Profile for Jung So Min
Name: 정소민 / Jung So Min
Real name: 김윤지 / Kim Yoon Ji
Profession: Actress
Birthdate: 1989-Mar-16
TV Shows
Bad Guy (SBS, 2010)
The Conservative Paper
The News Without The Left’s Bias
15
Jul
On Thursday’s Newsroom, CNN’s Don Lemon conducted a confrontational interview of a black tea party member and disputed his assertion that the U.S. is "more divided now, racially, than any other time in modern history." Lemon bizarrely reached back to the Confederacy to challenge his guest’s claim: "Some of the reasons for the Civil War….was racism….How can you say the country is more divided now?"
The CNN anchor brought on the Reverend C. L. Bryant during a segment eight minutes into the 10 am Eastern hour to discuss the NAACP’s recent condemnation of the tea party’s "racism." After playing a clip of Bryant from the 2009 9/12 tea party rally in Washington, DC, where the tea party leader accused the Obama administration of "building walls of racism… [and] class-ism," Lemon first asked, "What do you think about this new resolution from the NAACP?" Bryant replied, "Well, unfortunately, those types of statements…are echoes of the left at this point in time."
Lemon then challenged the tea party leader both on his "wall of racism" accusation against the Obama White House and on his political labeling of the NAACP: "You just said that was a message that was coming from the left when you were talking about the NAACP’s message. Now…you said in the speech- you brought up racism. You said that the President was building walls of racism…. how can you say it’s just coming from the left when you just said the same thing?"
When Rev. Bryant gave his "more divided" line in response, the anchor made his Civil War reference as part of his retort:
BRYANT: There are walls that have been built of racism in this country since this administration has taken oath of office, and I say that to say this- this country is more divided now, racially, than any other time in modern history, and one of the reasons for that, I feel and fear, is because it is very convenient to play the race card when you have a black president. But if anyone voted for this president because of his color, then I would say to you, that was very foolish.
LEMON: Well, how you can say that this country is more divided than ever? I mean, when you think about the- you know, some of the reasons for the Civil War- I mean, it was racism. The country was divided, I mean, actually divided along a line. That’s what the Mason Dixon line was all about. How can you say the country is more divided now? I mean, it’s not- for lack of a better word, that black and white because there’s progress in other ways. I’m sitting here on television. You’re doing what you are doing. I don’t know if we would be doing this at some other point in time.
The Civil War is "modern history"? The 150th anniversary of the beginning of the Civil War is next year in 2011.
Bryant tried to clarify what he meant, but this resulted in another challenge from Lemon:
BRYANT: When we take into consideration since 1965, when I received the right to vote, and where we sit now, as you very adeptly said here in 2010, and you and I both are on television, and we have the opportunities we have- but yet, we’re still talking about race in this country. There evidently is a place of division that exists in modern society, not since the Civil War, but since 1965-
LEMON: Are you saying we shouldn’t be talking about it? We shouldn’t talk about race?
BRYANT: I’m sorry- say again.
LEMON: Are you saying we shouldn’t talk about race?
BRYANT: Of course, we must talk about race, but it must have a more intellectual tone-
LEMON: Okay.
BRYANT: Because African-Americans in this country are now more diverse than we ever have been before.
Near the end of the interview, the CNN anchor emulated his colleague Rick Sanchez from the previous evening in bringing up the two most egregious example of racially-charged imagery from tea party rallies:
LEMON: As I’m talking to you now, you’re seeing the pictures of people- you know, with monkeys; ObamaCare, with the thing- the bone through his nose and all of that, and you’ve been to these tea party rallies. Have you not seen any of these sort of things- signs and elements?
BRYANT: Out of the thousands of people that attend tea party rallies, we are very hard-pressed to police any foolishness that you may see in those types of signs, and as I said earlier, we have discouraged and do denounce anyone who brings those types of signs to any of our rallies. That’s not what we’re about-
LEMON: And I think that’s what the NAACP- that’s what the resolution is about, and Ben Jealous said he’s not saying that the entire tea party or the tea party group- that they are racist. He’s saying that the tea party should denounce the racist elements. Do you agree or disagree with that?
BRYANT: We have denounced those elements, and we call upon the NAACP to denounce the murderous comments that were made by [Black] Panther members last week. If, in fact, we’re going to play this particular game, then let’s make it fair and balanced. If, in fact, they call on us to denounce a certain element of the right, then they must, too, come to the table and denounce certain elements that are, evidently, on the left.
LEMON: Nice talking to you, Reverend C.L. Bryant- and a civil conversation, as we should be talking about all issues. Thank you, sir.
Lemon may have had a "civil conversation" with his guest, at least when you compare it to his past labeling of the tea party movement and other conservatives. During an April 9, 2010 segment on CNN’s Rick’s List with former Congressman J. C. Watts, the anchor insisted that the "Republican and conservative side" was "much, much more" guilty of using hate/inflammatory language than the "Democratic side." Days earlier, on March 27, Lemon convicted Sarah Palin and tea partiers of "inciting violence." And on September 12, 2009, he praised left-wing HBO host Bill Maher for accusing Obama’s conservatives opponents of being motivated by race: "Finally, someone’s talking about this."
15
Jul
It has become clear that the Democratic establishment does not have as much of an interest in press freedom as they would have the public believe. But what is even more telling is the media’s spotty response to censorship efforts in the Gulf of Mexico.
On Wednesday, House Natural Resouces Democrats rejected an amendment that would ensure press transparency in the Gulf. The amendment came mere days after the Coast Guard rescinded a policy keeping journalists at least 65 feet from "essential recovery efforts."
Offered by Rep. Paul Broun, pictured right, the amendment stated: "Except in cases of imminent harm to human life, federal officials shall allow free and open access to the media of oil spill clean up activity occurring on public lands or public shorelines, including the BP Deepwater Horizon oil spill.”
Since the amendment’s defeat, the response from the mainstream press has been a deafening silence.
Democrats ruled it was not germane to the legislation at hand, the Consolidated Land, Energy, and Aquatic Resources (CLEAR) Act. That might seem like a plausible explanation for Democrats’ rejection of the Broun amendment, but as the Washington Examiner’s Mark Hemingway noted, there was a "wide array of items being attached to the bill that are of no particular relevance to the gulf oil spill."
In fact, Republicans offered an amendment specifically designed to remove provisons they called "unrelated to offshore drilling and the Gulf oil spill response or require additional information and facts from multiple ongoing investigations."
These items include a $150 million annual authorization for the next 30 years for the Historic Preservation Fund, which provides grants to states and localities to preserve historic landmarks.
Other items, according to a Committee statement, include
Renewable Energy. An entire section of this bill is exclusively dedicated to onshore renewable energy. Wind turbines and solar panels hundreds of miles away from the Gulf have absolutely nothing to do with a leaking deepwater oil well that is 5,000 feet under the ocean floor.
Onshore Energy Development. Rather than just focusing on offshore drilling, the bill makes numerous changes to onshore energy development. These policies will do nothing to help clean up the Gulf, but will seriously impact onshore American energy production leading to higher energy prices and lost jobs.
Aquaculture. The bill restricts the ability of the Secretary of Commerce and Regional Fishery Management Councils from developing or approving any fishery management plan that permits or regulates offshore aquaculture. In addition, it would nullify any permit for offshore aquaculture already granted by the Secretary. Not only is this unrelated to the oil spill, but could lead to further job loss in the Gulf and potentially hinder fishery restoration activities.
Uranium Leasing. The bill amends the Mineral Leasing Act to make uranium a leasable mineral, subject to rental and royalty rates. Creating a new uranium leasing program will not help respond to the crisis in the Gulf, but will make uranium, which is used to produce carbon-free nuclear energy, more expensive and difficult to mine.
Wildlife Sustainability. A provision in this bill calls for the Secretaries of the Interior and Agriculture to help maintain sustainable populations of native and desire non-native plants and animals on lands under their jurisdiction. Managing onshore federal lands for wildlife has nothing to do with offshore drilling or Gulf Coast restoration.
"Looking at the number of largely unrelated items that are actually in the bill," wrote the Wasington Examiner’s Mark Hemingway,
it’s hard to see the rejection of Broun’s amendment as anything other than political. Democrats seem far more concerned about how unrestricted press coverage of the oil spill might affect their political fortunes than whether or not amendments to the CLEAR Act have to be “germane.”
For his part, Broun touted the necessity of his amendment as reinforcing the press’s role as a safeguard against malfeasance on the part of the Obama administration — you know, the check on power that journalists are so proud to provide. Anderson Cooper had made a similar statement regarding the Coast Guard’s now-defunct policy.
Broun said in a statement,
There have been several accounts of the Obama Administration restricting access and stopping the press from thoroughly reporting on this oil spill. The media has a responsibility to not only accurately report the news but to keep everyone associated with the spill accountable. President Obama promised transparency, but we have seen numerous examples where that is not the case. There is no excuse for reporters and photographers to be denied access to public places unless their life is in imminent danger. This amendment is necessary in order to eliminate any confusion and ensure that First Amendment rights truly are protected.
As I reminded readers in a previous post, a number of organizations devoted to ensuring press freedom were up in arms after Hurricane Katrina at a FEMA policy that forbade journalists from embedding on rescue missions, citing the safety of those reporters and the victims being rescued.
In an attempt to address similar concerns, Broun’s amendment makes sure to issue the caveat, "Except in cases of imminent harm to human life." The amendment was still rejected. We will see if those same watchdog organizations take notice.
For its part, the mainstream press is conspicuously silent on the Broun amendment’s defeat.
15
Jul
In the last two days, CBS has reported on its latest poll, emphasizing that Americans are pessimistic about an improving economy, with a little emphasis on how their measure of Barack Obama’s approval rating (44 percent) has tied his lowest number in their poll. But none of the CBS on-air stories have mentioned the poll’s findings on how the approval of ObamaCare has shrunk by seven points. Stephanie Condon reported for the CBS News Political Hotsheet:
Americans continue to be more likely to disapprove than approve of President Obama’s sweeping health care reforms, a new CBS News poll shows. While approval of the law is slightly higher than it was when the reforms were signed into law in March, support for the measure has dropped seven points in the past two months.
Forty-nine percent of Americans now disapprove of the health care reform measure, according to the poll, which was conducted July 9-12. Thirty-six percent support the law.
Americans continue to see little personal benefit from the health care reform legislation. By more than two to one, Americans think it will hurt (33 percent) rather than help them (13 percent). Forty-eight percent expect the reform to have no effect on them personally.
The Early Show reported poll results on Tuesday and Wednesday morning, but not about health care. On Tuesday’s Evening News, reporter Dean Reynolds found a grumpy public (and tried to explain away their disapproval):
KATIE COURIC: As this crisis in the Gulf enters a 13th week, a CBS News poll out tonight finds more than half of Americans disapprove of how President Obama is handling it and his overall job approval rating is down three points, tying his all-time low of 44 percent. National correspondent Dean Reynolds is in Chicago tonight and, Dean, this seems to be the summer of our discontent.
DEAN REYNOLDS: Boy, it seems that way, Katie. Pessimism just permeate this survey, along with a gathering sense that the man in charge is not doing enough to alleviate it…Indeed, in our new CBS News poll, the economy is seen as the biggest problem facing the country by far and specifically the lack of jobs.
WALTER POWELL, CALIFORNIA RESIDENT: A job period! A job, you know? Most people they can`t get jobs.
REYNOLDS: 52 percent say the president has spent too little time addressing the issue and 63 percent say his economic programs have had no effect on them personally. That’s politically ominous for Obama and probably frustrating given that a number of independent economic research organizations say at least 2 million jobs were created or saved by the stimulus. And yet 75 percent of the country believes the effects of the recession will last two more years or longer.
On screen, the economic research organizations said to claim 2.3 million jobs saved or created are Moody’s economy.com and IHS Global Insight. But Reynolds is overstating those groups’ estimates, according to PolitiFact:
Separately, the council’s report cited four independent analyses of the same question. These estimates were by the Congressional Budget Office, Congress’ nonpartisan number-crunching arm, as well by three private-sector economic-analysis firms. Here’s what those groups found:
– CBO: Between 800,000 jobs (low estimate) and 2.4 million jobs (high estimate) saved or created.
– IHS/Global Insight: 1.25 million jobs saved or created.
– Macroeconomic Advisers: 1.06 million jobs saved or created.
– Moody’s economy.com: 1.59 million jobs saved or created.
In the report, Obama’s economic advisers argue that their estimates "are consistent with a broad consensus of numerous professional forecasters. The fact that such a range of public and private forecasters broadly agree with our assessment should increase confidence that the act is having a substantial stimulative effect."
But focusing on the 2 million figure, as Obama does, is a somewhat generous view of the data.
CBS seems to share that "generosity" with the estimates.