The Toxic One Hundred

 

Meet the Toxic 100 Corporate Air Polluters

Wednesday 31 March 2010

by: Michael Ash and James K. Boyce  |  Political Economy Research Institute

 

(Photo: otodo; Edited: Lance Page / t r u t h o u t)

Amherst, MA - Researchers at the Political Economy Research Institute (PERI) at the University of Massachusetts Amherst today released the Toxic 100 Air Polluters, an updated list of the top corporate air polluters in the United States.

"The Toxic 100 Air Polluters informs consumers and shareholders which large corporations release the most toxic pollutants into our air," said Professor James Boyce, co-director of PERI's Corporate Toxics Information Project. "We assess not just how many pounds of pollutants are released, but which are the most toxic and how many people are at risk. People have a right to know about toxic hazards to which they are exposed. Legislators need to understand the effects of pollution on their constituents."

The Toxic 100 Air Polluters index is based on air releases of hundreds of chemicals from industrial facilities across the United States. The rankings take into account not only the quantity of releases, but also the toxicity of chemicals, transport factors such as prevailing winds and height of smokestacks, and the number of people exposed.

The top five air polluters among large corporations are the Bayer Group, ExxonMobil, Sunoco, DuPont, and Arcelor Mittal. The Toxic 100 Air Polluters rankings have been expanded to include large privately held firms, such as number 10 Koch Industries, as well as the world's largest publicly traded corporations.

For the first time, the Toxic 100 Air Polluters includes information on the disproportionate risk burden from industrial air toxics for minorities and low-income communities. This makes it possible to compare corporations and facilities in terms of their environmental justice performance as well as overall pollution. For example, the data reveal that minorities bear 65% of the air toxics risk from facilities owned by ExxonMobil, while minorities make up 38% of the U.S. population.

Users of the web-based Toxic 100 Air Polluters list can view the details behind each company's Toxic Score, including the names and locations of individual facilities owned by the corporation, the chemicals emitted by those facilities, and the share of the Toxic Score borne by minorities and people living below the poverty line. The new edition also provides access to this information on all firms operating in the United States, regardless of size. Several smaller firms rank as big air polluters, topped by the Marietta, Ohio, facility of the French-owned Eramet Group and Houston-based Quality Electric Steel Castings LP.

The data on chemical releases come from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's Toxics Release Inventory (TRI). The TRI is widely cited in press accounts that identify the top polluters in various localities. But reports based on TRI data alone have three limitations:

• Raw TRI data are reported in total pounds of chemicals, without taking into account differences in toxicity. Pound-for-pound, some chemicals are up to ten million times more hazardous than others.
• TRI data do not consider the numbers of people affected by toxic releases--for example, the difference between facilities upwind from densely-populated urban areas and those located far from population centers.
• TRI data are reported on a facility-by-facility basis, without combining plants owned by one corporation to get a picture of overall corporate performance.

The Toxic 100 Air Polluters index tackles all three problems by using the 2006 Risk-Screening Environmental Indicators (RSEI) data, the most recent available from the EPA. In addition to TRI data, RSEI includes toxicity weights and population exposure. PERI researchers added up facility-by-facility RSEI data released by the EPA to construct corporate rankings.

"In making this information available, we are building on the achievements of the right-to-know movement," explains Professor Michael Ash, co-Director of the Corporate Toxics Information Project. "Our goal is to engender public participation in environmental decision-making, and to help residents translate the right to know into the right to clean air."

------

The Toxic 100 Air Polluters

The Toxic 100 Air Polluters index identifies the top U.S. air polluters among the world's largest corporations. The index relies on the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's Risk Screening Environmental Indicators (RSEI), which assesses the chronic human health risk from industrial toxic releases. The underlying data for RSEI is the EPA’s Toxics Release Inventory (TRI), in which facilities across the U.S. report their releases of toxic chemicals. In addition to the amount of toxic chemicals released, RSEI also includes the degree of toxicity and population exposure. The Toxic 100 Air Polluters ranks corporations based on the chronic human health risk from all of their U.S. polluting facilities.

Full List of Top Toxic 100 Air Polluters

Toxic 100 Air Polluters Detailed Company Reports

How Toxic is Toxic?

Technical Notes

How Accurate are the RSEI Data on Toxic Air Pollution?

Toxic 100 Air Polluters Archive

For further information, contact Professor Michael Ash or Professor James K. Boyce at +1 (413) 577-0816 or peri@peri.umass.edu or visit PERI's Corporate Toxic Information Project on the web at http://toxic100.org.  

All republished content that appears on Truthout has been obtained by permission or license.

Let The Sun Shine In......

Dirty Energy Companies Playing Dirty

by Meg White
President Obama frames his decision to allow increased offshore drilling, new nuclear power plants and the pursuit of "clean" coal technology as a type of a stopgap measure to fill American demands for cheap energy while renewable sources of energy are developed. But is this a case of sleeping with the enemy?

The CEOs of big energy corporations, who rely on coal, gas and nuclear plants to create the bulk of their energy, nod alongside the administration. But on the local level, they appear willing to block these developing industries through a combination of lobbying and monopoly. Two recent stories illustrate how traditional energy companies are keeping wind and solar energy companies from gaining a local foothold.

So let's say you own a small business. You want to install a solar panel on your roof, but the start-up costs are enormous for such infrastructure, even with the tax incentives. In some other states, you can enter into a "power purchase agreement" with an solar energy company. The company basically installs the panel and maintains it, making its money by selling the energy to you and to traditional power companies. A wealthier entrepreneur might make back the money they invested in the panels by selling the excess energy back into the traditional system.

But if your business is in the state of Georgia, you're out of luck. A traditional energy company known as Georgia Power has nurtured a complex web to ensure a lack of viability in the state's solar marketplace.

According to James Marlow, vice chair of the Georgia Solar Energy Association, the state of Georgia has "about a dozen state policies preventing creation of solar energy." Among them, the Territorial Act requires an owner of solar power panels sell their energy back to Georgia Power exclusively. But because the company sticks to a strict limit on how much energy it buys, there's a waiting list of people who want to enter into such an agreement with Georgia Power, but cannot.

Georgia Power can hide behind the cap because it's established by the state legislature. But according to this Inter-Press Service article, the company lobbied lawmakers for the very low cap in the first place. Furthermore, the piece notes that Georgia Power charges customers more to buy solar energy and keep prices of "dirty" energy low by flooding the market. Company plans to build two new coal plants and two new nuclear power plants will surely further exacerbate this problem.

Much as areas of the sunny south are limited in their access to solar power by such maneuvering, traditional energy companies are doing their best to keep turbines off the wind-swept plains of the Midwest.

Exelon Energy is spending its time and money in Springfield, IL. The energy company is lobbying against a relatively obscure part of a clean energy bill that would require utilities to buy clean energy from local sources before venturing elsewhere. Progress Illinois reports that Exelon is trying to prevent local competition from springing up:

Publicly, the company is claiming the measure will drive up consumers' electric bills. But Crain's suggests that there could be another underlying reason:

But a continued influx of homegrown wind power could hit Exelon where it hurts the most, reducing wholesale power prices in Illinois. That's because wind tends to blow hardest at night, when power demand is lowest. In recent years, real-time prices at night have turned negative at times, requiring generators to actually pay to unload their juice, because supply has outstripped demand. More local wind power likely would exacerbate that effect. Exelon's nukes run around the clock, making them more vulnerable to these price swings, while natural gas- and coal-fired plants can shut down when demand is weak...

As far as [Illinois Wind Energy Association's Kevin] Borgia is concerned, claims that electric rates would skyrocket under the new local requirement don't add up. That's because the Renewable Standards Portfolio imposes a rate-impact limit, which holds the line on renewable-related hikes.

Where pay-to-play politics are the norm, the corruption of a bill that's supposed to be about wind and solar power is to be expected to some degree. After all, this very legislation may end up defining the incineration of tires as energy derived from a renewable resource. Talk about the stench of corruption...

But I don't doubt that there are efforts by traditional energy producers in most states to try to stifle the development of renewable and clean energy sources. Because Georgia Power can't own the sun and Exelon Energy can't own the wind, they have to work with the resources they have: dirty energy sources and bought-off politicians.

The calculation being made here is clear: These energy companies are choosing their profit margins over American jobs and the country's safety. By standing quietly in the way of their fellow citizens' ingenuity, they're showcasing the worst kind of short-sightedness possible.

Obama may be right about the need for a slow transition to alternative energy. But if by handing over new leases on life to dying industries we're propping up the very people standing in the way of innovation and the building of a new green economy, we're working against our own best efforts.

Let The Sun Shine In......

Sean Hannity On The Loose

BILL BERKOWITZ FOR BUZZFLASH

Hannity on the Loose:  A best-selling book, an expansive book tour and a charity gone rogue

While Sean Hannity’s new book, “Conservative Victory: Defeating Obama's Radical Agenda” will no doubt hit the best-seller list, his so-called Freedom Concerts may be landing on another list; a list of organizations not to be trusted with the public’s donations.  

The other day I received an email from the Heritage Foundation -- signed by its president Edward Fuelner -- letting me know that Sean Hannity’s new book has been released. The book, according to Fuelner, “spells out exactly what needs to be done to rescue America from the clutches of a destructive leftist policy agenda.” And make no mistake about it, Conservative Victory: Defeating Obama's Radical Agenda, will be on the best-seller lists before you’ve finished your first cup of coffee on Monday morning. (As of Thursday, April 1, the book was ranked #2 in Amazon’s “Best Sellers in Books” category; #33 in sales rank at Barnes & Noble; and there was only “1 left in stock” over at Powell’s Books.)

Fuelner’s email said not a thing about a hot little scandal that appears to be brewing about “Sean’s” keppele (little head). More on that later. Meanwhile back to Fuelner’s missive.
Sean – the Heritage Foundation calls him Sean because he is “our friend” and a “true ally” of the conservative Washington, D.C.-based think tank – “issues a stirring call to action for every citizen who is ready to defeat the radical liberal activism that has come to mark the Obama administration and lawmakers on Capitol Hill — and that threaten America's future well-being. “ Fuelner emphatically suggests that you “should order your copy today! (http://www.hannity.com/pages/conservative-victory)”

Hannity – I call him by his last name because he is neither my “friend” nor “ally,” although he was nice enough to mention me in one of his earlier books – tears the lid off the Obama Administration’s march toward _______ (you fill in the blank). In his first book in six years (many thanks for sparing us), he “carefully documents the president’s affiliation with radical theology [might we expect a note or two on Rev. Jeremiah Wright], his advisers’ history of Marxist activism [is there a Van Jones in this picture], his fight against independent media voices [will Hannity decry the president’s attack on Fox?], and his support for leftist dictators [he did accept a book from Venezuela’s Hugo Chavez!]. Sean exposes their campaign to dismantle the American free-market system and forfeit our national sovereignty.”

If Hannity stopped there, he would have already made an extraordinary contribution toward understanding the historical period we are living through. “But he doesn't stop there,” Fuelner promises. “Sean also draws on the examples of Ronald Reagan and the GOP’s Contract with America to show how conservatives can unite behind this country’s most cherished principles — our nation’s First Principles — and act now to get America back on the right track while we still can.” Uh, pardon me, but is that a veiled reference to Team Obama’s oft-heard election slogan “Yes we can?”

In case we’ve forgotten, Fuelner reminds us that the partnership between Heritage and Hannity goes all the way back to … three years ago: “You may recall that The Heritage Foundation began our radio partnership with Sean three years ago in a campaign that asked ‘What Would Reagan Do?’ Ronald Reagan proved that when our leaders govern according to our conservative First Principles, America flourishes.”

Therefore, it was only “fitting that Sean's first stop on his book tour … [was] at an event at the Ronald Reagan Library … [on] March 30.” And, over the next few weeks Hannity will be making stops in Salt Lake City; Pittsburgh, Penn.; Minneapolis, Minn., where special guests include Sarah Palin, Michelle Bachmann, Tim Pawlenty, and uber-lobbyist Jack Abramoff’s pal Ralph Reed; Grand Rapids, Mich. (will Michael Moore show up? -- after all the sanest, most civil interview with a progressive/leftist that I’ve ever seen on the Hannity program – and I do admit to favoring Rachel Maddow in that timeslot -- was the night he had Moore on); Atlanta, Ga., where special guests include the newly minted CNN contributor, Erick Erickson, former White House press secretary Dana Perino, and the ever-illuminating spinmeister, Frank Luntz; Orlando, Fla., where special guests include GOP senatorial candidate Marco Rubio and former Notre Dame University (among others) football coach Lou Holtz; and several other cities.

Where does the money that Hannity and Oliver North has raised for veteran’s families really go?

Meanwhile, while Hannity is making the rounds and selling oodles of books, another Washington, D.C.-based organization is sorta trying to throw another kind of book at the Seanster.

On March 29, the day before Hannity’s book hit the streets, CREW (Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington), filed complaints with the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) and the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) against Sean Hannity, his Freedom Concerts, the Freedom Alliance (http://www.freedomalliance.org/) and Lt. Col. Oliver North.

According to a CREW press release, the “FTC complaint alleges Hannity and Freedom Concerts have engaged in illegal and deceptive marketing practices by suggesting that all money generated by ticket sales for the Freedom Concerts he sponsors each summer goes to scholarships for children of killed and wounded service members.

“In fact, the concerts are staged by Premiere Marketing, which is headed by Duane Ward – also the head of Premiere Speakers Bureau, which exclusively represents Mr. Hannity and Lt. Col. North. After staging the concerts, Premiere donates an unknown portion of the concert proceeds to the Freedom Alliance,” the release notes (http://citizensforethics.org/node/44511).

In promoting the concerts, Hannity has claimed that “Every penny, 100 percent of the donations are applied to the Freedom Alliance scholarship fund.” North has made similar statements: “There’s no overhead. There’s no expenses taken out. Every penny that’s donated or that’s raised through things like the Freedom Concerts goes to the scholarship fund.” 

Freedom Alliance’s chairman, Tom Kilgannon, said that there was "absolutely no merit to the scurrilous charges." His brief statement pledged that "the smear-mongers who have launched this politically motivated witch hunt against Freedom Alliance will be proven wrong as we aggressively defend ourselves in the days and weeks ahead."

According to Salon’s Joe Conason, “Kilgannon offered no further detail than a week earlier, when he and North posted an answer to similar accusations by conservative blogger Debbie Schlussel, who quoted inside sources saying that Hannity squandered funds supposedly raised to benefit veterans and their children. She also performed her own examination of the charity's tax returns, but both Hannity and Kilgannon rebuffed her attempts to question them about her troubling discoveries.”

Conason reported that “At the heart of the CREW complaints -- and the questions raised about the Freedom Alliance by Schlussel -- is how much of the total that Hannity and North promised to devote to scholarships for the children of wounded and deceased veterans was spent on that worthy purpose. The data compiled by CREW's researchers from Freedom Alliance's own IRS 990 forms show that in every year since 2003, when the concert tours began, the organization has spent more on postage and printing combined (and on salaries) than on "grants" -- and far more on ‘expenses.'

“In 2007, for example, the charity collected nearly $12.5 million in revenue -- of which $1 million was spent on ‘fundraising,’ $200,000 on consulting, $1.4 million on postage, $1.1 million on printing, and $500,000 on ‘conferences.’ Another $1.4 million went to salaries. But that year, the Freedom Alliance reported making grants of only $895,347, while retaining ‘net assets’ of over $19 million.”

Conason also pointed out that despite Kilgannon’s protestations, the American Institute of Philanthropy’s -- “the gold standard” of charity regulators -- has “graded” Freedom Alliance “dismally low” in recent years. According to CREW, the organization received a “D” in both December 2008 and 2009, a slight improvement over the "F" it received in both December 2006 and December 2007.

A CREW spokesperson pointed out that an AIP official noted that "Freedom Alliance has repeatedly failed to respond to our requests for financial information, which is why they are listed with 'closed-book' status in the [AIP] Guide. The closed-book status does not affect the letter grade we assign to a charity. However, many donors like to consider a charity's willingness to be transparent when considering whether or not a given charity is worthy of their donation, so we list a charity's open or closed-book status as additional information."

The group’s annual series of fundraising "Freedom Concerts" tour is scheduled to kick off in New Jersey in August, headlined by Lynyrd Skynyrd and the Charlie Daniels Band.

Let The Sun Shine In......

Is All The Anger Messing with Our National Culture

I would say a big YEP! This is what deception, in the form of misinformation and over-stating, and fear-mongering does to a community and, if on a large enough scale, an entire nation.

Apparently anger has become the crucible upon which our national culture is to be forged - - an acceptable means of expression on the campaign trail, at town-hall meetings and in Congress. The lunatic fringe engages in the interchange of opinions without factual underpinnings or respect for rational debate. And since especially politicians on the right fail to condemn outrageous statements by political opportunists in their ranks the lunatic fringe moves ever closer to defining conservatives and the Republican Party.

There doesn’t seem to be any sense of honor among fanatics, just irresponsible partisan rage from politicians and media hucksters who say, with a straight face, that they are true patriots. Those Republicans in Congress who refuse to state unequivocally that they believe President Obama to be a natural-born citizen provide cover for ‘birthers’, the latest of whom is Lt. Col. Terry Lakin, who says he won’t follow orders issued by the president unless he sees his birth certificate. Will the Army actually put up with this, issue an order to cease and desist or go straight to a court martial proceeding?

Somehow we have reached a point in our history where civil disobedience has become synonymous with armed resistance and a total misreading of what our early forbears fought against in the early days of British dominance on our shores. “No taxation without representation” and the flinging of tea into Boston Harbor has morphed into a false analogy that even what an elected majority of our own citizens proposes is unacceptable, as if there were no such thing as free elections and legislative initiatives. Accompanied by blissfully incoherent rhetoric, supporters cling to irrational premises to feed their angst encouraged by irresponsible pols who turn logic on its head.

The recent arrest of homegrown insurgents who believed they could start an insurrection by attacking law enforcement personnel followed by armed assaults at their funerals is a disturbing extension of the violence and anti-government sentiment that has begun to permeate our world. When the initial shock wears off among the information-challenged rank-and-file voting public the inflammatory violence to decent discourse will no doubt continue unabated. Instigators are unlikely to acknowledge that words can have serious consequences and that their verbal assaults often bear bitter fruit.

It seems to amuse listeners when Sarah Palin tells them to stop motorists who have Obama stickers on their cars and ask them “how’s that hopey, changey thing workn’ out for ya?” Either she is unaware or doesn’t care that a driver in Tennessee was forced off the road by an angry partisan for just that reason. Neither does it concern her that her November electoral map highlights Democratic candidates in the cross-hairs that all gun handlers will recognize. In fact conservatives in general dismiss any connection between their overblown rhetoric and the behavior of would be government removalists.

And it isn’t just among the obvious disrupters in the political world where violence and incivility occurs. Anyone who has attended a child’s sporting event will probably have experienced a parent yelling at an official or even physically attacking a coach. At one game when my own eleven-year-old son was pitching I could hear “meatball, meatball” from the bleachers across the field and remarked that the coach shouldn’t allow his team to behave that way, only to be told it wasn’t the kids but the parents of the opposing team.

Sadly the lack of respect and deeply disturbing behavior of both adults and young people in our midst played out in the tragic suicide of a young female student at South Hadley High School last week. No adequate explanation has yet been made as to why members of the faculty and other students who knew of the bullying and harassment of the girl took no action or why such behavior is often tolerated nationwide. Is it a sign of our times that violent words and actions are simply accepted as part of growing up? And is it only after some dreadful incident that a knee-jerk response is generated in the community and guilt-ridden overreaction confounds the original transgression? A local resident told me that a friend has stopped going to meetings in South Hadley because there is such disruptive shouting and screaming on the part of attendees. Sound familiar?

Whatever disagreements continue to exist in the political world and in our communities it is well past time that we took a critical look at the environment we have created and for partisans to acknowledge that radical elements in the media and among supporters do great damage to our way of life.

Please respond to Ann Davidow's commentary by leaving comments below and sharing them with the BuzzFlash community.

FINDING A VOICE by Ann Davidow

Let The Sun Shine In......

FBI warns letters to governors could stir violence

This group may not be violent, though one wonders how they plan to remove 30 to 50 governors. Nevertheless, they could incite violence from the nutjobs who have already made themselves so evident in the last months.

By EILEEN SULLIVAN and DEVLIN BARRETT, 

Associated Press Writers Eileen Sullivan And Devlin Barrett, 

 Sat Apr 3, 1:05 am ET

 

WASHINGTON – The FBI is warning police across the country that an anti-government group's call to remove governors from office could provoke violence.

The group called the Guardians of the free Republics wants to "restore America" by peacefully dismantling parts of the government, according to its Web site. It sent letters to governors demanding they leave office or be removed.

Investigators do not see threats of violence in the group's message, but fear the broad call for removal of top state officials could lead others to act out violently. At least two states beefed up security in response.

Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty said he received one of the letters but wasn't overly alarmed.

"We get all kinds of, shall we say, 'interesting' mail, so it's not out of the norm," Pawlenty said Friday. "It got more attention because it went to so many governors."

As of Wednesday, more than 30 governors had received letters saying if they don't leave office within three days they will be removed, according to an internal intelligence note by the FBI and the Department of Homeland Security. The note was obtained by The Associated Press.

The FBI expects all 50 governors will eventually receive such letters.
Governors whose offices reported getting the letters included Jennifer Granholm of Michigan, Bobby Jindal of Louisiana, Chet Culver of Iowa, Dave Heineman of Nebraska, Jim Gibbons of Nevada, Brad Henry of Oklahoma, Mike Rounds of South Dakota, Bob McDonnell of Virginia, and Gary Herbert of Utah, where officials stepped up security in response to the letter.

In Nevada, screening machines for visitors and packages were added to the main entrance to the state Capitol as a precaution.

"We're not really overly concerned, but at the same time we don't want to sit back and do nothing and regret it," Deputy Chief of Staff Lynn Hettrick said.
Granholm spokeswoman Liz Boyd said federal authorities had alerted the governor that such a letter might be coming, and it arrived Monday. Boyd, who described the letter as "non-threatening," said it was opened by a staffer and immediately turned over to the Michigan State Police.

Jindal's office confirmed that the governor had received one of the letters and directed questions to the Louisiana State Police.

"They called us as they do for any letter that's out of the norm," said Lt. Doug Cain, a state police spokesman. He declined to provide specifics about the letter, but said, "not knowing the group and the information contained in the letter warranted state police to review it."

An e-mail message seeking comment sent Friday night to an address on the Guardians of the free Republics' Web site got no response.

The FBI warning comes at a time of heightened attention to far-right extremist groups after the arrest of nine Christian militia members last weekend accused of plotting violence.

In explaining the letters sent to the governors, the intelligence note says officials have no specific knowledge of plans to use violence, but they caution police to be aware in case other individuals interpret the letters "as a justification for violence or other criminal actions."

The FBI associated the letter with "sovereign citizens," most of whom believe they are free from all duties of a U.S. citizen, like paying taxes or needing a government license to drive. A small number of these people are armed and resort to violence, according to the intelligence report.

Last weekend, the FBI conducted raids on suspected members of a Christian militia in the Midwest that was allegedly planning to kill police officers. In the past year, federal agents have seen an increase in "chatter" from an array of domestic extremist groups, which can include radical self-styled militias, white separatists or extreme civil libertarians and sovereign citizens.
___

Associated Press writers Melinda Deslatte in Baton Rouge, La., Brian Bakst in St. Paul, Minn., and David Aguilar in Detroit contributed to this report.

Let The Sun Shine In......

Arre We A Nation Off Our Meds?

Perhaps some peace could be gained if pollsters stopped polling for a while, or the media ceased reporting their endless tabulations of a national mental breakdown; but then again, without these clinical surveys, how would we know just how goofy we actually are?

Of course we can also add a but to that but: Sure, polls collectively guage our goofiness level, but if we are in fact exceptionally goofy, just what is it that a nation populated by so many dense airheads is capable of doing about it?

Anyway, here's the latest from USA Today/Gallup -- and this one's the kind of whopper that compels one to either laughter or apathy, either disbelief or disgust: Half of all Americans now say that Barack Obama "deserves at least a 'moderate' amount of blame ... for the nation's economic problems"; and half of them believe he deserves a "great deal" of that blame.

Peculiar indeed is that the second statistic is actually less unsettling: there is, and pretty much always has been, about one-quarter of the U.S. population that's eager to expose its utter detachment from reality, no matter what the issue. But that half of this once-great republic now sentimentally reflects the clinically goofy one-quarter is ... let's not be alarmist here ... alarming.

Now, it's true that U.S. presidents have far less control over the economy than most folks believe, and it's similarly true that whatever influence U.S. presidents do have over the economy most likely won't reveal itself within a span of 15 months.

But consider for a moment what Obama's 15 months have been subsequent to: years of plutocratic frivolity, fiscal malfeasance, rising income inequality, executive unaccountability, working-class stagnation, official indifference, unprovoked and unpaid-for war, unfunded entitlements, trade imbalances, a breathtaking swing from surplus to debt ...

And for the inescapable and unavoidably long-term fallout from that, it's Obama who deserves a "moderate" level of blame?

Half the nation believes that? In simplest terms, psychosis means a detachment from reality. I rest my case: We as a nation are either half-crazy, or half of us are completely nuts. Take your descriptive pick.

"If the election were [held] now, we'd have a 'change' election; we'd have a 1994," said Stan Greenberg, Bill Clinton's pollster in that dark year, to USA Today.

Yet I'd characterize another 1994 as more of a "relapse" than change. As I understand it, virtually every schizophrenic thinks he'll do better than the last time he got off his meds, a.m.a. -- although his underlying disease is, of course, unmitigated. You can work out the beckoning metaphor from there.

Still, Greenberg "questions whether Republicans will be in a position to capitalize on voter discontent." And therein lies a surprisingly valid questioning, since these days the Republican National Committee finds itself compelled to clarify that its fundraising phone bank is not, in fact, housed at a phone-sex center.

On a grander scale, however, predictive doubts stem from a repeatedly verified scattering of the electorate: "The anti-tax 'Tea Party' movement has a favorable rating nearly as high as [the major parties] do -- 37% compared with 41% for Democrats and 42% for the GOP."

Now that's nuts; however the upside is that Tea Party-endorsed candidates could wind up wreaking some famous havoc in GOP primaries, thereby opening a breach for you-know-who. To date, the empirical evidence from recent primaries has said no; it tends to confirm that disorganized Tea Partyers will, by and large, support the "mainstream" Republican, out of a desperation to defeat Democrats, if nothing else.

The thing is, though, nobody knows where the electorate might stand even one month from now, let alone in seven months.

But sure, you say, that's self-evident. The future is always impossible to accurately predict. And that of course is true. Nonetheless, in this case here's the vastly distressing kicker: The future is not normally resistant to accurate predictions largely because of the intervening variable of raging madness.

Please respond to P.M.'s commentary by leaving comments below and sharing them with the BuzzFlash community. For personal questions or comments you can contact him at fifthcolumnistmail@gmail.com

THE FIFTH COLUMNIST by P.M. Carpenter


Let The Sun Shine In......

Pete Hoeskra; Domestic terrorism

Rep. Pete Hoekstra (R-MI) said in a radio interview today that some incidents, including the intentional plane crash into an Austin IRS building and the murder of three police officers in Pittsburgh, would qualify as acts of domestic terrorism.

Hoekstra, the ranking member on the intelligence committee and a candidate for Michigan governor, has attacked the administration for its handling of terrorism suspects, notably the man who tried to blow up a plane on Christmas Day. (He also took some heat for using the attempted attack in a fund-raising letter.)

From the transcript of the interview with WDET's Craig Fahle:

CF: We've had a few incidents in the last year. You had the police officers in Pittsburgh killed by a gentleman who said he was concerned that the Obama administration was going to take away his guns. You have the recent incident where the anti-tax person flew a plane into the IRS building in Texas, killing a Vietnam veteran by the way. ...

So there have been instances of violence, and stuff that was based on anti- government feelings. Is this something we need to keep better track of, because many would consider these acts of domestic terrorism.

PH: They would, and they would be right. Those are acts of domestic terrorism. You know they've resulted in the death of Americans and they resulted, they came about because certain people were just very very frustrated and angry with government and sure, we do have to keep an eye on that.

You can listen to the audio here.

Let The Sun Shine In......

Hannity's Hypocrisy Knows No Bounds

Sean Hannity’s hypocrisy knows no bounds. In the middle of his book tour, touting a book that is full of the kind of accusations about President Obama that would make Glenn Beck proud, Hannity had the nerve to criticize Hollywood liberals for “attack(ing) the president like they did.” Hannity was undoubtedly referring to President George W. Bush. When Bush was president, criticizing the president emboldened our enemies and undermined our troops. Now that Obama's president? Not so much. Or maybe just not when Hannity does it. With video.

On a show from the Reagan Library Tuesday (3/30/10), Hannity was discussing (i.e. attacking) Hollywood liberals with athlete Bruce Jenner and former football player Jason Sehorn.

Hannity said, “It seems that there was a transformation.” Referring to the old Hollywood actors like Jimmy Stewart and Bob Hope, Hannity continued, “They loved their country. They supported their troops. They didn’t go out there and attack the president like they did.” Hannity ended abruptly, perhaps realizing that he was in the middle of a book tour attacking the president and that you can't watch a Hannity show without hearing that Obama is a radical socialist and/or a racist.

Then, “regular guy Hannity” – you know the multi-millionaire who canceled an appearance at Washington University because the students sponsoring him could not come up with a private jet that satisfied him and who charged Brigham Young University nearly $50,000 in travel expenses for a "volunteer" speaking engagement and who won’t reveal how much of the $100+ ticket prices to his Freedom Concerts actually goes to charity – attacked liberals for living too high on the hog. “What do you think it is about liberalism, socialism, collectivism – cause they fly around in their private jets. They’ve got their limousines. They’ve got their… high and mighty lifestyle. They’re going out every night. What is it, they’ve got theirs and the heck with the rest of us?”

Let The Sun Shine In......

Fox Fake News.....

What else is new?

BUZZFLASH NEWS ALERT
by Jeffrey Joseph

Many have remarked on FOX's tendency to promote a set narrative in lieu of actually reporting on the news. Nonetheless, few might have suspected that the network's zeal for their own narrative would have so plainly led to false implications as when FOX reported a joke as straight news and made efforts to falsely bolster Sarah Palin's new special in ways that have already backfired.

Ever willing to take a jab at global warming activists, FOX presented as news an article about Professor James Schneider, a "famed global warming activist," freezing to death in the Antarctic while trying to do research on the melting of ice sheets as a consequence of global warming. Without specifically commenting on the irony, the FOX presentation included an excerpt from Linda Schneider, James' wife, saying, "He kept talking about when they 'get down to chili,' and I thought they were talking about the order in which they would consume their food supplies." Strangely, the activist's wife, according to the piece, thought he was heading to Greenland rather than the Antarctica on the other side of the globe and misinterpreted Chile, the nation, for chili.

Of course, the whole article was a hoax. The post originally appeared in 2006 on ecoEnquirer.com, to which FOX Nation linked in the article it presented. However, the posters on FOX failed to recognize the website's history of satire. Posted too early to even promote as an April Fool's Day joke, FOX has since taken the article down, but not without already putting into serious question the validity of the "news" site.

The cable network hardly fared better. In building up Sarah Palin's debut special, FOX aired promos suggesting Palin would feature stories from stars such as LL Cool J, Toby Keith, and GE Executive Jack Welch. From the outset, the show seemed altogether suspicious since GE operates MSNBC, politically counter to the entire network, but the promotions left the implication that Palin would have a new interview with Welch and the others.

Welch turned out to be the least of Palin's concerns. LL Cool J publicly took umbrage with the suggestion he would make an appearance on the show. He has now famously tweeted, "Fox lifted an old interview I gave in 2008 to someone else & are misrepresenting to the public in order to promote Sarah Palins Show. WOW." In turn, FOX scrambled onto the offensive, removing him from the show and representing the move as if the star "does not want to be associated with a program that could serve as an inspiration to others." To ensure LL Cool J felt FOX's hostility, it concluded with a back-handed compliment in choosing to "wish him the best with his fledgling acting career," this despite the fact that the star has appeared in movies and television for over twenty years. Of course, the sender proved too cowardly to attach a name to the denigrating remarks.

With some forethought, FOX may have anticipated LL Cool J's incredulity at his appearance in Palin's promos, but Toby Keith's parallel publicly voiced surprise likely comes as a bit more of a shock. As related by Keith's publicist, Elaine Schock, "Toby was not asked to participate, nor has he ever done an interview with Sarah Palin." FOX has not yet issued another stinging response to Keith's statement as it did with LL Cool J. Nor has FOX thus far suggested it would remove Keith's portions from the show, also apparently from a long-past interview that did not involve Palin. What it has illustrated, though, was a willingness to promote Sarah Palin using celebrities who had given the network no assent to the promotions. Fortunately, said celebrities had enough fortitude to push back on FOX's implications that Palin could acquire the star guests and proven [PROVES?] that Palin's talent suffices only to present a hodgepodge of old videos rather than bringing anything new to her audience.

On this April Fool's Day, FOX presents a series of jokes, albeit unintentionally. From its laughable standards of journalism in presenting satire as news to propping up Palin as a valid contributor to the national discourse then recognizing she can hardly showcase others' interviews without widespread ridicule, it would be hard to say if the joke is more on FOX or its viewers. Since the coverage lacks a holiday to be bereft of integrity, though, FOX's network ends up more dangerous than hilarious for its dedicated viewers. In turn, viewers should demand that FOX stop continually misinforming its audience, intentionally and otherwise -- and in the meantime, choose to Turn Off FOX.

Please send in tips and success stories to turnofffox@gmail.com, look out for us on Twitter @turnofffox, and join us at BuzzFlash in the Campaign to Turn Off FOX News. And please forward this article to a friend. You can drive the message home by obtaining a Turn Off FOX Bumper Sticker. Just Click Here.


Originally posted at Turn Off FOX.

Let The Sun Shine In......

What Progressives Must Learn from the ACORN Debacle.

By Rinku Sen

 
I’ve been expecting it for months, but I was still bummed to see the official announcement: ACORN, a decades-old community organizing powerhouse, will be closing its operations permanently as of April 1. As I wrote last year, ACORN has been the subject of a concerted attack by the right and was largely abandoned when liberal supporters, including President Obama and Democratic members of Congress, distanced themselves. But the attack on ACORN isn't about ACORN alone. It's an important element of a conservative strategy to discredit the Obama administration, destroy organizing capacity among progressives and quiet voices for real change. They've helped shut ACORN's doors. Now, it's up to us to make sure the onslaught stops there.

A quick recap. For many years, ACORN has been attacked by conservatives for its massive voter registration program. Accusations of voter fraud during and after the 2008 election were eventually rejected by the courts, but they drew national attention nonetheless, fueled by efforts to link the organization to Barack Obama and by an earlier ACORN embezzlement scandal. Then, conservative activist James O’Keefe—who was arrested recently for plotting to tamper with Louisiana Sen. Mary Landrieu’s phones—released a video purporting to show ACORN staff advising a pimp and a prostitute on how to get away with tax fraud. The Brooklyn district attorney investigated that incident—in part by simply watching the unedited tape, something news organizations failed to do— and concluded that there was no unlawful activity at ACORN. But it was too late: Congress had already responded to incomplete news stories by banning ACORN from receiving government contracts, including for mortgage counseling and voter registration. A federal judge has ruled that ban unconstitutional, by the way.  
I’m not ACORN apologist. The organization had some serious quality-control issues, and hasn't always played well with others. The embezzlement could have been handled more forthrightly, for example, and in the struggle over Brooklyn’s Atlantic Yards stadium project, a number of New York activists charged ACORN with cutting an inadequate deal with developers. I am struck now, though, by the ease with which a 40-year-old stalwart could be taken down with a flimsy, if concerted right-wing smear campaign. Some of the challenges ACORN faced are commonplace among progressive organizations and leaders. Loose internal oversight combined with poor media and communications skills left the organization prey to shoddy corporate journalism, all of which contributed to this outcome. 

If we do our work well, we should expect similar attacks and know that long track recods won’t protect us.

Conservative groups routinely make the same sorts of mistakes, but they don’t generally result in such massive losses. Why? Because conservative activists are not in the business of challenging entrenched power. Progressives have to remember that we run an oppositional movement, even with a Democratic president of color in the White House. We are fundamentally about changing the dominant way society is set up, and that will always make us a more likely target of attack than those working merely to maintain the status quo.

Let The Sun Shine In......

Progressives: Think Fast

A federal judge ruled yesterday that "the National Security Agency's program of surveillance without warrants was illegal, rejecting the Obama administration's effort to keep shrouded in secrecy one of the most disputed counterterrorism policies of former President George W. Bush." Judge Vaughn Walker ruled that the government had violated a 1978 federal statute requiring court approval for domestic surveillance.

Top Republicans are starting to worry that their rallying cry to "repeal" the health care reform bill "just might singe GOP candidates in November's elections…if voters begin to see benefits from the new law." Some Republicans, like Rep. Mark Kirk (R-IL), a GOP Senate candidate in Illinois, are easing back from their earlier "adamant repeal-the-law stance."

Oregon Gov. Ted Kulongoski (D) and Attorney General John Kroger (D) are not only refusing to join states fighting to repeal health reform, but they have announced that they will take legal action to defend the constitutionality of the new health care law. "The health care reform cases present some of the most important constitutional issues facing this generation," said Kroger.

Rep. Tim Ryan (D-OH) canceled a health care town hall meeting on Tuesday due to security concerns. "We just thought it best to cancel it for safety concerns. This was not meant to be a place where we're going to talk partisan politics," a Ryan spokesperson said.
At least 30 survivors of the earthquake in Haiti who were brought to the United States in the disaster's aftermath are now being held in a Florida prison because they lack visas. They "were taken into custody by immigration authorities and held for deportation," and legal advocates "have tried for weeks to persuade government officials to release them."

After resisting the idea of new Security Council sanctions against Iran over its nuclear program, the Chinese government has agreed "to enter negotiations over the language of a new resolution to intensify international pressure on Iran." "They have agreed to start," said French foreign minister Bernard Kouchner. "Talking about the substance is a new step forward."

Three Republicans have decided to skirt their party's self-imposed one-year ban on congressional earmarks: Reps. Joseph Cao (LA), Ron Paul (TX), and Don Young (AK). Paul argued that earmarking is actually more transparent than the regular budget process, and Cao called the GOP's stance "shortsighted."

Tony Perkins, the president of the conservative Family Research Council, urged his supporters "to stop donating to the Republican National Committee and instead contribute to its own coffers or to candidates with like-minded goals." "I've hinted at this before, but now I am saying it -- don't give money to the RNC," Perkins wrote in his column on the organization's website.

"Top hedge fund managers rode the 2009 stock market rally to record gains, with the highest-paid 25 earning a collective $25.3 billion," reports the New York Times. One such manager, for example, made $4 billion last year because he "wagered that the government would not let the big banks fail."

And finally: Turtles nest near Rush Limbaugh's pool after he bought ads protesting laws that protect them.
 


Let The Sun Shine In......

Conservative Lynch Mob Gunning for Michael Steele:

  More Political Racism?

I'm willing to bet my life's savings that, back in 2008 when Michael Steele was elected head of the RNC, many people on both sides of the aisle were as incredulous as I in seeing a black man leading this almost entirely white Shiites political party. A party that seemingly cares about the struggles and needs of blacks and other minorities about as much as Saddam did

At the time, it was painfully clear that Republican officials focused not on Steele's qualifications and overall merit in putting him in charge, but rather their sense of urgency and political expediency in having a black face of the party as they battled fiercely with the Democrats and then-candidate Barack Obama. It was, and embarrassingly/shamefully so, their proud "see, we have black folks too!" moment. But they couldve put rapper Jay-Z atop the RNC and it still wouldn't have attracted black voters, which was clearly their goal with Steele's dubious appointment.

And now, in the wake of the RNC's new sex club scandal, these rueful conservatives are calling for Steele's head, all too happy to throw him under the bus and effectively reversing a decision that no one truly liked in the first place. I mean, a black man running the RNC?! A party with not one elected black U.S. Congressman or Senator? A party which received just 4% of the black vote in '08's presidential election? Gosh darnit, what were these crazy whiteys thinking!? What kind of boneheaded 'hopey-changey' thing was that?!

So now the Voyeur club scandal--where party officials expensed thousands of dollars at this Los Angeles sex and "bondage" emporium--is conservatives' chance to fire the black dude nobody ever really wanted anyway, and who had a bulls eye on his back from day-one. And this campaign, like the ridiculously disproportionate Tea Party vitriol over healthcare reform, is no doubt heavily rooted in racism.

Now of course, in their defense, Republicans will say, "How can we be racist in axing Steele if he was black when when we elected him?!" Normally, that would be a fairly plausible argument. But in Steele's case, his appointment was just as racist, for he was handed the reins not because of his overwhelming qualifications, but because of his skin color, which was a cheap, calculated ploy in seeking minority voters. The intended message was clear: "We'll put this unqualified black man in charge of an all-white party and you dumb minority folk will be duped into our make-believe 'big tent' and magically come out Republican." That's not racist, you say?


On another note, we could use your help at The The Adrienne Shelly Foundation. We're a 501 c 3 tax-exempt, non-profit organization dedicated in my late wife's honor, and with a simple mission: supporting women filmmakers. Adrienne, who wrote, directed and starred in the hit film WAITRESS, was killed November 1, 2006. Through the Foundation, her commitment to filmmaking lives on. We've established scholarships, grants, finishing funds, screenwriting fellowships and living stipends at NYU's Tisch School of the Arts/Kanbar Institute of Film; Columbia University; American Film Institute; Women in Film; IFP; the Nantucket Film Festival; the Tribeca Film Institute; and the Sundance Institute. Your generous contribution will go a long way towards helping us achieve this very important mission. Please click here to make a donation. Thank you.

 
posted by The Ostroy Report @ 7:27 AM

Let The Sun Shine In......

Fraud convict was big RNC donor

By Michael O'Brien - 03/30/10 02:34 PM ET

A man convicted last week of securities fraud was a top Republican National Committee donor, records show.

Former Brocade CEO Gregory Reyes, who was convicted in federal court last Friday on nine counts of security fraud, donated $75,000 to the RNC between 2003 and 2006, according to Federal Election Commission filings.

Reyes's convictions marks one of the most high-profile victories for the government in prosecuting financial malfeasance. Reyes was convicted due to the practice of backdating, a process of listing options on a contract at a different date than they were actually offered.

The GOP donor's conviction also comes as a debate over financial reform legislation is set to take center stage in Washington when lawmakers return from recess.

Members of the RNC's communications staff did not immediately comment Tuesday afternoon on Reyes's donations.

Donor battles have been a minor subplot of this week's news. The Democratic National Committee said Monday that it would donate to charity $505 that Barack Obama's presidential campaign had received in 2008 from a man charged Monday with threatening to kill House Minority Whip Eric Cantor (R-Va.).

Source:
http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/89823-securities-fraud-convict-was-big-rnc-donor

Let The Sun Shine In......

CNN is Broken!

It's gonna take quite a bit of fixing to get this viewer back. Crossfire was O.K. until things turned serious with the nation being hoodwinked into backing an illegal, immoral war with known lies. as if CNN had lost their bearings and had no clue how very serious the situation was. Blitzer was no batter. That weird monotone drives me crazy. I can do without John King as well. Anderson Cooper did a fantastic job with Hurricane Katrina How to fix CNN By: Michael Calderone March 31, 2010 05:33 PM EDT

The future of CNN, never exactly bright the past couple of years, suddenly looked dire this week when ratings came out showing a 40 percent decline in prime-time viewers since 2009. Jon Klein, the network's president, has consistently defended its down-the-middle news strategy, despite the increasingly large ratings leads opened up by MSNBC and particularly Fox, with their ideological slants and big personalities. So is it time for a radical rethinking of “the most trusted name in news,” the network of Larry King, Anderson Cooper, Campbell Brown and Wolf Blitzer? We asked a dozen or so prominent media watchers, former industry executives and CNN personalities for their recommendations. Their near consensus: It has to change, get more personality, no longer be — as one media critic called it — “the view from nowhere.” Exactly how to do that was not so easy to agree on — and one person we asked, Phil Donahue, doesn’t think the network needs to change at all. But the responses from everyone else broke down into five different approaches. Bring back “Crossfire” Ask a couple of former “Crossfire” hosts for a solution to CNN’s ratings troubles, and maybe it’s not a surprise what their answer is: Resurrect their old show. Both Michael Kinsley and Bill Press — each of whom had stints taking the liberal side of the right vs. left political slugfest — think it’s worth a shot. By bringing back “Crossfire,” they argue, CNN could continue with its strategy of not falling squarely on the left or the right in prime time but still offer lively opinion on both sides — something it appears viewers want. Five years ago, one of Klein’s first orders of business after becoming network president was killing off the long-running show, a pioneer in high-decibel political debate that had been the recipient of harsh on-air criticism from "Daily Show" host Jon Stewart just a few months before. “When he unceremoniously dumped it, Jon Klein said he wanted straight news and not commentary or opinion,” Kinsley told POLITICO. “And now he's got everyone expressing opinions left and right — because that's what people like.’ “’Crossfire’ used to vie with 'Larry King' as the network's No. 1 show — and we beat him on many nights, even though he had us as a lead-in and we had Lou Dobbs,” Kinsley said, adding that he means “the early Lou Dobbs, the boring corporate suck-up, not the new exciting xenophobic Lou Dobbs of legend.” “We were No. 1,” said Press, a top liberal radio host who was on “Crossfire” from 1996 to 2003. He described Klein’s pulling the plug on “Crossfire” as “one of the biggest mistakes in the history of modern television journalism.” Forget neutral — create a new identity Davidson Goldin, the former editorial director of MSNBC, who now runs a communications business in New York, worked at CNN’s cable news competitor as it morphed into a liberal alternative to Fox in the evenings. From that experience, he thinks that “CNN needs to find an identity and own that identity.” “A news channel trying to build a brand by saying they cover news is like a restaurant trying to become popular by saying it cooks food,” he said. “What we understood from the get-go was that by focusing on opinion [and]  analysis and using topic-area expertise to draw conclusions, we could easily differentiate ourselves from CNN, [which] was so wedded to just regurgitating the facts,” Goldin said. New York University journalism professor Jay Rosen, author of the PressThink blog, said the choice doesn’t have to be between “the view from nowhere” — what reporters might call "straight down the middle" journalism” — and the Fox News/MSNBC model. “Maybe the view from nowhere has failed, not because audiences want opinion rather than hard news but because the Voice of God isn't as convincing as it once was,” Rosen said. “Nothing will improve at CNN until the people running the news report consider that viewlessness may not be an advantage, but ideology is not the only alternative.” Press added that he thinks CNN “is going to have to bite the bullet and do some advocacy programming” because, in his opinion, “there ain’t no room in the middle.” Viewers, he continued, get their straight news elsewhere and are “looking for opinion in prime time ... anchors with an edge.” Bring in big personalities Adding more “edge” in prime time doesn’t necessarily mean rushing out to hire a fire-breathing host from the left or the right. Personalities larger than life, or so normal they stand out, would do the trick. Michael Wolff, founder of Newser.com and a Vanity Fair contributing editor, pointed out that “the viewing audience is just less and less interested in traditional television, civic-minded news delivered by what are, in effect, news readers.” “CNN has to figure out how to make the news either more efficient or more entertaining,” Wolff continued. “These are the two keystones of modern news, and the network is deficient on both counts. I suppose I would try formats that gave you what you need to know in minutes instead of blocks and personalities that had stronger voices — not necessarily ideological voices, but more unique and identifiable ones.” As for who could fill that role, Wolff said it could be “anybody who doesn't reek of conventional television.” Wolff noted one of the secrets of Fox News Chief Executive Roger Ailes’s success: “Find people who don't look or sound like what you think television people should look and sound like.” Aaron Brown, who was replaced in 2005 by Cooper at 10 p.m., said that CNN doesn’t have the “big, broad personalities” who seem to excel these days in the evenings on cable news. Brown included himself in that group, along with Campbell Brown, John King and Cooper. “If I were at CNN, the thing that would scare me is not that we’re losing but that it’s that reruns are beating us,” Brown said. “At 10 p.m., a 2-hour-old “Countdown” is beating my guy, the guy I have invested millions in [in] promotional dollars.” Jazz up the broadcast Atlantic contributing editor Michael Hirschorn, a former top executive at VH1 who founded production company Ish Entertainment, said CNN should step away from “headline-type news,” which has become “increasingly easy to access and, therefore, commodified.” “What's working right now is news packaged as entertainment,” Hirschorn continued, “which is a tempting route for them to go down and which they've gone down in a toe-in-the-water kind of way.” He pointed out the short-lived comedy news show hosted by D.L. Hughley as an example. However, Hirschorn said that “it's a gamble they can only take once in earnest.” “What might yield more rewards is doing a full overhaul of their news operations,” he continued. “Update the look, the language, the production style. If you look at some of the stuff the BBC is doing, it's a lot more nimble, raw, real, less larded with the kind of newsy bushwa Jon Stewart makes fun of. But that would involve firing a lot of producers and on-air personalities, and that's always hard to do." Hirschorn believes CNN could find success by focusing more on specific audiences, creating “focused shows that serve specific audiences." “’Morning Joe’ may have a small audience, but the people who love it love it,” he said. (While still behind "Fox & Friends," the MSNBC morning show topped CNN, CNBC and HLN in number of viewers last month.) Mix it up ... Others suggested everything from tweaking the current lineup — perhaps with a new personality or two — to scrapping it in exchange for something completely different. If Northeastern University journalism professor Dan Kennedy had his way, the network would bring back Aaron Brown at 10 p.m. and move Cooper to 9 p.m. Kennedy, who also writes the Media Nation blog, said that he likes “the idea of leaving CNN as the sole cable net doing news during prime time” and that he enjoyed it when Brown squared off against Brian Williams’s old 10 p.m. newscast on MSNBC. “They were both terrific, and you could just pick whichever one seemed most interesting on a given night,” he said. “The 8 o'clock hour is probably going to be a loser no matter what you do, because CNN is up against the heavyweight bout between Bill O'Reilly and Keith Olbermann,” Kennedy said. “Yet it's important to get things off to a good start, since you need a decent lead-in for 9 p.m.” “Wouldn't it have been great to have a newscast focusing on international news anchored by Christiane Amanpour?” he asked, referring to ABC News’s latest acquisition. “Too late for that.” Rosen has his own ideas for a 7 p.m. to 11 p.m. lineup. At 7 p.m., he would rename John King’s show “Politics Is Broken” and focus on “bringing outsiders to Beltway culture and Big Media into the conversation dominated by ... Beltway culture and Big Media.” Rosen would program “Thunder on the Right” at 8 p.m., a show where a well-informed liberal “mostly covers the conservative movement and Republican coalition and where the majority of the guests (but not all) are right leaning.” The following hour would be “Left Brained,” a show offering the opposite mix of hosts and guests. And at 10 p.m. would be “Fact Check,” an accountability show with major crowd-sourcing elements” that would cut through “the week's most outrageous lies, gimme-a-break distortions and significant misstatements with no requirement whatsoever to make it come out equal between the two parties on any given day, week, month or season.” Rachel Sklar, editor-at-large of Mediaite, a media industry website, didn’t call for a return of “Crossfire” but does think one of its last hosts on the right should make a comeback on CNN. Her idea of a good pair: Tucker Carlson and Ana Marie Cox. Both Carlson, who this year co-founded The Daily Caller, and Cox, currently the Washington correspondent for GQ, have had lively debates on The Washington Post’s website. Sklar described Carlson as “authentic and engaging on air” while noting that Cox has “a built-in audience, thanks to Twitter and [filling in for MSNBC host Rachel] Maddow and the cool-kid cred that CNN seems to crave.” “They had a good thing going in their WaPo chats, and I bet that would play well onscreen — they’re smart and watchable, and neither of them is particularly afraid to piss anyone off,” Sklar continued. “And while they take the news seriously, they don't take the players — or themselves! — seriously. As a general rule, maybe that's the way to go.” But don’t screw it up “If they ‘fix’ CNN to be like Fox and MSNBC, then who will we turn to when we want that breaking news coverage?” Sklar asked. “The breaking news coverage without an agenda?” Prime time, she noted, is only a “piece of the puzzle,” with the demo — the prized age 25-54 demographic — even smaller. “Stop for a moment and think about what CNN stands for. It feels pretty important right now,” Sklar said. “So, yes, tinker with the execution, by all means — that’s clearly broken, and there are ways to fix it. But the central mission matters, and I still truly believe there's a market for it.” Aaron Brown, now the Walter Cronkite professor of journalism at Arizona State University, makes the point that while CNN is taking heat for its prime-time ratings, the network is still a “highly profitable business” overall. “What they do have to do is endure the fact that each month or week or year, there are going to be stories about how they get their asses kicked,” Brown said. “But as a business, they are doing just fine.” Indeed, while any network would want to turn a profit and take home bragging rights in the ratings, Brown pointed out that the former is still the primary goal for executives. “If I had to choose and I’m [CNN Worldwide President] Jim Walton or the Time Warner guys, I’d choose to make a fortune,” Brown said. “If I’m anchoring the show, I’d want to win, or I wouldn’t want to lose to a rerun.” And then there is Donahue, the daytime talk show pioneer who hosted an MSNBC prime-time show from 2002 to 2003. He said he hopes CNN will weather the current trend in cable news. “At this moment, their competition is more entertaining than they are,” Donahue said. “And I admire them for holding on and not being seduced by that kind of arm-waving.” But at this point, for CNN, holding on may not be enough.

© 2010 Capitol News Company, LLC

Let The Sun Shine In......

New Jobs Bill Has 105 Co-sponsers

The following was originally published at Working America's "Main Street" blog.

In less than three weeks the Local Jobs for America Act, introduced by House Education and Labor Committee chairman Rep. George Miller (D-CA), has obtained 105 co-sponsors and more are expected as a national coalition effort reaches out to House members during the current two-week Congressional recess.

The bill, hailed as the most significant new piece of a Congressional jobs agenda, would provide direct funding to local governments to create, restore or save up to one million public and private jobs for the next two years. It has already received the strong support of many national organizations and policy advocates.

Following the historic passage of health care reform, the Congress will next need to turn its attention to jobs and the economy. With the Senate likely to focus first on financial regulatory reform, the House should be free to turn its attention to jobs legislation.

With the economy still weakened by persistent high rates of unemployment, and with state and local governments facing increasingly severe revenue shortfalls, endangering both public jobs and services, and many private sector jobs as well, the Local Jobs for America Act would:

Specifically, the Local Jobs for America Act invests:
* $75 billion over two years to local communities to hire vital staff
* Funding for 50,000 on-the-job private-sector training positions

The bill also includes provisions already approved by the House:
* $23 billion this year to help states support 250,000 education jobs
* $1.18 billion to put 5,500 law enforcement officers on the beat
* $500 million to retain, rehire, and hire firefighters

More specifics on the bill are detailed here by the House Education and Labor Committee.
The complete, current list of co-sponsors is available here.

If you don’t see your U.S. Representative listed as a co-sponsor yet, and you want to help support this legislation while Congress is in recess until April 12, go to this state-by-state House Member web page and follow the links to find your Representative and his or her home district office contact information. Ask them to join the growing list of co-sponsors of H.R. 4812, Congressman Miller’s Local Jobs for America Act.

Let The Sun Shine In......

Obama's Offshore Drilling Plans

Obama is write about two things: 1) we need to stop our dependency on foreign oil and 2) the transition to renewable energy is not going to happen over night, which is why we should have started exploring them back in the '70s when we knew this day was coming.

 Posted on Mar 31, 2010

If you thought “drill, baby, drill!” was only a right-wing slogan, think again. On Wednesday, President Barack Obama outlined a plan for doing a little drilling for oil and gas off a few sections of our nation’s coastline, including the East Coast, Alaska and the Gulf of Mexico.  —KA

The New York Times:
Angering environmentalists and pleasing industry groups, Obama and Interior Secretary Ken Salazar said the expansion in drilling would balance the need to boost domestic energy production while protecting natural resources.
“The bottom line is this: Given our energy needs, in order to sustain economic growth and produce jobs and keep our businesses competitive, we are going to need to harness traditional sources of fuel even as we ramp up production of new sources of renewable, homegrown energy,” Obama said.

The plan calls for exploration in areas from Delaware to off the coastline of central Florida, while keeping the East Coast from New Jersey northward closed to oil and gas development. But actual drilling would only take place after detailed study of the regions, which could take years.
Read more

Wikimedia Commons / Joint Pipeline Office
Here we have Northstar Island, an artificial island designed for oil and gas drilling north of Alaska.

Let The Sun Shine In......

HCR: new myths

HEALTH CARE

Since the health care debate began over a year ago, Republicans and their conservative allies have relied on distortions, fabrications, and outright lies in their attempt to kill reform. There were the alleged death panels that would "pull the plug on grandma"; the false claim that doctors would leave their profession if reform passed; and, of course, the myth that reform is a socialist "government takeover" of the health care system. As President Obama correctly noted yesterday, the recently passed Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act bears resemblance to health reform bills proposed by Republicans in the past, so distortions were necessary to perpetuate the narrative that reform would ruin the health care system and harm the country. Now that health care reform is a reality, the right has moved on to a coordinated repeal campaign, and 14 state attorneys general have filed suit against the Act, falsely claiming it is unconstitutional. New myths have also emerged, distorting what the country will look like after the implementation of the health bill and the Student Aid and Fiscal Responsibility Act (SAFRA) that passed with it. Each of the old myths has been debunked, and these new ones are simply more distortions in attempt to mislead the American people.

IRS AGENTS 'BREATHING DOWN' OUR NECKS: Fox News and Republican lawmakers have been pushing a talking point claiming that the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) will need to hire more than 16,500 new agents to enforce the universal insurance mandates in the Affordable Care Act, and that the agency will impose harsh punishments on those who don't purchase insurance it deems worthy. At least a dozen Republican lawmakers pushed the meme, with Rep. Dave Camp (R-MI) calling it a "dangerous expansion of the IRS's power and reach into the lives of virtually every American." Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-MN) warned Fox News host Sean Hannity that "the IRS will be tasked with breathing down the neck of 300 million Americans every month to determine whether we have purchased governmentally acceptable levels of health insurance." Rep. Mark Kirk (R-IL) and others attributed the 16,500 figure to "the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office," but as PolitiFact noted, the figure does not come from the CBO. It comes from a report prepared by the Republican staff of the House Ways and Means Committee, which used rough estimates from the CBO in order to fabricate the 16,500 figure. During a recent congressional hearing, IRS Commissioner Doug Shulman made it clear that these claims are nothing but "misconceptions." When asked whether the IRS would "verify if [Americans] have obtained acceptable health insurance," Shulman flatly said "no," adding that there "are not going to be any discussions about health coverage with an IRS employee." As for claims of draconian enforcement, including jail time, for those who do not buy insurance, as House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) noted on her web site, "The bill specifically prohibits the IRS from confiscating taxpayer assets, from using liens or levies, or imposing criminal penalties of any kind -- including jail time -- because of a lack of health care coverage."

CORPORATE WRITE-DOWNS: For months, Republicans and their allies like the U.S. Chamber of Commerce have been claiming that health care reform would create huge new taxes that would hurt businesses. Since the passage of the Affordable Care Act, AT&T, Caterpillar, John Deere and others have come out with a series of -- seemingly coordinated -- press releases announcing that the new bill will cost them billions of dollars. An association representing 300 large corporations is also urging Congress to change the part of the Act that is responsible for the charge. Republicans and the right-wing media latched onto the news of the writedowns as proof that the bill will lead to the "wholesale destruction of wealth and capital," as a Wall Street Journal editorial put it. This is "the exact opposite of what the president promised if we passed health care," Fox News host Sean Hannity said of the writedowns. But in reality, these writedowns are due to a big cut in corporate welfare. The Medicare Part D legislation -- passed under President Bush -- gives subsidies of about $1,300 per retiree per year to businesses that provide prescription drugs to their retirees. On top of that, it allows companies to deduct the value of the credit from their taxes. The new health care law, however, pays for itself, in part, by eliminating waste in the system and puts an end to this "double dipping." Companies will still receive the tax-free subsidy, but they'll no longer be able to take the tax deduction as well. As the Wall Street Journal notes, these charges are "noncash," and the cost of losing this exemption is relatively small. And the relevant change doesn't kick in until 2013. Moreover, is disingenuous for companies to suddenly complain about the charges, considering the change was a part of the draft bill that passed the Senate Finance Committee last year and several business groups complained about it in September. Finance Committee aides "were in close talks with employer groups" and it ultimately won approval from many, with the chairman of Business Roundtable saying "it's very closely aligned to [our] principles."

A NEW TAX ON STUDENT LOANS: While its inclusion with the health care bill has often been overlooked, legislation to streamline the student loan system has not escaped its share of right-wing fear mongering. Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-IA) told Radio Iowa that the plan "end[s] up taxing college students" because they'll be forced to pay more borrowing from the government directly than if they could shop around for a loan from private lenders. Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) agreed, claiming that students will spend "$1,700 to $1,800 more during the life of their loan because of this surcharge." But both Grassley and Graham are ignoring the fact that it SAFRA does not change interest rates, meaning that students will pay the same amount as they did before. As PolitiFact notes, the interest rates are set by law and were not changed by SAFRA -- "there is no 'surcharge' in the bill." Grassley and industry lobbyists have also claimed that people employed by private loan companies will lose their jobs "at a time when our country can least afford to lose them." But as Campus Progress notes, "There will be no shortage of work for loan companies under the new reforms," as federal loans will still be serviced by private companies. "In fact, student loan giant Sallie Mae has announced it is in the process of bringing back 3,400 jobs from overseas. These jobs are returning to the U.S., at least in part, so that the company can be eligible for Department of Education contracts to service Direct Loans," Campus Progress adds.

Let The Sun Shine In......