December 01, 2009 :: Posted by - admin :: Category - Fab Local News
The Florida Highway Patrol has released information concerning Tiger Woods’s accident.
While the crash investigation continues and “charges are pending” the FHP says they have been “unable to speak to Mr. Woods about the crash…despite the attempts to do so.”
They also did not tell details of “pending charges” or if Elin Nordegren would be charged.
The star athlete’s agent spoke for him on Sunday, explaining why he did not choose to speak with the FHP: “Further discussion with them is both voluntary and optional. Although Tiger realizes that there is a great deal of public curiosity, it has been conveyed to FHP that he simply has nothing more to add and wishes to protect the privacy of his family.”
Meanwhile, CNN senior legal analyst Jeffrey Toobin explained, “Tiger Woods is under no legal obligation to speak with police…The Fifth Amendment gives everyone an absolute right to refuse to talk to them. He may be counting on the fact that if no new news emerges, everybody will move on.”
…with Democrats in charge of the entire U.S. government and George Bush nowhere to be found, Pelosi and others in her party are suddenly very, very worried about U.S. escalation in Afghanistan. “There is serious unrest in our caucus,” the speaker said recently. There is so much unrest that Democrats who show little concern about the tripling of already-large budget deficits say they’re worried about the rising cost of the war.
It is in that atmosphere that Obama makes his West Point speech. He had to make certain promises to get elected. Unlike some of his supporters, he has to remember those promises now that he is in office. So he is sending more troops. But he still can’t tell the truth about so many Democratic pledges to support the war in Afghanistan: They didn’t mean it.
Will the dithering Dems see the war effort through?
November 29, 2009 :: Posted by - admin :: Category - Fab Local News
ABC’s George Stephanopoulos actually brought up the ClimateGate scandal as a topic for discussion during the Roundtable segment on Sunday’s "This Week."
As NewsBusters has been reporting since this story broke more than a week ago, television news outlets have been quite disinterested in the controversy now growing with each passing day.
Breaking this trend, Stephanopoulos aggressively waded into this seemingly verboten subject by mentioning how it complicates President Obama’s trip to "Copenhagen to deal with climate change."
George Will of course agreed saying that the release of these e-mail messages raises a serious question about why America should "wager trillions of dollars and substantially curtail freedom on climate models that are imperfect and unproven."
Not surprisingly, New York Times columnist Paul Krugman found "not a single smoking gun" in those e-mail messages (video in two parts embedded below the fold with transcript and commentary):
GEORGE STEPHANOPOULOS, HOST: And meanwhile, he is also going to be dealing with health care, right now on the floor of the Senate, going he announced this week to Copenhagen to deal with climate change. And it comes at a time when the politics seem to be changing a little bit in this.
Let me show our latest ABC News/Washington Post poll. It shows whether people believe global warming is occurring. That number is going down. July 2008, 80 percent of the public; down to 72 percent now. And there’s been a sort of a real partisanship. Look at Republicans, 74 percent believed global warming was occurring back in 2008. Now, a 20-point drop to 54 percent.
George, there has been a partisanizing of this issue, and then you throw in one more complication we’ve had over the last week. This Climate Research Institute at East Anglia University, someone hacked into their e-mail account and showed a bunch of emails between scientists, which opponents of climate change legislation said proves that they are rigging the science and trying to hide information that runs counter to their theories.
GEORGE WILL: It raises the question of — we’re being asked to wager trillions of dollars and substantially curtail freedom on climate models that are imperfect and unproven. And the consensus far from being as solid as they say it is, and the debate as over as they say it is, the e-mails indicate people are very nervous about suppressing criticism, gaming the peer review process for scholarly works and all the rest. One of the e-mails said it is a travesty, his word, it is a travesty that we cannot explain the fact that global warming has stopped. Well, they shouldn’t be embarrassed about that. It’s a complicated business, and that’s why we shouldn’t wager these trillions.
PAUL KRUGMAN, NEW YORK TIMES: All those e-mails — people have never seen what academic discussion looks like. There’s not a single smoking gun in there. There’s nothing in there. And the travesty is that people are not able to explain why the fact that 1998 was a very warm year doesn’t actually mean that global warming has stopped. I mean, that’s loose wording. Right? Everything is about — we’re really in the same situation as if there was one extremely warm day in April. And then people are saying, well, you see, May is cooler than April, there’s no trend here. And that’s what — the travesty is how hard it has been to explain why that’s bad reasoning.
WILL: One of the emails, Paul, said he wished he could delete, get rid of the medieval warming period. That lasted 600 years…
KRUGMAN: It’s not — read — this has all been explained. What he meant is they want to put a start on it. We have an end to it, we don’t have a start on it. There’s a lot of loose use of language when you’re just talking among each other. And what (inaudible) really meant, deleting would be meant that, you know, we don’t know when this thing started, because we don’t have very good data back then. There weren’t any weather stations. And that’s what the context was.
MATTHEW DOWD, POLITICAL CONSULTANT: The interesting thing about this is, which goes back to our previous discussion is, and having done a lot of this polling during the Bush administration, which is when you give people a choice between improving the economy and jobs, and improving the environment, at times of economic prosperity, the numbers for improving environment go above jobs. At a time when there is a recession or at a time when there’s a difficulty in the economy, people say let’s focus on this, let’s not focus on the climate. The best route to passing climate change legislation is creating jobs and then (inaudible).
COKIE ROBERTS: But the difference between that kind of polling and what George just showed in our ABC poll is that — is that people are not agreeing on the facts. It’s not a question of asking about the legislation.
(CROSSTALK)
DOWD: If they want to go to a different position, they have a tendency to then doubt…
STEPHANOPOULOS: Well, that’s what might be happening here, is people who are opposed to cap-and-trade are changing their minds on global warming.
(CROSSTALK)
DAN SENOR, COUNCIL ON FOREIGN RELATIONS: In June of this year, the House voted, close vote on cap- and-trade, 219 to 212 votes. One out of five congressional Democrats voted against the cap-and-trade bill. If that vote were held today, against the backdrop of this news, plus even worse economic numbers to Matt’s point, I guarantee you’d probably have two-five and probably lose those eight Republicans.
(CROSSTALK)
KRUGMAN: Nancy Pelosi was very clever to get that in her pocket when she could.
ROBERTS: But for the president to then be going to Copenhagen with all of this going on, becomes somewhat problematic for him, I think.
WILL: But what I was going to say there is that the United States pledges to reduce its carbon emissions 83 percent below the 2005. That will not even be seriously attempted, and here is why. That would mean we would have total carbon emissions equal to the United States in 1910, when there were 92 million Americans. Furthermore, our per-capita carbon emissions in 2050, when he says this is going to happen, when there’s going to be 420 million Americans, would be on a per-capita basis what we had in 1875.
STEPHANOPOULOS: He may face a credibility problem as well. I mean, I think the issue is, I think the president had to go to Copenhagen. It was the only way to get the Indians and the Chinese to go as well. But, Paul, as he goes, he’ll be making a commitment that he can’t necessarily keep unless the Senate follows through.
(CROSSTALK)
KRUGMAN: Everyone understands that. And I just want to say, I’m surprised, George, that you lack faith in the power of the marketplace. All this cap-and-trade is about is putting a price on carbon emissions, and people will do amazing things given a market incentive.
WILL: Speaking of the marketplace, the biggest industry in the world right now may be fighting climate change. There are billions, trillions of dollars on the table, and when you say, well, they are academics and they are scientists and they talk in funny ways — academics are human beings, and the enormous incentive to get on the bandwagon on global warming, the financial incentive, the market driving this, is huge.
KRUGMAN: There is tremendously more money in being a skeptic than there is in being a supporter.
WILL: Hardly.
KRUGMAN: It’s so much easier, come on. You got the energy industry’s behind it. There are 20 times as many believers as there are skeptics in the scientific community. They get almost equal time in the media.
(CROSSTALK)
WILL: Is there a larger venture capital firm in this country than the Energy Department of this government, which right now is sending out billions and billions of dollars in speculation on green energy?
ROBERTS: But I think that’s something that the American people want. I mean, we want green jobs. We don’t want to see those polar bears on those ice floes without any ice around them. All of that. I think, coming up with ways to have the energy that we use without causing global warming and polluting the air is something that is something desirable.
(CROSSTALK)
DOWD: I agree, the public wants that. But if Uncle Joe doesn’t have a job, they say let’s — don’t worry about the polar bears right now.
(LAUGHTER)
Readers likely began laughing when Krugman said with a straight face:
There is tremendously more money in being a skeptic than there is in being a supporter…It’s so much easier, come on. You got the energy industry’s behind it. There are 20 times as many believers as there are skeptics in the scientific community. They get almost equal time in the media.
Skeptics get almost equal time in the media? Yeah, that’s why this appears to be the first time ABC addressed this ClimateGate issue.
As for there being more money in being a skeptic than there is in supporting this myth, the facts say otherwise.
The Science and Public Policy Institute issued a report on the money involved in funding the global warming debate in August concluding, "Over the last two decades, US taxpayers have subsidized the American climate change industry to the tune of $79 billion."
By contrast, the same study found that the media bogeyman "Exxon Mobil gave a mere $23 million, spread over ten years, to climate sceptics."
As usual, Krugman was making things up.
Of course, those outside of Nobel awards committees that are truly familiar with his work know that Krugman quite often strays from reality when the agenda warrants it.
Regardless, it was indeed surprising and quite pleasant to see Stephanopoulos bring ClimateGate up for discussion Sunday.
I wonder if this means more news outlets are going to start honestly looking at this issue.
November 29, 2009 :: Posted by - admin :: Category - Fab Local News
For general discussion and debate. Possible talking point: Tiger Woods.
Yeah, this isn’t the sports open thread, but as it’s now been two days since this story broke, and Tiger has yet to go before cameras to explain what’s going…what’s going on?
November 25, 2009 :: Posted by - admin :: Category - Fab Local News
"Don we now our gay apparel" took on a different meaning during Joy Behar’s CNN Headline News program Nov. 24.
According to the panel Behar spoke with, the holidays are a great time for gay people to come out of the closet. They are also a good time to knock religion and push the gay agenda.
Actor Jeffrey Self, one of the three gay panelists, told Behar "I think also [coming out] is a nice distraction from all the other drama that’s taking place in your house. Everybody’s already mad at each other."
"I think it’s the perfect time to do it," claimed comedienne and lesbian Judy Gold. "Because then you get it over with and everyone is already there. So they don’t have to call each other and say, did you hear?"
Behar and her pals also managed to mock Christianity, insult the Catholic League’s Bill Donohue, play the break-up of a marriage because of homosexuality for laughs, and proclaimed Adam Lambert a "genius" for his sexually explicit American Music Awards performance and denounced ABC as "cowardly" for pulling the plug on Lambert’s live "Good Morning America" appearance. Behar further claimed her "philosophy" was "that a parent should say to the child, ‘are you gay’ when they see them playing with dolls when they’re boys."
Comedian Kevin Meany’s tale of how he came out as a gay man included much of the mockery levied at Christians. He related that as a Roman Catholic, he "actually went to the priests and told them [he] was gay." Behar responded with, "He said good, come into my back room" which led Meany to joke, "We’re dating now."
Earlier in the discussion Meany claimed that he came out by descending a staircase in a Speedo singing, "I am what I am, I am my own special creation" while "the in-laws are going, ‘lamb of God, take away the sins of the world."
As if dropping a life-altering announcement on family members during the holidays and possibly ruining it for them wasn’t selfish enough, Meany, who was married when he came out, joked about the ultimate selfishness when he told the panel his tale of trying to save his marriage by asking his wife to "have a sex change operation."
Meany also told of how when he told his parents he was gay, his mother’s response was "we should have told you." Behar then chirped in with her "philosophy" that if a parent suspects that his or her child is gay, they should ask.
"Now that I’m a mom and you’re a dad, don’t you think you’d know if your child was gay?" Gold asked Meany, and gave credence to Behar’s philosophy.
But it was in the discussion about Lambert’s performance that Behar implored Bill Donohue of the Catholic League to "get a life."
Behar reported that ABC received 1,500 complaints about Lambert’s AMA performance, which included simulated oral sex and the fondling of a female dancer. Meany set up Behar’s "joke" by insisting all the complaints came from one person, "That guy from the Catholic League."
"Bill Donohue. He’s always on my case," replied Behar. "Get a life, Bill, OK? OK."
Behar added she thought ABC was "cowardly" for canceling Lambert’s live "Good Morning America" appearance. The other panel members jumped to defend Lambert.
"Adam Lambert is, like, just a total genius," declared Meany.
"I’m sorry, many performers are sexual and get to perform. It’s because it was gay sex," claimed Gold of the cancellation.
Self offered the Miley Cyrus pole-dance at last summer’s Teen Choice Awards as evidence that there is a double standard in the entertainment industry when it comes to sexual performances by males and females.
Unfortunately, he forgot to mention that some in the media, including the LA Times and Entertainment Weekly, were upset about Cyrus’ performance.
November 23, 2009 :: Posted by - admin :: Category - Fab Local News
Republican U.S. Senate candidate Mark Kirk turned down the rhetoric today on Democratic-backed plans to use the largely vacant Thomson Correctional Center to house suspected terrorist detainees from Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, saying he wants a “dispassionate and specific” discussion of the issue.
“The key point is, is this a necessary risk?” asked Kirk, a five-term congressman from the North Shore. “And in my judgment, it’s not a necessary risk. But then I’m practical.”
The elite hostility to business — a holdover from Europe, perhaps, where aristocrats looked down on “trade,” or an unconscious echo of Marxism — is unseemly and harmful to both general prosperity and the individuals who are influenced by it to avoid productive enterprise. It crops up in President Obama’s commencement addresses sneering at students who want to “take your diploma, walk off this stage, and chase only after the big house and the nice suits and all the other things that our money culture says you should buy” and in Michelle Obama’s urging hard-pressed women in Ohio, “Don’t go into corporate America.” It’s nice that some people, like senators’ wives, can make $300,000 a year in “the helping industry,” but it’s business that produces the wealth that allows such nonprofit generosity.
November 15, 2009 :: Posted by - admin :: Category - Fab Local News
Barack Obama had his Beer Summit.
Will they call a meeting between former Alaska Governor Sarah Palin and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton the Coffee Summit?
Such seems possible after Clinton’s discussion about Palin with ABC’s George Stephanopoulos on Sunday’s "This Week."
In fact, the following exchange seems destined to be quite the water cooler subject in newsrooms all over America in the coming days (video embedded below the fold with partial transcript):
GEORGE STEPHANOPOULOS, HOST: While you’ve been gone Sarah Palin is making quite a splash back here in the United States. Her book "Going Rogue" is about to be released but there are already excerpts out. And she has some kind words for you in the book. She says she was wrong to criticize you last year for whining and now she says that she realized the media was biased when they were talking about your candidacy. And she goes on to say this, to write this.
"Should Secretary Clinton and I ever sit down over a cup of coffee, I know that we will fundamentally disagree on many issues. But my hat is off to her hard work on the 2008 campaign trail. A lot of her supporters think she proved what Margaret Thatcher proclaimed. ‘If you want something said, ask a man. If you want something done, ask a woman.’" It sounds like she’s fishing for a coffee date. Is it going to happen?
HILLARY CLINTON, SECRETARY OF STATE: Well, you know, I’ve never met her. Look, I’d look forward to sit down and talk with her. Obviously we’re going to hear a lot more from her in the upcoming weeks with her book coming out and I would look forward to having a chance to actually get to meet her.
STEPHANOPOULOS: Was the media fair to her?
CLINTON: Well, you know George, I’ll leave that for my book if I ever write another one.
It seems a metaphysical certitude that with all the attention Palin is getting with her book coming out, along with high-profile interviews with Oprah Winfrey and Barbara Walters this week, this exchange between Clinton and Stephanopoulos will get a lot of media focus.
How it will be covered is a different matter entirely.
November 15, 2009 :: Posted by - admin :: Category - Fab Local News
For general discussion and debate. Possible talking point: "Going Rogue."
With her book coming out, and scheduled interviews with Oprah Winfrey and Barbara Walters, former Alaska Governor Sarah Palin will continue to be in the news this week.
Of course, this means she will continue to be trashed by all of her detractors in the media.
Question: has there ever been a political figure who wasn’t a member of the White House that has received this kind of regular, constant trashing by the press? If so, who?
Last week’s shootings, which killed 13 people and wounded more than 30, demonstrated once again the folly of “gun-free zones,” which attract and assist people bent on mass murder instead of deterring them.
Judging from the comments of those who support this policy of victim disarmament, Smith’s desire for a gun was irrational. According to Paul Helmke, president of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, “This latest tragedy, at a heavily fortified army base, ought to convince more Americans to reject the argument that the solution to gun violence is to arm more people with more guns in more places.”
Note how the reference to “a heavily fortified army base” obscures the crucial point that the people attacked by Hasan were unarmed as a matter of policy. Also note the breathtaking inanity of Helmke’s assurance that “more guns” are not “the solution to gun violence.” In this case, they assuredly were.
Where guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns. Seems pretty straightforward, no?
[The New Yorker's John] Cassidy is more honest than the politicians whose dishonesty he supports. "The U.S. government is making a costly and open-ended commitment," he writes. "Let’s not pretend that it isn’t a big deal, or that it will be self-financing, or that it will work out exactly as planned. It won’t. What is really unfolding, I suspect, is the scenario that many conservatives feared. The Obama Administration … is creating a new entitlement program, which, once established, will be virtually impossible to rescind."
Why are they doing it? Because, according to Mr. Cassidy, ObamaCare serves the twin goals of "making the United States a more equitable country" and furthering the Democrats’ "political calculus." In other words, the purpose is to further redistribute income by putting health care further under government control, and in the process making the middle class more dependent on government. As the party of government, Democrats will benefit over the long run.
November 08, 2009 :: Posted by - admin :: Category - Fab Local News
For general discussion and debate. Possible talking point: PelosiCare passes by surprisingly narrow margin.
How many people watched much of the debate and vote Saturday? Regardless of the results, did you enjoy it? How do you think this sets up the Senate? Will this narrow margin make it very difficult for Reid to get 60 voters? What’s up with the lone Republican Cao from Louisiana breaking ranks?
Finally, and maybe most importantly, do you think Stupak’s abortion amendment impacted the final result actually allowing some moderate Democrats to vote for the bill? Or do you think this is a lot of hooey either because an equal or greater number of liberal Democrats especially women might have voted "Nay" because of that amendment passing or that Pelosi was going to get this passed no matter what she had to do?
Soldiers who witnessed the shooting rampage at Fort Hood that left 13 people dead reported that the gunman shouted "Allahu Akbar!" — an Arabic phrase for "God is great!" — before opening fire, the base commander said Friday.
Our thoughts and prayers go out to the victims and their families. This is just more evidence that Hasan had assumed the role of Jihadist in the massacre.
November 04, 2009 :: Posted by - admin :: Category - Fab Local News
Profits, not the killing of unborn children, are the "real immorality" of abortion, according to "View" panelist Joy Behar.
Behar expressed her unique view of morality during the Nov. 3 "Hot Topics" discussion about Abby Johnson, a Texas Planned Parenthood director who resignedResigned reviews from her post last month after seeing an abortion on an ultrasound.
Johnson explained to the local Texas CBS affiliate that Planned Parenthood had been pressuring her to focus on abortion, not pregnancy prevention because abortions brought in more money than family planning services.
ABC’s "View" host Barbara Walters brought up Johnson’s story, calling it "controversial" and Behar quickly denounced Planned Parenthood for making money off abortions. She called it "gross" and "obnoxious" before she stated, "I don’t see abortions as a profit-making industry. I think that that is the real immorality of it."
Sherri Shepherd insisted that Planned Parenthood does profit from abortions and offered her own experience to confirm what Johnson saw at the clinic in Texas.
Shepherd related:
When I was considering an abortion, I went to a Planned Parenthood in Los Angeles, California, and when I sat there in front of that lady, she wanted me to fill out the form and she was rushing me through. And I said to her – I was 17. I said I’m not quite sure what I should do. And she was pressuring me to get the abortion. We ended up leaving because I was just scared. But they never gave me any alternative or any other thing.
Despite the news from Texas and Shepherd’s testimonial, Walters warned the women not to "condemn all of Planned Parenthood because of one" clinic. Walters also praised Planned Parenthood for "giving advice" and "helping people who may not want to have their baby."
"I don’t think anybody really wants to push an abortion. I’m surprised to hear this," stated Walters.
Elisabeth Hasselbeck wondered if Johnson would now "advise people who were walking in uncertain to watch a video" of an abortion "before they were to make a decision." This sparked a discussion about the decision-making process that surrounds abortion.
While one of the arguments pro-abortion activists use is that abortion is not always an easy decision, Behar inexplicably refused to allow Hasselbeck to make the same argument.
"It’s never an easy [decision], mark my words there," stated Hasselbeck. Behar responded in a condescending manner, "To some people, Elisabeth, believe it or not, it is a very easy decision. I know that’s hard to understand."
Hasselbeck and Shepherd argued in favor of showing women a picture of a fetus before during the decision process. "Some people don’t think of it as a fetus," said Shepherd. "Maybe they’ll think about it differently if they saw – remember when I brought in the ultrasound -" started Hasselbeck.
Shepherd added, "I think some people think it is an easy decision. But I think that time goes by and I don’t know, sometimes it just hits you." Walters quickly refuted Shepherd’s words, "But for other people it doesn’t hit them."
Walters concluded the segment by citing reasons women seek abortions. "Listen, if you’ve got five children and and you can’t cope with these children or you have been raped, or it is incest, there all different reasons. Nobody says, I hope this is fun, let’s do it."
And just like in Shepherd’s experience with Planned Parenthood in LA, there was no room for any alternatives and the show rushed to commercial.
November 02, 2009 :: Posted by - admin :: Category - Fab Local News
Oak Park joined the growing list of communities banning video gambling Monday with a unanimous vote and no need for further discussion.
The state legislature approved a measure allowing video gambling in establishments that serve liquor, including bars, fraternal organizations and truck stops, in an effort to raise revenue for infrastructure projects.
But many municipalities and some counties — including Cook and DuPage — have balked at the idea and banned the machines.
In a previous meeting, Oak Park trustees discussed and quickly agreed on the ban, noting that feedback from residents was overwhelmingly opposed to allowing video gambling in the village.
October 30, 2009 :: Posted by - admin :: Category - Fab Local News
On Friday’s Situation Room, CNN forwarded an idea proposed by The New Republic’s Peter Beinart- that Democratic losses in the gubernatorial races in Virginia and New Jersey this year would result in the reelection of President Obama in 2012. An on-screen graphic during a discussion of Beinart’s hypothesis read, “If The Dems Lose Next Week: How it might help them in the long run.”
Anchor Wolf Blitzer read the New Republic contributor’s idea during a “Strategy Session” panel discussion with Republican Mary Matalin and Democrat Paul Begala 53 minutes into the 4 pm Eastern hour: “Peter Beinart, writing in The Daily Beast, says…it might be good for the Democrats if the Republicans win both Virginia and New Jersey, the governors’ races next Tuesday. ‘Let’s imagine,’ he writes, ‘that Democrats lose next week because the GOP’s conservative base flocks to the polls while liberals stay home. For Obama, that wouldn’t be so terrible. The more confident right-wing Republicans become, the more likely they will nominate a Palin-like zealot in 2012.’”
Both Matalin and Begala didn’t buy this hypothesis one bit:
BLITZER: You like his [Beinart’s] logic there?
MARY MATLALIN: It’s an argument supported neither by logic nor data. He argues that off-year elections are not predictive for mid-terms or subsequent presidential elections unless there’s a Republican victory which portends a negative impact on the next election. That’s illogical on its face, but it’s not supported by data either. These are not conservatives of any ilk, either, of his description, ‘kooky’ conservatives or [unintelligible] common sense conservatives. It is independents that are flocking away from the Democrats because they do not like the – those very voters that swept Obama in and expanded the Democratic majority- they do not like the aforementioned expansive government.
BLITZER: Paul?
MATALIN: They do not like the debt. In New York 23 [the New York 23rd congressional district race], there wasn’t a run on conservative social issues. It was on the debt, and that’s why Hoffman got in and that’s why independents are flocking to him.
BLITZER: All right. Very quickly, Paul- go ahead.
PAUL BEGALA: Well, the debt, of course, was created by the Republicans, and Bill Clinton, who I worked for, left the White House- he handed President Bush the greatest surplus in American history. But the interesting- I think Peter Beinart is wrong. He is a very smart guy, but he’s wrong. Mary is correct about that. It’s never good to lose, and Democrats shouldn’t think it’s good if they lose.
I’m watching Virginia, because it’s a test run of what a lot of Democrats like to do. They seem to believe in the politics of differentiation: ‘Oh, I’m different from Obama.’ Creigh Deeds, the Democratic candidate for governor of Virginia, says- would not say that he’s an Obama Democrat. He, in fact, then came out and said if the public option is passed and states can opt out, I would probably opt out. So he’s running away from Barack Obama, in a state Obama won by six points. Let’s see how that works out for him. My guess is he loses by ten points or more by trying to separate himself from his party’s president.
Neither Matalin nor Begala addressed the second part of Beinart’s theory, which concerned the viability of a “Palin-like zealot,” or, more plainly, a conservative presidential candidate for the Republican Party. But it’s certainly interesting to watch the two of them throw cold water on the hypothesis CNN seems to be forwarding.
Local HIV/AIDS organization Chicago House is getting ready to unveil a brand new benefit that it hopes will spark energy and discussion over the issue of homelessness and HIV/AIDS. And to kick off the new annual Speaker Series Luncheon, scheduled for Nov. 11, Chicago House has invited a very special guest: former President Bill Clinton.
“We are definitely excited,” said Chicago House executive director Stan Sloan.
With the economy down the tubes, Sloan said it was time to shake things up and try a different kind of fundraiser. Every year, Chicago House throws a big black tie gala. And while it was fun and successful, the annual bash never grew in size and scope.
“We wanted an event with a broader reach,” Sloan said, adding that he craved an intellectual event that really focused on key issues. That is how the new speaker series luncheon was born.
Clinton, Sloan said, was at the top of the list for the inaugural event. Ever since he left the presidency, Clinton has helped shed light on several key issues like homelessness and HIV through the Clinton HIV/AIDS Initiative. The Clinton HIV/AIDS Initiative is a program of the William J. Clinton Foundation, which was launched after he left the White House.
The initiative is a global program that assists developing countries implement treatment and prevention programs. To date, the program has helped roughly two million people.
“This is really a chance for people to hear from someone with a global reach on these issues,” Sloan said. “We hope it creates dialogue.”
The luncheon will feature a speech by Clinton, the keynote speaker, followed by a Q&A session. Questions from the public and luncheon attendees will be submitted and approved in advance.
October 06, 2009 :: Posted by - admin :: Category - Fab Entertainment
Here’s a sneak peek of her interview from Essence.com:
On the heels of her appearance in comedian Chris Rock’s documentary “Good Hair,” actress Nia Long and ESSENCE invited five smart and stylish women—singer Solange Knowles; singer Ledisi; TV host Tanika Ray; celebrity hairstylist Ursula Stephen; and writer and producer Tonya Lewis Lee—for a provocative discussion about Black women’s love-hate relationship with their hair in the article “The Root of the Issue.” The exchanges between the women, moderated by ESSENCE beauty and cover director Mikki Taylor, range from hilarious to heartbreaking, but they all keep it real on this hot-button issue.
ABC’s George Stephanopoulos actually brought up the 
Barack Obama had his Beer Summit.
On Friday’s Situation Room, CNN forwarded an idea proposed by The New Republic’s Peter Beinart- that Democratic losses in the gubernatorial races in Virginia and New Jersey this year would result in the reelection of President Obama in 2012. An on-screen graphic during a discussion of Beinart’s hypothesis read, “If The Dems Lose Next Week: How it might help them in the long run.”
