Tag Archives: politics

George Lopez Cracks Sarah Palin is ‘Evil Egomaniac That Might Destroy the World’

On Thursday’s Lopez Tonight on TBS, during a segment featuring photographs of public figures wearing similar clothing called “Who Wore it Better?” comedian George Lopez cracked that Sarah Palin was “an evil egomaniac that might destroy the world” as an image of her was shown next to a picture of North Korean dictator Kim Jong Il. Guest and fashion guru Tim Gunn took part in the segment as the two poked fun at Palin’s outfit supposedly resembling that of the communist despot. Lopez joked, “For people who don’t know, one is an evil egomaniac that might destroy the world, and the other one is Kim Jong Il,” inspiring Gunn to respond, “I love you for that.” Below is a transcript of the relevant portion of the Thursday, September 16, Lopez Tonight on TBS: GEORGE LOPEZ: Let’s take a look at the next one. Who do you think wore this jacket- TIM GUNN, FASHION GURU: Well. LOPEZ: -Sarah Palin or Kim Jong Il? GUNN: I vote for Kim Jong Il. And I fully suspect that Sarah Palin got that jacket when she was in North Korea going to the North Korean H&M. So, Kim Jong Il. LOPEZ: For people who don’t know, one is an evil egomaniac that might destroy the world, and the other one is Kim Jong Il. GUNN: I love you for that.

See original here:
George Lopez Cracks Sarah Palin is ‘Evil Egomaniac That Might Destroy the World’

Randi Rhodes Crudely Mocks Christine O’Donnell’s Prim Sexuality: ‘Hymen Check!’

Liberal talk radio host Randi Rhodes rejoiced on Wednesday over victorious Tea Party candidates Carl Palladino (“a seriously creepy, creepy guy”) and Christine O’Donnell (“you’ve got the anti-masturbation paranoid creationist lawyer where we could pick up a seat”). But Rhodes decided to go scabrously nasty and personal against O’Donnell, complete with flagrant virginity mockery:   By the way, Christine O’Donnell. It comes to my attention, uh, Deb tells me that Christine O’Donnell is not married….she’s an unmarried woman. Hymen check! [plays popping noise] She’d better be a virgin! Right? With all this vitriol about sex and sexual thoughts and lust and not masturbating and it’s wrong and what am I doing in the room… I know she had a boyfriend. I know she did because her then-boyfriend — then campaign manager — purchased her house when her house was in foreclosure for her! Uh, do you think he did it with lust in his heart? Uh, I don’t know what his motivation was to overpay for the house. But he overpaid by about $35,000 to get campaign manager, who is buying her house today – so, I would like to, you know, make sure she says who she says she is, and that the package of what you are buying is undamaged! Sounds kind of fundamentalist Islamic, doesn’t it? It’s probably too much to expect this will cost Rhodes the kind of trouble she received for denouncing Hillary Clinton as a “big f—ing whore.” That outburst cost her the Air America gig, before it sunk. Would Rhodes appreciate what an opposition-research team could report on her personal life? Like many liberals, Rhodes rejoiced in the disapproval of Karl Rove, and then she turned around and mocked how Rove helped get that “draft-dodging drunk ex-coke freak” George W. Bush elected president twice: Karl Rove does not like Christine O’Donnell; I don’t know what the deal is. I’m not sure why this uh would be; but he really hates her. I mean, he’s on the air giving everybody everything what they need to actually say congratulations to uh you know Senator Chris uh, uh, uh — I just blanked out on his name. Chris — Coons! Seriously, I mean, Senator Coons, you know, is a gimme now because the Republicans are eating their own! And uh, frankly, Karl Rove is leading the charge. She wasn’t counting on the establishment in the general election for sure; but I mean, the way things are going, you can’t count anybody. You know, it’s going to be like a blowout. They don’t feel that she is fit for office. Karl Rove doesn’t feel she is fit! Remember,  Karl Rove got a draft-dodging drunk ex-coke freak who couldn’t put a sentence together with a flashlight and two hands on a sunny day with a map. Couldn’t figure out Iraq was not Saudi Arabia, OK? He got him elected twice! Rhodes dismissed all the conservative Republican women running for office as Palinesque opportunists who were only interested in cashing in: They are all little Sarah Palin wanna-bes. They’re all opportunists. None of them have character, or sincerity, or truthfulness. None of them have the kind of fortitude to stand up against the lobbyists . They’re going to go in there and they are and make millions of dollars! And some of them will go in there and be one-termers and embarrass their party. But then they’ll go over to K Street and they’re set for life! Set for life! These women are opportunists; and the only reason they are being embraced by factions of America, which doesn’t like Americans, is because people are frustrated. And the only thing that the Republican Party and the Tea Party has offered is the acknowledgement that you are frustrated.

Continued here:
Randi Rhodes Crudely Mocks Christine O’Donnell’s Prim Sexuality: ‘Hymen Check!’

Hollywood Feminism: Women Smart, Men Dumb

“Feminism is a Crock – and Other True Stories.” That’s the title for a book I’d like to write someday. The reason I say feminism is a crock is because it has morphed from “equal rights for all” to “women are better than men, and if you disagree you’re a sexist pig who should be castrated.” It’s also morphed into a sexual free-for-all: what used to be sauce for the gander (and those ganders were usually considered cads) is now sauce for the goose. This image is being perpetuated by pop culture and entertainment, and women are more and more frequently being portrayed as strong through their sexuality, not through their actual accomplishments. Is this the standard to which we want our daughters to aspire? Early feminists fought against the centuries-old image of a “woman on a pedestal.” Gloria Steinem (she of the “a woman without a man is like a fish without a bicycle” who in later years ended up getting married anyway) once said, “A pedestal is as much a prison as any small, confined space.” I suppose a bra is also a small, confined space, which might explain the bra burnings of the 1960s. But the early feminists had a point – to a point. If a woman wants to be put on a pedestal and admired and adored, fine. But if she doesn’t, she should have the right to do with her life as she chooses. She should be free to pursue any vocation  for which she is qualified,  either as a single or married woman, children or no children. But one of the problems with the new feminism was the annoying little fact that children could get in the way of this brave new world. Having to either stay at home with the little tykes or find daycare for them – not to mention all of the discomfort and disfiguration that comes with pregnancy itself – sure put a damper on Gloria Steinem’s idea of a “liberated woman” being “one who has sex before marriage and a job after.” Unbridled sex does, after all, have consequences. And so,  according to historian Elaine Tyler May, birth control was “an important tool to gain control over their lives.” May touts the contributions of Margaret Sanger, whose group eventually became known as Planned Parenthood, conveniently ignoring – as many do –  Sanger’s devotion to eugenics . Sanger spoke of sterilizing those “unfit” to contribute to the gene pool, a group which included not only blacks and other ethnic minorities but, according to  Sanger associate Dr. Harry Laughlin, the “shiftless, ignorant, and worthless class of antisocial whites of the South.” What a classy group of people. Don’t get me wrong. I’m not against safe, legitimate birth control methods. But when tooting the horn of the likes of Margaret Sanger, we need to be honest about what really drove her pursuit of birth control for women, just as we should be honest about what drives the abortion mills of Planned Parenthood –  profit . And quelle surprise – Planned Parenthood as we know it really  came into its own in the 1960s . In a nutshell: True feminists of the time felt that you could only be a feminist if you rebelled against the natural workings of your body and eschewed marriage and motherhood  for a “higher cause.” There are still many of the old guard around today. But the times, they are a changin’. Fast forward to 2010. Many would say the fight for equal rights has pretty much been won. Girls can dream of going to college and becoming airline pilots, electrical and biological engineers, teachers, doctors – the list is almost endless. In fact,  more women graduate with college degrees than men  – perhaps  due in part  to more focus being put on girls than boys in school to “make up for” previous inequality and also what is being called the feminization of society (what Rush Limbaugh calls “chickification”). And for years, the entertainment industry has done its part for the last 20 or 30 years by portraying men as bumbling but lovable fools who wouldn’t be where they are if it weren’t for the very attractive, smart-as-a-whip women they somehow managed to marry. Television’s  Home Improvement  and King of Queens  are two of the more recent examples. And, of course,  commercials like this one . So even if the woman did commit the sin of marrying, she always had the redeeming quality of having the upper hand in just about any situation. Earlier, I said that unbridled sex without birth control or easy access to abortion has the consequence of pregnancy and childbirth. Today, unbridled sex with birth control and easy access to abortion combined with an increasingly “anything goes” attitude in society and pop culture gets girls who have as their role models the like of Paris Hilton, the Kardashian sisters, Snooki from MTV’s  Jersey Shore  and various other “celebrities.” Their claim to fame is not similar to being the  first woman to fly solo across the Atlantic Ocean  or  receiving the Nobel Prize for pioneering work in radiation , but for on-camera antics like tanning, catfights, and puking after binge drinking, and having their “sex tapes” released to the press for quick and easy profit. Too many are the next target of the creator of the  Girls Gone Wild  video series, which shows images of drunken girls taking off their tops and making out with one another. We also have the likes of Lady Gaga, who makes Madonna look like a choir girl – almost. And those who begin their careers as wholesome young things (Britney and Jamie Lynn Spears, Christina Aguilera, Lindsey Lohan, Miley Cyrus) often decide that “growing up” must mean “giving out” – figuratively speaking in some cases, not so figuratively in others. As the mother of two girls, one just starting college this year and the other starting high school, I find these so-called role models severely lacking. Writing for  Macleans , Anne Kingston also notes this disturbing trend. As those she interviews see it, the fight for women’s equality is not over but has taken a giant step backward because of something called “enlightened sexism”: where women are not only “empowered” by overtly flaunting their sexuality, but are also obsessed with getting married. Certainly this new trend in the entertainment media, which exploits this so-called sexual empowerment for fun and profit, is partially to blame. But what about the parents? Where are they? Sure there are the mothers quoted in Anne Kingston’s article who are upset about this trashy turn of events. Unfortunately, there are plenty of others who are pushing the trend. I was in TJ Maxx some time ago and heard two women talking, excited because the store was finally carrying the tacky  Juicy Couture  clothing line. Yet I had to wonder – were they excited because they could buy it for their children or were they excited for themselves? Just a couple of weeks ago, I saw an older, heavyset woman at the mall who was with a boy who looked like he might be her grandson. She was wearing a tight t-shirt with the word Juicy across the front and it was painfully obvious that she wasn’t wearing a bra. Nothing like mutton dressed like lamb a la  Absolutely Fabulous . Blech. Then there’s the  recent story  about skinny jeans for toddlers. Why anyone would put their two- or three-year-old in an item of clothing usually connected with sexuality is beyond me. But then we have shows like TLC’s  Toddlers & Tiaras , where some think ” beauty pageant stage parents make Jon and Kate Gosselin look like Ward and June Cleaver .” There are notorious stage parents like Dina Lohan, who has  done her best  to  launch her own career  on the back of her daughter, nearly sucking her dry. Double blech. My take? The left tried its hand at social engineering in the name of equality – but rather than focusing on equal rights in education and the workplace,  ended up giving women the same “rights” as men in the arena of sex with no consequences. Religion and morality were for squares, no matter what  Huey Lewis might have said . Yet it has backfired. Girls still like to look pretty and still like to attract boys. However, now they don’t have to worry about public stigma for public misbehavior. A girl who would once be labeled a skank for certain behavior is now celebrated.  Be famous for being a no-talent party girl with an expanding rap sheet ! No need to ” settle with a man just to have that child .” Go back to the creep who  used your face for a punching bag . Turn yourself into a  literal caricature through plastic surgery . You deserve it. You’ve come a long way, baby . Here’s hoping you can find your way home again. Crossposted at Big Hollywood

Read more:
Hollywood Feminism: Women Smart, Men Dumb

Christiane Amanpour Gushes to Hillary: Was Daughter’s Wedding as Tough as Peace in the Middle East?

This Week anchor Christiane Amanpour appeared on Thursday’s Good Morning America and offered a softball question to Hillary Clinton about her daughter’s wedding. After discussing Middle East peace, Amanpour gushed, “And of all of the things you have undertaken over the last several months, was your daughter’s wedding- where does that fit in there? And hard? Difficult?” The ABC host was previewing a longer interview scheduled for Sunday’s edition of This Week. GMA co-host Robin Roberts cheered, “From the politicians hoping to make history in November, to one politician trying to make history right now.” Amanpour has a history of lauding Clinton. On May 14, 1999 , the journalist complimented the “dignity” the then-First Lady showed during the Monica Lewinsky scandal: “A lot of the women that I meet from traveling overseas are very impressed by you and admire your dignity. A lot of the people you meet are people who suffered, people you saw today, and who believe that they identify with you because they have seen you suffer. And in a speech in Africa last year, you spoke about living for hope and reconciliation, living for forgiveness and reconstruction, and living for a new life – have you been able to apply that to your own circumstances? Have you been able to forgive your husband?” — CNN’s Christiane Amanpour to Hillary Clinton in Macedonia after a tour of refugee camps, May 14, 1999. For the full interview with the Secretary of State, see Sunday’s This Week. To read the MRC’s Profile in Bias on Amanpour, go here . A transcript of the segment, which aired at 7:11am EDT, follows: ROBIN ROBERTS: From the politicians hoping to make history in November, to one politician trying to make history right now. Hillary Clinton is in Israel this morning, attempting to broker a landmark peace agreement between Israel and the Palestinians. And that’s where Christiane Amanpour sat down with the secretary of state for an exclusive interview. Did this just a short time ago. Christiane, so good of you to join us this morning from Jerusalem. And is Hillary Clinton making any progress? CHRISTIANE AMANPOUR: Good morning, Robin. She says yes. All the officials say yes, including the participants, Benjamin Netanyahu and Mahmoud Abbas. Apparently they’ve gotten down to core issues already. And they’re doing that in a serious way. But, the huge ten-ton elephant in the room is the looming end to Israel’s moratorium on settlement building. I asked Secretary Clinton if there’s any progress, any flexibility towards keeping the moratorium on? She wouldn’t go into specifics, other than to say the two sides must stay at the table. There is this moratorium that’s looming on the horizon. Are the talks going in a constructive way? HILLARY CLINTON: Yes. I would say they’re in a constructive channel. And that has been, you know, very reassuring to us. AMANPOUR: President Obama has said that given the talks going in a constructive way, there should be- Israel should continue the moratorium on settlements. Do you believe that will happen? CLINTON: Well, that certainly is our hope. Now, we’ve also said that we’ll support an agreement that is reached between the parties. It took a lot of political capital for Prime Minister Netanyahu to achieve this moratorium. It had never been done before. At the same time, it’s been in effect for the time it was set for. And the talks are just starting. So, we are working hard to make sure there remains a conducive atmosphere to constructive talks. AMANPOUR: While nobody will confirm exactly what might be flexibility, we’re hearing that there may be an extension or there may be calls or an extension of the moratorium for about three months or so. In addition, Secretary Clinton is now on her way to Jordan, where she will meet with other Arab leaders, such as King Abdullah of Jordan on this issue, Robin. ROBERTS: But, back here at home, a lot of talk about the Tea Party. I know you asked the secretary about that, too. AMANPOUR: I did. She refused to talk politics. She said, “I’m not in that anymore.” But she did say, when asked how would some of these candidates, if they become senators or representatives, affect U.S. foreign policy, this is what she had to say. Is it possible to have the President’s foreign policy agenda, you know, furthered, even if a lot of Tea Party candidates do end up being the candidate [sic]? CLINTON: Well, I’ve seen a lot of people run for office and say a lot of things. And then, when they have the burden of holding office and the responsibility that goes with it, I’ve seen them become very sobered very quickly about the challenges that we face domestically and internationally. You know, nobody said it better than Mario Cuomo when he said, “You campaign in poetry and govern in prose.” And, you know, sometimes the poetry can get hot and a little over the top. But the prose brings you down to earth. AMANPOUR: And of all of the things you have undertaken over the last several months, was your daughter’s wedding- where does that fit in there? And hard? Difficult? CLINTON: It was the most wonderful experience. But, as I confessed leading up to it, it was stressful. I think being a mother of the bride is stressful under any circumstances. Doing it long-distance, jet lagged, on planes, in the midst of diplomatic negotiations, made it a little more so. AMANPOUR: Now, negotiators are still, now talking about another meeting for when to get the principals together. We don’t know when that will be. But we know it will be soon. ROBERTS: I know you had a wide-ranging conversation with the secretary. Christiane, thank you so much. Safe travels. We’ll see you soon. And Christiane will have much more on her conversation with the secretary. And also is going to sit down with the Iranian President, Ahmadinejad. And you’ll see it all on This Week, Sunday morning. GEORGE STEPHANOPOULOS: You know, I think doing the seating at that wedding would rival putting together Middle East peace. ROBERTS: I think she’s on to something there.

Read more:
Christiane Amanpour Gushes to Hillary: Was Daughter’s Wedding as Tough as Peace in the Middle East?

Are Both Parties Equally Vulnerable in November, Like the New York Times Says? Hardly

New York Times reporters Jeff Zeleny and Megan Thee-Brenan examined the findings of the latest CBS/New York Times poll. As November elections approach, things look pretty bleak for Democrats and President Obama especially, who earned a record low approval rating and bad marks on his handling of the economy. But Zeleny whispered a little between-round encouragement into the ear of the battered Democrats, suggesting both sides were equally vulnerable in Thursday’s front page ” Poll Finds Hazards and Opportunities for Both Parties .” The original online headline, “Poll Suggests Big Opening for G.O.P. Going Into Midterms,” was far more accurate. Republicans are heading into the general election phase of the midterm campaign backed by two powerful currents: the highest proportion of voters in two decades say it is time for their own member of Congress to be replaced, and Americans are expressing widespread dissatisfaction with President Obama’s leadership. But the latest New York Times/CBS News poll also finds that while voters rate the performance of Democrats negatively, they view Republicans as even worse, providing a potential opening for Democrats to make a last-ditch case for keeping their hold on power. The poll represents a snapshot of the country’s political mood as the campaign pivots from primary contests that have revealed deep divisions among Republicans into the general election, where the parties deliver their competing arguments to a wider audience. The findings suggest that there are opportunities and vulnerabilities for both parties as they proceed into the final seven weeks of the campaign. But the Times (albeit burying the news at the end of the last sentence of paragraph seven) apparently thinks at least one house of Congress may fall into Republican hands. Voters have a darker view of Congressional Republicans than of Democrats, with 63 percent disapproving of Democrats and 73 percent disapproving of Republicans. But with less than two months remaining until Election Day, there are few signs that Democrats have made gains persuading Americans that they should keep control of Congress. Not until paragraph 18 did the Times mention Obama’s record low approval rating, of 45 approval-disapproval. The paper didn’t mention it’s Obama’s lowest-ever approval rating in a New York Times poll (the last joint Times/CBS poll, in June, had Obama 47 approval-disapproval). The president’s overall job approval rating is 45 percent, with 47 percent disapproving. On the economy, his rating is worse, with 41 percent approving and 51 percent disapproving. When asked whether Mr. Obama has a clear plan for solving the nation’s problems, 57 percent responded that he did not, yet twice as many give him more credit than Republicans for having a plan. The Times pushed for higher taxes in a short sidebar article by Megan Thee-Brenan, ” Support for Higher Tax on Wealthiest .” Amid heated debate in Washington over the fate of the Bush-era tax cuts, there is strong support for the Obama administration’s proposal to allow the tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans to expire at the end of the year. However, the latest New York Times/CBS News poll finds the public does not expect that to happen if the Republicans win control of Congress in November. The poll found that 53 percent of Americans say Mr. Obama’s proposal to increase taxes on households earning $250,000 or more is a good idea, and 38 percent say it is a bad idea. But she didn’t mention that that’s less support then the last time the Times polled that question. Back in February, 62% thought it was a good idea, 31% a bad idea. That spread has since narrowed to 53. That was Question 63; you can read a .PDF version of the Times’ latest poll here .

The rest is here:
Are Both Parties Equally Vulnerable in November, Like the New York Times Says? Hardly

Which GOP Senate Candidate Gets the Worst Media Treatment?

Read the rest here:
Which GOP Senate Candidate Gets the Worst Media Treatment?

WaPo Buries Story with Obvious Palin Point: Tuesday Results Show Emerging Year of the GOP Woman

While most media outlets obsessed over the liberal theme that Republicans keep “suicidally” nominating “ultra-conservatives,” Washington Post reporter Anne Kornblut, who authored a book earlier this year called Notes from the Cracked Ceiling, noticed a different trend. Her story was headlined “GOP gains the lead in female politicians’ steps forward.” Tuesday’s victories of Palin-endorsed GOP women Christine O’Donnell and Kelly Ayotte underline an emerging Year of the Republican Woman. Too bad the Post buried it on Page A-6 of the paper, and it hasn’t been linked on the Post’s homepage today, either. Kornblut began: Democrats used to own the field of women running for higher office. Not anymore. Nearly two years after an anticipated gender bounce – with predictions that women in both parties would rush into politics inspired by Hillary Rodham Clinton and Sarah Palin — it turns out that the momentum is on the Republican side. If there is a Palin effect, it is not being matched by any Clinton effect at the other end of the ideological spectrum. Since this is the liberal Washington Post, Kornblut then turned to a cast of liberals and Democrats to assess whether this can be verified:  Democratic pollster Celinda Lake said it is “very fair” to argue that the energy for female candidates is trending Republican, a view several other Democratic strategists shared. “I’ve been struck by it,” said Dee Dee Myers, a former White House press secretary and author of “Why Women Should Rule the World.” “All the momentum is on the tea party side, so why wouldn’t it also be with the women on the tea party side?” Other Democrats dispute the notion of a conservative “year of the woman,” saying that the numerical advantage is slight, if it exists at all. They also note that some of the Republican nominees, including Christine O’Donnell of Delaware, are seen as fringe candidates unlikely to win their general elections. Stephanie Schriock, the head of Emily’s List, which is dedicated to electing [ahem, Democrat] pro-choice women, said the “candidates that are making it through these primaries are more and more extreme, radical right-wing folks” who, even though they are female, do not appeal to independent and moderate women. A Republican expert wasn’t quoted until the story’s final paragraph, although Kornblut credited Palin: Palin has unquestionably played an outsize role in upping the Republican numbers, endorsing several women, including Haley and O’Donnell, who might never have gained sufficient attention otherwise. She has brought to the Republican Party what some members had once complained did not exist: a concerted effort to tap female candidates for promotion and lift them out of obscurity. And then there is this: The woman most capable of counteracting a Palin bounce for Democrats – Secretary of State Clinton- is not available to campaign. Add to that a general sense of malaise among Democrats, a volatile electorate angry at the status quo and a growing acceptance of female politicians in both parties, and the trend is hardly a surprise, strategists said. “Who better to say, ‘I’m not part of the establishment’ than a Republican woman?” said Republican pollster Kellyanne Conway. “If you want to convey you are not of the firmament of Washington, D.C., and ergo of all the problems and out-of-control spending and corruption, you have to say, ‘I’m a Republican woman,’ because so few of them have ever been involved at that level.” You can see why the rest of the Post would want to bury this story. But the rest of the media ought to acknowledge it. They can’t say it’s not The Year of the Republican Woman because they’ll probably lose: several primary winners (the “Year of the Woman” when liberals ascended with an “Anita Hill effect”) lost in November. 

Read more:
WaPo Buries Story with Obvious Palin Point: Tuesday Results Show Emerging Year of the GOP Woman

Today Co-Hosts Kathie Lee Gifford and Hoda Kotb Endorse New Bloomberg Smoking Ban

In the fourth hour of Thursday’s Today show NBC’s Kathie Lee Gifford and Hoda Kotb took a strong stance against the right to smoke, pretty much everywhere, as both endorsed Mayor Mike Bloomberg’s proposed ban that goes several steps further than just restaurants. During the opening chat session of the hour, Kotbe announced: “So some good news in New York City…Mayor Bloomberg is considering banning smoking in all places like parks, beaches and Times Square.” Gifford also praised the move declaring that ” Second-hand smoke is a bigger killer than asbestos or a lot of other things” but later seemed to contradict herself as she proclaimed: “I’m all for personal rights. I’m becoming more and more of a libertarian the older I get.” The following is the full exchange as it was aired on the September 16 Today show: HODA KOTB: So some good news in New York City if you are against people smoking in public. Mayor Bloomberg is considering banning smoking in all places like parks, beaches and Times Square. [On screen headline: “Butt Out, NYC Mayor Proposes Ban On Smoking At Parks, Beaches”] KATHIE LEE GIFFORD: Outside of public buildings, everywhere? Everywhere? All public places? KOTB: That’s, I’m, I have to say I’m kind of for that. GIFFORD: Well remember the outcry when he first banned it in restaurants? Everybody said, “Nobody is gonna, it’s gonna hurt everybody. Nobody’s gonna go to restaurants any more.” KOTB: Right. GIFFORD: Really? People get hungry. KOTB: Yeah. They still go. GIFFORD: But, but they smoke outside. You know it’s so funny that, that would be announced today. Because yesterday I left our building and some of our best friends, around here, do smoke. And they’ve been battling with it! KOTB: Sure. GIFFORD: They would really love to be able to quit but they can’t so far. KOTB: Yeah. GIFFORD: As I walked out, I mean it was into, and it was a beautiful day yesterday- KOTB: Gorgeous. GIFFORD: -into this, this like, this- KOTB: Cloud. GIFFORD: More than that. Yeah, like a heavy duty- KOTB: Cloud. GIFFORD: And, and, and my, my hair stunk the whole way home. KOTB: Yeah, yeah. GIFFORD: I was gasping for breath because I’m, you know- KOTB: Asthmatic. GIFFORD: -I’m highly allergic to it. So it’s, it’s one thing to do it to yourself, and I’m sorry anybody is addicted because it’s, a terrible, terrible addiction. But second-hand smoke is a bigger killer than asbestos or a lot of other things as well. KOTB: Right and I do, there are some states that do not ban it in restaurants. I think there are 26 that do, around the country. So a lot of them still don’t. GIFFORD: Yeah. KOTB: I think a lot of people are starting to get on the bandwagon. But there is nothing worse than sitting on the beach, like enjoying the- GIFFORD: The fresh air! KOTB: And then there comes this waft of smoke and literally, and you can’t really move away. Because you move and the wind changes or you go somewhere, like you’re gonna be in it, no matter what. GIFFORD: Yeah. KOTB: But I’ll bet you this is gonna have, there will be a lot of outcry over this. GIFFORD: There will be outcry, there will be. Maybe it’ll help some people give it up better. You know they won’t have any option- KOTB: Right. GIFFORD: But the, the other thing is you know, the thing is about a personal right. I’m all for personal rights. I’m becoming more and more of a libertarian the older I get. The more they take away our rights, the more I’m saying, excuse me, wait a minute! But I don’t think any right that we have, should infringe on the rights of other people. KOTB: Right. GIFFORD: And that’s the basic problem with the, with the smoking. KOTB: I agree with that. I agree with that. GIFFORD: Okay.

Read more:
Today Co-Hosts Kathie Lee Gifford and Hoda Kotb Endorse New Bloomberg Smoking Ban

Time Magazine Annoyed at Limited Reach of Class Warfare on Views on Tax Cuts

“Good News, Rich People: Poor People Don’t Want to Raise Your Taxes” That’s the snarky headline for Kayla Webley’s 5-paragraph NewsFeed item filed earlier today at Time.com. “Nearly half of the lowest earners among us want the rich to stay rich,” complained Webley, adding: As Congress debates whether to extend the Bush-era tax cuts, a new Associated Press-GfK poll shows the country is as divided as Washington when it comes to increasing taxes for the wealthiest Americans. According to the poll, 54% support raising taxes on the rich, while 44% are opposed. Meaning that while the tax increases proposed by President Obama would affect only a minority of Americans (Obama says just 2%), nearly half of Americans — despite being completely unaffected by the proposed increases — don’t want to see anyone’s taxes increased. To accompany the story, Time editors included a stock photo by Getty Images of a man wearing a gray blazer with crisp $20 bills tucked in his breast pocket (see screencap above, click image for full size). In her rush to complain about nearly half of “poor” Americans favoring tax cuts for the “rich,” Webley neglected to pass along an interesting quote from a Democrat featured in the AP story to which she linked. Noted reporter Alan Fram: While about three-fourths of Democrats favor raising taxes on the rich, about half of independents and nearly two-thirds of Republicans oppose the idea. Support for cutting everyone’s taxes exceeds four in 10 people in every region of the U.S. except the Midwest, where one-third back the proposal. Even among people earning under $50,000 a year — mainstays of the Democratic Party — 43 percent want to continue the tax cuts for all. “You shouldn’t be penalized for making a good living,” said Charles Ricotta, 55, a Democrat from Dunkirk, N.Y. “If you feel the government is cutting your throat, you might feel hesitant about hiring people.” Watching the government soak the rich may temporarily make you feel good by proxy, but in the long run it kills economic growth and the jobs that come from that.  That’s the sentiment some 43% of “poor” taxpayers seem to subscribe to. It’s a shame that Time magazine doesn’t, or worse, refuses to, get it.

See the rest here:
Time Magazine Annoyed at Limited Reach of Class Warfare on Views on Tax Cuts

The Secret Gay Loved Ones of Homophobic Politicians [Politics]

Statistics being what they are, every homophobic politician must have a gay loved one hiding somewhere. Dick Cheney has Mary. Alan Keyes has Maya . And Christine O’Donnell , Tea Party Queen of Delaware, has a lesbian sister in L.A. More