Tag Archives: social

On Page One, N.Y. Times Plays Up Sharron Angle’s ‘Awkward Retreats’ from ‘Hardline Positions’

Posted on August 19, 2010 by Benny Hollywood| Leave a comment

Following in the footsteps of The Washington Post , Wednesday’s New York Times put Sharron Angle on the front page, pushing strongly on Harry Reid’s notion that her extremism and ineptitude are working in Reid’s favor. Reporter Adam Nagourney played up Republican pessimism:  Since Ms. Angle won, her campaign has been rocked by a series of politically intemperate remarks and awkward efforts to retreat from hard-line positions she has embraced in the past, like phasing out Social Security. There have also been a staff shake-up and run-ins with Nevada journalists, including one in which a television reporter chased her through a parking lot trying to get her to answer a question. Republicans in this state are concerned that what had once seemed a relatively easy victory is suddenly in doubt, with signs that Ms. Angle’s campaign is scrambling to regroup. “Reid had no chance to win before,” said Danny Tarkanian, one of the Republicans who lost to Ms. Angle. “He has a shot to win now. He could still lose, but I have to say he is favored.” Nagourney does not suggest “Landslide Harry” is a terrific candidate. He makes it clear that the Democrats need an anti-Angle vote to win:  If Mr. Reid is doing better than he once was, it is still relative; he is a politician in deep trouble. A Mason-Dixon poll last week found that 51 percent of Nevadans held an unfavorable opinion of him, a toxic number for an incumbent. That poll found Mr. Reid and Ms. Angle in an effective tie. “I’ll say this about Angle: I still think when we get to the end, it’s still going to be about Harry Reid and whether Nevada voters want to get rid of him and send a message to Washington,” said Brad Coker, managing director of Mason-Dixon. “They may still hold their nose and vote for Sharron Angle even if they don’t agree with a lot of things that she says and does.” Mr. Reid’s advisers made clear that the only way they could win was to make Ms. Angle so distasteful to Nevada voters that they would vote for Mr. Reid or someone else — it is possible here to vote for “none of the above” — or stay home. “I’m not discounting her,” Mr. Reid said. “In the spite of the work we’ve done, people need to understand more about her. There are some unusual stands she has.” But Nagourney’s story makes no serious attempt to understand the “why” of Reid’s unpopularity — particularly as Reid wants to note the other candidate’s hardline ideological stands and gaffes. Nagourney avoids Reid’s list, like Reid declaring it should be impossible to be both Hispanic and Republican — the Times continues to avoid that gaffe completely. There’s no mention of Reid’s gaffes about how Obama won election because he was a “light-skinned black” with “no Negro dialect.” There’s no mention of Reid claiming the war in Iraq was “lost” and the surge accomplished nothing.  It’s too bad that the Times didn’t offer more of his interview with Angle in the paper, like this exchange in the transcript they posted : NAGOURNEY: do you think President Obama represents the values of this country, in your view? ANGLE: President Obama and Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi represent what mainstream America is rejecting about Washington, D.C. And that is this out of touch with the people. When Harry Reid was asked to do town halls, for instance, on Obamacare, he refused. Now people want to talk about these things. They want to talk to their representatives about it. And certainly there was a mainstream reaction, a majority reaction, against Obamacare, and yet they passed it anyway. That portrait of hardline ideology doesn’t match the liberal-media storyline — even if it explains a Republican advantage at the polls.

Read more:
On Page One, N.Y. Times Plays Up Sharron Angle’s ‘Awkward Retreats’ from ‘Hardline Positions’

→ Leave a comment

Posted in Hollywood, Hot Stuff, News

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

Without a Revolution, Americans Are History

Posted on August 16, 2010 by Benny Hollywood| Leave a comment

The United States is running out of time to get its budget and trade deficits under control. Despite the urgency of the situation, 2010 has been wasted in hype about a non-existent recovery. As recently as August 2 Treasury Secretary Timothy F. Geithner penned a New York Times column, “Welcome to the Recovery.” As John Williams (shadowstats.com) has made clear on many occasions, an appearance of recovery was created by over-counting employment and undercounting inflation. Warnings by Williams, Gerald Celente, and myself have gone unheeded, but our warnings recently had echoes from Boston University professor Laurence Kotlikoff and from David Stockman, who excoriated the Republican Party for becoming big-spending Democrats. It is encouraging to see some realization that, this time, Washington cannot spend the economy out of recession. The deficits are already too large for the dollar to survive as reserve currency, and deficit spending cannot put Americans back to work in jobs that have been moved offshore. However, the solutions offered by those who are beginning to recognize that there is a problem are discouraging. Kotlikoff thinks the solution is savage Social Security and Medicare cuts or equally savage tax increases or hyperinflation to destroy the vast debts. Perhaps economists lack imagination, or perhaps they don’t want to be cut off from Wall Street and corporate subsidies, but Social Security and Medicare are insufficient at their present levels, especially considering the erosion of private pensions by the dot com, derivative and real estate bubbles. Cuts in Social Security and Medicare, for which people have paid 15 per cent of their earnings all their lives, would result in starvation and deaths from curable diseases. Tax increases make even less sense. It is widely acknowledged that the majority of households cannot survive on one job. Both husband and wife work and often one of the partners has two jobs in order to make ends meet. Raising taxes makes it harder to make ends meet–thus more foreclosures, more food stamps, more homelessness. What kind of economist or humane person thinks this is a solution? Ah, but we will tax the rich. The rich have enough money. They will simply stop earning. Let’s get real. Here is what the government is likely to do. Once Washington realize that the dollar is at risk and that they can no longer finance their wars by borrowing abroad, the government will either levy a tax on private pensions on the grounds that the pensions have accumulated tax-deferred, or the government will require pension fund managers to purchase Treasury debt with our pensions. This will buy the government a bit more time while pension accounts are loaded up with worthless paper. The last Bush budget deficit (2008) was in the $400-500 billion range, about the size of the Chinese, Japanese, and OPEC trade surpluses with the US. Traditionally, these trade surpluses have been recycled to the US and finance the federal budget deficit. In 2009 and 2010 the federal deficit jumped to $1,400 billion, a back-to-back trillion dollar increase. There are not sufficient trade surpluses to finance a deficit this large. From where comes the money? The answer is from individuals fleeing the stock market into “safe” Treasury bonds and from the bankster bailout, not so much the TARP money as the Federal Reserve’s exchange of bank reserves for questionable financial paper such as subprime derivatives. The banks used their excess reserves to purchase Treasury debt. These financing maneuvers are one-time tricks. Once people have fled stocks, that movement into Treasuries is over. The opposition to the bankster bailout likely precludes another. So where does the money come from the next time? The Treasury was able to unload a lot of debt thanks to “the Greek crisis,” which the New York banksters and hedge funds multiplied into “the euro crisis.” The financial press served as a financing arm for the US Treasury by creating panic about European debt and the euro. Central banks and individuals who had taken refuge from the dollar in euros were panicked out of their euros, and they rushed into dollars by purchasing US Treasury debt. This movement from euros to dollars weakened the alternative reserve currency to the dollar, halted the dollar’s decline, and financed the US budget deficit a while longer. Possibly the game can be replayed with Spanish debt, Irish debt, and whatever unlucky country is eswept in by the thoughtless expansion of the European Union. But when no countries remain that can be destabilized by Wall Street investment banksters and hedge funds, what then finances the US budget deficit? The only remaining financier is the Federal Reserve. When Treasury bonds brought to auction do not sell, the Federal Reserve must purchase them. The Federal Reserve purchases the bonds by creating new demand deposits, or checking accounts, for the Treasury. As the Treasury spends the proceeds of the new debt sales, the US money supply expands by the amount of the Federal Reserve’s purchase of Treasury debt. Do goods and services expand by the same amount? Imports will increase as US jobs have been offshored and given to foreigners, thus worsening the trade deficit. When the Federal Reserve purchases the Treasury’s new debt issues, the money supply will increase by more than the supply of domestically produced goods and services. Prices are likely to rise. How high will they rise? The longer money is created in order that government can pay its bills, the more likely hyperinflation will be the result. The economy has not recovered. By the end of this year it will be obvious that the collapsing economy means a larger than $1.4 trillion budget deficit to finance. Will it be $2 trillion? Higher? Whatever the size, the rest of the world will see that the dollar is being printed in such quantities that it cannot serve as reserve currency. At that point wholesale dumping of dollars will result as foreign central banks try to unload a worthless currency. Continued at: http://www.prisonplanet.com/without-a-revolution-americans-are-history.html added by: Dagum

→ Leave a comment

Posted in Celebrities, Hot Stuff

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

MSNBC: Obama ‘Did the Right Thing’ With ‘Uncontroversial’ Mosque Remark

Posted on August 16, 2010 by Benny Hollywood| Leave a comment

On Monday’s Morning Joe, MSNBC’s Joe Scarborough and Mika Brzezinski went out of their way to defend President Obama’s Friday statement defending the planned mosque near Ground Zero in New York City. Brzezinski cooed that the President ” did the right thing by saying what he said ” and Scarborough labeled the remark “uncontroversial” and later stated the controversy over the mosque was a ” wedge issue ” . As NewsBusters’ Noel Shepard reported , the former Florida congressman turned MSNBC anchor blasted Newt Gingrich for his barrage against the President for his defense of the mosque. Earlier in the broadcast, just after the top of the 7 am Eastern hour, Brzezinski related her personal anecdote about discussing the issue over her recent vacation, and went right into her “right thing” defense of the President’s stance. Scarborough replied to this by berating Gingrich, in an early preview of his later attack: SCARBOROUGH: David Ignatius, talking about the mosque on ‘This Week’- BRZEZINSKI: Actually, that’s a fascinating issue. We talked about it over the weekend, and, certainly, on vacation, it was much the dinner table conversation. I thought the President actually did the right thing by saying what he said , but- (shakes head) SCARBOROUGH: The President’s getting pounded. I ‘ve got a quote I’m going to read in a little bit when David’s here- from Newt Gingrich, a guy I know, a guy I worked with, a guy who I always considered to be one of the brighter guys – BRZEZINSKI: Yeah- (shakes head) SCARBOROUGH: But, my gosh, this quote is stunning, and I would say, stunning and irresponsible and – BRZEZINSKI:  It’s over the top . SCARBOROUGH: He’s not alone. Minutes later, the two MSNBC anchors brought on Ignatius to discuss the controversy. Scarborough read one of Gingrich’s attacks on Obama, and included his “non-controversial” label of the President’s statement on the mosque, as he asked the editor to respond to the former House Speaker. When Ignatius expressed his disagreement with this label, the former congressman erupted with a sharp retort. The editor replied with liberal platitude about how the Republicans needed to take care, as the world was watching: SCARBOROUGH: Let me read you what Newt Gingrich said and you tell me what kind of impact this has across the globe: a former speaker, somebody whose name many people across the world know. Gingrich said this, according to The New York Times- quote, ‘There’s nothing surprising in the President’s continued pandering to radical Islam. What he said last night is untrue and inaccurate.’ Do you care to respond about the level of heat that this non-controversial statement that the President said on Friday night has generated? DAVID IGNATIUS: Well, you couldn’t really call it a non-controversial statement because- here we are still talking about it , but I do think that kind of- SCARBOROUGH: Well, no, no, no- I’m just saying, though- I mean, David, he said this, though: Muslims have a right to worship as they choose . IGNATIUS: Yup. I understand- BRZEZINSKI: It shouldn’t be controversial .              SCARBOROUGH: It should not be – IGNATIUS: I understand. SCARBOROUGH: Yeah. I’m sorry- go ahead. We have a delay. IGNATIUS: You know, it seems to me that this rhetoric about pandering to radical Muslims really is inappropriate. I do think Republicans, including Newt Gingrich, have to be careful when they speak to the world about us, about- and by that, I mean our political debate . The Washington Post editor went on to echo his earlier praise of the President’s stance on Sunday’s This Week on ABC . As he lauded Obama, Brzezinski took the time to express her agreement with him: IGNATIUS: What I found striking about the President’s comments on Friday night was he knew that this was going to be unpopular. The polls showing two-thirds of Americans disagreed with the essence of what he was about to say were already out. If you look carefully at the Friday night statement, he said we have to be sensitive to the feelings of people in lower Manhattan. This is hallowed ground, but even so, this is America, and we have to live by America’s rules, and he stated- I thought, the rules that we live under here, in terms of freedom- you buy a piece of property, you have a right to put up a mosque or whatever you want on it. And I thought it was, in that sense, a courageous statement by the President – BRZEZINSKI: Mmhmm- me too – IGNATIUS: It was a kind of leadership, frankly, I’d like to see more from him. I’d like to see more of that, not less. I was a little troubled by all of the nuance back-in filling that followed the next day, but I think it’s okay for our president to say things that people disagree with. He just needs to continue the dialogue. He needs to explain to Americans, this is the kind of country we are . He’s got a lot of support; he’s got Mayor Bloomberg; he’s got- you know, many of the prominent legislators up there who are going to stand behind him- not Peter King, maybe, but an awful lot of other people. So I didn’t think it was- you know, Obama’s mistake, and I think the attacks on him really paint us in a bad light around the world- I have to say that. Later in the hour, Scarborough actually went on the offense against not only Gingrich and the opponents of the NYC mosque in general, but also President Obama himself for his recent “demagoguing” of the Social Security issue. His co-anchor, however, couldn’t help herself to continue her praise of the executive: PRESIDENT BARACK OBAMA (from August 14, 2010 weekly address): Some Republicans leaders in Congress don’t seem to have learned any lessons from the past few years. They are pushing to make privatizing Social Security a key part of their legislative agenda if they win a majority in Congress this fall. That agenda is wrong for seniors, it’s wrong for America, and I won’t let it happen, not while I’m president. I’ll fight with everything I’ve got to stop those who would gamble what you got with Social Security on Wall Street, because you shouldn’t be worried that a sudden downturn in the stock market will put all you’ve worked so hard for- all you’ve earned- at risk. SCARBOROUGH: Oh, boy (laughs). BRZEZINSKI: I’m glad. SCARBOROUGH: Not exactly a weekend for political courage on either side . BRZEZINSKI: Oh, come on! SCARBOROUGH: You have the Republicans demagoguing the mosque issue and you’ve got Barack Obama demagoguing Social Security . It’s almost like- BRZEZINSKI: What!? He’s protecting us. It’s nice . SCARBOROUGH: Yeah- protect us, please, from those bad Republicans who want to destroy Social Security! You know, Mark Halperin and I have been having this conversation for some time. And I said, will Barack Obama really allow the Democrats to demagogue on Social Security, even though he says he wants to save it? And he said- well, he will until after the election, and then it will come to Republicans. Saturday, he sent me a press release and as I- whoops! Okay, I guess he is kind of jumping into the water himself- BRZEZINSKI: Well- SCARBOROUGH: This is the oldest, most cynical trick in the book – BRZEZINSKI: You are cynical. SCARBOROUGH: Especially when Social Security is dying. Social Security is running out of money, along with Medicare. Every economist that’s not a political hack will tell you the entitlements pose the greatest long-term economic risk to us, and Barack Obama decided to use his radio address this weekend to demagogue Social Security. It is shameless. It is shameless, every bit as shameless domestically- because this is the big issue- as Republicans demagoguing the mosque is in foreign affairs . BRZEZINSKI: So cynical! Over an hour later, near the end of the 8 am Eastern hour, as the two anchors discussed the mosque, among other issues, with Matt Lewis of Politics Daily and Republican political advisor Mark McKinnon, Scarborough used his “wedge issue” label to describe the controversy and referenced his earlier attack on both Obama and Gingrich: SCARBOROUGH [to Lewis]: Hey, Matt, this morning, we- I attacked Republicans for demagoguing the mosque issue- so I’ll get hate e-mails all day from right-wing nuts. And then, I attacked Democrats for attacking Social Security shamelessly, like they do, so I’ll get hate e-mails from left-wing nuts all day . When you posted a blog- as a conservative taking on both sides- what was the response? MATT LEWIS: Well- you know, the funny thing, Joe, is that both sides think that I was dead-on when I talked about the opponent- SCARBOROUGH: Of course- LEWIS: But that I was really wrong and overreached. There are a few blogs out about me today. I’ll just give you a couple headlines. One is called, ‘Civil discourse is overrated.’ One is called, Conservative blogger Matt Lewis ducks the fight.’ And one is called, ‘Matt Lewis proves he is a girl: g-u-r-l.’ [Scarborough laughs] So that will give you an idea. I think I’m starting to feel the Joe Scarborough love there. SCARBOROUGH Yeah. Well, here’s what I found that is so disappointing is that- it’s disappointing that all these symbolic issues- all these wedge issues take a backseat to the real issues- whether you’re going to stand up to balance the budget; whether you’re going to stand up to cut taxes; whether you’re going to stand up to show restraint in foreign policy- actual ideas don’t matter for a lot of these freaks. It is where you stand on these red-hot issues.

View original post here:
MSNBC: Obama ‘Did the Right Thing’ With ‘Uncontroversial’ Mosque Remark

→ Leave a comment

Posted in Hollywood, Hot Stuff, News

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

Rooney Mara Nabs Lead Role in The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo

Posted on August 16, 2010 by Benny Hollywood| Leave a comment

Remember the name Rooney Mara . You’ll be hearing it often over the next couple years. This relatively unknown actress has beaten out a number of major stars – such as Kristen Stewart and Scarlett Johansson – and landed the female lead in The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo . She’ll star as Lisbeth Salander in the big screen adaptation of Stieg Larsson’s best-selling novel. Mara appeared in A Nightmare on Elm Street and also has a role in this fall’s The Social Network opposite Justin Timberlake. The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo starts shooting next month in Sweden. Daniel Craig has already signed on as Mikael Blomkvist, while Robin Wright is rumored to play his character’s love interest in the film. It will come out on December 21, 2011. What do you think of Rooney Mara in this beloved role?

Continued here:
Rooney Mara Nabs Lead Role in The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo

→ Leave a comment

Posted in Celebrities, Gossip

Tagged , , , , , , , , , ,

US Government Threatens Iceland and US Supporters of Wikileaks

Posted on August 15, 2010 by Benny Hollywood| Leave a comment

The Obama administration has asked Britain, Germany, Australia, and other allies to consider criminal charges against Julian Assange for his Afghan war leaks. Philip Shenon reports. The Obama administration is pressing Britain, Germany, Australia, and other allied Western governments to consider opening criminal investigations of WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange and to severely limit his nomadic travels across international borders, American officials say. Officials tell The Daily Beast that the U.S. effort reflects a growing belief that WikiLeaks and organizations like it threaten grave damage to American national security, as well as a growing suspicion in Washington that Assange has damaged his own standing with foreign governments and organizations that might otherwise be sympathetic to his anti-censorship cause. American officials confirmed last month that the Justice Department was weighing a range of criminal charges against Assange and others as a result of the massive leaking of classified U.S. military reports from the war in Afghanistan, including potential violations of the Espionage Act by Bradley Manning, the Army intelligence analyst in Iraq accused of providing the documents to WikiLeaks. Now, the officials say, they want other foreign governments to consider the same sorts of criminal charges. “It’s not just our troops that are put in jeopardy by this leaking,” said an American diplomatic official who is involved in responding to the aftermath of the release of more than 70,000 Afghanistan war logs—and WikiLeaks’ threat to reveal 15,000 more of the classified reports. “It’s U.K. troops, it’s German troops, it’s Australian troops—all of the NATO troops and foreign forces working together in Afghanistan,” he said. Their governments, he said, should follow the lead of the Justice Department and “review whether the actions of WikiLeaks could constitute crimes under their own national-security laws.” Last month, a prominent pro-military group in Australia suggested that Assange may have violated Australian law through the release of the Afghan war logs, given the threat the leak may have posed to the lives of Australian troops serving in the NATO-led force. The Obama administration was heartened by the call this week by Amnesty International and four other human-rights groups for WikiLeaks to be far more careful in editing classified material from the war in Afghanistan to be sure that its public release does not endanger innocent Afghans who may be identified in the documents. “It’s amazing how Assange has overplayed his hand,” a Defense Department official marveled. “Now, he’s alienating the sort of people who you’d normally think would be his biggest supporters.” The initial document dump by WikiLeaks last month is reported to have disclosed the names of hundreds of Afghan civilians who have cooperated with NATO forces; the Taliban has threatened to hunt down the civilians named in the documents, a threat that human-rights organizations say WikiLeaks should take seriously. “It’s amazing how Assange has overplayed his hand,” a Defense Department official marveled. “Now, he’s alienating the sort of people who you’d normally think would be his biggest supporters.” The joint letter by the five groups, first revealed by The Wall Street Journal, was met by a tart response from Assange, who communicates with the outside world largely through the social-networking Internet tool Twitter. He appeared to suggest that news organizations and human-rights groups, notably Amnesty International, should help him underwrite his cost of the editing and release of more of the Afghan war documents—but that they were instead refusing to provide assistance. “Pentagon wants to bankrupt us by refusing to assist review,” he tweeted on Monday, referring to the effort by WikiLeaks to convince the Defense Department to join in reviewing the additional 15,000 documents to remove the names of Afghan civilians and others who might be placed in danger by its release. “Media won’t take responsibility. Amnesty won’t. What to do?” In a separate posting on Twitter, Assange estimated the cost of the “harm minimization review”—a reference, apparently, to the effort to edit the 15,000 documents to remove informants’ names—at $700,000. It was not clear how he arrived at that figure. The Australian-born Assange travels constantly and is said to have no real home, living instead in the homes of friends and supporters around the world. He was reported as recently as last week to be in the U.K., although he has spent significant time this year in Australia, Iceland, and the U.S. He has said he is postponing future travel to the U.S. because of fear that he faces legal sanctions here. Through diplomatic and military channels, the Obama administration is hoping to convince Britain, Germany, and Australia, among other allied governments that Assange should not be welcome on their shores, either, given the danger that his group poses to their troops stationed in Afghanistan, American officials say. They say severe limitations on Assange’s travels might serve as a useful warning to his followers that their own freedom is now at risk. A prominent American volunteer for WikiLeaks reported last month that he was subjected to hours of questioning and had his laptop and cellphones seized by American border agents on returning to the U.S. from Europe late last month. An American military official tells The Daily Beast that Washington may also want to closely review its relations with Iceland in the wake of the release of the Afghan war logs. Assange and his followers have been successful in pressing the government of Iceland, in the wake of the collapse of the country’s banking system, to reinvent itself as a haven for free speech, creating a potential home for WikiLeaks and other organizations that may violate the laws of the U.S. and other nations through the release of classified documents. added by: toyotabedzrock

→ Leave a comment

Posted in Celebrities, Hot Stuff

Tagged , , , , , , ,

Justin Bieber, Kanye West Tweet About Possible Collaboration

Posted on August 15, 2010 by Benny Hollywood| Leave a comment

‘Ye and Bieber also chat about working with Wu-Tang Clan’s Raekwon. By Mawuse Ziegbe Justin Bieber Photo: Scott Legato/ FilmMagic Sunday (August 15) was an eventful day for Kanye West, Justin Bieber and Raekwon’s Twitter followers. The Louis Vuitton Don, the Biebs and the Chef chatted on the social-networking website about teaming up to record what would likely be a mind-blowing collaboration. It all began on Sunday morning when Yeezy typed that he had contracted Bieber Fever and was digging the Canadian teen’s music. “Listening to @Justin Bieber ‘Run Away love,’ ” West tweeted. “I love Sunday mornings in the crib.” About an hour later, Yeezy revealed that not only did he have the Bieber track on repeat, he shares a similar song title on his upcoming album. “But I have listened to Runaway Love about 10 times so far,” West wrote. “Ironically I got a song called Runaway on my new album too.” Rarely do the outspoken lyricist’s musings go unnoticed and soon Bieber began responding to ‘Ye’s Twitter props. “It’s not a so what moment for me. I’m 16 and a fan. I’m kinda hyped u are listening to my stuff. Thank u. Nice sunday morning,” Bieber replied. ‘Ye continued the e-love-fest and proposed that he, Bieber and Rae work on a track together. “I’m honored that you like my Music @JustinBieber!!!” West tweeted. “You gotta hear the album. Maybe we can do something together. Me, You and Raekwon.” After bringing up the idea of throwing the Chef into the mix, ‘Ye explained that Rae once jumped on one of his much-loved R&B and hip-hop collabos. “Yo [Wu-Tang Clan’s Ghostface] and Rae were on one of my favorite Jodeci remixes of all time,” West wrote. ‘Ye also suggested that the Staten Island MC should bring his Wu flavor to Bieber’s music. “Maybe me and Rae should hop on Runaway Love! FLEX would drop bombs!” Melding the gritty, boom-bap sounds of Raekwon with the cheery soulful pop of Justin Bieber and the genre-straddling jams of Kanye West might appear challenging. However, Bieber, who tweeted that he plays an acoustic version of ‘Ye’s 808s and Heartbreak hit, “Heartless,” said that he’s up for the task. “Me, u, and the chef 2gether on a song = EPIC,” Bieber wrote. “Might sound crazy 2 u but even having this convo is living the dream. Thanks.” Although Rae didn’t type a response to either artist, the Only Built 4 Cuban Linx MC did re-tweet Bieber’s reply. Would you like to see Justin Bieber, Kanye West and Raekwon do a song together? Let us know in the comments below! Related Artists Justin Bieber Kanye West Raekwon

Read the original:
Justin Bieber, Kanye West Tweet About Possible Collaboration

→ Leave a comment

Posted in Celebrities, Gossip, Hollywood, Music

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

Wire Watch: Rostenkowski Name That Party Round-up

Posted on August 11, 2010 by Benny Hollywood| Leave a comment

Wednesday evening, Brent Baker at NewsBusters noted that two of the Big Three television networks failed to tag Dan Rostenkowsi, the former long-time congressman from Chicago who was ousted from his seat in 1994 over corruption charges and ended doing prison time, as a Democrat. Rostenkowski (RIP), who was 82, died yesterday. At the five major wire services whose reports I reviewed — The Associated Press, Reuters, UPI, AFP, and the business-oriented Bloomberg News — Rosty’s Democratic affiliation made at least one appearance. But the prominence and directness of those appearances varied widely. Not surprisingly, the Associated Press and writer Don Babwin did the worst job of identifying Rosty’s party, waiting until the eleventh paragraph to directly tag him (the eighth paragraph contains a generic reference to the “Chicago Democratic machine”), and poured it on the thickest when referring to the supposedly beloved bygone days of bipartisanship: Rostenkowski became symbol of power and excesses With his rumpled suits and gruff, growling voice, former Rep. Dan Rostenkowski was far more comfortable behind closed doors than in front of the camera or behind a podium. Rostenkowski left speeches to others, but he quietly wielded enormous power on Capitol Hill for more than 30 years, becoming one of the most powerful lawmakers of his time – and a potent symbol of Washington’s excesses after he pleaded guilty to corruption charges. When Rostenkowski died Wednesday of lung cancer at age 82, those who knew him recalled a meat-and potatoes politician from an era that doesn’t exist anymore, where leaders crossed party lines to cut deals and seek consensus, and where a young man from Chicago’s Northwest Side could grow up to shape the national agenda as head of a congressional committee. Today most of that power rests with the House speaker. … Back home, where he emerged from the Chicago Democratic Machine, Rostenkowski brought in millions of federal dollars for public works projects, including improvements to the Kennedy Expressway, the transformation of Navy Pier on Chicago’s downtown lakefront into a recreational area, and the construction of a train line to the city’s biggest airport. … Rostenkowski was at once a tough politician who called Chicago politics a “blood sport,” and a master at the disappearing art of political compromise. So even as he fought battles on behalf of Chicago mayors back home, the staunch Democrat worked closely with President Ronald Reagan and President George H.W. Bush in Washington. “We were going to work together,” he once said. “We were going to get something done. We were Democrats and Republicans, but we were also legislators.” Sensible, Constitution-based conservatives more accurately recall the years fondly described by Babwin as the period when Congressional Republicans could usually be counted to eventually cave in to the government-expanding ideas of Democrats and then figure out a way to pay for them by becoming what Newt Gingrich, who become the first to seriously change that dynamic in 1994 (unfortunately not consistently), used to call “tax collectors for the welfare state.” At Reuters , Nick Carey got the D-word into the third paragraph, while remarkably (and correctly) connecting Rostenkowski to a current congressman in serious trouble: Former Representative Dan Rostenkowski dies at 82 Dan Rostenkowski, who as Congress’ chief tax-writer was one of most powerful U.S. politicians in the 1980s and early 1990s until brought down by a corruption conviction and a 17-month prison sentence, has died at age 82. The office of an alderman in Rostenkowski’s old congressional district in Chicago on Wednesday confirmed his death. As chairman of the House of Representatives Ways and Means Committee for 13 years starting in 1981, the Illinois Democrat had a hand in some of the most important legislation of that period. But a federal grand jury indicted him on felony corruption charges in 1994, and he eventually pleaded guilty to mail fraud. Just last March, another Democrat who led the Ways and Means Committee, Charles Rangel, was forced to step down as chairman in the face of ethics charges. UPI’s unbyllined coverage was hard on Rosty but overly light on the D-word, putting in the worst performance of all five wire services in that regard. The coverage never directly referred to him as a Democrat, only noting that his father was a party member: Former U.S. Rep. Dan Rostenkowski dead Former U.S. Rep Dan Rostenkowski, who rose to be chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee and went to prison in disgrace, died Wednesday. He was 82. Rostenkowski died at his summer home in Powers Lake, Wis., after a long battle with cancer, the Chicago Tribune reported. A onetime Washington political insider and power broker, Rostenkowski represented his Chicago 5th Congressional District in Congress for 36 years, rising to head the powerful tax-writing Ways and Means Committee that rewrote the 1986 U.S. tax code. The son of 32nd Ward Democratic Alderman Joseph Rostenkowski, Daniel was first elected to the House of Representatives in 1958 and served until scandal brought him down in 1994. He was indicted on 17 counts ranging from mail and wire fraud to obstruction of justice, including hiring ghost payrollers and maintaining political slush funds. Over at AFP , the unbylined story’s headline weirdly didn’t name Rosty, but got the D-word into the third paragraph, while doing a pretty good job of succinctly describing his political life: Powerful 18-term former US congressman dies CHICAGO — Dan Rostenkowski, a powerful legislator during the Ronald Reagan era who was elected to 18 terms in Congress before being arrested on corruption charges, died Wednesday at the age of 82. An old-style Chicago ward boss and protege of the windy city’s legendary mayor Richard J. Daley, Rostenkowski served in the House of Representatives from 1959 to 1995. As chairman of the powerful Ways and Means Committee from 1981 until 1994, the Illinois Democrat helped broker a key deal to keep the Social Security system solvent and played a major role in reforming taxes, welfare and foreign trade. He was unseated by an upstart Republican in the 1994 election after being indicted in a wide-ranging corruption case where he was accused of everything from maintaining slush funds to accepting bribes. Despite pleading guilty to two counts of mail fraud for misusing taxpayer money in 1996 and serving 15 months in jail, Rostenkowski maintained his innocence for the rest of his life. He was pardoned by outgoing President Bill Clinton just before Christmas 2000. Business-oriented Bloomberg News was the only outlet to put Rostenkowski’s party affiliation into its headline, and otherwise pulled no punches on using the D-word. As would be expected, Laurence Arnold’s story concentrated on Rosty’s involvement with tax legislation: Dan Rostenkowski, Democrat Who Steered Tax Policy, Dies at 82 Dan Rostenkowski, a product of Chicago’s fabled political machine who engineered U.S. tax policy, indulged in the perks of his job during 36 years in Congress and wound up in prison for misusing funds, has died, according to a Democratic official. He was 82. He died today at his home in Wisconsin, the official said. As chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee from 1981 to 1994, Rostenkowski was a Democratic rampart that three presidents had to navigate if they hoped to change U.S. tax laws as well as health and Social Security policies. The grandson of Polish immigrants and protégé of legendary Chicago Mayor Richard J. Daley, Rostenkowski was “big, brash and bellowing — a door slammer and, at times, a bully,” Jeffrey Birnbaum and Alan Murray wrote in “Showdown at Gucci Gulch: Lawmakers, Lobbyists and the Unlikely Triumph of Tax Reform,” an account of the Tax Reform Act of 1986. That law was Rostenkowski’s best-known achievement. He worked with Republican President Ronald Reagan and other lawmakers to lower tax rates while ending enough deductions and shelters to avoid increasing the federal budget deficit. He became something of a national celebrity for urging viewers, in a televised address, to send letters supporting tax reform to “Rosty, Washington, D.C.” Tens of thousands of letters came in that way, and for a time “Write Rosty” buttons were the rage on Capitol Hill. His long career ended in an indictment, lost reelection, conviction and prison sentence. Since Bloomberg mentioned health policy, it’s worth recalling that one of Rosty’s worst political moments related to how he wanted to “reform” Medicare. As would be expected from a Democrat, it involved taxes and higher premiums. Eventually it was kicked to the curb. That’s because as a YouTube courtesy of CBSNewsOnline shows, opposition was fierce. The video’s last few moments capture an exchange that could have come straight out the Democratic Party’s 2010 playbook: Rostenkowski (to a reporter walking alongside him as he was attempting to “escape,” i.e., avoid talking to, an angry crowd of seniors): I don’t think they understand what the government’s trying to do for them. That’s always been a problem. Reporter: Do you sympathize with their anger on this? Rostenkowski: No, I don’t think they understand what’s going on. With all due respect to the late congressman, the upset seniors knew exactly what was going on then; many more of us understand it even better now. Cross-posted at BizzyBlog.com .

See the original post:
Wire Watch: Rostenkowski Name That Party Round-up

→ Leave a comment

Posted in Hollywood, Hot Stuff, News

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

Federal Employee Union Buys Radio Ads to…Counter Limbaugh’s Criticism of Federal Worker Pay?

Posted on August 11, 2010 by Benny Hollywood| Leave a comment

“The nation’s largest federal worker union is taking to the airwaves to defend rank and file federal workers against growing anti-government sentiments,” the Washington Post’s “ Federal Eye” blogger Ed O’Keefe reported Tuesday , the same day Rush Limbaugh picked up on a USA Today story , “Federal pay tops private workers: Compensation gap doubled in decade.” O’Keefe explained: “The American Federation of Government Employees plans to spend about $200,000 to air a 60-second radio ad in more than 30 markets, including Washington and several Southern cities, according to a spokeswoman. The ad stars AFGE President John Gage and workers from the Bureau of Prisons, the Department of Veterans Affairs, and the Social Security Administration, telling listeners to ‘trust me’ as they carry out their work.” ( AFGE’s press release ) In a Wednesday afternoon post, headlined “Gov’t Employees Union to Spend $200K to Counter Rush,” DCRTV’s Dave Hughes interpreted it as an effort to counter Limbaugh: Yesterday, titanic righty talker Rush Limbaugh, heard in DC on WMAL (630 AM), slammed federal workers as being highly paid and unproductive. He said they’re pencil pushers and don’t “produce” anything real or substantial. Limbaugh pointed out that three of the nation’s richest counties are in the DC area, and it’s all because of the federal workers living there. O’Keefe’s post has a list of the 30 cities where the ad will air, “primarily on news/talk, country and sports talk radio stations in the South.” MP3 audio of the 60 second ad. The audio clip is also posted with AFGE’s press release and in O’Keefe’s post.

Read more:
Federal Employee Union Buys Radio Ads to…Counter Limbaugh’s Criticism of Federal Worker Pay?

→ Leave a comment

Posted in Hollywood, Hot Stuff, News

Tagged , , , , , , ,

Ohio Dems Try to Revive Debunked Smear Against Hannity-backed Charity

Posted on August 10, 2010 by Benny Hollywood| Leave a comment

The Democratic Party of Ohio has recycled a thoroughly debunked smear against Fox News host Sean Hannity and Freedom Alliance, a charity he works with regularly that raises money to educate the children of American servicemen. A release  from the Ohio Dems claimed that Rep. John Kasich, Republican candidate for governor, “promote[d] Hannity’s scandal-ridden ‘Freedom Alliance’ concerts that are under investigation for misappropriating charitable donations.” The Ohio Dems cited a complaint by the technically non-partisan, but ideologically liberal group Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington. CREW claimed that the charity, Freedom Alliance, had “awarded $2,147,750 in scholarships,” only half of what they spent on salaries, and a quarter of what they spent on shipping expenses, according to their complaint to the Federal Trade Commission. But this line of attack on Freedom Alliance is bogus. CREW fails to note that since most servicemen are relatively young, most of money Freedom Alliance raises is put in a trust fund until soldiers’ children are old enough to take advantage of it. Hence, while the charity raised roughly $2.1 million for scholarships in 2008 alone, according to its 990 form ( pdf ), it only spent about $800,000 that year, putting the rest into the trust. CREW’s claim that the charity only spent $2.1 million on scholarships over five years is disingenuous. While the number is technically correct, the scholarship fund contained $15,919,391 as of 2008, according to the 990 linked above, all slated to be spent on educating the children of servicemen when they reach the appropriate age. Jon Soltz, chairman of the left-wing advocacy group VoteVets.org, which according to Politico “is backing CREW,” claimed “80 to 90 percent” of funds raised should benefit veterans and their families. But there is no indicator that Soltz was referring to any funds other than the money spent directly on scholarships the year they were raised. As noted above, that number does not tell the full story. Also noted in the Democratic release is Freedom Alliance’s “F” rating from the American Institute of Philanthropy. But the release does not delve into AIP’s criteria for that grade. According to the organization’s website , top-rated charities “generally spend 75% or more of their budgets on programs, spend $25 or less to raise $100 in public support, do not hold excessive assets in reserve, and receive ‘open-book’ status for disclosure of basic financial information and documents to AIP.” Accorfing to its 990 form for 2007 (the year it got that rating, according to the release – pdf ), Freedom Alliance spent $1,011,501 on fundraising, and raised $10,762,256 in public support. That means it spent less than $10 on fundraising for each $100 it raised, well below the $25 threshold set by AIP. Of Freedom Alliance’s $7,461,350 budget that year, $6,084,474, or roughly 81.5 percent, was spent on programs. The remaining two criteria – a charity’s open-book status and the size of its reserves – are the only factors that could have earned it the “F” rating. But as discussed above, Freedom Alliance keeps massive reserves (compared to the amount it pays out annually) so that it can afford to pay for scholarships when the young children of currently twenty-something servicemen come of age (the average soldier is in his mid-twenties). So either the nature of the Freedom Alliance charity earned it the “F” rating – a completely benevolent reason – or AIP does not enjoy “open-book” status with it (or both). In any case, it hardly seems that Freedom Alliance is deserving of the “scandal-ridden” label given it in the Ohio Democrats’ release. In all, the release contains nothing more than baseless accusations against Hannity and Freedom Alliance. The Democratic Party is apparently trying to revive it in an effort to damage a political opponent. It’s a shame that Hannity and Freedom Alliance are caught in the middle of this political game.

See the article here:
Ohio Dems Try to Revive Debunked Smear Against Hannity-backed Charity

→ Leave a comment

Posted in Hollywood, Hot Stuff, News

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

CBS’s Erica Hill: GOP ‘Extreme Right;’ Dems Just Need to Alter Message ‘A Little Bit’

Posted on August 10, 2010 by Benny Hollywood| Leave a comment

During a discussion of the upcoming midterm elections on Monday’s CBS Early Show, co-host Erica Hill asked Republican strategist Kevin Madden: “…when you look at this from the Republican perspective… there is some competition from the Tea Party, from those perhaps to the extreme right…is this race Republicans to lose, and if so, what do they have to do to hold on to it?” Hill picked up the “extreme right” label from her other guest, Democratic strategist Tanya Acker, who had just ranted: “I think that it’s very evident that we’re running against a group of Republican candidates, in large part, who’ve really positioned themselves at an extreme end of the right – of the right wing, which is really where not most of the country is….what Democrats have to do is talk about what it is they’re standing for and why it is the country doesn’t want to go back to a time when, frankly, a lot of us were much worse off.” Madden responded to Hill by pointing to the left-wing agenda of the Democrats: “…independent voters…they’ve abandoned Democrats, in large part because of the spending, because of the deficits, because of a very left of center agenda….it is a very good place to be right now when you’re the alternative to a Democrat agenda.” Instead of challenging Acker on the Democrats “very left of center agenda,” Hill gently wondered: “What about the President? He’s doing a lot of fundraising, does he need to, though, work on a little bit different message or is he doing the right thing?” Acker reasserted her previous point: “…the real competition here is for the moderates, is for independents. And in order for Democrats to successfully get them back on board, they’re going to have to explain why the alternatives are far too extreme.” Hill moved on, pressing Madden on Republican policy proposals: “Kevin, in terms of a message from your end, from the Republican side, there’s been a lot of criticism, and we heard it from the President…that Republicans aren’t presenting new ideas….are they presenting their ideas, though, at this point, solidly enough?” Madden replied: “…the Democrats want to spend more, they want to grow the size of the government. We presented alternatives….we’re for smaller government, we’re for lower taxes, and we’re for less spending; and that we are the better party to lead the country in the right direction.” Here is a full transcript of the August 9 discussion: 7:08AM ET ERICA HILL: Joining us now is Republican strategist Kevin Madden, also in Washington this morning, and from Los Angeles, Democratic strategist Tanya Acker. We’re going to get a closer look at what both sides need to do in these upcoming elections from the both of you this morning. Tanya, I want to start with you. as we just heard this two-point message here, don’t go back and things would be even worse were the Democrats not in charge. Is that enough for voters at this point or does there need to be a little alteration, perhaps, of the message? TANYA ACKER: Well, I think the Democrats have to focus on getting that message out very clearly in the first instance. Because look, I think that it’s very evident that we’re running against a group of Republican candidates, in large part, who’ve really positioned themselves at an extreme end of the right – of the right wing, which is really where not most of the country is. I mean, you’re talking about candidates who want to do things like take the country back to a time before Social Security, who want to really overturn a lot of the things that – reforms that the country’s really behind. So I think the Repub – what Democrats have to do is talk about what it is they’re standing for and why it is the country doesn’t want to go back to a time when, frankly, a lot of us were much worse off. HILL: Kevin, when you – when you look at this from the Republican perspective- KEVIN MADDEN: Mm-Hm. HILL: -there are some of those messages, there is some competition from the Tea Party, from those perhaps to the extreme right, as Tanya mentioned, but essentially is this – is this race Republicans to lose and if so what do they have to do to hold on to it? MADDEN: Well, look, to Tanya’s point and to your question, I think that this race is really going to be won – I think this – these elections, these midterm elections are really going to be decided in the middle. And right now those independent voters that were a big part of the Democrats’ successful coalition by – of winning in 2008, they’ve abandoned the – the White House, and they’ve abandoned Democrats, in large part because of the spending, because of the deficits, because of a very left of center agenda. So I think where Republicans feel we have an opportunity is talking to those voters and persuading them that the Democrats have taken the country in the wrong direction. The country’s on the wrong track. That we’re spending too much money, deficits are going too high, and that we can do a better job. And right now we – we have to go out there and talk about a proactive agenda, but it is a very good place to be right now when you’re the alternative to a Democrat agenda. HILL: It’s interesting because in some ways it sounds like 2008 all over again. You talk about the moderates, there was so much talk about moderates and independents, of course, during the 2008 elections, which worked out well for the Democrats, Tanya. This time around, I know you said they need to alter the message perhaps a little bit, but what about the President? He’s doing a lot of fundraising, does he need to, though, work on a little bit different message or is he doing the right thing? ACKER: I think that right now – I mean, look we’re seeing that the President is not – is having some troubles in the polls. He’s certainly polling lower than he has at any time during his presidency, and which is not unusual for any President at this point in his term. But I think that where we’re really seeing President Obama be effective is in – is in fundraising. And in order for Democrats to get the message out there, there’s no question that they’re going to need a lot of money. Because again, as Kevin pointed out, and as you pointed out, the real competition here is for the moderates, is for independents. And in order for Democrats to successfully get them back on board, they’re going to have to explain why the alternatives are far too extreme.                  HILL: Kevin, in terms of a message from your end, from the Republican side, there’s been a lot of criticism, and we heard it from the President in Bill’s package, that Republicans aren’t presenting new ideas. I know that you – you disagree with that. MADDEN: I disagree with that, yes. HILL: But are they presenting – are they presenting their ideas, though, at this point, solidly enough? MADDEN: Yes, I – I do believe so. Look, when John Boehner handed the – the gavel to Nancy Pelosi in 2008, he said – 2006 – he said, look, we are going to be an opposition party but we are going to disagree with you on substance. And if you look at the health care debate, you look at the stimulus debate. Republicans presented the American public alternatives. They presented a vision for what they would do, where they would take the country in a different direction. And I think in large part that’s going to be where you can win in the arguments in 2010. Is that we can say, look, the Democrats want to spend more, they want to grow the size of the government. We presented alternatives. The entire – during this entire debate, that said we’re for smaller government, we’re for lower taxes, and we’re for less spending; and that we are the better party to lead the country in the right direction. HILL: Well, everyone will be trying to get their messages out, especially as we ramp up with three months to go. Tanya Acker, Kevin Madden, always good to have your insight with us. MADDEN: Great to be with you. ACKER: Good to see you. CHRIS WRAGGE: Safe to say it’s going to be an interesting November. HILL: I think we can say that, yes.

Read the original here:
CBS’s Erica Hill: GOP ‘Extreme Right;’ Dems Just Need to Alter Message ‘A Little Bit’

→ Leave a comment

Posted in Hollywood, Hot Stuff, News

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