Tag Archives: social

Don’t Ask Justin Timberlake About Yogi Bear, and 8 More Revelations From The Social Network’s NYFF Debut

It took arriving 90 minutes early and consuming seven cups of coffee, but I managed to snag a spot at this morning’s standing-room only New York Film Festival preview screening of The Social Network — apparently the only one featuring director David Fincher, screenwriter Aaron Sorkin, and stars Jesse Eisenberg, Andrew Garfield and Justin Timberlake in one place to discuss their massively anticipated movie about the exhilarating (if ugly) advent of Facebook. And apart from learning that the film is excellent, there was much more to be discovered afterward at the Walter Reade Theater. To wit:

Read the original:
Don’t Ask Justin Timberlake About Yogi Bear, and 8 More Revelations From The Social Network’s NYFF Debut

NewsBusters Sparks PolitiFact Examination of Bill Clinton Remark

A NewsBusters article about misstatements made by former President Bill Clinton on “Meet the Press” sparked a fact-checking examination by the St. Petersburg Times’ PolitiFact. As reported Sunday, Clinton bragged to host David Gregory that his administration had “paid down the debt for four years, paid down $600 billion on the national debt.” This of course was quite incorrect as the debt didn’t decline one year while Clinton was in the White House and actually increased by $394 billion in the four years in question. PolitiFact staff writer Lou Jacobson contacted a number folks on this issue including me to reach what I consider a “politically correct” conclusion : It depends on what the definition of “national debt” is. There are actually a few ways of tabulating the debt. One is public debt, which includes all debt borrowed by the federal government and held by investors through Treasury notes and other securities. Another is gross federal debt, which includes public debt plus debt held by the government. The most notable forms of debt held by the government are the trust funds for Social Security and Medicare, money which is owed to beneficiaries in the future. The Office of Management and Budget estimates that the public debt will reach $9.3 trillion by the end of fiscal year 2010. Add in the $4.5 trillion in debt held by the government, and you come up with a gross federal debt of $13.8 trillion. Now let’s look at Clinton’s tenure. Using the public debt figures, we see that the debt rose year by year during the first four fiscal years of Clinton’s stewardship, then fell during each of the following four fiscal years, from a 1997 peak to a 2001 trough. So using this measurement, Clinton is correct that “we paid down the debt for four years,” though he did overestimate the amount that was paid down when he said it was $600 billion. The actual amount was $452 billion — which was equal to about 12 percent of the existing public debt in 1997. But what about gross federal debt? On this score, NewsBusters is correct: In each fiscal year from 1993 to 2001, the gross federal debt increased, because the increase in money in government trust funds exceeded the annual decreases in the federal budget deficit. So by one of these measures, Clinton is correct, and by another, he’s wrong. After citing a number of economists on either side of the aisle, PF quoted one of my e-mail messages concerning the subject: “If the public debt during those years was bought with other debt — meaning by the Social Security trust and the Federal Reserve — we didn’t actually pay down any debt, did we? If you take out an equity line of credit on your home to pay off your car loan, your debt didn’t decrease. Furthermore, if you take out an equity line of credit to pay off your car loan and buy a boat, it would be deceitful on your part to say you reduced your debt, right? This is what happened those four years: We did retire some debt held by the public, but we did so by increasing debt held by the government and the (Federal Reserve). That’s not retiring debt. That’s just shifting it from one lender to another.” Despite this seemingly incontravertible logic, PF concluded: We see merit in using both public debt and gross debt, so we are reluctant to declare that Clinton is definitively right or definitively wrong in citing statistics supported by the public debt figure. Clinton’s phrasing — talking about “the debt” and “the national debt” — strikes us as vague enough to refer to either the public debt or the gross federal debt. So we are left with a statement that’s correct using one measurement and incorrect using another measurement. In addition, Clinton overestimated by about 25 percent the dollar amount by which the public debt declined from its peak during his term, though he also correctly characterized the changes in the debt under Republican presidents. So on balance, we rule Clinton’s statement Half True. As readers likely predict, I feel Clinton’s statement should have gotten either a “False” or a “Pants on Fire.” Looking at exclusively public debt would be like a lender only considering your mortgage balance in determining your credit-worthiness while completely ignoring your car loans and your credit cards.  Don’t you wish that were the case? The reality is the Treasury includes moneys owed to Social Security and Medicare in its gross debt figures because they are part of our nation’s total debt. Even the National Debt Clock tabulates gross federal debt and not just what is held by the public. In this instance as it pertains to Clinton’s claim, here are the pertinent facts. Debt held by the public did decline by $452 billion from the end of FY 97 to the end of FY 01. However, the amount held by government accounts – which mostly means Social Security and Medicare trusts – increased by $853 billion. Yet the surpluses in Social Security and Medicare only totalled $534 billion. This means these trust accounts purchased $319 billion more Treasury paper those four years than their actual surplus. That represents most of the $394 billion increase in gross federal debt during this period. Remember, we were told at the time that this debt buyback was as a result of the surpluses. Quite the contrary, what happened was debt held by the public was largely converted into debt owned by the Social Security and Medicare trusts as well as the Federal Reserve.  As our budgets are “unified,” it is therefore ludicrous to only look at public debt when referring to what the nation owes. Let me explain. Since 1969, we calculate what’s called “unified” budgets meaning they include receipts and expenditures associated with Social Security and Medicare. When the Clinton administration was reporting budget surpluses from 1998 on, and the CBO was projecting “surpluses as far as the eye can see,” they were including projected surpluses in Social Security and Medicare. Without these “trust fund” surpluses, we actually showed what’s called “on-budget” deficits in FY 98 and FY 01. In fact, in the four years that we showed unified budget surpluses of a combined $559 billion, fully $534 billion of that came from surpluses in Social Security and Medicare. Our actual “on-budget” surplus those four years was only $25 billion, a far cry from what was advertised and celebrated. With this in mind, if we’re going to report budget figures that include Social Security and Medicare surpluses – and even brag about our performance – we should certainly include what we owe these programs when we talk about national debt. Failing this is allowing political figures to have their cake and eat it too.  Something else to consider is media outlets look at the gross debt and not just what’s held by the public. When the gross debt past the $13 trillion mark earlier this year, these were some of the headlines: ABCNews.com reported on May 26, “National Debt Soars Past $13 Trillion”     Bloomberg.com reported on May 26, “U.S.’s $13 Trillion Debt Poised to Overtake GDP”  CBSNews.com reported on June 2, “National Debt Tops $13 Trillion for First Time” Once again, please recall that Clinton said “national debt.” As such, it appears our friends at PolitiFact were being generous in their ruling, at least in my opinion. That said, Jacobson was tremendously cordial in his e-mail discussion with me, and appears to have done a nice job of soliticiting varied opinions for this piece. Also of note, and in case your assumption was that this group always defends anyone named Clinton, this is not the case. Mr. Clinton has had twelve of his previous comments examined by PF resulting in four “Trues,” three “Half Trues,” one “Barely True,” two “Falses” and two “Pants on Fires.” Maybe this means that the next time the gang at PF is led to examine someone’s statements as a result of something I wrote, I’m going to need to plead my case a little better. To quote the late Ed Hart, we will know in the fullness of time.

Read the original here:
NewsBusters Sparks PolitiFact Examination of Bill Clinton Remark

why is Facebook down 9 23 2010 (outage)

Facebook has more than 500 million users, and some of them turned to Twitter to share news of the outage. “Facebook is down. Worker productivity rises. U.S. climbs out of recession” was among the tweets posted Thursday afternoon Facebook was experiencing widespread outages and slowness Thursday afternoon, the second day in a row problems were reported on the social networking site. The site had problems also on Wednesday, when some users reported difficulties, but Thursday#39;s outage appeare

View post:
why is Facebook down 9 23 2010 (outage)

Reports: Facebook CEO At Facebook Movie Screening [The Cinema]

Mark Zuckerberg attended a screening of The Social Network near Seattle, a film critic and another person who was at the Facebook movie preview are claiming on Twitter. Facebook does have a new office in the city. More

CBS Befuddled by How Tea Party Candidates Have Survived Despite Their ‘Unusual Assertions’

ABC, CBS and NBC all ran full stories Monday night on how an old video clip showed Delaware Republican Senate candidate Christine O’Donnell talking about how, as a high-schooler, she had “dabbled into witchcraft.” CBS, however, used O’Donnell to pivot to marveling at how other Tea Party-affiliated Senate candidates remain viable despite what CBS considers exotic views.   “Christine O’Donnell’s witchcraft comments may have spooked some Republican leaders,” Nancy Cordes related on the CBS Evening News, “but her fellow Tea Party Senate candidates are living prove that unusual assertions are not necessarily campaign killers.” Cordes elaborated with some contestable summaries of positions expressed: Take Kentucky’s Rand Paul who questioned the historic civil rights act, but is still tied with the Democrat in a recent poll. Nevada’s Sharron Angle is neck and neck with Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, even after she advocated an armed insurrection against the government. And Utah attorney Mike Lee is crushing his Democratic rival even though Lee favors dismantling Social Security and eliminating unemployment benefits. Priorities he shares with Alaska’s Joe Miller. Katie Couric set up the story: “Republicans were counting on picking up a Democratic Senate seat in Delaware. That is until Tea Party favorite Christine O’Donnell won the GOP nomination. Will her past statements about, among other things, witchcraft, come back to haunt her?” On ABC’s World News, Jonathan Karl finally delivered a broadcast network mention of reasoning that should be “haunting” O’Donnell’s Democratic opponent: And O’Donnell isn’t the only one haunted by past statements. Politico obtained this article, “The Making of a Bearded Marxist,” where the Democratic candidate, Chris Coons, wrote in his college paper that “my own favorite beliefs in the miracles of free enterprise and the boundless opportunities to be had in America might be largely untrue.” Not surprisingly, Coons says he won’t make an issue out of old comments. Unsaid: Politico “obtained this article,” from the Amherst College student newspaper, back in May. Politico’s May 3 headline: “ Coons took ‘bearded Marxist’ turn .” It took four months for someone at a network to care. (An oddity: Every network — cable and broadcast — but CBS managed to obtain a good quality version of the 1999 Politically Incorrect clip played by Bill Maher on his HBO show on Friday night, even if just from a recording of the HBO program which has been re-run several times by the pay-cable channel. CBS, in contrast, played a low quality clip, with awful audio, lifted from a Web video on the left-wing Think Progress site.) Friday night : “CBS Dishonestly Touts ‘Non-Partisan Watchdog’ Group’s Quest for a ‘Criminal Investigation’ of Christine O’Donnell” The piece on the Monday, September 20 CBS Evening News: KATIE COURIC: Republicans were counting on picking up a Democratic Senate seat in Delaware. That is until Tea Party favorite Christine O’Donnell won the GOP nomination. Will her past statements about, among other things, witchcraft, come back to haunt her? Congressional correspondent Nancy Cordes reads the tea leaves. CHRISTINE O’DONNELL, ON POLITICALLY INCORRECT IN 1999: Because I dabbled into witchcraft, I hung around people who were doing these things. NANCY CORDES: Christine O’Donnell’s witchcraft comments may have spooked some Republican leaders. KARL ROVE: She’s got to deal with it and explain it. CORDES: But her fellow Tea Party Senate candidates are living prove that unusual assertions are not necessarily campaign killers. RAND PAUL: Watch out, here we come. CORDES: Take Kentucky’s Rand Paul who questioned the historic civil rights act, but is still tied with the Democrat in a recent poll. Nevada’s Sharron Angle is neck and neck with Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, even after she advocated an armed insurrection against the government. LAURA MYERS, LAS VEGAS REVIEW-JOURNAL: Senator Reid still is not very popular in Nevada because a lot of people blame the bad economy on him. CORDES: And Utah attorney Mike Lee is crushing his Democratic rival even though Lee favors dismantling Social Security and eliminating unemployment benefits. Priorities he shares with Alaska’s Joe Miller. LARRY SABATO, UNIVERSITY OF VIRGINIA: Here’s the difference: Delaware is a Democratic state and those other Tea Party states are either competitive purple or Republican red. CORDES: Back in Delaware, supporters of Christine O’Donnell- O’DONNELL ON POLITICALLY INCORRECT: One of my favorite first dates was with a witch on a satanic altar and I didn’t know it. CORDES: -say they’re not fazed by the latest skeleton in her closet. MAN: I’m going to vote for people on what they’re running on, not what they did 20 years ago because I’d never get elected myself if that happened. CORDES: O’Donnell was a frequent guest on comedian Bill Maher’s program back in the 1990s and he plans to release more colorful clips like that one. For now, she’s laughing off the threat saying, “Hey, Bill wanted ratings, I gave them to him.” Katie?

Read the original post:
CBS Befuddled by How Tea Party Candidates Have Survived Despite Their ‘Unusual Assertions’

President Obama To Tea Party: ‘Identify, Specifically, What Would You Do?’

From the Huffington Post: White House advisers on Monday pushed back hard against a New York Times report that the administration is ready to launch a full-frontal assault on the Tea Party movement as the November elections approach. No such plans are being made, insisted senior advisers. And, sure enough, the Times quickly modified its story into something a bit duller. In a town hall meeting broadcast live by CNBC on Monday, however, President Obama seemed to be reading off the initial script. Pressed by an audience member to weigh in on what exactly drives the Tea Party, Obama, in no uncertain terms, accused the movement's members of refusing to talk in specifics. If there is anger over the economic or political landscape, he added, it is being misdirected in his direction. “The problem that I've seen in the debate that's been taking place and in some of these Tea Party events is, I think they're misidentifying sort of who the culprits are here,” said Obama. “As I said before, we had to take some emergency steps last year. But the majority of economists will tell you that the emergency steps we take are not the problem long-term. The problems long-term are the problems that I talked about earlier. We had two tax cuts that weren't paid for, two wars that weren't paid for. We've got a population that's getting older. We're all demanding services, but our taxes have actually substantially gone down.” “So the challenge, I think, for the Tea Party movement is to identify, specifically, what would you do?” he added. “It's not enough just to say get control of spending. I think it's important for you to say, I'm willing to cut veterans' benefits or I'm willing to cut Medicare or Social Security benefits or I'm willing to see these taxes go up. What you can't do, which is what I've been hearing a lot from the other side, is we're going to control government spending, we're going to propose $4 trillion of additional tax cuts, and that magically somehow things are going to work. Now, some of these are very difficult choices.” Obama does seem to operate at his best when facing inherently adversarial questions (recall the positive coverage he received for going to a Republican conference in Baltimore during the height of the health care debate). And while several questioners at the CNBC event were sympathetic to the president, the answers that seemed to resonate best came when the pro-business or anti-government questioners were pressing him. His direct questioning of the Tea Party's motives came just moments before he acknowledged that being “healthfully skeptical about government” is in “our DNA.” added by: BRAVATRAVELS

100-Year-Old Belgian Tree Is World’s Most Social Media Savvy Plant

Image via Facebook This is begging for a “You know you’re a treehugger if…” joke, the punchline being “if you have a tree as your friend on Facebook.” And there is a century-old tree in Belgium that can fit the bill. It is actually a very social media-savvy tree, with a Twitter stream and Flickr account. It is actually part of a really cool project that brings the life of a tree into the same daily buzz as our human lives, including leaf-eye views of what it “sees” every day. … Read the full story on TreeHugger

More:
100-Year-Old Belgian Tree Is World’s Most Social Media Savvy Plant

Krauthammer Smacks Down WaPo’s King Over Palin and Tea Party Agenda

Charles Krauthammer on Friday had a heated debate with the Washington Post’s Colby King over what the Tea Party stands for as well as who its leader is. As the panel on PBS’s “Inside Washington” discussed Delaware Republican senatorial nominee Christine O’Donnell’s surprising victory Tuesday, the conversation naturally gravitated towards the conservative movement reshaping the face of politics.   “They [the Tea Party] have a litmus test that goes into being right to life, social conservative issues that they’re strong on,” said King. Krauthammer pounced, “Look, I hate to say this, but I think that is completely wrong.” The battle was on (video follows with transcript and commentary):  COLBY KING, WASHINGTON POST: They [the Tea Party] have a litmus test that goes into being right to life, social conservative issues that they’re strong on. No, they would get rid of the IRS if they could. There is no room, there is no room for compromise because compromise is a bad word as far as they’re concerned. CHARLES KRAUTHAMMER: Look, I hate to say this, but I think that is completely wrong. The Tea Party has distinguished itself in being almost exclusively about governance, the reach of governance, taxation, economic issues. It is not the social conservatives. In fact, that is what distinguishes it. And I think the other element that is being missed here is it arose spontaneously as a reaction to an extremely aggressive, extremely ambitious left liberal administration that instead of, for example, attacking tax reform – which had it tried that at the beginning of its administration would have had bipartisan agreement and great success, as Reagan in ’86 – it decided it wants a reform of health care which nobody at the time thought was the major issue in the time of economic recession. KING: You just can’t rewrite the rules. I mean, Sarah Palin didn’t even come to the state of Maryland but endorsed the Republican opponent of Governor Ehrlich only on the basis of a checklist. KRAUTHAMMER: Palin is not Tea Party. She is not Tea Party the titular head or at all. KING: She is a major… KRAUTHAMMER: The Tea Party is a spontaneous, leaderless movement which is economic and not social conservative. KING: I get mail all the time from the Tea Party of Florida for example there, Tea Party spokesman from around the country, they, they exist as a unit. As readers can see, Krauthammer might think the Republican Party would have been better suited if Mike Castle won Tuesday evening, but he still is an outspoken conservative ready to smack down media members when they’re wrong. Despite many Tea Party supporters’ disappointment over his views on O’Donnell, America would be far better off with more straight-shooting commentators like Krauthammer.

Visit link:
Krauthammer Smacks Down WaPo’s King Over Palin and Tea Party Agenda

PBS Ombudsman Bizarrely Claims Pitting Dick Armey vs. Arianna Huffington is Right vs. Center

The PBS NewsHour tried to balance a conservative Republican with a liberal Democrat when it interviewed (on two different Thursdays) Dick Armey and Arianna Huffington . Left-wingers complained to PBS ombudsman Michael Getler that NewsHour anchor Judy Woodruff failed to press Armey about the Tea Party’s funding from corporate billionaires. The far-left media monitors at FAIR wanted Woodruff to bash Armey as a hypocrite who benefits from government entitlements, like Bill Moyers did.  Getler’s response was jaw-dropping. He claimed that PBS had failed to achieve balance, since Armey is conservative and Arianna Huffington is a centrist “and her widely viewed website strike me, as a reader, as an equal-opportunity critic. Armey is not. There are plenty of sharp, critical assessments of the Democratic Party and administration on her site.” Doesn’t it matter that those critics are banging away that Obama isn’t socialist enough? Worse yet, Getler said this should be “remedied” by bringing on another leftist, author Will Bunch of Media Matters for America, because Arianna was clearly not left-wing enough or critical enough of the Tea Party. Getler lamented that PBS has lost left-wing shows like Now and Bill Moyers Journal that are “not in the safe comfortable center.” Getler has granted points to conservative letter writers on occasion (and it seems apparent from his report that he didn’t get conservative letter writers in his latest batch). But Getler holds the liberal opinion that was mandtory for his hiring: that public television is not a forum that should be balanced because it’s taxpayer-funded. Instead, because it is “public,” it should rip on conservatives from the left, because the “safe comfortable center” is already represented by ABC, CBS, and NBC. “Public” television should be anti-corporate and anti-militarist and be so boldly. Arguing that Arianna Huffington’s “beyond left and right” palaver makes her a centrist is truly unsophisticated. In her media criticism like in her less-than-centrist-sounding book Right Is Wrong, that has meant the conservatives should be dumped, since the left is correct and it’s unfair (and dangerous) to “balance” that with inaccurate conservatism, like on global warming. In her PBS interview with Gwen Ifill, it’s quite clear that while Huffington may have posed rhetorically as going beyond ideology, she is not a centrist. She’s lamenting that Team Obama is pandering to centrists instead of being fully progressive when Democrats have total control of Washington: [T]his has been obviously a failure of the Bush years that put their faith in free market economics and deregulation, but also the Democrats during the Obama years, when they had control of the White House, the House, and the Senate, but, instead of going forward with bold proposals that would address the fundamental problems in the country, they tried to basically do what they can to bring everybody along, sort of flirt with Olympia Snowe, and bring Larry Summers to head the economic team in a way that put Wall Street ahead of Main Street. Getler is only correct in that when Ifill asked Huffington to critique or attack the Tea Party movement, she declined and used “beyond left and right” palaver to pose as above ideology (like, well, Obama). NewsHour tried to balance the segments. It was Huffington who failed the leftists’ desire to have someone accuse the Tea Party of being the toy soldiers of billionaires.   But while Woodruff gently pressed Armey that liberals say his proposals to make Social Security and Medicare voluntary would destroy these entitlement programs, Ifill offered no critique of Huffington’s left-wing viewpoint from conservatives, that her proposed solutions would kill chances for a recovery (or that conservatives would say she’s a phony for her pose, or question her funding from left-wing billionaires). Both interviews were gentle, in the Jim Lehrer tradition. It seems as if Getler wants NewsHour to be anchored by Bill Moyers. Here’s the gist of Getler’s mystifying complaint: In the segment with Armey, NewsHour correspondent Judy Woodruff told viewers that this was the first of a two-part series of book conversations with thinkers on both sides of the political spectrum and that “a very different perspective … a conversation with liberal Democrat Arianna Huffington” about her new book would be coming soon. The Huffington interview with correspondent Gwen Ifill aired Sept. 16. One of the benefits of the NewsHour is that it has the time for this kind of series, allowing more in-depth exploration of supposedly opposing views, and I’ve always advocated that viewers judge a news program or publication on the continuity of its coverage of a subject rather than on an individual segment. But this time it didn’t work, in my view. Woodruff is a good interviewer and managed to get in some brief but telling questions, although there was no discussion of Tea Party funding that was the focus of most of the e-mail to me. The “series” turned out, it seemed to me, to be a big public relations win for Armey as mostly a platform for his views, while Huffington’s main point was that “the solutions are beyond left and right” and spent as much or more time bashing the Obama administration, aside from noting that the problems grew from “obviously a failure of the Bush years.” One is that Huffington may be labeled as “a liberal Democrat,” but she and her widely viewed website strike me, as a reader, as an equal-opportunity critic. Armey is not. There are plenty of sharp, critical assessments of the Democratic Party and administration on her site. For me, this fits into a purely anecdotal sense that I have that much of mainstream television coverage for some time now is more from a center-right starting point than left-center-right, where far more talking heads and pundits that are described as liberal or left-of-center, actually are closer to the center and just as likely to criticize the left as the right. That is usually not the case, at least as it seems to me, with conservative or right-of-center guests and pundits. Another point goes to something I posted back in May in the aftermath of the shutting down of two major PBS public affairs programs — Bill Moyers Journal and NOW on PBS. I said: “Both provided an outlet for people and subjects that are not in the safe, comfortable center of what passes for most public affairs programming on television. Rather, they often presented guests and topics that rarely get an airing, although what they have to say is of interest to many people who live and think outside that safe comfort-zone.” Both Armey and Huffington, even though controversial, are in what I’d consider that comfortable, or familiar face, zone. Both have many friendly TV and web platforms where their views and books can be, and are, promoted. Coincidentally, between the Sept. 9 and 16 programs, The New York Times featured a review of a probing new book about the Tea Party by Will Bunch, a senior writer at The Philadelphia Daily News and a senior fellow at the left-leaning research group Media Matters for America. Why not have him, or someone else who has spent time looking into this movement, as a guest who clearly seems apt to present a different view? The Tea Party is important and detailed arguments that challenge it need to be heard and answered. Feel free to contact Getler online here or call 703-739-5920. Be calm and polite, as he is.

Read the original here:
PBS Ombudsman Bizarrely Claims Pitting Dick Armey vs. Arianna Huffington is Right vs. Center

Listen to Five Songs from Trent Reznor’s Upcoming Soundtrack for The Social Network

As if there weren’t enough hype, buzz and breathless anticipation surrounding the release of David Fincher’s The Social Network , here comes your first listen of the film’s musical score, from Trent Reznor and Atticus Ross. The Nine Inch Nails frontman has released a five-song sampler of the 19-track album to his website and it’s…pretty awesome. Think Radiohead circa-“Kid A” mixed with The Dust Brothers and you’ll have a pretty solid idea of what to expect. After the jump, take a listen to the first track, “Pieces Form the Whole.”

Read more:
Listen to Five Songs from Trent Reznor’s Upcoming Soundtrack for The Social Network