Tag Archives: politics

Religion, Politics and the End of the World – Part 2

Author: truthdig Added: Fri, 15 Jun 2007 01:13:06 -0800 Duration: 1306 Sam Harris and Chris Hedges debate one another at UCLA’s Royce Hall in Los Angeles. Truthdig editor Robert Scheer moderates.

http://flash.revver.com/player/1.0/player.swf?mediaId=302100

Go here to read the rest:
Religion, Politics and the End of the World – Part 2

Religion, Politics and the End of the World – Part 4

Author: truthdig Added: Fri, 15 Jun 2007 06:43:07 -0800 Duration: 1566 Sam Harris and Chris Hedges debate one another at UCLA’s Royce Hall in Los Angeles. Truthdig editor Robert Scheer moderates.

http://flash.revver.com/player/1.0/player.swf?mediaId=302305

Continued here:
Religion, Politics and the End of the World – Part 4

John Dean on ‘Pure Goldwater’

Author: truthdig Added: Thu, 17 Jul 2008 21:39:50 -0800 Duration: 925 Truthdig editor Robert Scheer interviews John Dean about “Pure Goldwater,” his new collaboration with the late senator’s son. The book is a reminder that American conservatism has drifted far from its original heading.

http://flash.revver.com/player/1.0/player.swf?mediaId=1047423

Excerpt from:
John Dean on ‘Pure Goldwater’

Donna Brazile Defends Obama By Badly Misrepresenting Oil Pollution Act, Gets No Challenge From ‘This Week’ Panel

Nothing ruins my Sunday more than a pundit defending his or her politician by completely misrepresenting a law and nobody on the program in question bothers to challenge the falsehood. Such happened on the recent installment of ABC’s “This Week” when Democrat strategist Donna Brazile said of President Obama’s pathetic response to the Gulf Coast oil spill, “The administration has been constrained by the Oil Pollution Act of 1990, which basically gives the responsible party the lead role in trying to not only fix the problem, but contain the problem.” Really? Well, why don’t we look at the Oil Pollution Act of 1990 and see if Brazile was right (video and transcript follow with details about this law and commentary):  ROBERT REICH: But the present spectacle of the Coast Guard asking BP to speed up this clean-up is absurd. I mean, the federal government needs to be in charge. The president needs to be in charge of this. Use BP’s expertise. Use BP’s resources. But the president must be in charge of all of this. Otherwise, he looks like he’s just standing on the sidelines. DONNA BRAZILE: Well, the administration has been constrained by the Oil Pollution Act of 1990, which basically gives the responsible party the lead role in trying to not only fix the problem, but contain the problem. That has been the problem from day one. They’ve waited for BP to come up with the answers, and we know that BP continues to mislead people. This is the Overview of the Act (emphasis added): The Oil Pollution Act (OPA) was signed into law in August 1990, largely in response to rising public concern following the Exxon Valdez incident. The OPA improved the nation’s ability to prevent and respond to oil spills by establishing provisions that expand the federal government’s ability , and provide the money and resources necessary, to respond to oil spills. The OPA also created the national Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund, which is available to provide up to one billion dollars per spill incident. In addition, the OPA provided new requirements for contingency planning both by government and industry. The National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan (NCP) has been expanded in a three-tiered approach: the Federal government is required to direct all public and private response efforts for certain types of spill events ; Area Committees — composed of federal, state, and local government officials — must develop detailed, location-specific Area Contingency Plans; and owners or operators of vessels and certain facilities that pose a serious threat to the environment must prepare their own Facility Response Plans. Finally, the OPA increased penalties for regulatory noncompliance, broadened the response and enforcement authorities of the Federal government , and preserved State authority to establish law governing oil spill prevention and response. Now, let’s take a look at the expanded National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan (NCP)  (emphasis added):  The OPA was enacted to strengthen the national response system. The OPA provides for better coordination of spill contingency planning among federal, state, and local authorities. The addition of the National Strike Force Coordination Center (NSFCC), for example, is expected to relieve equipment and personnel shortages that have interfered with response to oil spills posing particularly significant environmental or human health threats. Today’s rule revises the NCP to implement a strongly coordinated, multi-level national response strategy. The national response strategy, contained primarily in Subparts B and D of the NCP, provides the framework for notification, communication, logistics, and responsibility for response to discharges of oil, including worst case discharges and discharges that pose a substantial threat to the public health or welfare of the United States. The amended NCP further strengthens the OSC’s ability to coordinate the response on-scene and also incorporates a new OPA- mandated level of contingency planning–Area Committees and Area Contingency Plans (ACPs). These committees and plans are designed to improve coordination among the national, regional, and local planning levels and to enhance the availability of trained personnel, necessary equipment, and scientific support that may be needed to adequately address all discharges. The major revisions to the NCP being promulgated today reflect OPA revisions to CWA [Clean Water Act] section 311. These changes increase Presidential authority to direct cleanup of oil spills and hazardous substance releases and augment preparedness and planning activities on the part of the federal government, as well as vessel and facility owners and operators . For example, revised CWA section 311(c) requires the President to direct removal actions for discharges and substantial threats of discharges posing a substantial threat to the public health or welfare of the United States . Revised section 311(d) requires a number of specific changes to the NCP, including the establishment of “criteria and procedures to ensure immediate and effective Federal identification of, and response to, a discharge, or the threat of a discharge, that results in a substantial threat to the public health or welfare of the United States.”  Section 311(d) also mandates the establishment of procedures and standards for removing a worst case discharge of oil and for mitigating or preventing a substantial threat of such a discharge. As such, quite contrary to what Brazile stated Sunday, the Oil Pollution Act of 1990, along with its changes to the National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan, significantly increased the President’s authority over oil spills. As this disaster is now over seven weeks old, surely “This Week” host Jake Tapper should have been aware of the pertinent provisions of this Act. Ditto Reich and George Will who also sat idly by as Brazile made this misrepresentation. With this in mind, why didn’t anyone challenge her on this? This question especially goes out to Will who in recent months has gone after Bill Maher  as well as  Brazile for misrepresenting the facts in his presence.  I guess George wasn’t in the mood for a fight today. Too bad, for it was easy pickings.  Of course, there’s a larger issue here, and why this really angers me when it happens. It’s not surprising that a pol or pundit stretches the truth. It happens almost every time these people open their mouths. However, when their misrepresentations go unchallenged, the viewer assumes the statement was accurate. This is why it’s so important for the host or moderator to be on top of things. Unfortunately, folks watching “This Week” on Sunday were given the wrong impression about this law and its relevance to what’s currently happening on the Gulf Coast. As such, the burden was on SOMEONE present to correct Brazile on this point. Sadly, that didn’t occur. What a shame. 

See more here:
Donna Brazile Defends Obama By Badly Misrepresenting Oil Pollution Act, Gets No Challenge From ‘This Week’ Panel

Stealth Superpower: How Turkey Is Chasing China to Become the Next Big Thing

By John Feffer Turkey has ambitions beyond the Middle East and the means to get there. Related Entries June 13, 2010 Obama Wants $50 Billion For Teachers, Cops and Firemen June 13, 2010 Obama Will Demand a BP Escrow Fund for Victims

Excerpt from:
Stealth Superpower: How Turkey Is Chasing China to Become the Next Big Thing

Tiger: At Least I Didn’t Screw the Entire Gulf of Mexico

Fake News by Andy Borowitz By Andy Borowitz Sensing a public relations opportunity, golf legend Tiger Woods spoke out today on the BP oil spill. Related Entries June 11, 2010 Double the Oil, Double the Problems June 10, 2010 Putting the ‘I’ in Environment

Read the rest here:
Tiger: At Least I Didn’t Screw the Entire Gulf of Mexico

NYT’s Cooper: Obama Becomes Jimmy Carter If He Doesn’t Get Control Of Oil Spill

Barack Obama’s presidency goes the way of Jimmy Carter’s if he doesn’t get control of the oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico. So said New York Times White House correspondent Helene Cooper on the most recent installment of “The Chris Matthews Show.” As the opening segment’s discussion concerning the spill moved to a close, the host surprisingly asked his panel if  Obama can continue to “blame the previous administration, the oil patch guys, Bush and Cheney” for the disaster. Readers will likely find the answers quite surprising (video follows with transcript and commentary):  CHRIS MATTHEWS, HOST: Bottom line politically, he can no longer, can he longer blame the previous administration, the oil patch guys, Bush and Cheney, or does he have to move on and take the heat? JOHN HEILEMANN, NEW YORK MAGAZINE: I think he has to move on. He has to move on largely because forgetting about what caused the spill, there’s now a disaster that’s going to play out over months in terms of how do we keep the oil off our shores, how do we get it out of the mashes, keep it off the marshes, how do we limit the impact now. So that is his challenge. And this is not going to be Bush’s or Cheney’s challenge. That’s on his front door. MATTHEWS: Present danger. Let me ask you this, everybody, right around here. We’re going to end with this: will he get on top of this whole oil mess in the Gulf, get on top of it? SAVANNAH GUTHRIE, NBC NEWS: I think they would argue that they are on top of it. I think his… MATTHEWS: What would an objective observer say right now? Are they on top of this? Will they get on top of it? GUTHRIE: Well, I don’t think we can say until the leak is capped. RICK STENGEL, TIME: I think they will use the crisis as an opportunity and he will build it into something that can be a national campaign. MATTHEWS: And he will look better after this is over than he did before? STENGEL: Well, he will look better than he did at the beginning. MATTHEWS: Okay. Helene? HELENE COOPER, NEW YORK TIMES: He has to. If he doesn’t, I think his presidency is, will go the way of Jimmy Carter’s. HEILEMANN: I think, I think, I’m with Helene. I think he has to. And I think if he doesn’t it will really cost him. Are media after more than seven weeks of watching a pathetic response to this disaster finally turning on the President they helped get elected, or is this just a moment of frustration? Stay tuned. 

Continue reading here:
NYT’s Cooper: Obama Becomes Jimmy Carter If He Doesn’t Get Control Of Oil Spill

Commemorating 23rd Anniversary of Reagan’s ‘Tear Down This Wall’ Speech

Twenty-three years ago, on June 12, 1987, Ronald Reagan, standing on the west side of Berlin’s Brandenburg Gate, gave a speech that many believe signaled the beginning of the end of the Cold War. In this extraordinary moment in history, President Reagan challenged the Soviet Union’s Mikhail Gorbachev: General Secretary Gorbachev, if you seek peace, if you seek prosperity for the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe, if you seek liberalization: Come here to this gate! Mr. Gorbachev, open this gate! Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall! Entire video of this fabulous speech follows with full transcript: Remarks at the Brandenburg Gate West Berlin, Germany June 12, 1987 This speech was delivered to the people of West Berlin, yet it was also audible on the East side of the Berlin wall. 2,703 words PRESIDENT RONALD REAGAN: Thank you very much. Chancellor Kohl, Governing Mayor Diepgen, ladies and gentlemen: Twenty-four years ago, President John F. Kennedy visited Berlin, speaking to the people of this city and the world at the City Hall. Well, since then two other presidents have come, each in his turn, to Berlin. And today I, myself, make my second visit to your city. We come to Berlin, we American presidents, because it’s our duty to speak, in this place, of freedom. But I must confess, we’re drawn here by other things as well: by the feeling of history in this city, more than 500 years older than our own nation; by the beauty of the Grunewald and the Tiergarten; most of all, by your courage and determination. Perhaps the composer Paul Lincke understood something about American presidents. You see, like so many presidents before me, I come here today because wherever I go, whatever I do: Ich hab noch einen Koffer in Berlin. [I still have a suitcase in Berlin.] Our gathering today is being broadcast throughout Western Europe and North America. I understand that it is being seen and heard as well in the East. To those listening throughout Eastern Europe, a special word: Although I cannot be with you, I address my remarks to you just as surely as to those standing here before me. For I join you, as I join your fellow countrymen in the West, in this firm, this unalterable belief: Es gibt nur ein Berlin. [There is only one Berlin.] Behind me stands a wall that encircles the free sectors of this city, part of a vast system of barriers that divides the entire continent of Europe. From the Baltic, south, those barriers cut across Germany in a gash of barbed wire, concrete, dog runs, and guard towers. Farther south, there may be no visible, no obvious wall. But there remain armed guards and checkpoints all the same–still a restriction on the right to travel, still an instrument to impose upon ordinary men and women the will of a totalitarian state. Yet it is here in Berlin where the wall emerges most clearly; here, cutting across your city, where the news photo and the television screen have imprinted this brutal division of a continent upon the mind of the world. Standing before the Brandenburg Gate, every man is a German, separated from his fellow men. Every man is a Berliner, forced to look upon a scar. President von Weizsacker has said, “The German question is open as long as the Brandenburg Gate is closed.” Today I say: As long as the gate is closed, as long as this scar of a wall is permitted to stand, it is not the German question alone that remains open, but the question of freedom for all mankind. Yet I do not come here to lament. For I find in Berlin a message of hope, even in the shadow of this wall, a message of triumph. In this season of spring in 1945, the people of Berlin emerged from their air-raid shelters to find devastation. Thousands of miles away, the people of the United States reached out to help. And in 1947 Secretary of State–as you’ve been told–George Marshall announced the creation of what would become known as the Marshall Plan. Speaking precisely 40 years ago this month, he said: “Our policy is directed not against any country or doctrine, but against hunger, poverty, desperation, and chaos.” In the Reichstag a few moments ago, I saw a display commemorating this 40th anniversary of the Marshall Plan. I was struck by the sign on a burnt-out, gutted structure that was being rebuilt. I understand that Berliners of my own generation can remember seeing signs like it dotted throughout the western sectors of the city. The sign read simply: “The Marshall Plan is helping here to strengthen the free world.” A strong, free world in the West, that dream became real. Japan rose from ruin to become an economic giant. Italy, France, Belgium–virtually every nation in Western Europe saw political and economic rebirth; the European Community was founded. In West Germany and here in Berlin, there took place an economic miracle, the Wirtschaftswunder. Adenauer, Erhard, Reuter, and other leaders understood the practical importance of liberty–that just as truth can flourish only when the journalist is given freedom of speech, so prosperity can come about only when the farmer and businessman enjoy economic freedom. The German leaders reduced tariffs, expanded free trade, lowered taxes. From 1950 to 1960 alone, the standard of living in West Germany and Berlin doubled. Where four decades ago there was rubble, today in West Berlin there is the greatest industrial output of any city in Germany–busy office blocks, fine homes and apartments, proud avenues, and the spreading lawns of parkland. Where a city’s culture seemed to have been destroyed, today there are two great universities, orchestras and an opera, countless theaters, and museums. Where there was want, today there’s abundance–food, clothing, automobiles–the wonderful goods of the Ku’damm. From devastation, from utter ruin, you Berliners have, in freedom, rebuilt a city that once again ranks as one of the greatest on earth. The Soviets may have had other plans. But my friends, there were a few things the Soviets didn’t count on–Berliner Herz, Berliner Humor, ja, und Berliner Schnauze. [Berliner heart, Berliner humor, yes, and a Berliner Schnauze.] In the 1950s, Khrushchev predicted: “We will bury you.” But in the West today, we see a free world that has achieved a level of prosperity and well-being unprecedented in all human history. In the Communist world, we see failure, technological backwardness, declining standards of health, even want of the most basic kind–too little food. Even today, the Soviet Union still cannot feed itself. After these four decades, then, there stands before the entire world one great and inescapable conclusion: Freedom leads to prosperity. Freedom replaces the ancient hatreds among the nations with comity and peace. Freedom is the victor. And now the Soviets themselves may, in a limited way, be coming to understand the importance of freedom. We hear much from Moscow about a new policy of reform and openness. Some political prisoners have been released. Certain foreign news broadcasts are no longer being jammed. Some economic enterprises have been permitted to operate with greater freedom from state control. Are these the beginnings of profound changes in the Soviet state? Or are they token gestures, intended to raise false hopes in the West, or to strengthen the Soviet system without changing it? We welcome change and openness; for we believe that freedom and security go together, that the advance of human liberty can only strengthen the cause of world peace. There is one sign the Soviets can make that would be unmistakable, that would advance dramatically the cause of freedom and peace. General Secretary Gorbachev, if you seek peace, if you seek prosperity for the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe, if you seek liberalization: Come here to this gate! Mr. Gorbachev, open this gate! Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall! I understand the fear of war and the pain of division that afflict this continent– and I pledge to you my country’s efforts to help overcome these burdens. To be sure, we in the West must resist Soviet expansion. So we must maintain defenses of unassailable strength. Yet we seek peace; so we must strive to reduce arms on both sides. Beginning 10 years ago, the Soviets challenged the Western alliance with a grave new threat, hundreds of new and more deadly SS-20 nuclear missiles, capable of striking every capital in Europe. The Western alliance responded by committing itself to a counter-deployment unless the Soviets agreed to negotiate a better solution; namely, the elimination of such weapons on both sides. For many months, the Soviets refused to bargain in earnestness. As the alliance, in turn, prepared to go forward with its counter-deployment, there were difficult days–days of protests like those during my 1982 visit to this city–and the Soviets later walked away from the table. But through it all, the alliance held firm. And I invite those who protested then– I invite those who protest today–to mark this fact: Because we remained strong, the Soviets came back to the table. And because we remained strong, today we have within reach the possibility, not merely of limiting the growth of arms, but of eliminating, for the first time, an entire class of nuclear weapons from the face of the earth. As I speak, NATO ministers are meeting in Iceland to review the progress of our proposals for eliminating these weapons. At the talks in Geneva, we have also proposed deep cuts in strategic offensive weapons. And the Western allies have likewise made far-reaching proposals to reduce the danger of conventional war and to place a total ban on chemical weapons. While we pursue these arms reductions, I pledge to you that we will maintain the capacity to deter Soviet aggression at any level at which it might occur. And in cooperation with many of our allies, the United States is pursuing the Strategic Defense Initiative–research to base deterrence not on the threat of offensive retaliation, but on defenses that truly defend; on systems, in short, that will not target populations, but shield them. By these means we seek to increase the safety of Europe and all the world. But we must remember a crucial fact: East and West do not mistrust each other because we are armed; we are armed because we mistrust each other. And our differences are not about weapons but about liberty. When President Kennedy spoke at the City Hall those 24 years ago, freedom was encircled, Berlin was under siege. And today, despite all the pressures upon this city, Berlin stands secure in its liberty. And freedom itself is transforming the globe. In the Philippines, in South and Central America, democracy has been given a rebirth. Throughout the Pacific, free markets are working miracle after miracle of economic growth. In the industrialized nations, a technological revolution is taking place–a revolution marked by rapid, dramatic advances in computers and telecommunications. In Europe, only one nation and those it controls refuse to join the community of freedom. Yet in this age of redoubled economic growth, of information and innovation, the Soviet Union faces a choice: It must make fundamental changes, or it will become obsolete. Today thus represents a moment of hope. We in the West stand ready to cooperate with the East to promote true openness, to break down barriers that separate people, to create a safe, freer world. And surely there is no better place than Berlin, the meeting place of East and West, to make a start. Free people of Berlin: Today, as in the past, the United States stands for the strict observance and full implementation of all parts of the Four Power Agreement of 1971. Let us use this occasion, the 750th anniversary of this city, to usher in a new era, to seek a still fuller, richer life for the Berlin of the future. Together, let us maintain and develop the ties between the Federal Republic and the Western sectors of Berlin, which is permitted by the 1971 agreement. And I invite Mr. Gorbachev: Let us work to bring the Eastern and Western parts of the city closer together, so that all the inhabitants of all Berlin can enjoy the benefits that come with life in one of the great cities of the world. To open Berlin still further to all Europe, East and West, let us expand the vital air access to this city, finding ways of making commercial air service to Berlin more convenient, more comfortable, and more economical. We look to the day when West Berlin can become one of the chief aviation hubs in all central Europe. With our French and British partners, the United States is prepared to help bring international meetings to Berlin. It would be only fitting for Berlin to serve as the site of United Nations meetings, or world conferences on human rights and arms control or other issues that call for international cooperation. There is no better way to establish hope for the future than to enlighten young minds, and we would be honored to sponsor summer youth exchanges, cultural events, and other programs for young Berliners from the East. Our French and British friends, I’m certain, will do the same. And it’s my hope that an authority can be found in East Berlin to sponsor visits from young people of the Western sectors. One final proposal, one close to my heart: Sport represents a source of enjoyment and ennoblement, and you may have noted that the Republic of Korea–South Korea–has offered to permit certain events of the 1988 Olympics to take place in the North. International sports competitions of all kinds could take place in both parts of this city. And what better way to demonstrate to the world the openness of this city than to offer in some future year to hold the Olympic games here in Berlin, East and West? In these four decades, as I have said, you Berliners have built a great city. You’ve done so in spite of threats–the Soviet attempts to impose the East-mark, the blockade. Today the city thrives in spite of the challenges implicit in the very presence of this wall. What keeps you here? Certainly there’s a great deal to be said for your fortitude, for your defiant courage. But I believe there’s something deeper, something that involves Berlin’s whole look and feel and way of life–not mere sentiment. No one could live long in Berlin without being completely disabused of illusions. Something instead, that has seen the difficulties of life in Berlin but chose to accept them, that continues to build this good and proud city in contrast to a surrounding totalitarian presence that refuses to release human energies or aspirations. Something that speaks with a powerful voice of affirmation, that says yes to this city, yes to the future, yes to freedom. In a word, I would submit that what keeps you in Berlin is love–love both profound and abiding. Perhaps this gets to the root of the matter, to the most fundamental distinction of all between East and West. The totalitarian world produces backwardness because it does such violence to the spirit, thwarting the human impulse to create, to enjoy, to worship. The totalitarian world finds even symbols of love and of worship an affront. Years ago, before the East Germans began rebuilding their churches, they erected a secular structure: the television tower at Alexander Platz. Virtually ever since, the authorities have been working to correct what they view as the tower’s one major flaw, treating the glass sphere at the top with paints and chemicals of every kind. Yet even today when the sun strikes that sphere–that sphere that towers over all Berlin–the light makes the sign of the cross. There in Berlin, like the city itself, symbols of love, symbols of worship, cannot be suppressed. As I looked out a moment ago from the Reichstag, that embodiment of German unity, I noticed words crudely spray-painted upon the wall, perhaps by a young Berliner: “This wall will fall. Beliefs become reality.” Yes, across Europe, this wall will fall. For it cannot withstand faith; it cannot withstand truth. The wall cannot withstand freedom. And I would like, before I close, to say one word. I have read, and I have been questioned since I’ve been here about certain demonstrations against my coming. And I would like to say just one thing, and to those who demonstrate so. I wonder if they have ever asked themselves that if they should have the kind of government they apparently seek, no one would ever be able to do what they’re doing again. Thank you and God bless you all. Rest in peace, President Reagan…and thank you.

Excerpt from:
Commemorating 23rd Anniversary of Reagan’s ‘Tear Down This Wall’ Speech

Washington Post Tags Nikki Haley as a Former ‘Small-time Agitator’

When’s the last time a journalist referred to Barack Obama as a former “small-time agitator?” That’s exactly how the Washington Post described Republican Nikki Haley in a profile piece on Saturday. A headline for the article by political reporter Philip Rucker critiqued “ Nikki Haley goes from small-time agitator to credible candidate for S.C. governor.”   The piece on the conservative politician also offered this back-handed compliment: “ Haley is friendly, and funny in a generic way ; yet she keeps her politics from becoming too personal.” When describing the state legislator’s  crusade to force elected officials to publicly disclose their votes, Rucker cynically explained: There may have been more than an element of calculation in her effort. She traveled all over the state slamming fellow Republicans for their lack of transparency, and drawing plenty of attention to herself along the way. To be fair, the Post piece does offer some positive, humanizing details about Haley. Readers learn: She puts big decisions on hold for 24 hours, she said, “to take the emotion out of it.” Her inner circle includes only two campaign advisers and her husband, Michael, a full-time National Guardsman. She still handles many of the details of her schedule, sleeps just a few hours a night and clicks out torrents of e-mail on her BlackBerry at all hours. However, a Nexis search of Washington Post stories featuring Barack Obama and the phrase “small-time agitator” finds no matches. Perhaps if Haley had been a “community organizer,” she wouldn’t have received such cynical treatment. In contrast, as the MRC’s Ken Shepherd reported on Thursday, Rucker and Ann Gerhart offered a fawning 60 paragraph piece on liberal Supreme Court nominee Elena Kagan. The co-writers enthused, “She made her life the law and became consumed by it — and happily so, by all accounts.” The piece also highlighted Kagan’s love for poker and the opera. For more examples of the biased coverage Nikki Haley has recieved, see these NewBusters accounts . Rucker can be reached on Twitter here . 

See the original post:
Washington Post Tags Nikki Haley as a Former ‘Small-time Agitator’

UFC 115: Liddell Confident Against Franklin

Former Ultimate Fighting Championship (UFC) light heavyweight king Chuck “The Iceman” Liddell vowed to come down hard on Rich “The Ace” Franklin in his first fight since his 14-month lay off from mixed martial arts. Liddel said he’s very much in shape, probably the best in his career. This, he said, spells trouble for Franklin, a former UFC champion himself. “I think I’m in the best shape I’ve been for a long time,” said The Iceman in a UFC promotional video. “He better be ready for me, I’m coming hard.” The former UFC champions will exchange blows at the ufc 115 live stream at the General Motors Place in the City of Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada on Saturday. Liddell hasn’t fought since his technical knockout (TKO) loss to Mauricio Rua in UFC 97 in April 2009. But his stint in “Dancing with the Stars” has helped keep him in shape before training camp for UFC 115. The Iceman said he will use his “ever reliable” right hand, which he used to topple some of the best fighters in the Octagon such as Randy “The Natural” Couture and Vitor “The Phenom” Belfort. He said it will be a perfect foil for a left hander like Franklin. “I’ll always go back to the big right hand, especially with a south paw, there’s a lot of opportunities to do him with a right hand,” said Liddell, who has 21 wins against 7 losses. Franklin, meanwhile, is coming from a lay-off himself. The Ace, a former UFC middleweight champion, had spent some down time from MMA after undergoing hernia surgery. He claimed he wasn’t worried about what Liddell can do to him. “I’m not concerned about Chuck, I’m not worried about what Chuck has been doing, I gotta worry about what I’m doing,” said Franklin. The Ace said he will probably take advantage of the “weakness” in Liddell’s fighting stance with a lot of low kicks. “Chuck’s fighting stance is really a lot wider, especially on that front leg. We’re emphasizing the times that I can take advantage of that. We’re going to do a lot of inside movement, using jabs and feints to set up inside kicks,“ said Franklin, who has compiled a record of 27 victories, 5 defeats and 1 no contest (NC). UFC commentator Joe Rogan said the Liddell-Franklin fight will be a very interesting match up between a devastating puncher and technical stand-up fighter. “Chuck Liddell is one of the greatest knockout artist in the history of the sport. He has devastating power in his hands, his knees and his kicks… Rich Dranklin is the type of guy that’s gonna formula a really good game plan for a specific opponent. It’s going to be interesting to see how he’s gonna deal with the power of Chuck Liddell,” said Rogan. UFC 115: Liddell Confident Against Franklin is a post from: Daily World Buzz Continue reading