Mar 1, 2011
Maine Governor LePage Trivializes BPA Health Risks with "Little Beards" Comment
By Larry West, About.com Guide since 2005
Wednesday February 23, 2011
With one quick quip, Maine Governor Paul LePage recently dismissed both scientific claims and consumer concerns about the dangers of bisphenol A (BPA), the controversial chemical that is commonly used as an additive in many consumer products--from baby bottles to the lining in canned food and beverages to the coating on cash-register and credit-card receipts.
Rejecting research findings that BPA, an endocrine disruptor, can lead to serious health issues such as heart disease, diabetes and liver abnormalities in adults as well as brain and hormone development problems in fetuses and young children, LePage said last week that there is no reason to consider a ban on BPA because, at worst, exposure to the chemical would cause some women to grow "little beards."
"Quite frankly, the science that I'm looking at says there is no [problem]," said LePage, who last month offended many people when he told the NAACP to "kiss my butt" in response to a Martin Luther King Day invitation,. "There hasn't been any science that identifies that there is a problem."
"The only thing that I've heard is if you take a plastic bottle and put it in the microwave and you heat it up, it gives off a chemical similar to estrogen," LePage added. "So the worst case is some women may have little beards."
LePage's reassurances that his reading of BPA research shows no evidence of health risks would be more believable if his statement didn't reveal such ignorance of basic science.
BPA mimics estrogen, a natural female hormone, and fools the body by stimulating reactions that are unnecessary and potentially harmful. But causing women to grow "little beards" isn't one of them.
Excess facial hair, or hirsutism, in women is caused when their male hormone levels are significantly higher than their female hormone levels. BPA might create a semblance of too much female hormone, but would not create the conditions required for "little beards" to grow.
LePage's comments were a response to current debate in the Maine legislature about whether to ban or restrict products that contain BPA. Such bans have already been implemented in eight U.S. states, Canada and the European Union, often because of concerns about the health risks for children, who are more vulnerable than adults to the effects of endocrine disruptors. Last year, the Maine Board of Environmental Protection recommended banning the sale of reusable food and beverage containers containing BPA, starting in 2012, which sparked the current discussion among Maine lawmakers.
LePage isn't alone in believing there is no need for an outright ban on BPA--both the World Health Organization and the European Food Safety Authority have indicated that a ban on BPA would be premature--but it is irresponsible for LePage to claim that there is no scientific evidence of possible health risks from BPA.
"BPA is one of the most well-studied chemicals, and it is just ludicrous to ignore the science," said Susan Shaw, a toxicologist at the Marine Environmental Research Institute, in an interview with the Bangor Daily News following LePage's comments. Shaw, who has been studying the effects of toxics on humans and animals for more than three decades, added: "There is a large body of evidence about the hazards of BPA that is irrefutable."
Also Read:
Rejecting research findings that BPA, an endocrine disruptor, can lead to serious health issues such as heart disease, diabetes and liver abnormalities in adults as well as brain and hormone development problems in fetuses and young children, LePage said last week that there is no reason to consider a ban on BPA because, at worst, exposure to the chemical would cause some women to grow "little beards."
"Quite frankly, the science that I'm looking at says there is no [problem]," said LePage, who last month offended many people when he told the NAACP to "kiss my butt" in response to a Martin Luther King Day invitation,. "There hasn't been any science that identifies that there is a problem."
"The only thing that I've heard is if you take a plastic bottle and put it in the microwave and you heat it up, it gives off a chemical similar to estrogen," LePage added. "So the worst case is some women may have little beards."
LePage's reassurances that his reading of BPA research shows no evidence of health risks would be more believable if his statement didn't reveal such ignorance of basic science.
BPA mimics estrogen, a natural female hormone, and fools the body by stimulating reactions that are unnecessary and potentially harmful. But causing women to grow "little beards" isn't one of them.
Excess facial hair, or hirsutism, in women is caused when their male hormone levels are significantly higher than their female hormone levels. BPA might create a semblance of too much female hormone, but would not create the conditions required for "little beards" to grow.
LePage's comments were a response to current debate in the Maine legislature about whether to ban or restrict products that contain BPA. Such bans have already been implemented in eight U.S. states, Canada and the European Union, often because of concerns about the health risks for children, who are more vulnerable than adults to the effects of endocrine disruptors. Last year, the Maine Board of Environmental Protection recommended banning the sale of reusable food and beverage containers containing BPA, starting in 2012, which sparked the current discussion among Maine lawmakers.
LePage isn't alone in believing there is no need for an outright ban on BPA--both the World Health Organization and the European Food Safety Authority have indicated that a ban on BPA would be premature--but it is irresponsible for LePage to claim that there is no scientific evidence of possible health risks from BPA.
"BPA is one of the most well-studied chemicals, and it is just ludicrous to ignore the science," said Susan Shaw, a toxicologist at the Marine Environmental Research Institute, in an interview with the Bangor Daily News following LePage's comments. Shaw, who has been studying the effects of toxics on humans and animals for more than three decades, added: "There is a large body of evidence about the hazards of BPA that is irrefutable."
Also Read:
Feb 3, 2011
State of the Union Trend Analysis
- by FutureMoneyTrends.com
Last night President Obama urged law makers to redouble their efforts in putting money into roads, education, research, fuel efficient cars, and public transportation. Yet, in the same speech he also called for a domestic spending freeze for the next five years. Only in Washington D.C. can you call for a spending freeze and spending increases in the same speech.
One thing we really liked was President Obama's decision to follow the lead of House Speaker John Boehner in not passing any bill with earmarks. Though we are naturally skeptical of any promises from Washington, this may be one that has a chance of being kept since both sides will be trying to impress the 2012 electorate on who is going to be tougher on wasteful spending. If the House Speaker follows through with his promise, then President Obama should never have to worry about vetoing a bill because of earmarks. Of course, with President Obama saying that he would veto any bill that includes earmarks, he certainly raised the stakes for Mr. Boehner. Any bill with earmarks at this point will get a lot of media attention and could be a death blow if it came from the republicans, since the tea party that swept them into office is very critical of any spending coming out of Washington. Imagine a scenario where the conservative party proposes a bill with earmarks only to have it vetoed by President Obama. This would most likely destroy Tea Party support for the republican party, which is why we see this as the first promise in decades that may actually be fulfilled by our politicians.
Social Security was mentioned, but only in passing, the typical call for an unknown solution was made, but nothing was said about raising the retirement age, partial privatization, opt out options, or cutting benefits. FutureMoneyTrends.com has zero faith in our politicians to reform our entitlement programs that if left unchanged will eventually bankrupt our nation. Currently, in order to pretend that the system works, the government is borrowing 42 cents for every dollar it spends. According to economist John WIlliams from ShadowStats.com, seniors are already being screwed because of the changes in the way we calculate CPI. John Williams points out that the cost of living indicator has now turned into the cost of survival; even as costs are rising for food and energy, the government finds a way to report little to no price inflation. According to Shadowstats.com, if the government accurately accounted for price inflation, social security payments would have to be 40% higher than they are today. Not accounting for real inflation also fudges our GDP numbers including projections that the congressional budget office uses. This is one of the reasons most bills in congress, like healthcare reform, are completely bogus when it comes to cost. Using government statistics and projections is like putting vaseline on your eyes and then describing what's in front of you. Remember, when Medicare was created in 1966 the government estimated that the cost in 1990 would reach $12 billion per year. The actual cost in 1990 ended up being $107 billion, the government was off by 792% and today Medicare costs over $400 billion annually. Remember, we are now at a point where even if Americans were taxed at 100% of their incomes, the government would still not be able to balance the budget. Unfortunately, the cuts that need to be made have almost no chance of happening in our opinion, and as of last night, the cuts that are needed are not even being discussed.
So far, Wall Street is taking last night's speech quite well, mainly because of the calls to lower corporate tax rates making the U.S. more business friendly. The U.S. currently has the highest corporate tax rates in the industrialized world and hasn't lowered rates for 25 years. FutureMoneyTrends.com believes even something as simple as this will not happen since the President also called for the reduction in corporate tax loopholes prior to any tax cuts. Loopholes lead to big money and big money leads to our politicians' re-election campaigns, so any tax reform is probably not coming anytime soon.
Earnings that have been reported so far have mostly been disappointing, yet Wall Street continues to shake off the bad news. A FOMC statement is expected later today with no changes to QE2 or interest rates. It will be interesting to see what the Fed has to say about price inflation. Several companies, including McDonalds, have recently announced that they can no longer absorb wholesale price inflation and will begin to raise prices for customers. Of course, the Fed can always just blame the weather on rising gas, food, healthcare, tuition, and other costs faced by consumers who live in a non-core inflation world.
Focus on the trends and share the wealth, forward our emails to friends and family.
One thing we really liked was President Obama's decision to follow the lead of House Speaker John Boehner in not passing any bill with earmarks. Though we are naturally skeptical of any promises from Washington, this may be one that has a chance of being kept since both sides will be trying to impress the 2012 electorate on who is going to be tougher on wasteful spending. If the House Speaker follows through with his promise, then President Obama should never have to worry about vetoing a bill because of earmarks. Of course, with President Obama saying that he would veto any bill that includes earmarks, he certainly raised the stakes for Mr. Boehner. Any bill with earmarks at this point will get a lot of media attention and could be a death blow if it came from the republicans, since the tea party that swept them into office is very critical of any spending coming out of Washington. Imagine a scenario where the conservative party proposes a bill with earmarks only to have it vetoed by President Obama. This would most likely destroy Tea Party support for the republican party, which is why we see this as the first promise in decades that may actually be fulfilled by our politicians.
Social Security was mentioned, but only in passing, the typical call for an unknown solution was made, but nothing was said about raising the retirement age, partial privatization, opt out options, or cutting benefits. FutureMoneyTrends.com has zero faith in our politicians to reform our entitlement programs that if left unchanged will eventually bankrupt our nation. Currently, in order to pretend that the system works, the government is borrowing 42 cents for every dollar it spends. According to economist John WIlliams from ShadowStats.com, seniors are already being screwed because of the changes in the way we calculate CPI. John Williams points out that the cost of living indicator has now turned into the cost of survival; even as costs are rising for food and energy, the government finds a way to report little to no price inflation. According to Shadowstats.com, if the government accurately accounted for price inflation, social security payments would have to be 40% higher than they are today. Not accounting for real inflation also fudges our GDP numbers including projections that the congressional budget office uses. This is one of the reasons most bills in congress, like healthcare reform, are completely bogus when it comes to cost. Using government statistics and projections is like putting vaseline on your eyes and then describing what's in front of you. Remember, when Medicare was created in 1966 the government estimated that the cost in 1990 would reach $12 billion per year. The actual cost in 1990 ended up being $107 billion, the government was off by 792% and today Medicare costs over $400 billion annually. Remember, we are now at a point where even if Americans were taxed at 100% of their incomes, the government would still not be able to balance the budget. Unfortunately, the cuts that need to be made have almost no chance of happening in our opinion, and as of last night, the cuts that are needed are not even being discussed.
So far, Wall Street is taking last night's speech quite well, mainly because of the calls to lower corporate tax rates making the U.S. more business friendly. The U.S. currently has the highest corporate tax rates in the industrialized world and hasn't lowered rates for 25 years. FutureMoneyTrends.com believes even something as simple as this will not happen since the President also called for the reduction in corporate tax loopholes prior to any tax cuts. Loopholes lead to big money and big money leads to our politicians' re-election campaigns, so any tax reform is probably not coming anytime soon.
Earnings that have been reported so far have mostly been disappointing, yet Wall Street continues to shake off the bad news. A FOMC statement is expected later today with no changes to QE2 or interest rates. It will be interesting to see what the Fed has to say about price inflation. Several companies, including McDonalds, have recently announced that they can no longer absorb wholesale price inflation and will begin to raise prices for customers. Of course, the Fed can always just blame the weather on rising gas, food, healthcare, tuition, and other costs faced by consumers who live in a non-core inflation world.
Focus on the trends and share the wealth, forward our emails to friends and family.
Feb 2, 2011
FactChecking the State Of The Union
Friends,
Here's the FactCheck.org analysis of the President's State Of The Union address.
http://factcheck.org/2011/01/factchecking-obamas-address/
Here's the FactCheck.org analysis of the President's State Of The Union address.
http://factcheck.org/2011/01/factchecking-obamas-address/
Joe Dubaniewicz
joeduban.yahoo@blogger.com
Jan 23, 2011
The Radical Right media is Killing America
Media Matters: Changing The Tone, Or Changing Our Understanding?
Before the full scope of the tragedy at Rep. Gabrielle Giffords' (D-AZ) event in Tucson this weekend had been realized, the media were buzzing about what was to be done. The debate quickly landed on issues of tone and violent language and maps with crosshairs and who's to blame and who isn't. Loud and angry confrontations broke out over whether the tone of our national discourse motivated a lone gunman. Such things are difficult to determine with any sort of accuracy. Regardless, the occasion of a brutal attack on a politician and her constituents is as good a reason as any to reexamine how we discuss politics in America.
It's easy to get wrapped up in your own cynicism, to hear the impassioned calls to curtail the talk radio bomb-throwing and Fox News scare-mongering that for years have provided the background noise to our national discourse, and be utterly and justifiably unsurprised when the volume is instead turned up. Or you can feel frustrated for harboring the hope that if any good could possibly be leached from a horrific act of violence it would perhaps be that the pundits and partisans might tone it down a bit, and then seeing that hope dashed by the immediate resumption of scathing vitriol.
I can confess to experiencing both of these contradictory emotions in the past week. But after watching President Obama's speech at the memorial service in Tucson and seeing the right-wing reaction to it, it has become clear that calls for changing the tone of our political discourse invariably fail because they place the responsibility on the same hyperpartisan actors who are paid quite well to debase it.
And let's not fool ourselves with the forced symmetry of "both sides do it," which is all too often employed in the media's overriding quest for "balance" at the expense of accuracy. On Monday, the New Yorker's George Packer observed:
Sentiments such as these are ineffably crass and are antithetical to calls for "more civility" -- but what else should we expect from Rush Limbaugh? As if to reaffirm that his existence is dedicated to poisoning public dialogue, he even revisited this week one of his low watermarks from years past, defending his attacks on Michael J. Fox's struggle with Parkinson's Disease.
So no, we can not expect right-wing pundits to police their own rhetoric. But if the punditry won't change on its own, what's to be done? The hope lies instead in drawing contrasts and hopefully, by doing so, changing how people come to view political dialogue.
A good example can be found in the right's longstanding efforts to impugn President Obama's patriotism. The idea of "American exceptionalism" has been used as a cudgel against the president since before his election, and it's had some effect -- a poll from late 2009 found that 26 percent of Americans (including 48 percent of Republicans) did not believe that Obama "loves America." The issue of Obama's patriotic bona fides has promised to be the major talking point of the 2012 Republican presidential primary. Before this week, it was commonplace for conservative pundits and politicians to blithely assert Obama's anti-American leanings and not face any scrutiny for the allegation.
But the shock of Saturday's shootings left America looking to the president for guidance, and his speech urged the country to find solace in the greatness of American strength and decency. That message made the churlish attacks on Obama's patriotism look even pettier and more divorced from reality than they already are. The desperate, false attacks on Obama's speech from his determinedly partisan detractors were aggressively debunked by the mainstream press and even denounced by right-wing bloggers. It was one of those rare moments in politics in which reality scored a crushing defeat over caricature.
That's where the power to affect positive change in the discourse lies. This week America saw the overheated rhetoric of the right for what it is: misleading, incendiary, and false. But the conservative media aren't going to pack up their chalkboards and golden microphones anytime soon, so it's up to the mainstream press to continue being as aggressive in challenging those distortions as the right is in promulgating them.
Of course, it's entirely likely that this moment of clarity will remain just that -- a moment. And it's certainly not encouraging that the media have, to date, been as (if not more) likely to adopt false right-wing narratives as debunk them. But that's no reason to give up hope, and it's certainly no reason to stop telling the truth.
Before the full scope of the tragedy at Rep. Gabrielle Giffords' (D-AZ) event in Tucson this weekend had been realized, the media were buzzing about what was to be done. The debate quickly landed on issues of tone and violent language and maps with crosshairs and who's to blame and who isn't. Loud and angry confrontations broke out over whether the tone of our national discourse motivated a lone gunman. Such things are difficult to determine with any sort of accuracy. Regardless, the occasion of a brutal attack on a politician and her constituents is as good a reason as any to reexamine how we discuss politics in America.
It's easy to get wrapped up in your own cynicism, to hear the impassioned calls to curtail the talk radio bomb-throwing and Fox News scare-mongering that for years have provided the background noise to our national discourse, and be utterly and justifiably unsurprised when the volume is instead turned up. Or you can feel frustrated for harboring the hope that if any good could possibly be leached from a horrific act of violence it would perhaps be that the pundits and partisans might tone it down a bit, and then seeing that hope dashed by the immediate resumption of scathing vitriol.
I can confess to experiencing both of these contradictory emotions in the past week. But after watching President Obama's speech at the memorial service in Tucson and seeing the right-wing reaction to it, it has become clear that calls for changing the tone of our political discourse invariably fail because they place the responsibility on the same hyperpartisan actors who are paid quite well to debase it.
And let's not fool ourselves with the forced symmetry of "both sides do it," which is all too often employed in the media's overriding quest for "balance" at the expense of accuracy. On Monday, the New Yorker's George Packer observed:
In fact, there is no balance -- none whatsoever. Only one side has made the rhetoric of armed revolt against an oppressive tyranny the guiding spirit of its grassroots movement and its midterm campaign. Only one side routinely invokes the Second Amendment as a form of swagger and intimidation, not-so-coyly conflating rights with threats. Only one side's activists bring guns to democratic political gatherings. Only one side has a popular national TV host who uses his platform to indoctrinate viewers in the conviction that the President is an alien, totalitarian menace to the country. Only one side fills the AM waves with rage and incendiary falsehoods. Only one side has an iconic leader, with a devoted grassroots following, who can't stop using violent imagery and dividing her countrymen into us and them, real and fake. Any sentient American knows which side that is; to argue otherwise is disingenuous.Consider, briefly, Rush Limbaugh, who can make a legitimate claim to being the most influential pundit in America. In response to the pleas for civility that arose in the aftermath of the shooting, Limbaugh went on a deliberate crusade to make AM radio as ugly as possible. He said the alleged shooter has the support of the Democratic Party, intimated that the health care reform bill was intended to foment violence of the sort we saw in Arizona, brashly declared "we don't need to heal," and attacked the president for delivering hopeful news about Rep. Giffords' recovery.
Sentiments such as these are ineffably crass and are antithetical to calls for "more civility" -- but what else should we expect from Rush Limbaugh? As if to reaffirm that his existence is dedicated to poisoning public dialogue, he even revisited this week one of his low watermarks from years past, defending his attacks on Michael J. Fox's struggle with Parkinson's Disease.
So no, we can not expect right-wing pundits to police their own rhetoric. But if the punditry won't change on its own, what's to be done? The hope lies instead in drawing contrasts and hopefully, by doing so, changing how people come to view political dialogue.
A good example can be found in the right's longstanding efforts to impugn President Obama's patriotism. The idea of "American exceptionalism" has been used as a cudgel against the president since before his election, and it's had some effect -- a poll from late 2009 found that 26 percent of Americans (including 48 percent of Republicans) did not believe that Obama "loves America." The issue of Obama's patriotic bona fides has promised to be the major talking point of the 2012 Republican presidential primary. Before this week, it was commonplace for conservative pundits and politicians to blithely assert Obama's anti-American leanings and not face any scrutiny for the allegation.
But the shock of Saturday's shootings left America looking to the president for guidance, and his speech urged the country to find solace in the greatness of American strength and decency. That message made the churlish attacks on Obama's patriotism look even pettier and more divorced from reality than they already are. The desperate, false attacks on Obama's speech from his determinedly partisan detractors were aggressively debunked by the mainstream press and even denounced by right-wing bloggers. It was one of those rare moments in politics in which reality scored a crushing defeat over caricature.
That's where the power to affect positive change in the discourse lies. This week America saw the overheated rhetoric of the right for what it is: misleading, incendiary, and false. But the conservative media aren't going to pack up their chalkboards and golden microphones anytime soon, so it's up to the mainstream press to continue being as aggressive in challenging those distortions as the right is in promulgating them.
Of course, it's entirely likely that this moment of clarity will remain just that -- a moment. And it's certainly not encouraging that the media have, to date, been as (if not more) likely to adopt false right-wing narratives as debunk them. But that's no reason to give up hope, and it's certainly no reason to stop telling the truth.
© 2010 Media Matters for America
455 Massachusetts Ave, NW, Suite 600, Washington, D.C. 20001
455 Massachusetts Ave, NW, Suite 600, Washington, D.C. 20001
Jan 13, 2011
Congressman Louie Gohmert (R-TX) and Gunslinger's rights
Congressman Louie Gohmert, a Republican from Texas, knows what to do to ensure
that an assassin's killing spree like that in Arizona doesn't happen again. He is proposing
a law allowing his colleagues in the House and the Senate to carry their own guns at all
times, even on the benches of their debating chambers.
Media Matters: Louie Gohmert (1/13/2011)
America where no one but a policeman - not even a President or Defense Secretary - may
carry a gun. That, says Gohmert, must change.
To most of the world, the idea of curtailing a culture of political violence by escalating the
personal weapons arms race seems completely bonkers. That the ban on guns on Capitol
Hill was put there to safeguard politicians – remember Lincoln, the Kennedys Jack and Robert,
Reagan et al – seems to make sense. Not to Americans – well, not to all of them, anyway.
Gohmert is a former judge, no less, and he is serious. He is writing his bill specifically to allow
elected representatives to "carry concealed weapons". It will be fine, however, if your
Senator prefers to wear his 9mm semi-auto visibly on his hip, like a cop, or his long-barrelled
Colt in an open holster, like John Wayne.
The former judge is not the only congressman reaching for his gun.
As President Obama and his host of cabinet secretaries dispersed to dispense empathy
this week, Jason Chaffetz, Republican of Utah, and Heath Shuler, Democrat of North
Carolina, were filling in the gaps in the news programmes by telling the nation that from
now on they would be carrying their guns whenever they were back home among their
constituents.Both men already have their "concealed carry" licences. Schuler got his
after a death threat in 2009. Chaffetz has had his for years, and sometimes has a gun
in his pocket, sometimes not.
The official platitudes of national grief after a killing spree such as this one have it that
such mayhem is un-American, a travesty to the peaceful values of the nation which
cannot be destroyed by either terrorist or looney and that, with prayers and goodwill,
America will "heal".
The truth is that Gohmert and his gunslingers are the real representatives of the American
Way. Violence has always been endemic to the culture, and the gun has always been the
symbol of "freedom". That is why the Second Amendment with its "right to bear arms" has
proved so successful a fountainhead for the sophistry that has made America uniquely
dangerous among developed nations. Americans have been voting for the Gohmerts with
their 'pocket books', the most powerful vote of all. Since the shooting, sales of all guns
have spiked in Arizona, and there has been a run on Glock automatic pistols – the Tucson
shooter's weapon of choice - around the country. After all, you can't get better
advertising than real-life proof of how good a pistol is at killing.
The aberrations come when there is a gun law. Among the lonelier voices raised since
Gifford took a bullet in the head in Tucson, and six others died, is that which calls for at
least a ban on the multi-bullet magazines that allow one shooter to kill a dozen or so with
a single blast. There are magazines that load as many as 17 slugs in a gun you can still
slip under your belt.
Those who call for the ban on 'multi-bullet magazines' point out that they are used not for
hunting, nor even protecting the wife from the rapist/burglar/terrorist, but solely for killing as
many people as possible as quickly as possible. These protesters have not been doing their
home work. Twenty years ago, to the fury of the gun lobby, such a law was passed,
prompted by the slaughter of 23 in a spree-killing in a cafeteria in Killeen, Texas. But that
law, the Assault Weapons Ban, was simply allowed to expire as the right-to-bear arms
joined the ranks of the "wedge issues" which so successfully brought the Republicans to
Washington dominance.
The Brady Laws on semi-automatic handguns, inspired by the attempted assassination of
Ronald Reagan, have since been eviscerated by decrees of "conservative" courts ruling in
the same climate. You can win votes by toting sub-machine guns and shooting moose, but
you can lose office fast if you vote for a gun law.
Only last year, the Supreme Court struck down as unconstitutional a ban on guns in the
recreational parks of the city of Seattle, a city ordinance inspired by a gang battle that left
a dozen dead. Good to know that an American has a right to bring his Glock along to make
sure his kids are safe on the swings and roundabouts. And the year before, Congress voted
to allow visitors to bring their guns to the National Parks such as Yosemite and Yellowstone.
(The Indians are long gone, most of the bears were shot years ago, and there are other
laws prohibiting shooting the elk or the wolves.)
The rest of the world may shake its head in wonder, but to Americans this makes perfect
sense. After all, when you go for a drive you want that pistol in the glove compartment.
Why would you leave it at the gates to the park?
LAST UPDATED 4:24 PM, JANUARY 13, 2011
Jan 12, 2011
Media Matters: Fox News' 2012 GOP Influence
| In a November ad for their special series "Fox News Reporting: The Challengers for 2012," Fox News promised "unrivaled access" to "the GOP's top White House contenders." Such access, however, isn't hard when correspondents just have to walk down the hall. That Fox News helps Republicans get their message across to their conservative base -- long documented and publicly acknowledged by Republican officials -- is nothing new. But what's unprecedented is the level of influence one news organization can exert on a party's presidential primary, and the rest of the media's coverage of that primary, by simple fact of who is on its payroll. Fox News employs five Republicans considering runs for the GOP nomination: Sarah Palin, Mike Huckabee, Newt Gingrich, Rick Santorum and John Bolton. All five regularly appear on the network through exclusive contracts and all five have used their employment to position themselves for their respective runs. Take the cases of Rick Santorum and John Bolton -- two potential candidates who have so little chance of winning the nomination that Fox didn't even include them in their twelve challenger profiles. Both would largely be out of the public spotlight if not for their Fox News contracts, yet Santorum -- who lost his Senate seat to Bob Casey (D-PA) by 17 points in 2006 -- has appeared on the Fox programs America's Nightly Scoreboard (twice), America's Newsroom (twice), The Willis Report (twice), America Live, On the Record (twice) and Varney & Company (twice, as a "special guest") in the past two weeks. During the same time, Bolton has appeared as a foreign policy and national security expert on America's News HQ (where he has a regular weekly slot), Follow The Money, America's Newsroom (twice), America Live, Fox & Friends, Hannity, On the Record, and Varney & Company (as a "special guest"!). On the other side of the spectrum is Sarah Palin, who has little trouble attracting attention. But as her TLC program and public comments indicate, Palin prefers a certain type of attention in which she can tightly control the messaging. It's no wonder then that her media appearances have mostly come within the friendly confines of Fox News, where she can pass on debunked theories and pal around with conservative opinion makers like Sean Hannity and Glenn Beck. After leaving public office in disgrace, Newt Gingrich signed his "first television deal since leaving Congress" with Fox News in 1999. Since then, Fox News has treated him like royalty during his attempted rehabilitation. Gingrich has hosted Fox News Specials on college costs, religion, international gangs and bird flu (yes, bird flu). On one day in 2009, Fox dispatched a reporter to provide round-the-clock coverage to a Gingrich-convened "Jobs Summit." Last year, during a typical softball interview, a Fox "straight news" program directed viewers to Gingrich's GOP tour and website. Mike Huckabee is the only Fox candidate with a regularly scheduled show, the weekend talker Huckabee. Huckabee's show has always been closely tied to his political machine: the show was first announced in a statement posted on his political action committee and, according to the New York Post (via Nexis), "not, as is customary, from the network." Since then, Huckabee has unsurprisingly used his program to position himself for a potential political run. The former Arkansas governor has used Fox News' airwaves to grow his PAC and email lists directly (he touted the address of an email catcher website run by his PAC) and indirectly, through regular solicitations to give "feedback" to MikeHuckabee.com, which conveniently links to his PAC and an email signup page. Huckabee has also used his program's guest list as an extension of his PAC. But why wouldn't Huckabee run? Again, Fox News' influence comes into play. In November 2009, Huckabee remarked on Fox News Sunday that if he doesn't run for president, it's because "this Fox gig I got right now" is "really, really wonderful." Last month, conservative columnist Jonah Goldberg wrote that there's "growing buzz" that Huckabee "may not run because he's got a big new contract with Fox News in the works" (a Huckabee aide responded that there were no Fox talks). Financial considerations could also come into play for Palin, who reportedly makes $1 million a year with Fox News. According to Politico, Fox "indicated that once any of the candidates declares for the presidency he or she will have to sever the deal with the network." ABC's George Stephanopoulos noted that the Fox candidates may actually delay their announcements to reap the benefits of the Fox cocoon for as long as possible. Reporter Claire Shipman replied that Fox's "very healthy platform" allows the Fox candidates to keep visible without spending money early. The potential delay of their "official" announcements means that the Fox candidates can also compile staff and resources while still cashing a paycheck. Huckabee, Palin and Gingrich have Fox-promoted groups ready to convert to campaign mode if each chooses to run. Santorum has already hired a staff member (for his PAC) in the important primary state of New Hampshire and, according to the New Hampshire Union Leader, is "expected to formally" announce "in the spring." And Bolton is reportedly "very serious about a presidential bid and has begun to speak with potential staff." During this non-"official" period, the Fox candidates can also cite their Fox contract as a reason to decline appearances on other news organizations who may offer a tougher environment than Fox (a low bar). Indeed, Politico reported that "C-SPAN Political Editor Steve Scully said that when C-SPAN tried to have Palin on for an interview, he was told he had to first get Fox's permission -- which the network, citing her contract, ultimately denied. Producers at NBC, ABC, CBS, CNN and MSNBC all report similar experiences." Fox's 2012 situation has a parallel in something that happened in the 2010 midterms with former Fox News host and contributor John Kasich. After leaving Congress in 2001, Kasich openly considered running for higher public office and joined Fox News to keep himself in public view. A former Kasich pollster told the Columbus Dispatch in 2002 that Kasich was "leaving himself in a position so that if something happens, he is as well-situated as somebody else." On March 27, 2008, the Dispatch reported that Kasich announced "he is paving the way now for a gubernatorial bid" and quoted Kasich stating: "I'm going to go forward even more aggressively, and we're going to continue to ramp it up (for a gubernatorial run)." But Fox News didn't take him off the air -- presumably because he still hadn't "officially" announced his candidacy -- and by the time he formally announced his bid on June 1, 2009, Kasich had logged more than 100 Fox News segments as a guest host or contributor. In a column last November, Condi vs. Hillary: The Next Great Presidential Race author Dick Morris wrote that the "GOP primaries of 2012 will be held on Fox News. ... we will see all the candidates on Fox News. Not just in debates, but in frequent appearances on the opinion and news shows on the network." For once, it seems Morris is right. |
Jan 4, 2011
The Viral Spiral of 2010 - FactCheck.org
Ever since FactCheck.org first launched in late 2003, they’ve been fielding questions from their readers about anonymous e-mails that travel from inbox to inbox like some kind of plague. They get so many that they launched their Ask FactCheck (link) feature three years ago. In 2008, they advised readers (link): "Assume all such messages are wrong, and you’ll be right most of the time." That advice still holds in 2010.
Often, the message itself includes major red flags that should alert readers that the author is not to be trusted. Here are just a few of what we’ll call Key Characteristics of Bogusness:
- The author is anonymous. Practically all e-mails we see fall into this category, and anytime an author is unnamed, the public should be skeptical. If the story were true, why would the author not put his or her name on it?
- The author is supposedly a famous person. Of course, e-mails that are attributed to legitimate people turn out to be false as well. Those popular messages about a Jay Leno essay (link) and Andy Rooney’s political views (link) are both baloney. And we found (2006 link) that some oft-quoted words attributed to Abraham Lincoln were not his words at all.
- There’s a reference to a legitimate source that completely contradicts the information in the e-mail. Some e-mails will implore readers to check out the claims, even providing a link to a respected source. We’re not sure why some people don’t click on the link, but we implore you to do so. Go ahead, take the challenge. See if the information you find actually backs up the e-mail. We’ve examined three such emails (1) (2) (3) in which the back-up material clearly debunks the e-mail itself. One message provided a link to the Tax Foundation, but anyone who followed it would have found an article saying the e-mail’s figures were all wrong. Another boasted that Snopes.com had verified the e-mail, but Snopes actually said it was false.
- The message is riddled with spelling errors. Ask yourself, why should you trust an author who is not only anonymous but partially illiterate?
- The author just loves using exclamation points. If the author had a truthful point to make, he or she wouldn’t need to put two, three, even five exclamation points after every other sentence. In fact, we’re developing another theory here: The more exclamation points used in an e-mail, the less true it actually is. (Ditto for excessive use of capital letters.)
- The message argues that it is NOT false. This tip comes from Emery, who advises skepticism for any message that says, "This is NOT a hoax!"
- There’s math involved. Check it. One message that falsely claimed more soldiers died during Bill Clinton’s term than during George W. Bush’s urged, "You do the Math!" We did (2008 link). It’s wrong.
Alternately, you can put it in the form of a question at: http://wordpress.asc.upenn.edu/ask-factcheck/ask-us-a-question/ .
Jan 3, 2011
Celebrating The New GOP Majority
- By E.J. Dionne, Washington Post, 1/3/2011
WASHINGTON -- Welcome to the Republicans who take over the House of Representatives in 2011. Since it is a new year, let us be optimistic about what this development means for our nation.
There is already a standard line of advice to Speaker-to-be John Boehner and his colleagues that goes like this: Democrats overreached in the last Congress by doing too much and ignoring "the center." Republicans should be careful not to make the same mistake, lest they lose their majority, too.
This counsel is wrong, partly because the premise is faulty. Democrats did not overreach in the last Congress. On the contrary, they compromised regularly. Compromise made the health care bill far more complicated than it had to be and the original stimulus bill too small. Democrats would have been better off getting more done more quickly, and more coherently.
And majorities are elected to govern according to their best lights. Like it or not, Republicans won the House in last year's election. They can be expected to do what they said they would do. And, yes, they have the advantage of knowing that if they pass truly outlandish stuff to satisfy their base, most of it will be blocked by the Senate or President Obama.
Republican House leaders are going in for a lot of symbolism, and why not? Symbols matter in politics.
Thus the new majority will open the next Congress with a full reading of the Constitution and establish a rule requiring that every new bill contain a statement citing the constitutional authority behind it.
My first response was to scoff at this obvious sop to the tea party movement. One can imagine that the rule's primary practical result will be the creation of a small new House bureaucracy responsible for churning out constitutional justifications for whatever gets introduced.
But on reflection, I offer the Republicans two cheers for their fealty to their professed ideals. We badly need a full-scale debate over what the Constitution is, means and allows -- and how Americans have argued about these questions since the beginning of the republic. This provision should be the springboard for a discussion all of us should join.
From its inception, the tea party movement has treated the nation's great founding document not as the collection of shrewd political compromises that it is, but as the equivalent of sacred scripture.
Yet as Gordon Wood, the widely admired historian of the Revolutionary era has noted, we "can recognize the extraordinary character of the Founding Fathers while also knowing that those 18th-century political leaders were not outside history. ... They were as enmeshed in historical circumstances as we are, they had no special divine insight into politics, and their thinking was certainly not free of passion, ignorance, and foolishness."
An examination of the Constitution that views it as something other than the books of Genesis or Leviticus would be good for the country.
As for the House Republicans' plan to gut pay-as-you-go budget rules by not requiring offsets for tax cuts, it's ridiculous by the ordinary rules of mathematics. Tax cuts add to the deficit no less than spending increases do.
But here again, the Republicans' approach might bring a certain clarity to our muddled fiscal debates. It could force them to show -- more quickly than their pollsters might like -- how much they would have to eviscerate government to cover the costs of their tax-cut obsession.
One other thing: When Democrats held the majority, their control depended in part on holding moderate-to-conservative districts. This created a running story line about the disaffection of vulnerable Democrats with various liberal policies.
The new Republican House majority, by contrast, depends on holding moderate-to-liberal districts. As Shane D'Aprile usefully reported last week on The Hill's Ballot Box blog, Thirty-one (31) of the newly elected Republican House members represent districts that Obama carried in 2008, bringing to 62 the number of House Republicans hailing from Obama districts.
Reapportionment may change this a bit, and there is no guarantee that Obama will carry all those districts in 2012. Still, a large number of GOP House members will have to look at least occasionally over their left shoulders. How the House leadership accommodates this brute political fact will be one of the best stories of the next two years.
So let's celebrate. It can only be good for democratic deliberation if holding the majority requires House Republicans to show their policy and philosophical cards. They'll legislate. You'll decide.
===============================================
E.J. Dionne's e-mail address is ejdionne@washpost.com
Copyright 2011 Washington Post Writers Group
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)