Tag Archives: times

Kelly Osbourne Slim Figure

“Ever since Dancing with the Stars, I’ve tried to get in at least a half hour of cardio a day–nothing too crazy,” Kelly Osbourne tells us. Kelly Osbourne, 25, hit the Emmy Awards red carpet on Sunday looking slimmer than ever in a black, form-fitting Tony Ward gown. What’s the secret to her new sleek physique? “My trainer Sarah Hagaman is amazing! She knows how to motivate me to go that extra bit without frustrating me.” The actress—who hits up Hagaman’s Blue Clay Fitness gym four times

Original post:
Kelly Osbourne Slim Figure

CBS Uses Opposition to Ground Zero Mosque to Lecture About ‘America Becoming Islamophobic’

“A CBS News poll out tonight finds that seven of ten [71%] Americans oppose building a mosque two blocks from Ground Zero,” fill-in CBS Evening News anchor Jeff Glor announced Wednesday night, but instead of exploring why most think it’s inappropriate to build there, Glor pivoted to how that and “controversies over new mosques in Wisconsin and Kentucky have led some to question is America becoming Islamophobic, a prejudice against Muslims?” Those “some” started with the wife of the iman behind the Ground Zero mosque, Daisy Khan, who charged on ABC’s This Week, in what is becoming TV’s favorite soundbite of the week: “It’s not even Islamophobia, it’s beyond Islamophobia, it’s hate of Muslims. And we are deeply concerned.” Glor first went to how “police say anti-Islamic sentiment turned violent,” proven by a single New York City incident, as a “21-year-old man is in police custody tonight charged with attempted murder. Police say he attacked a cab driver after asking if he was a Muslim.” Glor warned “that alleged hate crime took place in the shadow of a heated and divisive debate over whether a mosque should be built near Ground Zero.” Highlighting a Time magazine poll which found “46 percent believe the Islamic religion is more likely than other religions to encourage violence against nonbelievers,” Glor wondered: “Why?” Maybe it has something to do with how the terrorists who committed the 9/11 atrocities and others since are Muslim. A university professor answered Glor’s set-up with the obvious: “Incidents like the Times Square Bomber or the Fort Hood gunman certainly should be expected to amplify people’s anxieties.” Monday night: “ ABC Works to Rehabilitate Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf’s Reputation After Pining for George W. Bush .” Sunday: “ Amanpour on One-Sided This Week: ‘Profound Questions About Religious Tolerance and Prejudice in the U.S .’” From the Wednesday, August 25 CBS Evening News, transcript provided by the MRC’s Brad Wilmouth: JEFF GLOR: In this country, it’s become the subject of a red-hot national debate, those plans to build an Islamic center, including a mosque, two blocks from Ground Zero. A CBS News poll out tonight finds that seven of ten Americans oppose building a mosque there. Our poll also found only 24 percent of Americans have a favorable impression of Islam, 39 percent unfavorable. Supporters of the Islamic center gathered near Ground Zero again today, but, in a different part of Manhattan last night, police say anti-Islamic sentiment turned violent. In New York City, this 21-year-old man is in police custody tonight charged with attempted murder. Police say he attacked a cab driver after asking if he was a Muslim. RAYMOND KELLY, NYPD COMMISSIONER: He said, “Asalaam Alaikum,” and then began to stab the driver. GLOR: That alleged hate crime took place in the shadow of a heated and divisive debate over whether a mosque should be built near Ground Zero. It’s not just protesting near Ground Zero –  the sentiment against building new mosques has reached from New York’s Staten Island 15 miles away to Tennessee where a debate over a proposed mosque near Nashville has raged all summer. UNIDENTIFIED WOMAN: It’s not about religion, it’s about stopping Tennessee homegrown terrorists. GLOR: Other controversies over new mosques in Wisconsin and Kentucky have led some to question is America becoming Islamophobic, a prejudice against Muslims? DAISY KHAN, ON ABC’S THIS WEEK: It’s not even Islamophobia, it’s beyond Islamophobia, it’s hate of Muslims. And we are deeply concerned. GLOR: A recent Time magazine poll found that 43 percent of Americans hold unfavorable views of Muslims, and 46 percent believe the Islamic religion is more likely than other religions to encourage violence against nonbelievers. Why? RICHARD LLOYD, VANDERBILT UNIVERSITY: Incidents like the Times Square Bomber or the Fort Hood gunman certainly should be expected to amplify people’s anxieties. GLOR: In this election season, politics is driving the argument as well. NEWT GINGRICH, FORMER HOUSE SPEAKER: Nazis don’t have the right to put up a sign next to the Holocaust Museum. GLOR: It’s become a wedge issue in campaigns from North Carolina to New York. RICK LAZIO, NEW YORK REPUBLICAN GUBERNATORIAL CANDIDATE, IN AD: We don’t need silence now, we need leadership. GLOR: But with nearly seven million Muslims and more than 1,200 mosques already in America, Muslim leaders say that fear is unnecessary. MOHAMMAD SHAMSI ALI, ISLAMIC CULTURAL CENTER: I’m very sad because we know that America is the most tolerant country in the world. GLOR: In New York, many 9/11 families insist their opposition doesn’t make them Islamophobic, they’re just trying to heal. KEN FAIRBEN, FATHER OF 9/11 VICTIM: I feel strongly about it. The mosque, I understand their religious beliefs, I understand they should have a place to pray, an educational center. I have no problems with that whatsoever. But not there. Definitely not there. GLOR: A city commission gave final approval to the Islamic center and mosque earlier this month. Opponents vow to continue their fight in court.

Read more:
CBS Uses Opposition to Ground Zero Mosque to Lecture About ‘America Becoming Islamophobic’

All the Girls In New York Will Soon Look Like Elaine from Seinfeld [Fashion]

This is what the New York Times fashion brigade is saying this morning, anyway. You know how fashion trends repeat themselves every twenty years? Well brace yourselves, because — shudder — we’re heading into the ’90s. First stop: Elaine. More

Joe Scarborough Bashes Newt Gingrich’s Position on Ground Zero Mosque

Joe Scarborough on Monday bashed former House Speaker Newt Gingrich for saying the building of the Ground Zero mosque would be like putting a Nazi sign next to the Holocaust Museum. Scarborough was responding to the following from Sunday’s New York Times: Mr. Gingrich said the proposed mosque would be a symbol of Muslim “triumphalism” and that building the mosque near the site of the Sept. 11 attacks “would be like putting a Nazi sign next to the Holocaust Museum.” The next day on MSNBC’s “Morning Joe,” Scarborough let Gingrich have it: JOE SCARBOROUGH, HOST: When I was in Congress in 1994, when I got elected in ’94, I was considered to be one of the more conservative guys up there. I was a right-wing nut job and crazy this and crazy that. So far right and yet despite the fact 14 years later, 16 years later, I still have the same views on taxes. I still have the same views on small government. I still have the same views on military. I still have the same views everywhere. I am feeling further and further distant from the people who are running my party and never more distant than this morning when I wake up to read what Newt Gingrich, a guy who’s leading in a lot of presidential preference polls across the country said this to say, had this to say about the First Amendment. “There’s nothing surprising in the President’s continued pandering to radical Islam. What he said last night is untrue and accurate.” And then he went on to say “this would be like putting a Nazi sign next to the Holocaust Museum.” Mark, I don’t know where to begin. To suggest that someone trying to build a, a tolerance center for moderate Muslims in New York is the equivalent of killing six million Jews is stunning to me. To begin with, where does Scarborough get off claiming this is a “tolerance center for moderate Muslims?” The Imam behind the mosque, Feisal Abdul Rauf, is anything but moderate .   Beyond this, the Times piece included edited snippets from remarks made by Gingrich without letting readers know where and when the comments were made. What came before and after this excerpted sentence that Scarborough found so offensive? In a post-Shirley Sherrod world, shouldn’t commentators be careful about expressing an opinion about excerpted comments? Isn’t this especially true for a so-called conservative reading excerpts printed in the New York Times? For instance, Gingrich said the following on “Fox & Friends” this Monday morning providing a little more context to these twelve words: GINGRICH: This happens all the time in America. Nazis don’t have the right to put up a sign next to the Holocaust Museum in Washington. We would never accept the Japanese putting up a site next to Pearl Harbor. There’s no reason for us to accept a mosque next to the World Trade Center.  Much less offensive in that context, correct? After all, Gingrich’s point Monday – and what the majority of Americans are expressing in polls about this subject – is that Ground Zero represents hallowed ground where thousands of our citizens were killed by radical Islamists. As such, allowing a radical Islamic Imam to build a mosque near Ground Zero in Gingrich’s view would be akin to us allowing the Japanese to put up a site near Pearl Harbor or Nazis putting up a sign near the Holocaust Museum. In that context, what Gingrich said is by no means as offensive as what Scarborough claimed, and he should know better than to assume the twelve words cited by the Times stood by themselves without anything before or after that could result in them being far less caustic.  When so-called conservatives begin bashing members of their own Party because of something written in the New York Times, their judgment is going to be questioned – and with good reason.  

Follow this link:
Joe Scarborough Bashes Newt Gingrich’s Position on Ground Zero Mosque

Maureen Dowd Hysterically Claims MSNBC Is Tearing Down Obama

New York Times columnist Maureen Dowd said Sunday MSNBC is tearing down President Obama. More amazing than that, she was actually serious. In her ” No Love From The Lefties ,” Dowd bashed “progressives” for not staying on the President’s bandwagon. This includes MSNBC who she hysterically claimed “is trying to make its reputation by tearing down [Obama]”: One of the most disgusting things about Mitch McConnell and Jon Kyl, and now the former maverick John McCain, is that they are happy to be co-opted by the radicals in their party to form one movement against President Obama. On the Republican side, the crazies often end up helping the Republican leadership. On the Democratic side, the radicals are constantly sniping at Obama, expressing their feelings of betrayal. Fox built up a Republican president; MSNBC is trying to make its reputation by tearing down a Democratic one. Assuming you haven’t passed out from lack of oxygen during an uncontrollable fit of laughter, there’s more: The lefties came to the defense of the centrist Clinton during impeachment. Now that Obama is under attack, however, they are not coming to his defense, even though he has given more to the liberal cause than the scandal-stunted Clinton ultimately achieved. He has shepherded the biggest expansion of social programs since the Great Society and spearheaded the biggest spending program with the stimulus. But for the left (and for some economists), it was not as big as it ought to have been. Most telling was that Dowd earlier in the piece mentioned “Michael Kinsley’s maxim that a gaffe is just truth slipping out” for the Times columnist was certainly letting her readers in on just how far she’s willing to shill for the President she helped get elected. More importantly, she will publicly scold her colleagues if necessary. After all, MSNBC is still a devout Obama and Democrat supporter along with a unabashed conservative basher. That some of its hosts have on occasion in the past year expressed disappointment with the President by no means qualifies the network as tearing him down. Dowd herself has surprisingly addressed her own concerns for the current White House resident. In June, she wrote about him being “thin-skinned and controlling.” She even scolded, “Like many Democrats, he thinks the press is supposed to be on his side.” Is she the only liberal media member allowed to do so in her view, or are his plummeting poll numbers and a dismal midterm election cycle ahead changing Dowd’s mind about she and her ilk ever being honest when it comes to this President? 

See the rest here:
Maureen Dowd Hysterically Claims MSNBC Is Tearing Down Obama

Is Zero-Waste Fashion Penetrating the Mainstream?

Loomstate’s Scott Mackinlay Hahn (center) with a five-pocket jean pattern. Photo: Fred R. Conrad/The New York Times About 15 to 20 percent of fabric used to produce clothing ends up in the nation’s landfills. Pioneers behind zero-waste fashion have a solution: designing clothing patterns that uses every inch of fabric; if it sounds easy, it’s not. The

Original post:
Is Zero-Waste Fashion Penetrating the Mainstream?

Rained Out: DC CBS Affiliate Preempts Evening News With Storm Coverage

On Thursday, instead of showing the CBS Evening News with Katie Couric, the network’s Washington DC affiliate, WUSA-TV, decided to continue with live storm coverage. The last time the CBS broadcast was preempted by local coverage occurred during the massive winter blizzards, which buried the region in a few feet of snow. The Evening News has consistently ranked third among the network evening newscasts during Couric’s tenure. During the week of August 2 , the Evening News was around 2 million viewers behind competitors ABC Worlds News with Diane Sawyer and NBC Nightly News with Brian Williams. Couric is about to mark her 4th anniversary in the anchor chair. —Kyle Drennen is a news analyst at the Media Research Center. You can follow him on Twitter here.

Link:
Rained Out: DC CBS Affiliate Preempts Evening News With Storm Coverage

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

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

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

When a Tree Falls in the Woods: Giant Trees That Have Left a Mark (Slideshow)

Image credit: °Florian /Flickr Trees provide shelter, anchor the soil against erosion, and process carbon . And, when a tree falls, whether there is a person to see it or not, it leaves a clear mark on the landscape. Sometimes, it becomes a quiet foundation for new life. Other times, it causes damage.

Go here to read the rest:
When a Tree Falls in the Woods: Giant Trees That Have Left a Mark (Slideshow)

Sloppy Reporting as Symbol Of Why Getting Climate Legislation Passed Has Been So Tough

photo: Jason Kuffer via flickr Referring to the newly-formed iceberg four times the size of Manhattan which broke from Greenland over the weekend, John Rudolf over at the New York Times writes, in a piece titled Iceberg as a Metaphor for Inaction , 
”Despite the scientific uncertainty, Mr Markey used the image of the ice island as a logjam of Republican opposition to climate change legislation… Read the full story on TreeHugger

Read more:
Sloppy Reporting as Symbol Of Why Getting Climate Legislation Passed Has Been So Tough