Tag Archives: words

Wildest Larry O’Donnell Tirades: 9/11 Was Bush’s Fault, Trashes Vietnam Vet as ‘Creepy Liar’

Prior to tonight’s debut of Lawrence O’Donnell’s new show, The Last Word, MSNBC has been running promos where O’Donnell proclaims how much “political pressure there is on everyone involved” in governing decisions and that it leaves him “respecting every one who steps into that room to do that,” adding he’s “gonna disagree with some of those people” but will always “respect the strength it takes to go on in there.” Well “respect” was the last thing O’Donnell displayed to a couple of guests that appeared with him on various MSNBC programs. Back on the February 12 edition of Morning Joe, he was such was in such a rage against former George W. Bush speechwriter Marc Thiessen, going as far as to blame that administration for the 9/11 attacks, host Joe Scarborough actually had to call the proverbial whistle on him and stop the program, to let him cool down. However, when they got back from a commercial break O’Donnell launched into yet another tirade as he called Thiessen a “torture-monger.” (video below the fold) Perhaps O’Donnell’s worst performance came on the October 22, 2004 edition of Scarborough Country when he want lashed out against Vietnam veteran John O’Neill of the Swiftboat Veterans for Truth for daring to challenge then presidential candidate John Kerry’s veracity, as he repeatedly called him a “liar” and charged he did nothing to stop the war. The following are transcripts of those unhinged attacks by O’Donnell: First up O’Donnell’s rants against Thiessen on the February 12, Morning Joe: O’DONNELL: You as a former speechwriter in the White House, you took an oath of office, when you took that job, that you might or might not remember. You actually published a book that says that the President of the United States, on its title, the President is inviting the next attack. Isn’t it true that the President you worked for invited the first attack, by having no idea what was going on with al Qaeda. You just admitted that when you were hit on 9/11, you just said, “We didn’t know who hit us.” You said, “We didn’t know who hit us.” You were told who was going to hit you before we were hit on 9/11. Your administration invited the first attack, for which you should live in shame! MARC THIESSEN: Lawrence, Lawrence, Lawrence. JOE SCARBOROUGH: Go! THIESSEN: Listen here’s the record. When the, when the, when the Obama administration approach, the law enforcement approach was first working the 1993 World Trade Center bombing. The bombing of the USS Cole, the bombing of our embassies in… O’DONNELL: Talk about the Bush presidency from the day he was sworn in! THIESSEN: …and, and, and the 9/11 attacks. (CROSSTALK) SCARBOROUGH CUTTING IN: We’re, we’re going to break right now! We’re, we’re going to break right now. We’ll be right back and I’ll be interviewing Marc by myself. We’ll be right back. … SCARBOROUGH COMING BACK FROM BREAK: So here we go. Lawrence you have 30 seconds and then Marc gets a response. Ready? Go! O’DONNELL: Marc I’m wondering about your own personal experience with torture. I know you grew up in the richest zip code in America, in the upper East Side. You went to the only boarding school in Connecticut that I know of that has a golf course as well as two skating rinks. THIESSEN: Oh my goodness…opposition research. O’DONNELL: And then you went to Vassar and of course like all the torture-mongers in the White House, the Cheney family included, you never served a day in the military. Never considered that. THIESSEN: What does that prove Lawrence? O’DONNELL: Well I’m wondering with that background what is it that gives you an expertise on torture? What makes you love it so much? Now to O’Donnell’s, October 22, 2004 Scarborough Country, rampage against Vietnam veteran John O’Neill for his part in the Swiftboat Veterans for Truth: PAT BUCHANAN: Al lright, let me ask you, Lawrence O’Donnell, I mean is this, clearly, Kerry has expressed anger about these ads. And he said later, “I should have answered them earlier in August, and we didn’t do it, and they clearly hurt.” But Max Cleland was very public. He went down to Crawford, Texas, to the ranch. Why has Kerry not only ignored the ads, but almost dropped all references? You know, at the convention, it was the convention, “John Kerry, reporting for duty.” Why has he dropped all of that now? Are they just trying to sweep that aside or what?  LAWRENCE O’DONNELL, MSNBC SR. POLITICAL ANALYST: Well, let’s get back to the truth. The fact of the matter is that John O’Neill on MSNBC had to face—debate an argument with Kerry’s bands of brothers people who served with him in Vietnam and knew him well, and plenty of the people who served on that boat with him have come on MSNBC and other networks and refuted much of what’s in that book. And then John O’Neill’s own sources, like Larry Thurlow, turned out to be nuts. He turned out to claim in John O’Neill’s book—and Pat Buchanan and I have both written nonfiction books, and we write them to a very high standard, not this O’Neill standard, where he never tells you in his book that Thurlow got a Bronze Star for the same thing that Kerry got a Bronze Star for, the same encounter with the enemy. And that citation says that there was enemy fire. And the guy, and this Thurlow, who received this Bronze Star, wants us to believe that 35 years had passed and he had never read the words on his own citation. It’s one of the many lies that the book advances. To me, the most interesting lie, John O’Neill, that I would submit to you that you should answer is, you make a lying claim that John Kerry’s anti-war activity prolonged the amount of time that prisoners of war were held in Vietnam. You know the truth is what got them out of Vietnam was ending the war. You know the truth is that John Kerry helped end that war sooner through the protests. And I’d like to ask you, John O’Neill, when you got back from Vietnam, what did you do to save a single life that you left behind in Vietnam? What did you do to get the American soldiers out of Vietnam?  (CROSSTALK) BUCHANAN: Hold it. Okay go ahead, John O’Neill. JOHN O’NEILL, AUTHOR, UNFIT FOR COMMAND: I’d like to respond. First of all, Larry, I don’t think there’s a thing you said that wasn’t a lie in everything you just said. To start off with, with respect to John Kerry, John Kerry’s anti-war activities didn’t get any POWs home. The Treaty of Paris got the POWs home.  (CROSSTALK) O’DONNELL: Ending the war, ending the war which you didn’t do a thing to do. You didn’t have the courage to lift a finger against it. (CROSSTALK) BUCHANAN: Look, he has got a right to respond. I was in the White House at the time. Nixon had brought half the troops home by the time Kerry made his protest. Go ahead, John O’Neill. O’NEILL: What actually happened, Kerry wanted to abandon ship and leave the POWs there.  We negotiated a treaty that brought them home. That’s why they’re all here. If Kerry had helped them out, they wouldn’t be in that photograph with us. Kerry’s a guy they’ll never forget. He wanted to leave them behind. (CROSSTALK) O’DONNELL: That’s a lie, John O’Neill. Keep lying. It’s all you do. BUCHANAN: Hold it, John O’Neill. How do you justify the—how do you justify the statement you just made that Kerry wanted to leave the POWs behind?  O’DONNELL: Lies. He doesn’t justify anything. BUCHANAN: Where did he do that?  O’NEILL: On the Dick Cavett show and elsewhere, John Kerry’s position was that we should accept the Madame Binh seven-point proposal, which called for unilateral withdrawal, setting a date after which at some future time, we’d negotiate the return of the POWs. So we would set a date. We would withdraw and then we would begin to discuss how to bring them home. That would have never worked. Our position was, you had to have a deal where the POWs came home. The POWs know that. This is like trying to claim—that’s why they’re all with us, because he would have let them rot in jails. (CROSSTALK) O’NEILL: With respect to the rest of what you said, Larry- (CROSSTALK) O’DONNELL: What did you do to get them out? What did you do to end the war? What did you do to get them out? What did you do to end the war? You didn’t lift a finger. O’NEILL: Oh, you’re wrong. You’re exactly wrong, Larry.  First of all, I spent 12 months there.  I wasn’t a fake who spent three months, like John Kerry. O’DONNELL: What did you do to end the war, not what you did to fight it? What did you do to end it?! … BUCHANAN: Tell me, tell me John, about—did not the citation Thurlow got say that they were taking fire? O’NEILL: It said under fire. That’s true. It was based upon Kerry’s own after-action report. O’DONNELL: That’s a lie. It’s another lie. That’s a lie. O’NEILL: Which said there had been 5,000 meters of fire.  O’DONNELL: Absolutely lie. (CROSSTALK) O’DONNELL: You lie in that book endlessly claiming that reports belonged to Kerry that don’t have his name on it, John O’Neill. You lie about documents endlessly. His name is not on the reports. You’re just lying about it.  (CROSSTALK) O’DONNELL: And you lied about Thurlow’s Bronze Star. You lied about it as long as you could until the New York Times found the wording of what was on the citation that you, as a lying writer, refused to put in your pack-of-lies book! (CROSSTALK) O’DONNELL: Disgusting, lying book! BUCHANAN:  John, let me ask you this. O’NEILL: And you, Larry, are a professional liar.  (CROSSTALK) O’DONNELL: You have no standards, John O’Neill, as an author. And you know it. It’s a pack of lies! You are unfit to publish!  (CROSSTALK) O’NEILL: There are 254 of us, Larry. It’s a little hard to call us all liars.  BUCHANAN: All right, John O’Neill, let me ask you a quick question. How do you know for certain that John Kerry wrote the after-action report that said the boats were under fire?  O’NEILL: It has been tracked down specifically in… O’DONNELL: Lie! (CROSSTALK) BUCHANAN: Oh, let him talk. (CROSSTALK) O’DONNELL: He just lies. He just spews out lies. (CROSSTALK) O’DONNELL: Point to his name on the report, you liar! Point to his name, you liar! These are military records. Point to a name! (CROSSTALK) O’NEILL: I will, if you’ll shut up, Larry. You can’t just scream everybody down. (CROSSTALK) O’DONNELL: There’s no name. You just spew lies!  (CROSSTALK) O’NEILL: -let everybody talk, isn’t- (CROSSTALK) BUCHANAN: Look, Lawrence, take it easy. You’ve made your point. We’re going to take a break. We’re going to give John O’Neill a chance to answer that when we come back. We’ll continue this discussion after the break. … BUCHANAN: Welcome back. We’re talking with the author of “Unfit For Command,” John O’Neill, and Lawrence O’Donnell is with me here in the studio Washington. We have an e-mail, Lawrence, that says: “Why is Mr. O’Donnell so angry? In fact, why are Democrats so angry?  If they don’t calm themselves down, they’re going to have a heart attack.” O’DONNELL: I just hate the lies of John O‘Neill.  (CROSSTALK)  O’DONNELL: I hate lies. BUCHANAN: I know. Now, you’ve argued that these are lies, but let me suggest… O’DONNELL: It’s not an argument. They’re proven lies. Every single journalistic look at this book has ripped it apart, left it in shreds. O’Neill is a liar. He’s been a liar for 35 years about this.  And he found other liars to… … O’NEILL: Can I say one thing? BUCHANAN: John O’Neill, go ahead, John. O’NEILL: Pat, Mr. O’Donnell has certainly shown he has a good pair of lungs. But to try and return a little bit to just basic information, you asked the question, how do we know the report was written by Kerry? The first way we know that is that the other four officers that day, all four of them, say Kerry wrote it. The second way we know it is the journalist Tom Lipscomb tracked the report to a Coast Guard cutter and proved that the only one on the cutter to write the report was John Kerry. Third, the report is compatible with John Kerry’s account, which as late as the Democratic Convention. O’DONNELL: What are the initials on the report? What are the initials on the report? What are the initials? (CROSSTALK) BUCHANAN: Let him finish, Lawrence. (CROSSTALK) O’DONNELL: Lies. O’NEILL: Mr. O’Donnell, this is what you all did to the POWs.  (CROSSTALK) O’DONNELL: Just tell me the initials, you liar, creepy liar. O’NEILL: You’re afraid of the American people getting the truth. That’s why you scream and you yell.

See the original post here:
Wildest Larry O’Donnell Tirades: 9/11 Was Bush’s Fault, Trashes Vietnam Vet as ‘Creepy Liar’

French Minister Confuses Fellatio and Inflation

France's ex-justice minister Rachida Dati mixed up the words “fellatio” and “inflation” – which sound similar in French – during a TV interview. She told Canal Plus: “I see some [foreign investment funds] looking for returns of 20 or 25% at a time when fellatio is close to zero.” added by: Progresshiv

Mos Def Signs With Kanye West’s G.O.O.D. Music

Seasoned Brooklyn MC and ‘Lord, Lord, Lord’ collaborator confirms he’s joining Yeezy’s label in latest issue of XXL. By Vanessa Denis Mos Def Photo: Jeffrey Ufberg/ Getty Images Kanye West has expanded his roster again, and like the most recent addition to his G.O.O.D. Music label, Pusha T, the new signing is another familiar face: seasoned hip-hop favorite Mos Def . The Brooklyn MC and West talk about the deal and break down their musical relationship in the October issue of XXL, which comes out on Tuesday and features a Kanye cover story. And Mos Def makes an appearance on West’s G.O.O.D. Friday single “Lord, Lord, Lord,” along with Swizz Beatz, Raekwon and singer Charlie Wilson. Mos’ decision to join G.O.O.D. Music follows the release of his last album, The Ecstatic, on indie label Downtown Records in 2009. The rapper/actor and Kanye first collaborated on the Chicago MC’s College Dropout, for “Two Words,” and then again on “Drunk and Hot Girls” from Graduation. On “Lord, Lord, Lord,” Mos Def opens the slow-moving track. “Cool ruler standing still, sweatin’ through the shade,” Mos says. “He knew those lights only grew bright to fade/ Dead-wrong pageantry, lottery and games/ Sleight of hand provided by extravagant and fake.” With the signing of Mos Def, West continues his movement, pulling in MCs — often with a devoted following outside the mainstream — who come ready to break down creative barriers. Back in July, Pusha wouldn’t confirm or deny that he’d signed with G.O.O.D: “I mean, you know. I been to Hawaii. Hawaii is a nice place. Good music is made down there, ya know. So, yeah, I was there. I can’t say too much about that.” Of course, that’s no longer a mystery. Pusha confirmed to MTV News at this year’s VMAs that he was onboard with Kanye. The only question remaining is who else will be popping up on the bubbling label. What do you think of Kanye bringing Mos Def into his G.O.O.D. Music fold? Tell us in the comments! Related Artists Mos Def Kanye West

More:
Mos Def Signs With Kanye West’s G.O.O.D. Music

Lil Wayne Calls From Prison On MTV’s ‘The Seven’ Premiere

He calls back to surprise prot

Beckel to Geller: You’re a Woman, You Better Be Careful

Eric Bolling’s new show on the Fox Business Channel, Money Rocks , saw a significant display of fireworks this evening.  During a discussion of some already controversial statements made by Democratic strategist, Bob Beckel, a very heated exchange developed involving Beckel and Atlas Shrugs publisher, Pamela Geller. The controversy started when Bolling played a clip of Beckel’s previous appearance on the show in which he stated: “Look, at some point, I know it’s sensitive here in New York and probably New Jersey, but we have to get over 9/11.” What did he mean by ‘we have to get over 9/11′?  According to Beckel, this was simply an expression of frustration for a variety of things, such as extra security at airports and a few other minor inconveniences designed to catch “a bunch of non-existent terrorists.”  The short list of ‘non-existent terrorists’ since 9/11 that Mr. Beckel must be referring to, include the Madrid train bombers, Russian train bombers, Shoe Bomber, the Lackawanna Six, Fort Hood assassin, the Virginia ‘Jihad’ Network, Christmas Day bomber, Fort Dix plotters, and the Times Square bomber. Beckel might have been feeling the stress of trying to defend such a blatantly insensitive statement, by providing a blatantly inaccurate defense, as he experienced a misogynistic meltdown directed at Geller in the middle of the segment in which he said: “You’re a woman, you better be careful about saying who I carry water for.” Clip and partial transcript below… Over at Atlas Shrugs , Geller asserts that Beckel’s sexist rants were not limited to the on-air conversation.  Prior to the show, she claims: “I was the only female on the panel and as we were prepping (getting mic’ed etc) for the show, Beckel was regaling his victims (Bob Hemmer, David Webb and Bolling) with sordid tales of pole dancers and the like.  Grotesque and deliberate.” Geller states that the confrontation continued after the break: “When we cut to break, Beckel chided Bolling for not bringing ‘Jewish slumlords’ on the show (referring to Bolling’s segment on Imam Rauf’s status as a New Jersey slumlord, so named in a lawsuit against Rauf by Union City.)  When I heard Beckel’s Jew hating belch, I said ‘and you’re an anti-Semite.’  He told me to ‘kiss his ass’ to which I responded that he would never get anyone anywhere in the world to get with that.” Beckel’s appearances on FNC have been infuriating at times, but mostly for ideological reasons.  He is, after all, a liberal.  But he clearly crossed a line tonight with his uncharacteristically aggressive attacks on Geller.  Even Arlen Specter knows that you don’t start any argumentative statement with the words ‘you’re a woman.’ For your added nauseating pleasure, please watch the lead-in 11 minutes to this incident, in which the ever-bigoted Ahmad Rehab defends radical Islam by calling everybody else (particularly Geller) a bigot.  That’s what racists do though; they refer to everybody else as the racist. Racists, and bigots, and radicals.  Oh my! Enjoy… Relevant clip at (11:00 – 11:45) Geller:  I would like to address Mr. Beckel’s point.  I don’t know why you’re carrying water for the most radical, intolerant ideology in the world today.  There have been 20,000 documented radical Islamic attacks since 9/11.  Each one with the imprimatur of a Muslim cleric… Beckel:  You better be very careful.  You’re a woman, you better be very careful about who you say I carry water for, because you have no idea what you’re talking about.  (Points emphatically at Geller).  And don’t start putting me in the middle of your crap! Geller:  Don’t you point to me! Beckel:  I’ll point to you all I want! Geller:  Don’t you point to me.  You’re a misogynist. Beckel:  You’re getting yourself fifteen minutes, you get yourself fifteen minutes of fame because you’re (Bolling) picking on a bunch of Muslims. Geller:  You’re picking on a bunch of women.  You’re a woman hater. Beckel:  A woman hater?  A woman hater? Geller:  Look how you’re talking to me.  It’s outrageous. Beckel:  You are nuts. Geller:  Yea, I’m nuts. Please contact Rusty at The Mental Recession , or on Twitter @rustyweiss74

Go here to read the rest:
Beckel to Geller: You’re a Woman, You Better Be Careful

Bozell Column: Still More Carter-Coddling

Jimmy Carter is out with his 26th book, so that means he is on his 26th round of slavish liberal-media interviews hailing him as a genius and a peacemaker. No wonder we’re so tired of him. While the Bushes have remained dignified and largely silent as ex-presidents, Carter and Bill Clinton just cannot resist venomously attacking Republican presidents and conservative politicians, perhaps because whenever they do this, TV anchors bow and scrape before them and hail their “achievements” and compassion and generosity of spirit toward mankind. And so we have to put up with this megalomaniacal failure, along with his tired, angry opinions yet again. On CNN, Larry King asked if the Tea Party was racist. (That question is as insulting as King is old, and CNN irrelevant.) Carter answered that it is only a tiny minority, but then added that it’s goaded by Fox News and Newt Gingrich. “I think that Gingrich five years ago would be embarrassed at what Newt Gingrich is saying today and doing today.” He said because Gingrich is running for president, he has to “go hard right and appeal to the extreme.” But Carter feels poor Obama is “suffering from perhaps the worst Washington environment of any president in history, and I would even include Abraham Lincoln as we led up to the war between the states.” Amazing, isn’t it? Carter can sit there and say ridiculous junk – failing to get one or two Republican votes on liberal bills is a darker and more divided political environment than the prelude to the Civil War? – and Larry King just nods. No wonder he’s been put out to pasture. Speaking of ludicrous claims, on “60 Minutes,” CBS reporter Lesley Stahl asserted that Carter was the most successful president in modern times, more successful than even Ronald Reagan. “But when all is said and done, and many will be surprised to hear this: Jimmy Carter got more of his programs passed than Reagan and Nixon, Ford, Bush 1, Clinton or Bush 2.” And many would most certainly not be surprised to hear that Lesley Stahl would try to rewrite history this foolishly on national TV. Passing a number of “programs” isn’t a measure of success. Doesn’t it matter if those programs worked? Did Carter’s legislation succeed in whipping inflation and bringing full employment? Or did he preside over the most disastrous economy since the Great Depression? Did he get the hostages home? Or were they sent home out of fear of incoming President Reagan? Stahl wasn’t done, fortunately for this column, which is writing itself: “A lot of critics of yours, when you were President, say that you’ve been a fantastic ex-President. You hear that all the time.” Click. Change channel. On “Today,” NBC’s Matt Lauer inquired how Carter might be evaluated today by people who were born after 1980. (In other words, people who didn’t live through the misery of Carter’s incompetence.) If they read Carter’s book, would they think his presidency was a success or failure? Naturally, said Carter, “I think success.” He claimed to advance peace and human rights – despite troubling facts like the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan and the communist takeover of pretty much every damn country they wanted  on his watch. Carter also took a turn with NBC anchor Brian Williams, who worked as a White House Fellow during Carter’s presidency. (He didn’t mention that.) Williams lauded Carter’s “brutally honest” book, and noticed a recent photo of assembled presidents showed Carter a little off to one side. He asked sympathetically: “What is it about you, you think, the way you’ve decided to conduct your life in post-presidency? Do you feel listened to? Do you feel that you received your due, or do you feel, in fact, apart from the crowd?” Carter was brutally honest, all right – about his own inflated self-importance. “No, I feel that my role as a former president is probably superior to that of other presidents, primarily because of the activism and the injection of working of the Carter Center into international affairs, and to some degree domestic affairs.” Williams did note that after the taping, this statement “raised tension and eyebrows,” but Carter could only retort, not retract: “What I meant was for 27 years the Carter Center has provided me with superior opportunities to do good.” Like King, Williams wanted Carter’s commentary on how “such high numbers of people believe that this American-born Christian president is either foreign-born or a Muslim or both?” Carter obliged by slamming Fox News for “totally distorting everything possible concerning the facts.” This, from the man who thinks it’s factual that he was better for America than Ronald Reagan.

Continue reading here:
Bozell Column: Still More Carter-Coddling

Newsweek’s Stuart Taylor a Bit Misleading in Article on Court Challenge to ObamaCare

“The justices have not struck down a major piece of legislation, let alone a president’s signature initiative, as beyond Congress’s power to regulate commerce in some 75 years.” That’s how Newsweek’s Stuart Taylor Jr. today all but argued that, political ideology of the Supreme Court’s majority aside, a Supreme Court decision declaring unconstitutional the “individual mandate” of ObamaCare is quite unlikely. But while Taylor may be right  that no signature presidential initiative post-New Deal has been declared unconstitutional by the Court on the grounds that it violated the interstate commerce clause, he neglected to mention there are two key cases in the past 15 years where the Supreme Court did set outer limits to Congress’s exploitation of the commerce clause as a fountain of federal power. In 1995, a 5-justice majority in U.S. v. Lopez struck down a provision of the Gun Free School Zones Act of 1990 that made it a federal crime to possess a firearm in a school zone. Chief Justice Rehnquist wrote for the Court that “the possession of a gun in a local school zone is in no sense an economic activity that might, through repetition elsewhere, have such a substantial effect on interstate commerce….  Nor is it an essential part of a larger regulation of economic activity, in which the regulatory scheme could be undercut unless the intrastate activity were regulated.” What’s more, Rehnquist noted (emphasis mine), “To uphold the Government’s contention that 922(q) is justified because firearms possession in a local school zone does indeed substantially affect interstate commerce would require this Court to pile inference upon inference in a manner that would bid fair to convert congressional Commerce Clause authority to a general police power of the sort held only by the States.” In other words, if the Court had accepted the government’s rationale in Lopez, it would paved the way to destroy what is supposed to be an enumerated, limited federal power into a broader “police power” that is reserved for the several states of the Union.  Similar arguments regarding ObamaCare are certain to be made before the Supreme Court should the case get that far. Five years later in United States v. Morrison , the Rehnquist Court drew on the precedent in Lopez to strike down a portion of the federal Violence Against Women Act — legislation championed by current Vice President and then-Delaware Senator Joe Biden — on the grounds that it was an improper application of the interstate commerce clause. Wrote Rehnquist for the Court (emphasis mine): The Constitution requires a distinction between what is truly national and what is truly local , and there is no better example of the police power , which the Founders undeniably left reposed in the States and denied the central government, than the suppression of violent crime and vindication of its victims. Congress therefore may not regulate noneconomic, violent criminal conduct based solely on the conduct’s aggregate effect on interstate commerce. Both Lopez and Morrison were 5-to-4 cases, but they are relevant case law for the question of whether the ObamaCare individual mandate violates the interstate commerce clause by jury-rigging it into a police power-granting clause for Congress.

More here:
Newsweek’s Stuart Taylor a Bit Misleading in Article on Court Challenge to ObamaCare

SEIU Activist: Local Networks ‘Willing Partners’ in Campaign Against Wis. GOP Gubernatorial Candidate

Are the three news networks actively working to defeat the Republican candidate for Governor in Wisconsin? According to the far-left Service Employees International Union, yes, they most certainly are. SEIU spokesman John-david Morgan – also, incidentally, a former journalist – told a staffer  ( audio embedded below the fold ) for GOP gubernatorial candidate Scott Walker that local media affiliates for all three major networks were “willing partners” in the union’s efforts to defeat Walker. The staffer gave a fake name and recorded the conversation without Morgan’s knowledge. “They’ve really been willing partners in it,” Morgan told the staffer. “They come in with the TV cameras, and [channels] 58, 12 come, and 6 doesn’t always. But, yeah, they’ve been really helpful. They think it’s fun.” Channels 58 and 12 are Milwaukee’s CBS and ABC affiliates, respectively. “It’s not perfect,” Morgan added, but “they get our message across.” Indeed, Morgan apparently felt that some items from these outlets reinforced the SEIU’s anti-Walker campaign. Among the issues the union planned on hammering Walker for, according to Morgan, was a disaster at O’Donnell Park in Milwaukee, where a parking garage collapsed over the summer, killing a 15-year-old boy. Morgan apparently approved of the local CBS station’s coverage of the fallout over the accident. He posted a story from the outlet on his Facebook page, as seen in the screenshot below:   Morgan also mentioned channel 4, the local NBC station, for its coverage of inspections of state facilities, which the SEIU hopes to use as the basis of an attack campaign against Walker. According to a transcript of the exchange, Morgan described the union’s tactics – and the media’s role in it – thusly: Yeah, you know, like, when we did the people’s building inspection, we went around to a bunch of buildings where we know stuff is falling apart. Scott Walker has neglected these buildings, and he keeps putting repairs off because he, you know, won’t fix anything. So, you know, they poked fun at us a little bit for having like a phony report card. It’s like whatever, but then they said, “But the group does have a point – a piece fell off the courthouse in May.” And sure enough, a search through channel 4’s website reveals a story from August 19 on the SEIU’s fake “report card” on the state of public facilities. The piece regurgitates a number of claims from union, and one attack from a county supervisor who joined the SEIU in its sham “inspections.” “I think that people should beware of the dishonest budgeting of Scott Walker,” said Democratic county supervisor Chris Larson, whose party affiliation is not mentioned in the piece. I contacted Morgan via Facebook and asked him to elaborate on his “willing partners” comment. At first, he said that he was only expressing his appreciation for “all the hard work that broadcast journalists did covering our events.” When I asked about the disconnect between that claim and the numerous comments he made in his recorded coversation suggesting more than a simple third-party-observation role on the part of the news media, Morgan refused to comment any further. He instead referred me to the transcript of the exchange, in which he said “my meaning is best reflected.” None of the three networks’ local affiliates returned requests for comment by deadline. The Wisconsin Democratic Party, Walker’s oppoenent’s campaign, and SEIU Local 1 also did not respond to such requests. But the Wisconsin Republican Party – to whom the Walker campaign directed a press inquiry – was happy to offer its views on media coverage of the race in a phone conversation. I asked whether the party thinks the media is in fact aiding the SEIU campaign against Walker. Wisconsin GOP spokesman Andrew Welhouse told me: I think that the only voice that you really need to hear is the SEIU’s. I think that the fact that the said something so blatantly – I mean, it’s their words, not ours. They’re the ones that are saying “these guys are in the tank for us.” I can’t imagine that he would say something like that if he didn’t have anything to back it up – a feeling that they were all going with. Asked whether media bias has been a significant problem in the campaign, Welhouse stated: What people see on TV and what people read in the newspaper goes a long way in determining how they perceive their elected officials as representing them, and it goes a long way in how they perceive new people coming on the scene. People know there’s a difference between paid advertising and what they read in the news and what they see in the media, and if there’s an ongoing perception that the media is biased or stilted one way or the other, that’s a big problem. And for the other side to so blatantly say, “we’ve got these guys in our camp,” that’s not only a problem for one party saying one thing and the other party saying another thing and there being a campaign between two different sides, but that’s a real problem for people who see the news media as an unbiased source of information. Though none of the media outlets in question returned requests for comment, it seems safe to assume that they would deny any official collaboration with the SEIU. But the fact that the media in question were so eager to cover events in a manner friendly to a group as far to the left as the SEIU implies a convergence either of political ideology, if not political objectives. Even if the media are not actively working with Democratic shock troops, they apparently share a sense of what is news – in this case, events damaging to the Republican gubernatorial candidate. The bottom line is Morgan’s admission raises serious ethical concerns beyond political bias. The news media can have a dramatic impact on elections, since they proclaim themselves wholly objective and non-partisan. This revelation may belie that claim – at least in Milwaukee.

Continued here:
SEIU Activist: Local Networks ‘Willing Partners’ in Campaign Against Wis. GOP Gubernatorial Candidate

A Mysterious Force Is Pulling Pioneer 10 Back Toward the Sun

I kind of dig space—especially the unexplained—so today I'm in a bit of a tizzy. Pioneer 10, you see—which left our solar system in 1983—is slowly being drawn back toward the Sun by an unknown force. No, it's not gravity, it's something else. Something mysterious. Something barely perceptible that is tugging at the probe with about 10 million times weaker force than gravity. Potentially a “new force of nature” (their words, not mine). Most of the obvious causes, including malfunction or gravity, have been ruled out, reports the Telegraph: Scientists initially suspected that gas escaping from tiny rocket motors aboard the probes, or heat leaking from their nuclear power plants might be responsible. Both have now been ruled out. The team says no current theories explain why the force stays constant: all the most plausible forces, from gravity to the effect of solar radiation, decrease rapidly with distance. Scientists tracking the distant probe (now some seven billion miles from Earth), say that the probe's speed, presently 27,000mph, is being reduced by the force by about 6mph per century. Not much, but entirely noticeable and worthy enough that scientists like Dr. Duncan Steel, of Salford University, who is speculating this cosmic tug could question whether we know enough about gravity, the universe, and everything. http://gizmodo.com/5642007/a-mysterious-force-is-pulling-pioneer-10-back-toward-… added by: pjacobs51

Riki Ott: Dispersants, Bacteria and Illness in the Gulf

“Is this the perfect storm — an exploding population of opportunistic Gram-negative bacteria (some natural, some not), millions of gallons of food (oil) for the bacteria, and a susceptible population of stressed-out people?” Excerpt: I have heard from Gulf residents and visitors who developed a rash or peeling palms from contact with Gulf water, including such activities as swimming or wading, getting splashed, handling oiled material or dead animals without gloves, and shucking crabs from the recently opened Gulf fisheries. I have also heard from people who developed the same symptoms after contact with Gulf air by wiping an oily film off their airplane's leading edges after flying over the Gulf (absorbent pad tested positive for oil) or swimming in outdoor pools, or splashing in puddles, after it rained. Outraged by the unprecedented release of oil and toxic chemicals in the Gulf, Nurse Schmidt and Mike McDowell developed a project to test Gulf rainwater for harmful chemicals. Schmidt said, “We are convinced the chemicals used in the Gulf to help disperse oil have evaporated and will eventually come down mixed with the rain.” Another clue, more like a condemnation, is that NOAA and EPA decided to use dispersants in the Gulf without considering what harm the chemicals and dispersed oil might do to people, specifically, the general public. Dr. Sylvia Earle, former chief scientist of NOAA, and other scientists, criticized the agencies' decision, in part, based on concern about harm to human health. Other scientists have also criticized the agencies' decision. Citing the National Academy of Sciences, a Texas Tech University professor testified in Congress that the chemicals break down cell walls, making organisms (including people) more susceptible to oil. The professor called the Gulf an “eco-toxicological experiment,” which is inexcusable, because OSHA has known about harm from solvent exposure since at least 1987. Don't these federal agencies talk amongst themselves — or with others? Which all brings me back to the grandmother. After talking with her, I've been reading about bacteria, and I now think the Great Gulf Experiment is going very badly for humans. One can only wonder about the rest of the ecosystem. There are two distinct types of bacteria based on the structure of their cell walls. Gram-positive bacteria have a single-membrane cell wall, while Gram-negative bacteria have a double-membrane cell wall. Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) bacteria are “Gram-positive,” while the oil-eating bacteria are Gram-negative. But! A component of the double-membrane cell wall structure of Gram-negative bacteria can irritate human skin, causing inflammation and activating the immune system. In other words, oil-eating bacteria, just because they are Gram-negative, can cause skin rashes. In the case of Alcanivorax borkumensis, the reaction can erupt on the skin like MRSA infections. To make things a little scarier, some of the oil-eating bacteria have been genetically modified, or otherwise bioengineered, to better eat the oil — including Alcanivorax borkumensis and some of the Pseudomonas. Oil-eating bacteria produce bio-films. According to Nurse Schmidt, studies have found that bio-films are rapidly colonized (p. 97) by other Gram-negative bacteria — including those known to infect humans. Scientists anticipated early on that the Gulf leak would cause populations of oil-eating bacteria to soar. Still, infections are not likely in healthy people. However, exposure to oil weakens a person's immune system function, as does the mental stress of dealing with disaster trauma. And then there are people who are more at risk than others to bacterial infections, especially when first challenged with oil and solvent exposure. This includes children, people with cystic fibrosis or asthma, and African Americans (who are prone to blood disorders), to name a few. Is this the perfect storm — an exploding population of opportunistic Gram-negative bacteria (some natural, some not), millions of gallons of food (oil) for the bacteria, and a susceptible population of stressed-out people? Perhaps. If the outbreak of skin rashes across the Gulf is any indication, the health care providers, media, and Congress ought to be taking a hard look at this question. Further, people ought to be connecting the dots to illnesses that surfaced in Exxon Valdez spill responders and to the illnesses occurring now in Michigan residents coping with the Enbridge oil pipeline spill. In the Gulf, Nurse Schmidt believes: This is like a major bacterial storm. It could be the reason we are seeing a variance of symptoms in different individuals. In some people, we see respiratory complications, while in others we see skin or GI symptoms. I think it is due to a multitude of colonized bacteria — which may have been triggered by BP's disaster. added by: samantha420