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
07:41:54 12/28/11
On "If I were a poor Black kid"...
[LESS INFO] 0 VIEWS | ADDED 07:41:54 12/28/11
[ VIDEO ] Joe Hicks discusses the controversy over Gene Marks' blog post at Forbes entitled " If I were a poor Black kid ". Basically he asks, "Why can't white people contribute to the national dialogue on race and racism?"
It does seem like a cop out to just tell someone that they have nothing to say because they're not a poor Black child so they can't relate in any way. I've had a white geography teacher in high school - GO FALCONS - who said that he could relate because he was poor. Of course the conclusion could be that he thinks all Blacks are poor, but that's only a thought and not necessarily based on reality.
All the same Marks bounces off of a recent speech by President Obama in Kansas where he discussed the gap between the rich and the poor:
> The President’s speech got me thinking. My kids are no smarter than similar kids their age from the inner city. My kids have it much easier than their counterparts from West Philadelphia . The world is not fair to those kids mainly because they had the misfortune of being born two miles away into a more difficult part of the world and with a skin color that makes realizing the opportunities that the President spoke about that much harder. This is a fact. In 2011.
I am not a poor black kid. I am a middle aged white guy who comes from a middle class white background. So life was easier for me. But that doesn’t mean that the prospects are impossible for those kids from the inner city. It doesn’t mean that there are no opportunities for them. Or that the 1% control the world and the rest of us have to fight over the scraps left behind. I don’t believe that. I believe that everyone in this country has a chance to succeed. Still. In 2011. Even a poor black kid in West Philadelphia.
It takes brains. It takes hard work. It takes a little luck. And a little help from others. It takes the ability and the know-how to use the resources that are available. Like technology. As a person who sells and has worked with technology all my life I also know this.
If I was a poor black kid I would first and most importantly work to make sure I got the best grades possible. I would make it my #1 priority to be able to read sufficiently. I wouldn’t care if I was a student at the worst public middle school in the worst inner city. Even the worst have their best. And the very best students, even at the worst schools, have more opportunities. Getting good grades is the key to having more options. With good grades you can choose different, better paths. If you do poorly in school, particularly in a lousy school, you’re severely limiting the limited opportunities you have.
And I would use the technology available to me as a student. I know a few school teachers and they tell me that many inner city parents usually have or can afford cheap computers and internet service nowadays. That because (and sadly) it’s oftentimes a necessary thing to keep their kids safe at home than on the streets. And libraries and schools have computers available too. Computers can be purchased cheaply at outlets like TigerDirect and Dell’s Outlet . Professional organizations like accountants and architects often offer used computers from their members, sometimes at no cost at all. You will see at the end of this posting links to several rebuts to Marks' comments. I will add my two cents just as Hicks and those other links have.
I didn't go to the very best schools in Chicago. I'd say my old elementary school was an average at best school and my old high school - when I attended - was one of the worst. My marks weren't that great in elementary school but for some reason my marks in high school were often in the honor roll range. With that in mind though I consider that a fluke today.
My time in high school wasn't a time to seek out options. I never thought of my grades as a ticket mainly because they were had too easy. It was never a challenge academically and who knows how that would've been weathered. The serious challenge was in college where I struggled to keep up.
If only I had the tools back then that the young people have today to help me study and understand the various subjects. I wouldn't just be ahead of my peers but it would be light years ahead of them. But when I was in public school most of those tools did not yet exist.
In spite of the nay sayers - and I will get to one in a moment - Marks isn't wrong. Make the best grades you can where you are take advantage of all the tools you can. Don't have a PC at home go somewhere to use one, especially the library. At that there are people at your school who if you establish a relationship with them will help you move forward.
This nay sayer, well is making more of this than he realizes:
> No believer in Bell Curv-ish nonsense about black intellectual inferiority, Marks makes clear that the children about whom he speaks are no less capable than his own kids. Of course, one wonders just how much of a compliment Marks really intends for this to be, given his strange habit of dissing his offspring, on more than one occasion, as rather unintelligent, unmotivated, promiscuous and even inclined to petty criminality. Not sure what kind of asshole says things like this about his children in print, but I suppose we can leave that discussion for another day.
No doubt Marks would say that he was simply encouraging poor African American kids to take personal responsibility for their success. He might even say that by acknowledging unfair and unjust structural inequity (and even, indirectly, white privilege), he was doing so in a politically ecumenical way. Certainly Marks would perceive his words and intentions as quite different from those of right-wingers whose hectoring of the poor so often involves blaming those at the bottom of the nation’s economic hierarchy for their station in life. To Marks, poor black kids are not to blame for the position in which they find themselves, but they nonetheless hold the keys to their own liberation, and if they would simply follow his sage counsel they could surely make it, like anyone else: even the cerebrally challenged and oversexed spawn who slumber each night just down the hall from he and his wife.
There is much one could say about Marks’s advice — rather typical bootstrapping fare about studying hard, coupled with a more modern emphasis on becoming a techie like him, and thereby, presumably, an irresistible college or job applicant — and most of it has been said already. Like, for instance, this piece , or this one , or this one , or maybe this one , all of which eloquently critique the privileged and naive mindset displayed by Marks, and explain how even when poor kids of color do everything right, the structures of society are too often set up to help them fail anyway.
...
And it’s this last point that we might do well to explore further. Fact is, Gene Marks knows his readership at Forbes . He knows that it includes virtually none of the people to whom he is ostensibly offering advice, which means that he isn’t really giving them advice at all; rather, he is inviting his mostly white, mostly affluent audience to engage in a perverse moralistic voyeurism at the expense of impoverished African American youth, almost none of whom that readership will ever meet, and whom they will, in fact, go out of their way to avoid. He is offering a kind of secret white-male handshake to others in the club, assuring them that the problems of urban poverty are not theirs to fix, that they are off the hook as it were, and isn’t that a relief? That Marks may not be as vile in his desire to blame the poor for their status as some, hardly acquits him of the charge that by pandering to the biases of his readership, he has, with some 700-odd simple (and simplistic) words, managed to reinscribe all the worst of their prejudices, many of which one can see on grand display in the readers’ comments section of the original article. Make no mistake, Gene Marks’s column is contempt cloaked as compassion and bigotry dressed up as benevolence. And it can do nothing but contribute to the indifference and even antipathy towards the poor that those who rely on Forbes for insights already possess in ample supply. Starting with that last paragraph it's true, Forbes may not have a significant audience in poor inner city communities. Without having to purchase a subscription you can always go to a library to access past issues of magazines. Also with internet access you can access magazines as well and blog posts such as this one which surely don't require a subscription.
As for Mr. Tim Wise who wrote the above excerpts, how is he going to call that man out for what he refers to his kids. Yeah it may be wrong to say your kids are very bright, but somewhere out there some parent is doing it. I also recognize that Marks is merely a commentator who is definitely using his platform to say what he wants to say.
The main point surely Marks is making is that his children are not much different than poor inner city children. Just that they have different opportunities living in a different part of the Philadelphia area than the inner city children. Perhaps even different expectations from parents, perhaps different staff and different schools. He didn't write the "poor black kid" piece to denigrate his children.
I think what he wrote was real. It shouldn't be impeached merely for that reason. That alone is weak! Although to Mr. Wise's credit he is at least has some suggestions for Marks to put his money where his mouth is. Marks could always help get the information out aside from using his platform at Forbes.
6 Views
17:00:55 12/21/11
Gingrich Just the Latest Republican to Threaten Judges
[LESS INFO] 6 VIEWS | ADDED 17:00:55 12/21/11
"Judicial activism" is in the eye of the beholder. Threatening judges is not. That explains why even Michael Mukasey and Alberto Gonzales , former Bush Attorneys General and ardent defenders of detainee torture and illicit domestic surveillance, denounced Newt Gingrich's assault on the federal bench as "dangerous, ridiculous, totally irresponsible, outrageous, off-the-wall and would reduce the entire judicial system to a spectacle." Sadly, Gingrich has plenty of company among conservatives threatening judges. As the dangerous rhetoric of John Cornyn, Tom Delay and a host of other Republican officeholders and propagandists shows, judicial intimidation is now standard fare for many of the leading lights of the GOP.
On Face the Nation Sunday, Gingrich the fading frontrunner told CBS News host Bob Schieffer he wouldn't hesitate to send the Capitol police or U.S. marshals to round up judges with whom he disagreed and force them to respond to subpoenas. As McClatchy reported Saturday: >
In order to restore balance between Congress, the White House, and the courts, Gingrich recommended ignoring rulings, impeaching judges, subpoenaing justices to have them explain their rulings and, as a last resort, abolishing the courts altogether... >
"I was frankly just fed up with elitist judges imposing secularism on the country and fundamentally changing the American Constitution," Gingrich told reporters, adding that "it was clear to me that you have a judicial psychology run amok, and there has to be some method of bringing balance back to the three branches."
During the height of the Terri Schiavo controversy in 2005, some Republican leaders darkly suggested what one of those methods might be.
Senator John Cornyn (R-TX), himself a former Texas Supreme Court Justice, has been at the forefront of GOP advocacy of violence towards members of the bench whose rulings part ways with conservative orthodoxy. Back in 2005, Cornyn was one of the GOP standard bearers in the conservative fight against so-called "judicial activism" in the wake of the Republicans' disastrous intervention in the Terri Schiavo affair . On April 4th, Cornyn took to the Senate floor to issue a not-too-thinly veiled threat to judges opposing his reactionary agenda. Just days after the murders of judge in Atlanta and another's family members in Chicago, Cornyn offered his endorsement of judicial intimidation: >
"I don't know if there is a cause-and-effect connection, but we have seen some recent episodes of courthouse violence in this country...And I wonder whether there may be some connection between the perception in some quarters, on some occasions, where judges are making political decisions yet are unaccountable to the public, that it builds up and builds up and builds up to the point where some people engage in, engage in violence."
Facing criticism for his remarks seemingly endorsing right-wing retribution against judges, Cornyn held his ground . "I didn't make the link," he said on Fox News Sunday, adding with a note of sarcasm: >
"It was taken out of context. I regret it was taken out of context and misinterpreted."
As it turns out, Cornyn was merely echoing the words of the soon-to-be indicted House Majority Leader Tom Delay. On March 31st, Delay issued a statement regarding the consistent rulings in favor of Michael Schiavo by all federal and state court judges involved: >
"The time will come for the men responsible for this to answer for their behavior, but not today."
The impact of tacit conservative endorsement of violence against judges cannot be dismissed. After all, it extends to members of the Supreme Court of the United States. In March 2006, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg revealed that she and Justice Sandra Day O'Connor were the targets of death threats . On February 28th, 2005, the marshal of the Court informed O'Connor and Ginsburg of an Internet posting citing their references to international law in Court decisions (a frequent whipping boy of the right) as requiring their assassination: >
"This is a huge threat to our Republic and Constitutional freedom...If you are what you say you are, and NOT armchair patriots, then those two justices will not live another week."
Neither O'Connor nor Ginsburg are shy about making the connection between Republican rhetoric of judicial intimidation and the upswing in threats and actual violence against judges. Ginsburg noted that they "fuel the irrational fringe" O'Connor blamed Cornyn and his fellow travelers for "creating a culture" in which violence towards judges is merely another political tactic: >
"It gets worse. It doesn't help when a high-profile senator suggests a 'cause-and-effect connection' [between controversial rulings and subsequent acts of violence.]"
When anthrax spores were mailed to the Supreme Court in 2001, Americans could be forgiven for speculating on the ideological persuasion of the culprit. Aided by best-selling conservative author and media personality Ann Coulter , who joked in January 2006, "We need somebody to put rat poisoning in Justice Stevens' creme brulee," the right-wing endorsement of retribution against judges increasingly permeates the culture.
Just ask Judge Reggie Walton. A federal judge on the United States District Court for the District of Columbia, Walton was picked by Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts to serve on the FISA court which must approve government requests for domestic electronic surveillance. But when Dick Cheney's chief-of-staff Scooter Libby was convicted in his court in 2007, Judge Walton received death threats : >
"I received a number of angry, harassing mean-spirited phone calls and letters. Some of those were wishing bad things on me and my family."
One of those seemingly wishing bad things on judges is Montana Republican Congressman Denny Rehberg . Just weeks after the Tucson slaughter that claimed the life of circuit judge John Roll , Rehberg responded to a recent ruling by declaring he wanted to " put some of these judicial activists on the Endangered Species list ": >
"Environmental obstructionists found a federal judge in Missoula that was willing to ignore the scientific evidence as well as the expert opinions of on-the-ground wildlife managers here in Montana. And he ruled last August that the grey wolf had to remain on the Endangered Species List.! >
When I first heard his decision, like many of you I wanted to take action immediately. I asked: how can we put some of these judicial activists on the Endangered Species List? I am still working on that!"
As are, in myriad other ways, many of his GOP allies. By proposing to abolish the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals , Newt Gingrich was hardly the first Republican to call for simply ending jurisdiction for the federal courts across a broad swath of issues. Even after the calamitous intervention in the Schiavo imbroglio, conservative stalwarts continued to turn to "court-stripping" as a favorite tactic. As the Eagle Forum's Phyllis Schlafly put it in 2006, "The American people are waiting for this year's Congress to pass legislation defining the jurisdiction of the federal courts so that supremacist judges will not be able to ban the Pledge of Allegiance, the Ten Commandments, the Boy Scouts, or the traditional definition of marriage as the union of a man and a woman." On terror detainees, the EPA's regulation of greenhouse gases and so much more, Republicans want eliminate the prospect of future rulings with which they might disagree.
In 2008, former Supreme Court Justice and Reagan appointee Sandra Day O'Connor wrote, "What worries me is the manner in which politically motivated interest groups are attempting to interfere with justice." As O'Connor explained the next year to Jon Stewart of The Daily Show , that threat prompted her to launch a new online civics education project: >
"Well, what I became aware of increasingly in those last years was all the criticism of judges across America. We heard a lot in Congress and in state legislature. We heard a lot about "activist judges," didn't we? "Secular, godless humanists trying to tell us all what to do." I mean, that was what we were hearing. And I just didn't see it that way, and I thought perhaps a lot of Americans had stopped understanding about the three branches of government."
Americans, that is, like Newt Gingrich and many of his friends in the Republican Party.
(This piece also appears at Perrspectives .)
0 Views
05:15:33 11/07/11
Ron Paul's Texas Straight Talk 11/7/11: Taking Executive Orders Too Far
[LESS INFO] 0 VIEWS | ADDED 05:15:33 11/07/11
http://RonPaul2012.com http://paul.house.gov http://CampaignForLiberty.org http://DailyPaul.com http://RunRonPaul.com http://RevolutionPAC.com These are frustrating times for the President. Having been swept into office with a seemingly strong mandate, he enjoyed a Congress controlled by members of his own party for the first two years of his term. However, midterm elections brought gridlock and a close division of power between the two parties. With a crucial re-election campaign coming up, there is desperation in the president's desire to "do something" in spite of his severely weakened mandate. Getting something done is proving to be a monumental task. This may be news to the supposed constitutional scholar who is now our president, but if the political process seems inconvenient to the implementation of his agenda, that is not a flaw in the system. It was designed that way. The drafters of the Constitution intended the default action of government to be inaction. Hopefully, this means actions taken by the government are necessary and proper. If federal laws or executive actions can't be agreed upon constitutionally- which is to say legally- such laws or actions should be rejected. The vision of the founders was to set up a government that would remain small and unobtrusive via a system of checks and balances. That it has taken our government so long to get this big speaks well of the original design. The founders also knew the overwhelming nature of governments was to amass power and grow. The Constitution was to serve as the brakes on the freight train of government. But the Obama administration, like so many administrations in the 20th century, chooses to ignore the Constitution entirely. The increasingly broad use and scope of the Executive Orders is a prime example. Executive Orders are meant to be a way for the president to direct executive agencies on the implementation of congressionally approved legislation. It has become increasingly common for them to be misused in ways that are contradictory to congressional intent, or to bypass Congress altogether in enacting political agendas. The current administration has unabashedly stated that Congress's unwillingness to pass the president's jobs bill means that the president will act unilaterally to enact provisions of it piecemeal through Executive Order. Obama explicitly threatens to bypass Congress, thus aggregating the power to make and enforce laws in the executive. This clearly erodes the principles of separation of powers and checks and balances. It brings the modern presidency dangerously close to an elective dictatorship. Of course, the most dangerous and costly overstepping of executive authority is going to war without a congressional declaration. Congress has been sadly complicit in this usurpation by ceding much of its war-making authority to the executive because it wants to avoid taking responsibility for major war decisions, but that is part of our job in Congress! If the President cannot present to Congress and the people a convincingly strong case for going to war, then perhaps we should keep the nation at peace, rather than risk our men and women's lives for ill-defined reasons! This administration certainly was not the first to behave in ways that have defied the Constitution to overstep its bounds. Sadly, previous administrations have set precedents that the current administration is only building upon. It is time for Congress to reassert itself and its constitutional role so that future administrations cannot continue on this dangerous path.
0 Views
05:15:33 11/07/11
Ron Paul's Texas Straight Talk 11/7/11: Taking Executive Orders Too Far
[LESS INFO] 0 VIEWS | ADDED 05:15:33 11/07/11
http://RonPaul2012.com http://paul.house.gov http://CampaignForLiberty.org http://DailyPaul.com http://RunRonPaul.com http://RevolutionPAC.com These are frustrating times for the President. Having been swept into office with a seemingly strong mandate, he enjoyed a Congress controlled by members of his own party for the first two years of his term. However, midterm elections brought gridlock and a close division of power between the two parties. With a crucial re-election campaign coming up, there is desperation in the president's desire to "do something" in spite of his severely weakened mandate. Getting something done is proving to be a monumental task. This may be news to the supposed constitutional scholar who is now our president, but if the political process seems inconvenient to the implementation of his agenda, that is not a flaw in the system. It was designed that way. The drafters of the Constitution intended the default action of government to be inaction. Hopefully, this means actions taken by the government are necessary and proper. If federal laws or executive actions can't be agreed upon constitutionally- which is to say legally- such laws or actions should be rejected. The vision of the founders was to set up a government that would remain small and unobtrusive via a system of checks and balances. That it has taken our government so long to get this big speaks well of the original design. The founders also knew the overwhelming nature of governments was to amass power and grow. The Constitution was to serve as the brakes on the freight train of government. But the Obama administration, like so many administrations in the 20th century, chooses to ignore the Constitution entirely. The increasingly broad use and scope of the Executive Orders is a prime example. Executive Orders are meant to be a way for the president to direct executive agencies on the implementation of congressionally approved legislation. It has become increasingly common for them to be misused in ways that are contradictory to congressional intent, or to bypass Congress altogether in enacting political agendas. The current administration has unabashedly stated that Congress's unwillingness to pass the president's jobs bill means that the president will act unilaterally to enact provisions of it piecemeal through Executive Order. Obama explicitly threatens to bypass Congress, thus aggregating the power to make and enforce laws in the executive. This clearly erodes the principles of separation of powers and checks and balances. It brings the modern presidency dangerously close to an elective dictatorship. Of course, the most dangerous and costly overstepping of executive authority is going to war without a congressional declaration. Congress has been sadly complicit in this usurpation by ceding much of its war-making authority to the executive because it wants to avoid taking responsibility for major war decisions, but that is part of our job in Congress! If the President cannot present to Congress and the people a convincingly strong case for going to war, then perhaps we should keep the nation at peace, rather than risk our men and women's lives for ill-defined reasons! This administration certainly was not the first to behave in ways that have defied the Constitution to overstep its bounds. Sadly, previous administrations have set precedents that the current administration is only building upon. It is time for Congress to reassert itself and its constitutional role so that future administrations cannot continue on this dangerous path.
4 Views
16:59:48 11/02/11
Kris Jenner Defends Kim Kardashian on Today
[LESS INFO] 4 VIEWS | ADDED 16:59:48 11/02/11
Kris Jenner Defends Kim Kardashian on Today
VIDEO: Kim Kardashian's mom clears the air about her daughter's marriage to Kris Humphries and insists they she made no money off the wedding. KRIS JENNER -- TO THE RESCUE... KIM KARDASHIAN'S MOM IS SPEAKING OUT -- DEFENDING HER DAUGHTER AGAINST THE RUMORS SHE MARRIED KRIS HUMPHRIES FOR MONEY AND NOT LOVE... SITTING DOWN WITH ANN CURRY ON WEDNESDAY'S TODAY SHOW, THE KARDASHIAN MATRIARCH, WHO -- COINCIDENTALLY IS ON PROMO TOUR FOR HER NEW BOOK -- TRIED TO CLEAR THE AIR ABOUT THE RUMORS THAT KIM'S MARRIAGE TO NBA PLAYER KRIS HUMPHRIES WAS ALL A SCAM: MAKES ME FEEL SAD THAT SOME PEOPLE AER REACTING THAT WAY OF COURSE. CERTAINLY WASN'T A SHAM OR FOR TV WE HAVE ENOUGH GOING ON THAT WE DON'T HAVE TO MAKE THINGS UP. SHE REALLY FELT LIKE SHE WAS IN LOVE WITH HIM, IT WAS AN AMAZING TIME. I HAD NO IDEA THERE WAS A PROBLEM AT THE TIME. IT SADDENS ALL OF US IT SADDENS ME. AS FOR REPORTS KIM WENT THROUGH WITH THE WEDDING HEARD AND SEEN AROUND THE WORLD FOR MONEY, KRIS SAYS... WE SOLD THE TELEVISION SHOW FOR MILLIONS OF DOLLARS. NOT TRUE. SHE PROFITED FROM THE WEDDING. ABSOLUTELY FALSE. SO THEY DIDN'T MAKE 20 MIL? ABSOLUTELY NOT.THEY MADE SOME MONEY FOR PICS SOLD, AND AT THE END OF THE DAY THAT MONEY WENT TO THE WEDDING. ARE YOU SAYING SHE ACTUALLY OWED MONEY FOR THE WEDDING? ABSOLUTELY YES. SO HOW IS KIM, WHO HEADED DOWN UNDER TO AUSTRALIA AFTER NEWS OF THE SPLIT BROKE... "she's sick about it. She had to come out and say look, 'I made a mistake and I feel terrible.'" KIM'S ALSO ... From: CelebTV Views: 2738 25 ratings Time: 01:57 More in Entertainment
2 Views
16:59:48 11/02/11
Kris Jenner Defends Kim Kardashian on Today
[LESS INFO] 2 VIEWS | ADDED 16:59:48 11/02/11
Kris Jenner Defends Kim Kardashian on Today
VIDEO: Kim Kardashian's mom clears the air about her daughter's marriage to Kris Humphries and insists they she made no money off the wedding. KRIS JENNER -- TO THE RESCUE... KIM KARDASHIAN'S MOM IS SPEAKING OUT -- DEFENDING HER DAUGHTER AGAINST THE RUMORS SHE MARRIED KRIS HUMPHRIES FOR MONEY AND NOT LOVE... SITTING DOWN WITH ANN CURRY ON WEDNESDAY'S TODAY SHOW, THE KARDASHIAN MATRIARCH, WHO -- COINCIDENTALLY IS ON PROMO TOUR FOR HER NEW BOOK -- TRIED TO CLEAR THE AIR ABOUT THE RUMORS THAT KIM'S MARRIAGE TO NBA PLAYER KRIS HUMPHRIES WAS ALL A SCAM: MAKES ME FEEL SAD THAT SOME PEOPLE AER REACTING THAT WAY OF COURSE. CERTAINLY WASN'T A SHAM OR FOR TV WE HAVE ENOUGH GOING ON THAT WE DON'T HAVE TO MAKE THINGS UP. SHE REALLY FELT LIKE SHE WAS IN LOVE WITH HIM, IT WAS AN AMAZING TIME. I HAD NO IDEA THERE WAS A PROBLEM AT THE TIME. IT SADDENS ALL OF US IT SADDENS ME. AS FOR REPORTS KIM WENT THROUGH WITH THE WEDDING HEARD AND SEEN AROUND THE WORLD FOR MONEY, KRIS SAYS... WE SOLD THE TELEVISION SHOW FOR MILLIONS OF DOLLARS. NOT TRUE. SHE PROFITED FROM THE WEDDING. ABSOLUTELY FALSE. SO THEY DIDN'T MAKE 20 MIL? ABSOLUTELY NOT.THEY MADE SOME MONEY FOR PICS SOLD, AND AT THE END OF THE DAY THAT MONEY WENT TO THE WEDDING. ARE YOU SAYING SHE ACTUALLY OWED MONEY FOR THE WEDDING? ABSOLUTELY YES. SO HOW IS KIM, WHO HEADED DOWN UNDER TO AUSTRALIA AFTER NEWS OF THE SPLIT BROKE... "she's sick about it. She had to come out and say look, 'I made a mistake and I feel terrible.'" KIM'S ALSO ... From: CelebTV Views: 3136 25 ratings Time: 01:57 More in Entertainment
3 Views
14:55:38 10/17/11
Giuliana Rancic Reveals She Has Breast Cancer
[LESS INFO] 3 VIEWS | ADDED 14:55:38 10/17/11
Giuliana Rancic Reveals She Has Breast Cancer
The reality show star told the Today show the shocking news that she has an early stage breast cancer. WHEN GIULIANA RANCIC HIT THE TODAY SHOW MONDAY MORNING, WE THOUGHT SHE WAS ABOUT TO BREAK SOME BIG BABY NEWS... BUT INSTEAD SHE REVEALED SOMETHING MUCH MORE SERIOUS... Through my attempt to get pregnant for the third time with IVF, we sadly found out that I have I found out that I have early stages of breast cancer and it's been a shock...a lot of people have been asking...are you pregnant, but sadly we've had to put this off...How you found out... explains doctor you need a mammogram...I will not get you pregnant...if you have cancer...all the hormones will accelerate the cancer... ANN SAYS, how are you doing, G says...I'm ok, that was definitely the hardest day, when they came in to tell me, I just remember, it's what you expect but so much more, incredible instant sobbing...the world just crashed down around me...I just couldn't believe it. 36 years old, no family history... GUILIANA ALSO REVEALED SHE'LL UNDERGO SURGERY THIS WEEK, FOLLOWED BY RADIATION TREATMENT FOR 6 WEEKS...BUT ONCE SHE GETS THE ALL CLEAR, SHE SAYS, SHE'S STILL GOING TO GET PREGNANT... "I'm not going to give up...I want that baby...And this baby will have saved my life...because I've always said there was a master plan, why I never got pregnant...God was looking out for me....because had I gotten pregnant a few years down the line, I would have been a lot sicker, so this baby will have saved my life ... From: CelebTV Views: 76266 104 ratings Time: 02:33 More in Entertainment
5 Views
14:55:38 10/17/11
Giuliana Rancic Reveals She Has Breast Cancer
[LESS INFO] 5 VIEWS | ADDED 14:55:38 10/17/11
Giuliana Rancic Reveals She Has Breast Cancer
The reality show star told the Today show the shocking news that she has an early stage breast cancer. WHEN GIULIANA RANCIC HIT THE TODAY SHOW MONDAY MORNING, WE THOUGHT SHE WAS ABOUT TO BREAK SOME BIG BABY NEWS... BUT INSTEAD SHE REVEALED SOMETHING MUCH MORE SERIOUS... Through my attempt to get pregnant for the third time with IVF, we sadly found out that I have I found out that I have early stages of breast cancer and it's been a shock...a lot of people have been asking...are you pregnant, but sadly we've had to put this off...How you found out... explains doctor you need a mammogram...I will not get you pregnant...if you have cancer...all the hormones will accelerate the cancer... ANN SAYS, how are you doing, G says...I'm ok, that was definitely the hardest day, when they came in to tell me, I just remember, it's what you expect but so much more, incredible instant sobbing...the world just crashed down around me...I just couldn't believe it. 36 years old, no family history... GUILIANA ALSO REVEALED SHE'LL UNDERGO SURGERY THIS WEEK, FOLLOWED BY RADIATION TREATMENT FOR 6 WEEKS...BUT ONCE SHE GETS THE ALL CLEAR, SHE SAYS, SHE'S STILL GOING TO GET PREGNANT... "I'm not going to give up...I want that baby...And this baby will have saved my life...because I've always said there was a master plan, why I never got pregnant...God was looking out for me....because had I gotten pregnant a few years down the line, I would have been a lot sicker, so this baby will have saved my life ... From: CelebTV Views: 76266 104 ratings Time: 02:33 More in Entertainment
142 Views
16:22:08 10/07/11
PW171 - Color Splash Studio App Review
[LESS INFO] 142 VIEWS | ADDED 16:22:08 10/07/11
Colour Splash Studio is one of an emerging breed of photography applications that aim to do one task well and that are priced very affordably. Colour Splash Studio is for photographers wanting to make black and white photos with selective colour elements in the style of the movie Pleasantville.
When you first open an image with Colour Splash Studio it'll immediately turn your image black and white. You can now use the brush tool to paint back areas that you want in colour. The brush is edge detecting, which makes the process easier and faster and you've got control over the size, softness and opacity of the brush which combined with zooming the image to full size means it's pretty easy to paint in a good selection quickly. Once you've painted in your selection you can tweak the colour and greyscale areas separately with brightness, contrast and blur controls. Sadly there's no local contrast control but on the colour layer you can also tweak saturation, hue and exposure. I found these sliders a little harsh in their operation - fine tweaks were not at all easy and of course they apply to the whole image so there's no opportunity for tweaking just a portion of the image. There are also no controls for crop or rotation and very few options for getting more creative with colour (cross processing or split toning, for example) or black and white (dodging and burning, for example). I was very pleased to see support for my Wacom tablet. Pressure can be used to control brush size. I would have preferred it to control opacity but this is a good start. I was also very pleased to see standard Photoshop keyboard shortcuts working such as [ and ] for brush size and spacebar for dragging around the image while zoomed in.
It's clear that Colour Splash Studio is trying to do just this one thing well and I can respect that but for an app that concerns itself *only* with turning your image black and white there is one glaring omission - the lack of ability to control the black and white mix. Any photographer that is serious about wanting their image to look just a certain way is going to expect to have much tighter control over the black and white conversion process by being able to dial in brightness values for red, green and blue or at least by choosing from a selection of black and white filter presets.
As it stands right now this is a fine app for one simple task that does an awful lot right. I believe they've gone a little too far with simplifying by not including a black and white mix option and they should look at making fine control of those sliders easier. In a perfect world I'd like to see some dodge and burn options to further improve the black and white control. The quality of the application's results is excellent, however, and if you only want that simplified, limited set of options then Colour Splash Studio might be just the app for you.
5 Views
16:22:08 10/07/11
PW171 - Color Splash Studio App Review
[LESS INFO] 5 VIEWS | ADDED 16:22:08 10/07/11
Colour Splash Studio is one of an emerging breed of photography applications that aim to do one task well and that are priced very affordably. Colour Splash Studio is for photographers wanting to make black and white photos with selective colour elements in the style of the movie Pleasantville.
When you first open an image with Colour Splash Studio it'll immediately turn your image black and white. You can now use the brush tool to paint back areas that you want in colour. The brush is edge detecting, which makes the process easier and faster and you've got control over the size, softness and opacity of the brush which combined with zooming the image to full size means it's pretty easy to paint in a good selection quickly. Once you've painted in your selection you can tweak the colour and greyscale areas separately with brightness, contrast and blur controls. Sadly there's no local contrast control but on the colour layer you can also tweak saturation, hue and exposure. I found these sliders a little harsh in their operation - fine tweaks were not at all easy and of course they apply to the whole image so there's no opportunity for tweaking just a portion of the image. There are also no controls for crop or rotation and very few options for getting more creative with colour (cross processing or split toning, for example) or black and white (dodging and burning, for example). I was very pleased to see support for my Wacom tablet. Pressure can be used to control brush size. I would have preferred it to control opacity but this is a good start. I was also very pleased to see standard Photoshop keyboard shortcuts working such as [ and ] for brush size and spacebar for dragging around the image while zoomed in.
It's clear that Colour Splash Studio is trying to do just this one thing well and I can respect that but for an app that concerns itself *only* with turning your image black and white there is one glaring omission - the lack of ability to control the black and white mix. Any photographer that is serious about wanting their image to look just a certain way is going to expect to have much tighter control over the black and white conversion process by being able to dial in brightness values for red, green and blue or at least by choosing from a selection of black and white filter presets.
As it stands right now this is a fine app for one simple task that does an awful lot right. I believe they've gone a little too far with simplifying by not including a black and white mix option and they should look at making fine control of those sliders easier. In a perfect world I'd like to see some dodge and burn options to further improve the black and white control. The quality of the application's results is excellent, however, and if you only want that simplified, limited set of options then Colour Splash Studio might be just the app for you.
1 Views
09:46:48 10/07/11
Industry reactions to Steve Jobs' death
[LESS INFO] 1 VIEWS | ADDED 09:46:48 10/07/11
Industry reactions to Steve Jobs' death
www.euronews.net It was a sad day for fans of iphones, ipads and Macbooks, but for those working in creative industries, Steve Jobs' death is particularly poignant, because Apple technology gave them opportunities that never existed before. The visionary CEO designed and manufactured products that in turn helped others to be creative in their own industries, and it is clear that many regarded him as much more than just a figurehead. Johannes Ledel of Live Station spoke of his legacy: From: Euronews Views: 89 7 ratings Time: 01:45 More in News & Politics
0 Views
09:46:48 10/07/11
Industry reactions to Steve Jobs' death
[LESS INFO] 0 VIEWS | ADDED 09:46:48 10/07/11
Industry reactions to Steve Jobs' death
www.euronews.net It was a sad day for fans of iphones, ipads and Macbooks, but for those working in creative industries, Steve Jobs' death is particularly poignant, because Apple technology gave them opportunities that never existed before. The visionary CEO designed and manufactured products that in turn helped others to be creative in their own industries, and it is clear that many regarded him as much more than just a figurehead. Johannes Ledel of Live Station spoke of his legacy: From: Euronews Views: 552 9 ratings Time: 01:45 More in News & Politics
14 Views
22:59:55 09/19/11
N-O - "Mother" Featuring Sydney B
[LESS INFO] 14 VIEWS | ADDED 22:59:55 09/19/11
Hip hop artist N-O’s video Mother” is a dramatic and emotionally charged anthem to a mom who passed away too soon and all the hurt ad memories that are left behind. The video is well produced with crisp, clear images portraying sadness and grief, as well as pictures of mothers caring and praying for their children. Paced at an appropriately slow tempo, the song, which features Sydney B, has impact and meaning as the vocals get right to the point: “I miss my mother, It’s so hard/I know she’s in a better place, But I can’t stop the tears/Can’t stop the tears/” and “I called my father/He told me my mother just died/I’m trying to be strong, I’m hurting inside/So I cover up/I’m smiling, telling jokes/ But the day my mother died was the day my heart broke/.” This is a beautiful and loving memorial to a woman who was obviously a wonderful mom, and a reminder to us all to cherish our mothers while they’re still here with us.
Author: MusicDishTV
Tags:
Posted: 20 September 2011
Rating: 0.0
Votes: 0
5 Views
16:21:53 06/08/11
Former Governor Arne Carlson On The Budget Impasse And The Problems Inside The Republican Party
[LESS INFO] 5 VIEWS | ADDED 16:21:53 06/08/11
Former Governor Arne Carlson on the Budget Impasse, and the problems inside the Republican Party. "If you look today at the Minnesota stalemate that has occurred--the two most important people in that contest are the governor of the state of Minnesota Mark Dayton and Tony Sutton. And the big difference is, we the people elected one of those."--Arne Carlson. On May 27th in Minneapolis City Hall, hundreds met to celebrate the birthday centennial of Hubert Humphrey. Arguably one of the most effective legislators of our time. Authoring countless iconic bills, and producing them with the help Senators on the other side of the isle. Famous relationships developed between Humphrey and Republicans Everett Dirksen, Barry Goldwater and others. Humphrey, is also credited with breaking the longest running filibuster in Senate history. How did he do this? How did he perfect the "art of the compromise?" Minnesota, can look to Humphrey for solutions to today's problems, and that includes the current budget impasse. Former Governor Arne Carlson spoke strongly against the "no-compromise" strategy of the current Republican Party and its Chairman Tony Sutton here at the Humphrey Centennial, here are 3 clips assembled from an afternoon panel on "Civility in 21st Century Politics" that he sat on along with Hubert (Skip) Humphrey III, former Vice President Walter Mondale, and moderated by Federal Judge John R. Tunheim. Clip 1 : "Nowadays it's sit down, be quiet pass the bill, the flow of moneyed interests etcetera... Now we have in the state legislature is something that bothers me enormously, and that is the brazen attitude of the chairman of the Republican Party bringing legislators in and if you will "persuading them" of the virtues of no compromise. What bothers me about that kind of position is you can not govern in a democratic society if you're not willing to give and take--there is no governance. Now I realize I've got a bit of a partisan audience here, but my point is simply this : All these jobs, be it the governor, be it a member of the legislature, all of these people get tugged in different directions by different interests for different purposes. Their job is to broker the concerns, but much more importantly it's to broker the concerns within the confines of what you and I understand the role of government to do. Government in this particular instance brokers between the concerns of those who have power and those who do not. That requires a sense of judiciousness, a sense of fairness, a sense of decency. The good senator usually came down on the side of those who lacked power. But the system as a whole be it democrat, republican, liberal, conservative by in large has been protective of things like growing the middle class, making sure that there's opportunities for those who lack opportunity. Those are the normal struggles that will take place in a democratic society. And what we see here is increasingly the influence of money coming into politics to buy more power for those who have power at the expense of those who do not have power and do not have access to power. And nothing symbolizes that battle more, than what's happening in Minnesota and nationally on the issue of health care. Over 80 some odd thousand people, will be off of Minnesota Care, which is a modest health program, a kind of program we should be expanding year after year, that should be our discussion point, not how you whittle it back. But here they want to voucher-ize the system, but at the same time when I ask that they place themselves in that same system, and they become the experimentees of that system, and then report back to us in two years about how well the system worked, and how they enjoyed the high deductibles that they're willing to impose on poor people, then if it works for them, it stands to reason it's probably a pretty good program. But instead we have "Oh no"; let me promulgate a goody for you, but it's not sufficiently good for me. And that to me violates all concepts and all parameters of decency in public service. The only way we're going to change the lack of civility in our political discourse, is frankly by wining elections. It's not going to happen by having forums like this. As much as this is an enjoyable experience, we are not going to change the world because we agree that lack of civility has no place in American politics. But the moment the lack of civility becomes a political detriment, that element in the Republican party that has adopted as its mantra will immediately drop it. And so it compels in this case the Democratic party to realize that its best will not come out until such time as the Republican can match them in talent. When the two political parties compete for ideas, as they did in the Humphrey days, as they did in the Mondale days, as they did in the days of Skip Humphrey, if they can compete and have a collision of ideas, we the public win. But when one party questions the truthfulness, the patriotism and the person carrying the message and demonizes the person over the message, and that works and becomes part of the stream of media, we the public lose. We lose big. And so if we want decency, we the broad we, and I would ask you as Democrats to reach out to moderate Republicans, to all those of us who have been excommunicated if you will, and to independents, and build a positive agenda that actually wins elections, and allow this minority to assume a smaller minority status in our society. And with that I think we can bring back civility, during the process of this discussion I'll be happy to put more meat on that proposal. But I do want us to start to think about : Can we build a broad coalition as Humphrey did with the farmer labor group and the democratic group, can we build an informal kind of a coalition that focuses on the Constitutional Amendments that are coming before the people, and build the bridges necessary to coalesce support from all disaffected wings, and make sure the majority of Minnesotans and that their voices are truly felt?" 6:30 Clip 2 : "But I'll end if I may on this political note, and it's critical of the Democratic Party : I would argue that when one party significantly over-reaches, it can only over-reach with the permission of the other party. The other party has an obligation to fully participate to the fullest extent of it's capacity. If there's anything that we can remember of Senator Hubert Humphrey it's not one single human being on this planet ever accused him of not participating in debate. Even when it was on a topic when he was not sufficiently expert. And I won't digress, but there was delightful debate over botany and particularly as it effected the capitol grounds, and little did the good senator know that Everett Dirksen was an expert botantist. It was a long tough debate for the good senator. But suffice it to say, he taught us to participate. When a political party sits back, protects its own individual self-interests, the other party will over-reach as the Republican Party has. And it's up to the moderates, those of us who are moderate in the Republican Party to fight back, and to fight back publicly. It's up to Independents to fight, because if we're going to have a two party system, we're want to make sure that both political parties are producing the best and the brightest. And it's up to the Democratic Party to fight, and I think in the last several weeks we finally have seen some life on that side. That's good--and I hope it continues--but the way it can continue is coalescing this kind of a group, bring together these kinds of leaders, and say : "O.K.; we will go out and campaign throughout all of Minnesota; we will define what is in the best long term interests of the people of this state, and at the same time, defines our quality of life." And I think when we coalesce behind these kinds of issues, I think we the public win. And then both political parties are invigorated. If you go back to the hallmark years of Minnesota, it was the years when the Republican party woke up and started to compete finally in the 60's and the 70's. And you look at those days, those were hallmark days. They truly were. It was a competition of ideas. I remember when we came in the legislature together, all four caucuses worked day and night to be the first to complete their policy initiatives and then rushed to the cameras to announce what they were for, and then beat the other team. Now there's no rush. No, I want to see every single 201 members of the legislature remember that they represent the well being and the long term good of their constituents. And the idea that a political party can pull them in for an internal threatening session, I find offensive. And it's not something that any of us, in any way shape or form, allow to occur. Let me close on this final note : If you look today at the Minnesota stalemate that has occurred--the two most important people in that contest are the governor of the state of Minnesota Mark Dayton and Tony Sutton. And the big difference is, we the people elected one of those. And I would strongly urge Republican legislators to remember who it is that they represent. And once that recognition occurs then they begin to realize that any proposition involving the governor, also involves compromise, and compromise contrary to the Chair of the Republican Party is not an evil, it's an essential positive ingredient of a democratic society. Thank you." 11:00 Clip 3 : And we've always joked about never watch the legislature in process because it's sort of like watching sausage being made, and there's truth to that. It never was a smooth process. But the sad part is, it has gotten increasingly worse, and a large part of the reason is the nominating process. The traditional politeness says well the left is skewed to the left, the right is skewed to the right, it's kind of like two bad boys got together and had a fight, you know that's kind of American. But the reality is--that it's not. When you look at the Republican side, and you wonder why so many capable candidates have dropped out? And I thought today's cartoon in the Star Tribune depicted it very well, and that is there is no-way a moderate or a traditionally conservative Republican make it through the nominating process. Look back and ask yourself the question : Could Robert Taft who was the conscience of the conservative movement for decades in the United States Senate, and for the United States, could he be a Republican today and the answer is "no". Could Barry Goldwater? Clearly Mr. Republican, could he, no and as a matter of fact in his declining days it was known, he was not and could not be. Could Dwight Eisenhower, the last Republican to balance the federal budget, could he succeed in today's environment? Probably not. The last piece of irony is Ronald Reagan. Who on one hand is the god, or held up as the god of the movement but his record would make certain that he could not get through the process. Let's suppose his name were John Johnson, and he instituted eleven tax increases. Appointed a pro-choice female to the Supreme Court of the United States, strongly opposed proposition 6 in California, which was an anti-gay proposition sponsored by the Republican Party. Could he be nominated today--or would he be demonized? I would argue he would be open to a lot of demonetization. And so what has happened is that not just the moderate wing of the Republican Party, but anybody who disagrees with the agenda that's set forth by people who have never run for dog-catcher, will be rigidly applied. And so competence is one of the first things to go along with truthfulness. Now forget about our individual biases, but when you look at the array of candidates that are now before us, can you honestly truly as an American say that they represent our best and our brightest? When you look at the survey by a national legislative groups, on finances two of the worst financial records go to the states of Alaska and Minnesota, both of whom may have horses in the race. I'm not going to pick up on that one. Now the question that you may raise is--well why should we Democrats care? The answer is, why you should care, is because you are first Americans. Secondly, none of us today can predict what will transpire a year and a half from now. Thirdly, any person who is on the ballot could be elected. And we in Minnesota have some history on that. (Why are they looking at me!) But suffice it to say, as Skip [Humphrey] has pointed out, we continue to take our best and our brightest and our most competent and put political theater ahead of political substance... One, we as a nation will not continue to be a first rate international power; two, we will not grow those kinds of quality employment opportunities that we like to think are part of our heritage; and thirdly we will find ourselves being dictated to rather than as Walter Mondale has said being a government of the people, by the people and for the people. We have a splinter wing in the Republican Part, that I believe comes across as wanting to create a theocracy. That is frightening. As a person who minored in religion, I never realized that Jesus was for greed, that Jesus was for the well-to-do and the powerful and had disdain for those who were sick or impoverished. But what's sad about that is we the people have allowed others to define religion, to define their mission in the context of a higher power, blessing that mission and we do it without proper fight back. We have to learn as the good senator taught us, we have an obligation to participate, to speak out, to be truthful, and when need be, to throw the rascals out, and frankly I think the time has come for that."--Arne Carlson.
0 Views
07:32:42 03/18/11
Ultimate Loyalty Japanese Dog Refuses To Leave Injured Friend Behind
[LESS INFO] 0 VIEWS | ADDED 07:32:42 03/18/11
Emerging coverage from Japan offers a moving example of ultimate dog loyalty, and clearly illustrates the challenges faced by animal victims of the earthquake and tsunami. The dogs were picked up after the video was filmed, and are in the care of a local shelter. Translation of conversation in video: We are in Arahama area. Looks like there is a dog. There is a dog. He looks tired and dirty. He must have been caught in the tsunami. He looks very dirty. He has a collar. He must be someone's pet. He has a silver collar. He is shaking. He seems very afraid. Oh, there is another dog. I wonder if he is dead. Where? Right there. There is another dog right next to the one sitting down. He is not moving. I wonder. I wonder if he is alright. The dog is protecting him. Yes. He is protecting the dog. That is why he did not want us to approach them. He was trying to keep us at bay. I can't watch this. This is a very difficult to watch. Oh. Look. He is moving. He is alive. I am so happy to see that he is alive. Yes! Yes! He is alive. He looks to be weakened. We need to them to be rescued soon. We really want them rescued soon. Oh good. He's getting up. It is amazing how they survived the tremendous earthquake and tsunami. It's just amazing that they survived through this all.
2 Views
23:00:50 12/28/10
It's a sad day when journalists collaborate with the government, again!
[LESS INFO] 2 VIEWS | ADDED 23:00:50 12/28/10
I've been astounded by the treatment of Julian Assange and the WikiLeaks story by the media ever since it broke. Howard Kurtz called Assange disingenuous for not outing his sources, which is insane.
Howard Kurtz allegedly understands journalism, so it's outrageous for Kurtz to take offense when Assange refuses to out his sources, as I explained in a post called: Why are the media so eager to bury WikiLeaks? > >
KURTZ: Rick Stengel, let's turn now to your interview with Julian Assange. I found some of his answers to be absolutely disingenuous. For example, you ask whether secrets are ever necessary, and he says, well, his secrets are necessary, protecting his sources, but "our responsibility is to bring matters to the public."
What's important is the information contained in the WikiLeaks cables, not Assange himself -- and when we're dealing with whistleblowers, of course their identities have to be protected.
Journalism 101 states that you never out your sources, no matter where you get your information. The Beltway Villagers even defended the odious Judith Miller when she went to prison rather than divulge that Scooter Libby was her source in the outing of a Valerie Plame, as I've mentioned before . That was information that led this country into an unjustified war based on lies told by Miller and her leakers.
After watching Andrea Mitchell on MSNBC show such disdain for Assange, I asked a question that really hasn't been asked all that much. >
Are folks in the media afraid they might be implicated in Wikileaks cables? >
I expected the State Department to speak out against WikiLeaks, but why have the media been so hostile to WikiLeaks and so passive about the people trying to silence his operation without a shred of evidence of him being guilty of a crime?
I wonder if they are afraid that either they or their friends might show up in some of these leaked cables in an unfavorable light. Yesterday on MSNBC, Andrea Mitchell was discussing Assange's bail in the UK and seemed afraid that he might have access to the dreaded "Internet" and destroy the world.
I understand that access to D.C. is very precious to the Beltway Village, so outside of fear of what might be found out about their friends and that they'll earn extra credit for bashing Assange by the powers that be, I still don't get their attacks on the whole WikiLeaks story. And as we've seen, cable TV news has turned away from being a deliverer of news and instead focuses on orchestrating battles of opinions with punditshills and ex-GOP Bushies, but the networks for the most part have to turn away from their own stable of journalistic talkers to bring in a differing opinion on the WikiLeaks story, because the Villagers on TV are routinely characterizing Julian Assange as a terrorist.
Glenn Greenwald posts today about his CNN interview last night over WikiLeaks and he highlighted four points in his post, The merger of journalists and government officials : >
4) If one thinks about it, there's something quite surreal about sitting there listening to a CNN anchor and her fellow CNN employee angrily proclaim that Julian Assange is a "terrorist" and a "criminal" when the CNN employee doing that is . . . . George W. Bush's Homeland Security and Terrorism adviser. Fran Townsend was a high-level national security official for a President who destroyed another nation with an illegal, lie-fueled military attack that killed well over 100,000 innocent people, created a worldwide torture regime, illegally spied on his own citizens without warrants, disappeared people to CIA "black sites," and erected a due-process-free gulag where scores of knowingly innocent people were put in cages for years. Julian Assange never did any of those things, or anything like them. But it's Assange who is the "terrorist" and the "criminal."
Do you think Jessica Yellin would ever dare speak as scornfully and derisively about George Bush or his top officials as she does about Assange? Of course not. Instead, CNN quickly hires Bush's Homeland Security Adviser who then becomes Yellin's colleague and partner in demonizing Assange as a "terrorist." Or consider the theme that framed last night's segment: Assange is profiting off classified information by writing a book! Beyond the examples I gave, Bob Woodward has become a very rich man by writing book after book filled with classified information about America's wars which his sources were not authorized to give him. Would Yellin ever in a million years dare lash out at Bob Woodward the way she did Assange? To ask the question is to answer it ( see here as CNN's legal correspondent Jeffrey Toobin is completely befuddled in the middle of his anti-WikiLeaks rant when asked by a guest, Clay Shirky, to differentiate what Woodward continuously does from what Assange is doing)... read on
Woodward has been the cleaner for the Washington Post for a long time, and he's held up to a higher level of worship than even David Border. Here's a classic video which has, of all people, Don Imus confronting Andrea and the Beltway elites over their behavior in 2005 on the Plame case: >
Imus: It seems unclear what you said and perhaps you can clear it up about what you said back in Oct. of 2003---
Mitchell: I have been trying to figure out "what-the-heck" I was talking about, frankly. There is confusion because I am confused.
Imus: So when you told Alan Murray of CNBC, that it was widely known that his wife worked for the CIA-(interruption)--what, were you drunk?
Mitchell: I don't even remember the deal.
Imus: What this suggests to me is that you knew she worked at the CIA, but you didn't know what she did there. Isn't that fair-did you know that?
Mitchell-(garbled)
Imus: Why did you say that Andrea?
Mitchell: I messed up...(later)
Imus: Russert was a little short with me---almost like he was trying to hide something....
Imus (laughing): I realized -- well this is an unfair thing to say, I was gonna say -- all you folks in Washington are all in bed with one another, but that would be an awful thing to say ....
I think Imus was right on when he said 'all you folks in Washington are all in bed with one another,' and Mitchell knew it. As time goes on it's pretty hard to miss.
Digby beats back one of the bigger zombie lies being told by the media about Wikileaks. >
There are many fine points in the piece, but he mentions one zombie lie I'd really love to kill --- the one that all of these so-called reporters seem to have absorbed as if it's the received word of God --- the one that says Wikileaks dumped 260,000 cables indiscriminately on the Internet.
Here's the truth, from an AP news report from December 3, 2010. There's no excuse for journalists not to know this by this point:
Respected news outlets collaborate with WikiLeaks >
By The Associated Press
12.03.10
The diplomatic records exposed on WikiLeaks this week reveal not only secret government communications, but also an extraordinary collaboration between some of the world’s most respected news-media outlets and a website that is facing increasing pressure and criticism from governments worldwide.
Unlike earlier disclosures by WikiLeaks of tens of thousands of secret government military records, the group is releasing only a trickle of documents at a time from a trove of a quarter-million, and only after considering advice from five news organizations with which it chose to share all of the material..
This is the saddest day for journalism since their guileless acceptance of the WMD boogeyman and giddy cheerleading for the Iraq war. It turns out that journalism is important, but most of these "professional" practitioners of the field are not only failing to practice it, they are hostile to the idea that they should practice it. It's very revealing.
It's just another sad and revealing day for all the hacks running around and impersonating real journalists. Not all journos are acting like this. Major props goes to the Ray Odroso of the Village Voice.
Read more here .
