Concluding a report on proposed soda taxes across the country on Monday’s CBS Evening News, correspondent Michelle Miller gleefully proclaimed how such a tax would help fight obesity and fill local government coffers: "New York’s mayor estimates a tax would raise a billion dollars, suggesting what’s good for the waistline could be good for the bottom line."

Miller began the segment by touting: "When former President Bill Clinton enlisted the beverage industry in fighting childhood obesity, he did not expect this much progress in just four years." A clip was played of Clinton reporting: "There has been an 88% reduction in the total beverage calories shipped to schools." Miller then declared: "That’s still not good enough, say some public health officials. A growing number of cities and states wants to reduce adult consumption of sugary drinks by taxing them."

Revealing how bad such a tax would be for the "bottom line" of consumers, Miller explained: "New York has revived a proposal to impose a penny per ounce tax on sweetened beverages….[that] would mean this two-liter bottle of coke, which now retails for $1.79, would cost you 68 cents more, for a total of $2.47." She managed to find one man who was happy to pay an even higher amount: "I think it should be two cents per ounce. I don’t mind paying more for it, it would probably discourage me from drinking it."

Miller noted how the American Beverage Association was opposed to a tax and played a clip of president and CEO Susan Neely explaining: "It won’t work. If it’s supposed to solve a complicated problem like obesity, the tax is not going to change behaviors." Miller disagreed: "A study released today suggests it would, claiming an 18% price increase on soda would lead people to trim 56 calories from a daily diet. That’s a five-pound weight loss over a year." Bobby Popkin from the Nutrition Department of the Gilling School of Public Health, UNC added: "It’s the first study to actually follow people over time and show this…increase in prices will matter for our public’s health."

Anchor Katie Couric introduced the story by equating the American people with school children: "For years there’s been an effort to make students healthier by keeping sugary soft drinks out of schools. And a report out today says it seems to be working….Now Michelle Miller tells us this campaign is expanded beyond the classroom and from kids to adults."

Continue reading...

Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli (R) has caused students across the Old Dominion to "rise up for gay rights,"* reporters Daniel de Vise and Rosalind Helderman insisted on the March 9 Metro section front page of the Washington Post.

Helderman and de Vise failed to consider the liberal leanings of the protesters, tagging the demonstrators in the lead paragraph as mere "campus activists" who are steamed over the state AG’s "letter advising public universities to retreat from their policies against discrimination on the basis of sexual orienation." A few paragraphs later, Helderman and de Vise suggested that an "erosion in gay rights at state universities" would have detrimental effects on attracting and retaining students and faculty.

The problem is, Cuccinelli’s legal opinion does not mandate a "retreat" from discrimination, he just noted that under Virginia law, any change in non-discrimination policy wording must be authorized by legislation.

Counseled Cuccinelli:

It is my advice that the law and public policy of the Commonwealth of Virginia prohibit a college or university from including ’sexual orientation,’ ‘gender identity,’ ‘gender expression,’ or like classification, as a protected class within its nondiscrimination policy, absent specific authorization from the General Assembly.

What’s more, reports the Associated Press, Virginia colleges and universities cannot discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation anyway, pursuant to a ruling by the U.S. Supreme Court:

The attorney general said his letter merely stated Virginia law, which prohibits discrimination because of "race, color, religion, national origin, sex, pregnancy, childbirth or related medical conditions, age, marital status, or disability," but makes no mention of sexual orientation.

Cuccinelli said the criticism was coming from people who have been frustrated in their attempts to change the law.

"None of them suggest our reading of the law is wrong. It’s people who don’t like the policy speaking up because it’s their opportunity to go on the attack," he said.

The American Civil Liberties Union of Virginia legal director Rebecca Glenberg said colleges are bound by U.S. Supreme Court decisions not to discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation.

The Attorney General’s ruling cannot overrule the High Court on this matter of policy, but Cuccinelli has every right to advise state agencies if and when they are deviating from the letter of the law.

The Virginia electorate, acting through their legislature, is more than free to change the law to specifically list "sexual orientation" on state institution non-discrimination policies. 

But that’s not as juicy a newspaper article as one that loads its language with the objective of demonizing a conservative Republican office holder.

*"Students rise up for gay rights" was the print headline. The washingtonpost.com version headline reads, "Students irate at Cuccinelli over gay-rights policies."

Continue reading...

MSNBC’s David Shuster on Tuesday continued to attack the National Republican Congressional Committee (NRCC) for the organization’s reference to Charlie Rangel as a "Harlem Democrat." He reiterated, "I pointed out the NRCC did not call him a corrupt New York Democrat or just corrupt. Rather, a corrupt Harlem Democrat. And I asked a guest if this was racially tinged."

Shuster, however, was silent on the fact that MSNBC reporter Luke Russert basically did the same thing. Appearing on the March 3 edition of the Ed Show, he commented on Democrats who wanted to strip the controversial Rangel of his chairmanship.

Russert explained that these politicians are in "conservative districts, who really saw problems back home in their rural districts in the mountains being associated with a Harlem Democrat who writes the nation’s tax laws who a lot of folks say is not paying their taxes." Does this mean that Luke Russert is using "racially tinged" language? Will Shuster call on his colleague to apologize? (Hat tip to Clay Waters of Times Watch for noting the Russert comment.)

Shuster recounted the E-mails he received slamming him for challenging the NRCC: "First of all, I didn’t say the NRCC or the press release was racist. I asked a guest if it was racially tinged." So, Shuster wasn’t calling Republicans racist, just wondering if they were racist-leaning?

Shuster first attacked the NRCC on Monday for releasing a press release on Rangel which used the supposedly controversial term. More on the original story can be found here.

A transcript of Shuster’s comments, which aired at 3:55pm EST, follow:

DAVID SHUSTER: Finally, I received several complaints about a segment I did yesterday that touched on New York Democrat Charlie Rangel. During the segment, I reported on a press release by the National Republican Congressional Committee, or NRCC. It described Rangel twice as, quote, "a corrupt Harlem Democrat " I pointed out the NRCC did not call him a corrupt New York Democrat or just corrupt. Rather, a corrupt Harlem Democrat. And I asked a guest if this was racially tinged. Several of you e-mailed, "You blank-edy blank! Harlem is in Rangel’s district? And how dare you say this was racist?" First of all, I didn’t say the NRCC or the press release was racist. I asked a guest if it was racially tinged. Secondly, note the difference between the NRCC’s treatment of Rangel and their approach towards other Democrats. An NRCC press release criticizing Representative Earl Pomery calls him a North Dakota Democrat, not a Bismarck Democrat. A press release criticizing Representative Michael McMahon calls him a New York Democrat, not a Staten Island Democrat. But, Rangel gets called a corrupt Harlem Democrat. I stand by my reporting on this and I stand by my questioning as to whether the press release by the National Republican Congressional Committee was racially tinged. I’ve asked officials at the NRCC to come on the show and respond. So far, they’ve refused. I’ll keep you posted.

Continue reading...

On Tuesday, Cisco finally unveiled the new product it’s been claiming “will forever change the Internet and its impact on consumers, businesses and governments.”
What is it? A new industrial router.
According to Cisco, the CRS-3 router, to be sold to large Internet service providers, can carry 12 times more online traffic than previous industrial routing systems [...]

Continue reading...

Welcome! Please Enter…

Continue reading...

Stop before you pop! Those Pringles may contain salmonella!
Procter & Gamble is recalling two flavors of Pringles potato chips:

Pringles Restaurant Cravers Cheeseburger in the Super Stack canister (UPC Code 3700026936, Best By dates 02/2011 and 04/2011)
Pringles Family Faves Taco Night in the Super Stack canister (UPC Code 3700026773, Best By dates 03/2011, 04/2011 and 05/2011)

The recall [...]

Continue reading...

The New York Times published a scathing editorial Sunday condemning Americans who have the audacity to request that attorneys who represented terrorists not set national legal policy. The Times smeared them and their elected representatives as McCarthyites, and criticized them for noting that colossal conflict of interest.

"It is not the first time that the right has tried to distract Americans from the real issues surrounding detention policy by attacking lawyers," the Times states of controversy over Attorney General Eric Holder’s reluctance to inform Congress who in the Justice Department has represented alleged terrorists, and in what capacity are they now serving.

But the left has done just that — use nominees’ records as means to block their appointments — and the Times hasn’t complained. So why the sudden outrage? Well, the paper’s liberal editorial board doesn’t mind when the left attacks. But when conservatives demand answers, they are evil McCarthyites on a political witch hunt.

Of course the Times uses nice-sounding terms like "democratic justice" to argue that detainees deserve the same rights as criminal defendants, conspicuously ignoring not only rationale to the contrary, but in fact the chief complaint of Holder’s critics: people who argued for the release of individuals waging war on the United States are now in charge of prosecuting those same aggressors. Holder knows that the American people would not approve, so he has been stonewalling.

But the real dishonesty in the Times’s complaints is the paper’s glaring double standard on executive appointments. It seems that when nominees or appointees are criticized for some past position that the Times supports, the attacks are reminiscent of McCarthyism and designed to score "cheap political points."

But when the Times agrees with the attackers, well, this sort of outrage is noticeably absent.

Where was the paper’s disdain for the ideological and political attacks on Carolyn Kuhl, President Bush’s nominee to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals? As a 29-year-old lawyer with the Justice Department, Kuhl had urged the Attorney General to reverse an IRS decision denying tax-exempt status to Bob Jones University.

The Times doesn’t like Bob Jones University, so there was no outrage over the use of Kuhl’s stance on the issue to block her nomination.

Or what about William Myers, nominated to the same court — why was the Times not outraged over his blocked nomination? Well, the Times didn’t like him either because he was a former lobbyist for the mining industry.

The Times even made sure to quote Sen. Charles Schumer condemning Myers’s record: ”Your record screams ‘passionate advocate’ and it doesn’t even whisper ‘impartial judge,’ ” Schumer said. Why didn’t this spark an angry editorial from the Times? Aren’t lobbyists agents of our First Amendment right to redress, just as the "Gitmo 7" are supposedly agents of the Sixth?

Former Bush Administration speechwriter Marc Thiessen, author of the new book Courting Disaster, provided another stark example of the Times’s double standard in a column for the Washington Post:

Where was the moral outrage when fine lawyers like John Yoo, Jay Bybee, David Addington, Jim Haynes, Steve Bradbury and others came under vicious personal attack? Their critics did not demand simple transparency; they demanded heads. They called these individuals "war criminals" and sought to have them fired, disbarred, impeached and even jailed. Where were the defenders of the "al-Qaeda seven" when a Spanish judge tried to indict the "Bush six"? Philippe Sands, author of the "Torture Team," crowed: "This is the end of these people’s professional reputations!" I don’t recall anyone accusing him of "shameful" personal attacks.

The standard today seems to be that you can say or do anything when it comes to the Bush lawyers who defended America against the terrorists. But if you publish an Internet ad or ask legitimate questions about Obama administration lawyers who defended America’s terrorist enemies, you are engaged in a McCarthyite witch hunt.

Thiessen also dispels the Times’s claims that alleged terrorists are entitled to legal defense of the same order as everyday criminals.

Some defenders say al-Qaeda lawyers are simply following a great American tradition, in which everyone gets a lawyer and their day in court. Not so, says Andy McCarthy, the former assistant U.S. attorney who put Omar Abdel Rahman, the "blind sheik," behind bars for the 1993 World Trade Center bombing. "We need to be clear about what the American tradition is," McCarthy told me. "The Sixth Amendment guarantees the accused — that means somebody who has been indicted or otherwise charged with a crime — a right to counsel. But that right only exists if you are accused, which means you are someone who the government has brought into the civilian criminal justice system." The habeas lawyers were not doing their constitutional duty to defend unpopular criminal defendants. They were using the federal courts as a tool to undermine our military’s ability to keep dangerous enemy combatants off the battlefield in a time of war.

If lawyers who once sought to free captured terrorists are now setting U.S. policy when it comes to the release of Guantanamo detainees, moving terrorists to the United States, trying senior al-Qaeda leaders in civilian courts, and whether to give captured terrorists Miranda rights, then, as Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) put it, the public has "a right to know who advises the attorney general and the president on these critical matters." Only when this information is public can members of Congress judge whether these individuals have properly recused themselves or whether they should be involved in detainee matters at all. The charge of McCarthyism is intended to intimidate those raising legitimate questions into silence. But asking such questions is not McCarthyism. It’s oversight.

Of course for the Times, oversight was only important when Republicans were the ones setting policy.

Continue reading...

Lindsay Lohan has filed a $100 million lawsuit against E-Trade over a commercial that aired during the Superbowl and Olympics.
The commercial features talking babies, as many of E-Trade’s previous ads have. But in this one, a baby refers to another baby as “that milkaholic, Lindsay.”
Lindsay Lohan’s battles with drugs and alcohol have been in the [...]

Continue reading...

CNN’s Kate Bolduan aired a slanted report on Catholic Charities of Washington’s decision to no longer offer benefits to spouses of new employees on Saturday’s Newsroom, playing four sound bites from proponents of same-sex "marriage" and none from opponents. Bolduan also omitted the liberal affiliation of one of the homosexual "marriage" advocates.

During the report, which first aired 11 minutes into the 10 pm Eastern hour (and reran during the 1 pm Eastern hour on Monday), the correspondent noted how homosexual couples could get their civil marriage licenses in DC starting on Tuesday, and that there was "controversial fallout" from the move: "Catholic Charities, the social services arm of the Archdiocese of Washington, just announced it will no longer offer health benefits to spouses of any new employees or current employees who aren’t already covered under its plan. As a result, the nonprofit is effectively avoiding having to give benefits to same-sex partners, keeping with the Church’s opposition to same-sex marriage."

Bolduan spent the rest of her report playing the four clips from the supporters of legal homosexual "marriage." Three came from Chris Hinkle, who was labeled a "gay Catholic activist" on-screen and described by the correspondent as "gay and a practicing Catholic" (who admitted he wasn’t practicing the Church’s teaching on sexuality by maintaining a relationship with her "partner" for 10 years), and the remaining one came from Chris Korzen of Catholics United. CNN mentioned Korzen’s organization on-screen, but Bolduan didn’t mention their liberal affiliation, nor that he served as an organizer for the left-wing Service Employees International Union.

BOLDAUN (on-camera): How long have you and your partner been together?

CHRIS HINKLE, GAY CATHOLIC ACTIVIST: We’ve been together for 10 years.

BOLDUAN (voice-over): Chris Hinkle is gay and a practicing Catholic. He lives in Virginia and worships in Washington. Hinkle views the developments in D.C. as two steps forward, and quickly, two steps back for the gay and lesbian community and its strained relationship with the Catholic Church.

BOLDUAN (on-camera): Why is it disappointing to you?

HINKLE: It’s a slap in the face. Yeah, it’s prejudice.

BOLDUAN: Catholic Charities declined to comment, but the Archdiocese of Washington made a point to say that less than 10 percent of Catholic Charities employees take part in its health insurance program, suggesting that a small portion of the staff will be affected by the change in policy.

BOLDUAN (voice-over): And in a statement, the archdiocese says, ‘This approach allows Catholic Charities to continue to provide services to the 68,000 people it now cares for in the city, to comply with the city’s new requirements and to remain faithful to our Catholic identity.’ A stance some Catholics say is damaging the Church’s public image.

CHRIS KORZEN, DIRECTOR, CATHOLICS UNITED: They’re getting a view of the Church that isn’t necessarily consistent with our values. We don’t say that people don’t deserve health insurance because they happen to be in a certain kind of marriage or a certain kind of relationship. That’s just not what we teach.

BOLDUAN: The very same message Chris Hinkle is trying to send as he fights for acceptance.

HINKLE: I want people to treat others with justice. That is a message that I think Jesus Christ himself had exemplified.

BOLDUAN (on-camera): And in today’s world, you think that applies to health care, as well as the right to marry?

HINKLE: Absolutely it does. Absolutely.

The CNN correspondent did read the excerpt from the Archdiocese of Washington’s statement, but she couldn’t seem to find any orthodox Catholics who would vouch for the Church’s teaching on marriage and sexuality.

Continue reading...

Nightline’s Chris Bury on Monday investigated the so-called 9/11 Truth movement, but made no effort to look at the ideological make up of those who believe that the government was behind the 2001 terror attacks. Reporting from the group’s convention, he asserted, "Over the weekend hundreds of Americans calling themselves 9/11 Truthers gathered at Valley Forge, Pennsylvania. They come from all over the political spectrum."

However, according to a 2007 poll by Rasmussen, 35 percent of Democrats believed that President Bush knew about the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001 in advance. Yet, Bury blandly explained, "They are an eclectic group with widely different agenda, including war protestors, first responders who feel neglected and families of some 9/11 victims."

Bury did highlight one attendee, Sander Hicks, noting, that he "want[s] treason charges brought against members of the Bush administration." However, there is no mention of the Rasmussen poll about Democrats. Now, Truthers don’t reside only on the left, but why ignore the fact that many do?

In contrast, on August 14, 2009, ABC reporter Brian Ross tried to tie conservative town hall protesters to hate groups. Appearing on Good Morning America, he played clips from the spokesman of the liberal Southern Poverty Law Center, Mark Potok. Potok hyped that Barack Obama "triggered fears among…white people…that they are somehow losing their country."

On the February 02, 2010 edition of MSNBC News Live, host David Shuster asserted that "Most Republicans are birthers," referring to the conspiracy theory that Barack Obama wasn’t born in America.

To his credit, Bury did at least explain, "Former Obama environmental czar Van Jones forced out after signing an online petition for 9/11 truth that he later repudiated."

In an interesting exchange, the reporter noted that a former Time magazine Person of the Year appeared at the 9/11 Truth convention: "Others such as former FBI whistleblower Coleen Rowley, one of Time’s 2002 Persons of the Year, are convinced that the government is still covering up what it knows."

She repeatedly refused to say whether the U.S. government murdered its own citizens on September 11. (Time Magazine sure knows how to pick their Person of the Year.)

A partial transcript of the March 9 segment follows:

CYNTHIA MCFADDEN: The three Pentagon police officers who killed gunman John Patrick Bedell during his attack on the Pentagon last week spoke publicly today for the first time. One officer described Bedell’s demeanor as, quote, "one you know from combat." But why did Bedell do it? Before the shooting, authorities say he had posted anti-government rants online, including his belief that 9/11 was a vast government conspiracy. As Chris Bury now reports, he is hardly the only person to feel that way.

[Montage]

UNIDENTIFIED MAN #1: Our government is absolutely complicit in a grand cover-up.

UNIDENTIFIED MAN #2: The United States orchestrated, facilitated the death of my son.

UNIDENTIFIED MAN #3: It’s extremely important that we know the whole truth about 9/11.

CHRIS BURY: Over the weekend hundreds of Americans calling themselves 9/11 truthers gathered at Valley Forge, Pennsylvania. They come from all over the political spectrum. What they share is a deep and unbending distrust of the official explanation. Many believe the 9/11 attacks were an inside job.

BETSY METZ (CONFERENCE ORGANIZER): I just call it a cover-up. There’s a cover-up. There’s absolutely a cover-up.

BURY: The driving force here, a housewife from suburban Philadelphia who plunked down $20,000 of her own money to stage the convention. A lot of people are going to look at this and wonder are you part of kind of a lunatic fringe.

METZ: There is a lunatic fringe, absolutely. But, we’re trying to keep the crazies out of here, because we’re just average Americans. I’m just a housewife and mom that wants the truth.

BURY: Such doubts have spawned an entire cottage industry of 9/11 conspiracy. The movement is knitted together on the internet, a viral community of true believers. It’s gospel, the film Loose Change is the most downloaded videos in Google history. Its young producers, stars in this convention, disavow any connection to violent extremists such as John Patrick Bedell, killed in that Pentagon shootout last week.

DYLAN AVERY (DIRECTOR): We know that the news said that he might have been a truther, but that’s it. That’s all we know. I don’t support violence. It’s that simple.

KOREY ROWE (PRODUCER): They’re trying to already equate us with this man and trying to say that the 9/11 truth movement is a militia, gun toting, you know, anti-government conspiracy. It couldn’t be any farther from the truth.

[Loose Change clip]: And we are told that these massive structures were destroyed by 10,000 gallons of jet fuel.

…

BURY: They are an eclectic group with widely different agenda, including war protestors, first responders who feel neglected and families of some 9/11 victims. Some of the truthers including Sander Hicks want treason charges brought against members of the Bush administration. What do you do in your day job?

SANDER HICKS: I play music in the church.

BURY: Do you consider yourself a conspiracy theorist?

HICKS: That is a loaded question, Chris, because the word conspiracy theorist tends to mean discredited whacko. I consider myself a scientist and a historian. I would not base any of this 9/11-

BURY: A scientist and a historian? I thought you were a musician?

HICKS: I am an author and researcher. I rely on science and history in my work on 9/11.

BURY: Others such as former FBI whistleblower Coleen Rowley, one of Time’s 2002 Persons of the Year, are convinced that the government is still covering up what it knows. A lot of the people here believe that the government helped murder innocent Americans. Do you share their belief, the belief of the people at this convention?

COLLEEN: ROWLEY (Ex-FBI): Well, you know, of course, anytime you get a group together, I don’t care what group it is-

BURY: So do you believe it or not?

ROWLEY: Do I believe what?

BURY: Yeah. Do you believe that the American government helped kill innocent Americans?

ROWLEY: Well, when you - again, let me - you’re kind of trying to almost put me on an interrogation.

BURY: No. Well let me put it-

ROWLEY: You know what you me of is when I was an FBI agent.

BURY: Okay, let me do it - let me do it a different way.

ROWLEY: No, what I believe is that the full truth, and actually the 9/11 commissioners now say this too, is not known. Absolutely.

Continue reading...