Tag Archives: street-journal

Dutch Anti-Piracy Group, With MPAA’s Help, Able To Grab 29 US-Hosted Domains… With No Trial Or Notice

Now that the US government appears to be endorsing the idea of simply seizing domain names without notice( http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20101128/15302012021/who-needs-coica-when-homel… ) to the proprietors of those domains, it appears that others are doing the same as well. TorrentFreak reports that the Dutch anti-piracy group, BREIN, with help from the MPAA, has been able to get 29 different domain names — all hosted in the US — to point to BREIN's homepage instead( http://torrentfreak.com/mpaa-shuts-down-29-bittorrent-and-nzb-sites-101215/ ). The owners of those domains were apparently given no notice and no recourse. It sounds like most of the sites did not host any content but linked to potentially infringing content. Whether or not you believe that simply linking to potentially infringing content should be against the law, we're seeing yet another example of the simple lack of due process and how this may impact other areas. If BREIN can get US domains shut down, what's to stop other countries from doing the same thing? China doesn't like reporting by an American site about China? What's to stop it from trying to “seize” that domain? Even if we grant the idea that many of these domains were engaged in or encouraging unauthorized copying of works covered by copyright, why should BREIN and the MPAA simply get to shut them down without any sort of trial? http://torrentfreak.com/mpaa-shuts-down-29-bittorrent-and-nzb-sites-101215/ Update: TorrentFreak requested a list of the affected domains from BREIN and received this response from Tim Kuik. “No that would amount to free PR for the sites that intend to continue their unlawful activities at another hosting provider. These are not large sites and we want to keep it that way.” In response to a question about how the sites were taken offline: “The sites were taken down by the hosting provider,” said Kuik. http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20101215/11300412292/dutch-anti-piracy-group-wi… added by: toyotabedzrock

Poll: Obama Beats Any Republican in 2012

His party got hammered in the midterm election, he's taking heat for compromising with Republicans on taxes and his approval levels are hovering around 45 percent, but a new survey concludes President Obama's prospects for re-election in 2012 are fairly strong. The Wall Street Journal/NBC News poll out Thursday finds while only 42 percent of respondents say they'd probably vote for the president if he runs again, just 39 percent say they'd vote for a Republican. Ten percent say it depends who the GOP opponent is. But when you put a Republican name into the equation, the numbers change — in favor of Obama. The president leads former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney 47 to 40 percent. Sen. John Thune of South Dakota trails by 20 points, 47 to 27 percent. The president leads former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin 55 to 33 percent. NBC says that 22 percent spread is “an indication that the former Republican vice presidential nominee remains a polarizing figure who actually wins support for Mr. Obama.” The survey finds that nearly three-quarters of Americans personally like the president, even if they don't agree with his stands on the issues. Democratic pollster Peter Hart tells NBC the White House can see this poll as a pretty good review at the half-way point of his first term. “From my point of view, this poll is anything but a lump of coal in the president's Christmas stocking,” said Hart, who conducted the survey with Republican pollster Bill McInturff. “But there is a lot of work to be done.” McInturff concludes Obama “retains very strong numbers with a political core constituency.” Another poll out Thursday gauged Obama's re-election chances in eight swing states, most of which he won in 2008: Montana, Virginia, North Carolina, Missouri, Michigan, Minnesota, Wisconsin, and Ohio. The Public Policy Polling survey found the president's chances remain good in each state, with Romney the potential candidate who could put up the best fight for Republicans. added by: TimALoftis

Poll: Obama Beats Any Republican in 2012

His party got hammered in the midterm election, he's taking heat for compromising with Republicans on taxes and his approval levels are hovering around 45 percent, but a new survey concludes President Obama's prospects for re-election in 2012 are fairly strong. The Wall Street Journal/NBC News poll out Thursday finds while only 42 percent of respondents say they'd probably vote for the president if he runs again, just 39 percent say they'd vote for a Republican. Ten percent say it depends who the GOP opponent is. But when you put a Republican name into the equation, the numbers change — in favor of Obama. The president leads former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney 47 to 40 percent. Sen. John Thune of South Dakota trails by 20 points, 47 to 27 percent. The president leads former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin 55 to 33 percent. NBC says that 22 percent spread is “an indication that the former Republican vice presidential nominee remains a polarizing figure who actually wins support for Mr. Obama.” The survey finds that nearly three-quarters of Americans personally like the president, even if they don't agree with his stands on the issues. Democratic pollster Peter Hart tells NBC the White House can see this poll as a pretty good review at the half-way point of his first term. “From my point of view, this poll is anything but a lump of coal in the president's Christmas stocking,” said Hart, who conducted the survey with Republican pollster Bill McInturff. “But there is a lot of work to be done.” McInturff concludes Obama “retains very strong numbers with a political core constituency.” Another poll out Thursday gauged Obama's re-election chances in eight swing states, most of which he won in 2008: Montana, Virginia, North Carolina, Missouri, Michigan, Minnesota, Wisconsin, and Ohio. The Public Policy Polling survey found the president's chances remain good in each state, with Romney the potential candidate who could put up the best fight for Republicans. added by: TimALoftis

Joe Scarborough Says TSA Screening Controversy ‘Most Ginned-Up Story of the Year,’ But Recants Position When Guests Disagree

MSNBC's Joe Scarborough blasted protesters and opponents of the new TSA screening procedures on Wednesday's “Morning Joe,” only to recant his position on the show's next hour when he realized two panel members criticized the new checks. “I was saying this was a made-up debate – this is a real debate, I guess,” Scarborough admitted on the second hour of his show. While Scarborough and co-hosts Mika Brzezinski and Willie Geist, as well as MSNBC political analyst Harold Ford, sympathized with TSA workers and defended the new checks, two guests opposed the new search methods. Wall Street Journal columnist Peggy Noonan and New York Magazine columnist John Heilemann criticized the TSA procedures. Early in the first hour of the show, Scarborough ranted against the “opt-out” protestors who would be forgoing the body scanners at airports Wednesday to be subjected to pat-down checks, deliberately frustrating and slowing down the process on one of the busiest travel days of the year. Scarborough has recently promoted civil discourse on his show with the mantra “Keep Calm and Carry On,” but let loose at the protesters Wednesday.

Poll: 71 Percent Of Americans Still Blame Bush For The Current Economic Woes

In recent weeks, former White House adviser Karl Rove has been strongly advising President Obama to not blame President Bush for the current economic troubles, writing in his Wall Street Journal column, “it won’t work.” “For Mr. Obama and his party, all the escape hatches are shutting at the same time. Blaming Bush and harping on the GOP’s driving abilities is not a good strategy,” Rove continued. While the sincerity of any piece of counsel Rove offers to his political rivals should be suspect, especially when that prescription would help rehabilitate his own image, Rove’s latest bit of unsolicited advice also appears to be wrong. According to a new USA Today/Gallup Poll, over two-thirds of Americans still blame Bush for the economy’s woes: The 71% saying Bush should get blamed was a modest decline from the 80% who felt that way about a year ago, in July 2009. In the July 2009 poll, a third, 32%, said [Obama] should shoulder a great deal or moderate amount of the blame. That percentage has risen — no surprise, given that he’s been in office for 20 months. Now almost half, 48%, do. But 51% say he’s dealing with problems he inherited, not created, saying he deserves not much or none of the responsibility for economic problems that include high unemployment and a faltering housing market. There was, predictably, a yawning partisan divide on the question. Republicans by 4-1, 44, were more likely to give Obama a great deal of the blame than Bush. Democrats by more than 20-1 targeted Bush: They said the former president bore a great deal of the blame; just 3% said that of the current one. Indeed, as much as Bush advisers try to resurrect the legacy of their former boss, other polls have shown Americans really don’t miss Bush, while a recent survey of 238 presidential scholars rated Bush as the worst president of the modern era and among the bottom five of all time. added by: toyotabedzrock

Feingold On His Tough Re-Election Race: I Blame George Bush!

A recurring rubric at James Taranto’s Best of the Web Today column at the Wall Street Journal online, is “We Blame George W. Bush,” for tongue-in-cheek examples of the former prez being blamed for things palpably beyond his purview.  Let’s add another one to the list.  Dem senator Russ Feingold has blamed his tough re-election race on, yes, W. Let’s think about that. If Bush were such a bad president.  If his policies were so disastrous for the country. Wouldn’t that boost the chances of an incumbent Dem senator who, like Feingold, had voted against Bush policies every step along the way? Hey, I don’t try to understand Dem logic: I just report it.  Feingold made his logic-defying allegation on this evening’s Ed Show. ED SCHULTZ: Even the progressive Russ Feingold is in a real tough fight for his seat in Wisconsin.  Senator Feingold is a progressive—as progressive as you can get— he voted against the Iraq war, he voted against the Patriot Act, he voted against the Wall Street bailouts; all very strong progressive positions. But somehow we’ve gotten to the point where the less a candidate knows about Washington it seems the better off they are, and now Feingold, a guy who has always fought the good liberal fight is up against a candidate who is trying to buy the election so he can go to Washington and extend the Bush tax cuts for the rich. Senator Russ Feingold joins us tonight, here on the Ed Show. Senator, good to have you with us tonight.  You know, you have been one of the most hard-working guys out there.  You do over 70 town hall meetings a year.  What are you hearing in Wisconsin? And why are you polling below 50%? RUSS FEINGOLD: Well, this is a year of challenges because of the mess that was left us from the Bush years. Wait a second! If Bush were so awful, and you fought Bush every step of the way as Ed documented, wouldn’t that make you a winner in Wisconsin?  Could it possibly be that, now under Obama and a Dem congress, W [to quote those old Cross Your Heart commercials] is looking “suddenly shaplier”?

Excerpt from:
Feingold On His Tough Re-Election Race: I Blame George Bush!

Rachel Maddow’s Shabby Reportage on Iraq Extends to Iraq Itself

Here is how the Wall Street Journal began its lead editorial, “Victory in Iraq,” on Aug. 20 — When the men and women of Fourth Brigade, Second Infantry Division deployed to Iraq in April 2007 as part of President Bush’s surge, American soldiers were being killed or wounded at a rate of about 750 a month, the country was falling into sectarian mayhem, and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid had declared that the war was ‘lost.’ On Wednesday, the ‘Raiders’ became the last combat brigade to leave Iraq, having helped to defeat an insurgency, secure a democracy and uphold the honor of American arms. For viewers of NBC and MSNBC earlier that week, the title of Fourth Brigade, Second Infantry Division would likely have struck a chord — on Aug. 18, both networks interrupted their scheduled broadcasts with exclusive live coverage of the brigade crossing the border into Kuwait, the last US combat brigade to leave Iraq. The two networks’ coverage went far beyond that, however. NBC’s chief foreign correspondent, Richard Engel, was embedded with the brigade as it left Iraq while MSNBC cable show host Rachel Maddow weighed in from Baghdad. Maddow remained in Iraq for the rest of the week, broadcasting four hours of her show from there, an hour more than usual. Yet through all that coverage, much of it focused on this specific combat brigade’s departure from Iraq, at no time did Maddow (nor any of her NBC/MSNBC colleagues appearing on her show) mention when the brigade went to Iraq — in April 2007, at the start of the much-maligned surge that was surely doomed to fail. Or so we were repeatedly told. Not that Maddow was obligated to mention the surge in her lede, as it were, as did the Wall Street Journal (on the opposite side of the political divide) in its editorial. But surely she could have cited it even once during her three days in Baghdad. Then there was Maddow’s arch retelling of recent Iraqi history (first part of embedded video) — The history of Iraq for the last generation is, Saddam taking power, a decade of the war with Iran, where we took Iraq’s side, then the first American war, then a decade of sanctions, then the second American war, toppling Saddam, presiding over a civil war, and now there’s us leaving. After all that, good luck! Hope it all works out for you guys! I was reminded of this specific Maddow revisionism while watching her show on Wednesday, when she began a segment claiming this (second part of video) — I am a crier. Some people cry at the sound of Harry Chapin’s ‘Cat’s in the Cradle,’ others at ‘Old Yeller’ or the end of ‘Where the Red Fern Grows’ where Billy visits his dogs’ graves. I cry at those things too. But the one surefire way to see tears streaming down these cheeks is a live rendition of our nation’s national anthem. It doesn’t matter if it’s a baseball game or an ad for a pickup truck or, God forbid, a busker on the subway, it’s just one of those things, some people like me are hard-wired to sob by the time the broad stripes and bright stars are so gallantly streaming. How noble indeed. More people might believe this if Maddow were not so willing to imply moral equivalence between the butchery of Saddam’s totalitarian regime and American efforts to thwart his lawlessness after Iraq invaded Kuwait in 1990. At the end of her stint in Baghdad, Maddow reported from the home of a “working class, poor Shiite family” (third and final part of video) — … and they’ve agreed to talk with me a little bit about, you know, what everybody likes to talk about over dinner — politics, war and George Bush. … followed by Bush not coming up in the discussion, as can be seen in the segment in its entirety on Maddow’s MSNBC site. Here was an infrequent example of something on Maddow’s show that piqued my interest — what would a “working class, poor Shiite family” in Baghdad say about George W. Bush? One safely assumes from the fact Maddow is teasing this that the Iraqis will excoriate Bush. But if they did, it somehow didn’t make it into the segment that ran. Most likely scenario — Maddow said this before the interview when she intended to ask her Iraqi hosts about Bush, followed by her forgetting to do so and them not mentioning him. Another scenario that can’t be ruled out — any of the Iraqis praising Bush, thereby ensuring that such blasphemy would not be heard by Americans watching MSNBC.

Originally posted here:
Rachel Maddow’s Shabby Reportage on Iraq Extends to Iraq Itself

NYT Editorial Board Calls Successful Tea Party Candidates ‘Insurgents’

The New York Times editorial board on Thursday called successful Tea Party candidates insurgents. For those not intimately familiar with the term, despite having several meanings, it has in the years since 9/11 become largely synonymous with terrorists. With that in mind, the imagery in ” The Wrong Kind of Enthusiasm ” was unmistakable:  Republican insurgents from the far right did well in Tuesday’s primaries. What their campaigns lack in logic, compassion and sensible policy seems to be counterbalanced by a fiercely committed voter base that is nowhere to be seen on the Democratic side. In fairness, there are two meanings to insurgent: 1. a person who rises in forcible opposition to lawful authority, esp. a person who engages in armed resistance to a government or to the execution of its laws; rebel. 2. a member of a section of a political party that revolts against the methods or policies of the party.   On cross-examination, the authors might make the case that their intent was to depict these illogical, compassionless and senseless conservatives as the latter. But the imagery and implication throughout was clearly to brand these “insurgents” as something far worse:   In Alaska, Joe Miller, a little-known lawyer from Fairbanks, has a lead for the G.O.P. Senate nomination over Lisa Murkowski, the incumbent. The race is too close to call, but Mr. Miller’s possible victory shows the power of his mentor, Sarah Palin, and the misguided popularity of his anti-immigrant, pro-gun message. Among other dubious positions, he has questioned the constitutionality of unemployment benefits. Then, the Times predictably took sides: The good news is that the anti-immigrant message may not play as well in Florida in the general election. Good news? Good news for whom? Certainly not the overwhelming majority of Americans that support Arizona’s new immigration law. But the Times wasn’t done displaying its deplorable biases, for even a victory by a moderate mainstream candidate left a sour taste: Insurgents did not triumph everywhere. In Arizona, Senator John McCain easily fended off a challenge by a former congressman, J. D. Hayworth. But he did so by throwing his principles overboard. Gone was the stalwart voice for campaign finance reform and a humane, bipartisan overhaul of immigration laws. In his place was a man calling himself “Arizona’s last line of defense,” strutting along the Mexican border in a campaign ad, telling a county sheriff that all we had to do to fix immigration was “complete the danged fence.” Yes, McCain is the Times’ darling when he tacks far-left to help pass legislation that makes conservatives sick. But defending Arizona’s border is “throwing his principles overboard.” Not surprisingly, a good Republican to these shills is really one with no principles at all.  Disgracefully, this editorial ended with more terrorist imagery: Much of the G.O.P’s fervid populist energy has been churned up by playing on some people’s fears of Hispanics and Muslims, by painting the president as a dangerous radical, by distorting the truth about the causes of the recession. Far too many Republican leaders have eagerly fed that destructive anger. Yes, the desire of the majority of Americans to defend the borders from illegal immigrants while doing everything possible to prevent another terrorist attack is “destructive anger.” Makes you wonder if former President Jimmy Carter is heading up the Times editorial board. But the larger point is that the Obama-loving liberal media are in a full state of panic about Democrat prospects in the upcoming elections. As such, the goal now is to paint every GOP candidate as too scary to hold political office.  That even the formerly lovable McCain, who has been in Congress since 1983 and is currently one of the most moderate Republicans up for re-election, is being depicted as equally frightening should clue readers in to just how far the Times is willing to go to help Democrats this cycle. Ironically, as this editorial board clearly is way on the wrong side of public opinion concerning the issues herein addressed, aren’t they behaving like insurgents rather than the objects of their disaffection? The only question is whether their actions fall under definition one or two. We’ll let you decide that.

Go here to see the original:
NYT Editorial Board Calls Successful Tea Party Candidates ‘Insurgents’

Chris Cuomo: Christians Shouldn’t Condemn Jihad Because of Crusades

Is it a case of removing the plank from your own eye before removing the speck from your brothers – or political correctness run amok? In a tweet Aug. 26 , ABC “20/20” anchor Chris Cuomo told his 987,000 followers not to condemn Muslim violence because other religions have perpetrated violence in the past. “To all my christian brothers and sisters, especially catholics – before u condemn muslims for violence, remember the crusades….study them,” Cuomo tweeted around 9:30 am. So does past violence justify modern violence? If so, maybe Cuomo should take his own advice and study the Crusades. Even a brief study would reveal a much more complicated situation than Cuomo’s tweet suggests about who struck first. Historians, including professor and author Bernard Lewis, have noted that the Crusades were in fact a response to jihad. “The Crusades could more accurately be described as a limited, belated and, in the last analysis, ineffectual response to the jihad – a failed attempt to recover by a Christian holy war what had been lost to a Muslim holy war,” Lewis wrote in the Wall Street Journal shortly after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks. One of Cuomo’s Twitter followers, magoluv69, pointed out that “by the time the Crusades began Muslim armies had conquered almost 2/3 of Christian world. Neither just.” Cuomo responded that he is “not sure how pointing out Muslim wrongs erases Christian wrongs.” So pointing out Muslim wrongs doesn’t erase Christian wrongs – but pointing out Christian wrongs justifies Muslim wrongs? Author Andrew Bostom noted that the comparison of jihad to the Crusades is not be apples-to-apples anyway. “The jihad is intrinsic to the sacred Muslim texts, including the divine Qur’anic revelation itself, whereas the Crusades were circumscribed historical events subjected to (ongoing and meaningful) criticism by Christians themselves.” 

Go here to read the rest:
Chris Cuomo: Christians Shouldn’t Condemn Jihad Because of Crusades

Blast from Past: Dick Cavett ‘Genuinely Ashamed’ of Americans for Opposing the Mosque

In Monday’s “Best of the Web Today” compilation , the Wall Street Journal’s James Taranto highlighted a New York Times online column posted Friday, from “superannuated erstwhile TV host Dick Cavett,” who “reports that the mosque controversy brought back childhood memories.” Cavett recalled World War II when he “heard an uncle of mine endorse a sentiment attributed to our Admiral ‘Bull’ Halsey: ‘If I met a pregnant Japanese woman, I’d kick her in the belly.’”          In the post provocatively titled “ Real Americans, Please Stand Up ,” as if those who disagree with him are not “real” Americans – at least they aren’t to the New York Times editors — Cavett then equated feticide with peaceful opposition to the mosque near Ground Zero: These are not proud moments in my heritage. But now, I’m genuinely ashamed of us. How sad this whole mosque business is. It doesn’t take much, it seems, to lift the lid and let our home-grown racism and bigotry overflow. We have collectively taken a pratfall on a moral whoopee cushion. Later he denigrated mosque critics as he derided “airborne sludge” from Rush Limbaugh: A heyday is being had by a posse of the cheesiest Republican politicos (Lazio, Palin, quick-change artist  John McCain and, of course, the self-anointed St. Joan of 9/11, R. Giuliani). Balanced, of course by plenty of cheesy Democrats. And of course Rush L. dependably pollutes the atmosphere with his particular brand of airborne sludge.

See the rest here:
Blast from Past: Dick Cavett ‘Genuinely Ashamed’ of Americans for Opposing the Mosque