Tag Archives: recession

WaPo’s Eugene Robinson: Obama Is On A ‘Winning Streak’

Posted on August 20, 2010 by Benny Hollywood| Leave a comment

What kind of shameless shill do you have to be to claim the President is on a winning streak as his poll numbers plummet, the economy teeters on a double-dip recession, and his Party is facing historic losses in both chambers of Congress? A Pulitzer Prize-winning columnist and former managing editor of the Washington Post, that’s who. Consider that just days after numerous polls were released showing America’s confidence in Barack Obama at an all-time low, and stallwart supporters such as CNN and the New York Times’ Maureen Dowd claimed that even George W. Bush was better at delivering a coherent message to the American people, Eugene Robinson wrote the following Friday: This is a radical break from journalistic convention, I realize, but today I’d like to give credit where it’s due — specifically, to President Obama. Quiet as it’s kept, he’s on a genuine winning streak. Robinson then listed the following items by way of recent headlines: “Last U.S. combat troops leave Iraq” “General Motors to launch stock offering” “Gulf oil spill contained” But here was the best one. In fact, it’s so good it requires a serious warning to remove all fluids, combustibles, and sharp objects from proximity to your computer: And finally, “President wades into mosque controversy”: Yes, I’m serious. Supporting the mosque in Lower Manhattan didn’t score any political points. But Obama saw his duty to uphold the values of our Constitution and make clear that our fight is against the terrorists, not against Islam itself. Instead of doing what was popular, he did what was right. He still hasn’t walked on water, though. What’s wrong with the man? Yep. Robinson is so captivated by this President that he even believes Obama has handled the Ground Zero mosque situation well. Now THAT’S some impressive shilling, wouldn’t you agree? This is sooooo good it requires what Hillary Clinton would call a willing suspension of disbelief. For instance, here are some recent headlines one would have to ignore to come to the conclusion Obama is on a winning streak: Jobless claims hit 500K, a nine-month high New jobs numbers: Bad for economy, worse for Democrats US unemployment figures increase fears of double-dip recession Critics say Obama’s message becoming ‘ incoherent ‘ If polls are any indication, GOP can expect big gains in the fall Even the Poor Are Abandoning Obama , According to Gallup Poll Data ‎ Obama Sees New Lows in Job Approval Obama Receives Low Marks in Economic Poll ‎ Poll: Majority now disapprove of Obama’s job performance 1 in 5 Americans Thinks Obama Is Muslim If this is what Robinson thinks is a winning streak, I can’t imagine what losing looks like to him.

View post:
WaPo’s Eugene Robinson: Obama Is On A ‘Winning Streak’

→ Leave a comment

Posted in Hollywood, Hot Stuff, News

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

After Bashing Bush on Unemployment, NYT Now Touting ‘Benefits’ of High Unemployment

Posted on August 13, 2010 by Benny Hollywood| Leave a comment

In late 2009, when high rates of unemployment began looking like a sad fact of life for the foreseeable future, the media started looking for ways to put a positive spin on the situation. Sure, many had predicted the next great depression when unemployment stood at around 6 percent in 2008, but with Democrats in control of the White House and Congress, a number of reporters suddenly found the recession’s many silver linings. “All I Want for Christmas Is a Layoff” read the headline of one ABCNews.com column following employees who would rather get a nice severance package than continue in their dull vocations. Newsweek cheerily noted that since men had been hit harder by the recession than women, they would now be able to help out around the house. The Los Angeles Times coined possibly the most absurd term of the recession to date in ” funemployment ,” and discussed jobless Americans who prefer “hitting the beach” to “punching the clock.” Now the New York Times is celebrating the fact that the 90.5 percent of those who are employed are seeing a pleasant rise in their wages. See, the recession’s not that bad. After the obligatory introduction – a few paragraphs lamenting those Americans who have lost their jobs – the Times started searching for the upside: But since this recent recession began in December 2007, real average hourly pay has risen nearly 5 percent. Some employers, especially state and local governments, have cut wages. But many more employers have continued to increase pay. Something similar happened during the Great Depression, notes Bruce Judson of the Yale School of Management. Falling prices meant that workers who held their jobs received a surprisingly strong effective pay raise. This time around, nominal wages – the numbers people see in their paychecks – have risen throughout the slump, as companies have passed along some of the impressive productivity to their (remaining) workers. Meanwhile, inflation has been almost non-existent, except for parts of last year, when real wages did briefly fall. Obviously, real wages could begin falling again if inflation picks up or more employers cut pay. And many workers are already struggling with big debts and diminished 401(k) accounts. Still, the contrast is pretty stark. The typical jobless person has been out of work six months. The typical worker has received a raise. Yes, the typical worker has received a raise. In fact, fewer than ten percent do not have a job. Say, why isn’t anyone giving Obama credit for the 90.5 percent employment rate? After all, the typical person is still employed. During the Bush years, the Times was of course more concerned about actual employment during a recession. Throughout 2002, the paper bemoaned the “jobless recovery” – despite the fact that the unemployment rate was never more than two percent below pre-recession levels. The Times shunned good news outright, favoring to report the more glum details of the nation’s economic outlook. “Employers Balk at New Hirings, Despite Growth,” was a headline typical of the Times’s attitude. Paul Krugman consistently opined on the ” jobless recovery ,” and some Times reporters speculated that government accounting tricks had shielded the public from seeing just how bad the economy was. The recession beginning in late 2001, though less severe than the one in which the country finds itself now, lasted a good deal longer than this one has lasted so far, as you can see in this graph, courtesy of Calculated Risk .   That is not to say that the 2001 recession more serious. As you can see, our current economic downturn is much deeper, and if it continues on its current trajectory may last even longer than the early-2000s recession. It does mean, however, that the New York Times had ample opportunity to ponder all the benefits of recession economics in an economic environment that was far less severe than the current one. I wonder why we were never informed of all the upsides.

Read the original here:
After Bashing Bush on Unemployment, NYT Now Touting ‘Benefits’ of High Unemployment

→ Leave a comment

Posted in Hollywood, Hot Stuff, News

Tagged , , , , , , , , ,

Henry Rollins Knows What’s Wrong with American Education – and Guess Who’s to Blame

Posted on August 13, 2010 by Benny Hollywood| Leave a comment

On the heels of a new College Board report that the United States is struggling to compete with other countries when it comes to college completion rates, Vanity Fair’s resident straight talker, Henry Rollins, has figured out the problem.  The education system isn’t struggling because of possible factors contained within the report, such as: Inadequate funding of preschool programs Poor college counseling programs for middle and high school aged children High school dropout rates A lack of international standardization for curriculum Skyrocketing costs of education No, Henry has stumbled onto the real, super secret reason why students are failing to finish their college work:  Sarah Palin and George Bush .  To be accurate, it’s not so much the direct fault of Palin and Bush – rather, it is those of you who support them, their stupid comments, and their intellectually uninterested ways.  Their fans see them as real people and because of that, they feel comfort in an unchallenging environment. Rollins explains why ‘America doesn’t seem to value a college education the way it used to’: “…in America the educated person is often seen as some sissified, fragile know-it-all who looks down at the common man. Every time Sarah Palin says something stupid, she gets more fans. To them, she is “real.” It’s the same reason why so many Americans loved George Bush. They saw themselves in this intellectually uninterested man and found comfort in such an unchallenging environment.” Worse, Rollins somehow manages to immediately transition into a Hitler reference.  In explaining that Americans seem to express disdain for the educated person (via leaders such as Palin and Bush), he then goes on to say: “What leaders had contempt for educated people?  Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot, to name a few.” And “Funny how the very idea of increased education opportunities threatens some Americans.  They will tell you that education is stupid.” And “America’s abysmal report card, appalling treatment of teachers, and hostile contempt for its young people should be our national shame, the sub-literate albatross swinging from our collective neck.  America No. 1?  Not even close.” Now, before you go accusing Mr. Rollins of being a liar, a liar, a liar, a liar , it is important to note that Henry speaks from experience, having come from a very thorough, college-educated background himself.  However, in this case anyway, it is apparent that Palin and Bush weren’t the cause of at least one American quitting college.   Rollins dropped out of American University following a very brief stint (one semester) in the late ‘70’s.  Citing reasons such as boredom, and the fact that his classmates would rather study beer and bongs than read books, Rollins instead pursued his musical career. Seems he is partially correct.  There are some individuals out there who look at college experience with contempt, threatened by education because it is, in a word, stupid.  By way of contrast, Sarah Palin earned a Bachelor’s degree in journalism from the University of Idaho.  Oh, and that intellectually uninterested guy we mentioned earlier?  He earned a history degree from Yale University in 1968, and is the only President to have ever earned a Masters Degree in Business Administration from Harvard Business School. Make no mistake, Henry Rollins is an incredibly intelligent, well-read, real-world educated person, and Vanity Fair is wise in giving him an outlet.  But traipsing into the world of liberal lunacy (Palin and Bush Derangement Syndrome) clouds any argument one can make.  In this case, Rollins opines that education suffers because of uneducated people who have a better education than himself.  The result is intellectually dishonest and hypocritical. In other words, he is the Wrong Man for this debate. – Rusty welcomes comments/feedback at Weiss.Rusty@gmail.com .

See the rest here:
Henry Rollins Knows What’s Wrong with American Education – and Guess Who’s to Blame

→ Leave a comment

Posted in Hollywood, Hot Stuff, News

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

Olbermann Cherry-picks Gingrich, Accuses GOP of Blaming Unemployed for Bad Economy

Posted on August 13, 2010 by Benny Hollywood| Leave a comment

Keith Olbermann on Thursday cherry-picked an article by former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich to make a pathetic case that Republicans are targeting and blaming unemployed Americans for the country’s economic woes. In his opening “Countdown” segment on MSNBC, the host began, “When it came time to invade, Republicans used cherry-picked intelligence to make the case for war in Iraq. Now, they`re using cherry-picked intelligence to wage war on the middle class.” Particularly in Olbermann’s crosshairs was Gingrich who the “Countdown” host claimed “targeted one individual American who`s struggling to make ends meet and held him up as part of the problem.” Ironically, it was Olbermann that was guilty of cherry-picking as he quoted a very tiny portion of a Human Events article the former Speaker wrote Wednesday (video follows with commentary and full transcript at conclusion): After showing clips of various Republicans talking about how extending unemployment benefits reduces the incentive for those out of work to accept jobs being offered to them – including positions that pay them less than they were previously making as well as below what they’re getting on unemployment – Olbermann went after Gingrich: KEITH OLBERMANN, HOST: But now, as we mentioned, Republicans have targeted one individual American who`s struggling to make ends meet and held him up as part of the problem. Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich writing yesterday, quote, “The extension of unemployment benefits has given people a perverse incentive to stay on unemployment rather than accept a job.” He continued “`The Wall Street Journal` quotes an engineer who admits he turned down more than a dozen offers because the salary would have been less than he made on welfare. This story encapsulates the problem of the long-term unemployed, the depth and length of this recession is at risk of creating a permanent pool of unemployed Americans who get so used to being unproductive that they are willing to accept welfare indefinitely instead of taking a job.” The man who turned down those offers will tell his own side of the story in just a minute and the reasons for turning down a job are not always as simple as Mr. Gingrich is. “The Journal” interviewed Rick Helliwell about his company`s difficulty finding people, quote, “The jobs require a little more than a high school diploma and fluency in English. They include free accommodation of medical care and starting pay of about $30,000 a year. Mr. Helliwell speculates that Americans might be hesitant to move to Dubai where the jobs are based.” Speculates — you might add other possible reasons for giving up a job, such as — saving the country, or because Republicans thought you unfit to work. Gingrich was referring to an article in the Wall Street Journal published Monday entitled, “Some Firms Struggle to Fill Jobs Despite High Unemployment”: With a 9.5% jobless rate and some 15 million Americans looking for work, many employers are inundated with applicants. But a surprising number say they are getting an underwhelming response, and many are having trouble filling open positions. “This is as bad now as at the height of business back in the 1990s,” says Dan Cunningham, chief executive of the Long-Stanton Manufacturing Co., a maker of stamped-metal parts in West Chester, Ohio, that has been struggling to hire a few toolmakers. “It’s bizarre. We are just not getting applicants.” Employers and economists point to several explanations. Extending jobless benefits to 99 weeks gives the unemployed less incentive to search out new work. Millions of homeowners are unable to move for a job because the real-estate collapse leaves them owing more on their homes than they are worth. Later in the piece came this: Some workers agree that unemployment benefits make them less likely to take whatever job comes along, particularly when those jobs don’t pay much. Michael Hatchell, a 52-year-old mechanic in Lumberton, N.C., says he turned down more than a dozen offers during the 59 weeks he was unemployed, because they didn’t pay more than the $450 a week he was collecting in benefits. One auto-parts store, he says, offered him $7.75 an hour, which amounts to only $310 a week for 40 hours. “I was not going to put myself in a situation where I was making that small of a wage,” says Mr. Hatchell. He has since found a better-paying job at a different auto-parts dealer. With this in mind, Gingrich wrote in his piece Wednesday entitled “Indisputable Failure”: An article in the Wall Street Journal Monday painted a frustrating picture of the joblessness situation, showing that, despite our high unemployment, many firms are having trouble filling job openings. According to the Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta, if job openings were getting filled at a normal rate, the unemployment rate would be 6.8% instead of 9.5%. So there are actually many jobs out there that need to be filled. Yet, in the worst recession since the Great Depression, many employers can’t make hires. The article cites several reasons for this phenomenon, a few of which are long term trends such as our education system not producing enough qualified engineers. But others factors fall squarely on the backs of this administration and Congress. For instance, the extension of unemployment benefits has given people a perverse incentive to stay on unemployment rather than accept a job. The part-owner of a machine parts company, Mechanical Devices, is looking for as many as 40 new engineers, but is quoted in the article as saying many applicants at job fairs were “just going through the motions so they could collect their unemployment checks.” The article also quotes an engineer who admits he turned down more than a dozen offers because the salary would have been less than he made on welfare. This story encapsulates the problem of the long-term unemployed. The depth and length of this recession is at risk of creating a permanent pool of unemployed Americans, who get so used to being unproductive that they are willing to accept welfare indefinitely instead of taking a job. Readers should notice that Gingrich NEVER mentioned Hatchell’s name. Isn’t it difficult to “target” someone without saying his or her name? In fact, the Hatchells didn’t even know about what Gingrich said until Olbermann’s crew informed them and invited the couple on the show to discuss it. Kind of makes it look like they were actually targeted by Olbermann and NOT Gingrich. Making the “Countdown” host’s position even weaker, Gingrich’s unnamed reference to Hatchell represented one sentence in a 1300-word article! I guess that qualifies as “targeting” in Olbermann’s world. In reality, if the “Countdown” host wanted to point fingers, he should have done so at the Journal and not someone referring to one of its articles. Yet, such logic didn’t prevent Olbermann from attacking Gingrich and other Republicans. But what was most fascinating about this lengthy segment is that it ended up proving Gingrich and the GOP’s point. As Olbermann spoke to Mike and Sarah Hatchell, they admitted that he turned down job offers because they would have paid him less than what he was making on unemployment. Now, the harsh reality for this couple and many in this situation is that such a pay cut might force them out of their homes. However, the conservative argument is that this is still a disincentive for such folk to accept gainful employment that could put them in a better position of getting a higher-paying job in the future. History has shown people that are working actually have a greater likelihood of being offered a job than those that aren’t. More importantly, as the Journal noted Monday: If the job market were working normally-that is, if openings were getting filled as they usually do-the U.S. should have about five million more gainfully employed people than it does, estimates David Altig, research director at the Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta. That would correspond to an unemployment rate of 6.8%, instead of 9.5%.  And that’s coming from someone working for the Fed. With this in mind, not only were Olbermann’s accusations concerning Gingrich and Republicans targeting “one individual American who`s struggling to make ends meet and held him up as part of the problem” completely false, this segment actually proved what the Journal and conservatives have been claiming about the downside of extending unemployment benefits. Nice try, Keith!  Full transcript: KEITH OLBERMANN, HOST: Good evening from New York. When it came time to invade, Republicans used cherry-picked intelligence to make the case for war in Iraq. Now, they`re using cherry- picked intelligence to wage war on the middle class. In our fifth story tonight: without the cloak of national security to hide behind, Republicans are about to meet one member of the middle class who is fighting back. We asked him to come on tonight because it is the first time in this “blame the unemployed” strategy from the right that we can recall Republicans targeting an individual American. For months, Republican politicians have argued that extending unemployment benefits will slow job growth, because Americans would rather take a handout. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIPS) UNIDENTIFIED MALE: You`re clearly going to dampen the capacity of that growth if you basically keep an economy which encourages people to, rather than go out and look for work, to stay on unemployment. OLBERMANN: Two Republican — SEN. JON KYL (R), ARIZONA: Continuing to pay people unemployment compensation is a disincentive for them to seek new work. (END VIDEO CLIPS) OLBERMANN: Two Republican candidates for Senate have gone further and said that Americans should start accepting lower salaries. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIPS) RON JOHNSON (R), WISCONSIN SENATORIAL CANDIDATE: When you continue to extend unemployment benefits, people really don`t have the incentive to go take other jobs. You know, they`ll just wait the system out until their benefits run out, then they`ll go out and take, probably not as high-paying jobs as they would like to take, but that`s how you have to get back to work. SHARRON ANGLE (R), NEVADA SENATORIAL CANDIDATE: You can make more money on unemployment than you can going down and getting one of those jobs that is an honest job, but it doesn`t pay as much. And so, that`s what`s happened to us, is that we have put in so much entitlement into our government that we really have spoiled our citizenry. (END VIDEO CLIPS) OLBERMANN: It is the continuation of President Bush`s economic philosophy that American workers should keep working into their old age, that working, you know, three jobs just to make ends meet is fantastic. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: I`m a divorced single mother with three grown adult children. I have one child, Robbie, who is mentally challenged, and I have two daughters. GEORGE W. BUSH, FMR. U.S. PRESIDENT: Fantastic. I mean, we are living longer and people are working longer, and the truth of the matter is, elderly baby boomers have got a lot to offer to our society. And we shouldn`t think about giving up our responsibilities in society. Isn`t that right? UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: That`s right. BUSH: You don`t have to worry. UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: That`s good, because I work three jobs and I feel like I contribute — BUSH: You work three jobs? UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Three jobs, yes. BUSH: Uniquely American, isn`t it? I mean, that is fantastic, that you`re doing that. UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Yes. Thank you. BUSH: Get any sleep? UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Not much. Not much. (END VIDEO CLIP) OLBERMANN: But now, as we mentioned, Republicans have targeted one individual American who`s struggling to make ends meet and held him up as part of the problem. Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich writing yesterday, quote, “The extension of unemployment benefits has given people a perverse incentive to stay on unemployment rather than accept a job.” He continued “`The Wall Street Journal` quotes an engineer who admits he turned down more than a dozen offers because the salary would have been less than he made on welfare. This story encapsulates the problem of the long-term unemployed, the depth and length of this recession is at risk of creating a permanent pool of unemployed Americans who get so used to being unproductive that they are willing to accept welfare indefinitely instead of taking a job.” The man who turned down those offers will tell his own side of the story in just a minute and the reasons for turning down a job are not always as simple as Mr. Gingrich is. “The Journal” interviewed Rick Helliwell about his company`s difficulty finding people, quote, “The jobs require a little more than a high school diploma and fluency in English. They include free accommodation of medical care and starting pay of about $30,000 a year. Mr. Helliwell speculates that Americans might be hesitant to move to Dubai where the jobs are based.” Speculates — you might add other possible reasons for giving up a job, such as — saving the country, or because Republicans thought you unfit to work. This as “The New York Times” reports that yet another Republican politician, South Carolina`s Governor Mark Sanford, has been approved by the Department of Labor to accept stimulus money targeted to expanding that state`s unemployment benefits — an expansion Governor Sanford once predicted would cause tax increases, but which now appears to have embraced wholeheartedly — he now appears to have done so — signing the bill two months ago, expanding those unemployment benefits for his state to the tune of $98 million. Governor Sanford joining the ranks of other Republican governors who once denounced such stimulus spending before they embraced it, such as Dave Heineman of Nebraska and Georgia`s Sonny Perdue. But despite the rush of Republicans to embrace the stimulus, most of America seems to have forgotten that it was their party, not President Obama`s, that bailed out Wall Street banks. A new poll finding that more Americans, 47 percent, think President Obama signed the Troubled Asset Relief Program, TARP, into law, only 34 percent know it was actually, shh, President Bush who did it. And now, as promised, COUNTDOWN exclusive, the man singled out by former Speaker Gingrich, because he in Gingrich`s words, admits he turned down more than a dozen offers because the salary would have been less than he made on welfare, Mike Hatchell joining us from his home in Lumberton, North Carolina, along with his wife, Sara. Eleven-year-old Wyatt unfortunately visiting family in California, although thrilled, I`m sure, that we`re showing his Science Achievement Award photo on national TV tonight. Mike and Sarah, thanks for joining us tonight. MIKE HATCHELL, MECHANIC: Thank you, Keith. SARA HATCHELL, WIFE OF GOP TARGET: Thank you. M. HATCHELL: How are you? OLBERMANN: Let me start with your bio, Mike. You`re at 52 years old now, former law enforcement officer, used to have your own business as a mechanic. You were unemployed for 59 weeks, collected $450 a week in benefits and Mr. Gingrich suggests you got used to being unproductive. If that`s not true, why did you turn down so many job offers? M. HATCHELL: Keith, it`s really hard for someone like Mr. Gingrich to understand the fact that when you have a mortgage, off family to support, you have car payments, insurance, everything else, that when you`re going out and looking for a job, you know, and, obviously, it was a job, different jobs that I was looking at that were going to pay probably half of what I`m used to making. So, that was the situation. I mean, when they`re offering me these jobs, they`re saying, well, this is — this is going to be a situation where we`re going to start you out at the entry level wage. And I — obviously, I`ve got some 32 years of experience in the automotive business and it`s kind of hard for me to do that, and then looking also the fact that even at 40 hours at $7.75 an hour or whatever it might, you know, it`s going to total $310, $320 a week. After you pay taxes, everything that comes out, Social Security and everything else, you might be $275, $265 or something like that. I mean, with the mortgage and everything else, I mean, yes, I was drawing unemployment of $450 a week, which I actually paid into since I was a young man. OLBERMANN: Right. HATCHELL: You know, probably at least 35 years. And I felt like that, well, it`s unemployment insurance, it`s not welfare, that Mr. Gingrich has spoken about. And I felt like, well, until such time as I can actually get a gainful job that`s going to help me keep my house, keep my family fed, not necessarily anything other — you know, expensive, nothing, just doing those basic things, I was not going to take any other job. OLBERMANN: They seemed to leave out the idea that it is insurance and you did pay into it. That`s sort of — pay now and don`t get it later. M. HATCHELL: Yes, sir. OLBERMANN: If you had — if you had taken those lower-paying jobs, your family would be considerably worse off now than it actually is, correct? M. HATCHELL: Yes, sir. I would hate to even think. You know, I mean, with a mortgage payment, if you don`t make the mortgage, I mean, they`re going to come and take the house. And, unfortunately, we`d be out on the streets, you know, God knows doing what, you know? But, you know — I mean, it`s just unreal. I mean, that`s all you can do, is try to do the best you can, you know? And when I found a situation where I did have a better offer, of course, I took it. You know, something I knew that would work for me. So — OLBERMANN: Sarah, let me ask you something, can you weigh in on how you reacted when we brought Mr. Gingrich`s remarks to your attention today? S. HATCHELL: I was appalled, frankly, that he would even consider welfare being a part of unemployment insurance. I saw my husband beat the streets of Robeson County, a very poor county, to try to find work, to save our home. It`s been a really bad couple of years. OLBERMANN: Whichever one — whichever one of you wants to take this, can you give us some idea of your life financially? Meaning, you seem like a typical American family. How is the classic American Dream looking for you right now in terms of your retirement? Your son`s college is coming up in the not-too-distant future — how`s that looking? M. HATCHELL: Obviously, I mean, with the unemployment, after 59 weeks without a job, you know, I mean, the IRA accounts, you know, that got drained. We basically have no retirement other than, hopefully, the government will have Social Security. We all know how big that might be in the future. We`re still struggling. I mean, you know, for not making enough wage and actually keeping everything up, insurance, you know, the mortgage, food on the table, you know. We actually struggle to the point where we lost one car. Not able to make the two car payments, you know, so she had a vehicle and I had a vehicle. And quite honestly, I mean, we`re still behind on our mortgage. I mean, we`re still trying to make that up, you know, make sure we keep the house. Just haven`t been able to get to the point where we can actually catch up with the back payments that we got behind on. So, it`s really tough, you know? And we just continue to fight. I mean, I go to work. I feel like as long as I`m working, you know, and I go to work every day, you know, then things are going to get better. And I hope my wife will get a job here soon. You know, she`s been out of work even longer than I have, some 25 or 26 weeks. So, it`s tough. It`s tough in the South, as we would say. So — OLBERMANN: Last question, Mike. Is there anything else you`d like to say to Mr. Gingrich or the other Republicans who say that, you know, the unemployed stay that way for the benefits, so that they`re, you know, spoiled or lazy and should take those lower-paying jobs and get off the public dime? M. HATCHELL: Keith, I think it`s no surprise to us that, as it has been for quite some time, that our politicians are going to use that word, are not in touch with the American people, especially the middle class or the lower class people, because — I mean, that`s the only thing that`s keeping us going. I mean, when I was on unemployment, I would sit there in front of the television, reading newspaper, look online, to make sure, you know, whether they were going to extend my benefits or not, so I could tell whether or not I need to make other arrangements, maybe find some place to live, you know, or move some place that I could afford to live. And it was just, it was always tough, you know? I mean, when that`s all you have to depend on, I mean, what are you going to do? Your life is in their hands, pretty much, you know? And I don`t think there`s anyone out there just drawing unemployment just to be drawing it. OLBERMANN: Yes. M. HATCHELL: I mean, obviously, they didn`t ask to be laid off, you know? And as far as I know, it`s still unemployment insurance, and we all pay into that. It should be a situation where anyone who calls it welfare, I don`t understand how he even calls it welfare. While we`re on the term, I don`t mean to speak out of turn, Keith, he was talking about this company that was trying to hire 40 engineers. OLBERMANN: Yes. M. HATCHELL: That particular story they read, OK, they were actually machinists that the company was trying to hire, and most of the machinists I know — I have been in the automotive field all my life — machinists make considerably more than $13 an hour, that`s what this company was actually offering for a machinist. And I can understand why they wouldn`t accept that. If they`ve been working as machinists, I`m sure their unemployment was either at that level or more, and they were in the same situation that I was where had they taken a lesser paying job, they would have lost everything, you know, even more so than we have, you know? So, I just think that — you know, Washington is not in touch with the actual people, I`m afraid. And that`s nothing new. I think it`s always been that way since I was a young child. So, I wish it was different, but it`s not. So — OLBERMANN: Mike and Sara Hatchell — I think we`ll take the common sense wisdom of Mike the mechanic over Joe the plumber any day. We thank you for your time and for your willingness to come forward and, obviously, our best wishes to you and the family. Thank you much. S. HATCHELL: Thank you, Keith. M. HATCHELL: Thank you, Keith, very much. Thank you for having us on. OLBERMANN: Our pleasure.

Read the rest here:
Olbermann Cherry-picks Gingrich, Accuses GOP of Blaming Unemployed for Bad Economy

→ Leave a comment

Posted in Hollywood, Hot Stuff, News

Tagged , , , , , , , , , ,

Maddow Guest Harris-Lacewell Describes Abortion Providers as ‘Termination Services’

Posted on August 8, 2010 by Benny Hollywood| Leave a comment

That’s odd, those describing themselves as pro-choice usually aren’t this candid when it comes to abortion. On her MSNBC show Thursday night, Rachel Maddow spoke with Princeton professor Melissa Harris-Lacewell about Republican Senate candidates Rand Paul, Sharron Angle and Ken Buck opposing abortion, including for pregnancies conceived through rape or incest. Harris-Lacewell said this in response to a question from Maddow — MADDOW: So what would be the consequences of having a whole bunch of new sitting senators, elected to the US Senate, who are opposed to abortion not just in all regular cases but also cases in which the pregnancy resulted from rape or incest? HARRIS-LACEWELL:  Well, I mean, I think we’ve already seen the consequences of having a significant portion of even one party, even the party out of power, with a very strong anti-reproductive choice agenda. We saw it for example in the health care fight where somehow, you know, abortion became the central issue in a comprehensive health care reform bill, the central issue became controlling women’s right to choose, controlling women’s fertility, not giving women the ability to control their own, but having the government do it. So, I think clearly every time we move more aggressively against women’s reproductive rights, the more that we will see the consequences show up in everything from health care policy to, you know, potentially actually moving towards reducing the opportunities for women to, uh, you know, actually find healthy, safe termination services. As a conservative you get used to liberals euphemizing on abortion, to the point that when a left winger speaks with something resembling clarity, it’s enough to make you catch your breath. Naomi Wolfe, author of “The Beauty Myth” and “Fire With Fire: The New Female Power and How It Will Change the 21st Century” and as staunch a feminist as you’re likely to encounter, lamented her fellow pro-choicers’ tendency toward evasion in a widely read 1995 essay in The New Republic titled “Our Bodies, Our Souls: Rethinking pro-choice rhetoric.” Among the passages I’ve highlighted — At its best, feminism defends its moral high ground by being simply faithful to the truth: to women’s real-life experiences. But, to its own ethical and political detriment, the pro-choice movement has reliquished the moral frame around the issue of abortion. It has ceded the language of right and wrong to abortion foes. The movement’s abandonment of what Americans have always, and rightly, demanded of their movements — an ethical core — and its reliance instead on a political rhetoric in which the fetus means nothing are proving fatal. … Clinging to a rhetoric about abortion in which there is no life and no death, we entangle our beliefs in a series of self delusions, fibs and evasions. And we risk becoming precisely what our critics charge us with being: callous, selfish and casually destructive men and women who share a cheapened view of life. In the following pages, I will argue for a radical shift in the pro-choice movement’s rhetoric and consciousness about abortion: I will maintain that we need to contextualize the fight to defend abortion rights within a moral framework that admits that the death of a fetus is a real death … Many pro-choice advocates developed a language to assert that the fetus isn’t a person, and this, over the years, has developed into a lexicon of dehumanization. Laura Kaplan’s “The Story of Jane”, an important forthcoming account of a pre-Roe underground abortion service, inadvertently sheds light on the origins of some of this rhetoric: service staffers referred to the fetus — well into the fourth month — as “material” (as in “the amount of material that had to be removed …”) … In one woman’s account of her chemical abortion, in the January/February 1994 issue of Mother Jones, for example, the doctor says, “By Sunday you won’t see on the monitor what we call the heartbeat …” How can we charge that it is vile and repulsive for pro-lifers to brandish vile and repulsive images if the images are real? … We would be impoverished by a rhetoric about the end of life that speaks of the ill and the dying as if they were meaningless and of doing away with them as if it were a bracing demonstration of our personal independence. … After Harris-Lacewell’s brief lapse into candor, however, she reverted to form, blaming the economic downturn for what she decries as harsher criticism of abortion from Republicans ( click here for link to segment on Maddow site; Harris-Lacewell’s remarks quoted below start at 2:32) — HARRIS-LACEWELL: You’ve been doing a lot of history tonight and so I just want to pause and maybe do a quick history lesson here and remind your viewers that what’s happening is, we’re in a period of deep economic anxiety and often when America is in a period of economic anxiety, it starts looking around for individuals to blame. And sometimes the very best place to start asserting control is right in the middle of a woman, in her uterus. … the search for scapegoats also extending to the first minority candidate of either major party, thereby ensuring his defeat in November 2008. No, that didn’t happen either, nor does economic malaise account for shifting public sentiment against abortion (as embodied by Paul, Angle and Buck), a dynamic that long preceded the recession. (After I mentioned Harris-Lacewell’s remarks to a friend, he sent me a link to a great piece at The Onion, titled “U.S. Out of My Uterus,” that dovetails with Harris-Lacewell’s views.) In May 2009, eight months after the economic slump began,  Gallup found that more respondents described themselves as pro-life than pro-choice, and by the substantial margin of 51 to 42 percent — This is the first time a majority of U.S. adults have identified themselves as pro-life since Gallup began asking this question in 1995. The new results, obtained from Gallup’s annual Values and Beliefs survey, represent a significant shift from a year ago, when 50 percent were pro-choice and 44 percent were pro-life. Prior to now, the highest percentage identifying as pro-life was 46 percent, in both August 2001 and May 2002. Would less than a year of economic insecurity account for the shift? I suggest three other causes extending over the past decade, including one that occurred in the same timeframe as the Gallup polling — increased use of ultrasound technology that revealed unborn babies to their parents as never before, widespread revulsion and a Supreme Court ruling against partial-birth abortion, and finally, Sarah Palin. In a provocative Weekly Standard article in April 2009 titled “Honor Killing, American-Style,” Sam Schulman elaborated on the “reaction of horror — visceral, immediate, and continuing — to the Sarah Palin phenomenon of last fall” — We can understand it if we think of one particular affront that Palin presented to the best among us: flamboyant nubility. Sarah Palin decided to carry her Down Syndrome baby to term. Bristol Palin not only decided to give birth to her illegitimate baby, but may have been encouraged to do so by her mother. Babies are born in these circumstances every day. But in the judgment of our most worldly women and of our most persnickety men, these births, however commonplace, offend propriety. To have one such baby may be regarded as a misfortune; to have both seems like carelessness. The unapologetic fertility of this ordinary Alaska family became an obstacle that prevented many from thinking clearly about anything that Sarah Palin might have touched — John McCain, free trade, low taxes, the war on terror. A kind of honor-rage descended, and those whom it touched ran amok. And why not? In the language of honor, the fertility of the Palin women, mother and daughter, was shameless, and Palin didn’t have the decency to be ashamed. (emphasis added) That same Gallup poll found an even split among those most dug in on abortion — 23 percent opposed in all circumstances, 22 percent not wanting any restrictions. Thus, a majority of respondents fall into “the mushy middle,” as described by pro-choice defector Norma McCorvey, better known by the legal pseudonym of “Jane Roe” in Roe v. Wade. “McCorvey still supports abortion rights through the first trimester — but is horrified by the brutality of abortion as it manifests more obviously further into a pregnancy,” Wolfe wrote in her New Republic essay. ” ‘Have you ever seen a second-trimester abortion,’ she asks. ‘It’s a baby. It’s got a face and a body, and they put him in a freezer and a little container.’ ” A “mushy middle” that discerns a moral difference between the single mother with too many mouths to feed who contemplates abortion after unexpectedly becoming pregnant — and the teenage girl who wants a late-term abortion so she can fit into her prom dress. A broad swath of the populace leaning more toward the ever popular Palin and away from abortion apologists.

Go here to see the original:
Maddow Guest Harris-Lacewell Describes Abortion Providers as ‘Termination Services’

→ Leave a comment

Posted in Hollywood, Hot Stuff, News

Tagged , , , , , , , , ,

Raise My Taxes, Mr. President!

Posted on August 7, 2010 by Benny Hollywood| Leave a comment

We can’t afford the Bush cuts anymore. For the last few months, we have heard powerful, passionate arguments about the need to cut America’s massive budget deficit. Republican senators have claimed that we are in danger of permanently crippling the economy. Conservative economists and pundits warn of a Greece-like crisis, when America can borrow only at exorbitant interest rates. So when an opportunity presents itself to cut those deficits by about a third—more than $300 billion!—permanently and relatively easily, you would think that these very people would be in the lead. Far from it. The Bush tax cuts remain the single largest cause of America’s structural deficit—that is, the deficit not caused by the collapse in tax revenues when the economy goes into recession. The Bush administration inherited budget surpluses from the Clinton administration. What turned these into deficits, even before the recession? There were three fundamental new costs—the tax cuts, the prescription-drug bill, and post-9/11 security spending (including the Iraq and Afghanistan wars). Of these the tax cuts were by far the largest, adding up to $2.3 trillion over 10 years. According to the Congressional Budget Office, nearly half the cost of all legislation enacted from 2001 to 2007 can be attributed to the tax cuts. Those cuts are set to expire this year. The Republicans say they want to keep them all, even for those making more than $250,000 a year (less than 3 percent of Americans). They say that higher taxes will hurt the recovery. But for months now they have been arguing that the chief threat to the economy is our gargantuan debt and deficit. That’s what’s scaring consumers, creditors, and businesses. Given a chance to address those fears by getting serious about deficit reduction, though, they run away. Look by contrast at British Prime Minister David Cameron, a genuine fiscal conservative. To deal with his country’s deficit, which in structural terms is not so different from America’s, he concluded that he would have to raise taxes as well as cut spending. added by: TimALoftis

→ Leave a comment

Posted in Celebrities, Hot Stuff

Tagged , , , , , , , , , ,

Today Show Job Search Segment Turns Into Ad for Obama Agenda

Posted on July 14, 2010 by Benny Hollywood| Leave a comment

A segment that was billed as a guide to help some of Today’s unemployed viewers find work, on Wednesday’s show, turned into a platform for the president of the liberal National Urban League to attack those who opposed the President’s plans, as he railed against those in Congress who have been filibustering extension of the unemployment benefits. Today co-anchor Matt Lauer, who hosted the segment, even prompted Morial to address how his organization was going to address the obstruction of the Democratic agenda in Congress, in the upcoming midterm elections, as he asked: “How much do you target candidates who have bad job policies…and support candidates who have good ones?” NBC’s Ann Curry, at the top of the 8:30am half hour of Today’s July 14 show, teased viewers that “Americans, on average, took about 17 weeks to find a job. Well today the number has actually doubled. It’s twice that. So the question is where should you be looking for work? We’ve got some answers this morning.” However when viewers tuned in for those answers they also got a not so veiled anti-Republican diatribe from the National Urban League’s Marc Morial as he chastised those who opposed Democratic measures. MATT LAUER: Marc, let me start with you. I mean 9.5 percent, that’s where the unemployment rate stands right now. It’s been stubborn, it’s not going down nearly fast enough and apparently this job crisis is not an equal opportunity unemployer. It’s striking minorities much harder, isn’t it? MARC MORIAL: African-Americans, the, the rate is more like 16 percent, for Latinos it’s 12 percent. There is no doubt that this recession has been tough for everyone but it’s been especially tough for communities of color. People are hurting. They’re hurting in a very significant fashion and many, many people who’ve worked their entire lives find themselves without work. The new unemployed, it’s a lavender recession. It’s white collar, blue collar, pink collar, it’s across the board, Matt, but especially tough for people of color. LAUER: When you talk about minority communities and you talk to the people in those communities, are you telling them you think the jobs are coming back or are they gone for good? MORIAL: We’re saying that steps have to be taken. And I think our message has been consistent throughout the year that it’s not gonna happen serendipitously. There’s gotta be public policy steps. There’s gotta be a concerted effort. In this nation we can’t tolerate the new normal of a nine percent unemployment rate. That’s not, that’s not acceptable. And right now Congress has been stalling, really the Senate through the use of the filibusters, been stalling an up or down vote on the extension of unemployment benefits, an expansion of the home purchase tax credit, summer jobs. LAUER: Right. MORIAL: These measures, while small, could help many, many people. Lauer then turned to Today’s financial editor Jean Chatzky who, finally, did offer the job seeking advice teased at the top of the half-hour, as she highlighted the best cities to look for new jobs. However Lauer then quickly returned to Morial who finished the segment with a pitch for the National Urban League and its efforts to help elect candidates in the midterms who will help advance the President’s agenda. LAUER: And you know Marc, let me ask you this. I mean we’re coming up to midterm elections here in a couple of months. How political does the National Urban League get with this? How much do you target candidates who have bad job policies, in your opinion, and support candidates who have good ones? MORIAL: I think we’ve got to highlight that there’s been a lot of stalling. The use of the filibuster in the Senate troubles me the most because what it’s done, it’s blocked legislation that would help the economic picture, while on the same time, the very same people who use the filibuster accuse the President and others of not doing enough. So we’ve got to highlight the fact that there’s sort of an inconsistency in that type of message. And jobs, jobs, jobs, are the most important issue we think this fall. LAUER: Marc Morial, Jean Chatzky. Folks thanks very much.

More:
Today Show Job Search Segment Turns Into Ad for Obama Agenda

→ Leave a comment

Posted in Hollywood, Hot Stuff, News

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

CBS Continues to Pressure Congress to Extend Unemployment Benefits

Posted on July 13, 2010 by Benny Hollywood| Leave a comment

On Saturday’s CBS Evening News, anchor Jeff Glor decided what should be at the top of Congress’s agenda as it returned from the July 4th recess: “Congress returns to Washington next week to face a big backlog of unfinished business, and topping the list is the future of unemployment benefits.” In a report that followed, senior White House correspondent Bill Plante chided elected officials for going on vacation without resolving the issue: “It’s been ten days since senators went home for their July 4th vacation without extending unemployment benefits ….They’ve now run out for more than 1.3 million people and the Labor Department says that number could rise to 3 million by the end of this month.”   Plante then touted Democrats blaming the GOP for the inaction: “As he campaigns for Democrats, the President paints the lack of new benefits as Republican heartlessness ….There were protests this week from labor unions against some Senate Republicans. This one in Lexington, Kentucky directed at the GOP leader Mitch Mcconnell, calling for action when the Senate returns next week.” Plante noted the Republican response to such claims: “But Mcconnell blames Democrats for refusing to cut spending to pay the $34 billion cost of the extension.” Saturday’s broadcast was taking over where CBS had left off prior to the holiday. As Congress adjourned on July 1 , fill-in Evening News anchor Scott Pelley proclaimed: “We have decided to start with the 1.3 million Americans whose unemployment benefits have run out, stopped cold, in the last 30 days. And we’re starting there because the U.S. Senate went on vacation today without solving the problem.” Correspondent Chip Reid then reported: “So who’s fault is that? On the surface, it appears Senate Republicans are to blame. Led by Mitch McConnell, they killed the bill with a filibuster. But McConnell points the finger at Democrats, especially Leader Harry Reid, for refusing to pay for the bill in this age of sky-high deficits.” Unlike the July 1 coverage, Saturday’s Evening News briefly highlighted the debate among economists over whether unemployment benefits even should be extended. Plante explained: “Some economists contend that unemployment benefits did not help that much in earlier recessions.” A clip was played of University of Maryland Professor Peter Morici citing past abuse of such benefits. Plante then noted: “Others believe the time paid for unemployment benefits is when the economy improves. They argue that the extension is needed right now.” A clip of Moody’s Analytics chief economist Mark Zandi was played: “It’s the most effective stimulus that can be provided….They get a check and they spend it and it helps the economy immediately.” Despite that back and forth, Plante concluded his piece by anticipating an extension of benefits: “When the Senate returns next week they will bring the benefit extension to another vote, but not until West Virginia’s governor appoints someone to fill the Senate seat of the late Robert Byrd. That should give the Democrats enough votes to pass the extension.” Also on the economic front, on Tuesday’s Early Show, Plante reported the results of a new CBS News poll , which “shows that the public, when it comes to the economy, has very little confidence in either Congress or the President.” He described how 54% of respondents disapprove of the President’s handling of the economy and that a majority believe the recession will last at least another two years. However, Plante tempered the bad news for the White House by noting: “He’ll [Obama will] blame Republicans for the policies which led up to the recession. And it may be small comfort for Democrats, but the public has just as low an opinion of Republicans in Congress.” Here is a full transcript of Plante’s July 10 Saturday Evening News report: 6:35PM ET JEFF GLOR: Congress returns to Washington next week to face a big backlog of unfinished business, and topping the list is the future of unemployment benefits. Senior White House correspondent Bill Plante has more tonight. BILL PLANTE: It’s been ten days since senators went home for their July 4th vacation without extending unemployment benefits. ROLAND BURRIS [SENATOR, D-ILLINOIS]: The motion is not agreed to.                                  BILL PLANTE: They’ve now run out for more than 1.3 million people and the Labor Department says that number could rise to 3 million by the end of this month. As he campaigns for Democrats, the President paints the lack of new benefits as Republican heartlessness. BARACK OBAMA: They said no to extended unemployment insurance for folks who desperately needed help. PLANTE: There were protests this week from labor unions against some Senate Republicans. This one in Lexington, Kentucky directed at the GOP leader Mitch Mcconnell, calling for action when the Senate returns next week. But Mcconnell blames Democrats for refusing to cut spending to pay the $34 billion cost of the extension. MITCH MCCONNELL: The only reason the unemployment extension hasn’t passed is because our friends on the other side simply refuse to pass a bill that does not add to the debt. PLANTE: Some economists contend that unemployment benefits did not help that much in earlier recessions. PETER MORICI [UNIVERSITY OF MARYLAND]: Unemployment was a terribly intractable problem and we had big benefits. And many folks abused those benefits to stay out of the labor force to do other things they were interested in doing. PLANTE: Others believe the time paid for unemployment benefits is when the economy improves. They argue that the extension is needed right now. MARK ZANDI [CHIEF ECONOMIST, MOODY’S ANALYTICS]: It’s the most effective stimulus that can be provided. Many of these people are very hard pressed. They get a check and they spend it and it helps the economy immediately. PLANTE: When the Senate returns next week they will bring the benefit extension to another vote, but not until West Virginia’s governor appoints someone to fill the Senate seat of the late Robert Byrd. That should give the Democrats enough votes to pass the extension. Jeff. GLOR: Bill Plante at the White House tonight. Bill, thank you. 

Read the original here:
CBS Continues to Pressure Congress to Extend Unemployment Benefits

→ Leave a comment

Posted in Hollywood, Hot Stuff, News

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

Newsweek Shocker: ‘The Environment is No Longer a Surefire Political Winner’

Posted on July 12, 2010 by Benny Hollywood| Leave a comment

After pushing manmade global warming for years, the folks at Newsweek appear to be cooling on the idea. Prominently placed at the front page of the magazine’s website Monday was a large, overhead picture of what appeared to be a golf fairway or park with the following headline in green: A Green Retreat: Why the Environment is No Longer a Surefire Political Winner Even more surprising was the contents (h/t Climate Depot ): Following two of the harshest winters on record in the Northern Hemisphere-not to mention an epic economic crisis-voters no longer consider global warming a priority. Just 42 percent of Germans now worry about climate change, down from 62 percent in 2006. In Australia, only 53 percent still consider it a pressing issue, down from 75 percent in 2007. Americans rank climate change dead last of 21 problems that concern them most, according to a January Pew poll. Last month Canada’s Prime Minister Stephen Harper, blasting climate change as a “sideshow” to global economic issues, canceled the meeting of environment ministers that has preceded the G8 or G20 summit every year but one since 1994. Merkel has slashed green-development aid in the latest round of budget cuts, while in Washington, Barack Obama seems to have cooled on his plan to cap emissions. In perhaps the most striking momentum reversal for environmental politicians, last month Rudd became the first leader to be destroyed by his green policies. Flip-flopping over planned emissions cuts as the opposition exploited Australian voters’ flagging support for climate measures, he was finally ousted by party rebels.  After discussing some of the politics involved at local levels around the globe, author Stefan Theil started pointing out the really inconvenient truths Nobel Laureate Al Gore has hidden from his followers:  Increasingly, the whole concept of radical, top-down global targets is coming under scrutiny as citizens and governments face tougher choices over costs and benefits. Green policies can be popular when they mean subsidizing renewable fuels or going after unpopular power companies, but can quickly hit a wall when they force lifestyle change, such as less driving and fewer swimming pools-fears Rudd’s opponents have exploited. Policies that push trendy green fuels also cost much more than other options, such as replacing dirty coal with cleaner gas or emissions-free nuclear power. Some schemes, such as America’s corn ethanol and Europe’s biodiesel made from rapeseed, have virtually zero net emissions savings, but any petroleum they displace is quickly bought up by China. Even in the ideal case that the United Nations’ goal of 80 percent emissions reduction by 2050 is technologically and politically feasible, economists disagree widely on whether the cost of the current set of policies, such as carbon caps and green-fuel subsidies, is justified by the avoided damage from warmer temperatures.  But here’s what should really grab the attention of those that either believe this myth or are still on the fence: In many ways, green projects have become just another flavor of grubby interest politics. Biofuels have become a new label for old-style agricultural subsidies that funnel some $20 billion annually to landowners with little effect on emissions (only Brazilian sugar-cane ethanol produces any significant savings; America’s corn ethanol and Europe’s biodiesel do not). Germany’s solar subsidies, a signature project in the country’s battle against climate change, are perhaps the most wasteful green scheme on earth, producing a mere 0.25 percent of the country’s energy at a cost to consumers of as much as $125 billion. A leading member of Merkel’s Christian Democrats in the German Parliament says there is growing unease both in his party and in the Bundestag “about the scary monster we’ve created that is sucking up ever larger amounts of money for a negligible effect.” With green politics losing its moral high ground, there is a growing realization that climate change is just one policy priority among many that compete for limited resources and attention. That means, first, that climate politics will likely fall off its pedestal of being the Western world’s overarching priority. Second, the new sobriety could give more space to a third stream of climate politics between those who see warming as an unmitigated catastrophe that must be stopped at any cost, and those who reject global warming as a hoax. A new climate realism would more carefully weigh the costs and benefits of emissions controls, and look at other options beyond the current set of targets. The new debate will be more pragmatic and include a broader mix of policies. That might include a shift of subsidies into research and development, as many climate economists have argued. It would also include greater efforts to adapt society to a warmer climate, rather than focusing only on stopping the warming process in its tracks. Those that have been following this debate from a grander perspective than what is typically presented by global warming-obsessed media know that climate realists have been saying this for years. Sociologists and economists from around the world have argued that moneys currently being devoted to try to “stop this problem” could be far better spent in ways that would more greatly impact citizens on every continent.  But as Theil pointed out: That idea has so far figured little in the debate, largely because mainstream environmentalists fear it will distract from their push for CO2 cutbacks. Yet adaptation may offer equally valid and much less expensive choices than cutting back on emissions. Imagine that: man could adapt to a changing environment more cheaply than trying — likely with little to no success! — to prevent the change: In other words, some of the money spent on current policies that often have only limited efficacy might be better spent on other measures, including protection against the worst effects of warming. What’s more, current economic worries are a reminder that every dollar spent on solar cells or biodiesel is a dollar less for education and other budget priorities. Truly shocking stuff, especially from a magazine that as Tom Nelson points out published a cover story almost exactly three years ago entitled “Global Warming Deniers: A Well-funded Machine.” So why the change of heart? Was it evidence that the weather really isn’t cooperating with the desires and computer model-driven predictions of the alarmists? Did last year’s ClimateGate scandal, despite the relative lack of press it got here in the states, open up some eyes as to the modus operandi and the deviousness of those spreading the myth? Did revelations concerning misreporting and truly bad science employed by Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change contributors weaken the resolve of believers? Or was it all the controversy surrounding the Green Messiah Al Gore’s new home purchase in Montecito quickly followed by a separation from his wife and allegations of a four-year-old sex scandal? Or is it merely a consequence of a struggling economy and a federal government trying to figure out ways to finance all its current commitments without the additional burden of environmental spending? Whatever the reason or combination thereof, Americans should hope that this isn’t just a brief moment of sanity, and that Newsweek isn’t going to quickly reverse course once someone wakes up Monday morning and realizes what’s been so prominently placed at the front page of its website. 

Read the original here:
Newsweek Shocker: ‘The Environment is No Longer a Surefire Political Winner’

→ Leave a comment

Posted in Hollywood, Hot Stuff, News

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

The Neverending Death of the American Mall [Trendwatch]

Posted on July 7, 2010 by Benny Hollywood| Leave a comment

The death of the mall has been a meme long enough to have inspired an eponymous website , a documentary , and, with the onset of the recession, a slew of mall deathwatch trend stories . So…how much longer do these monstrosities have? More

→ Leave a comment

Posted in Celebrities, Gossip, Hot Stuff, TV

Tagged , , , , , , ,