Posts tagged politics
Leading quantitative conservation biologist named CU’s first Colorado Chair in Environmental Studies
0October 1, 2012
The University of Colorado Boulder has hired its first Colorado Chair in Environmental Studies, an endowed chair awarded to Daniel Doak, a conservation biologist known for his quantitative analysis of how different government policies could affect the populations of species ranging from sea otters, California condors, corals and rare plants.
The endowed chair in environmental studies was made possible by $4 million in gifts made anonymously in 2009 and 2010 toward the chair.
Dr. Daniel Doak
Sharon Collinge, professor and director of the CU-Boulder Environmental Studies Program, called Doak a perfect match. “He epitomizes what we’re looking for,” she said.
Doak is especially skilled in interdisciplinary research, she said. He brings expertise in policy to his analyses of risks of energy development, for example. And he is widely cited for his research in quantitative conservation biology, which combines sophisticated computer modeling with varying policy scenarios to project changes in populations of rare species.
For instance, the Proceedings of the National Academies of Science recently published a study co-authored by Doak concluding that the California condor is chronically endangered by lead exposure from hunters’ spent ammunition.
While the free-flying condor population has risen in the last three decades, that increase has been achieved through captive breeding, monitoring and veterinary care, the study found. Meanwhile, the primary threat to the endangered bird — lead poisoning from bullets and shotgun shells lodged in carrion — has gone largely unmitigated, the study said.
Doak and his fellow researchers found no evidence that California’s 2008 partial ban on lead ammunition yielded any decrease in lead exposure and poisoning in condors.
Since 2007, Doak has served as a professor of zoology and physiology at the University of Wyoming. Previously, he was a faculty member at the University of California, Santa Cruz. His research has been funded by the National Science Foundation, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, U.S. Forest Service, California Department of Fish and Game and the U.S. Bureau of Land Management. Scholarly papers have cited his work more than 3,000 times since 1998.
Doak said he was drawn to CU-Boulder’s Environmental Studies Program because of its breadth, spanning disciplines ranging from biogeochemistry to political science to philosophy. This interdisciplinary focus is necessary to confront some of the world’s most intractable problems, Doak and Collinge said.
“That’s the only way we can really address and resolve some of the major environmental challenges that we face,” Collinge said.
Working with experts from a wide range of disciplines, Doak added, provides a motivation and opportunity “not once a year but every day to confront your own ignorance and thus to appreciate and learn new ideas and approaches.”
It is not that interdisciplinary work is always best, he added. “We need to train ourselves and our students to determine when the problem we are confronting requires an interdisciplinary approach. If you want to build a bridge that won’t fall down, you don’t need an interdisciplinary team. You need a good engineer.”
The critical question, he said, is the following: “Is this problem a nail that requires a hammer, or is this a problem that requires a lot of tools? And most environmental problems require an entire chest of tools and the different people who know how to use them.”
Collinge said students sometimes grasp this distinction better than professors do. “Students who are interested in the environment understand very deeply that they have to know something about politics and policies and how we make choices and why we make choices,” she said. “They’ve essentially pushed us, encouraged us to provide that broad and deep training for them.”
Of the donor’s gift, Collinge said, “This was incredibly generous. And we are really grateful.
“For me, it validates or speaks to the importance of what we’re doing,” she said. “With more than 1,000 undergraduate majors in environmental studies and 50 graduate students, enthusiasm was abundant even before the gift that enabled the endowed chair.”
Related posts:
“Abraham Lincoln: Vampire Hunter” Just a Ridiculous Concept
0July 7, 2012
“Ridiculous Concept”
“Hotshots” looks at a movie!
Abraham Lincoln: Vampire Hunter is one of those movies with a title that gives away the whole story.
On the other hand, some people might be so intrigued by the title that they just have to go see the movie anyway.
Spoiler Alert! The story is about the 16th president of the United States, and the premise is that he hunted vampires as a secret passion.
Early in the movie we learn why, and later we learn how, when Lincoln meets a man named Henry Sturgess in a bar and Sturgess says to him, “A man only gets that drunk when he wants to kiss a girl or kill a man. So, which is it?”
You see, Sturgess is a professional vampire hunter, Lincoln wants to kill one particular vampire for personal reasons, and so Sturgess agrees to teach Lincoln how to kill vampires, but for a price.
Because Lincoln had been a rail-splitter when he was younger, and as he tells Sturgess that he hasn’t had much luck with shooting, Sturgess helps Lincoln cover the blade of his ax with silver, which has to do with the lore of killing vampires in this movie, and the ax will help Lincoln in his quest in more ways than one.
Sturgess also tells Lincoln that he can have no family or friends as long as he is a vampire hunter, but of course Lincoln acquires both.
We see Lincoln meet, woo, and wed Mary Todd, we see him debate Stephen Douglas when he rises in politics, and we also see him enter the White House when he becomes president, even though each and every night, he goes out hunting vampires.
Now, there are many scenes and shots that were designed specifically to be seen in 3-D, and some–if not all–of them are just plain ridiculous.
And then comes the Civil War, and we learn that the vampires in the country are siding with the Rebels, because they want a nation of their own, which puts a different perspective on the battle scenes, doesn’t it?
Well, we all know how that turned out anyway, but you might be interested in the end of the movie, which puts a whole new perspective on what might be going on today.
Abraham Lincoln: Vampire Hunter is still just a ridiculous concept.
I’m Dan Culberson and this is “Hotshots.”
Related posts:
“Abraham Lincoln: Vampire Hunter” Just a Ridiculous Concept
0July 7, 2012
by Dan Culberson
in Uncategorized
“Ridiculous Concept”
“Hotshots” looks at a movie!
Abraham Lincoln: Vampire Hunter is one of those movies with a title that gives away the whole story.
On the other hand, some people might be so intrigued by the title that they just have to go see the movie anyway.
Spoiler Alert! The story is about the 16th president of the United States, and the premise is that he hunted vampires as a secret passion.
Early in the movie we learn why, and later we learn how, when Lincoln meets a man named Henry Sturgess in a bar and Sturgess says to him, “A man only gets that drunk when he wants to kiss a girl or kill a man. So, which is it?”
You see, Sturgess is a professional vampire hunter, Lincoln wants to kill one particular vampire for personal reasons, and so Sturgess agrees to teach Lincoln how to kill vampires, but for a price.
Because Lincoln had been a rail-splitter when he was younger, and as he tells Sturgess that he hasn’t had much luck with shooting, Sturgess helps Lincoln cover the blade of his ax with silver, which has to do with the lore of killing vampires in this movie, and the ax will help Lincoln in his quest in more ways than one.
Sturgess also tells Lincoln that he can have no family or friends as long as he is a vampire hunter, but of course Lincoln acquires both.
We see Lincoln meet, woo, and wed Mary Todd, we see him debate Stephen Douglas when he rises in politics, and we also see him enter the White House when he becomes president, even though each and every night, he goes out hunting vampires.
Now, there are many scenes and shots that were designed specifically to be seen in 3-D, and some–if not all–of them are just plain ridiculous.
And then comes the Civil War, and we learn that the vampires in the country are siding with the Rebels, because they want a nation of their own, which puts a different perspective on the battle scenes, doesn’t it?
Well, we all know how that turned out anyway, but you might be interested in the end of the movie, which puts a whole new perspective on what might be going on today.
Abraham Lincoln: Vampire Hunter is still just a ridiculous concept.
I’m Dan Culberson and this is “Hotshots.”
Related posts:
Let there be Pot by Rob Smoke
0April 14, 2012
Rob Smoke, columnist
The city council will vote THIS TUESDAY (April 17th) on a resolution from CU regarding their 4/20 enforcement effort.
I recommend attendance at the meeting. Friends of 4/20 (or political freedom) can sign up to speak online at bouldercolorado.gov
or in person at 5:oo pm on Tuesday at the Municipal Building, corner of Canyon and B’way in downtown Boulder.
You need to sign up early if you want to speak –
however, people can show support just by showing up at the meeting, which starts at 6 p.m.
The City of Boulder, in a tough economy, has received enormous revenue from Boulder dispensaries and it shouldn’t be a stretch
to ask that they not condemn people who would like to see an end to marijuana prohibition.
If there are problems with marijuana use in Boulder, the police haven’t been able to identify them.
Meanwhile, there are reams of police reports for people taken to Boulder Community Hospital with alcohol poisoning, bar fights,
parties out of control — all related to alcohol use.
If there is some sort of “solution to the marijuana problem” needed, it’s not going to come from over-the-top law enforcement
strategies. I have personally attended more than a hundred city council meetings lifetime. Council does frequently respond to
political pressure from agencies like CU; however, they also sometimes listen to people who show up at their meetings.
There probably should be a reverse resolution against CU; however, I would just advocate the city council not
endorse this particular resolution, which flies in the face of common sense, as the 4/20 event might have had minor crowd
management issues at times, but nothing to merit a campaign of police ticketing and intimidation.
Faithfully,
Rob Smoke
720-982-2439
Rob Smoke is a columnist for Boulder Channel 1 news. He writes about city politics.
Related posts:
Watch Out For Boulder Boomerang Effect With City Park Ban On Homeless by Rob Smoke
0April 2, 2012
Someone needs to ask Boulder fire chief — county sheriff — city manager …
Rob Smoke, columnist
….DOES the possibility of increased wilderness usage by homeless people –
people who may have been affected or influenced by Boulder’s new rules
banning people from parks at night — indicate a higher risk of fire?
In fact, there’s no other conclusion that can be reached.
It should be pointed out that stating an increased risk is not bashing the homeless.
If someone is outdoors and physically exposed, and there are limited options,
a fire is something very useful, even if it is in violation of an ordinance.
Also, the circumstances that can lead to a campfire turning into a wildfire
can be as simple as leaving the fire unattended when it appears to be out –
and it’s a phenomena that need occur only in an extremely small fraction of all
instances of people using an outdoor fire to create a disaster, which is not to call homeless people
as a group “firebugs.”
If I’m not mistaken, the Fourmile and/or Dome fires were considered likely to have
been caused by outdoor campfires, according to sheriff Pelle.
The city of Boulder, and soon to be city of Denver, it appears, are enacting
ordinances which essentially ask homeless people to disappear.
One has to consider the availability of “disappearable” locations –
our wilderness areas comprise, geographically, the largest subset of
disappearable locations. It should also be noted, the new rules and
regulations — and the anti-camping ordinances — are essentially a violation
of civil rights, putting people in harm’s way without recourse.
Whilst officials tell their constituents they are “cleaning up” the homeless problem;
facts are, a wildfire caused by a homeless person who might have otherwise
stayed in a city park, without a fire, but closer to basic services –
would be a horrible boomerang effect — not a small price to pay for
relying on law enforcement to solve a social crisis.
People need to open their eyes — not because the homeless
somehow threaten to burn down Colorado, but because
the risk of fire is substantial enough that the only prudent thing
to do under these circumstances is everything in our power
to lessen risk. It would be one thing if every homeless
person represented a lost tree. The mathematics of the risk, in this case,
indicate that it could be one non-malicious homeless person out of thousands causing
the loss of a forest or homes or lives. That increased risk, in light of the new
laws, is a serious issue. The risk situation is analogous
to nuclear power safety. It’s perfectly safe, except when it isn’t.
Put another way, although many thousands of matches
may be lit that do not lead to a forest fire, it still takes only one lit match.
Another aspect, of equal concern I’m certain,
is that putting people into the wilderness — which is simply an obvious possible
result of the anti-homeless ordinances — exposes them to a spectrum of dangers.
People die out in the wilderness all the time for lack of food, water, warmth
or emergency medical services.
The immediate solution is to suspend enactment of ordinances
banning people from public places. If Boulder or Denver residents find the presence of homeless
people inconvenient or unpleasant, then solutions that don’t involve making them “disappear”
must be sought.
Rob Smoke is a political columnist for Boulder Channel 1 often writing about city politics. Rob is a critic and one man watch dog of the council and has been for over 20 years. He has been a writer and journalist for many local papers. Tuesdays nights he can be found at Boulder city council meetings.
Related posts:
CU Conference offers world affairs dialogue in its 64th year
0March 28, 2012
CU’s Conference on World Affairs offers
political dialogue ‘as it should be’
The University of Colorado Boulder’s annual Conference on World Affairs returns to campus for the 64th time April 9-13, with 200 events including panel discussions, performances and plenaries.
More than 100 participants from around the country and the globe will pay their own way to travel to Boulder to participate in what Roger Ebert termed “the Conference on Everything Conceivable.”
“The Conference on World Affairs is one of the few events in the country where both sides of the political spectrum can come together to have wide-ranging bipartisan discussion,” said Juli Steinhauer, CWA co-chair. “It’s dialogue as it should be.”
Mike Franc, vice president of government studies at the Heritage Foundation, echoes Steinhauer’s words, “As conferences go, the Conference on World Affairs is entirely unique. Conferences that address the major issues of the day are a dime a dozen, as are conferences that sort the like-minded into windowless hotel ballrooms or exclusive resorts to preach their shared perspectives to one another. The organizers of the CWA, in contrast, work overtime to invite participants with a variety of opinions.”
The 2012 keynote address will be delivered by Alice Rivlin, senior fellow at the Brookings Institution and founding director of the independent, nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office. Her address “Can the Center Hold: Democracy and Governance in a Polarized America” will take place in Macky Auditorium on Monday, April 9, at 11:30 a.m. Rivlin will be introduced by CU-Boulder Chancellor Philip P. DiStefano.
The keynote address will be preceded by the CWA’s colorful annual opening procession. Led by Rivlin and DiStefano at 11:10 a.m., the procession will advance through the avenue of international flags on display in Norlin Quad and into Macky Auditorium.
Leading Republican strategist Mark McKinnon will deliver a talk titled “The Architecture of a Successful Message” on Wednesday, April 11, at 11:30 a.m. in Macky Auditorium. McKinnon is the global vice chair of Hill+Knowlton Strategies and is the co-founder of No Labels, a political organization made up of Republicans, Democrats and independents whose mission is to address the politics of problem solving.
New York Times columnist Drew Westen will deliver a plenary talk on “How Politics Lost the American People” on Monday, April 9, at 1:30 p.m. in Macky Auditorium. Westen is a leading voice on the psychology of politics and is the author of “The Political Brain: The Role of Emotion in Deciding the Fate of the Nation.” He has been a political adviser for a range of candidates and organizations, from presidential and congressional campaigns to Fortune 500 companies.
“Particularly in a presidential election year, when so many issues will be bubbling to the surface, I’m really looking forward to this year’s Conference on World Affairs,” said Westen. “It will be a pleasure to be in an environment where thinkers left, right and center can have a civil conversation without all the posturing and venom that comes out in a political season.”
As always, the CWA will offer not just political sessions, but a broad range of subjects and speakers. Conference panels and performances encompass everything from music and literature to environment and science, journalism, visual arts, diplomacy, technology, film, business, medicine and human rights.
Some additional highlights from the 2012 schedule include:
–Bill Reinert, the national manager of advanced technology for Toyota who leads efforts on research, design and marketing of alternative-fueled vehicles and emerging technologies, will deliver a plenary address on the topic “Peak Oil” in Macky Auditorium on Wednesday, April 11, at 10:30 a.m.
–Chicago Sun-Times technology columnist and longtime CWA favorite Andy Ihnatko will give a plenary talk on Steve Jobs and Apple on Wednesday, April 11, at 12:30 p.m. in the University Memorial Center’s Glenn Miller Ballroom. Ihnatko also is a longtime columnist for Macworld magazine and one of the most in-demand commentators on Apple.
–Grammy-winning pianists, composers and brothers Dave and Don Grusin will close the week with a talking and piano-playing duet at Macky Auditorium on Friday, April 13, at 2:30 p.m.
Members of the public attending CWA are encouraged to use public transportation, as there will be no event parking on campus. Free parking is offered on the third level of the Macy’s parking structure at the Twenty Ninth Street shopping mall in Boulder, located at the southwest corner of 30th Street and Walnut Street, from which a free HOP bus ride is available to campus during CWA week.
The HOP will run on its normal route arriving every 7 to 10 minutes between the hours of 7 a.m. and 7 p.m., Monday through Friday. The two stops nearest the Macy’s parking structure are at 29th Street and Walnut Street and 30th Street and Walnut Street.
For a complete schedule and more information visit the Conference on World Affairs website at http://www.colorado.edu/cwa.
Related posts:
New CU J-school is getting ready for the (digital) revolution
0February 20, 2012
CU-Boulder symposium explores digital media impact on politics, journalism and historical preservation A University of Colorado Boulder symposium Feb. 27-29 will examine how the revolution in digital media is changing global politics, journalism and the way history is preserved. Journalism and Mass Communication at CU-Boulder is sponsoring “The Content and Context of Digital Culture” symposium, which is free and open to the public. It will be held at various sites across campus and a complete schedule is available at http://www.icjmtsymposium.org/schedule/.
“This symposium provides the CU community with an excellent opportunity to explore new political and cultural terrain opened up by digital media,” said symposium organizer Andrew Calabrese, a professor of journalism and mass communication. Among the speakers will be Columbia University Professor Todd Gitlin, who will present “Arab Spring and Occupy Wall Street: Why 2011 Was Not 1968” on Feb. 27 from 5:30 to 7 p.m. in room 150 of the Eaton Humanities Building. Gitlin’s upcoming e-book, “Occupy Nation: The Roots, the Spirit and the Promise of Occupy Wall Street,” looks at how that movement differs from the uprisings of previous eras. Mark Briggs, who coined the term “Journalism 2.0,” will talk about a new breed of ‘journopreneurs’ who are launching startups that break from traditional advertising models to find new sources of revenue for delivering news and information. Briggs is the director of digital media for KING-5 TV in Seattle and the Ford Fellow in Entrepreneurial Journalism at the Poynter Institute. His session is on Feb. 29 from 5:30 to 7 p.m. in room 150 of the Eaton Humanities Building. 
Experts at the conference also will discuss new ways of archiving digital records and how these collections are being used in places such as libraries and museums. Librarians and archivists are looking for new ways to preserve such records, according to symposium organizers. The symposium runs in conjunction with an effort to create a new interdisciplinary school or college at CU-Boulder that may include studies in communication, technology, multimedia storytelling, commercial design and the digital arts and humanities. The effort is called the Information, Communication, Journalism, Media and Technology, or ICJMT, initiative. Journalism and Mass Communication is sponsoring the symposium in support of the ICJMT initiative, with additional support from CU’s Keller Center for the Study of the First Amendment, the Department of Political Science, the English department, the Film Studies Program, the Center for the Humanities and the Arts, CU Libraries and the Advertising A2B certificate program. For more information including speakers and event locations visit http://www.icjmtsymposium.org/.
Related posts:
Your Future, Your Choice! The Naked Curmudgeon by Dan Culberson.
0February 1, 2012
by Dan Culberson
in News
Here’s what gets me.
I believe a lot of time, effort, money and brainpower can be saved if you reevaluate your political-party affiliation and voting record in terms of your line of work, your personal philosophy and your de facto class in American society.
“What?” you say? “Class?” you say?
“Yes,” I say. Contrary to what many Americans believe or would like to believe, there are three distinct classes in the United States and, perhaps, in every society for purposes of discussion: upper class, middle class and lower class. Now, the difference between the class society in the U.S. and the established class societies in, say, India and medie
vval societies is that Americans don’t have to be fore
American politics have pretty much become a two-party system, and for the most part people agree that Democrats are the liberal party that supports the common, everyday working-class people and Republicans are the conservative party that supports Big Business and the uncommon, country-club set of wealthy people. Which group describes you?er restricted to the class into which they were born. All they need do is acquire a substantial amount of money, buy some new clothes and a flashy new car, move into a nicer community and perhaps get experience in the ways of the next higher class in order to become a bona fide new member of that class.
Common sense says that the majority of people are going to be in either the middle class or the lower class. Using the old “bell curve” of distribution, let us say that 25% of the people are upper class, 50% are middle class and 25% are lower class. Where are you?
Now, people tend to align themselves first with the political party that their parents support, the same as they do their parents’ religion. That is why I voted for the Democratic candidate in my first presidential election back in the Sixties, even though I didn’t much care for the man Lyndon B. Johnson or for his policies in Vietnam: both my career-soldier father and my salesclerk mother were Democrats. As I grew older, wiser and more experienced, I decided that I supported the liberal, pro-arts, anti-Big Business views of the Democrats more than I supported the conservative, anti-Big Government, pro-Big Business views of the Republicans, anyway.
Remember your schooling? “Power tends to corrupt and absolute power corrupts absolutely.”
Why doesn’t “trickle-down economics” work? Because money is power, and the people with the money don’t want to give it up, especially to the people without any money. However, they WILL give some of it to greedy politicians in an attempt to cause the politicians to pass laws that make life easier for the people with the money.
Where do you fit? People with money? People without any money? Or greedy politicians?
Let me make it easier for you. People with money tend to be Republicans. People without any money tend to be Democrats. Greedy politicians tend to drift to whichever party they believe will best support their greed.
“Wait a minute!” you say? “What about the Kennedys?” you say? “What about people without any money who vote Republican?” you say?
Well, people who are born with a lot of money can pretty much do what they want, and people who do not have any money would always like to have more. Some people are benevolent and like to help out their fellow human beings as much as possible. Other people are naturally mean and selfish and want to acquire as much money, power, more money and more power as they can.
So, forget the party of your parents. Forget the economic situation as a whole that the country is in and whom the politicians blame for it. Forget the personal life-styles of individual politicians in office.
Remember this: Republicans are conservative, tend to support people with money and try to find ways that those people can keep their money and acquire more money.
Remember this: Democrats are liberal, tend to support people without money and try to find ways that those people can live better lives and perhaps acquire a little more money.
Best of all, forget “politics” and remember that only about 30% of eligible voters can determine how your life is affected.
Are you in the 25% upper class, the 50% middle class or the 25% lower class? Did you vote in the last election? Do the politicians speak for you?
Your choice determines your own future.
I rest my case.
The Naked Curmudgeon
curmudgeon n [origin unknown] (1577) a crusty, ill-tempered, and usu. old man. naked adj 6: devoid of concealment or disguise. Attempting to cover everything that annoys me, Dan Culberson.
Related posts:
“The Ides of March” Shows Dirty Politics
0October 13, 2011
Official Website
Movie Trailer
“Excellent Portrayal of Dirty Politics”
“Hotshots” looks at a movie!
The Ides of March is one of the best movies of the year, but one of the most difficult to enjoy, one of the most rewarding, but also one of the most frustrating, and one that should be seen by everyone who follows politics, but is also a handbook for what not to do in politics.
And expect to hear its name often at the Academy Awards ceremony in 2012.
Now, about the title. To the person who wrote “WTF the title? It doesn’t even take place in March,” I say, “Google it, Dude.” It is a famous expression from a famous play by a very famous author.
George Clooney produced, co-wrote, and directed the movie. He also stars as Gov. Mike Morris, who is campaigning for the Democratic nomination for President of the United States.
The action takes place in Ohio, where the Democratic primary election is coming up, and we are told, “As goes Ohio, so goes the nation.”
Ryan Gosling plays Stephen Myers, Gov. Morris’s press secretary; Philip Seymour Hoffman plays his campaign manager; Paul Giamatti plays the campaign manager for the Democratic rival running against Gov. Morris; Evan Rachel Wood plays an intern working for Gov. Morris’s campaign; and Marisa Tomei plays a reporter for The New York Times.
Stephen is very good at his job and is told that all the reporters love him, even the ones who hate him. However, when the rival’s campaign manager arranges a secret meeting with Stephen, tells him that Stephen is working for the wrong man, and offers to hire Stephen to come work for him, a chain of events are set in motion that will change Stephen’s idealistic views of Gov. Morris.
And then when Stephen learns a secret about Gov. Morris that could damage his campaign severely and perhaps even ruin the governor, Stephen has to battle his own idealistic views, because he can use that information either to further his own career or to damage the governor’s reputation.
We are told that loyalty is the only thing valued in politics and the only thing that can be counted on. We are also told that if you stay in the political business long enough, you become jaded and bitter.
The Ides of March can do the same and is an excellent portrayal of dirty politics.
I’m Dan Culberson and this is “Hotshots.”
Related posts:
Is Donald Trump going to be the next president of the United states? Good chance . Here’s Why.
3April 27, 2011
by Boulder Channel 1
in News
Will Donald Trump be the Obama spoiler? Is he already too big too powerful and too much of a Juggernaut to be stopped? Does he resonate with working people ? He’s a worker himself. Will republicans and Democrats alike abandon the feel good politics of Barrack Obama?? It’s starting to look that way .
Donald Trump wants to bring jobs back to American from India, Mexico and China and he says he has a plan. The plan is to stop the Chinese from jiggling it’s currency, making billions at our loss. He wants the yen to be in line or he will tax them 25% on all exports to the USA.
He’ll do the same with India and Mexico if they don’t immediately get their wages in line with ours. Can he do that?? Yes he can. The problem with NAFTA is that the past three administrations were looking out for the world economy and not ours. NAFTA did not worked and it has put us into a 14 Trillion dollar deficit. China made a 1/2 trillion dollar profit last year from us .
You may think Donald Trump is a joke but a lot of people trust his business sense and they are willing to trade Barack Obama in on that point alone.
Donald Trump wants a payoff to go to war in the Middle East. He unabashedly says ….If we go into Libya to free them, we want their oil. Right now China gets all of their oil and we are paying for the war in Libya, while China pays nothing. The Arab league wants the USA to pay for the Libyan war but they have paid nothing and have not given us any oil in trade. In fact they raised oil prices to $4.00 a gallon in Vail today. What Trump says is “screw that”. No more Mamby pambying around. No more America pays for everything.
He is saying what a lot of Americans want to hear. Which is, screw the pansies on the left, He’s going to make other countries pay to do business with us. As an example Iraq has trillions of dollars of oil and they should be paying us back right now. Trump believes in conquering any country we go to war with similar to what we did during WWII, not go in lose American lives, trillions of dollars and then leave with nothing.
Donald Trump is shaking up the political world in New Hampshire and the Democrats are in big trouble. He could very well be the American maverick who caught Barrack Obama flat footed on this day and storm his way to the white house. We give him a 60-40 chance.
Related posts:
WHO WANTS TO DELIBERATE WITH POLITICIANS? MORE THAN SOME EXPECTED, STUDY FINDS
0April 4, 2011
Conventional wisdom suggests that average citizens hate politics, loathe hyper-partisan gridlock, balk at voting even in presidential election years and are, incidentally, woefully ill-informed.
Given that, the thinking goes, it’s reasonable to conclude that citizens want less, not more, involvement in politics.
But that widely accepted theory does not survive empirical scrutiny, a team of researchers that includes a University of Colorado Boulder political scientist found.
Rather than rejecting political discourse, most people express strong interest in deliberating with real politicians, the team found. Further, when citizens are offered the chance to discuss political issues with their legislators, significant numbers do.
The view of the American public as desperate to avoid politics is “deeply misleading,” the team wrote in a recent edition of American Political Science Review. The work joins a growing number of studies applying empirical analysis to political theories of deliberative democracy.
The team was led by Michael Neblo of Ohio State University and included Kevin Esterling of the University of California, Riverside, Ryan Kennedy at the University of Houston, David Lazer of Northeastern University and Harvard University, and Anand Sokhey of CU-Boulder.
Sokhey and his colleagues suggest that some political theorists reached an erroneous conclusion because they started with the wrong question, namely, “Who actually deliberates?”
The answer, of course, is that few people engage in deliberative democracy.
But Sokhey’s team essentially posed a different question: “Who is willing to deliberate?” The team found that large majorities of citizens, even those disgusted by politics, are willing to participate—and, when given the chance, many do.
Sokhey puts it this way: “If people perceive politicians to be more responsive and less corrupt … would people be more willing to be involved?” The answer is yes. “They’re happy to be involved.”
That was surprising, he says, adding that the kinds of people who wanted to participate also was unexpected. The traditional view is that people who are older, wealthier, well-educated and white are more likely to become engaged in politics.
“We don’t find that a lot of that holds here,” Sokhey says.
The team found that younger people and non-whites were willing to join political deliberations.
The researchers set out to test two competing theories of political involvement. One theory, dubbed “stealth democracy,” holds that people are often disgusted by politics, believe politicians are generally corrupt, and that when they do join the political process, they do so largely to thwart political corruption.
If politics were less corrupt, the theory holds, citizens would happily retreat to their private lives and let government run quietly and efficiently in the background.
But the theory of stealth democracy contradicts one of the deliberative theory’s central claims: that citizen apathy is actually caused by frustration and disempowerment in the system. “If the political process could be rendered more rational and responsive in their eyes, then they would be moreinclined to engage in it robustly,” the authors write, adding:
“The disagreement between the stealth thesis and the deliberative thesis could hardly be clearer, and the stakes on which is right could hardly be higher.”
The research team began with hypothetical questions posed to 404 subjects.
For instance, they asked the following: “If politics were [less/more] influenced by self-serving officials and powerful special interests, do you think that you would be more or less interested in getting involved in politics?” Respondents indicated their interest on a 1-5 scale.
Those who would participate less if politics were less corrupt fit the stealth-democracy thesis. Those who would participate more fit the deliberative thesis.
The results were significant. Eight times more people fit the deliberative profile than the stealth profile, suggesting that the “stealth” view is not widely held.
But that was just the response to items about stealth vs. deliberative attitudes. When the researchers made a real offer to deliberate with a real member of Congress, 65 percent agreed.
The study’s participants were offered the chance to deliberate online with their congressional representative. The members of Congress came from 12 congressional districts spread across four major geographic regions. The politicians included five Republicans and seven Democrats who were ideologically diverse.
Most surprisingly, the authors note, both those holding “stealth” and “deliberative” views were eager to discuss politics with real politicians. But according to the stealth thesis, such eagerness should have been found mostly among deliberative democrats.
The explanation, the authors conclude, is that “People do not really hold stealth democracy as their first preference. Instead, they will settle for stealth democracy if the civics-textbook version of deliberative representative democracy is not achievable.”
The work of Neblo, Sokhey and the rest of the team was funded by a grant from the Digital Government Program of the National Science Foundation.
Read more on this story soon in Colorado Arts & Sciences Magazine at http://artsandsciences.colorado.edu/magazine/.
-
Related posts:
2012 Presidential election: What Obama got right in his first term
0October 17, 2010
by Boulder Channel 1
in Business
SUNDAY EDITORIAL:
A vote for any Republican is a vote against the environment and the economy. Not one Republican candidate supports Climate change. Even that idiot Osama bin ladin admits we have serious climate problems. but all Republican candidates are a vote against the environment. They are also a vote against Health care. Since the Republicans caused the economic crisis , a vote for them is a vote against financial reform. so no matter what you think of Democrats, the choice of two evils would still be for Democrats.
Obama actually got a lot done in his two years. Lets look.
1. He made all of the banks responsible to all loans made now. He reformed banking.
2. He is the only president who ever passed a health care bill.
3. He ended the war in Iraq and set exit dates.
4. He set exit dates for the war in in Afghanistan and stood up to the generals at the pentagon.
5. He restored Americas image world wide.
6. He signed a series of bills to reform Climate change.
7. He cut taxes to everyone except the rich.
8. He loaned money to GM and Chrysler which they are paying back.
9. He set a series of stimulous bill into process which save the American economy.
10. He supported Wall Street which has recently neared all time highs.
IF HE WERE SMART HE WOULD DISPLAY HIS RECORD EVERYWHERE……BECAUSE THE REPUBLICANS AND TEA BAGGERS ARE LYING THROUGH THEIR TEETH. THE LAST PEOPLE WE WANT IN GOVERNMENT ARE THOSE IDIOTS
Related posts:
Media Matters go after Beck and Limbaugh
0July 31, 2010
by Boulder Channel 1
in News
| July 31, 2010 | |
| Media Matters: Conservatives’ perpetual dishonesty machine
Glenn Beck and Rush Limbaugh regularly tout their supposed accuracy and often claim their critics never prove them wrong. Fittingly, this in itself is a complete falsehood. Limbaugh and Beck are wrong for a living, but have been rewarded for their perpetual wrongness by assuming the role of the two most important cogs in the conservative media. Every day, the conservative noise machine — Fox News, Beck, Limbaugh, and other prominent conservative talk radio hosts and bloggers — hurl false accusations with the hopes of damaging the Obama administration, Democrats, and progressives politically. Make no mistake: this is the primary motivation for the majority of the stories they promote. Pesky things like “facts” and “reality” are, at best, a trivial concern. Often, these attacks are baseless, easily debunked, and laughably absurd — yet conservative media outlets rarely (if ever) offer corrections when they are proven wrong. Instead they either double down on their attacks or simply ignore that they were wrong in the first place and move on to the next overhyped bit of nonsense. While it may seem like a minor story in the grand scheme of things, one example from this week perfectly exemplifies the utter lack of journalistic standards endemic to conservative media. Early this week, conservatives were in their usual panic mode over what they claimed was evidence that the Obama administration “backed” or “preferred” the release of Abdel Baset al-Megrahi, the terrorist better known as the Lockerbie bomber. As we pointed out, reports — often the same reports these conservatives were linking to in order to make their arguments — indicated that the administration wanted Megrahi to remain imprisoned, with the stipulation that if he were to be released, he should remain in Scotland rather than risk him receiving an “extremely inappropriate” “welcoming reception” upon being transferred to Libya. Fox News twisted reality to claim that the “U.S. Backed Freedom, Not Prison, for Bomber.” Matt Drudge splashed a huge headline across his website announcing that the “White House Backed Release Of Lockerbie Bomber.” Pam Geller — whose deranged rantings have earned her frequent appearances on Fox News and bylines on Andrew Breitbart’s “Big” websites, Tucker Carlson’s Daily Caller, and the American Thinker – called for a “special investigation” and a “charge of treason” for Obama. Rush Limbaugh – while bragging, as he often does, that he was “executing assigned host duties flawlessly” with “zero mistakes” –claimed that Obama “backed the release” of the Lockerbie bomber because he wanted to “make nice with the Muslim world.” Late Monday, when the State Department released the administration’s correspondence with the Scottish Ministry of Justice, it confirmed in unambiguous terms that the administration was “not prepared to support Megrahi’s release on compassionate release or bail,” and that “it would be most appropriate for Megrahi to remain imprisoned for the entirety of his sentence.” So, after this story completely fell apart, did conservative media figures correct the record and let their readers/listeners/viewers know that the administration did not “support” or “prefer” the release of the Lockerbie bomber? Of course not. Conservative blogger Jim Hoft – whose ongoing popularity and influence in conservative media says a lot about their complete indifference to accuracy and credibility – linked to the letter and proclaimed that the administration “preferred” his release. This was akin to pointing at the ground and saying “this is the sky.” Fox Nation, almost 48 hours after the story had completely fallen apart, still had the following headline and image on their front page:
And you can be sure that in a few months, whenever Sean Hannity or anyone else in the noise machine decides to twist a news story to claim that the Obama administration is “weak on terror,” they’ll point to the time the administration supposedly “preferred the release of the Lockerbie bomber” in order to buttress their point. It’s a perpetual dishonesty machine. If this were an isolated incident, perhaps it would be possible to (partially) excuse conservative media outlets for their shameless performance “covering” this story. But as we detailed this week, the right-wing media routinely promote fake stories (for example, the epic freak-out over the imaginary Obama proposal to “ban sport fishing.”) For another good example of how the perpetual dishonesty machine works, have a look at this segment from Tuesday’s Fox & Friends. In it, Glenn Beck, Steve Doocy, and Peter Johnson Jr. seized on reports of the U.K. supposedly “admit[ting] its socialized health care is a mess” in order to attack health care reform. They rehashed some old favorites from conservatives’ misinformation campaign about health care reform, claiming that we “modeled” reform on the British system and fear mongered about imaginary “death panels.” Neither of these attacks were true when they appeared last year, they weren’t true this week, and they won’t be true the next time Fox’s hosts bring them up. This pattern is undeniable, and at this point is just expected behavior for the conservative media. The larger problem is that “mainstream” outlets still frequently treat garbage from conservative media figures as newsworthy, and ombudsmen at major newspapers like The Washington Post regularly chastise their colleagues for not seizing on conservative nonsense faster. It says a lot about the state of the media when Fox News, Rush Limbaugh, Matt Drudge, and other prominent media conservatives can be caught pushing a blatantly false story, offer no correction, and have their behavior met with a collective shrug. Conservative media outlets retain their unfortunate power and influence over the public discourse because they are able to lie largely without consequence. They did it all this week, they did it all last week, and they’ll do it again next week. Dishonest damage control: Shirley Sherrod editionThough conservative media outlets mostly avoid accountability for their shameless dishonesty, occasionally, one of their overhyped “scandals” blows up in such epic fashion that they are forced to publicly defend themselves. Fittingly, their defenses often rest on provable falsehoods. In the wake of Shirley Sherrod’s firing and (attempted) rehiring, Fox News, Andrew Breitbart, and conservative media figures have transitioned into damage control mode, a large, shameful part of which entails attacking Sherrod as a radical Marxist race-baiter. While Breitbart (whom Sherrod announced plans to sue this week) deserves a hefty dose of criticism for revealing yet again that he is a dishonest hack, it’s worth taking a closer look at Fox News’ role in this story. Fox originally defended their journalistic integrity by unequivocally stating that they did not cover the story prior to Sherrod’s resignation. Among the Fox personalities making this argument were Dana Perino, Steve Doocy, Glenn Beck, and James Rosen. As we pointed out repeatedly, Fox News did cover the story prior to her resignation on both FoxNews.com and FoxNation.com, and Bill O’Reilly taped his segment calling for Sherrod’s resignation before she stepped down. Fox News VP Michael Clemente eventually conceded to Politico that Fox had covered the story online before Sherrod resigned, which he blamed on a “breakdown in the system.” Give me a break — Fox should not get a pass on this one. How low a bar has Fox set in terms of journalistic responsibility that they think a legitimate defense for their behavior is saying “well, only two of our websites and our top-rated TV host planned to run with this story before we got the facts straight, so we mostly did a good job.” Really? The fact that Sherrod happened to resign before O’Reilly’s segment aired has absolutely no bearing on the lack of journalisticresponsibility inherent in O’Reilly’s segment in the first place. And Fox’s online coverage of the story, coupled with their past transgressions, seem to indicate not that there was a “breakdown in the system,” but that the “system” doesn’t even exist. Glenn Beck’s dangerous gameOn July 18, an apparently deranged ex-convict named Byron Williams packed his truck with guns and allegedly set out to kill employees at both the ACLU and the Tides Foundation in the hopes that his actions would “start a revolution.” Williams’ mother indicated that her son was angry because of his unemployment and “what’s happening to our country.” According to her, Williams watched television news and was upset by “the way Congress was railroading through all these left-wing agenda items.” Sound familiar? While the ACLU has long been a bogeyman for conservatives, the Tides Foundation is far more obscure and hasn’t earned nearly as much attention from the right-wing media. There is, however, one media figure who has made the little-known Tides Foundation a focal point of his attacks: Fox News’ Glenn Beck. As we detailed, Beck has repeatedly demonized the Tides Foundation on his Fox News program – referencing the organization at least thirty times by our count. Beck often includes Tides in his bizarre conspiracy theories, and has referred to them as a “shady organization” that is a “major source of revenue for some of the most extreme groups on the left” and wants to “warp your children’s brains.” In the wake of the attempted attack, Beck has stood by his attacks on Tides, going so far as to brag about “turning the light of day” on Tides while also pointing to their inclusion on his blackboard as “the first time that I really realized its success.” Beck’s denial of any responsibility for this incident is complicated by his almost-daily use of overtly violent rhetoric. Among many, many other examples, Beck has:
And just today, Beck claimed the present day will seem like good times “when we’re behind barbed wire and just eating rock soup.” Despite the fact that he routinely suggests progressives are going to kill or imprison his viewers and listeners, Beck tries to thread the needle by urging his followers not to resort to violence. As Media Matters’ Matt McLaughlin asked this week, what does it say about Beck’s rhetoric and his audience that he feels it necessary to tell his followers not to kill people? This weekly wrap-up was compiled by Media Matters’ Ben Dimiero |
|
Related posts:
wow. big day. next vp joe biden wrote to us asking for $200 million . holy shit!
0July 30, 2010
by Boulder Channel 1
in News
$200 million.
That’s what Republican-aligned special interests have pledged to spend on the 2010 election. Just to put that in context, that’s nearly $40 million more than every interest group spent on the 2008 presidential election — combined.
When our administration and this movement decided to take on the special interests, we knew we were making a choice. And the consequences are clear. These groups have fought us at every turn in our struggle for change, and now they’re trying to drown out our voices — and our accomplishments — with their campaign cash this fall.
We’re not going to sit back and let that happen. Today, Organizing for America is announcing the By the People Fund with the goal of getting 3 million citizen donations to fuel our grassroots campaign for the upcoming election.
Please donate $5 today and help us take back this election from the corporate interests.
With our By the People Fund, we’re going to make a statement this fall — strengthening our grassroots efforts on the ground, focusing on getting first-time voters from 2008 back to the polls this year, and holding the Republicans and their special-interest allies accountable.
We’ve all gone to the mat with these folks time and again — ever since Barack and I took office. And, from the Recovery Act to historic health reform to Wall Street reform, you helped prove we could win those fights.
Now these groups have one goal in mind when it comes to November 2nd — erasing the progress we’ve made together.
By spending an unprecedented amount of cash to support Republicans, they’re doing their best to buy their way back into power. And, if they do, they’ve been clear that they will do everything they can to undo the historic achievements we’ve fought so hard to win.
It’s no wonder that each and every Republican in the Senate on Tuesday voted to allow these special interests to have a greater say in our elections. Their vote will allow these groups to spend millions on campaign ads — and not have to reveal who’s actually behind them.
I’ve been in politics a long time. I’m used to seeing the good guys outspent by interest groups. But we’ve never been outnumbered — and we’ve never been outhustled.
I’m asking you to make sure it stays that way. Will you chip in and help us grow our By the People Fund?
Please donate $5 or more today:
https://donate.barackobama.com/ByThePeople
Thank you,
Vice President Joe Biden
Related posts:
Media Matters: Conservatives rehash debunked myths and caricatures for Kagan hearings
0June 17, 2010
by Boulder Channel 1 Info
in News
Spoiler alert: Barring unforeseen circumstances, Elena Kagan will be confirmed to the U.S. Supreme Court.
Even Fox News admits as much. Reporter Carl Cameron called her confirmation “likely”; Fox News Sunday’s Chris Wallace said she’ll “sail through”; Fox political analyst Charles Krauthammer called it “a shoo-in”; Fox reporter Shannon Bream predicted she’ll get GOP votes; and Fox senior analyst Brit Hume said there’s “nothing” that would merit a filibuster.
Part of the reason for her expected confirmation is that Kagan not only has bipartisan support and a “fantastic resume,” but the ammunition prepared against her in the weeks leading up to the hearings — see them debunked by Media Matters here — have fallen flat.
Still, that hasn’t stopped Republicans and their conservative media counterparts from pushing tired falsehoods and myths. But why fight a battle when even their cheerleaders at Fox think the outcome has been virtually decided?
As conservatives made clear months before the hearings, the opposition is based on politics rather than Kagan’s actual qualifications and opinions. In other words, the Kagan confirmation battle is just one piece of the larger battle for the Supreme Court. As Democrats hold confirmation power in the U.S. Senate, and nomination power in the White House, conservatives need to shift power in upcoming elections. And on point, conservative media figures have used the Kagan hearings to drum up old caricatures about Democrats and progressives on old base issues like god, guns, abortion and the military.
The most popular Kagan myth is that she banned military recruiters while dean at Harvard Law. In reality, Harvard students had access to military recruiters throughout her tenure, were allowed access to Harvard’s Office of Career Services, and military veterans at Harvard Law spoke out in favor of Kagan.
Those facts haven’t stopped Fox News, The Washington Times, the New York Post, and The Weekly Standard from pushing the “military ban” myth. The talking point also found prominence on the Sunday talk shows, where the hosts for CNN, Fox, and NBC failed to challenge Republican officials spouting the attack.
With his characteristic charm, botanist Michael Savage, who also hosts a radio show, called Kagan “an unqualified idiot” because she puts her “gay agenda” ahead of national security. Rush Limbaugh said Kagan “doesn’t like the U.S. military.” Laura Ingraham claimed Kagan believes “military recruiters are second-class citizens.” And radio host and Washington Times columnist Jeff Kuhner claimed Kagan’s action towards military recruiters “was an act of treason.”
Conservatives have also set their sights on a memo Kagan wrote in 1987, distorting it to claim that she’s anti-Second amendment. CNN’s Erick Erickson, last seen touting his wife’s shotgun and calling Justice David Souter a “goat fucking child molester,” said Kagan is “hostile to Second Amendment rights.” Michelle Malkin wrote that Kagan has “hostility to the 2nd Amendment.” And Limbaugh claimed Kagan “would have voted against the Second Amendment.”
In reality, Kagan’s Second Amendment views are within the mainstream, and Justice Antonin Scalia has agreed with Kagan that Second Amendment rights are “not unlimited.”
Conservative media have also ramped up claims that Kagan is hostile to religion. Late last week, Matt Drudge promoted an attack by Rabbi Yehuda Levin of the Rabbinical Alliance of America, who attacked Kagan for turning “traditional Judaism on its head” because she supposedly wants to “homosexualize every segment of society.” Strong words made more understandable when one realizes that Rabbi Levin is a hateful bigot. Not only has he spent much of his adult life protesting gays and lesbians (even going so far as to protest the inclusion of gays in a Holocaust museum), Rabbi Levin has claimed gays are responsible for 9/11, Hurricane Katrina, and the earthquake in Haiti. Fun fact: they’re not!
Savage, the fourth most popular radio talker in the country, has provided a clearinghouse for personal attacks on Kagan. He called “Kagan the pagan” a “bagel and lox Jew” who “shuns her own religion.” He also said Kagan has “aesthetics” problems, “looks like she belongs in a kosher deli,” and “we understand that they gave her makeup, lipstick, and pearls to make her look like a woman.”
When it comes to abortion, Fox News host and recovering lawyer Megyn Kelly falsely claimed that Kagan advised President Clinton to “essentially” endorse a health exception that would have allowed women to “get an abortion in the third trimester” because of “a headache.” In reality, Kagan advocated for a middle position that would have banned late-term abortions with a narrowly drawn health exception.
Limbaugh took the baby-killer meme one step further by claiming that Kagan “may have a bigger problem with me eating an egg than with a woman killing her child.”
If the Kagan myths and smears sound familiar, it’s because they’re virtually the same caricatures used against Democrats for years. Barack Obama, you’ll remember, is the pro-baby killing candidate with questionable faith and a desire to replace the military and take your guns.
Of course, none of that has happened. The claims were rhetorical grandstanding for votes, money, and viewers — a playbook repeated during the Kagan hearings.
Fox News still failing econ
Earlier this week, America’s Newsroom, one of Fox News’ purported straight news programs, aired a chart claiming to show “job loss by quarter.” What the chart actually showed was the number of unemployed during four random quarters over the past two-and-a-half years — and Fox News’ lax research standards and accountability.
As Media Matters’ Jocie Fong noted, Fox News’ chart appears to have been deliberately manipulated to generate a less favorable trend line for the Obama administration. The chart used a straight red line to show that job loses have been on the rise since December 2007 to this month. But the chart distorted the scale of the horizontal and vertical axes and included only four data points, thereby omitting any information from the 15-month period between March 2009 and June 2010. Fox viewers came away with the false notion that the unemployment trend has been unchanged since the beginning of the recession.
On Fox & Friends, Brian Kilmeade — whose economic background includes charting the number of Swedish “pure genes” compared to those of Americans — said the chart shows the stimulus “doesn’t seem to be helping” (prominent economics not named Kilmeade disagree).
Fox & Friends also repeatedly attacked Obama’s recent town hall remarks on the stimulus by falsely referring to the stimulus as the “bailout” and claiming that it “didn’t work.” Fox News, and their colleagues in the conservative media, also falsely suggested that Vice President Joe Biden admitted the stimulus failed when he said, “There’s no possibility to restore 8 million jobs lost in the Great Recession”; and attacked House Speaker Nancy Pelosi for stating that unemployment insurance stimulates the economy and creates jobs (economists agree that extending unemployment insurance has a strong stimulative effect on GDP and employment during a recession).
As regular readers of Media Matters know, mistakes like this are fairly common for Fox News. In that vein, Media Matters sent its seventh letter to Fox News senior vice president Michael Clemente to ask how the network would handle its recent on-air errors, such as the bogus “job loss” chart, in light of the network’s “zero tolerance” policy. Media Matters has sent Clemente six previous letters about such errors but has yet to receive a response.
Glenn Beck’s principles don’t apply to Glenn Beck
Back in early January 2009, as President Obama was preparing to enter the White House, Glenn Beck was readying his own (lower-stakes) move from CNN Headline News to Fox News. Promoing his forthcoming show, Beck claimed he was “tired of the politics of left and right” and decried conservatives who say things like “Oh, those donkeys trying to turn us into communist Russia.” He then yelled, “Stop!”
Beck’s proclamation was a tad hypocritical since he had a long, pre-Fox history of comparing progressives to Russian communists, Marxists and socialists. And in the first several weeks of his Fox News program, Beck continued the trend by similarly smearing Democrats and their policies.
Fast forward to today. As Media Matters’ Ben Dimiero noted, history professor Beck has spent significant time trying to rehabilitate the supposed unfairly tarnished legacy of Joseph McCarthy. Beck added that today, “Marxism is alive and well” and “thriving here in the United States.” In other words, as Beck might put it, “those donkeys [are] trying to turn us into communist Russia.”
Speaking of fear-mongering about “Marxism,” Beck also continued to attack President Obama’s family this week, stating: “[H]is dad leaves him for Marxism, his mom leaves him for Marxism.” Just weeks ago, Beck commented that “there is absolutely no excuse or reason to ever, ever, ever, ever even come close to the line of dragging somebody’s family into the debate.”
Glenn Beck’s principles simply don’t apply to Glenn Beck.
This weekly wrap-up was compiled by Eric Hananoki, a research fellow at Media Matters for America.
