Tag Archives: News

2012: AZ Governor Brewer endorses Romney

by

1

Congressman Poe and Governor Mitt Romney

Image via Wikipedia

Today [02-26-12] Arizona Governor Jan Brewer endorsed Mitt Romney for president during her appearance on Meet The Press.

That should help.

If Mitt takes the Arizona and Michigan primary elections, he’s got the nomination.

If Mitt gets the GOP nomination, he stands a good chance of winning the general election.

SOURCE: Video Clip, see Sidebar.

Around the Web

Related articles

POLITICAL MEDIA: Calling the definitive political balls and strikes and influencing the public’s opinion in this emerging and developing era of new media

by

2

The Lead

Our conversation centers on the realities and dynamics of news, coverage and commentary in politics, and the influence of political media on the public’s opinion in this era of new media.

Quote

This article was inspired by a piece on Dr. Melissa Harris-Perry, the newly minted weekend host on MSNBC, and her clear frustration with how the media covers politics.

During her Sunday show, Harris-Perry discussed what she called “a dirty little secret” that those who cover “horse-race politics” like to keep under wraps. “We are suffering from premature speculation,” Harris-Perry said.

The 2012 Republican primary race has taken many sharp twists and turns. Harris-Perry showed headlines from leading news organizations that reflected the Republican primary’s constant change of course. Headlines read “Herman Cain, Frontrunner,” to “Another Poll Confirms Trump As Republican Frontrunner,” to “Ingraham: Perry Should Drop Out.”

“Headlines like these…expose the media for its secret wish to skip the foreplay and get right to the main event,” Harris-Perry said. “And it’s all left me very frustrated.”

SOURCE: Melissa Harris-Perry: The Media Suffers From ‘Premature Speculation’ (VIDEO) HUFFINGTON POST

Our Take

Mainstream media is doing its job as best it can in this new area of media the dynamics of which are changing nearly every news cycle of the week because of the impact of digital technology, blogging and the 24 hour news cycle.

There was a time when the media took the lead in shaping policy and influencing the public’s opinion. Thus, for example, when some of the giants of the media such as David Brinkley or Mike Wallace or Tom Brokaw aired a story and articulated a viewpoint, that view had some shelf life. It influenced the coverage of political news for several weeks, and over time influenced opinions, policy decisions and outcomes in political contests.

But, the good old days of political media and its influence in shaping public opinion are gone.

Today, a Dr. Melissa Harris-Perry can air a scholarly commentary on an important issue of public policy or a significant development in politics, and within minutes it can be shredded, and then lost forever in the court of public opinion. An attack can be mounted in minutes by bloggers; disseminated worldwide on the Internet within a few more minutes, and by the time of the talk shows on radio, TV and the Internet within hours on the same morning, afternoon and evening of the news cycle, be distorted and discredited.

So, Dr. Harris-Perry, we understand your frustration. But, the playing field and dynamics of political media have changed dramatically.

To be credible, informative and sustainable in today’s environment as a political analyst and commentator, you and others in the media will have to call the balls and strikes well before you step up to the plate, and well before you would have done so before the evolution of digital technology.

“And, that’s the way it is.”

IOWA: Romney won Iowa;Obama will win the presidency

by

10

Lead

Mitt Romney won the Iowa Primary by a razor thin 8 vote margin. Barack Obama will win the Presidency in Election 2012.

The numbers:

1.Romney          24.60%     30,015

2.Santorum        24.50%     30,007

3.Paul                21.40%     26,219

4.Gingrich          13.30%     16,251

5.Perry              10.30%      12,604

6.Bachmann       05.00%       6,073

7.Huntsman        00.60%         745

Source: USA TODAY

Our Take

The GOP is bitterly divided. It is probably more divided today than it was in 1964 when Barry Goldwater won the GOP nomination for President.

Conservatives simply will not consolidate behind Romney. Santorum is weak. Gingrich, a real conservative horse in the race, is too far behind. Cain, who we believe would be the GOP’s best hope to beat Obama, is on the sidelines.

We can close the books on Election 2012. Barack Obama most certainly will win reelection.

So, we need to start thinking about and talking about Election 2016.

GOP PRIMARY: is it all about white male privilege?

by

6

Lead

Were the GOP Debates  both “interesting and important?”

Source: THE WASHINGTON POST

At the end of the day, have the Debates been, and will they be, about the players, the losers, the ratings or the visual?

Image

GOP Debates: The Visual

Mitt Romney, Newt Gingrich and Ron Paul, the GOP’s all star cast, the “iron men” of GOP politics,  ”Back Together Again!”

Is this the visual America has been waiting to see in the GOP Presidential nomination contest? Will it fire up the GOP electorate?

Has the contest been, and will it reflect the image, a contest for white boys only? Bye, bye Michelle Bachmann and Herman Cain?

Does not the visual say it all?

You decide.

Read More Around the Web

Related articles

POLITICAL MEDIA: Amanpour leaves “This Week;” could major changes be coming to other Sunday talk tv shows?

by

4

Lead

POLITICO reports that Chritiane Amanpour is leaving ABC News as the host of “This Week.” The good news is that she will return to CNN in foreign reporting an arena she loves.

Quote

Christiane Amanpour is leaving “This Week” and returning to her roots at CNN and in foreign reporting in a new arrangement that allows her to appear on both ABC News and CNN International, the two networks announced Monday.

George Stephanopoulos will replace her on “This Week,” while continuing his duties on “Good Morning America.” Jake Tapper will also have a “large role” in the Sunday show, as will other correspondents, according to ABC News spokesman Jeffrey Schneider.

Amanpour will have a weekday show on CNN International. She will also continue at ABC News as a global affairs anchor across the networks’ platforms and as the host of multiple prime time specials.

Source:   POLITICO

MJB’s Take

Christiane was outstanding. We wish her well in her new assignment.

The fact that seasoned veteran George Stephanopoulos will be coming back should be a signal that the pros in political media project a rough and tumble Presidential race. In the fierce competition for Sunday talk tv viewers and ratings, George will be a standout. He will have a big draw.

Our friends at NBC News now have a clear shot at increasing its following from the huge female demographic which follows political news particularly on the Sunday talk tv shows.

NBC can get more of that demo by replacing David Gregory, who we feel should not have gotten the job in the first place, with Andrea Mitchell on “Meet the Press.”

And, Andrea, should you get the nod, please return the show to something akin to its original format in which viewers met the press, not the host!

More Coverage

MEDIA: has MSNBC lost its edge in its nighttime political coverage; will it have significant influence in election 2012?

by

6

Lead

Has MSNBC lost its edge in its nighttime political coverage?

In view of recent poll results, will MSNBC have significant influence in Election 2012?

Media (Quote)

It’s certainly obvious in Iowa that candidates are investing a lot more time in television interviews than they are on the campaign trail. It’s a safe bet: a recent New York Times/CBS News poll of likely Iowa Republican caucus participants showed that 37 percent said they get most of their information from Fox News, that’s compared with 27 percent who cited broadcast news and a mere 2 percent who said they relied on MSNBC.

Source:  Allessandra Stanley, “The Republican Primary Campaign in Iowa Is Right at Home on Fox News,” THE NEW YORK TIMES

MJB’s Take

It’s hard to imagine that the suits at MSNBC are taking the poll results well. The implications of  MSNBC having diminished influence in Election 2012 could be staggering.

Obviously, the only game in town for mainstream media coverage now on the Presidential political calendar is the ongoing GOP primary election season. Because of its conservative tilt, FOX News would be expected to have a slightly higher viewership and ratings advantage when it comes to general media coverage of national politics and the GOP.

But, one would think that because the choice of the Republican nominee for President is a matter of real public concern and interest,  a larger percentage of people would be watching the commentaries on MSNBC if for no other reason than to hear and consider opposing viewpoints about the GOP candidates, and their positions on national issues.

The numbers for the reception of broadcast news seem to be good. However, broadcast news is not as pointed, engaging, opinionated, informative and influential as cable news.

MSNBC has an all-star line-up of nighttime talk TV talent hosting the programs from 6:00 p.m. to 11:00 p.m. including Al Sharpton, Chris Matthews, Ed Schultz, Lawrence O’Donnell and Rachel Maddow. They are supported by diverse groups of commentators and contributors. The hosts and many of the commentators and contributors have been aggressive in criticizing the GOP candidates and their positions on issues. Those contrary viewpoints, of course,  add measurably to the body of information viewers and voters should be considering from now until general election day 2012.

The poll numbers for MSNBC were unusually weak. The fact that they were so lacking should be ringing bells and whistles loudly in the executive suites of MSNBC.

If MSNBC expects to boost viewership and have a significant measure of influence in the outcomes of the national elections, then major changes in its nighttime cable programming are warranted.

Related Web Articles

Also Read

Your comments are welcomed!

FREE SPEECH: blogger found not to be a journalist immune from defamation liability

by

8

Lead

Political bloggers beware of what you say in your blogs. Your speech may not be free!

In a defamation suit, a court could rule that you are not a journalist who has protection under the First Amendment.

Article (Quote):

Crystal Cox, a Montanan who calls herself an investigative blogger and produces several blogs about the law, was sued in January by the investment firm Obsidian Finance Group over several opinionated blog posts that were highly critical of Obsidian and its co-founder Kevin Padrick. The firm sought $10 million in damages. Although the judge threw out several of the firm’s claims, he ruled against her on a single post and ordered her to pay $2.5 million in damages.

Source:   David Carr: “In $2.5 Million Judgment, Court Finds Blogger Is Not a Journalist,” THE NEW YORK TIMES

MJB’s Take

This court decision could chill bloggers who believe they have the same First Amendment rights of free speech protecting them from defamation liability suits the same as journalists.

Related Articles

CAIN: ain’t no more Herman Cain for political media to beat on

by

4

Lead

Herman Cain has suspended his campaign.

By devoting extensive coverage seeking to humiliate Cain and to derail his candidacy, mainstream political media lost its way. It utterly failed  its fundamental role in American presidential politics to stay focused, and to adequately inform the American people about the issues of national concern on the business and affairs of the country, the presidency, and the Presidential candidates in the GOP race for the Republican nomination.

Media (Quote):

After Herman Cain suspended his presidential campaign, other Republican presidential hopefuls praised him for energizing conservative voters and wished him well.

Source:  Danny Yadron, “Former Rivals Praise Herman Cain,” WSJ WASHINGTON WIRE BLOG

Query

Please take a moment and reflect.

If you wish to comment, that would be appreciated. But if not, please just take a moment and think.

Set aside the fact that Herman Cain is a Republican, that he is black and that he is conservative. Just reflect that up to now, he was a candidate in America for the GOP nomination to run for President in Election 2012.

Whether you agreed or disagreed with his philosophy, viewpoints and politics; whether you would have voted for him or not; Herman had every right as an American citizen to enter upon the playing field; to compete in the game of Presidential politics with Mitt, Rick, Newt, Jon, Michelle and Ron and whoever else seeking to run for President; and, to engage in conversations about the business and affairs of the nation.

This is still the United States of America.

Every qualified man and woman still has an unfettered right under the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, to enter the race; to say whatever he or she wants to say; and, to do of course within reason whatever he or she wants to do to run for office; get his or her message out to the voters and seek the wins needed in the upcoming primary elections for GOP candidates who want to secure the nomination of the Republican Party, and run against Barack Obama in Election 2012 for President of the United States of America.

Whether Herman had $10 in the bank, or $10 Million, that was his fundamental right. And, it was taken from him.

How?

Not by the well-informed decision-making of voters at the ballot box.

But, essentially by the personal decisions of reporters, analysts, commentators, contributors, writers, editors and others in political media hot to trot about generating a torrent of media coverage concerning sex stories from three unhappy and unimportant women in the business and affairs of the nation anxious to tell their alleged stories from years gone by, but could never adequately explain why they wanted to tell their stories in the first place.

Who really cares, and in reality what difference should it have made to the state of the union and the presidency, what happened 14 years ago to the former National Restaurant Association staff employee who settled her claim, got paid, got another job, made another sexual harassment complaint and at least until one month ago was moving on with her life and career?

Who really cares, and in reality what difference should it have made to the state of the union and the presidency, what happened to the former applicant for a job at the NRA who did nothing and said nothing for all these years about an alleged sexual assault which took place 13 years ago?

Who really cares, and in reality what difference should it have made to the state of the union and the presidency, what allegedly has happening for 13 years  with a consenting women who allegedly was involved a love affair?

Mainstream political media should have been disciplined and stayed focused on the issues affecting the state of the union by keeping Americans informed about those issues and the positions of the GOP candidates on those issues. Just about every media outlet in the nation, however, got off mission,  went rogue, and wasted tons of ink and air time on what amounted to tabloid trivia.

It was mainstream political media coverage in prime time, to use the words of Ron Paul from another context: “beneath the office of the presidency.”

That’s our take, what’s yours?

MEDIA: FOX News has become mainstream media central for the GOP in politics

by

2

Rachel Maddow, host of MSNBC’s The Rachel Maddow Show, does a show on how FOX News has become virtually The GOP/Murdoch Primary for Republican aspirants to the Presidency.

See VIDEO: 12-02 Fox News: The GOP/Murdoch Primary, in the Sidebar under MJB News VIDEOS.

Is FOX News now mainstream media central for the GOP in the nation’s politics?

Also Read:  Gaius Publius, “Maddow on “Winning the Murdoch Primary,’” AMERICABLOG.COM

SUPREME COURT: HIV privacy justice, or injustice?

by

1

Lead

Supreme Court justices show little empathy at oral argument about recovery of damages by HIV positive man whose condition was improperly disclosed in violation of federal privacy law.

Article (Quote):

A majority of the Supreme Courtappeared unlikely Wednesday morning to help a California man who claims he suffered severe mental and emotional distress after the government disclosed his HIV-positive status in violation of federal law.

Source:   Mike Sacks, “Supreme Court Looks On HIV-Positive Pilot’s Emotional Distress Mostly Unmoved,” HUFF POST

MJB’s Take

Can you imagine how many claims could clog up the courts if the plaintiff in this case is victorious?

CAIN: Defiant!

by

1

Lead

It seems that Herman Cain intends to defy political gravity,  and amid the allegations against him about his sexual conduct, and against the odds, stay in the GOP Presidential nomination race.

Article (Quote):

As leading Republicans began openly questioning how Herman Cain has handled the allegations against him, he remained defiant Wednesday with a message that he had repeated over and again: “Don’t give up!”

The line seemed doubly resonant. It was clearly a motivational message for the several hundred young adults at an afternoon rally for Mr. Cain at Ohio State University here. But it was also a statement about Mr. Cain himself as pressure mounted for a second day for him to withdraw from the presidential race amid an escalating scandal about his sexual conduct.

Source:     Susan Saulny & Jeff Zeleny, “Amid Questions, Cain Stays Defiant, ” THE NEW YORK TIMES

MJB’s Take

Herman Cain-Hang in there!

REGULATION: AT&T withdraws FCC approval application for $39 billion T-Mobile merger deal; regulatory impact; political implications

by

4

HAPPY THANKSGIVING!

Lead

Our Lead today comes from a Blog. And, we’re commenting on the regulatory front.

AT&T has withdrawn its application to merge with T-Mobile. That’s big news in the regulatory world. But, it also may have political implications for the Administration of President Barack Obama.

Blog Quote

Following the Federal Communications Commission’s decision to send the $39-billion proposed merger of AT&T and T-Mobile USA to an administrative hearing on Tuesday, AT&T has withdrawn its official application to combine its spectrum with T-Mobile’s.

Source: Stacey Higginbotham, “AT&T backs off the T-Mobile fight,” GIGAOM.COM

Financial Consequences

Higginbotham notes further in her post: “[t]he company also said that it will take a $4-billion charge against earnings should the deal fall through.”

The deal could be dead. As noted by Seth Weintraub (quote):

But, AT&T has taken a $4B pre-tax charge in recognition that the deal isn’t likely to be going through and they are likely going to have to pay T-Mobile for the effort as part of the original merger agreement.  That means the deal is pretty much over, at least in the eyes of AT&T’s own accountants.

Source:  Seth Weintraub, “AT&T-T-Mobile Merger looks to be over, companies pursuing a tactical workout,” 9TO5MAC.COM

Justice Department Suit Continues

The U. S. Department of Justice filed an antitrust suit to block the merger.

As Higginbotham has written further in her post (quote):

AT&T still plans to fight the antitrust case that the Department of Justice has filed and has not said it plans to walk away from its deal just yet, but it clearly has realized that the forces arrayed against this combination will be hard to quell. As I noted on Tuesday, unless AT&T or T-Mobile pull the plug between now and then, the next big date should be the Department of Justice lawsuit hearing in February.

Regulatory Impact

The administrative phase of this matter before the FCC has concluded. It could be reopened later.

The immediate beneficiary of the withdrawal of the merger approval application apparently is Verizon. Kevin Fitchard argues (quote):

Of all the possible outcomes in the AT&T-Mo fallout, the FCC approving the merger with a laundry list of new regulations would have been the worst-case scenario for Verizon. It appears to have dodged a bullet.

The FCC could have required AT&T to divest spectrum and networks in numerous markets; FCC staffers had competitive concerns in 99 of the top 100 markets. It could have imposed deadlines for deployments and stricter requirements on the population and geographic areas those networks covered. It might even have dictated commercial terms on how it used that spectrum, spelling out the terms of data roaming agreements and maybe even imposing restrictions on what AT&T could charge for data service. All of these would have been anathema to Verizon.

Why? Because whatever restrictions and stipulations AT&T is forced to abide by if this merger goes through would return to haunt Verizon down the road. Verizon may be sitting pretty on a big fat LTE network today, but it readily admits it must go back to the market for more spectrum at some point.

Source:  Kevin Fitchard, “Why Verizon needs AT&T-Mo to just disappear,” GIGAOM.COM

Possible Political Implications

MJB’s take is that continuance of the Justice Department’s antitrust suit could have some political implications for the Obama Administration.

If AT&T prevails in the litigation, or if the suit is settled, AT&T can reboot the process and file another merger approval application with the FCC. A settlement of the suit probably would require the approval of Eric Holder, the Attorney General, who is one of the top Obama Administration cabinet officials and political appointees who is close to the President.

It can be expected that the handling of the litigation, particularly if the Justice Department loses, or the resolution of the case by a settlement, will make Holder a political target for criticism by the GOP and close scrutiny by Congressional committees in the GOP controlled House of Representatives.

That would not be good news for the President in an election year.

See VIDEO

On the Sidebar, under MJB News VIDEOS, we have uploaded a C-SPAN VIDEO from The Communicators segment, hosted by Peter Slen, on 09-18-2011, in which a panel discussed the implications of the AT&T/Mo merger.

The VIDEO is on C-SPAN’s YouTube Channel, and is described as follows (quote);

On The Communicators, Vonya McCann, senior vice president for government affairs at Sprint Nextel, and Larry Cohen, president of the Communications Workers of America, discuss the proposed merger of AT&T and T-Mobile. The guests will discuss the merger’s impact on the wireless industry, on jobs in the U.S. and on prices consumers pay for wireless service

Source: C-SPAN YOUTUBE CHANNEL

Read Related Web Articles

GINGRICH: Are liberals concerned about Newt Gingrich?

by

5

Lead

“Liberals should fear Newt Gingrich.”

Online Quote

The opening quote comes from Tyler Mills, a young writer on the Yahoo Contributor Network, who said further:

Why? The man can put a sentence together. Newt has taken a lot of positions over the years that may be anathema to true “Constitutional conservatives” on education, healthcare, environmental and foreign policy. I would argue that Gingrich is a conservative for the 21st century, one that understands that an ocean is not going to always be able to protect us from a globalized, and sometimes volatile, world.

My liberal friends (I consider myself to be fairly left-wing) are not used to facing conservatives who understand complex policy questions, or at least that is the way they like to portray things. Michelle Bachmann, Herman Cain and Rick Perry are all talented people, but they are performers and hype people–they don’t have a serious grasp on policy

Source: YAHOO STORY

Issue

Are liberals concerned about Newt Gingrich?

Related Coverage & Web Links

CONGRESS: constitutional amendment introduced to overturn Supreme Court decision allowing unlimited corporate spending on politics

by

6

Lead In

The Supreme Court ruled last year that corporations are persons, for the purpose of the First Amendment, which have a free speech constitutional right to tap corporate treasuries and spend unlimited corporate funds on politics. A constitutional amendment has been introduced in the House to overturn the decision.

The current United States Supreme Court, the h...

Image via Wikipedia

Justices of the Supreme Court

The Amendment raises several important policy questions: (a) whether corporations will voluntarily limit their political spending in the 2012 Elections until the fate of the Amendment is resolved by Congress; and, (b) whether the candidates for President will voluntarily impose contribution limits on corporate contributions to their campaigns?

The political question is whether introduction of the Amendment is, as stated in the article, “one of the greatest signs yet that the 99 Percenters are having an impact” on national policy.

Media Quote

*  *  *Rep. Ted Deutch (D-FL), a member of the House Judiciary Committee, today introduced an amendment that would ban corporate money in politics and end corporate personhood once and for all.

Deutch’s amendment, called the Outlawing Corporate Cash Undermining the Public Interest in our Elections and Democracy (OCCUPIED) Amendment, would overturn the Citizens United decision, re-establishing the right of Congress and the states to regulate campaign finance laws, and to effectively outlaw the ability of for-profit corporations to contribute to campaign spending.

Source: Read THINK PROGRESS

Background

The decision in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission is unprecedented in American jurisprudence and national politics.It  could unleash unlimited corporate expenditures of treasury funds into the political process without any comments by shareholders. That could result in billions of dollars of heretofore untapped and unavailable corporate cash pouring into elections.

One view is that the full impact of the decision, authorizing an unprecedented and historic expansion of corporate political advocacy directed at policy decisions, and to the election or defeat of candidates for political office, could be devastating.

Another view, as articulated by Dr. Stephen R. Weissman, a former associate director for policy at the Campaign Finance Institute, is that the “decision is unlikely to change the political situation on the ground very much.” Read Los Angeles Times, Opinion (January 28, 2010).

MJB’s Take

The decision in Citizens United could usher into the mix new era campaign  technologies, communications strategies and fierce rapid responses by savvy politicians to hits from corporate sponsored political ads on a range of policy issues some of which may not directly concern the business operations of corporations.

Corporations will raise their profiles, advocate and engage in politics by hitting politicians for their  positions on policy issues. Politicians in turn will intuitively respond and hit back.

Increased corporate spending for political advertising will generate significant mainstream political media coverage of the controversies. The coverage in one sense may heighten the public’s interest; but, in another sense, the coverage will diminish the quality of the information disseminated to the public by the media which generally should empower them to take part more effectively in the political process by acting on what, but for the portal to portal coverage of controversies, otherwise would be unbiased and quality information.

Of course, the clear rebuttal to that argument is that heightened public interest is a good thing because it expands the base of stakeholders in the game on the political playing field. Hence, the political take from the Occupy Wall Street movement which is apparently grafted into the title of the proposed Amendement.

In addition, it can be argued that the more intense the controversies, the policy debates, the attacks on politicians and the  media coverage, the better for the political process in general.  Savvy politicians and candidates for political office can take advantage of the new-found field of political play, expensed for the most part by corporate political money, and prosper.

The clearest example to illustrate the point is the low-budget but effective campaign by Herman Cain. Cain was able to use low-budget campaign tools, campaign strategies and the Internet to fight back against a barrage of mainstream media coverage, which for the most part was negative; take part in the debates on policy issues; and, position himself as a contender to be taken seriously for the GOP nomination.

Certainly, there will be  legitimate concerns expressed about the possible corrosive influence of corporate political money on policy making and the outcomes of elections. But, good politicians should be ready to hit back if they are attacked just as Herman Cain has been able to do by employing new media tools and strategies.

Related Coverage & Web Articles

Corporations may not necessarily be anxious to begin spending corporate treasury funds on politics because of the uncertainty whether the Amendment will be passed and adopted by the States paticularly if the spending decisions lack shareholder approval. Shareholders are bound to sue executives should such spending decisions be made.

Candidates may need to consider voluntarily imposing limits on corporate contributions to their campaigns. Although the expenditures in question technically are independent expenditures made without input of campaigns, the court of public opinion is bound to connect them. So it may be better for candidates to get in front of the issue and potential controversy by initiating voluntary measures.

Among other things, the movement of the 99 Percenters could have influenced the decision of the Representative to introduce the Amendment

.

End Notes

Thank you for visiting the site, and reading the content.

Please feel free to ask questions, make comments, or reply to any of the questions or comments posted.

Generally, we will respond to all questions and comments.

TRUMP: Melania Trump tells Joy Behar on HLN that husband Donald Trump still may run for president

by

0

POLITICO reports on comments by Melania Trump that her husband, Donald Trump,  still may run for President.

Donald and Melania Trump

Donald and Melania Trump

Source: POLITICO

See Also VIDEO: HLN NEWS 11/17/11

MJB’s Take

Don: give it a rest.

Enjoy the company of your beautiful wife.

Keep making that money!

America needs you on reality TV, not on the campaign trail!!

Related Articles

A headline that is shocking: BLOGGER BEHEADED!

by

0

I’m not making this stuff up. An activist blogger was beheaded in Mexico.

Headline: Gang sends message with blogger beheading

Quote

Gangsters killed and beheaded an Internet blogger Wednesday in Nuevo Laredo, the fourth slaying in the city involving people associated with social media sites since early September.

“This happened to me for not understanding that I shouldn’t report on the social networks,” advised a note left before dawn with the man’s body at a key intersection in the city’s wealthier neighborhood.

xx xx xx

“No matter, I have to die of something,” said one post. “It will be for my people.”

With mainstream newspapers and broadcasters terrorized by the criminal gangs, whose violence has killed upward of 50,000 people across Mexico in five years, social media networks have become key information sources in many towns and cities.

 

Source: Read  DUDLEY ALTHAUS, HOUSTON CHRONICLE

What a tragedy!

This story should be a sobering reminder to us all of how valuable and precious our constitutional rights under the First Amendment to free speech and a free press really are in America!

Coke a $13M parks contributor complains; parks boss disposes of bottle ban

by

3

Story:  The National Park Service  freezes proposed government regulatory ban on the sale of disposable waters battles in the Grand Canyon National Park after Coca Cola complained.

Coca Cola had contributed $13 Million to the national parks.

Image credit: Richard Perry/New Tork Times

MSNBC.msn.com referenced a New York Times report (quote)

Weary of plastic litter, Grand Canyon National Park officials were in the final stages of imposing a ban on the sale of disposable water bottles in the Grand Canyon late last year when the nation’s parks chief abruptly blocked the plan after conversations with Coca-Cola, a major donor to the National Park Foundation.

Stephen P. Martin, the architect of the plan and the top parks official at the Grand Canyon, said his superiors told him two weeks before its Jan. 1 start date that Coca-Cola, which distributes water under the Dasani brand and has donated more than $13 million to the parks, had registered its concerns about the bottle ban through the foundation, and that the project was being tabled.

xx   xx   xx

He added that “reducing and eliminating disposable plastic bottles is one element of our green plan. This is a process, and we are at the beginning of it.”

Source of Quote:  Felicity Barringer, “Parks Chief Blocked Plan for Grand Canyon Bottle Ban,” NEW YORK TIMES

Undue influence: Of course not! The NYT story notes (quote):

Neil J. Mulholland, president of the foundation, said that a representative of Coca-Cola had reached out to him late in the process to inquire about the reasons for the water bottle ban and how it would work.

“There was not an overt statement made to me that they objected to the ban,” Mr. Mulholland said, adding, “There was never anything inferred by Coke that if this ban happens, we’re losing their support.”

A spokeswoman for Coca-Cola Refreshments USA, Susan Stribling, said the company would rather help address the plastic litter problem by increasing the availability of recycling programs.

Limiting personal choice:  Don’t want to do that! The NYT story continues (quote):

She also characterized the bottle ban as limiting personal choice. “You’re not allowing people to decide what they want to eat and drink and consume,” she said.

A big waste problem:  Sure seems to be! The NYT story continues (quote):

Discarded plastic bottles account for about 30 percent of the park’s total waste stream according to the park service. Mr. Martin said the bottles are “the single biggest source of trash” found inside the canyon.

Concern for public safety: What? The rest of the NYT story (quote):

[Parks ChiefJon]Jarvis said that he had not heard of the ban until Nov. 17, and felt that an action by Grand Canyon park would have more impact than Zion’s. He added: “My decision to hold off the ban was not influenced by Coke, but rather the service-wide implications to our concessions contracts,and frankly the concern for public safety in a desert park.”

MJB’s Take

>  Government environmental policy and waste regulation at it’s best!

> “Things Go Better [For] Coke!”

Other Web Coverage

     >  Coca-Cola Successfully Pressured Grand Canyon Into Abandoning Bottle Ban  (businessinsider.com)

     > National Parks Chief Blocks Plastic Bottle Ban At Grand Canyon  (naturalhistorywanderings.com)

     > NYT: Did Coke get Grand Canyon bottle ban axed?  (msnbc.msn.com)

     > Report: Bottle Ban Ended After Talks With Coke  (abcnews.go.com)

     > Report: Bottle ban ended after talks with Coke  (sfgate.com)

Joe Paterno: firing will not affect PA GOP; Santorum speaks out

by

3

Joe Paterno: the storied Penn State football coach was fired over the child sex abuse scandal; but, his exit will not affect politics for the Pennsylvania GOP. According to the York Daily Record (quotes):

Joe Paterno has been a prominent supporter of the Pennsylvania Republican Party, and spoke at a George W. Bush campaign rally at the York Expo Center in 2004. His son, Scott Paterno, was a congressional candidate that year.

But York County Republican Chairman A. Carville “Peck” Foster said he doubts the scandal or Paterno’s retirement will have any kind of lasting effect on the party. For all of Paterno’s prominence among the state Republican Party, he was ultimately a celebrity endorsement rather than a policy setter.

“No question, Joe was a Republican,” Foster said. “But he was not closely involved with the party’s structure in any way.”

State Rep. Stan Saylor, R-Windsor Township, doesn’t think the situation will have any kind of demoralizing effect on the state Republican Party. He believes people see Paterno as a sports figure, not as the face of Pennsylvania’s GOP.

Source of Quotes : Tom Joyce, “Local politicians say Paterno’s exit won’t affect [GOP],” YORK DAILY RECORD

Also: Article’s subtitle:  “Some stress that the facts aren’t all out yet on the case,”
 
And:  Joyce writes: “State Rep. Scott Perry, R-Carroll Township, also emphasized that the story is still playing out and all the facts aren’t established yet.”
 
Ala Rick Santorum: GOP Presidential candidate and Penn State Graduate said: “Paterno deserves to tell his side of story,”  Rachel Streitfeld, CNN Political Producer LOCAL 10.COM
 
Made for VIDEO: Keith Olberman declares on VIDEO that Paterno is today’s Worst Person in the World! YouTube [3:00 Minute Marker]
 

Other Web Coverage

MJB’s Take

> Paterno could have done more, and should have done more. His firing was justified.

> Why the local media’s noise about the impact on PA GOP politics? Who cares?

> In an extraordinary situation like this one, there is nothing wrong with firing some folks first, and asking questions later.