Tag Archives: politics

CNN and MSNBC Applaud Elena Kagan’s Capitol Hill Comedy Hour

In covering Elena Kagan’s confirmation hearings, CNN and MSNBC have repeatedly lauded the Supreme Court nominee for her “flashes of humor” and “disarming ease.” In tune with the reverberations of the network morning shows’ echo chamber , correspondents like CNN’s Dana Bash and anchors like MSNBC’s Rachel Maddow on Tuesday praised Kagan for her ability to inject humor into otherwise “hollow and vapid” hearings and charm hostile Republican senators into docility. “But just on a color note, what struck me, Candy, has been the way Elena Kagan has tried to use a sense of humor to really disarm the senators, particularly Republicans,” noted Bash. Maddow’s guest, Dahlia Lithwick of the liberal Slate magazine, gushed over Kagan’s “gut-wrenching” sense of humor, her masterful ability to balance “seriousness and levity and humor,” and her “disarming and charming and kind of likeable” personality. “A likeable liberal. Dear me, I know,” quipped Maddow. Anchoring the live coverage of the hearings, MSNBC’s Chris Matthews turned to Susan Page, USA Today Washington bureau chief, who applauded Kagan’s performance: You know, it’s interesting since Kagan argued this case she feels pretty comfortable with it and you see, I think, a more free-flowing exchange between the senator and the nominee there then we’ve seen on some others. Kagan famously called these hearings “vapid and hollow” in the past but we’ve seen some flashes of humor here this morning. And interestingly, Kagan said that she thought it would be a terrific idea to have TV cameras in the Supreme Court. On her eponymous program, CNN’s Campbell Brown aired Kagan’s playful banter with Sen. Jon Kyl (R-Ariz.) before querying CNN legal analyst Jeffrey Toobin: “So, apart from the fact that she has got a sense of humor, what did we really learn today about Elena Kagan?” Over on MSNBC’s “The Ed Show,” substitute host Christopher Hayes, editor of the left-wing magazine The Nation and husband of a White House counselor, reckoned that the most newsworthy part of the hearings so far has been Kagan’s charm: Perhaps the most notable thing to report from today’s hearing is that Kagan is, as advertised, really a charmer. The nominee who once derided this process as, quote, “vapid and hollow” was no doubt probably and possibly justifiably in for a cold reception. But today, Kagan displayed the disarming ease, wit and knack for a well-timed joke that have made her so uniformly well-liked by her colleagues in other endeavors. On Wednesday’s “American Morning,” Bash continued to push the humor narrative, noting, “Throughout the day, Kagan tried to disarm senators by interjecting with humor…and Kagan really made a point early on, on setting that light-hearted tone, interjecting all the time with quick whips and — quips, I should say, and then witty comments.” MSNBC “The Daily Rundown” co-hosts Savannah Guthrie and Chuck Todd wrapped up the Wednesday program with a recap of the hearing’s most “humorous” moments, including Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.) discussing the latest installment of the Twighlight saga. (H/T MRC intern Matt Hadro ) There’s nothing wrong with color commentary, but the media’s emphasis on humanizing Kagan is coming at the expense of critical reporting on her nomination hearings and what little she’s willing to shed in the hearings about how she’ll approach constitutional issues on the bench. Transcripts of the relevant portions of the cited programs can be found below: MSNBC NewsLive 6/29/10 10:54 a.m. CHRIS MATTHEWS: And this came out in the president’s State of the Union where he took a swipe at the Supreme Court with Samuel Alito and other justices there and they didn’t like it. SUSAN PAGE, USA Today Washington bureau chief: They didn’t. You know, it’s interesting since Kagan argued this case she feels pretty comfortable with it and you see, I think, a more free-flowing exchange between the Senator and the nominee there then we’ve seen on some others. Kagan famously called these hearings “vapid and hollow” in the past but we’ve seen some flashes of humor here this morning. And interestingly, Kagan said that she thought it would be a terrific idea to have TV cameras in the Supreme Court. If she gets confirmed that’s an issue where she’ll have some real issues with her colleagues. CNN Newsroom 6/29/10 12:24 p.m. DANA BASH, CNN correspondent: Well, first, just on substance, I want to point out what John did just at the beginning of this conversation, that what Elena Kagan revealed or maybe more to the point, clarified, was in the memo that she had scribbled notes, “KKK, NRA,” as a bad organization. That has been flying around conservative circles as an ah-ha moment. And when they saw these documents I think about a week or two weeks ago when they were released by the Clinton library as proof that she is just a liberal, what she told us just now, what she told Senator Kyl, is that she was taking notes on somebody else’s conversation. So if that’s the case, that certainly appears to deflate that particular argument that conservatives have been making. But just on a color note, what struck me, Candy, has been the way Elena Kagan has tried to use a sense of humor to really disarm the senators, particularly Republicans. And Jeff knows her, so this may not seem a surprise to him. But just for example, when John Kyl came out after the break, there nobody was in the room and he said “I guess nobody wants to hear my questions” and without missing a beat, she said “maybe nobody wants to hear my answers.” And another time, Senator Hatch was talking about the fact that he and Senator Leahy were having a little disagreement. They’re kind of like an old married couple, and I say this respectfully and they would probably agree, and Elena Kagan again without missing a beat saying, “don’t worry go ahead, it takes the spotlight off of me.” I don’t remember seeing that certainly from recent confirmation hearings at this level, not from Sonia Sotomayor, and at least at the beginning, you know, as these nominees are getting comfortable. But it just seems to me the kind of charm she has. MSNBC The Ed Show 6/29/10 6:17 p.m.      HAYES: Perhaps the most notable thing to report from today’s hearing is that Kagan is, as advertised, really a charmer. The nominee who once derided this process as, quote, “vapid and hollow” was no doubt probably and possibly justifiably in for a cold reception. But today, Kagan displayed the disarming ease, wit and knack for a well-timed joke that have made her so uniformly well-liked by her colleagues in other endeavors. Of course, beyond that, we still didn’t get that much of an indication of what kind of justice she’d make, although she does support letting cameras into the Supreme Court. CNN Campbell Brown 6/29/10 8:24 p.m. BROWN: It was a long day on Capitol Hill for Elena Kagan. It was day two of her confirmation hearing. It just wrapped up a little while ago. She faced some tough questions on everything from the War on Terror to her politics. Listen to this exchange with Arizona Senator Jon Kyl. Sen. JON KYL (R-Ariz.): Do you agree with the characterization by some of my colleagues that the current Court is too activist in supporting the position of corporations and Big Business? ELENA KAGAN, Supreme Court nominee: Senator Kyl, I would not want to characterize the current court in any way. I hope one day to join it. KYL: And they said you are not political, right?                      BROWN: So, apart from the fact that she has got a sense of humor, what did we really learn today about Elena Kagan? MSNBC Rachel Maddow 6/29/10 9:30 p.m. RACHEL MADDOW: And how do you think that Kagan is doing, thus far, as a nominee? Obviously, today was the first day she took questions. It’s clear that just from what I saw of the hearings today, that she seems very relaxed. DAHLIA LITHWICK, Slate senior editor: Relaxed, funny. You know, she brought the room to a standstill, just gut-wrenching laughter. At some point, Lindsey Graham asked her, what were you doing when the Christmas Day bomber was caught on Christmas Day? And she said, like pretty much all Jews, I was probably at a Chinese restaurant. I mean, you know, people were applauding. She`s very funny, Rachel. She`s very disarming. But at the same time, I think she does a good job of saying, look, I take the law very seriously. At one point, she was questioned about her passions and she couldn’t get passionate about anything but the law. So, she’s doing a good job of balancing seriousness and levity and humor, and I think real charm. The thing I really am enjoying this time around is it sometimes feels like these hearings shrink the nominee down to a smaller version of who they are. This is actually letting someone who looks good on paper but is hard to love in paper become quite human and warm and big luminous smile. And so I don’t know if that’s working for everyone, but it’s quite clear that the senators are finding her disarming and charming and kind of likeable. MADDOW: A likeable liberal. Dear me, I know. She won`t call herself liberal but the press is going to have a hard time understanding how to report on this. Dahlia Lithwick, senior editor and legal correspondent for Slate magazine, I always really appreciate your insight on days like this. Thanks a lot, Dahlia. CNN American Morning 6/30/10 7:17 a.m. BASH: Throughout the day, Kagan tried to disarm senators by interjecting with humor. Sen. TOM COBURN (R-Okla.): This is softball. KAGAN: You promise? COBURN: I promise. Sen. LINDSEY GRAHAM (R-S.C.) I just ask you where you’re at on Christmas. KAGAN: You know, like all Jews, I was probably at a Chinese restaurant. BASH: And Kagan really made a point early on, on setting that light-hearted tone, interjecting all the time with quick whips and — quips, I should say, and then witty comments. And you know, it really did change the tenor of things, for example, when one of her starkest opponents, Senator Tom Coburn, who sits here was trying to ask her some questions she wouldn’t answer it. Instead of really going after her, he made a joke. He followed her lead and said “maybe you’re dancing so much, maybe you should be on ‘Dancing with the Stars.'” John and Kiran. –Alex Fitzsimmons is a News Analysis intern at the Media Research Center. Click here to follow him on Twitter.

Read this article:
CNN and MSNBC Applaud Elena Kagan’s Capitol Hill Comedy Hour

NYT’s Maureen Dowd Critiques: ‘Thin-Skinned Obama’ Doesn’t Like Media Portrayal

Appearing with Good Morning America’s George Stephanopoulos, liberal journalist Maureen Dowd derided Barack Obama as “think-skinned” and not happy with media coverage. This prompted Stephanopoulos to admit, ” And his press hasn’t been nearly as bad as he thinks. ” Dowd prefaced her critique by analyzing Obama’s self image: “…I cut him a lot of slack here, because many presidents like JFK and W have rich daddies. And so, they have a lot of confidence. But he’s had to develop a lot of shields.” The New York Times columnist continued, “So, he’s thin-skinned. And when you’re thin-skinned, you like to control the image. And he doesn’t often like the image that the media has of him.” In regards to other problems the President has run into, she theorized, “Well, he can’t connect at moments. He wants to ride to the rescue. So, he holds back too much. And he doesn’t connect when he could.” As for journalists not being too tough on Obama, Stephanopoulos would know. During the 2008 campaign, for instance, he declared the Democratic presidential ticket the winner in all four debates. A partial transcript of the June 30 segment, which aired at 8:33am, follows: GEORGE STEPHANOPOULOS: Before I let you go, speaking of President Obama, your Pulitzer Prize-winning colleague at the New York Post, Kathleen Parker, has a pretty provocative column out calling him our first female president. And I was wondering your take on it. Because, you have columns that go into a similar vein to that. DOWD: I love Kathleen. And I would agree with her that President Obama has female management traits. Consensus, compromise, and listening to everyone. Whereas people like Hillary and Sarah Palin have traditional male traits, which is alpha, “my way or the highway.” But, I don’t think his main problem is a gender one. It’s more of a humanoid one. STEPHANOPOULOS: Humanoid? DOWD: Well, he can’t connect at moments. He wants to ride to the rescue. So, he holds back too much. And he doesn’t connect when he could. He waits. It’s more like his mother is an anthropologist. He has that anthropologist side of just waiting and looking. That’s not really a male or female trait. It’s a problem. STEPHANOPOULOS: That’s fascinating. And I’m sure you know that this kind of analysis drives him nuts. DOWD: I know. He’s told me many times I’m irritating. I’m so proud. STEPHANOPOULOS: What’s irritated him most about your columns? DOWD: Oh, he doesn’t- He’s- he’s very unlike- You know, it’s funny and I cut him a lot of slack here, because many presidents like JFK and W have rich daddies. And so, they have a lot of confidence. But he’s had to develop a lot of shields. He’s come up, you know, basically, as Michelle says, he was raised by wolves. So, you know, he has a lot of shields. So, he’s thin-skinned. And when you’re thin-skinned, you like to control the image. And he doesn’t often like the image that the media has of him. STEPHANOPOULOS: And his press hasn’t been nearly as bad as he thinks. DOWD: No. But, he thinks it’s been bad. STEPHANOPOULOS: All presidents do. It comes with the territory. Maureen Dowd, thank you very much.

Original post:
NYT’s Maureen Dowd Critiques: ‘Thin-Skinned Obama’ Doesn’t Like Media Portrayal

AP Equates Illegal Immigrants to Civil Rights-Era Minorities

The “struggle” illegal immigrants face as they seek the same benefits and services afforded to U.S. citizens is the same that faced civil right activists in the middle of the 20 th century, according to the Associated Press . “Students fighting laws that target illegal immigrants are taking a page from the civil rights era,” reporter Rusell Contreras wrote, “adopting tactics and gathering praise and momentum from the demonstrators who marched in the streets and sat at segregated lunch counters as they sought to turn the public tide against racial segregation.” Contreras cited several illegal immigrant activists comparing themselves to protestors of the civil rights era. He compared the fact that undocumented students “don’t qualify for federal financial aid and can’t get in-state tuition rates in some places” to the segregation of black and Mexican-American students in the 1950s. Contreras referred to the “fighting” methods illegal college students are using to promote the DREAM Act, a federal bill that would grant legal status to illegal immigrants who obtain a college degree or serve in the military and meet other conditions. College students in particular are using protest strategies which were championed in the civil rights era to further their cause. “Their struggle then is ours now. Like it was for them, this is about survival for us. We have no choice,” said Deivid Ribeiro, an illegal immigrant from Brazil.  Contreras also quoted University of Massachusetts professor Amilcar Shabazz, who called the strategy “genius” and said by attaching themselves to the civil rights movement, illegal immigrant students “can claim the moral high ground and underdog status of the debate.” Contreras didn’t offer any opposing viewpoint, which may have pointed out that civil right protestors sought equal treatment for minority Americans, whereas illegal immigrants are seeking the rights and privileges afforded to American citizens and those who immigrated through legal channels. 

Go here to read the rest:
AP Equates Illegal Immigrants to Civil Rights-Era Minorities

American Atheist Editor: Christian Daycare is ‘Child Abuse’

“He’s got the whole world in his hands?” To one atheist, it’s more like ‘He’s got the whole world under his thumb.” David Smalley, the editor of American Atheist magazine and a self-described “civil rights activist,” wrote in a  personal blog post June 7  that Christian daycare “a form of child abuse.” “In short, by starting your child off in a Christian environment, you are heading them down a path of forced ignorance,” Smalley wrote. “At least let your child begin in a secular world, and if he or she chooses Christianity after an age of accountability, then so be it. But forcing them to learn things as fact that you don’t even know to be true is a form of child abuse: inducing psychosis with thoughts of good and evil watching over them, as if they are constantly being graded or evaluated.” Smalley further stereotyped and generalized religion-based childcare by suggesting “it’s bad for positive self-esteem, and slows social development later in life.” American Atheist magazine is published by American Atheists, which calls itself “the premiere organization laboring for the civil liberties of Atheists, and the total, absolute separation of government and religion.” Smalley’s post appeared on his blog, Dogma Debate. He also hosts an Internet radio show of the same name.

Angry Liberal Columnist Attacks Libertarian Economist; Scarborough Redefines Regulation and Conservatism

Can anyone think of an angrier group of writers in political punditry than the ones currently published at Salon.com? Throughout the Elena Kagan hearings, both Joan Walsh and Joe Conason have written anti-Republican screeds accusing GOP lawmakers of all sorts of unsavory things to score political points despite what’s likely be a certain confirmation. However, this disposition goes beyond just the SCOTUS hearings. On MSNBC’s June 30 “Morning Joe,” Conason went after Harvard Professor Jeffrey Miron, who appeared to promote his book ” Libertarianism, from A to Z .” Apparently what drew the indignation from Conason was the theory that government can actually make things worse in an economy:  CONASON: Do you know anything about American history? MIRON: Yes. CONASON: OK. Didn’t we have that regime in the 19th Century? MIRON: We did. CONASON: How did it work? MIRON: It worked better than the current regime. CONASON: Does the year 1873 ring a bell for you? MIRON: Yes. CONASON: What happened then, professor? MIRON: There was a financial crisis. CONASON: How long did it last? How many people were unemployed? SCARBOROUGH: Joe, Joe, Joe – CONASON: No, seriously. JOE SCARBOROUGH: Answer. MIRON: If you go and look at the recent produced data by an economist, OK – on industrial production over the period from 1800 to 1910 for the period when we didn’t have a Fed or all the financial regulation, you will see that the average growth is as good or better than it has been since we had all this intervention. You’ll see that the length of recessions was on average shorter. You will see that he says –   CONASON: The average Americans were more prosperous in the 19th Century than the 20th Century? MIRON: Relative to the world, yes. We were growing more consistently. We had less volatility. His paper shows that there was actually – CONASON: What happened in 1873? How many people were thrown into work? Describe it. MIRON: I don’t have data on it because nobody has data unemployment rates for that period. There weren’t any. He has data on how well was the production. CONASON: How many depressions did we suffer during those years? MIRON: We didn’t suffer any depressions until we had a Federal Reserve starting in 1914 and then ’29 through – we did not suffer anybody anything is classifying. We had recessions. Nobody is saying it would be perfect.  Conason was correct to note that there were a series of panics before the 1900s, but inimitable circumstances drove these panics, not the absence of the Fed, which senior Cato Institute fellow George A. Selgin explained in a column last fall . According to Selgin, it was the post-Civil War policy measures that spurred these periods of recession.  “Morning Joe” host Joe Scarborough inquired about the unfunded liabilities that have many libertarian economists concerned, and asked Miron if he subscribed to the unpopular view that Medicare should be abolished. Miron suggested reforms that wouldn’t tax the system.  “Not right now. I certainly think that any adjustments are gradual,” Miron said. “People currently receiving Medicare of course should get Medicare for the rest of their lives. But telling people who are now 55 – you don’t get Medicare until you are age 70 rather than 65 is totally sensible.” And Miron said it should be eventually phased out altogether except for the “very poor.”  “I think what libertarians, including me, would say is there should be government-provided or subsidized health insurance for only people who are very poor,” Miron said. “The vast majority of people on getting health care under Medicare are not poor, so gradually phase Medicare down.”  Scarborough moved on to the financial reform legislation.  “Let me ask you another question – another question regarding Wall Street regs,” Scarborough said. “You are right, it is very hard, but the fact is we had a crash in ’87, ’98, Asian crisis, ’99, long-term capital, 2000, the dot com bust. 2002, Fannie, 2003 – well, we also had Enron, WorldCom, 2008 – it seems to me the conservative thing to do is actually set tough rules on Wall Street and say, ‘These are the rules you are going to play by. Don’t cross the lines.'” While many conservatives will admit there is a need to reform financial regulation, they aren’t clamoring for more regulation as Scarborough suggests. In fact, the Heritage Foundation in a June 29 post suggests the current bill being negotiated between the House and Senate is still very flawed and doesn’t show that the federal government has learned from the regulatory mistakes of the past. And as Miron explained – it’s not the regulation necessarily – that banks will “innovate” around that in the long run. Instead, he points to a system that attempts to minimize risk as the fundamental problem. “Given that we guarantee risk, basically, two ways – one explicitly through the FDIC and second implicitly by having the TARP and all that,” Miron replied. “Clearly, we would like to prevent banks from taking too much risk, but there doesn’t seem to be a good way to do that effectively. Banks innovate around it. They use accounting gimmickry. The regulators are asleep at the wheel. And so thinking we are going to fix it with more, tougher regulation I think is not right.”

More here:
Angry Liberal Columnist Attacks Libertarian Economist; Scarborough Redefines Regulation and Conservatism

Barnicle Pans Kirk Apology: Maybe Mark Should Use Mike’s

I blog often about Mike Barnicle, and while referring to him as a former Boston Globe columnist, am not in the habit of mentioning his ignominious departure from the Globe under a cloud of plagiarism.  But Barnicle today forces my hand . . . Mark Kirk has gotten himself into a mess of trouble.  The Republican candidate for US Senate from Illinois has been caught out misrepresenting his record of service both in the military and as a school teacher . Morning Joe today aired a clip of Kirk’s apology, and Mike Barnicle found it wanting. In truth, Kirk’s statement was was not an exemplar of the genre. But of all people to criticize its lack of authenticity . . . Mike Barnicle?  Might Mike be happier if Kirk were to use the lame language Barnicle himself offered up when confronted with the evidence of his unattributed borrowing from the works of others? Here was Barnicle this morning . . .  MIKE BARNICLE: I find it continually surprising over the past five or six years, how these politicians, with their embroiderments, become so tediously the same in their apologies and explanations. Here’s how the American Journalism Review reported  Barnicle’s apology the time: Barnicle refused to go quietly, arguing his case on every media outlet from Don Imus’ radio show to NBC’s “Today.” “You can accuse me of sloppiness and I plead guilty,” he said. “Intellectual laziness. I plead guilty. Plagiarism. No.” It does have a certain ring.  A classic non-apology apology.  Maybe Kirk should give it a go–giving full credit to its original author, of course. At least Mark would, presumably, get Mike off his back.

Excerpt from:
Barnicle Pans Kirk Apology: Maybe Mark Should Use Mike’s

Inauguration of Philippine President-Elect Benigno “Noynoy” Aquino: Inauguration Live Streaming

Inauguration Philippine President-Elect Benigno “Noynoy” Aquino will be held today, June 30, Friday at Quirino Grandstand in Rizal Park of Philippines. To watch the free Aquino Inauguration Live Streaming, simply access this link . According to the media reports from Philippines’ Department of Foreign Affairs (DFA) yesterday, there are about 81 countries and organizations have confirmed attendance at the inauguration of president-elect Benigno Aquino III and vice president-elect Jejomar Binay today, The DFA said at least 21 states are sending high-level delegations. Eduardo Maglaya said that “Usually, Presidential Inauguration Day protocol dictates there should not be any other heads.” Further from him, “We have received a lot of requests from the international community to allow them to attend the inauguration ceremonies,” “Confirmations were easy to secure from those whom we invited.” There is a total of 110 seats at the Quirino Grandstand have been assigned for diplomats and foreign dignitaries. The south side seats are for diplomats and foreign dignitaries, the middle seats for Aquino’s family and relatives, and the left side for Binay’s family and relatives (Photo:AFP). Read More Inauguration of Philippine President-Elect Benigno “Noynoy” Aquino: Inauguration Live Streaming is a post from: Daily World Buzz Continue reading

FIFA World Cup 2010: Spain vs Portugal Highlights Video

Watch Spain vs Portugal Football Highlights Video Online , the game event of your favorite Football Soccer Team of the 2010 FIFA World Cup South Africa soccer match between Spain and Portugal on their great match in Round of 16 this June 29, exactly 23:00 local time and the game held in Green Point Stadium, Capetown. Stay tuned and feel free to watch this great match between the best teams here online. Don’t miss to watch the highlights event of 2010 FIFA World Cup South Africa video coverage via satellite. A good and exciting game will be played by the two great teams of FIFA World Cup, the Spain vs Portugal. Watch it and enjoy, who’s gonna be the winner. FIFA World Cup 2010: Spain vs Portugal Highlights Video FIFA World Cup 2010: Spain vs Portugal Highlights Video is a post from: Daily World Buzz Continue reading

Networks Paint ‘Trailblazer’ Kagan as Hilarious Wit Who ‘Can Take a Punch’

“For the first time, Americans got to see the woman President Obama called a ‘trailblazer’ in action,” ABC anchor Diane Sawyer trumpeted Tuesday night before Jonathan Karl framed his story on Supreme Court nominee Elena Kagan’s hearing around how “a confirmation hearing isn’t usually a laughing matter, but if we learned one thing about Elena Kagan today, it’s that she has a sense of humor.” Like NBC, Karl featured Kagan joking about how she was probably at a Chinese restaurant on Christmas day. The three broadcast network evening newscasts, as well as CNN and FNC, highlighted Senator Jeff Sessions pressing Kagan on her treatment of military recruiters. Karl used the exchange to praise Kagan: “We also learned that Elena Kagan can take a punch. As when Republican Jeff Sessions slammed her decision as Harvard Law dean to ban military recruiters from the school’s career office….She made no apologies for taking a strong stand against the military’s ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’ policy.” CBS’s Jan Crawford declared Kagan “held her own, she was confident, showed flashes of wit, but she didn’t break a lot of new ground,” while NBC’s Pete Williams touted how “she displayed flashes of humor.” ( CNN expressed concern Kagan wasn’t liberal enough : “Some of her answers on hot-button issues may not please all of her fellow Democrats.” More below.) NBC’s Peter Williams raised her liberal position on one issue: “She was pressed about gun rights in light of a 1987 memo she wrote as a clerk to Justice Thurgood Marshall. ‘I’m not sympathetic,’ she wrote about a Washington, D.C., man who said a law banning handguns violated his right to bear arms.” On FNC’s Special Report, however, Carl Cameron pointed out the previous court nominee flipped on guns from the position she presented to the Senate committee: CARL CAMERON: She urged a ban on assault weapons during the Clinton administration that many consider a threat to gun rights, but she was unequivocal about Monday’s Supreme Court decision upholding the 2nd amendment right to bear arms. KAGAN: That is binding precedent entitled to all the respect of binding precedent in any case, so that is settled law. CAMERON: …But President Obama’s first Supreme Court nominee, Sonia Sotomayor, also said the 2nd amendment was an individual right in her confirmation hearings, then once on the court joined dissenting justices who said the right is not fundamental. CNN’s The Situation Room highlighted a controversy where in some notes Kagan seemed to equate the KKK and NRA, but the topic disappeared from CNN’s story reviewing the hearings. Setting up a panel discussion in the 5 PM EDT hour, fill-in anchor Suzanne Malveaux related: One of the things that they talked about was this 1996 hand-written note that conservative commentators went after, saying that they believe that she was against [for] gun control because of some comparisons she made between the NRA and the KKK. Senator Jon Kyl called her out on this, and here’s how she responded. But at the top of the 6 PM EDT hour, Dana Bash checked in with a rundown of the hearing and didn’t mention the NRA/KKK matter as she concluded by conveying liberal fears that Kagan may not be liberal enough: Some of her answers on hot-button issues may not please all of her fellow Democrats. For example, on gun rights she said that she considers recent cases before the Supreme Court, rulings upholding the 2nd amendment, a good precedent going forward. From Monday night, “ Kagan Hearings, Day 1: Evening Newscasts Downplay; NBC Offers Just 24 Seconds ” The MRC’s Brad Wilmouth corrected the closed-captioning against the video to provide these transcripts from Tuesday night, June 29: ABC’s World News: DIANE SAWYER: And next, Supreme Court nominee Elena Kagan. Senators began questioning her today – the former Harvard Law School dean – and, for the first time, Americans got to see the woman President Obama called a “trailblazer” in action. What did we learn about her? Jon Karl was in the hearing room. Jon? JONATHAN KARL: Diane, Kagan faced some tough questions. And while she may not have won over her critics, she certainly held her ground. A confirmation hearing isn’t usually a laughing matter, but if we learned one thing about Elena Kagan today, it’s that she has a sense of humor. This is what happened when Senator Lindsey Graham pressed her on where she was when the Christmas Day bomber was read his Miranda Rights. SENATOR LINDSEY GRAHAM (R-SC): Christmas Day bomber, where were you at on Christmas Day? ELENA KAGAN: You know, like all Jews, I was probably at a Chinese restaurant. (AUDIENCE LAUGHTER) KARL: The humor was contagious. SENATOR ORRIN HATCH (R-UT): We have to have a little back and forth every once in awhile or this place would be boring as hell, I’ll tell you. (AUDIENCE LAUGHTER) KAGAN: And it gets the spotlight off me. KARL: We also learned that Elena Kagan can take a punch. As when Republican Jeff Sessions slammed her decision as Harvard Law dean to ban military recruiters from the school’s career office. SENATOR JEFF SESSIONS (R-AL): I’m just a little taken aback by the tone of your remarks because it’s unconnected to reality. I know what happened at Harvard. I know you were an outspoken leader against the military policy. I know you acted without legal authority to reverse Harvard’s policy. KAGAN: I respect, and, indeed, I revere the military. My father was a veteran. KARL: She made no apologies for taking a strong stand against the military’s “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy. KAGAN: I have repeatedly said that I believe that the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy is unwise and unjust. I believed it then and I believe it now. KARL: We also learned she favors televising Supreme Court proceedings. KAGAN: I think it would be a great thing for the institution, and, more important, I think it would be a great thing for the American people. KARL: But even that recommendation came with a joke. KAGAN: It means I’d have to get my hair done more often. KARL: As for Kagan’s now-famous criticism of previous nominees for turning hearings into a vapid and hollow charade, she acknowledged that things looked a lot differently now that she is the nominee. So when it came to specific questions of the law, Diane, she kept things just as vapid and hollow as her predecessors. SAWYER: All depends on where you sit – in her case, really sit. Thank you, Jon. Following Karl, Terry Moran reviewed what happened at Harvard with the military recruiters, noting Kagan’s passion in place of legal reasoning: “…but she kept fighting, joining several other law professors in a case against the military which the Supreme Court rejected eight to zero.” CBS Evening News: ERICA HILL: Things got a little tougher today for Supreme Court nominee Elena Kagan. After mostly listening on day one of her confirmation hearing, today she answered sharp questions from Republican Senators. Jan Crawford is our chief legal correspondent. Jan, good evening. JAN CRAWFORD: Good evening, Erica. You know, the first questions were also some of the toughest, and they focused on her efforts when she was dean at Harvard Law School to limit military recruiting there on campus because of the Pentagon’s “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy. Now, Kagan tried to explain that today, but Republicans weren’t buying it. ELENA KAGAN: The military at all times during my deanship had full and good access. Military recruiting did not go down. Indeed, in a couple of years – including the year that you’re particularly referring to – it went up. SENATOR JEFF SESSIONS (R-AL): I’m just a little taken aback by the tone of your remarks because it’s unconnected to reality. I know what happened at Harvard. I know you were an outspoken leader against the military policy. KAGAN: Later sessions questioned her intellectual honesty during that part of her testimony, and that wasn’t the only issue Republicans hammered her on. They also focused on gun rights, coming off yesterday’s Supreme Court decision that expanded gun rights nationwide. Now, Erica, Kagan said that she accepted that decision. She didn’t say, though, that she would have voted for it. And that’s that delicate dance these nominees try to do. So today she held her own, she was confident, showed flashes of wit, but she didn’t break a lot of new ground. NBC Nightly News: BRIAN WILLIAMS: On Capitol Hill, there were two critical events. We’ll begin with the first day of questions from the Senate for Elena Kagan, the woman nominated to succeed Justice John Paul Stevens on the U.S. Supreme Court. As our Justice correspondent Pete Williams reports, she faced a range of questions, beginning with her position on one hot-button military issue. PETE WILLIAMS: Republicans accused Elena Kagan of treating the military unfairly when she was Harvard Law dean, enforcing an anti-discrimination policy that kept recruiters out of the school’s placement center because of the ban on gays in the military. But she said recruiters were never barred from campus. ELENA KAGAN: Military recruiting did not go down. Indeed, in a couple years – including the year that you’re particularly referring to – it went up. SENATOR JEFF SESSIONS (R-AL): I know you acted without legal authority to reverse Harvard’s policy and deny those military equal access to campus until you were threatened by the United States government of loss of federal funds. PETE WILLIAMS: She was pressed about gun rights in light of a 1987 memo she wrote as a clerk to Justice Thurgood Marshall. “I’m not sympathetic,” she wrote about a Washington, D.C., man who said a law banning handguns violated his right to bear arms. KAGAN: The state of the law was very different. No court – not the Supreme Court and no appellate court – had held that the Second Amendment protected an individual right. PETE WILLIAMS: Her answers to some questions were, for Supreme Court hearings, unusually straightforward. Example, would she favor televising Supreme Court cases? KAGAN: I think it would be a terrific thing to have cameras in the courtroom. PETE WILLIAMS: And she displayed flashes of humor, especially in response to some unfocused questions. SENATOR LINDSEY GRAHAM (R-SC): Christmas Day bomber, where were you at on Christmas Day? KAGAN: I’m assuming that the question, you mean, is whether a person who was apprehended in the United States is- GRAHAM: No, I just asked you where you were at on Christmas? (AUDIENCE AND KAGAN LAUGH) KAGAN: You know, like all Jews, I was probably at a Chinese restaurant. (AUDIENCE LAUGHTER) PETE WILLIAMS: The questions continue tomorrow and possibly Thursday. Pete Williams, NBC News, Washington.

Continue reading here:
Networks Paint ‘Trailblazer’ Kagan as Hilarious Wit Who ‘Can Take a Punch’

Green Movement Calls Fireworks ‘Eco-Hazards,’ Sues to Ban July 4th Display in California

Apparently the “rockets’ red glare” isn’t “green” enough for some environmentalists. Fourth of July fireworks displays have been deemed “ecologically hazardous” by some eco-warriors, who are urging environmentally-conscious Americans to shun the tradition. [F]ireworks shows spray out a toxic concoction that rains down quietly into lakes, rivers and bays throughout the country,” wrote the Mother Nature Network’s Russell McLendon on June 30. “Many of the chemicals in fireworks are also persistent in the environment, meaning they stubbornly sit there instead of breaking down.” McLendon suggested avoiding fireworks and finding other ways to celebrate Independence Day. “The most eco-friendly alternative to fireworks is to forgo explosions altogether – go to a parade, go fishing, grill out, or help out,” he wrote. According to the writer, those stubborn traditionalists who insist on seeing “the sky festively illuminated” can always “try a laser light show” – which McLendon says is the eco-friendly – albeit, lame – way to celebrate the Fourth. The Mother Nature Network is an environmental news service that covers “the broadest scope of environmental and social responsibility issues on the internet.” It was founded in 2008 by Rolling Stones keyboardist Chuck Leavell. Its advisory board includes former Weather Channel star Heidi Cullen and Barbara Pyle, the co-creator and producer of the eco-cartoon ” Captain Planet and the Planeteers.” But while McLendon’s Mother Nature article simply recommends that people opt out of fireworks celebrations, one environmental group in California is taking a more heavy-handed approach. The Coastal Environmental Rights Foundation is suing the city of La Jolla, CA to stop its fireworks display, claiming that the Independence Day tradition is perilous to the area’s sensitive maritime resources. “The entire shoreline in La Jolla per the La Jolla community plan is a sensitive resource. It’s highly protected,” Marco Gonzalez, an attorney for the Coastal Environmental Rights Foundation, told News10. Gonzalez’s group launched its suit against the city on June 25. According to the organization’s lawsuit, the city of La Jolla did not apply for a Coastal Development permit or comply with the California Environmental Quality Act, two steps the group says are legally necessary before the city can host a fireworks display. The foundation also alleged that the ecological impacts of the Fourth of July show, including traffic and the pollutants from firework debris entering the region’s coastal resources, have not been considered in an environmental review. The environmental group’s suit will be heard on Wednesday, but another organization called the La Jolla Community Fireworks Foundation says it is battling to keep the annual city fireworks show going forward. “The 4th of July celebrates our country’s freedoms, and we intend to vigorously defend those freedoms here,” said the La Jolla Community Fireworks Foundation on its website. The Fireworks advocacy group insisted that the show will go on, in spite of the lawsuit. “The City of San Diego has issued us the necessary permits to continue the fireworks display and we intend to continue with the event,” said the statement on the organization’s website. Fireworks displays are just the latest great American tradition to get caught in the cross-hairs of the environmental “green” movement, joining the long-despised hamburgers , SUVs , and indoor air conditioning .

More:
Green Movement Calls Fireworks ‘Eco-Hazards,’ Sues to Ban July 4th Display in California