Find a show you like and click the 
button. The show will be added to your My Playlist page and updated 24/7 with new videos.
Search Results
0 Views
11:26:39 02/07/12
McDonalds ends ad after pit bull owner outrage: Skydiver attempts Supersonic Space Jump
[LESS INFO] 0 VIEWS | ADDED 11:26:39 02/07/12
McDonald's ad that said eating a Chicken McBite was less risky than petting a stray pit bull, shaving your head, naming your son Sue or giving friends your Facebook password has enraged pit bull owners and their supporters --- The radio ad for Chicken McBites only ran for a few days in the Kansas City area before the complaints started --- McDonalds's has appologized on social media sites along with a toll-free number with a recorded apology --- Rachele Lizarraga of Sacramento said she found it extremely offensive and reckless, with the quesiton of why would they try to promote the safety of food --- Lizarraga, who owns a pet-sitting business and is social media coordinator for Chako Pit Bull Rescue, started a Facebook page called "Pit Bulls Against McDonald's," launched an online petition calling for an end to the ad ## Nearing make-or-break time is one man's quest to make a record-breaking leap from near the edge of space --- Sponsored by energy drink Red Bull, Austrian athlete Felix Baumgartner, intends to skydive from a balloon in the stratosphere at an altitude of 120,000 feet --- If he is successful, he will become the first person to break the sound barrier outside of an aircraft --- He will also break a trio of other records that have stood for more than 50 years: Baumgartner's plunge would mark the highest skydive, the highest manned balloon flight and the longest free fall, at about 5 minutes and 30 seconds --- To make the dive, Baumgartner will ascend higher than four times the height of Mount Everest inside a custom-made pressurized capsule pulled up by a single helium-filled plastic balloon about 600 feet wide --- Roughly 35 seconds after he jumps out, Baumgartner will reach supersonic speeds and will continue freefalling until he is about a mile above the ground, when he will deploy his parachute --- Baumgartner says he is jumping for science with a goal to improve the safety for space professionals as well as potential space tourists
2 Views
13:32:12 01/21/12
The Pace Report: "The 2012 NEA Jazz Masters Cememony Highlights"
[LESS INFO] 2 VIEWS | ADDED 13:32:12 01/21/12
One of the most important jazz events took place at Jazz at Lincoln Center during the week of APAP last week. The 2012 National Endowment for the Arts held their 30th anniversary of the Jazz Masters Ceremony and Concert to a sold-out crowd. The event pays tribute to the architects of jazz music both living and deceased. More importantly, the NEA gives the current inductees as well as music programs and centers all over the country, grants and funding to continue the legacy of providing the community jazz programming and education to keep the music viable to public. Including this year’s inductees, the NEA has celebrated the work and lives of 128 jazz musicians, awarded more than 2,400 jazz grants, and given over $32 million dollars over the last 30 years. A very important feat for the music that very seldom gets the notoriety or praise like other American black music such as hip-hop, soul, and the blues. This year’s 2012 NEA Jazz Masters inductees include: Sheila Jordan, vocalist and educator; Von Freeman, tenor saxophonist and bandleader; Jack DeJohnette, drummer and pianist; Jimmy Owens, trumpeter, educator, and advocate; and Charlie Haden, bassist and bandleader. The festivities kicked off this year in regal fashion as Rocco Landesman, Chairman of the National Endowment for the Arts gave the opening comments about how rich the NEA’s tradition of celebrating and commemorating of America’s only art form. 2007 NEA Jazz Master Ramsey Lewis and last year’s inductee Wynton Marsalis, artistic director of Jazz at Lincoln Center, also gave opening comments of the historical implications of the 30th Anniversary of this year’s jazz masters ceremony. NEA Jazz Master Phil Woods along with alto saxophonist Grace Kelly played “Things To Come” composed by former NEA Jazz Master Dizzy Gillespie. The two were backed by the stellar Jazz at Lincoln Orchestra lead by Wynton Marsalis. Drummer Jack DeJohnette was inducted by his mentor and fellow NEA Jazz Master Muhal Richard Abrams. Abrams helped Jack as a teen study and play both the piano and drums while growing up in Chicago, Illinois. Through Abram’s Association for the Advancement of Creative Musicians, Jack developed a love and passion to play both classical and jazz music which helped him decide to play music professionally. In the mid-1960’s Jack decided to move to New York City where he played with the late Rashied Ali in the John Coltrane Quintet. He got his first taste of success when he joined saxophonist Charles Lloyd in his first quartet where he played with a young pianist named Keith Jarrett. During the late 1960’s into the 1970’s, Jack backed and recorded with the likes of Miles Davis, Sonny Rollins, Special Edition, New Directions, and his long association with the Keith Jarrett Trio with bassist Gary Peacock. Today, Jack is still very active and just released his latest disc “Sound Travels” on the the eOne Music label. NEA Jazz Master Benny Golson gave the induction speech of 2012 inductee Von Freeman. Freeman, who couldn’t make this year’s ceremony due to illness, was given some praise and adoration by his sons Chico and Mark Freeman, who gave his induction speech. Earle Lavon Freeman, Sr, was born in Chicago, Illinois where he’s been a musical icon for the last 70 years. Von comes from that elite class of Chicago tenor saxophonists like Gene Ammons, Clifford Jordan, and the late Johnny Griffin. During the 1950’s he and his brothers George and Bruz were the house band at the famed Pershing Hotel in Chicago. Von played with a slew of great local musicians that included Jimmy Witherspoon, Sun Ra, and Andrew Hill. In 1972 he recorded his debut recording “Doin’ It Right Now” produced by Rahsaan Roland Kirk. Currently Von plays weekly at the New Apartment Lounge and Andy’s Jazz Club in Chicago. Bassist and bandleader Charlie Haden has given the world of music and jazz his unique blend of originality and heart. Since he made his way on the bandstand during the late 1950’s, Haden has been a trailblazer and relentless musician always striving to take music to the next level as well as always create new forms of roots music. From his days with saxophonist Ornette Coleman’s group, the quartet recorded the landmark recording for Atlantic Records, “The Shape of Jazz to Come.” But in 1969 Haden would record one of the most ambitious jazz recordings of the time. “Liberation Music Orchestra” was a record that fused the social themes of the times as well as free jazz that spoke volumes in the jazz community. The music was arranged and composed by Carla Bley and the orchestra has been recording sporadically over the last four decades. In addition to Haden’s orchestra, the three-time Grammy Award winner also fronts Quartet West. Charlie couldn’t attend the jazz masters ceremony due to his recovery from a recent surgery. His daughter Patra read his acceptance speech and acknowledged his many accomplishments on Charlie’s behalf. Vocalist, musical visionary, and NEA Jazz Master Jon Hendricks gave one of the most poignant speeches for his friend and contemporary, vocalist Sheila Jordan. Hendricks praised her accomplishments as a vocalist as well as keeping the vocal tradition alive by teaching the next generation of vocalists. Jordan, a Detroit native, comes from a great tradition and legacy of musicians that have made great and important strides in the world of jazz music. She developed her vocal style while singing in a local group named Skeeter, Mitch, and Jean. But it was her drive and determination that got her to move to New York City where she decided to throw herself into the thriving music scene. When she moved here she learned music theory and harmony by bassist Charles Mingus and pianist Lennie Tristano. Pianist George Russell discovered and recorded her on his “The Outer View” recording in 1962. Sheila made history by recording the first vocal record for Blue Note Records titled “Portrait of Sheila.” Throughout her career she’s recorded and performed with the Steve Kuhn Quartet and Harvie Swartz. Today she continues to teach jazz vocal workshops as well as perform all over the world. Trumpeter and educator Jimmy Owens is having a stellar 2012 so far. His latest IPO Recordings release “The Monk Project” celebrates and focuses on the compositions of pianist Thelonious Monk. In his 50 years in the business, the 68 year-old musician has been on the front lines for the betterment for working jazz musicians. As a board and active member of the Jazz Foundation of America, part of Jimmy’s lifework has been to help musicians seek funding for medical expenses, legal assistance, housing, and steady work. He founded the Musicians Emergency Fund due to the lack of support from the arts community and serve as a means to never negate the lives of many musicians that haven’t had the support or the able means to survive. Musicians that have benefited from this generous program were Odetta, Fats Domino, Clark Terry, Freddie Hubbard, Cecil Payne, and Sweet Georgia Brown. In addition to his dedication to the JFA, he’s also been a supporter and advocate for the Local 802 of the American Federation of Musicians here in New York City. It’s Jimmy’s drive and passion that he’s fought State Politicians to repeal the 8.25% admission tax for clubs and major venues and to take those funds and contribute them to the AFM’s pension fund.This and his dedication to education in jazz music is why he’s been honored as one of this year’s NEA Jazz Master Inductees. Jimmy, who hails from the Bronx, New York, was exposed to jazz music when he was kid when his parents played the music. He wanted to play the trumpet and one of his first teacher’s as well as mentor, Dr. Donald Byrd, got him to take the instrument and studying it seriously. Over the years he’d back and play with some of jazz music’s leading innovators and icons. Musicians like Duke Ellington, Count Basie, Lionel Hampton, Clark Terry, Dizzy Gillispie, and the Thad Jones/Mel Lewis Orchestra. Today he still teaches as well as serves as a mentor to many of today’s current jazz musicians and composers. Some of highlight performances of the evening included two separate duo performances including NEA Jazz Masters bassist Ron Carter and flutist Huber Laws in their rendition of “Little Waltz”/”Memories of Minnie.” Also, Jazz Masters vibraphonist Bobby Hutcherson and pianist Kenny Barron’s rendition of Dave Brubeck’s “In Your Own Sweet Way.” The Jazz at Lincoln Center Orchestra under the direction of Wynton Marsalis did an outstanding job in arranging tributes throughout the concert to NEA Jazz Master Horace Silver featuring Dave Liebman, Toshiko Akiyoshi, Candido Camero, and the new trumpet sensation Ambrose Akinmusire. The Benny Carter and Frank Foster tribute also turned a lot of heads featuring saxophonists Frank Wess and Benny Golson. I must add that the National Endowment for the Arts have dedicated to the works and mission to keep the jazz legacy alive via the grants they award every year. Also, they’ve been in tune with the jazz community via journalists, the musicians, and the many jazz associations to help educate and get the word out about America’s only original art-form. The NEA has more info for fans to reach out into their community to support the arts. For more info please visit them on the web at arts.gov.
0 Views
17:18:52 01/11/12
Daughter - "Love (Live at St. Giles In The Fields' Church)": SXSW 2012 Showcasing Artist
[LESS INFO] 0 VIEWS | ADDED 17:18:52 01/11/12
Daughter - "Love (Live at St. Giles In The Fields' Church)": SXSW 2012 Showcasing Artist
'The Wild Youth' is the new EP from 21 year old Elena Tonra aka Daughter. A collection of four dark, ethereal & beautiful new songs, 'The Wild Youth' showcases a young musician experimenting delicately with a rich array of songwriting ideas and yet still intent on pouring out her soul pure and unadulterated. Having launched with the stunning six-minute 'Love', a brooding, stark lament that shifts shape & form as it builds to it's startling crescendo, 'The Wild Youth' includes three more songs ('Home', 'Medicine' & 'Youth') that beautifully weave the intimacy and honesty of timeless, classic folk with the glacial, experimental soundscapes that draw to mind the work of Bjork & Jonsi Birgisson. Having made a series of demo tracks available at the end of 2010 via her social network pages, Daughter's star has gently risen, collecting fans one-by-one as these tracks were gradually shared amongst enthusiastic friends and bloggers. As the support grew Elena found herself moving - slowly, at first - up The Hype Machine. Within a month - and as the momentum grew - she\'d reached #3 in the Most Popular Song Chart. The Independent\'s Barometer column subsequently noting of her \"beautifully-sung, literary folk\" and her \"ethereal melancholy\" as they tipped her as a One to Watch. Launching her debut 'His Young Heart' EP with a sold-out show at The Slaughtered Lamb, London in April, Elena was soon invited to perform sessions for Lauren Laverne on BBC 6 Music & Rob Da Bank on BBC ... From: sxsw Views: 699 18 ratings Time: 05:57 More in Music
0 Views
17:18:52 01/11/12
Daughter - "Love (Live at St. Giles In The Fields' Church)": SXSW 2012 Showcasing Artist
[LESS INFO] 0 VIEWS | ADDED 17:18:52 01/11/12
Daughter - "Love (Live at St. Giles In The Fields' Church)": SXSW 2012 Showcasing Artist
'The Wild Youth' is the new EP from 21 year old Elena Tonra aka Daughter. A collection of four dark, ethereal & beautiful new songs, 'The Wild Youth' showcases a young musician experimenting delicately with a rich array of songwriting ideas and yet still intent on pouring out her soul pure and unadulterated. Having launched with the stunning six-minute 'Love', a brooding, stark lament that shifts shape & form as it builds to it's startling crescendo, 'The Wild Youth' includes three more songs ('Home', 'Medicine' & 'Youth') that beautifully weave the intimacy and honesty of timeless, classic folk with the glacial, experimental soundscapes that draw to mind the work of Bjork & Jonsi Birgisson. Having made a series of demo tracks available at the end of 2010 via her social network pages, Daughter's star has gently risen, collecting fans one-by-one as these tracks were gradually shared amongst enthusiastic friends and bloggers. As the support grew Elena found herself moving - slowly, at first - up The Hype Machine. Within a month - and as the momentum grew - she\'d reached #3 in the Most Popular Song Chart. The Independent\'s Barometer column subsequently noting of her \"beautifully-sung, literary folk\" and her \"ethereal melancholy\" as they tipped her as a One to Watch. Launching her debut 'His Young Heart' EP with a sold-out show at The Slaughtered Lamb, London in April, Elena was soon invited to perform sessions for Lauren Laverne on BBC 6 Music & Rob Da Bank on BBC ... From: sxsw Views: 630 17 ratings Time: 05:57 More in Music
3 Views
00:00:40 01/06/12
Mitt Romney, a Profile in Cowardice
[LESS INFO] 3 VIEWS | ADDED 00:00:40 01/06/12
For months, likely Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney has made Barack Obama's supposed "failure of leadership" a centerpiece of his campaign. But like his ill-advised comparison of President Obama to Marie Antoinette , Romney's sound bite could well boomerang. After all, when Multiple Choice Mitt isn't comically reversing his stands, he's too afraid to take any at all .
That cowardice starts with his tax returns . While John Kerry and John McCain at least presented a summary of their (and their well-to-do wives') payments to Uncle Sam, the $250 million Mitt has so far refused to do so. Despite his famous demand in the 1994 Senate race that Ted Kennedy release his tax returns to show he has "nothing to hide," Romney reiterated his own paperwork would not be forthcoming. "We don't have any current plans to release tax returns, but never say never," Romney said, adding: >
"I can tell you we follow the tax laws, and if there's an opportunity to save taxes, we like anybody else in this country will follow that opportunity."
Or as he put it to CNN's Wolf Blitzer last week (at around the 6:40 mark): >
"I don't put out which tooth paste I use either. It's not that I have something to hide."
That's one interpretation. Another is that Mitt Romney is desperate to avoid the horrible political optics his tax returns would inevitably produce. After all, because Romney's continuing millions in annual income from Bain Capital (a company the Los Angeles Times recently explained "often maximized profits in part by firing workers") are taxed at the 15 percent capital gains rate, Mitt already pays a much lower share to Uncle Sam than most middle class families .
Romney's pusillanimity extends to his own tax proposals as well. Unlike virtually all of his GOP rivals , Romney has held back on endorsing either a flat-tax or the complete elimination of the capital gains tax. As he seemed to suggest to the Wall Street Journal , discretion is the better part of valor when it comes to telling voters about the massive windfall the Romneys would reap under the tax policies that dare not speak their name: >
What about his reform principles? Mr. Romney talks only in general terms. "Moving to a consumption-based system is something which is very attractive to me philosophically, but I've not been able to sufficiently model it out to jump on board a consumption-based tax. A flat tax, a true flat tax is also attractive to me. What I like--I mean, I like the simplification of a flat tax. I also like removing the distortion in our tax code for certain classes of investment. And the advantage of a flat tax is getting rid of some of those distortions"... >
Amid such generalities, it's hard not to conclude that the candidate is trying to avoid offering any details that might become a political target. And he all but admits as much. "I happen to also recognize," he says, "that if you go out with a tax proposal which conforms to your philosophy but it hasn't been thoroughly analyzed, vetted, put through models and calculated in detail, that you're gonna get hit by the demagogues in the general election."
Mitt Romney's fear of getting hit was also on display during the debt ceiling debate this summer. As the GOP's brinksmanship over defaulting on the U.S. debt reached its climax in late July, Romney turned his tail and fled. As MSNBC reported at the time: >
NBC's Garrett Haake reported that Mitt Romney told reporters in Ohio yesterday that he would not comment on the debt negotiations in Washington. And so far, he has refused to either endorse Boehner's legislation (as Huntsman has done) or oppose it (as Pawlenty and Bachman have done). Our question: How does someone who wants to be the leader of the Republican Party not have a position on one of the biggest issues facing Washington, especially after the dueling primetime speeches by Obama and Boehner? It's actually quite surprising; this isn't just another Washington fight. Is the lack of a position proof of how fragile Team Romney believes its front-runner status is right now?
(Ultimately, Romney used Facebook to announce his support of the Boehner bill, but only after it passed the GOP House .)
As it turns out, Ohio was the scene of another of Mitt Romney's moments in cowardice.
After visiting a Republican phone bank calling voters about the state's controversial Issue 2 curbing public unions , Romney amazingly refused to take a position: >
"I'm not saying anything one way or the other about the two ballot issues."
Embarrassed by his obvious lack of backbone, Romney endorsed the measure the next day. Ohio voters, who handily defeated the Republican measure, won't soon forget Romney said goodbye to his spine in Columbus.
Romney's vertebra similarly went missing on immigration and abortion , two issues near and dear to the Republican primary voter's heart. As Steve Benen recounted, Mitt's campaign simply would not answer Joe Klein question about what President Romney would do about the 12 million illegal immigrants already in the country: >
The evasion wasn't exactly graceful. Klein asked what Romney would do with the undocumented immigrants who are already here, and Fehrnstrom replied, "He would not grant them amnesty." Right, Klein said, but instead of amnesty, what would Romney do with these people? "He would not grant them amnesty," Fehrnstrom answered. Got it, Klein said, but what, specifically, would Romney do? "I just told you, he's not going to grant them amnesty," the campaign spokesperson said. When Klein then explained that this isn't actually an answer, Fehrnstrom, once again, said, "He would not grant them amnesty."
The Romney camp built a similar stonewall after their man seemingly came out in support of the soon-to-be defeated "personhood" initiative in Mississippi . But the day after the ballot measure went down to crushing defeat, Team Romney insisted "he's being falsely characterized as supporting a proposed amendment to define a fertilized egg as a 'person.'"
On matters small and large, duck and cover is Mitt Romney's posture. Afraid to admit that he has obviously been running for President without interruption since his failed campaign four years ago, Romney's wife claimed his 2012 run was all her idea. As Ann Romney told Wolf Blitzer last week (starting around the 2:30 mark in the video above): >
BLITZER: Is it true that you had to talk to Mitt into running again? >
ANN ROMNEY. ROMNEY: It is true...after the last campaign, it was kind of ironic that I was the one that said I'd never do this again, and now, this time around, I'm saying, you know what, Mitt, you've got to do this again.
But in Mitt's telling, his latest White House bid is all due to Barack Obama. As he told the Wall Street Journal just days ago, Mitt was content to hang out in his $12 million, soon-to-be doubled-in-size California beach side home : >
The Republican presidential candidate says he never intended to run for office again after 2008--"I went back and bought a home which was far too expensive and grandiose for the purposes of another campaign," he jokes. He was drawn back into public life amid Mr. Obama's bid to "fundamentally transform" the country, to use the president's own words, into "an entitlement society," to use Mr. Romney's.
Given his Boston area townhouse and lakeside mansion with man-made beach in New Hampshire, a third palatial retreat would have seemed excessive for a candidate Romney. After all, Mitt Romney's running for office as a " man of the people "; he can't have mansions, for Pete's sake .
"If it seems like this keeps coming up with the former governor," Benen concluded, "it's not your imagination." >
Romney refused to take a stand on Paul Ryan's budget. Romney refused to take a stand when asked about voters booing a U.S. soldier serving in Iraq during a Republican debate. Romney refused to take a stand when Rick Perry dabbled in Birtherism. Romney initially refused to take a stand on Ohio's campaign to undermine collective-bargaining rights, and then sheepishly backpedaled when the right complained. >
There's going to come a point next year when the Obama campaign is likely to say, "Mitt Romney lacks the courage and the character to be a leader." And the criticism will sting because it's based in fact.
And so it goes for the man George Will rightly described as a "recidivist reviser of his principles." On the issues where he doesn't change his mind, Mitt Romney - the man who would be leader of the Free World - lacks "the courage of his absence of convictions."
(This piece also appears at Perrspectives. )
0 Views
00:00:40 01/06/12
Mitt Romney, a Profile in Cowardice
[LESS INFO] 0 VIEWS | ADDED 00:00:40 01/06/12
For months, likely Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney has made Barack Obama's supposed "failure of leadership" a centerpiece of his campaign. But like his ill-advised comparison of President Obama to Marie Antoinette , Romney's sound bite could well boomerang. After all, when Multiple Choice Mitt isn't comically reversing his stands, he's too afraid to take any at all .
That cowardice starts with his tax returns . While John Kerry and John McCain at least presented a summary of their (and their well-to-do wives') payments to Uncle Sam, the $250 million Mitt has so far refused to do so. Despite his famous demand in the 1994 Senate race that Ted Kennedy release his tax returns to show he has "nothing to hide," Romney reiterated his own paperwork would not be forthcoming. "We don't have any current plans to release tax returns, but never say never," Romney said, adding: >
"I can tell you we follow the tax laws, and if there's an opportunity to save taxes, we like anybody else in this country will follow that opportunity."
Or as he put it to CNN's Wolf Blitzer last week (at around the 6:40 mark): >
"I don't put out which tooth paste I use either. It's not that I have something to hide."
That's one interpretation. Another is that Mitt Romney is desperate to avoid the horrible political optics his tax returns would inevitably produce. After all, because Romney's continuing millions in annual income from Bain Capital (a company the Los Angeles Times recently explained "often maximized profits in part by firing workers") are taxed at the 15 percent capital gains rate, Mitt already pays a much lower share to Uncle Sam than most middle class families .
Romney's pusillanimity extends to his own tax proposals as well. Unlike virtually all of his GOP rivals , Romney has held back on endorsing either a flat-tax or the complete elimination of the capital gains tax. As he seemed to suggest to the Wall Street Journal , discretion is the better part of valor when it comes to telling voters about the massive windfall the Romneys would reap under the tax policies that dare not speak their name: >
What about his reform principles? Mr. Romney talks only in general terms. "Moving to a consumption-based system is something which is very attractive to me philosophically, but I've not been able to sufficiently model it out to jump on board a consumption-based tax. A flat tax, a true flat tax is also attractive to me. What I like--I mean, I like the simplification of a flat tax. I also like removing the distortion in our tax code for certain classes of investment. And the advantage of a flat tax is getting rid of some of those distortions"... >
Amid such generalities, it's hard not to conclude that the candidate is trying to avoid offering any details that might become a political target. And he all but admits as much. "I happen to also recognize," he says, "that if you go out with a tax proposal which conforms to your philosophy but it hasn't been thoroughly analyzed, vetted, put through models and calculated in detail, that you're gonna get hit by the demagogues in the general election."
Mitt Romney's fear of getting hit was also on display during the debt ceiling debate this summer. As the GOP's brinksmanship over defaulting on the U.S. debt reached its climax in late July, Romney turned his tail and fled. As MSNBC reported at the time: >
NBC's Garrett Haake reported that Mitt Romney told reporters in Ohio yesterday that he would not comment on the debt negotiations in Washington. And so far, he has refused to either endorse Boehner's legislation (as Huntsman has done) or oppose it (as Pawlenty and Bachman have done). Our question: How does someone who wants to be the leader of the Republican Party not have a position on one of the biggest issues facing Washington, especially after the dueling primetime speeches by Obama and Boehner? It's actually quite surprising; this isn't just another Washington fight. Is the lack of a position proof of how fragile Team Romney believes its front-runner status is right now?
(Ultimately, Romney used Facebook to announce his support of the Boehner bill, but only after it passed the GOP House .)
As it turns out, Ohio was the scene of another of Mitt Romney's moments in cowardice.
After visiting a Republican phone bank calling voters about the state's controversial Issue 2 curbing public unions , Romney amazingly refused to take a position: >
"I'm not saying anything one way or the other about the two ballot issues."
Embarrassed by his obvious lack of backbone, Romney endorsed the measure the next day. Ohio voters, who handily defeated the Republican measure, won't soon forget Romney said goodbye to his spine in Columbus.
Romney's vertebra similarly went missing on immigration and abortion , two issues near and dear to the Republican primary voter's heart. As Steve Benen recounted, Mitt's campaign simply would not answer Joe Klein question about what President Romney would do about the 12 million illegal immigrants already in the country: >
The evasion wasn't exactly graceful. Klein asked what Romney would do with the undocumented immigrants who are already here, and Fehrnstrom replied, "He would not grant them amnesty." Right, Klein said, but instead of amnesty, what would Romney do with these people? "He would not grant them amnesty," Fehrnstrom answered. Got it, Klein said, but what, specifically, would Romney do? "I just told you, he's not going to grant them amnesty," the campaign spokesperson said. When Klein then explained that this isn't actually an answer, Fehrnstrom, once again, said, "He would not grant them amnesty."
The Romney camp built a similar stonewall after their man seemingly came out in support of the soon-to-be defeated "personhood" initiative in Mississippi . But the day after the ballot measure went down to crushing defeat, Team Romney insisted "he's being falsely characterized as supporting a proposed amendment to define a fertilized egg as a 'person.'"
On matters small and large, duck and cover is Mitt Romney's posture. Afraid to admit that he has obviously been running for President without interruption since his failed campaign four years ago, Romney's wife claimed his 2012 run was all her idea. As Ann Romney told Wolf Blitzer last week (starting around the 2:30 mark in the video above): >
BLITZER: Is it true that you had to talk to Mitt into running again? >
ANN ROMNEY. ROMNEY: It is true...after the last campaign, it was kind of ironic that I was the one that said I'd never do this again, and now, this time around, I'm saying, you know what, Mitt, you've got to do this again.
But in Mitt's telling, his latest White House bid is all due to Barack Obama. As he told the Wall Street Journal just days ago, Mitt was content to hang out in his $12 million, soon-to-be doubled-in-size California beach side home : >
The Republican presidential candidate says he never intended to run for office again after 2008--"I went back and bought a home which was far too expensive and grandiose for the purposes of another campaign," he jokes. He was drawn back into public life amid Mr. Obama's bid to "fundamentally transform" the country, to use the president's own words, into "an entitlement society," to use Mr. Romney's.
Given his Boston area townhouse and lakeside mansion with man-made beach in New Hampshire, a third palatial retreat would have seemed excessive for a candidate Romney. After all, Mitt Romney's running for office as a " man of the people "; he can't have mansions, for Pete's sake .
"If it seems like this keeps coming up with the former governor," Benen concluded, "it's not your imagination." >
Romney refused to take a stand on Paul Ryan's budget. Romney refused to take a stand when asked about voters booing a U.S. soldier serving in Iraq during a Republican debate. Romney refused to take a stand when Rick Perry dabbled in Birtherism. Romney initially refused to take a stand on Ohio's campaign to undermine collective-bargaining rights, and then sheepishly backpedaled when the right complained. >
There's going to come a point next year when the Obama campaign is likely to say, "Mitt Romney lacks the courage and the character to be a leader." And the criticism will sting because it's based in fact.
And so it goes for the man George Will rightly described as a "recidivist reviser of his principles." On the issues where he doesn't change his mind, Mitt Romney - the man who would be leader of the Free World - lacks "the courage of his absence of convictions."
(This piece also appears at Perrspectives. )
0 Views
15:10:16 01/03/12
Blunt warning from Athens on euro future
[LESS INFO] 0 VIEWS | ADDED 15:10:16 01/03/12
Blunt warning from Athens on euro future
www.euronews.net Greece will have to leave the eurozone if it fails to reach a deal on a second, 130 billion euro bailout with its international lenders. That unusually stark warning from government spokesman Pantelis Kapsis seemed to be aimed at building support among the Greeks for tough austerity measures. Kapsis told Skai TV: "The bailout agreement needs to be signed otherwise we will be out of the markets, out of the euro. The situation will be much worse." From: Euronews Views: 398 6 ratings Time: 00:26 More in News & Politics
0 Views
15:10:16 01/03/12
Blunt warning from Athens on euro future
[LESS INFO] 0 VIEWS | ADDED 15:10:16 01/03/12
Blunt warning from Athens on euro future
www.euronews.net Greece will have to leave the eurozone if it fails to reach a deal on a second, 130 billion euro bailout with its international lenders. That unusually stark warning from government spokesman Pantelis Kapsis seemed to be aimed at building support among the Greeks for tough austerity measures. Kapsis told Skai TV: "The bailout agreement needs to be signed otherwise we will be out of the markets, out of the euro. The situation will be much worse." From: Euronews Views: 324 5 ratings Time: 00:26 More in News & Politics
7 Views
22:00:00 12/11/11
Jon Huntsman: Yes, There Is Overwhelming Scientific Evidence For Man-Made Climate Change
[LESS INFO] 7 VIEWS | ADDED 22:00:00 12/11/11
video platform video management video solutions video player
Personally, I think progressive groups missed a real opportunity by not reaching out to Jon Huntsman months ago to support his moderate views. We know that the toxic extremism of the Republican primary process is a big part of why our country's in the intractable mess we're in, and until we fix that, simply electing Democrats won't be enough. Wouldn't it be smart to support some Republicans who actually want to make reasonable decisions for the good of the country? Unions could have pushed his candidacy to their Republican members in the primaries, maybe even encouraged members to switch registrations to show support. Yeah, it's unorthodox - but what else is working?
As I wrote several months ago, a study indicates as many as one-third of registered Republicans don't vote. because they don't like extreme candidates. Someone like Huntsman could have motivated those people to get back to the polls, especially if it looked like he had a chance. Instead, he's been left to drift, just more chum for the right-wing sharks. He's trying to stay alive by spouting a weird mix of common sense and right wing dogma, but at least on This Week with Christiane Amanpour today he walks back his recent statement and admits that yes, there is overwhelming scientific evidence for man-made climate change: >
AMANPOUR: Six candidates faced off in Des Moines last night, but Jon Huntsman wasn't one of them. The former Utah governor, who entered this campaign with enormous fanfare, has failed to qualify for a spot on the debate stage. Iowa isn't part of the Huntsman strategy, though. He has put all of his firepower into New Hampshire. And he joins us this morning from Manchester. Governor, thank you for joining us. Let me quickly ask you, I'm sure you do not want to get into who won, who lost, but who do you think won on the stage last night?
HUNTSMAN: Well, Christiane, thank you for having me, first and foremost. I think with respect to last night, all I can say, with all due respect to your terrific network, was I was delighted to be here in New Hampshire having a town hall meeting. We have four town hall meetings today. We have a debate with Newt Gingrich on Monday. And this is a state that is incredibly important for us.
And on the debate stage last night, I believe that the most important issue of all confronting the American people wasn't even touched upon, and that is the deficit of trust that we have in the United States. In fact, it may have -- it played right into the trust deficit. That is, nobody trusts Congress anymore. We need term limits in Congress. We need to close the revolving door that allows members of Congress to move right on into the lobbying profession. No one has trust anymore toward the executive branch. No one trusts Wall Street, with banks that are too big to fail. So the -- I would argue that the issues that are most salient in our political dialogue today weren't even touched upon last night.
AMANPOUR: So then how do you explain the phenomenal rise of Newt Gingrich? You say people don't have trust, and yet he does seem to be speaking, at least to Republican voters, in a way that you aren't, for instance.
HUNTSMAN: Well, listen, there have been so many ups and downs in this race, I'm getting whiplashed, quite frankly. We've had six front-runners in the span of about six months. And all I can tell you, having spent a whole lot of time here in New Hampshire -- we have had 116 public events in this state -- is that the voters will begin to coalesce around a candidate about a week to 10 days out. The marketplace is still open. People are shopping. They are listening very, very carefully. And all I can say, Christiane, is the two messages that we're delivering to the people here on the ground, the economic deficit which is the cancer metastasizing in this country and one that is a national security problem, I would say, and the trust deficit are the two biggest issues we face today. And we're getting people showing up to our town hall meetings in numbers I never would have imagined. They're signing up afterwards, they're taking lawn signs home.
I feel very good about their trajectory here in this great state. And this is always the state that upends conventional wisdom. So let's not fall back onto conventional wisdom. That never holds true in the end.
AMANPOUR: All right, but people are trying to figure out how you're going to really break out, because you are at the moment at the bottom of the pack, despite the fact that some independents, for instance in New Hampshire call you the sanest one running. Our George Will has said that you deserve a searching second look from conservatives. Ross Douthat of the New York Times calls you the most electable conservative remaining in the race. And yet as I say, what you are offering doesn't seem to be resonating. It appears that the Newt Gingrich, sort of bombast and brash, in your face against Obama is what's resonating.
HUNTSMAN: Christiane, we're doing better in New Hampshire than half the people on that stage last night when you look at the recent polls. We're going nowhere but up. We started as a margin of error candidate. I'm no longer a margin of error candidate because our messages are working.
People want to know if they're going to have a president who's going to call for term limits for Congress. They want to know they're going to have a president who will take on banks that are too big to fail. And it doesn't matter if we fix taxes or create a more streamlined regulatory environment or move toward energy independence. If we're stuck with banks that are too big to fail, with this implied guarantee by the taxpayers, we're setting ourselves up for disaster.
So we've moved from zero to now double digits, and in the weeks ahead, I do believe we're going to move right up toward the top of the pack, understanding full well that people simply don't make decisions until days out, from in this case, January 10th.
I like our position. They want an honest, honorable, trustworthy person in this race. They want someone whose core they can trust going forward. We're putting ourselves forward as that person. And I like our position.
AMANPOUR: I just want to put up a graphic, because, again, talking about New Hampshire, you are back in fourth place there. So given how important New Hampshire is to you staying in the race, tell me honestly where you have to come in order to stay in the race?
HUNTSMAN: We have to beat market expectations, Christiane. And I have every expectation that we're going to beat market expectations.
AMANPOUR: Where is that, second, third? Where do you think you'd be?
HUNTSMAN: I'm not going to play the numbers game. I am not going to play the numbers game, but we're going to be right up toward the top. We have done nothing but climb in every poll since we entered this market, and our message is connecting with people. I can feel it on the ground. I have a very good visceral sense of where this campaign is going. And we're going to surprise and upend conventional wisdom, I can tell you that right now.
AMANPOUR: All right, let me ask you about where this campaign is going. I read to you a few comments from people before, including one who called you the sanest one still running. But it appears that you're reversing some of your own eminently sensible positions, for instance on climate change. You in August tweeted that "to be clear, I believe in evolution, and I trust scientists on global warming. Call me crazy." You have been tweeting about this sort of rightward swing, you've been jabbing at the base. And yet last week, you sort of rolled that bit back on climate change. You sort of said there isn't enough science. I mean, what are you doing?
HUNTSMAN: Well, Christiane, I'm not changing at all. I have said all along that I put my faith and trust in science. When you have 99 out 100 climate scientists, you have members of the National Academy of Sciences who have weighed in on a body of research on the subject matter, I say that's where I put my trust.
Yes, there might be one percent of scientists who still are questioning some of those assumptions, and that debate and discussion will continue. But as for me, let me make it crystal clear. I'm on the side of science in this debate. I don't know a whole lot of people on Capitol Hill who are physicists or climate scientists. I think this is a discussion that needs to be taken out of the political lane and kept in the science lane.
AMANPOUR: One more question, you have said that you will endorse and support whoever's the nominee. If it is Newt Gingrich, will he get your endorsement?
HUNTSMAN: Well, listen, I don't have to worry about that, because we're moving up in this great state of New Hampshire. We're going to be the nominee, and I don't have to worry about anything beyond that.
AMANPOUR: Jon Huntsman, thank you very much indeed for joining us.
HUNTSMAN: Thanks, Christiane.
1 Views
22:00:00 12/11/11
Jon Huntsman: Yes, There Is Overwhelming Scientific Evidence For Man-Made Climate Change
[LESS INFO] 1 VIEWS | ADDED 22:00:00 12/11/11
video platform video management video solutions video player
Personally, I think progressive groups missed a real opportunity by not reaching out to Jon Huntsman months ago to support his moderate views. We know that the toxic extremism of the Republican primary process is a big part of why our country's in the intractable mess we're in, and until we fix that, simply electing Democrats won't be enough. Wouldn't it be smart to support some Republicans who actually want to make reasonable decisions for the good of the country? Unions could have pushed his candidacy to their Republican members in the primaries, maybe even encouraged members to switch registrations to show support. Yeah, it's unorthodox - but what else is working?
As I wrote several months ago, a study indicates as many as one-third of registered Republicans don't vote. because they don't like extreme candidates. Someone like Huntsman could have motivated those people to get back to the polls, especially if it looked like he had a chance. Instead, he's been left to drift, just more chum for the right-wing sharks. He's trying to stay alive by spouting a weird mix of common sense and right wing dogma, but at least on This Week with Christiane Amanpour today he walks back his recent statement and admits that yes, there is overwhelming scientific evidence for man-made climate change: >
AMANPOUR: Six candidates faced off in Des Moines last night, but Jon Huntsman wasn't one of them. The former Utah governor, who entered this campaign with enormous fanfare, has failed to qualify for a spot on the debate stage. Iowa isn't part of the Huntsman strategy, though. He has put all of his firepower into New Hampshire. And he joins us this morning from Manchester. Governor, thank you for joining us. Let me quickly ask you, I'm sure you do not want to get into who won, who lost, but who do you think won on the stage last night?
HUNTSMAN: Well, Christiane, thank you for having me, first and foremost. I think with respect to last night, all I can say, with all due respect to your terrific network, was I was delighted to be here in New Hampshire having a town hall meeting. We have four town hall meetings today. We have a debate with Newt Gingrich on Monday. And this is a state that is incredibly important for us.
And on the debate stage last night, I believe that the most important issue of all confronting the American people wasn't even touched upon, and that is the deficit of trust that we have in the United States. In fact, it may have -- it played right into the trust deficit. That is, nobody trusts Congress anymore. We need term limits in Congress. We need to close the revolving door that allows members of Congress to move right on into the lobbying profession. No one has trust anymore toward the executive branch. No one trusts Wall Street, with banks that are too big to fail. So the -- I would argue that the issues that are most salient in our political dialogue today weren't even touched upon last night.
AMANPOUR: So then how do you explain the phenomenal rise of Newt Gingrich? You say people don't have trust, and yet he does seem to be speaking, at least to Republican voters, in a way that you aren't, for instance.
HUNTSMAN: Well, listen, there have been so many ups and downs in this race, I'm getting whiplashed, quite frankly. We've had six front-runners in the span of about six months. And all I can tell you, having spent a whole lot of time here in New Hampshire -- we have had 116 public events in this state -- is that the voters will begin to coalesce around a candidate about a week to 10 days out. The marketplace is still open. People are shopping. They are listening very, very carefully. And all I can say, Christiane, is the two messages that we're delivering to the people here on the ground, the economic deficit which is the cancer metastasizing in this country and one that is a national security problem, I would say, and the trust deficit are the two biggest issues we face today. And we're getting people showing up to our town hall meetings in numbers I never would have imagined. They're signing up afterwards, they're taking lawn signs home.
I feel very good about their trajectory here in this great state. And this is always the state that upends conventional wisdom. So let's not fall back onto conventional wisdom. That never holds true in the end.
AMANPOUR: All right, but people are trying to figure out how you're going to really break out, because you are at the moment at the bottom of the pack, despite the fact that some independents, for instance in New Hampshire call you the sanest one running. Our George Will has said that you deserve a searching second look from conservatives. Ross Douthat of the New York Times calls you the most electable conservative remaining in the race. And yet as I say, what you are offering doesn't seem to be resonating. It appears that the Newt Gingrich, sort of bombast and brash, in your face against Obama is what's resonating.
HUNTSMAN: Christiane, we're doing better in New Hampshire than half the people on that stage last night when you look at the recent polls. We're going nowhere but up. We started as a margin of error candidate. I'm no longer a margin of error candidate because our messages are working.
People want to know if they're going to have a president who's going to call for term limits for Congress. They want to know they're going to have a president who will take on banks that are too big to fail. And it doesn't matter if we fix taxes or create a more streamlined regulatory environment or move toward energy independence. If we're stuck with banks that are too big to fail, with this implied guarantee by the taxpayers, we're setting ourselves up for disaster.
So we've moved from zero to now double digits, and in the weeks ahead, I do believe we're going to move right up toward the top of the pack, understanding full well that people simply don't make decisions until days out, from in this case, January 10th.
I like our position. They want an honest, honorable, trustworthy person in this race. They want someone whose core they can trust going forward. We're putting ourselves forward as that person. And I like our position.
AMANPOUR: I just want to put up a graphic, because, again, talking about New Hampshire, you are back in fourth place there. So given how important New Hampshire is to you staying in the race, tell me honestly where you have to come in order to stay in the race?
HUNTSMAN: We have to beat market expectations, Christiane. And I have every expectation that we're going to beat market expectations.
AMANPOUR: Where is that, second, third? Where do you think you'd be?
HUNTSMAN: I'm not going to play the numbers game. I am not going to play the numbers game, but we're going to be right up toward the top. We have done nothing but climb in every poll since we entered this market, and our message is connecting with people. I can feel it on the ground. I have a very good visceral sense of where this campaign is going. And we're going to surprise and upend conventional wisdom, I can tell you that right now.
AMANPOUR: All right, let me ask you about where this campaign is going. I read to you a few comments from people before, including one who called you the sanest one still running. But it appears that you're reversing some of your own eminently sensible positions, for instance on climate change. You in August tweeted that "to be clear, I believe in evolution, and I trust scientists on global warming. Call me crazy." You have been tweeting about this sort of rightward swing, you've been jabbing at the base. And yet last week, you sort of rolled that bit back on climate change. You sort of said there isn't enough science. I mean, what are you doing?
HUNTSMAN: Well, Christiane, I'm not changing at all. I have said all along that I put my faith and trust in science. When you have 99 out 100 climate scientists, you have members of the National Academy of Sciences who have weighed in on a body of research on the subject matter, I say that's where I put my trust.
Yes, there might be one percent of scientists who still are questioning some of those assumptions, and that debate and discussion will continue. But as for me, let me make it crystal clear. I'm on the side of science in this debate. I don't know a whole lot of people on Capitol Hill who are physicists or climate scientists. I think this is a discussion that needs to be taken out of the political lane and kept in the science lane.
AMANPOUR: One more question, you have said that you will endorse and support whoever's the nominee. If it is Newt Gingrich, will he get your endorsement?
HUNTSMAN: Well, listen, I don't have to worry about that, because we're moving up in this great state of New Hampshire. We're going to be the nominee, and I don't have to worry about anything beyond that.
AMANPOUR: Jon Huntsman, thank you very much indeed for joining us.
HUNTSMAN: Thanks, Christiane.
1 Views
11:44:01 12/02/11
Community Reaches Out to Family of Missing Mom
[LESS INFO] 1 VIEWS | ADDED 11:44:01 12/02/11
The search continues in Florida for Michelle Parker, the mother who disappeared after she was on the show “The People’s Court,” and her small town community has shown strong support to her family.
3 Views
20:00:43 11/29/11
Right-Wing Furious Over Obama's 'Godless' Thanksgiving Address
[LESS INFO] 3 VIEWS | ADDED 20:00:43 11/29/11
Remember when President Bush forgot to thank God in his 2008 Thanksgiving address? Neither do the conservatives now apoplectic that Barack Obama's 2011 remarks contained no reference to the Almighty. Nevertheless, the usual suspects on the right are frothing at the mouth over the perceived slight from the man many still pretend is a secret Muslim .
As Americans were still eating their turkey on Thursday, the Los Angeles Times served as the dutiful stenographer for the Twitter vitriol: >
But Thursday morning, Republicans and others tweeted their discontent with the reported omission of God from Obama's address. >
Comments included "So sad!" and "God help us!" Republicans Abroad retweeted the Fox News headline: "Obama Leaves God Out of Thanksgiving Address." >
"To give thanks for luck is to deny God much less omit!" tweeted "PastorJeffBrown," whose Twitter account lists him as a rural Oklahoma husband, father and Baptist pastor.
Apparently, Obama's passing references to "blessings" and "faith" were not sufficient in his expression of gratitude to American service men and women, among others: >
As Americans, each of us has our own list of things and people to be thankful for. But there are some blessings we all share. >
We're especially grateful for the men and women who defend our country overseas. To all the service members eating Thanksgiving dinner far from your families: the American people are thinking of you today. And when you come home, we intend to make sure that we serve you as well as you're serving America. >
We're also grateful for the Americans who are taking time out of their holiday to serve in soup kitchens and shelters, making sure their neighbors have a hot meal and a place to stay. This sense of mutual responsibility - the idea that I am my brother's keeper; that I am my sister's keeper - has always been a part of what makes our country special. And it's one of the reasons the Thanksgiving tradition has endured.
Of course, if this language sounds familiar, it should. With one mention of the "a land where they could worship the Almighty without persecution," George W. Bush said pretty much the same thing for Thanksgiving, 2008: >
During this holiday season, we give thanks for those who defend our freedom. America's men and women in uniform deserve our highest respect -- and so do the families who love and support them. Lately, I have been asked what I will miss about the presidency. And my answer is that I will miss being the Commander-in-Chief of these brave warriors. In this special time of year, when many of them are serving in distant lands, they are in the thoughts and prayers of all Americans. >
During this holiday season, we give thanks for the kindness of citizens throughout our Nation. It is a testament to the goodness of our people that on Thanksgiving, millions of Americans reach out to those who have little. The true spirit of the holidays can be seen in the generous volunteers who bring comfort to the poor and the sick and the elderly. These men and women are selfless members of our Nation's armies of compassion -- and they make our country a better place, one heart and one soul at a time.
Following Bush's departure, God returned to a place of prominence in Barack Obama's 2009 and 2010 Thanksgiving addresses . Two years ago, President Obama encouraged " all the people of the United States to come together, whether in our homes, places of worship, community centers, or any place where family, friends and neighbors may gather" to, among other things: >
[R]ecall President George Washington, who proclaimed our first national day of public thanksgiving to be observed "by acknowledging with grateful hearts the many and signal favors of Almighty God," and President Abraham Lincoln, who established our annual Thanksgiving Day to help mend a fractured Nation in the midst of civil war.
A year ago, President Obama again offered thanks to Him: >
Today, like millions of other families across America, Michelle, Malia, Sasha and I will sit down to share a Thanksgiving filled with family and friends - and a few helpings of food and football, too. And just as folks have done in every Thanksgiving since the first, we'll spend some time taking stock of what we're thankful for: the God-given bounty of America, and the blessings of one another.
But never missing an opportunity to portray Obama as "the other," Fox News rang the alarm , declaring, "Obama Leaves God Out of Thanksgiving Address." His calls for community and unity, and to "give thanks for that most American of blessings, the chance to determine our own destiny," was more than the conservative caricaturists could handle from the supposed "militant atheist" in the White House.
0 Views
20:00:43 11/29/11
Right-Wing Furious Over Obama's 'Godless' Thanksgiving Address
[LESS INFO] 0 VIEWS | ADDED 20:00:43 11/29/11
Remember when President Bush forgot to thank God in his 2008 Thanksgiving address? Neither do the conservatives now apoplectic that Barack Obama's 2011 remarks contained no reference to the Almighty. Nevertheless, the usual suspects on the right are frothing at the mouth over the perceived slight from the man many still pretend is a secret Muslim .
As Americans were still eating their turkey on Thursday, the Los Angeles Times served as the dutiful stenographer for the Twitter vitriol: >
But Thursday morning, Republicans and others tweeted their discontent with the reported omission of God from Obama's address. >
Comments included "So sad!" and "God help us!" Republicans Abroad retweeted the Fox News headline: "Obama Leaves God Out of Thanksgiving Address." >
"To give thanks for luck is to deny God much less omit!" tweeted "PastorJeffBrown," whose Twitter account lists him as a rural Oklahoma husband, father and Baptist pastor.
Apparently, Obama's passing references to "blessings" and "faith" were not sufficient in his expression of gratitude to American service men and women, among others: >
As Americans, each of us has our own list of things and people to be thankful for. But there are some blessings we all share. >
We're especially grateful for the men and women who defend our country overseas. To all the service members eating Thanksgiving dinner far from your families: the American people are thinking of you today. And when you come home, we intend to make sure that we serve you as well as you're serving America. >
We're also grateful for the Americans who are taking time out of their holiday to serve in soup kitchens and shelters, making sure their neighbors have a hot meal and a place to stay. This sense of mutual responsibility - the idea that I am my brother's keeper; that I am my sister's keeper - has always been a part of what makes our country special. And it's one of the reasons the Thanksgiving tradition has endured.
Of course, if this language sounds familiar, it should. With one mention of the "a land where they could worship the Almighty without persecution," George W. Bush said pretty much the same thing for Thanksgiving, 2008: >
During this holiday season, we give thanks for those who defend our freedom. America's men and women in uniform deserve our highest respect -- and so do the families who love and support them. Lately, I have been asked what I will miss about the presidency. And my answer is that I will miss being the Commander-in-Chief of these brave warriors. In this special time of year, when many of them are serving in distant lands, they are in the thoughts and prayers of all Americans. >
During this holiday season, we give thanks for the kindness of citizens throughout our Nation. It is a testament to the goodness of our people that on Thanksgiving, millions of Americans reach out to those who have little. The true spirit of the holidays can be seen in the generous volunteers who bring comfort to the poor and the sick and the elderly. These men and women are selfless members of our Nation's armies of compassion -- and they make our country a better place, one heart and one soul at a time.
Following Bush's departure, God returned to a place of prominence in Barack Obama's 2009 and 2010 Thanksgiving addresses . Two years ago, President Obama encouraged " all the people of the United States to come together, whether in our homes, places of worship, community centers, or any place where family, friends and neighbors may gather" to, among other things: >
[R]ecall President George Washington, who proclaimed our first national day of public thanksgiving to be observed "by acknowledging with grateful hearts the many and signal favors of Almighty God," and President Abraham Lincoln, who established our annual Thanksgiving Day to help mend a fractured Nation in the midst of civil war.
A year ago, President Obama again offered thanks to Him: >
Today, like millions of other families across America, Michelle, Malia, Sasha and I will sit down to share a Thanksgiving filled with family and friends - and a few helpings of food and football, too. And just as folks have done in every Thanksgiving since the first, we'll spend some time taking stock of what we're thankful for: the God-given bounty of America, and the blessings of one another.
But never missing an opportunity to portray Obama as "the other," Fox News rang the alarm , declaring, "Obama Leaves God Out of Thanksgiving Address." His calls for community and unity, and to "give thanks for that most American of blessings, the chance to determine our own destiny," was more than the conservative caricaturists could handle from the supposed "militant atheist" in the White House.
1 Views
22:13:38 11/17/11
A New Wave of Jewish Cultural Organizations
[LESS INFO] 1 VIEWS | ADDED 22:13:38 11/17/11
A New Wave of Jewish Cultural Organizations UpStart Bay Area - UpStart Bay Area American Judaism is in the midst of a paradigm shift, as Jewish leaders look for new ways, and build new institutions, to engage American Jews in Jewish life. Fresh ideas and approaches seem to proliferate weekly: according to a recent report, more than 600 Jewish ventures have been created in the last decade alone. Organizations like UpStart Bay Area, Joshua Venture Group, and Bikkurim, exist to nurture and support these efforts. Established organizations are opening up to new approaches to creating and delivering Jewish experiences that more people find relevant and meaningful to their lives. While Jewish social innovation is thriving, Jewish leaders -- professionals, lay leaders, funders, and entrepreneurs alike -- are faced with a new set of important challenges to address, including: What relationships can be fostered between established organizations and emerging Jewish organizations, to their mutual benefit? How can the Jewish community attract the resources needed to provide a valuable "runway" to emerging organizations so they can meet increased demand, evaluate and apply learning, and scale impact without running out of money just as their ventures are demonstrating value and reach? Join UpStart Bay Area for a special webinar exploring these questions about the future of innovation in Jewish life, featuring Toby Rubin, Sara Bamberger, and Barry Finestone.
10 Views
22:00:00 11/17/11
Act Today To Save The Internet - Oppose SOPA
[LESS INFO] 10 VIEWS | ADDED 22:00:00 11/17/11
The House Judiciary Committee held a hearing today on the "Stop Internet Piracy Act" (aka SOPA). In typical Republican fashion, it was not broadcast on CSPAN and many interested parties were excluded from the proceedings. In fact, the only technology company allowed to testify was Google , who opposes the proposed law along with a coalition of companies which includes Facebook, eBay and Zynga , along with others.
If ever there were a law designed to fatten the pockets of intellectual property attorneys, it is this proposed law. It has the potential to change the Internet, and not for the better. Written by and for large media companies like Comcast, it places full responsibility for intellectual property piracy on the shoulders of site owners rather than users.
As currently written, any website that quoted another site's content, or linked to a site that quoted another site's content could be declared a rogue site by the content owner, whether or not that content is subject to fair use rules. Once declared "rogue", companies like Paypal and Visa could then cut off payments immediately without the benefit of a hearing or due process of law. Fair use? Free speech? Forget about it. Here is the official summary from the House Judiciary Committee site. >
This bill focuses not on technology but on preventing those who engage in criminal behavior from reaching directly into the U.S. market to harm American consumers.
We cannot continue a system that allows criminals to disregard our laws and import counterfeit and pirated goods across our physical borders.
Nor can we fail to take effective and meaningful action when criminals misuse the Internet.
The problem of rogue websites is real, immediate and wide-spread. It harms all sectors of the economy.
And its scope is staggering. One recent survey found that nearly one quarter of global Internet traffic infringes on copyrights.
A second study found that 43 sites classified as ‘digital piracy’ generated 53 billion visits per year and that 26 sites selling just counterfeit prescription drugs generated 51 million hits annually.
Since the United States produces the most intellectual property, our country has the most to lose if we fail to address the problem of these rogue websites.
Responsible companies and public officials have taken note of the corrosive and damaging effects of rogue sites.
That last line is dripping with finger-pointing, as the announcement goes on to extol the virtuous Mastercard company while excoriating Google. Mastercard, of course, supports this wholeheartedly, while Google opposes it, along with Facebook and other websites. The Electronic Frontier Foundation points out that s ites like Vimeo, Flickr and Etsy would likely die as a result of this legislation.
Rebecca MacKinnon, former CNN reporter and senior fellow at the New America Foundation, had this to say : >
The bills would empower the attorney general to create a blacklist of sites to be blocked by Internet service providers, search engines, payment providers and advertising networks, all without a court hearing or a trial. The House version goes further, allowing private companies to sue service providers for even briefly and unknowingly hosting content that infringes on copyright — a sharp change from current law, which protects the service providers from civil liability if they remove the problematic content immediately upon notification. The intention is not the same as China’s Great Firewall, a nationwide system of Web censorship, but the practical effect could be similar.
Abuses under existing American law serve as troubling predictors for the kinds of abuse by private actors that the House bill would make possible. Take, for example, the cease-and-desist letters that Diebold, a maker of voting machines, sent in 2003, demanding that Internet service providers shut down Web sites that had published internal company e-mails about problems with the company’s voting machines. The letter cited copyright violations, and most of the service providers took down the content without question, despite the strong case to be made that the material was speech protected under the First Amendment.
Indeed. MacKinnon goes on to point out that this bill goes far beyond intellectual property protection. In particular, the House bill is set up to hold companies liable for users' actions. That would kill YouTube forever, but more importantly, it sets up an environment where power is freely wielded by those with the resources to shut down those without resources. Imagine Fox News declaring this site "rogue", for example. Search engines would block all traffic and results, and our right to speak freely (and criticize them freely) would be infringed upon. The same is true of Media Matters. Those with the lawyers and the money would win by default.
The Occupy movement? Dead. They'd shut down the Facebook and Twitter accounts along with the live stream without cause. Simply call it "rogue" and be done. That's how totalitarian societies operate and it's anathema to anyone who understands the Internet.
BusinessWeek : >
As Brad Burnham of Union Square Ventures says in a blog post, what these bills do is expose a fundamental disconnect between proponents of an open Internet and companies and legislators who would rather create their own kind of Internet: a version of the Web that’s less chaotic, more respectful, and most importantly, a lot easier to control. As Burnham notes, that kind of Internet would make things a lot easier for content producers and entertainment conglomerates, but it would remove or imperil a lot of the things that make the Internet so valuable:
“The Internet is not just a series of pipes. Its core architecture embeds an assumption about human nature.
> The Internet is designed to empower individuals, not control them. It assumes that the if individuals are empowered, they will do the right thing the vast majority of the time.
”
Over the past few days, I've seen reports that this bill is dead and other reports that it's alive and kicking. There are many who are raising their voices against it, including Oregon Senator Wyden, who has placed a hold on it. Unfortunately, it's a bipartisan bill. It shouldn't be. No Democrat should support this kind of suppression online. None. No conservative with true respect for the Constitution should support this kind of suppression, and indeed, one of those who oppose it is Ron Paul, to his credit.
As much as it pains me to admit this, I find myself on the same side as Darrell Issa. Via The Hill : >
Issa said the rush to hold the hearing was based on the flawed assumption that the bipartisan bill would quickly become law and said the sponsors didn’t want to hear from opponents, but must now accept that there is real opposition to their bill.
“What they’re realizing is there are so many unintended consequences that they can’t just use Google as a piñata and bash on it here,” he said, citing the broad coalition of opposition encompassing the tech industry, the left and the right.
“I don’t believe this bill has any chance on the House floor,” Issa added when asked about the odds of the bill moving forward after passing the Judiciary Committee. “I think it’s way too extreme, it infringes on too many areas that our leadership will know is simply too dangerous to do in its current form.”
The bottom line here? Many of these lawmakers don't know enough about the Internet to understand the issues at stake. Further, as companies like Amazon, Apple, Spotify, Hulu and others develop ways to stream their content at affordable prices to users, piracy will likely decline. Dropping a nuclear bomb on the Internet is unnecessary to prevent piracy. This is really about control. Comcast wants control of what users can see and stream on their pipes, something I predicted back when they first proposed merging with NBC-Universal.
This attempt by mega-corporations to take control of the Internet needs to be stopped cold. There has been a huge online response expressing opposition, but it needs to continue. Please sign the EFF petition here , or call your representatives to register your opposition to a law which is unnecessarily draconian and serves only the interests of corporations who do not serve yours.
22 Views
22:00:00 11/17/11
Act Today To Save The Internet - Oppose SOPA
[LESS INFO] 22 VIEWS | ADDED 22:00:00 11/17/11
The House Judiciary Committee held a hearing today on the "Stop Internet Piracy Act" (aka SOPA). In typical Republican fashion, it was not broadcast on CSPAN and many interested parties were excluded from the proceedings. In fact, the only technology company allowed to testify was Google , who opposes the proposed law along with a coalition of companies which includes Facebook, eBay and Zynga , along with others.
If ever there were a law designed to fatten the pockets of intellectual property attorneys, it is this proposed law. It has the potential to change the Internet, and not for the better. Written by and for large media companies like Comcast, it places full responsibility for intellectual property piracy on the shoulders of site owners rather than users.
As currently written, any website that quoted another site's content, or linked to a site that quoted another site's content could be declared a rogue site by the content owner, whether or not that content is subject to fair use rules. Once declared "rogue", companies like Paypal and Visa could then cut off payments immediately without the benefit of a hearing or due process of law. Fair use? Free speech? Forget about it. Here is the official summary from the House Judiciary Committee site. >
This bill focuses not on technology but on preventing those who engage in criminal behavior from reaching directly into the U.S. market to harm American consumers.
We cannot continue a system that allows criminals to disregard our laws and import counterfeit and pirated goods across our physical borders.
Nor can we fail to take effective and meaningful action when criminals misuse the Internet.
The problem of rogue websites is real, immediate and wide-spread. It harms all sectors of the economy.
And its scope is staggering. One recent survey found that nearly one quarter of global Internet traffic infringes on copyrights.
A second study found that 43 sites classified as ‘digital piracy’ generated 53 billion visits per year and that 26 sites selling just counterfeit prescription drugs generated 51 million hits annually.
Since the United States produces the most intellectual property, our country has the most to lose if we fail to address the problem of these rogue websites.
Responsible companies and public officials have taken note of the corrosive and damaging effects of rogue sites.
That last line is dripping with finger-pointing, as the announcement goes on to extol the virtuous Mastercard company while excoriating Google. Mastercard, of course, supports this wholeheartedly, while Google opposes it, along with Facebook and other websites. The Electronic Frontier Foundation points out that s ites like Vimeo, Flickr and Etsy would likely die as a result of this legislation.
Rebecca MacKinnon, former CNN reporter and senior fellow at the New America Foundation, had this to say : >
The bills would empower the attorney general to create a blacklist of sites to be blocked by Internet service providers, search engines, payment providers and advertising networks, all without a court hearing or a trial. The House version goes further, allowing private companies to sue service providers for even briefly and unknowingly hosting content that infringes on copyright — a sharp change from current law, which protects the service providers from civil liability if they remove the problematic content immediately upon notification. The intention is not the same as China’s Great Firewall, a nationwide system of Web censorship, but the practical effect could be similar.
Abuses under existing American law serve as troubling predictors for the kinds of abuse by private actors that the House bill would make possible. Take, for example, the cease-and-desist letters that Diebold, a maker of voting machines, sent in 2003, demanding that Internet service providers shut down Web sites that had published internal company e-mails about problems with the company’s voting machines. The letter cited copyright violations, and most of the service providers took down the content without question, despite the strong case to be made that the material was speech protected under the First Amendment.
Indeed. MacKinnon goes on to point out that this bill goes far beyond intellectual property protection. In particular, the House bill is set up to hold companies liable for users' actions. That would kill YouTube forever, but more importantly, it sets up an environment where power is freely wielded by those with the resources to shut down those without resources. Imagine Fox News declaring this site "rogue", for example. Search engines would block all traffic and results, and our right to speak freely (and criticize them freely) would be infringed upon. The same is true of Media Matters. Those with the lawyers and the money would win by default.
The Occupy movement? Dead. They'd shut down the Facebook and Twitter accounts along with the live stream without cause. Simply call it "rogue" and be done. That's how totalitarian societies operate and it's anathema to anyone who understands the Internet.
BusinessWeek : >
As Brad Burnham of Union Square Ventures says in a blog post, what these bills do is expose a fundamental disconnect between proponents of an open Internet and companies and legislators who would rather create their own kind of Internet: a version of the Web that’s less chaotic, more respectful, and most importantly, a lot easier to control. As Burnham notes, that kind of Internet would make things a lot easier for content producers and entertainment conglomerates, but it would remove or imperil a lot of the things that make the Internet so valuable:
“The Internet is not just a series of pipes. Its core architecture embeds an assumption about human nature.
> The Internet is designed to empower individuals, not control them. It assumes that the if individuals are empowered, they will do the right thing the vast majority of the time.
”
Over the past few days, I've seen reports that this bill is dead and other reports that it's alive and kicking. There are many who are raising their voices against it, including Oregon Senator Wyden, who has placed a hold on it. Unfortunately, it's a bipartisan bill. It shouldn't be. No Democrat should support this kind of suppression online. None. No conservative with true respect for the Constitution should support this kind of suppression, and indeed, one of those who oppose it is Ron Paul, to his credit.
As much as it pains me to admit this, I find myself on the same side as Darrell Issa. Via The Hill : >
Issa said the rush to hold the hearing was based on the flawed assumption that the bipartisan bill would quickly become law and said the sponsors didn’t want to hear from opponents, but must now accept that there is real opposition to their bill.
“What they’re realizing is there are so many unintended consequences that they can’t just use Google as a piñata and bash on it here,” he said, citing the broad coalition of opposition encompassing the tech industry, the left and the right.
“I don’t believe this bill has any chance on the House floor,” Issa added when asked about the odds of the bill moving forward after passing the Judiciary Committee. “I think it’s way too extreme, it infringes on too many areas that our leadership will know is simply too dangerous to do in its current form.”
The bottom line here? Many of these lawmakers don't know enough about the Internet to understand the issues at stake. Further, as companies like Amazon, Apple, Spotify, Hulu and others develop ways to stream their content at affordable prices to users, piracy will likely decline. Dropping a nuclear bomb on the Internet is unnecessary to prevent piracy. This is really about control. Comcast wants control of what users can see and stream on their pipes, something I predicted back when they first proposed merging with NBC-Universal.
This attempt by mega-corporations to take control of the Internet needs to be stopped cold. There has been a huge online response expressing opposition, but it needs to continue. Please sign the EFF petition here , or call your representatives to register your opposition to a law which is unnecessarily draconian and serves only the interests of corporations who do not serve yours.
