010. Here’s an article from Gizmosync.com about the Leica M9 Titanium: The M9 comes in steel-gray lacquer and black Limited Edition M9 Titanium: For the rich Leica Aficionados is a post from: Daily World Buzz Continue reading →

Comments Off on Limited Edition M9 Titanium: For the rich Leica Aficionados

More Galleries

NewsBusters Sparks PolitiFact Examination of Bill Clinton Remark

Posted on September 23, 2010 by Benny Hollywood| Comments Off on NewsBusters Sparks PolitiFact Examination of Bill Clinton Remark

A NewsBusters article about misstatements made by former President Bill Clinton on “Meet the Press” sparked a fact-checking examination by the St. Petersburg Times’ PolitiFact. As reported Sunday, Clinton bragged to host David Gregory that his administration had “paid down the debt for four years, paid down $600 billion on the national debt.” This of course was quite incorrect as the debt didn’t decline one year while Clinton was in the White House and actually increased by $394 billion in the four years in question. PolitiFact staff writer Lou Jacobson contacted a number folks on this issue including me to reach what I consider a “politically correct” conclusion : It depends on what the definition of “national debt” is. There are actually a few ways of tabulating the debt. One is public debt, which includes all debt borrowed by the federal government and held by investors through Treasury notes and other securities. Another is gross federal debt, which includes public debt plus debt held by the government. The most notable forms of debt held by the government are the trust funds for Social Security and Medicare, money which is owed to beneficiaries in the future. The Office of Management and Budget estimates that the public debt will reach $9.3 trillion by the end of fiscal year 2010. Add in the $4.5 trillion in debt held by the government, and you come up with a gross federal debt of $13.8 trillion. Now let’s look at Clinton’s tenure. Using the public debt figures, we see that the debt rose year by year during the first four fiscal years of Clinton’s stewardship, then fell during each of the following four fiscal years, from a 1997 peak to a 2001 trough. So using this measurement, Clinton is correct that “we paid down the debt for four years,” though he did overestimate the amount that was paid down when he said it was $600 billion. The actual amount was $452 billion — which was equal to about 12 percent of the existing public debt in 1997. But what about gross federal debt? On this score, NewsBusters is correct: In each fiscal year from 1993 to 2001, the gross federal debt increased, because the increase in money in government trust funds exceeded the annual decreases in the federal budget deficit. So by one of these measures, Clinton is correct, and by another, he’s wrong. After citing a number of economists on either side of the aisle, PF quoted one of my e-mail messages concerning the subject: “If the public debt during those years was bought with other debt — meaning by the Social Security trust and the Federal Reserve — we didn’t actually pay down any debt, did we? If you take out an equity line of credit on your home to pay off your car loan, your debt didn’t decrease. Furthermore, if you take out an equity line of credit to pay off your car loan and buy a boat, it would be deceitful on your part to say you reduced your debt, right? This is what happened those four years: We did retire some debt held by the public, but we did so by increasing debt held by the government and the (Federal Reserve). That’s not retiring debt. That’s just shifting it from one lender to another.” Despite this seemingly incontravertible logic, PF concluded: We see merit in using both public debt and gross debt, so we are reluctant to declare that Clinton is definitively right or definitively wrong in citing statistics supported by the public debt figure. Clinton’s phrasing — talking about “the debt” and “the national debt” — strikes us as vague enough to refer to either the public debt or the gross federal debt. So we are left with a statement that’s correct using one measurement and incorrect using another measurement. In addition, Clinton overestimated by about 25 percent the dollar amount by which the public debt declined from its peak during his term, though he also correctly characterized the changes in the debt under Republican presidents. So on balance, we rule Clinton’s statement Half True. As readers likely predict, I feel Clinton’s statement should have gotten either a “False” or a “Pants on Fire.” Looking at exclusively public debt would be like a lender only considering your mortgage balance in determining your credit-worthiness while completely ignoring your car loans and your credit cards.  Don’t you wish that were the case? The reality is the Treasury includes moneys owed to Social Security and Medicare in its gross debt figures because they are part of our nation’s total debt. Even the National Debt Clock tabulates gross federal debt and not just what is held by the public. In this instance as it pertains to Clinton’s claim, here are the pertinent facts. Debt held by the public did decline by $452 billion from the end of FY 97 to the end of FY 01. However, the amount held by government accounts – which mostly means Social Security and Medicare trusts – increased by $853 billion. Yet the surpluses in Social Security and Medicare only totalled $534 billion. This means these trust accounts purchased $319 billion more Treasury paper those four years than their actual surplus. That represents most of the $394 billion increase in gross federal debt during this period. Remember, we were told at the time that this debt buyback was as a result of the surpluses. Quite the contrary, what happened was debt held by the public was largely converted into debt owned by the Social Security and Medicare trusts as well as the Federal Reserve.  As our budgets are “unified,” it is therefore ludicrous to only look at public debt when referring to what the nation owes. Let me explain. Since 1969, we calculate what’s called “unified” budgets meaning they include receipts and expenditures associated with Social Security and Medicare. When the Clinton administration was reporting budget surpluses from 1998 on, and the CBO was projecting “surpluses as far as the eye can see,” they were including projected surpluses in Social Security and Medicare. Without these “trust fund” surpluses, we actually showed what’s called “on-budget” deficits in FY 98 and FY 01. In fact, in the four years that we showed unified budget surpluses of a combined $559 billion, fully $534 billion of that came from surpluses in Social Security and Medicare. Our actual “on-budget” surplus those four years was only $25 billion, a far cry from what was advertised and celebrated. With this in mind, if we’re going to report budget figures that include Social Security and Medicare surpluses – and even brag about our performance – we should certainly include what we owe these programs when we talk about national debt. Failing this is allowing political figures to have their cake and eat it too.  Something else to consider is media outlets look at the gross debt and not just what’s held by the public. When the gross debt past the $13 trillion mark earlier this year, these were some of the headlines: ABCNews.com reported on May 26, “National Debt Soars Past $13 Trillion”     Bloomberg.com reported on May 26, “U.S.’s $13 Trillion Debt Poised to Overtake GDP”  CBSNews.com reported on June 2, “National Debt Tops $13 Trillion for First Time” Once again, please recall that Clinton said “national debt.” As such, it appears our friends at PolitiFact were being generous in their ruling, at least in my opinion. That said, Jacobson was tremendously cordial in his e-mail discussion with me, and appears to have done a nice job of soliticiting varied opinions for this piece. Also of note, and in case your assumption was that this group always defends anyone named Clinton, this is not the case. Mr. Clinton has had twelve of his previous comments examined by PF resulting in four “Trues,” three “Half Trues,” one “Barely True,” two “Falses” and two “Pants on Fires.” Maybe this means that the next time the gang at PF is led to examine someone’s statements as a result of something I wrote, I’m going to need to plead my case a little better. To quote the late Ed Hart, we will know in the fullness of time.

Read the original here:
NewsBusters Sparks PolitiFact Examination of Bill Clinton Remark

Comments Off on NewsBusters Sparks PolitiFact Examination of Bill Clinton Remark

Posted in Hollywood, Hot Stuff, News

Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Matthews: GOP’s ‘Pledge to America’ is the Biggest Cover Up Since Watergate

Posted on September 23, 2010 by Benny Hollywood| Comments Off on Matthews: GOP’s ‘Pledge to America’ is the Biggest Cover Up Since Watergate

Chris Matthews thinks the Republican Party’s Pledge to America is all part of a ploy to hide the more “radical” ideas of their party as he, on Thursday’s Hardball, announced that the GOP “manifesto” could be “the biggest cover up since Watergate.” Matthews went on to speculate that with the Pledge, the Republican members of Congress were doing their best to “disguise the much more serious, more radical proposals” of the Tea Party. The suspicious Matthews then went on to tally the allegedly secret agenda of the GOP that was “hidden under the table.” [ audio available here ] The following Matthews rants were aired on the September 23 edition of Hardball: CHRIS MATTHEWS: Plus House Republicans unveil their Pledge to America today and it could be the biggest cover up since Watergate. Their manifesto showcases all the predictable soft sell proposals you’d expect from establishment Republicans but goes radio silent on the more radical ideas of their party. The wild stuff, you know, about changing the Constitution. And make no mistake, the fringe on the right will have a strong voice if Republicans win control of the Congress. … MATTHEWS: Coming up, the Republican Party unveils its so-called Pledge to America and it may be just the biggest political cover up since Watergate. It’s a modest plan full of familiar proposals. You know the good stuff – cut taxes, cut spending, but the big question is, does it really hide or disguise the much more serious, more radical proposals that the Republicans Party has, that it has in mind. The Tea Party stuff we hear about all the time. How come that’s not on the paper? Let’s talk about what’s being covered over, in this pledge. You’re watching Hardball, only on MSNBC. … [5:13pm] MATTHEWS: Let’s take a look at what’s on the paper. Here are some of the points in the pledge, on paper. On tax cuts it calls for making the Bush tax cuts permanent. No surprise there. On business tax cuts it calls for giving small businesses a deduction equal to 20 percent of their business income. It calls for a cap on new government spending. For the repeal of the health care bill. Repeal! And fully funding, I don’t know where this came from, missile defense. Full funding of missile defense. There’s an odd one for ya…Here’s what I think is being hidden under the table. Here’s what Republicans are, actually been talking about during this campaign. Changing the 14th Amendment to that guarantees citizenship to people in this country. Let’s listen to somebody making that proposal. It’s not on the paper here. SEN. LINDSAY GRAHAM: People come here to have babies. They come here to drop a child. It’s called drop and leave. MATTHEWS: And Republicans are talking about actions that would shut down government if they take control of Congress. Let’s listen again. NEWT GINGRICH: Stage one of the end of Obama-ism will be a new Republican Congress in January that simply refuses to fund any of the radical efforts. MATTHEWS: Shut down. Some talk about repealing the 17th Amendment, which allows for direct election of U.S. senators. They’re also talking about privatizing Social Security, which is addressed in a number of places, but particularly in Republican Congressman Paul Ryan’s so-called Road Map to America’s Future. It seems to me, Todd Harris, that a lot of the nice stuff is put on this paper here, but the stuff we’re hearing out at the meetings, the Tea Party meetings, the more radical voices have been muffled here.

View original post here:
Matthews: GOP’s ‘Pledge to America’ is the Biggest Cover Up Since Watergate

Comments Off on Matthews: GOP’s ‘Pledge to America’ is the Biggest Cover Up Since Watergate

Posted in Hollywood, Hot Stuff, News

Tagged , , , , , , , , , ,

CNN Hints Pope is Guilty of Mishandling Abuse Case, Leaves Out Details

Posted on September 23, 2010 by Benny Hollywood| Comments Off on CNN Hints Pope is Guilty of Mishandling Abuse Case, Leaves Out Details

CNN played an excerpt of its upcoming documentary “What the Pope Knew” on Thursday’s Newsroom (see CNN’s commercial promoting the documentary at right), and if this preview and its past coverage of the Church abuse scandal is any indication, the documentary left out key information in order to paint Benedict XVI in the worst possible light. Correspondent Gary Tuchman failed to explain how then-Cardinal Ratzinger’s handled a specific case from Wisconsin. Anchor Kyra Phillips introduced the excerpt from the documentary 24 minutes into the 9 am Eastern hour. The segment focused on the case of Father Lawrence Murphy, who was the priest and headmaster for St. John’s School for the Deaf in Milwaukee. Phillips noted that as many as 200 boys at the school were raped or sexually abused by Murphy and stated it was “one of the most notorious cases of sex abuse in the Catholic Church.” Tuchman interviewed Terry Kohut, one of Murphy’s victims. The correspondent stated that “fifty years ago, when he was just 10 years old, Terry, who is deaf, was sent to the St. John’s School in Milwaukee, Wisconsin. What happened there to Terry and up to 200 other deaf boys is now central to the sex abuse crisis in the Catholic Church, and to the question of what Pope Benedict, then Cardinal Ratzinger, knew about it all.” This introduction gives the false impression that Ratzinger was a cardinal five decades ago, when he actually was a priest and college professor in Germany during the 1960s. After playing the first clip from his interview of Kohut, Tuchman continued that “Father Murphy has…been identified by dozens of deaf men who say he raped and sexually abused them as children for years. Father Murphy’s abuse would come to the direct attention of Cardinal Ratzinger, but his handling of the case would stun Murphy’s victims.” The CNN correspondent didn’t explain the then-cardinal’s handling (perhaps an explanation is given in the larger documentary), but only played a sound bite from David Gibson of the PoliticsDaily blog, who back in April 2008, at the time of the Pope’s visit to the U.S., accused Benedict XVI of irresponsibly exercising his office as pope . Gibson made a new accusation in his clip: “I think what the Murphy case shows is the d eference that Cardinal Ratzinger and Pope Benedict would always give to the priest .” Actually, then-Cardinal Ratzinger involvement in the Murphy case was minimal at best. Father Thomas Brundage of the Archdiocese of Milwaukee rebuked the New York Times and other media outlets earlier in 2010 for their sloppy reporting on the Murphy case. Fr. Brundage, who presided over Murphy’s canonical/church trial, stated that he had ” never once been contacted by any news organization for comment .” He also noted that he had ” no reason to believe that he [Cardinal Ratzinger] was involved at all . Placing this matter at his doorstep is a huge leap of logic and information .” Jimmy Akin of the National Catholic Register reported on April 5, 2010 that the Congregation of the Doctrine of Faith (CDF), the Church body which Cardinal Ratzinger led before coming pope, held a meeting on the Murphy case in 1998. Ratzinger wasn’t even present at this meeting, which was led by his deputy, then-Archbishop Tarcisio Bertone. According to a memo from that meeting, Archbishop Bertone was ” appalled at how long this case [had] been allowed to linger .” Akin also explained that “the reason that the CDF was involved in this case is that it involved a priest accused of sexual solicitation in the confessional—not because it involved paedophilia. At the time, the CDF did not have a mandate to cover paedophilia (those were normally handled by the local bishop or, if appealed to Rome, by a different Vatican court—the Roman Rota).” The Register writer concluded that “[o]ne can still criticize the way the CDF handled the case, but the memo does not reveal a portrait of Bertone—much less Ratzinger—as unwilling to take action against Fr. Murphy .” At the end of his report, Tuchman asked Kohut why he was participating in the lawsuit. His answer: “I want the see the Vatican- because I’ve been waiting for all these years for them to excommunicate- defrock Father Murphy, but they haven’t.” Murphy died in 1998 , and as Father Brundage explained in his response to the New York Times, ” he was still the defendant in a church criminal trial ” at the time of his death. Defrocking or excommunicating the now deceased priest seems like a moot point. On May 3, 2010, Tuchman gave a report on Anderson Cooper 360 which tried to cast the Pope in the worst light possible regarding another abuse case, and omitted key details in that instance as well. This kind of slanted coverage is not at all surprising, given how CNN has run such reports on the abuse scandals since March 2010. On March 26 , Phillips used the scandal as a pretext to bring on three left-wing/heterodox Christians who all advocate radical changes inside the Catholic Church. She even gave their agenda her endorsement. On April 16, correspondent Jessica Yellin misleadingly asked , ” Why is he [Pope Benedict] having such a hard time saying he’s sorry? ” Phillips herself went further on June 11, stating that “we haven’t heard” the Pope say he’s sorry for the scandals. The full transcript of the segment from Thursday’s Newsroom: KYRA PHILLIPS: At a small school for the deaf in Milwaukee, Wisconsin, as many as 200 deaf boys were raped or sexually abused by the priest and headmaster. It was one of the most notorious cases of sex abuse in the Catholic Church. Today, a CNN exclusive: the first interview with one of those victims, who’s now suing Pope Benedict. It’s part of a special CNN documentary examining what Pope Benedict did or didn’t do about this crisis. Our Gary Tuchman has the story. GARY TUCHMAN (voice-over): At a lakeside retreat in northern Wisconsin- KOHUT (to dog): Come. TUCHMAN (voice-over): Terry Kohut tries to escape his past. It isn’t easy. Fifty years ago, when he was just 10 years old, Terry, who is deaf, was sent to the St. John’s School in Milwaukee, Wisconsin. What happened there to Terry and up to 200 other deaf boys is now central to the sex abuse crisis in the Catholic Church, and to the question of what Pope Benedict, then Cardinal Ratzinger, knew about it all. Terry Kohut has never spoken publicly about the horrors he endured at St. John’s. Until now. TUCHMAN (on-camera): What did he do to you? KOHUT (through translator): And then it was that afternoon, I went into his office. The door was closed, and Father Murphy said, ‘Take your pants down.’ TUCHMAN (voice-over): Father Lawrence Murphy was the headmaster and priest at St. John’s for more than two decades. He was a charismatic fundraiser and respected church leader. But Father Murphy has also been identified by dozens of deaf men who say he raped and sexually abused them as children for years. Father Murphy’s abuse would come to the direct attention of Cardinal Ratzinger, but his handling of the case would stun Murphy’s victims. DAVID GIBSON, POLITICSDAILY.COM: I think what the Murphy case shows is the deference that Cardinal Ratzinger and Pope Benedict would always give to the priest. UNIDENTIFIED MALE: What actually happens in court- TUCHMAN (voice-over): Today, Terry Kohut is suing the Vatican for what Father Murphy did to him at St. John’s. His lawsuit is the first to ever specifically name Joseph Ratzinger, now Pope Benedict. Until now, Terry Kohut has been anonymous, named only as John Doe 16. KOHUT (through translator): Yeah, I was confused as to why it was happening. I mean, he was a priest. You know, I was trying to figure out what- I mean, I can’t believe a priest would do that. THUCHMAN (voice-over): The priest is believed to have picked out victims who were especially vulnerable, or had been through tragedy already in their young lives. Terry Kohut fit that pattern. KOHUT (through translator): My brother was electrocuted- died when I was 10. And when I was 11, my father hung himself. And at 12, my favorite dog died, and it tore me up. And I saw Father Murphy, and I thought that he could be a second father. TUCHMAN (on camera): Tell me why, Terry, you’ve decided to file suit- what do you want to see happen? KOHUT (through translator): I want the see the Vatican- because I’ve been waiting for all these years for them to excommunicate- defrock Father Murphy, but they haven’t.

Link:
CNN Hints Pope is Guilty of Mishandling Abuse Case, Leaves Out Details

Comments Off on CNN Hints Pope is Guilty of Mishandling Abuse Case, Leaves Out Details

Posted in Hollywood, Hot Stuff, News

Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Misread and Misreported: Tea Party Activism Bullish for Economy

Posted on September 23, 2010 by Benny Hollywood| Comments Off on Misread and Misreported: Tea Party Activism Bullish for Economy

One of the most common threads in the media recently has been how bad the Tea Party movement has been for this United States . It has been derided for lacking racial diversity , promoting policies outside the so-called mainstream and blamed for creating a civil war within the Republican Party. The media often stress those “negatives” at the expense of the positive basic tenets of the Tea Party movement: smaller government, fiscal responsibility and free markets – tenets that, when highlighted, are in fact bullish signals for an ailing economy. This is a phenomenon Larry Kudlow, host of CNBC’s “The Kudlow Report,” explained. “Tonight, free-market capitalism on the comeback trail,” Kudlow said on his Sept. 15 program . “That is one of the messages of the Tea Party power. We saw a lot of that power last night in the primaries. I tell you what folks, that Tea Party power, that free-market capitalist power is so totally bullish for the stock market.” And it has been bullish as of late, both as a forward-looking indicator and in gauging investor sentiment in general with each Tea Party candidate victory. Tea is good for the markets. However, this trend is being missed largely by the media. Charting the course of the Tea Party movement chronologically, from the 2008 presidential election cycle prior to its birth up to today, Kudlow’s hypothesis looks solid. ‘08’s Conventional Wisdom Comes Up Lame Going back to the pre-Tea Party days, in late 2008 before the presidential election, one of common media themes was that an ailing economy boded well for then-presidential candidate Sen. Barack Obama. That was because of the notion Democrats, the theory held, would do better fixing the situation. Part of that stemmed from the idea Obama would take on the excesses of Wall Street, which would make things better as former “NBC Nightly News” anchor Tom Brokaw explained Oct. 13, 2008 . “I mean you’re seeing that right now in the polls. Look, one of the reasons it helps him win is that this is Main Street versus Wall Street,” said NBC’s Tom Brokaw at the time. “ Main Street ’s furious because they think they’ve been hosed by Wall Street and that they’re paying for the excesses of Wall Street.” It’s automatically a mark in the “win” column for Democrats, according to Brokaw, when there’s an anti-Wall Street sentiment. “And when that happens, that of course, I think, generally accrues to the asset side for a Democratic candidate,” Brokaw continued. “Now whether it can be sustained or not, I don’t know.” Others speculated that the public just trusted Democrats more on all things economy, which CNBC’s John Harwood claimed on Sept. 15, 2008 to “Squawk Box” co-host Becky Quick. “We don’t know who’s going to come out ahead in the end, but I’ll speculate this guess Becky – it probably helps the Democratic ticket for this reason: Polls show that voters right now trust Democrats more than Republicans on the economy and John McCain has prospered in the last couple of weeks as the ground has shifted onto culture issues away from economic issues,” Harwood said. “[T]his puts the debate right back on the economy that Barack Obama is uh, has wanted it – not lipstick on a pig or the whole range of culture issues that has lifted John McCain.” However, if you chart some of the economic metrics of the time and compare them to now, that reasoning has proved faulty. Unemployment numbers and U.S. gross domestic product (GDP) have both steadily deteriorated, despite Democratic majorities in both chambers of Congress and control of the White House. In November 2008, unemployment was at 6.9 percent, after having spent nearly half the Bush administration under 5 percent. Nearly two years later, unemployment is at 9.6 percent and it has been above 9 percent for the last 15 months. Charting GDP over roughly that same time period since September 2008 , it has actually decreased overall as a percentage, even though it has been on an inconsistent roller coaster-like trajectory, with significant gains and significant losses in that same time period. And although these metrics show Obama’s liberal policies to be ineffective, they haven’t come cheap for the taxpayers. According to CNSNews.com , in the first 19 months of the Obama administration, the federal debt held by the public increased by $2.526 trillion, which is more than the cumulative total of the national debt held by the public that was amassed by all U.S. presidents from George Washington through Ronald Reagan. Bottom line: Appears the media got it wrong. Democrats haven’t fared well turning a weakened economy around over the course of two years. Birth of the Tea Party and a Renewed Optimism Although you can’t credit any one variable for the increase of the stock market, a forward-looking indicator – the rise of the Tea Party movement – appears to be running parallel to the Dow Jones Industrial Average ( DJIA ). CNBC’s CME Group floor reporter Rick Santelli’s “rant heard around the world” on Feb. 19, 2009 , was the spark that ignited the Tea Party movement. That day, Santelli railed against what was thought to be a forthcoming proposal and the inevitable move to bailout struggling homeowner unable to pay their mortgages. The Dow was trading around 7,300 points and would eventually fall to 6,626 on March 6, 2009. But since then, as the Tea Party has grown and shown it has electoral muscle, the market has rebounded. After victories a Massachusetts , New Jersey and Virginia in late 2009 and early 2010, the Dow has rallied back, even trading above 11,000 for a brief few weeks starting last April. As the Tea Party movement has shown power throughout the 2010 primaries, the markets have been on a steady climb going back to July. Thus, the momentum behind the prospects of limited government, fiscal discipline and free-market appears to be working – if using the stock market as a barometer. There are also indications this momentum will continue. As this Tea Party movement has made strides with candidates in Delaware , Alaska , New York , etc. in just the past few weeks, investor optimism has increased as Alan Abelson noted this in the Sept. 18 issue of Barron’s . “In like vein, but even more emphatically, as Doug Kass of Seabreeze Partners points out, has been the turnaround by members of the American Association of Individual Investors ( the so-called little guys, although their ranks include many folks over six feet tall when unshod),” Abelson wrote. “Three weeks ago, these worthies were as a group 20.7% bullish and 49.5% bearish. Last week, in striking contrast, the bulls among them were 50.9% of the total, the bears a meager 24.3%.” Media Emphasize Politics, Ignore Tea Party Principles This bullish trend in the financial markets has been largely ignored by the media. Instead the focus has been on the Tea Parties’ negatives, as a recent Culture & Media Institute story pointed out. All three broadcast networks have described the Tea Parties as “overwhelmingly white,” CMI found. So have CNN, MSNBC, NPR, the Agence France Presse, The Washington Post, The New York Times, the Los Angeles Times, USA Today, National Journal and US News & World Report. Many of those organizations are the very ones the news industry discusses as having failed to make diversity goals for staff. Other recent reporting in the media has focused on the rise of the Tea Party as 1964 Goldwater phenomenon, which suggests this isn’t democracy at work, but instead something that is strategically debilitating for the Republican as a whole – a theory Peter Beinart, senior political writer for The Daily Beast, subscribes to. “The Tea Party is now the Republican Party,” Beinart said on ABC’s Sept. 19 “This Week.” “I mean I think what we’re seeing in the Republican Party is something akin to what happened to the Democratic Party between 1968 and 1972 in which the forces of George McGovern took over the Democratic Party, overthrew the Democratic Party establishment and moved it substantially to the left.” But whatever it means for the GOP, this ideological change suggests that a shift in control of Congress, whether it is one or both chambers, would likely mean gridlock in Washington . That, as far as business and the markets are concerned, is good news. Stephen Slivinski, author of “ Buck Wild: How Republicans Broke the Bank and Became the Party of Big Government ,” was bullish in an article for the Washington Examiner on Sept. 15 . “So, can gridlock put a cap on spending in the future? I’m optimistic,” Slivinski wrote. “Stimulus programs and corporate welfare spending are proving increasingly unpopular (and ineffective). And the one thing that Republicans seem to have proven over the years is that they are more likely to be opposed to big government when they can turn a Democratic president into the poster child for excessive spending. The GOP pulled their punches during the Bush presidency because to take a swing at the federal behemoth at that point meant taking a shot at their own teammate.” And as Kudlow maintains, the gridlock created by the Tea Party movement would put the brakes on the growth of government, which is a win for the American economy . “They are talking free markets – lower spending, lower taxing, lower regulations, even constitutional limits to government, and you heard me talk about this last week in my free market 12-step plan for prosperity ,” Kudlow said. “The rise of the Tea Party people – they are going to win the vast majority of those Senate races and we are going to see a sea change in American policies, back to freedom and entrepreneurship, and that is bullish.”

Read more from the original source:
Misread and Misreported: Tea Party Activism Bullish for Economy

Comments Off on Misread and Misreported: Tea Party Activism Bullish for Economy

Posted in Hollywood, Hot Stuff, News

Tagged , , , , , , , , ,

Tribune’s Matea Gold: Jon Stewart Rally ‘Could Draw Tens of Thousands’

Posted on September 23, 2010 by Benny Hollywood| Comments Off on Tribune’s Matea Gold: Jon Stewart Rally ‘Could Draw Tens of Thousands’

Just two days before Glenn Beck’s August 28 “Restoring Honor” rally, the Washington Post published an article about how the rally would “be a measure of the tea party’s strength.” “When Fox News and talk radio host Glenn Beck comes to Washington this weekend to headline a rally intended to ‘restore honor’ to America, he will test the strength – and potentially expose the weaknesses – of a conservative grass-roots movement that remains an unpredictable force in the country’s politics,” staffer Amy Gardner argued in the opening paragraph of her August 26 story. Gardner’s article is but one example of the media’s skeptical attitude prior to the Beck rally. Yet just days after two Comedy Central hosts announced mock rallies for October 30 on the Mall, the liberal media are expecting that Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert can easily draw a large crowd.  I noted the breathless anticipation of Newsweek’s Daniel Stone last Friday . Now it seems that Matea Gold of the Washington bureau of the Tribune Company is also decidedly optimistic. In her 13-paragraph article, accessible at LATimes.com , Gold quoted a few folks who plan on attending and took the Facebook RSVPs on face value as a signal about potential attendance: As of Wednesday afternoon, more than 132,000 people planned to attend, according to the event’s Facebook page, while satellite rallies were being organized in Chicago, Seattle, Austin and other cities. Nowhere in her article did Gold give ink to any skeptic who would rain on the Comedy Central parade by suggesting the initial “hey, that sounds cool” interest by Stewart/Colbert fans would fail to flesh out into actual attendance after they consider the cost and hassle of attending the event.

Read more:
Tribune’s Matea Gold: Jon Stewart Rally ‘Could Draw Tens of Thousands’

Comments Off on Tribune’s Matea Gold: Jon Stewart Rally ‘Could Draw Tens of Thousands’

Posted in Hollywood, Hot Stuff, News

Tagged , , , , , , , , , , ,

George Stephanopoulos Parrots Democratic Talking Points on New GOP Pledge: They’re ‘Repealing Health Care’

Posted on September 23, 2010 by Benny Hollywood| Comments Off on George Stephanopoulos Parrots Democratic Talking Points on New GOP Pledge: They’re ‘Repealing Health Care’

Good Morning America’s George Stephanopoulos on Thursday offered up Democratic talking points as he discussed a new set of Republican promises, should the GOP win Congress. The skeptical host interviewed Representative Paul Ryan and repeated, “You heard the President. He said this is the exact same agenda as Republicans had before he came to office. How is it different?” In a tease for the segment, he spun, ” Republicans unveil their plan for America: Cutting taxes and repealing health care .” It may seem like a small distinction but Republicans oppose the new law, not the concept of Americans having health care. Stephanopoulos repeatedly grilled the GOP Congressman: “…The two central items in the agenda, are extending the tax cuts passed under President Bush. Repealing the health care law by President Obama. Those are going to cost at least $4 trillion over the next ten years. And your- your pledge doesn’t spell out anything close to paying for that $4 trillion.” He followed up by pressing, “But, you say a path to balance. But, you do concede that you do not have a plan to balance the budget. And you don’t pay for the tax cuts that you are extending?” Yet, when Stephanopoulos interviewed Barack Obama for 16 minutes on September 9 , he included several softball questions, such as this empathetic example on the minister who threatened to burn a Koran on 9/11: “I wonder what this must feel like from behind your desk. You’re President of the United States. You have to deal with the fallout. And here’s a pastor who’s got 30 followers in his church. Does it make you feel helpless or angry?” A transcript of the September 23 segment, which aired at 7:06am EDT, follows: GEORGE STEPHANOPOULOS: Let’s turn now to one of the architects of the Republican agenda, Congressman Paul Ryan of Wisconsin, a ranking Republican on the House budget committee. Good morning, Congressman. REP. PAUL RYAN: Hey, good morning, George. STEPHANOPOULOS: You heard the President. He said this is the exact same agenda as Republicans had before he came to office. How is it different? RYAN: Well, first of all, cutting spending, creating jobs and putting the policy of economic growth in place, and cleaning up the way Congress works is not only standing in stark contrast to this Congress and this President. But, actually, George, it stands a bit in stark contrast to way Republicans conducted ourselves a decade ago. We need to own up to the fact that when we were in the majority, we spent too much money. We lost our way. We have got to get that back. We are not here offering a plan to reinvent America. We are trying to reclaim our country by rededicating ourselves to the timeless principles that made us exceptional. These are the basic building blocks to get us on the right track. The first steps to get this country on the right track. STEPHANOPOULOS: Yet, Congressman, the two central items in the agenda, are extending the tax cuts passed under President Bush. Repealing the health care law by President Obama. Those are going to cost at least $4 trillion over the next ten years. And your- your pledge doesn’t spell out anything close to paying for that $4 trillion. RYAN: We’d put 1.3 trillion in cuts right there as well. But the President is also proposing $3 trillion of those $3.7 trillion in tax cuts be extended. So, it’s not as if the President and the Democrats aren’t saying extend some of them. We’re saying- STEPHANOPOULOS: But, how are you going to pay for the $4 trillion, if you’re going to reduce the spending? RYAN: Well, I brought a budget to the floor that reduced $4.8 trillion in spending, which would have more than compensated for these tax cuts. The point is, George, raising taxes on successful, small businesses, which these tax increases would hit 50 percent of all small business income, 70 percent of our jobs come from small businesses. It is not a good idea in this economy, to raise these kind of taxes. Even some of the President’s own economic advisers are suggesting, we should not have tax increases occur in January. What- The problem we have right now is jobs, George. We need the economy growing. We need job creations. Taxing capital gains, taxing dividends taxing small businesses will hurt us from creating jobs. Mark Zandi, Peter Orszag. Even some of the President’s own advisors are suggesting that. So, we’re saying, not only keep taxes low, but focus on spending. Cut spending. Control spending. Get the budget on the path to balance. We will begin with that. STEPHANOPOULOS: But, you say a path to balance. But, you do concede that you do not have a plan to balance the budget. And you don’t pay for the tax cuts that you are extending? RYAN: Well, we can pay for the tax cuts. I have provided budgets that do that in the past. STEPHANOPOULOS: But, the rest of the Republicans aren’t signing on to it? RYAN: No. That’s the road map which is quite different. What I’m saying is we have a plan to get this country back on track. We want to cut and control spending. The deficit is such a mess right now. It’s going to take time to balance the budget. But, what is the current government doing? Their making it worse. The President has added a budget that doubles our debt in five years. And triples it in ten years. We want to go in a different direction. So, we don’t want to balance the budget by raising taxes. We want to balance a budget by controlling spending. ‘Cause, after all, that’s the real source of our problem. STEPHANOPOULOS: You also talk about cleaning up Congress. You’re taking some heat, some surprising heat from conservatives. Erick Erickson of RedState.com says- hits you were not taking on earmarks, for not banning earmarks. He says “The lack of an earmarks ban is terrible. Cutting off the gateway drug to big government is important.” Your response? RYAN: I agree. We’ve already banned earmarks. That’s already in the Republican platform. STEPHANOPOULOS: Only for your conference. Not for the House overall. RYAN: Republicans- We’ve going to continue this earmarks ban. We’ve already done the earmark ban. So, it’s something we’ve already initiated it in our own volition within our own conference. It’s something we’re intending on continuing. That’s why it’s not new pledge. STEPHANOPOULOS: So, you’ve got the pledge. What will you pledge to pass in the first year, if Republicans take control of the house? RYAN: Right. So, this is something we could pass tomorrow. This is a governing agenda that we’re saying if we got in control of Congress tomorrow, here’s what we would do. And there’s dozens of pieces of legislation here we’re talking about. First of all, the health care bill, we think is a disaster. It’s making the deficit worse. That’s according to the President’s actuary. It’s making health care go up. We would replace this health care law with consumer-directed health care that actually gets affordable health care to everybody, regardless of preexisting condition. STEPHANOPOULOS: So, that is number one. Okay, Congressman- RYAN: We would cut spending, right away. There’s lots of things we would do. We would rescind TARP. We would rescind unspent stimulus. We would do a federal hiring freeze. That can get you 1.3 trillion in spending cuts. And we would prevent these massive tax increases from hitting our economy January 1st so that we can keep job creation going. We’re trying to remove uncertainty so the economy can grow. There’s a big uncertainty problem. Businesses aren’t hiring because of all this government uncertainty. We want to address that. STEPHANOPOULOS: Big agenda for January 1st. Thank you very much, Congressman.

More here:
George Stephanopoulos Parrots Democratic Talking Points on New GOP Pledge: They’re ‘Repealing Health Care’

Comments Off on George Stephanopoulos Parrots Democratic Talking Points on New GOP Pledge: They’re ‘Repealing Health Care’

Posted in Hollywood, Hot Stuff, News

Tagged , , , , , , , , ,

Today Show Refuses to Attach Democratic Label in CA ‘Corruption On Steroids’ Story

Posted on September 22, 2010 by Benny Hollywood| Comments Off on Today Show Refuses to Attach Democratic Label in CA ‘Corruption On Steroids’ Story

NBC’s Tamron Hall blared, “It’s being called ‘corruption on steroids'” while George Lewis added, “It’s been an angry summer in Bell, California, once people learned that city officials awarded themselves huge six figure salaries at taxpayer’s expense.” However neither of them mentioned, in two different stories on Wednesday’s Today show, that those corrupt officials belonged to the Democratic Party. Lewis, strangely, couldn’t even bother to identify the party of Jerry Brown — who has a soundbite in the piece going after the officials — as he just called him “The California attorney general running for governor.” Incidentally, the Today show wasn’t the only news outlet to conveniently drop the “D” label next to those officials accused of bilking California taxpayers. As Newsbusters’ Lachlan Markay  pointed out on Tuesday, “ABC, CBS, the Los Angeles Times, the Associated Press, Bloomberg, USA Today, CNN, MSNBC, NPR, and the San Francisco Chronicle all reported on the arrests today without mentioning party affiliations.” The following Lewis story and Hall anchor brief were the September 22 Today show: [8:02am] TAMRON HALL: In Bell, California it’s being called “corruption on steroids.” Eight current and former city officials spent the night in jail after being arrested for misappropriating more than $5 million in city funds. NBC’s George Lewis has details. George, good morning. [On screen headline: “‘Corruption On Steroids’ California City Officials Busted For Graft”] GEORGE LEWIS: Good morning, Tamron. It’s been an angry summer in Bell, California, once people learned that city officials had awarded themselves huge six figure salaries at taxpayers’ expense. Now those officials face serious felony charges. City Manager Robert Rizzo, busted at his luxury home in Huntington Beach, California, had home had been pulling down $800,000 a year in salary, twice what President Obama makes. His total benefits came to about $1.5 million annually. STEVE COOLEY, LOS ANGELES COUNTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY: The charges accuse Rizzo of being responsible for at least $4.3 million of the city’s losses. LEWIS: Rizzo is one of eight city officials, present and former, charged with numerous accounts of misappropriating public funds. When police went after Mayor Oscar Hernandez, they had to break down the door of his house with a battering ram. COOLEY: This was calculated greed and theft accomplished by deceit and secrecy. LEWIS: The district attorney making it clear he’s going after anyone connected with this. COOLEY: I would charge my mother if I had evidence against my mother. UNIDENTIFIED OFFICIAL: Please I need respect from everybody. Please! LEWIS: In July, when people found out about the astronomical salaries the city officials were getting, they stormed city council meetings demanding their resignation. And when news came of the arrests on Tuesday, some citizens literally jumped for joy. UNIDENTIFIED MAN: We did it! I’m happy. I’m happy! This is what I was waiting for from the very beginning. UNIDENTIFIED WOMAN: We just love the idea of all the city council going to jail in handcuffs. LEWIS: The California attorney general running for governor is suing the Bell City officials trying to recover much of the money. JERRY BROWN, CALIFORNIA ATTORNEY GENERAL: When you see it, you can smell it. And this stinks to high heaven. LEWIS: Today when former city manager Rizzo appears in court, the district attorney will ask the judge to set his bail at $3.2 million. The Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors is asking the attorney general to appoint a temporary overseer to run day to day business in Bell. Tamron? HALL: Alright George, thanks a lot. … [9:02am] TAMRON HALL: And eight current and former city officials in Bell, California are facing charges of bilking taxpayers out of millions of dollars. A prosecutor called the case “corruption on steroids.”

Read the original:
Today Show Refuses to Attach Democratic Label in CA ‘Corruption On Steroids’ Story

Comments Off on Today Show Refuses to Attach Democratic Label in CA ‘Corruption On Steroids’ Story

Posted in Hollywood, Hot Stuff, News

Tagged , , , , , , , , ,

The Huffington Post on Religion: ‘Islamophobia’ Bad, Sinead O’Connor’s Vatican-Hating Smears Good

Posted on September 21, 2010 by Benny Hollywood| Leave a comment

The Huffington Post would like to present itself as an oasis of religious tolerance. When they started their Religion section, Arianna Huffington decried that “all too often, when talking about it, we end up talking at each other instead of with each other.” Weeks ago, they published Nida Khan lamenting conservative Islamophobia , as “a vocal minority of extremists to capitalize and advance on their bigotry and xenophobia.” The writer cited Newt Gingrich and Sarah Palin, Rick Lazio and Peter King. That was one of many Huff-Po pieces feeling the pain of American Muslims, victims of vicious midterm politics. But that same Huffington Post doesn’t mind promoting “Rome-o-phobia,” vile anti-Catholic screeds from bigoted leftists that just happened to enjoy ripping up a picture of Pope John Paul on national TV. Arianna Huffington published Sinead O’Connor’s “An Open Letter to the Pope,” carrying flagrantly false statements, such as “not one member of The Vatican has publicly displayed an iota of humility over this issue. Instead each person who has spoken has done so most arrogantly and dismissively.” Here’s the latest line from O’Connor in the U.K. Guardian, where the headline says “The Vatican is a nest of devils.” Or, to be more precise: “The Vatican is a nest of devils and a haven for criminals. It’s evil, the very top of the toppermost is evil.” O’Connor is clear what has to happen – those responsible have to go. “And when all the those guys stand down we should take back the church for us.” Would she like to see a democratically elected pope? “Do we need a fucking pope? Why do we need a pope? Christ doesn’t need a representative. Ten years from now the church will be nothing resembling what it has been.” This is the kind of “religion” spokesman The Huffington Post wants to promote — a washed-up one-hit wonder who asserts that a global church with a billion adherents is about to fall apart in the next ten years — or if not fall apart, become a haven for fashionable, libertine-left, potty-mouthed “philosophers” like Sinead O’Connor. Her article was not a dialogue — a talking-to, instead of a talking-at — it was a vicious monologue. It was just another left-wing Huff-Po celebrity slur. 

See the original post here:
The Huffington Post on Religion: ‘Islamophobia’ Bad, Sinead O’Connor’s Vatican-Hating Smears Good

→ Leave a comment

Posted in Hollywood, Hot Stuff, News

Tagged , , , , , , , , ,