Friday News Roundup - Hour 1
http://thedianerehmshow.org/shows/2011-05-27/friday-news-roundup-hour-1
The fight over medicare contributed to an election victory on Tuesday for Democrats in one of New York’s most conservative congressional districts. On Wednesday, the Senate rejected a House GOP plan to reshape medicare. Republicans unveiled a plan to spur job growth by lowering the top tax rate. The administration said it would aid businesses by revamping regulations. And the Justice Department prepared possible criminal charges against former presidential candidate John Edwards.
Guests
Susan Page
Washington bureau chief for USA Today.
Juan Williams
political analyst, FOX News.
Laura Meckler
White House correspondent, The Wall Street Journal.
Friday News Roundup Video
The panelists discuss the future work of Elizabeth Warren, Special Adviser to the Secretary of Treasury on the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. "Elizabeth Warren has become such a lightening rod...somehow, she's come to represent the idea of overly-intrusive government, overly-regulated government - the Obama administration trying to hamstring big business, and that's what it has come down to," said Fox News political analyst Juan Williams:
Comments
Please familiarize yourself with our Code of Conduct and Terms of Use before posting your comments.
PART THREE
As for Ron Paul: the man is a devotee of Ayn Rand, the same as Paul Ryan, Alan Greenspan, and many of the other “geniuses” who helped create our economic mess. No thank you.
Like the TeaBaggers, he is as ignorant of the Constitution as he is ideologically blind to reality. He opposes Federal disaster aid. (Tell that to the victims of those tornadoes.) “It’s not in the Constitution”, he claims. Look at Article 1, Section 8, Paragraph 1: Congress has the power to tax and spend to promote the “general welfare”. I’d say that covers emergency aid programs, and so has the Supreme Court!
cicero on May 27, 2011 @ 11:03 am wrote: “Diane Rehm and Susan Paige are not "progressive", i.e. liberal enough for you?”
Wow! Even allowing (for the sake of argument) your characterization of Ms. Page as a liberal, did you just concede this episode was equally balanced!?
cicero on May 27, 2011 @ 11:05 am wrote: “NPR is no place for a liberal commentator [Williams] who is employed by FOX News, if no longer by NPR.”
Sorry, I forgot that unless someone follows 100% the Republi-Con party line, they must be a liberal. I guess that means the Wall Street Journal is a “liberal rag” too (they’ve criticized the GOP from time to time).
By the way, in case anyone is wondering why Williams is on this show, remember: Diane Rehm defended him when he got fired by NPR, and had him on the show to tell his side of the story. (I wonder: has a similar thing ever happened to someone fired by Fox? - That’s not a rhetorical question: does anyone know?)
hainc on May 27, 2011 @ 12:01 pm wrote: “Now I must respond by criticizing the messenger with blatant racism as opposed to the message.”
Aside from the fact he was criticized, and the fact that he’s Black, how do you derive “blatant racism” in the critiques of Williams?
Are you ready to admit the Republi-Con and TeaBagger condemnation of Obama is racist? (Especially given those signs depicting him as a witch doctor, or people referring to him as “BO”?)
Pot meet kettle.
geneand lois on May 27, 2011 @ 12:07 pm wrote: “The majority of the Palestinians are seeking non-violent means to solve their problems but their efforts are met with violence.”
I think you posted your one-sided Comment to the wrong hour of this show, so I’ll keep this short (for me, anyway).
Non-violent means? You mean like killing Olympic Athletes in Munich, like hijacking cruises ships and hurling Leon Klinghoffer (an elderly, wheelchair bound man) into the sea to drown, you mean like dancing in the streets and passing out candy to children in celebration of 9/11?
What Churchill said about the Germans applies to the Palestinians as well: they are either at your throat or at your feet.
And no, that doesn’t justify everything Israel does. I oppose the settlements too. But if we are talking morality, Israel stands on a mountain top, and the Palestinians are wallowing in a sewer!
"Death Panel" It all depends on how you define a government agency that would have to make decisions on what treatment would be paid for or not be paid for. Medicaid or Medicare or whatever government agency that would be charged with this decision making could be called a panel. The decision could be called rationing and this rationing could be called life or death choices. If it is agreed that a heart transplant for 80 year old with failing kidney's, Alzheimer's, diabetes and more is denied. Then a decision in the form of a death sentence has been decreed because early death is inevitable. The "Death Panel" has made it's choice. So the "TRUTH" is the notion of a death panel is real.
I say bring on the death panels, way too much money is wasted to keep people near death alive for a few months longer. This end of life care is a huge problem that the people and politicians refuse to acknowledge.
Etaoin, I would say you have it exactly backwards. Ryan's plan does not end medicare and the "death panels" are real.
Search your soul, any criticism of a black person is grounded in racism. Think about it.
Hey, I don't like his ideas, but I'm not going to criticize him.
By the way, is it any surprise that voters in NY's 26th preferred the lady who's going to keep the freebies coming? It's like supporting the guy that's going to tax everyone else but you.
Juan Williams? Really? Juan Freakin' Williams?
A Village Coffee Klatsch in Hell.
Etaoin Shrdlu wrote:
"Sorry, I forgot that unless someone follows 100% the Republi-Con party line, they must be a liberal. I guess that means the Wall Street Journal is a “liberal rag” too (they’ve criticized the GOP from time to time)."
What are you babbling about? Of course Juan Williams is a liberal. He would not deny that and neither would Diane. Juan may not be as crazy a lib as Nina Totenberg . That is why she still works for NPR and Juan does not.
Etaoin Shrdlu wrote:
"By the way, in case anyone is wondering why Williams is on this show, remember: Diane Rehm defended him when he got fired by NPR, and had him on the show to tell his side of the story. (I wonder: has a similar thing ever happened to someone fired by Fox? - That’s not a rhetorical question: does anyone know?)"
Rehm did in no way defend Juan on her show that he appeared on after he was fired. Whom has FNC fired for not being conservative enough?
Otis wrote:
"Juan Williams? Really? Juan Freakin' Williams?
A Village Coffee Klatsch in Hell."
David Corn? Really? David Creamed Corn?
Hell period
hainc wrote:
'Search your soul, any criticism of a black person is grounded in racism. Think about it.'
Criticism of black people is racist? Is criticism of white, chinese, japanese, arab, indian etc. etc. racist? Tricky issue as some would say yes to all these except for white people. I know there is a special place for black people in the politically correct world of white people. I can tell you this all this white guilt has brought nothing in the form of progress on this issue. I see the same contempt towards white people from blacks I did as a student in Chicago in the 60's as I did as an apartment manager in Rockford Illinois in 2006. Black people have a problem worldwide coming to grips with the realities of the modern world. All one needs to know this is to open ones eyes. Why this is so, I have no idea!
---
Lost my respect for Juan Williams many years ago. He belongs on Fox where misinformation reigns supreme and where right-wing commentators spend hours “debating” each other- now there’s balanced reporting.
Interesting recent article in Economist mag concerning Public Relations firms. There are now over 6 times the number of people working for PR firms than for news organizations. In other words there are 6x as many folks out there employed to influence the message (facts be damned) as are those who are supposedly attempting to report the facts.
No surprise there are so many mixed messages and so many are misinformed.
Hainc wote: “Search your soul, any criticism of a black person is grounded in racism. Think about it.”
Are some of your best friends black?
Seems you may have some unresolved issues there, Hainc.
Good luck with ‘em. I’m rootin’ for ya.
monte on May 27, 2011 @ 2:47 pm wrote: “ ‘Death Panel’ It all depends on how you define a government agency that would have to make decisions on what treatment would be paid for or not be paid for.”
PART ONE
I notice you specify it must be a government agency. So, I take it you have no problem with private insurance panels that actually do that very thing, and have allowed people to die because of it.
Also, it’s funny how despite repeated challenges to do so, Saint Sarah of Alaska could never pinpoint which section of the Patient Protection Act created said “panels”. The most she could do was pile one lie on top of another and attack a provision (ultimately removed from the proposed law) that would pay doctors to provide end-of-life advice to patients who requested it!
(And I notice you haven’t cited to any section of the law to support your claim either.)
“Ryan's plan does not end medicare and the ‘death panels’ are real.”
- Both of those statements are patently false. Since I’ve already destroyed the latter part, let’s deal with the former. Medicare is a government run insurance system that everyone qualifies for once they reach a certain age. The premiums are low, in part because it is the ultimate “group plan”. Ryan’s proposal would leave senior citizens to the “tender mercies” of the private insurance market - where pre-existing conditions are not covered (especially if what people like you incorrectly call “Obamacare” is repealed), and where they will have to buy insurance as individuals, which means at the most expensive rate. And what does Ryan offer in return? Vouchers which won’t even keep pace with the cost of the premiums!
Yeah, I can see why people are “enthusiastic” about this idea.
TO BE CONTINUED
PART TWO
Oh, and since I’m over 55, Ryan’s plan officially won’t affect me. I’ll still be able to get Medicare (at least according to the sales pitch). So I have no personal reason to oppose this.
What’s your reason for supporting it, besides the usual ideology and/or partisanship?
hainc on May 27, 2011 @ 3:54 pm wrote: “Search your soul, any criticism of a black person is grounded in racism. Think about it. Hey, I don't like his ideas, but I'm not going to criticize him.”
Hainc, that makes absolutely no sense, and even for you that’s saying something!
Maybe if you followed my example, and included the name, date, and time of the Comment you are responding to (along with a brief quotation), we could have an idea what the heck you are talking about!
I can only suppose this is a continuation of your earlier piece (May 27, 2011 @ 12:01 pm) where you implied that criticism of Mr. Williams was due to racism. (A mocking denial of the fact that much of the critiques of the President have clearly demonstrated racism, as mentioned in my Comment of May 27, 2011 @ 1:55 pm.)
Well, all you’ve done is reinforce my final point in that Comment: pot meet kettle.
P.S. - And what the heck does “hainc” stand for, or where did it come from?
cicero on May 27, 2011 @ 6:56 pm wrote: “Rehm did in no way defend Juan on her show that he appeared on after he was fired. Whom has FNC fired for not being conservative enough?”
Once again in your desperate need to attack this show (and NPR generally) you ignore facts. Go back and read the transcript of the show in question. Ms. Rehm clearly expressed her disapproval of what had happened to Williams, and defended him, including by giving him the opportunity to tell his side of the story! (She also expressed her disapproval during the News Roundup show the week he got fired.)
And let’s not ignore the obvious fact that she still welcomes him on her show, and he is happy to be here.
Furthermore, despite the “spin” you and other (so-called) conservatives put on it, Williams wasn’t fired for ‘not being liberal enough’. (Plenty of reasons to condemn his firing, and I do, just not that phony one.)
As for whether Fox has done something similar, I guess you missed the part of my Comment where I stated it was a straight-forward question, and asked if anyone knew the answer. Not for the first time, you demonstrate your inability to understand standard English!
monte on May 27, 2011 @ 9:55 pm wrote: “I know there is a special place for black people in the politically correct world of white people.”
PART ONE
Wow, the sweeping (and false) generalizations are flying fast and furious! Which politically correct “white people” are you talking about: Sarah Palin, Michele Bachmann, Glenn Beck?
(Maybe, because to be frank, the Republican and Tea Parties are the most “politically correct” bunch around. I mean, who campaigned last year to rid the GOP of “RINO’s”, and even ran ads condemning their primary opponents as such?)
Given that the rest of your Comment reeks of racism (“Black people have a problem worldwide coming to grips with the realities of the modern world.”), I suppose trying to make a further rational response is pointless, but I’ll try.
I don’t know what “white guilt” you speak of, but I certainly don’t have any. For example, every time I hear idiotic calls for “slavery reparations”, I respond by pointing out my ancestors didn’t come to this country until the 20th Century. Before then they were too busy trying to survive Inquisitions and pogroms to enslave anyone!
“Is criticism of white, chinese, japanese, arab, indian etc. etc. racist?”
- That depends on the nature of and reason for the criticism. If someone criticizes “all honky devils”, then they are being racist against whites. If someone criticizes Jeffrey Dahmer for being a cannibal and a murderer, then they are not being racist (even though he happens to be white). There’s nothing “tricky” about it.
Similarly, if someone criticizes Obama for not being tougher on illegal immigration, that’s not necessarily racist. If someone does so while holding up a sign depicting Obama as a witch doctor, that’s racist.
TO BE CONTINUED
PART TWO
Some of those who criticized Williams today appear to be your mirror image (and also hainc’s and cicero’s). They criticized him because he works for “conservative” Fox News, but not because he’s Black. That may be partisan, ideological, and wrong, but it’s not racist!
P.S. - While I have offered mild critiques of what he’s said, I have not done so for any of those reasons, and (as usual) I’ve backed up my critique with facts and reason. I may still be wrong, but at least I’m not partisan, ideological, or racist.
Etaoin, I don't think I have ever read someone that believes what he wants to believe split so many hairs to convince himself as you. I will sure give you an A for effort though.
"Gail Weitz wrote:
When are commentators going to understand we (taxpayers) financed the bailout with OUR money to the tune of $700 billion and we are done?
It is time for the politicians to appeal to corporate America and the rich to "share the sacrifice" for a change and balance the budget with their money because we already gave.
They also need to understand we will not tolerate any meddling with Medicare, Medicaid, or Social Security benefits...its the least they can do."
May 27, 2011 - 10:31 am
Gail:
Other than the dishonesty that the rich do not pay taxes. How about these poliiticians that shoved "The Recovery Act" a trillion dollar slush fund down our throat and here it is two years later with nothing to show.
GDP only grew 1.8% I would much better see and the proof is in the pudding that Medicare, Medicaid and SS be taken out of the government sector and be given a chance in the private sector.
Etaoin Shrdlu wrote:
"The way to lower the deficit is to cut spending."
With those words the person who spoke them summed up the Republican's mantra, and one of the problems. We hear a lot of right-wing politicians comparing the government's budget to that of a household. Well, if the price of gas increased, the price of food increased, and the price of health care increased, how many households would respond by just cutting their budgets ("we'll only eat one meal a day, and walk everywhere") and never consider asking for a raise? Worse, how many of them would tell their bosses: "I see times are tough for you too, I'll take a pay cut and let my kids starve?"
Etaoin
In case you do not know when times are tough we do cut our budgets like the cable Tv,etc. The things you don't really need you cut.
"Ask for a pay raise". how can you when your employer is struggling? It not any different now raising taxes right now. Why should we raise taxes when it effects individuals like us? Tax increases for a corporation or individual is going to hurt working familiers because it will be added to the costs of goods and services.
Your example of " eat one meal a day" is one of those fear mongering statements we hear from lib. Remember ex Senator Tom Daseal saying that "Republican would be starving people" during the budget debate in 96.
You follow the same dishonesty Etaoin.
It has been several days since this program aired but I cannot forget Juan Williams's comment regarding Paul Ryan. Mr. Williams stated that Mr. Ryan should at least get credit for coming up with a budget plan, implying that people were not being civil to Mr. Ryan. Mr. Williams, do you remember the healthcare reform town halls? No one gave the president credit for coming up with a plan to fix our broken healthcare system. In fact, Republicans fanned the flames of misinformation with regard to healthcare reform. It was incredibly mean-spirited and cynical. Now, because Mr. Ryan is experiencing some genuine dislike regarding his plan tgut Meo dicare, Mr. Willliams wants everyone to play nice. I used to be a middle-of-the road Democrat who agreed with a number of Republican principles. After seeing the Republicans' behavior these past few years, I believe they are trying to systematically dismantle the American middle class. I think this country will regret not standing up to these bullies.
Etaoin Shrdlu wrote:
"Once again in your desperate need to attack this show (and NPR generally) you ignore facts. Go back and read the transcript of the show in question. Ms. Rehm clearly expressed her disapproval of what had happened to Williams, and defended him, including by giving him the opportunity to tell his side of the story! (She also expressed her disapproval during the News Roundup show the week he got fired.)"
Where did Rehm criticize NPR or their management for firing Juan? Since her show is produced out of WAMU. not NPR, having Juan on is not evidence of anything other than NPR has no control over whom she has on the air. Not to mention every DR Show caller and email that managed to get on air were in favor of NPR firing Williams.
Here is the transcript:
http://thedianerehmshow.org/shows/2010-10-26/juan-williams/transcript
Rehm:
"Juan, I want to go back to the firing itself because certainly, one of your complaints was that you had never met with anyone face-to-face. You said Ellen Weiss called you, she said the order had come from above. Then Vivian Schiller, the NPR CEO spoke out, made an unfortunate comment about a psychiatrist, which also set you off. Since then, I understand that Vivian Schiller has tried to reach you directly and has e-mailed you, has sent you a registered letter, which... "
Rehm:
"And you're listening to "The Diane Rehm Show." Juan, I want to ask you your reaction to the way Vivian Schiller and her family are being affected. There has been a report that her children have been threatened about this."
Etaoin Shrdlu wrote:
" (She also expressed her disapproval during the News Roundup show the week he got fired.)"
Now let's examine this supposed disapproval you say Rehm indicated on the FNR the week Juan was fired by NPR. The only thing Rehm is interested in is defending her idea that HER show is balanced. This occurred when a caller confronted Rehm with the truth that FNC is way more balanced than NPR and Rehm in particular. Again, where does Rehm indict NPR for firing Juan? Nowhere.
Caller, ROBERT:
"Thank you. Good morning. My comment is also about Juan Williams. And I just have to say, as a long time listener of NPR and a viewer of Fox News, it's perplexing to see that Fox News goes out of its way to include balance by having all sorts of people, including Juan Williams, who would have more progressive or liberal viewpoints. And, yet, I don't notice much balance on NPR at all, and I'm scratching my head. And I also would say, I mean, is there any show on NPR at all that consistently presents an accurate -- in an accurate and fair way what is, you know, at least the 50 percent viewpoint in the country -- you know, more traditional and conservative views? And that's what confusing to me."
REHM:
"Okay. And I must say that's what we try to do each and every day. If we do not succeed from your perspective, I can only tell you, we try our very best. And let's go now to an e-mail from Elizabeth who says, "The activities of the wife of Supreme Court Justice Thomas need to be discussed and their potential for damage to the entire court evaluated. This is more necessary now that Chief Justice Roberts has declared that the Supreme Court should not have to attend the State of the Union address as it is political." John."
http://thedianerehmshow.org/shows/2010-10-22/news-roundup-hour-1/transcript
cicero, dead right. I remember these shows well. Diane is almost fanatical in her belief her show is balanced and attacks anyone who in the slightest questions it. I also remember Juan backing down when Diane was trying to corner him on the political balance of her show. Juan said something to the effect that the major shows on NPR were biased but refused to name names, too bad!
monte wrote:
"cicero, dead right. I remember these shows well. Diane is almost fanatical in her belief her show is balanced and attacks anyone who in the slightest questions it. I also remember Juan backing down when Diane was trying to corner him on the political balance of her show. Juan said something to the effect that the major shows on NPR were biased but refused to name names, too bad!"
This is what Rehm said on the long defunct CNN show “Sonya Live” in 1994.
REHM: "On my daily talk show, what I’m trying to do is offer a variety of points of view, to have listeners hear all of the information about a particular topic, and then make up their own minds."
SONYA: "Are you suggesting that if I listen to you, I would not know what your political agenda is or what your point of view might be? "
REHM: "For the most part, that’s absolutely right."
Is Rehm oblivious to this comment section on her own website? Since she never contributes any thoughts here, one can only imagine her handlers keep her away from logging in. God forbid she should discover that her belief she keeps her politics to herself is merely a fantasy that she has convinced herself is real.
cicero
Well look at it this way, the D.R. show is pretty good or we would not be here talking about it. Hell yes federal funding should be pulled. When people like D.R. are so convinced of their righteousness the sun can be right overhead and they will say it's the moon. I always have hope someone would step forward on her show with a briefcase full of tapes when she confronts them. But it's just not going to happen, seems there is some sort of professional courtesy going on here and no one is going to get in her face. She does read some of what's on these boards, I have heard her pull questions off of it occasionally. She is not fazed by us non media types unless were crying out for more government.
1. by standing moves , his hands naturally hang down, legs open and shoulder width .
2. hands and fist, flat feet close together and move to the chest , palms facing up , then bend the forearm , covered with both hands as if to make the face look.
3. maintain the posture of a fist on the move ,wade shoes, and then forced to do open hands , feet close together and the action.
4. and then put down his hands , restored to its original position.
5. can be repeated 20 times.
Efficacy: to tight chest, to prevent sagging .
Note: To the beautiful lines of the chest , so this action , special attention need to be close together and force the action , while the shoulders and arms should be relaxed in order to effectively exercise the pectoralis major Site.
Expert Tip : A lot of girls in the pursuit of big boobs, but I think the most important thing is focus and not sagging breasts , and if their breasts are great, but foreign expansion or sagging , Xu The teacher can only say that it is So no matter big or small breasts , as long as focused and strong, plus it a lot !