Tag Archives: president-obama

Swizz Beatz Talks ‘Going Into Overdrive’ To ‘Make The Best’ Records

‘When you’re working on albums, nobody sleeps,’ the energetic producer says of projects with Kanye West, Mary J. Blige and more. By Jayson Rodriguez Swizz Beatz Photo: Bryan Bedder/ Getty Images Swizz Beatz has been busy in the studio lately, working on numbers for Kanye West, N.E.R.D., Mary J. Blige and, of course, his own solo album, Haute Living. The multiplatinum producer has been tweeting about his long nights recently, but he told MTV News that when you’re inspired by a project, there’s just no sleep until completion. “When you’re working on albums, nobody sleeps,” he explained of all the work piled on his plate. “The excitement of being in the moment of music and having that pressure on you — you got a lot of people waiting on that project, you not gonna sleep either. You want to get it right in your mind, [so] you don’t have an appetite, you’re not tired. You go into overdrive … to make the best thing possible. “That shows how it goes when you work with real artists, you work until it’s done,” Swizz added. “Sometimes it gets overdone [ Laughs ].” Over the weekend, Swizz and Blige connected in the studio and completed four records, according to the Ruff Ryder alum’s Twitter messages. He told MTV News that at least one of the songs would see the light of day this week. While Swizz said he’s producing a number of songs for her new project, he also revealed that Blige might appear on one track from his forthcoming LP. While holed up in a New York studio earlier this month, Swizz managed to collaborate with Kanye West on his “Power” remix. His studio session with Pharrell happened to overlap with Kanye’s and the three producers wound up working on one another’s projects by the end of the night, Swizz said. “We were in there working on multiple things, [Kanye] was working on a song for my album, I was working with N.E.R.D. in another room for their album, and then the ‘Power’ remix was still in the works,” Swizz explained. “So, at the end of the night, everybody just ended up in both rooms. It was just going from one joint to the other and everyone showing respect to everyone’s craft. It was super-dope.” Who else would you like to hear on a Swizz Beatz collabo? Share your wish list in the comments! Related Artists Swizz Beatz

The rest is here:
Swizz Beatz Talks ‘Going Into Overdrive’ To ‘Make The Best’ Records

Russell Simmons Shows Support For Controversial NYC Mosque

Mogul spells out the word ‘coexist’ on the windows of his apartment, overlooking the proposed site. By Mawuse Ziegbe Russell Simmons (file) Photo: Jerritt Clark/ WireImage Russell Simmons is making his stance on a planned mosque near New York City’s Ground Zero site well-known. The hip-hop mogul has spelled out the word “coexist” on the windows of his downtown apartment, which is near the location where a Muslim community center named Park51 — which according to the center’s website includes a mosque — is slated to be established. Several black-and-white signs emblazoned with symbols of faith, such as the Christian cross, the Star of David and the peace sign, spell out Simmons’ message of religious pluralism. According to an article posted on Simmons’ Global Grind website, the mogul worked with artist Glen E. Friedman to conceive the installation. “I was trying to figure out ways I could reach people and promote a message of tolerance,” Simmons told The Associated Press on Wednesday (August 25). “The fact that it is a public discussion, that there’s so many against it is what I think is disappointing to me, that so many people don’t know that we founded our country on the First Amendment.” The proposed center has sparked controversy and protests because of the community center’s proximity to Ground Zero, where the World Trade Center skyscrapers that were decimated in the September 11 attacks once stood. Opponents of the center, including former Alaska governor Sarah Palin , insist building a mosque so close to the location is inappropriate. Supporters of Park51, which include President Obama , say that religious freedoms extend to all Americans and must be defended. In response to those opposed to Park51, Simmons said the future of the community center is not just an issue for Muslims. “It’s for Jews, it’s for Christians, it’s for African-Americans and other non-Muslims to stand up and protect the rights of the Muslims involved in this debate,” Simmons said. “It’s an American principle, it should offend every American.” Do you agree with Russell Simmons about the planned Muslim community center near Ground Zero in New York City’s? Let us know in the comments below! Related Artists Russell Simmons

See the article here:
Russell Simmons Shows Support For Controversial NYC Mosque

Jon Voight Discusses His Conservative Views, Tea Parties on FNC’s Huckabee

Actor Jon Voight appeared on the August 22 “Huckabee” to discuss, among other things, his conservative activism and the media’s misrepresentation of the Tea Party movement. Here’s a sample: MIKE HUCKABEE: We heard that there were people yelling racial epithets at some of the members of Congress. Did you hear anything like that? JON VOIGHT:  You know, when you saw this, folks, and you all read these things or you saw them on television, these rumors… are being distributed as truth. And I’m going to tell you  the quality of people that are in the Tea Parties are of such high moral character that if anybody in a group of those people came forth with a racial slur they would be called on the carpet… and they wouldn’t stand for it, and we would know their names today. But there’s no evidence of any of this, there’s no evidence that these things really happened that were portrayed as news. For interview highlights, check out the video montage we’ve assembled by clicking the play button in the embed above. Alternately, you can download the MP3 audio here or the WMV video here .

More:
Jon Voight Discusses His Conservative Views, Tea Parties on FNC’s Huckabee

Ratigan: ‘Default Position’ In USA Is To Incarcerate Black Men

Dylan Ratigan’s “Daily Rant” segment was a treasure trove of controversial statements today.  You be the judge of which statement rates higher on the controversy-meter: Ratigan’s claim that the “default position” in the USA is to incarcerate black men rather than educate them; or Blogger Keli Goff’s suggestion that to end the cycle of poverty among African-Americans, and to avoid burdening taxpayers, kids should be taught in school that not everyone should have children. Ratigan’s rather-imprison-than-educate African-Americans accusation is refuted by the facts, starting with the fact that the school district that spends more per pupil than any other in the USA is . . . that of the federally-funded District of Columbia, whose students are predominantly African-American. As for the suggestion from Keli Goff [a youthful veteran of various Dem political campaigns], can you imagine the outrage and the accusations of eugenics if a conservative blogger, particularly one of pallor, proposed that kids be taught not to have children as a solution, among other things, for reducing the burden of African-Americans on taxpayers? Goff was responding to a Bob Herbert column noting the low high-school graduation rate among African-American males. KELI GOFF: . . . One high-school dropout ends up costing taxpayers more than $200,000 over his lifetime.  And yet African-Americans and religious black Americans in particular, still have a tough time tackling the issues of family planning and birth control . . . So what’s the solution? Well, I think it’s simple. I think we should start by putting the “plan” back in “family planning.” No, I’m not advocating that we start throwing condoms at five-year olds. I’m actually suggesting something much more revolutionary.  For starters, what if in childhood health classes we taught the idea that just as every person isn’t meant to grow up to become an astronaut, not every person is meant to grow up to become a parent? . . . DYLAN RATIGAN: How much of [the cycle of poverty] in your opinion is family-planning driven, how much of that is a function of systematic racism in our country and laws that are enforced to basically pick-up, harvest and incarcerate young black men , particularly in New York with the Rockefeller laws, and how much of it is a complete abandonment of education as a value system period in this country unless you’re rich? GOFF: Well first of all you can’t discount any of those issues, and a lot of them are intertwined, but we do have systematic racism in this country, we have a history in this country that has helped handicap — RATIGAN: Particularly for incarcerating black men! GOFF: Right, which has helped handicap our community. RATIGAN: Because in my opinion, has been a default position to incarcerate black men as opposed to educate and integrate black men into our economy!

Read the original here:
Ratigan: ‘Default Position’ In USA Is To Incarcerate Black Men

CNN’s Toobin: Judge’s Ruling a ‘Major Setback For Stem Cell Research’

On Monday’s Situation Room, CNN’s Jeffrey Toobin used dire language to describe a federal judge’s decision which struck down federal funding for embryonic stem cell research: “The bottom line is this is a major setback for stem cell research and for the Obama administration ….it will certainly cut way back on federal funding.” Anchor Suzanne Malveaux labeled it a ” potential wedge issue .” Malveaux led the 5 pm Eastern hour with the “breaking news” about Judge Royce Lamberth’s decision, who issued a preliminary injunction against federal funding for the life-destroying research. The anchor brought in Toobin and asked, “What does this mean today?” Toobin immediately gave his “major setback” assessment and described the grounds on which Judge Lamberth gave in his 15-page opinion. The CNN senior legal analyst, like many in the media, omitted that embryonic stem cell research isn’t the only field when it comes to stem cell research. The federal government has actually spent much more on adult stem cell research. According to a July 18, 2008 report by PBS , the NIH “spent $200 million funding non-embryonic stem cell research, and only $38 million on embryonic stem cells.” Less than a month ago, on August 2, the Associated Press actually highlighted the successes of adult stem cell research. Toobin used similarly dire language later in the report: “To be sure, the Obama administration will appeal this ruling to the D.C. Circuit, and it may well be overturned. This case has already been to the appeals court once. But if it stands up, it will certainly cut way back on federal funding for stem cell research .” But he also refreshingly noted that ” this is yet another battleground, broadly defined, of the abortion struggle in America, because, ultimately, that’s what stem cell research and the fight over embryos has really come down to .” Malveaux concluded the report with her “wedge issue” label of the controversial research. The full transcript of Suzanne Malveaux and Jeffrey Toobin’s segment from Monday’s Situation Room: MALVEAUX: Federal funding for embryonic stem cell research is now on hold- a U.S. District Court judge here in Washington issuing a preliminary injunction a short while ago. In the ruling, the judge says the research involves the destruction of human embryos, against the will of Congress. Now, this comes over a year after President Obama signed an executive order repealing Bush-era limits on federal tax dollars to study embryonic stem cells. Many Americans see that research as key to finding cures for spinal cord injuries, cancer, Parkinson’s- other diseases. I want to bring in our senior legal analyst Jeffrey Toobin, who is on the phone, to help us explain what this means.  Now, Jeffrey, in covering President Bush for all of those years, one of the things he was dead-set against was allowing for these federal dollars to be used for embryonic stem cell research. What he proposed was a compromise, saying- look, no more new funding- just allow the funding for 21 existing lines. President Obama reversed that, and now, we have the courts involved in this. What does this mean today? TOOBIN: Well, the bottom line is this is a major setback for stem cell research and for the Obama administration, because what the judge said was, that in 1996, while President Clinton was in office, Congress passed a law that said there could not be any use of federal money for research where embryos are destroyed. Both President Bush and President Obama worked within the framework because the president, unilaterally, can’t overturn a law. By expanding the opportunities for federal funding of research, as President Obama did shortly after he was elected, Judge Royce Lamberth, the judge in Washington, today said he- President Obama- violated that 1996 law. He tried to basically say that that law didn’t count any more, and the president can’t unilaterally overturn an act of Congress, and that’s why the judge suspended the Obama rule today. MALVEAUX: So, Jeff, what does this mean, in terms of projects that have already been funded? Do they continue, or do they stop, or does this mean that there’s just not additional funding for new projects? How does this work today? TOOBIN: Well, as usual, those questions will mean more work for lawyers, because Judge Lamberth’s 15-page opinion does not really deal with all the details of how this will play out in the real world. To be sure, the Obama administration will appeal this ruling to the D.C. Circuit, and it may well be overturned. This case has already been to the appeals court once. But if it stands up, it will certainly cut way back on federal funding for stem cell research, and it is not clear, from Judge Lamberth’s order, what happens to those projects that are under way as we speak. MALVEAUX: And Jeff, just real quick here, what is the next step in the legal process? Where does this go? TOOBIN: Well, the Obama administration, I assume, will go D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals and ask for a stay of this ruling while it’s appealed, but the anti-abortion/pro-life forces who were behind this lawsuit, among others, will certainly oppose that, and this is yet another battleground, broadly defined, of the abortion struggle in America, because, ultimately, that’s what stem cell research and the fight over embryos has really come down to. MALVEAUX: Okay, Jeffrey Toobin, thank you so much. Again, another potential wedge issue that may weigh-in in the midterm elections- this decision coming down today, just earlier this afternoon. 

Read the original post:
CNN’s Toobin: Judge’s Ruling a ‘Major Setback For Stem Cell Research’

NYT’s Charles Blow: Obama Is Not Good For Jews

“Is President Obama good for the Jews?” asked New York Times columnist Charles Blow Saturday. His answer was quite surprising: “For more and more Jewish-Americans, the answer is no.”  In his piece marvelously titled “Oy Vey, Obama,” Blow referred to Thursday’s Pew Research Center report finding “33% of Jewish voters identify with or lean toward the Republican Party, up from 20% in 2008.” From there, Blow went where a liberal columnist for the New York Times typically dares not: This is no doubt a reaction, at least in part, to the Obama administration having taken a hard rhetorical stance with Israel, while taking “special time and care on our relationship with the Muslim world,” as Robert Gibbs, the White House press secretary, put it in June. If that sounds like courtship, it is. Some of the president’s most ardent critics and some of Israel’s staunchest American defenders – two groups that are by no means mutually exclusive – have seized on what they see as the administration’s unfair and unbalanced treatment of Israel and have taken their denunciations to the extremes. After addressing some recent events – the Administration’s denunciation of Israeli settlements last September, the White House urging Israel to sign the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty in April, and May’s Gaza flotilla incident – Blow shared with his readers some more data on this issue: Fair or not, these criticisms are crystallizing into a shared belief among many: Obama is burning bridges with the Jewish community in order to build bridges to the Muslim world. There is very little independent polling, aside from Pew’s party identification polling, to help us understand how American Jews see the president, his stance toward Israel and the political implications. So in that vacuum, pollsters with partisan leanings have been spinning their findings like dreidels. In April, the Republican polling firm McLaughlin & Associates released a survey that they said showed that only 42 percent of American Jews would vote to re-elect President Obama. He captured 78 percent of the Jewish vote in 2008. Recently, the democratic pollster Stanley Greenberg and the Israel Project, a nonprofit in Washington, conducted a poll that they said found American support of Israel was dropping like a rock. Wherever the truth lies, it is fair to say that it doesn’t bode well for Obama. Indeed it doesn’t, although it’s quite shocking to read such a conclusion in a column by one of the Times’ most liberal contributors.

Go here to read the rest:
NYT’s Charles Blow: Obama Is Not Good For Jews

Now’s Your Chance to Stop Monsanto’s FrankenSugar

The Center for Food Safety has won an important legal victory in the fight for appropriate controls on the introduction of new genetically engineered crops. After ruling that the USDA (under president George W. Bush) shouldn't have approved genetically engineered sugar beets without assessing the Frankencrop's potential to contaminate conventional and organic varieties, a federal judge has blocked future crops of Monsanto's genetically engineered RoundUp Ready sugar beets. The ball is in the USDA's court. The pro-biotech sugar industry is urging the USDA to rush through an Environmental Impact Statement so they can plant a new crop of Monsanto's Frankenbeets next year. The only thing that can stop Monsanto's Frankenbeets now is massive public outcry. The Center for Food Safety's legal work has given the USDA, under President Obama now, the opportunity to do the right thing. Now's our chance to press Obama's USDA to protect biodiversity and human health from contamination with FrankenGenes that never should have been released into the food system! added by: JanforGore

Obama Forgot "New Direction" In Drug Policy; Sticks With DEA Nominee Michele Leonhart Despite Criticism of Raids

Obama is confident that Leonhart is the right choice, the White House staffer said, and that as of Friday the president wasn’t considering anyone else for the position. In other words, the response from 1600 Pennsylvania Ave. to a chorus of concerns boils down to: Leonhart or bust. In response to this message, critics have pointed out that Obama is shifting his stance on marijuana policy. “It’s unfortunate — and outright baffling — that the Obama administration would choose someone for this post whose resume is so strongly at odds with the ‘new direction’ this administration had promised for drug policy in general and medical marijuana in particular,” the Marijuana Policy Project’s Mike Meno told The Daily Caller. “During the election campaign, and again through the Department of Justice memo in October, President Obama vowed to stop the outrageous Bush-era practice of raiding and prosecuting medical marijuana patients and providers who operate under state law. If change is what they seek, why would the administration nominate a Bush holdover under whom the DEA continues to raid the private property of citizens obeying state law? It makes no sense.” MPP and other marijuana activists have pointed to a series of raids the DEA conducted in California as recently as last month as evidence that Leonhart is continuing the Bush-era strategy of cracking down on medical marijuana dispensaries and growers, even if they are operating legally under California law. They say this conflicts directly with statements Obama made on the campaign trail, such as this one from April 2008: “When it comes to medical marijuana, I have a practical view more than anything. My attitude is that if it’s an issue of doctors prescribing medical marijuana as a treatment for glaucoma or a cancer treatment, there really is no difference between that and a doctor prescribing morphine, or anything else.” But the White House and the Justice Department both told TheDC that Holder’s memo does not give dispensaries carte blanche to grow or sell marijuana, and that recent raids don’t conflict with what Obama expressed while campaigning. “I wouldn’t say the memo ‘discourages’ certain raids,” a DOJ offical told TheDC. Rather, “it talks about prioritizing resources most efficiently.” And both the White House and the DOJ argued that the gist of the Holder memo was that the DEA would “not focus its limited resources on individual patients with cancer or other serious diseases.” Critics see the distinction between cancer patients who take medical marijuana and the people who sell them medical marijuana as hair-splitting. “Attorney General Eric Holder was crystal clear last year when he directed officials within his department not to waste federal resources interfering with state medical marijuana laws,” wrote FireDogLake’s Jane Hamsher in the open letter distributed by the Marijuana Policy Project. “Yet throughout the tenure of President Obama’s administration, the DEA’s raids have continued in a manner wholly inconsistent with the spirit of that directive. What part of ‘not a priority’ does Michele Leonhart not understand?” added by: Omnomynous

CBS’s Erica Hill to Ann Coulter: Will Mosque Issue ‘Go Away’ Before November Elections?

Speaking to conservative commentator Ann Coulter on Thursday’s CBS Early Show, fill-in co-host Erica Hill seemed to hope the Ground Zero mosque controversy had run its course: “Does it go away or does this continue through November?” Hill’s question to Coulter followed fellow guest, Democratic strategist Tanya Acker, ranting: “…the notion that in the United States of America we would deny people the right to have a religious edifice is simply – like, that’s just not – it’s unconscionable….I think that smart Republicans, fair Republicans, fair people of all political persuasions need to look – are looking at this really as a constitutional issue and really as a freedom issue. It should not be this political question that it’s become.” Picking up on Acker’s argument, Hill turned to Coulter: “So, it shouldn’t be a political issue. Though is it going to continue to be one as we head to November?” In her response, Coulter fired back at Acker: “I will say Tanya’s absolutely giving the Democratic position. America, you want a mosque at Ground Zero, you vote for the Democrats.” Acker angrily replied: “No. No, I’m giving – I’m giving the American position, Ann. I’m giving the American position because my constitution says that-” Hill then interrupted, notifying both guests that they were out of time. At the top of the segment, Hill asked both Coulter and Acker for their reactions to the pullout of major U.S. combat forces from Iraq. Beginning with Coulter, Hill wondered: “…this is happening two weeks ahead of President Obama’s schedule, Ann. Is this, perhaps, a step forward for the administration, some more positive news coming out?” Coulter replied: “Well, Iraq isn’t really his war. That is George Bush’s and it’s gone very well.” Hill interjected: “This was his deadline, though.” Here is a full transcript of the August 19 segment: 7:00AM TEASE HARRY SMITH: No regrets. President Obama insists Muslims have the right to build a community center and mosque near Ground Zero. Though a growing number of Democrats say it’s the wrong place, and a majority of Americans agree. 7:07AM SEGMENT: ERICA HILL: Joining us now with their take on the political impact of all this are conservative commentator Ann Coulter and Democratic Party strategist Tanya Acker. Good to have both of you with us this morning. So the last large U.S. combat brigade leaving Iraq. Obviously there are still troops there, as we heard from the General [Steven Lanza], talking about that as well. But this is happening two weeks ahead of President Obama’s schedule, Ann. Is this, perhaps, a step forward for the administration, some more positive news coming out? [ON-SCREEN HEADLINE: Heading Towards The Midterms; Political Impact of Iraq Pullout] ANN COULTER: Well, Iraq isn’t really his war. That is George Bush’s and it’s gone very well. HILL: This was his deadline, though. COULTER: Afghanistan is his war and that’s not going so well. HILL: So you’re not seeing any positive- COULTER: No. I think he’s been a disaster on foreign policy. I mean, there was a reason to concentrate on Iraq. Iraq is good for regime change. The people are fairly educated. That is exactly the opposite in Afghanistan. You’re dealing with peasants who are stoning a couple who elope. Turning that country into a democracy, I think, is a pipe dream, which is why with Bush he went in, he knocked out the Taliban, left a few troops behind. But then turned the major war on terrorism into Iraq, a country that’s good military, that is sitting on a lot of oil, that’s in the middle of a crucial region of the world. What do we want to be in Afghanistan for? And instead, this president, purely out of political correctness, because he wanted to respond to MoveOn.org crowd about ‘oh, Iraq, it’s a war of convenience, whereas Afghanistan it’s a war of necessity.’ No, no, no, no, no. Bush cared about national security. This guy about – Obama cares about political correctness. And it’s a big mistake. HILL: Tanya, I hear you – I can hear you in the background there. I know you want to jump in, go ahead. TANYA ACKER: Well, it’s so funny because Ann’s perspective is so completely ahistorical, and also, it seems – she seems to not have a very good grasp of American political science. Barack Obama’s the President of the United States right now, which means that Iraq is his war. It also means Afghanistan, too, is his war, as it was George Bush’s war when he first directed that operation. I’d also remind Ann that Afghanistan is –  borders this country called Pakistan. And that’s – there’s a reason that we need to keep that country and that region of the world stable. But all that aside, and you know, putting some of that nonsense, bracketing that for a moment, I think the General [Steven Lanza] made a really good point. It is time now that we let the Iraqi people govern themselves. They need to rule themselves. And that – that military really needs to take responsibility for its own country’s security. We’re not gone. We’re going to provide a very important, valuable training mechanism. But I definitely think this is a step in the right direction. HILL: There’s been so much talk. It seems every day something new comes out about plans for a mosque and Islamic center near Ground Zero. Tanya, I’ll let you kick this one off. We’re hearing again from the President on this, saying he doesn’t regret those comments. Is this the kind of thing that’s going to go away or is this starting to shape, in fact, the road to November elections? ACKER: Well, you know, look, I think there are a lot of partisans who are going to try to turn this into an even nastier issue than it’s become. But I think that we would all be wise to follow Ted Olsen’s lead, George Bush’s former solicitor general who lost his wife on 9/11, who said that the notion that in the United States of America we would deny people the right to have a religious edifice is simply – like, that’s just not – it’s unconscionable. And I think the President’s doing the right thing. I think that smart Republicans, fair Republicans, fair people of all political persuasions need to look – are looking at this really as a constitutional issue and really as a freedom issue. It should not be this political question that it’s become. HILL: So, it shouldn’t be a political issue. Though is it going to continue to be one as we head to November? COULTER: Well, one person made it not only a political issue but a national political issue and that is President Obama. Who wanted a standing ovation from a Muslim audience at a Ramadan dinner at the White House. So he comes out in favor of the mosque. And then as soon as he’s not in front of a crowd that’s going to give him a standing ovation for that, he’s taken it back. I don’t know what his position is now that he claims he’s standing by. HILL: Does it go – does it go away though? Does it go away or does this continue through November, before I let you go? COULTER: Not until we know what’s going to happen to that mosque at Ground Zero. And I will say Tanya’s absolutely giving the Democratic position. America, you want a mosque at Ground Zero, you vote for the Democrats. ACKER: No. No, I’m giving – I’m giving the American position, Ann. I’m giving the American position because my constitution says that- HILL: Ladies, we have to leave it there. But there is much more to talk about in the months ahead. Don’t worry. Tanya Acker, Ann Coulter, good to have both of you with us this morning. ACKER: Thank you.

See original here:
CBS’s Erica Hill to Ann Coulter: Will Mosque Issue ‘Go Away’ Before November Elections?

Movieline Interview Flashback: Director Amir Bar-Lev On What You See (and What You Don’t) In The Tillman Story

Back at Sundance, I talked to director Amir Bar-Lev about his powerful documentary The Tillman Story, and now that the film is coming out in limited release, Movieline is republishing that very candid interview. Of particular note in this conversation? Bar-Lev’s excoriation of General Stanley McChrystal (a key figure involved with the Pat Tillman cover-up), who’s since been let go by President Obama following McChrystal’s unflattering comments about the administration in Rolling Stone.

Read more:
Movieline Interview Flashback: Director Amir Bar-Lev On What You See (and What You Don’t) In The Tillman Story