DebateGate
General Category => 3DHS => Topic started by: sirs on November 12, 2011, 04:22:12 PM
-
*disclaimer......sirs' position on MSM bias is that there is a predominance of reporting by the MSM favoring 1 ideology and/or political party over the other. It's manifested most offten by what's not reported vs what is, which should not be confused with articles that happen to be reported, merely buried or barely mentioned with any scrutiny or repetition when its about the left, vs when its about the right*
Hopefully that addresses any "incorrect" issues that some may wish to bring up with my subsequent postings in this thread 8)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Remember all the guff we got from the left and MSM regarding Cheney's no-bid contracts??
Cost, need questioned in $433-million smallpox drug deal
A company controlled by a longtime political donor gets a no-bid contract to supply an experimental remedy for a threat that may not exist.
By David Willman, Los Angeles Times November 13, 2011
Over the last year, the Obama administration has aggressively pushed a $433-million plan to buy an experimental smallpox drug, despite uncertainty over whether it is needed or will work.
Senior officials have taken unusual steps to secure the contract for New York-based Siga Technologies Inc., whose controlling shareholder is billionaire Ronald O. Perelman, one of the world's richest men and a longtime Democratic Party donor.
When Siga complained that contracting specialists at the Department of Health and Human Services were resisting the company's financial demands, senior officials replaced the government's lead negotiator for the deal, interviews and documents show.
When Siga was in danger of losing its grip on the contract a year ago, the officials blocked other firms from competing.
Siga was awarded the final contract in May through a "sole-source" procurement in which it was the only company asked to submit a proposal. The contract calls for Siga to deliver 1.7 million doses of the drug for the nation's biodefense stockpile. The price of approximately $255 per dose is well above what the government's specialists had earlier said was reasonable, according to internal documents and interviews.
Once feared for its grotesque pustules and 30% death rate, smallpox was eradicated worldwide as of 1978 and is known to exist only in the locked freezers of a Russian scientific institute and the U.S. government. There is no credible evidence that any other country or a terrorist group possesses smallpox.
If there were an attack, the government could draw on $1 billion worth of smallpox vaccine it already owns to inoculate the entire U.S. population and quickly treat people exposed to the virus. The vaccine, which costs the government $3 per dose, can reliably prevent death when given within four days of exposure.
Siga's drug, an antiviral pill called ST-246, would be used to treat people who were diagnosed with smallpox too late for the vaccine to help. Yet the new drug cannot be tested for effectiveness in people because of ethical constraints — and no one knows whether animal testing could prove it would work in humans.
The government's pursuit of Siga's product raises the question: Should the U.S. buy an unproven drug for such a nebulous threat?
"We've got a vaccine that I hope we never have to use — how much more do we need?" said Dr. Donald A. "D.A." Henderson, the epidemiologist who led the global eradication of smallpox for the World Health Organization and later helped organize U.S. biodefense efforts under President George W. Bush. "The bottom line is, we've got a limited amount of money."
Dr. Thomas M. Mack, an epidemiologist at USC's Keck School of Medicine, battled smallpox outbreaks in Pakistan and has advised the Food and Drug Administration on the virus. He called the plan to stockpile Siga's drug "a waste of time and a waste of money."
The Obama administration official who has overseen the buying of Siga's drug says she is trying to strengthen the nation's preparedness. Dr. Nicole Lurie, a presidential appointee who heads biodefense planning at Health and Human Services, cited a 2004 finding by the Bush administration that there was a "material threat" smallpox could be used as a biological weapon.
Smallpox is one of 12 pathogens for which such determinations have been made.
"I don't put probabilities around anything in terms of imminent or not," said Lurie, a physician whose experience in public health includes government service and work with the Rand Corp. "Because what I can tell you is, in the two-plus years I've been in this job, it's the unexpected that always happens."
Negotiations over the price of the drug and Siga's profit margin were contentious. In an internal memo in March, Dr. Richard J. Hatchett, chief medical officer for HHS' biodefense preparedness unit, said Siga's projected profit at that point was 180%, which he called "outrageous."
In an email earlier the same day, a department colleague told Hatchett that no government contracting officer "would sign a 3 digit profit percentage."
In April, after Siga's chief executive, Dr. Eric A. Rose, complained in writing about the department's "approach to profit," Lurie assured him that the "most senior procurement official" would be taking over the negotiations.
"I trust this will be satisfactory to you," Lurie wrote Rose in a letter.
In an interview, Lurie said the contract was awarded strictly on merit. She said she had discussed buying a smallpox antiviral for the nation's emergency stockpile with White House officials and with HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius, but that the conversations focused on policy, not the manufacturer.
"We discussed the need for the product, and a need for a product to be stockpiled," Lurie said. "And we discussed an impending procurement."
Lurie denied that she had spoken with or written to Rose regarding the contract, saying such contact would have been inappropriate.
But in a subsequent statement, an HHS spokeswoman acknowledged Lurie's letter to Rose, saying it "reflects the critical importance of the potential procurement to national security."
Representatives of Siga, speaking on the condition they not be identified, said the new drug has been effective in animal testing and that the company is being paid a price commensurate with its value
Neither the HHS spokeswoman nor the Siga representatives would disclose the agreed-upon profit margin or the per-treatment price. Siga has cited terms of the contract in its public financial statements — but without those financial details.
May read rest of article here.....but suffice to say.....where's the "outrage"? Where's the MSM microscope? (http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-smallpox-20111113,0,4293298.story)
-
It's the economy stupid......not who runs or doesn't run Uzbekistan
According to a CBS News poll released Friday, around 60 percent of voters – the highest on record – disapprove of President Obama’s handling of the economy. While his overall job approval rating is significantly higher at 43 percent, only one President since World War II – Richard Nixon – was able to win a second term with approval ratings below 50% one year before Election Day.
It’s worth noting, though, that only 39% of Independents, according to the survey, are pleased with his job performance. Indeed, in a general election that will likely come down to the wire, these numbers suggest President Obama may lose a key voting bloc next November that helped catapult him to victory in 2008.
Those bleak numbers come just one day before eight Republican candidates hit the stage in Spartanburg, South Carolina, for the CBS News/National Journal debate on foreign policy at Wofford College.
On foreign policy, Mr. Obama's ratings are higher. About 45 percent of respondents approve of the job he is doing, compared to 41 percent who disapprove of his foreign policy performance.
On the specific subject of combating terrorism, about 63 percent approve of Mr. Obama's performance while 28 percent disapprove.
Don't expect this to be repeated in the MSM either. But boy, if this were a Republican Administration (http://townhall.com/tipsheet/danieldoherty/2011/11/12/obama_disapproval_rating_on_economy_hits_record_high)
-
I appreciate your disclaimer but i don't understand how you can say there is no coverage or is under the radarwhen a quick Google shows that the story has been reported in the LA Times and on Fox News, and numerous blogs, after breaking this morning.
-
"...should not be confused with articles that happen to be reported, merely buried or barely mentioned with any scrutiny or repetition when its about the left, vs when its about the right"
Which would include an article by the LA Times
-
Again, not to nitpick, but am I to accept your position without examining the facts?
The story is linked by Drudge, which means it will go viral in the next 24, at least in the blogosphere.
-
And what will validate my position, is the lack of such scrutiny and repetition......thus the 1st part of the dislcaimer.....that there is a predominance of reporting by the MSM favoring 1 ideology and/or political party over the other. It's manifested most offten by what's not reported vs what is
And my comments are specific to the MSM, not the "Blogosphere", which indeed can hold & repeat very diverse viewpoints
-
I'm not sure how your prove a negative, wheras it is easy to show exceptions to your rule, simple as posting a link.
Perhaps we just leave your position as an opinion, and not a fact.
-
It's always been an opinion....based on the mountain of evidence that supports it. It's not so much reporting of a negative as simply not being reported, as in no repetition or scrutiny, compared to if these were stories regarding a Republican administration
-
Your opinion doesn't seem to match up with the facts on numerous occasions.
Just an observation.
-
Your opinionated observation would be wrong, but that's ok, as that's just my opinion
-
Your opinionated observation would be wrong, but that's ok, as that's just my opinion
Should all observations be labeled opinionated? I observe that today in my area of the state the sky is blue, is that opinionated or just an observation backed by fact.
What do you mean by opinionated?
-
Certain opinions can be backed up by evidence and/or fact. Sky is blue would fit that. Your dog is ugly is an opinion based almost exclusively in one's perception of what is ugly, and what isn't. Opinion can also be shaded by a predisposed-bias, despite evidence and/or facts to the contrary....such as an observation that my opinion supposedly doesn't match up with facts on "numerous occasions".
But this line of debate is rather repetative and probably very boring to the other patrons. Let's move on, shall we
-
Well these are the facts that were included in my observation.
I knew about the vaccine before you posted it. And when you posted it it was a cut and paste from a MSM outlet. A quick Google showed that Fox was also echoing the story and then a check of Drudge showed he has also linked to the story.
This, a story that broke today.
I am not sure what your expectations are for fair and balanced reporting but in this case the story is out there.
And i'm more than glad to move-on, if that makes the defense of your position easier. Until the next time my observations do not match up with your opinion.
Because in the end that is what this place is all about, the examination of opinions and observations shared on this board with personal observations as to their verity.
-
Yea and........?
My expectation is that outside of Fox, don't expect any scrutiny or repetition, that was largely rabid during the Bush administration, and the no bid contracts that went to supposed Cheney & Bush connections. Not to mention the endless reporting on his polling #'s as Iraq and the supposed "worst economy since the depression" dragged on.
Nothing more to defend. The lack of any repetative follow-up, by the MSM folk, is all the back-up I need
Cudos to having read the story before I posted it. Drudge does a nice job at picking up things that the MSM pretty much lets die out, when its about one of their folk
-
The LA times is not Fox and they broke the story.l Fox echoed it. Drudge picked it up from there. I read about it on a blog before you posted it. And the blog got it from the LA Times , which is not Fox.
-
*disclaimer......sirs' position on MSM bias is that there is a predominance of reporting by the MSM favoring 1 ideology and/or political party over the other. It's manifested most offten by what's not reported vs what is, which should not be confused with articles that happen to be reported, merely buried or barely mentioned with any scrutiny or repetition when its about the left, vs when its about the right*
-
Like i said i appreciate your disclaimer, but i don't see where that requires me to accept your position blindly especially when it doesn't match observable fact.
But let's explore your position more closely and examine the parameters that would ease your concerns.
Is there a percentage of MSM outlets that must carry the story so that the story is considered covered?
Is there a number of days the same story must be repeated or regurgitated before it is considered covered?
Should the release of a story be coordinated amongst the MSM so as to make sure their is adequate dissemination of the information so as to inform the public at large?
Should the government get involved in this perceived disparity?
-
What I "expect" is that you allow me to have my disclaimer for me, that provides you and everyone else, what my position is, as it relates to MSM bias. Which means, presenting 1 story by the LA Times, in no way debunks my position. If you then presented 1 story by the NY Times, that also wouldn't
What WOULD, would be multiple MSM stories, with significant & repetative efforts at scrutinzing the donar, Obama's times, the Democrat's ties. What WOULD, would be frequent, repetative reporting on Obama's poll #'s, consistent with how Bush was reported on, on a daily basis by both the MSM and news anchors at the big networks
I'm not requiring anyone to agree with it, I'm merely pointing out the clear bias, and why its so. If your effort is to try and debunk it, you merely need to wait for additional reporting on the previous 2 articles I posted, and post them yourself. But referencing 1 report from 1 MSM does not a debunk make
-
Actually i gave you three reports.
But you are confusing me. Should a story about a vaccine and it's makers being given sole source status by the Obama administration and the connections of the owner of the company to the democrat party be required to include Obama's poll numbers in one of the paragraphs?
-
Say what?? And the 3 reports aren't the "repetition" that I'd be referring to. Especially when 1 is Fox and the other a blog. Now we're back to 1. As far as to your inquiry, no idea where you're going with that
As i said, if your effort is to try and debunk my conclusion on MSM bias (that you yourself have claimed present as well), you merely need to wait for additional reporting on the previous 2 articles I posted, and post them yourself....in order to debunk the both of us, I suppose.
-
except that your disclaimer used the words articles which is the plural of article meaning more than 1, so what is the quantity required to debunk?
So far i have the LA Times and Fox plus the mention on Drudge, but you say Fox doesn't count, for some reason.
-
I kinda agree with Sirs that there is a definite bias in the main part of the media.
But I am not surprised that he is having a hard time demonstrating it.
The easy part is finding surveys that reveal that Reporters and editors vote overwhelmingly Democratic and liberal.
The effect on their reporting is more subtle than a total ban on positive stories on Conservatives. They are generally smarter than this and they actually think that they can manage to produce unbiased reporting, perhaps they really do try .
The leaning is more like where they decide to place the middle marker, they just can't avoid making a judgement call on things like that and their judgement has to vary from the general public by their own values being to the left a bit.
How often do you hear a congressman introduced as "left leaning" or "leftist" or "representing the left"?Not nearly as often as you hear one being introduced as a "conservative", this is simply because the Media reporters and editors and even most of the owners place the middle point far to the left of where the general public would and thereby estimate as moderates almost the entire left.
Recently the radio news staff at NPR attempted to survey their own stories and with an eye to finding bias, the effort was lucridous. Ira Glass predicted "you won't find any" and he was perfectly right, they were totally unable to find evidence of their own leaning to the left. Hehehehe! it is like the people in China trying to discover themselves upside down, of course they are , but not from their own point of view.
Down at Fox News they really try to be "fair and balanced" and are not averse to the hiring of an occasional real leftist like Alan Combs or Juan Williams. Nobody is thinking that they are completely fair unless you are a righty or a real centrist, the more they attempt to be unbiased the more their unconscious rightness shines thru the real balance is in the choice of the audience.
Most of the left is well served by most of the media. The Right feels well served by only a few outlets.The best measure of this effect is that Fox is serving about half of the whole public and the other half is divided among all the rest.
Good business for Fox!
-
How often do you hear a congressman introduced as "left leaning" or "leftist" or "representing the left"?Not nearly as often as you hear one being introduced as a "conservative", this is simply because the Media reporters and editors and even most of the owners place the middle point far to the left of where the general public would and thereby estimate as moderates almost the entire left.
What is the remedy? Market-driven, which we have or government driven which some would like to apply to at a minimum to radio airwaves.
-
How often do you hear a congressman introduced as "left leaning" or "leftist" or "representing the left"?Not nearly as often as you hear one being introduced as a "conservative", this is simply because the Media reporters and editors and even most of the owners place the middle point far to the left of where the general public would and thereby estimate as moderates almost the entire left.
What is the remedy? Market-driven, which we have or government driven which some would like to apply to at a minimum to radio airwaves.
I am absolutely sanquine about it.
AS it IS!
The invisible hand of the market corrects without mercy or favor.
Fox does ten times the business of NBC because NBC serves an overserved market and Fox serves an underserved market.
Fox grows fat while all those left leaners graze the denuded pastures.
They even gaze wistfully through the fence at the greener grass on the other side.
As a conservative, I don't see the wisdom of requireing fairness when I benefit so well from the natural unfairness.
-
Would the same apply to the dead tree MSM?
Let the market sort it out?
-
Would the same apply to the dead tree MSM?
Let the market sort it out?
I am afaid so, even though I don't like the results I expect.
I have a near relation in Woodstock Ga., working on that paper.
It isn't the left vs right causing the Paper media to struggle , it is the paper.
-
except that your disclaimer used the words articles which is the plural of article meaning more than 1, so what is the quantity required to debunk?
Let me re-introduce the word "predominance". Include that with the ongoing useage of the words repetaive and scrutiny. Then you'll grasp that at no time does trying to pull up just 1, even 3 single stories from MSM outlets, Fox notwithstanding, since they are one of the few that is actually balanced, come remotely close to debunking. We need a level of saturation that generally only occurs during Republican administrations. But be patient, maybe they'll surprise us both, though given the track record, don't hold your breath. Also try to remember that Drudge is merely a link. It's not a MSM outlet like NBC or Fox, though on occasion, they will breal their own story
-
except that your disclaimer used the words articles which is the plural of article meaning more than 1, so what is the quantity required to debunk?
Let me re-introduce the word "predominance". Include that with the ongoing useage of the words repetaive and scrutiny. Then you'll grasp that at no time does trying to pull up just 1, even 3 single stories from MSM outlets, Fox notwithstanding, since they are one of the few that is actually balanced, come remotely close to debunking. We need a level of saturation that generally only occurs during Republican administrations. But be patient, maybe they'll surprise us both, though given the track record, don't hold your breath. Also try to remember that Drudge is merely a link. It's not a MSM outlet like NBC or Fox, though on occasion, they will breal their own story
The problem with Predominence is that it refers to the whole.
Reading everything is a huge task.
-
*disclaimer......sirs' position on MSM bias is that there is a predominance of reporting by the MSM favoring 1 ideology and/or political party over the other. It's manifested most offten by what's not reported vs what is, which should not be confused with articles that happen to be reported, merely buried or barely mentioned with any scrutiny or repetition when its about the left, vs when its about the right*
I'm not requiring anyone to agree with it, I'm merely pointing out the clear bias, and why its so. If the effort is to try and debunk it, one merely need to wait for a plethora of additional reporting on the previous 2 articles I posted, and post them. But referencing 1 report from 1 MSM (or even 3) does not a debunk make
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Couldn't help but notice no further reporting on the 2 specific prior posts, presented. Imagine that 8)
-
Good Morning, Barack!
With his poll numbers dropping like dissidents in Syria, President Barack Obama has to be hoping the national media will continue to help him out. Last time around, the network news organizations swooned over the junior senator from Illinois and marginalized his opponent, Sen. John McCain, as much as possible.
According to a new study by the conservative Media Research Center, the president has some reason to be optimistic about the media in 2012. The group examined the morning shows on ABC, CBS and NBC in order to ascertain campaign attitudes. The headlines are these:
-- So far in 2011, morning network correspondents have labeled Republican candidates as conservative 49 times. But only once have they referred to Obama as a liberal.
-- By a four-to-one margin, the morning show hosts have used adversarial questioning against Republican interview subjects as compared to Democratic guests.
-- The morning programs routinely run positive "human interest" stories about the president and his family. No Republican contender has received that kind of coverage.
The conclusion reached by the MRC is that the morning programs are not likely to "cheerlead" for the Obama campaign as some did in 2008. Instead, they will be more likely to scrutinize his Republican opposition.
Having worked at both CBS News and ABC News, I can tell you there is a managerial culture that is decidedly liberal. Some places are worse than others. Under Dan Rather, the CBS landscape was openly left. Under the late Peter Jennings, ABC News was more politically correct than agenda-driven. Jennings did not like political advocacy on either side.
Americans can expect a vicious campaign next year. The Republican candidate will have to go after Obama on his record, and that will bring hard blowback. Obama, himself, rarely uses personal attacks. But some of his supporters, especially on the Internet, certainly do. Gutter sniping will be all over the place.
Last time around, McCain did not take the fight to Obama, preferring to highlight his own experience for the country. That was a mistake that the Democrats exploited. Sen. Obama's political record was weak; he was essentially running on charisma. Instead of pinning him down on specific solutions to targeted problems, McCain allowed his young opponent to dazzle the public with rhetoric.
This time around, the Republicans have cold, hard facts to present to the American people. And the only answer to those damning statistics is diversion, pettifogging the issue with ginned up controversy and smoke.
We can expect the national media to embrace the pettifog and flog it all morning (and evening). The media are loath to admit any mistakes, and their support of Obama is on the record. There is little chance the Republican challenger will receive fair and balanced coverage.
Will media support for the president be enough to give him the edge in 2012?
If the vote is close, the answer most likely is yes (http://townhall.com/columnists/billoreilly/2011/11/19/good_morning,_barack!)
-
So-Called Electability and MSM Bias
It is open season for the liberal media on any GOP presidential candidate who displays the audacity to surge in the polls, the latest targets being Herman Cain and Newt Gingrich. A reasonable case can be made for some of these criticisms, and conservatives often concede the weaknesses, but there is no justification for this same media's ongoing cover-up for the current White House occupant.
Can you imagine how differently our political climate would be if the mainstream media had the slightest inclination toward fairness and balance? The liberal media have never, to my knowledge, shined the spotlight on Obama's many embarrassing gaffes. They have rarely called attention to his deceit, broken promises and policy failures.
Part of the reason is their presupposition that because he's a credentialed left-winger, he is brilliant, and any departure from that is a mere aberration, an exception that couldn't possibly detract from his presumptive brilliance. And as a bona fide "progressive," he is imbued with superior moral standards, and his misdeeds must be excused in exchange for his dedication to policies the liberal media deem are ethically unassailable.
From the mainstream media's perspective, conservatives, on the other hand, are presumptively dimwitted or morally bankrupt, because you can't be intelligent and conservative unless you're morally depraved. Ronald Reagan was an amiable dunce, despite his unparalleled ability to communicate; Dan Quayle was irredeemably simple because he misspelled "potato." George W. Bush was too stupid to tie his shoes (but inexplicably cunning enough to con erudite liberal congressmen into supporting him in his devious plot to depose Saddam Hussein).
GOP candidates magically become less competent or more corrupt the instant they show any signs of electability. Meanwhile, the MSM continue to ignore, defend and lie about Obama's abundant gaffes, policy failures, deceptions, divisiveness and extremism.
(sirs disclaimer excerpt......MSM is manifested most offten by what's not reported vs what is)
Think how different our discussions of electability would be if the liberal media were to:
--Dan-Quayle Obama for his "57 states" and Navy "corpse-man" gaffes.
--Play a video loop of his brain freezes and verbal stutter-steps.
--Showcase his shoutout to Dr. Joe Medicine Crow during what was expected to be a solemn expression of sorrow for the victims of the Fort Hood murderer.
--Air a montage of his bellicose attacks against Republicans, followed by clips in which he bitterly complained of their partisanship.
--Remind him of his immodest pledge to be a post-racial president while having ushered in an acutely race-conscious climate.
--Call him out for wasting $868 billion on a "stimulus" that Congressional Budget Office Director Douglas Elmendorf admitted would have "a net negative effect on the growth of GDP over 10 years."
--Refuse to ignore his cynical admission that he hadn't been altogether honest in claiming there were abundant "shovel-ready" jobs waiting in the wings.
--Point out that he promised to improve America's international image but has turned out to be even less popular in the Muslim world than President George W. Bush and has repeatedly offended our allies and their leaders, the most recent being Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.
--Highlight that Obama expressed solidarity with the Occupy Wall Street protesters, many of whom have been arrested for criminality, but demonized law-abiding tea partyers.
--Challenge Obama on his disingenuous commitment to make abortion "safe, legal and rare" while his administration has actively promoted the proliferation of abortion domestically, through its unswerving support for Planned Parenthood and its 900 abortions per day and through its taxpayer-funded lobbying for pro-abortion policies in Kenya and other nations.
--Report that Obama crammed through Obamacare on the false representation, aided by fraudulent accounting, that it would bend the health care cost curve down, even though it actually will greatly increase costs.
--Provide even the most rudimentary scrutiny of the twin scandals of Solyndra -- and its many green cousins -- and "Fast and Furious."
--Tell even part of the sordid tale of Obama's symbiotic relationship with ACORN and the Service Employees International Union.
--Ask Obama how he can be so high and mighty in condemning enhanced interrogation techniques on moral grounds despite knowing that with the implementation of those techniques in just three instances, many American lives were actually saved.
--Press him to explain his shaming Hillary Clinton during the 2008 Democratic primary race for proposing a health care insurance mandate and then brazenly making such a mandate a foundational component of Obamacare.
--Underscore his phony, though tepid and "evolving," opposition to same-sex marriage while he unleashes a full-frontal assault on traditional marriage through his extraconstitutional refusal to enforce it in court and his active effort to repeal it legislatively.
I speak of an imaginary world, but imagining it should serve to illustrate the extent to which the liberal media conspire to perpetuate a lingering illusion, to the immeasurable detriment of the nation (http://townhall.com/columnists/davidlimbaugh/2011/11/18/so-called_electability_and_msm_bias)
-
http://mediamatters.org/blog/201103090022 (http://mediamatters.org/blog/201103090022)
NPR bias? Nonono!
This article was persuasive and reasonable untill the very last line.
I suspect the relentless drive to defund NPR has very little to do with how the network has covered conservatives. Instead, it has much more with the conservative contempt for serious, independent journalism.
Hahahahahahaha!
-
(http://media.npr.org/assets/img/2011/11/18/bensoninvest_custom.jpg?t=1321643993&s=4)
NPR does this double take toon.
Opposing toons every time.
Neat.
http://www.npr.org/2011/11/19/142512757/double-take-toons-appealing-opportunity (http://www.npr.org/2011/11/19/142512757/double-take-toons-appealing-opportunity)
-
I heard last week, that its apparently LEGAL for congress critters to get away with insider trading.....stuff that would be ILLEGAL if you or I were to try pulling it....stuff like that that put Martha Stewart behind bars.....stuff that the OWS twits are all up in arms with....Wall Street
Where's there outrage at Congress??
Where's the MSM scrutiny, outside of 1 60 minutes episode?? Hell, even some Republicans have pulled this stuff. You'd think that would be an open invitation to reporting on the blatant double standard that DC seems to get, that private citizens and companies don't
-
quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
(http://media.npr.org/assets/img/2011/11/18/matsoninvest_custom.jpg?t=1321644076&s=4)
http://www.npr.org/2011/11/20/142511369/double-take-toons-capitol-investments (http://www.npr.org/2011/11/20/142511369/double-take-toons-capitol-investments)
quidquid Latine dictum sit altum videtur
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Latin_phrases:_Q (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Latin_phrases:_Q)
-
8) Priceless
-
Again, just imagine if this were a Republican Administration. Remember when Pelosi came in, as Speaker, with the montra of supposedly cleaning out the DC corruption? That it takes a woman?
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi fired back Sunday at a CBS News' "60 Minutes" report that highlighted several instances of what it suggested could be "soft corruption."
The show looked at the investments of various lawmakers -- including Pelosi, House Speaker John Boehner and Republican Rep. Spencer Bachus of Alabama -- who reportedly bought stocks around the same time legislation involving those investments was being discussed.
Pelosi and her husband participated in an initial public offering of Visa in 2008, according to CBS. They bought 5,000 shares at the initial price of $44; two days later, shares were trading at $64, CBS said.
The network reported the investment came at the same time a piece of legislation that was opposed by credit-card companies was making its way through the House.
"Congress has never done more for consumers nor has the Congress passed more critical reforms of the credit card industry than under the Speakership of Nancy Pelosi," Pelosi spokesman, Drew Hammill, said in a statement soon after the report aired Sunday night.
"It is very troubling that 60 Minutes would base their reporting off of an already-discredited conservative author who has made a career of out attacking Democrats," he added.
CBS said it used as a starting point for its story the research of Peter Schweizer, a fellow at the Hoover Institution, a conservative think tank at Stanford University.
About a year ago, he began work on a book about "soft corruption" in Washington, CBS reported. The network said it had independently verified the material it used.
Pelosi's spokesman criticized the CBS story for failing to note that the "legislation in question was reported out of the Judiciary Committee on October 3, 2008 -- the day the House was consumed in passing TARP and also the last day the House was in session before the November election."
It also failed to note that in September 2008, the House passed the Credit Cardholders' Bill of Rights, Hammill said.
"In the next Congress, the House and Senate passed and President Obama signed the Credit Cardholders' Bill of Rights and the Dodd-Frank legislation, which included a stronger, more direct approach to addressing swipe fees," the spokesman said.
(Notice the artful tactic?...."look at all the good we (supposedly) did. You can look pass the other 'stuff'" (that would put anyone else behind bars). It's just those evil Republicans/conservatives trying to cause more division. Move along, nothing to see here")
In addition to Pelosi, the CBS report took a look at the investments of of Bachus and Boehner.
In mid-September 2008, Bachus, then a ranking member on the House Committee on Financial Services, met with then-Treasury Secretary Hank Paulson, Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke and lawmakers about the imminent collapse of the global economy, CBS reported.
At the same time, Bachus bought options funds, betting markets would go down, CBS said. He also traded General Electric stock, and roughly a third of GE's business is in financial services, CBS reported.
Bachus declined to talk to CBS, but his office provided a statement that said the representative never trades on non-public information, or financial services stock.
Meanwhile, Boehner, who in 2009 was the House Minority leader, bought health-insurance stocks during the health care debate, all of which increased in value after the so-called public option was killed, CBS reported. Boehner was very much against the public option.
He also declined to be interviewed, but spoke to CBS' Steve Kroft at a press conference.
"I have not made any decisions on day-to-day trading activities in my account -- and haven't for years. I don't -- I do not do it, haven't done it and wouldn't do it," he said.
A senior House GOP aide told CNN that Boehner's financial adviser bought a range of blue chip stocks around the same time -- not just health care stocks -- after he closed out the retirement account from his small business.
"The idea that the Republican leader in the House opposed the public option -- policy favored by the left of the left -- for personal profit is, frankly, stupid," said the aide.
(I don't think that's the claim here Mr GOP Aide. It was the personal profit that was achieved by way of his position of knowing what was going on behind the scenes, that again, would put me or Martha Stewart behind bars. Couldn't help but also notice that 60Min managed to use just 1 Democrat, while using 2 Republicans. I'm stunned, I tell yas)
Shhhhhh, nothing to scrutinize here........move along. (http://www.cnn.com/2011/11/13/politics/60-minutes-pelosi/index.html?hpt=hp_c2)
-
Congresspeople should be subject to the same penalties as anyone else regarding insider trading. I favor forcing them to put their assets in a blind trust on the day they register to run for office until the day their terms expire.
-
But they aren't. They wrote the law, that allows them to get away with that, which would put us behind bars. That's the issue. Where's the outrage?? Where's the MSM on this??
-
It was on Sixty Minutes. It was mentioned on the PBS business show. It was in the Miami Herald. There is a bill before Congress to make congresspeople come under the same laws as everyone else.
Are you waiting for Beck or Hannity to deal with it?
-
No, I'm waiting for everyone else to do more than 1 or 2 places merely mentioning it. Cain got 24/7 coverage over a mere allegation. This is FAR more insidious than that
-
There is a bill before Congress to make congresspeople come under the same laws as everyone else.
That bill was initially introduced in 2004. I think at this point we can safely assume it will never pass.
-
Sex sells. Everyine knows what sex is and how it works.
Someone profiting from insider trading is not sexy, and if it harms anyone, it is rather hard to identify whom it has harmed and what it has cost them. Most Americans do not know the difference between a "hot tip" and insider trading. The distinction is not always clear even to the experts.
I agree that congressmen should be banned from insider trading.
-
The Contract with America was a document released by the United States Republican Party during the 1994 Congressional election campaign. Written by Larry Hunter, who was aided by Newt Gingrich, Robert Walker, Richard Armey, Bill Paxon, Tom DeLay, John Boehner and Jim Nussle, and in part using text from former President Ronald Reagan's 1985 State of the Union Address, the Contract detailed the actions the Republicans promised to take if they became the majority party in the United States House of Representatives for the first time in 40 years.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contract_with_America (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contract_with_America)
Item One >require all laws that apply to the rest of the country also apply to Congress
-
Someone profiting from insider trading is not sexy, and if it harms anyone, it is rather hard to identify whom it has harmed and what it has cost them. Most Americans do not know the difference between a "hot tip" and insider trading. The distinction is not always clear even to the experts.
I agree that congressmen should be banned from insider trading.
Folks on Wall Street making money, isn't sexy either. Especially when its made legally. But the MSM is promoting these OWS twits, 24/7 as well, as if their protests have some basis of illegality at work here, because these people make too much, so something must be wrong. Yet THAT gets scrutiny, as if there's a fire, with no smoke. Here we have actual flames, and the best you have is some mention of a political/legisalative fire extinguisher may be in order, somewhere down the road??
-
Once again what remedy do you propose to equalize this MSM bias. And who decides when it is equalized?
-
The remedy is outrage.....public scorn....public pressure, aimed at the right folks, which isn't Wall Street. Common sense and evidence decies when its equalized
-
Who are the right people to aim this outrage at? The Owwies are not concerned with media bias, in fact they count on it, so i doubt they will be the outraged. And the MSM must be aware of this bias since they produce the articles or lack thereof, so I'm not sure if your game plan has merit.
-
There are hundreds of news sources. Although a source can be unbiased in simply stating the facts of a story, there will always be some sort of bias when one story is instead of another, or given a headline or not. Sirs seems to want all news sources to be as outraged as he is over everything that outrages him. I don't think this will ever happen.
I find that 55 minutes of PBS News is more informative than 23 minutes of other stations. The commercials are both annoying and distracting on commercial TV as well. I do not expect a story to be totally unbiased, so long as the facts are all there, I can decide for myself.
-
Who are the right people to aim this outrage at?
There is no "right" people, there would be just people. who recognize the blatant bias, as I do. Nor do I have a "gameplan", as you keep believing I do, outside of hilighting for those less informed to note. Nor do I support legislation to bring about "balance/fairness" as you have supported in the past. Thus there is no merit to be lacking
-
Did I say you proposed legislation? I did not.
I said what it SEEMS to me that you want, as you are always complaining about how you think Obama gores uncriticized for what you think Bush would have been criticized for had he done the same thing.
SEEMS, as in MY OPINION. This is how you look to me. And perhaps to others as well.
Now feel free to argle bargle incoherently about how I am wrong, while only you can have valid opinions, thereby ending the thread in the traditional manner.
-
Did I say you proposed legislation? I did not.
Was I responding to your question? No I was NOT
Feel free now to engage in your standard insulting
-
Who are the right people to aim this outrage at?
There is no "right" people, there would be just people. who recognize the blatant bias, as I do. Nor do I have a "gameplan", as you keep believing I do, outside of hilighting for those less informed to note. Nor do I support legislation to bring about "balance/fairness" as you have supported in the past. Thus there is no merit to be lacking
So do you believe the people on this board have not seen your message?
Do you believe with your numerous threads on this board that readers are "less informed"?
I have never supported legislation to bring about "balance/fairness" in the media ,not sure why you would say i did. Perhaps you can find a post, to refresh my memory.
-
I believe the people who visit or are rarely visiting the saloon, have not
And since its an ongoing fluid level of folks who may be visiting for the 1st time, at any time, a comment by myself, may be the 1st one they've seen, and thus become more informed
And about a year+ ago, when we had this debate, and you kept trying to erroneously pin some support of the fairness doctrine, that I must be advocating with my ongoing MSM criticism, you yourself came out at that time to not only agree with the bias, but went so far as to support some form of mandate or legislative fairness. & that's why I would say it. When I have more time in the evening, I'll see if I can go back in our archives to locate that thread......if it hasn't been "lost"
-
I believe the people who visit or are rarely visiting the saloon, have not
And since its an ongoing fluid level of folks who may be visiting for the 1st time, at any time, a comment by myself, may be the 1st one they've seen, and thus become more informed
So you have a low opinion of your fellow countrymen? Judging by the vast majority of casual visits we get are from web bots or the occasional eastern European or Asian hacker. I'm sure they are grateful for your illumination of the perceived problem.
Well let me know if you find it. Nice try with the "lost" dodge.
-
Not at all (not sure why you'd erronesoly claim that as well, but ok)
&
And no "dodge" either. If that didn't jar your memory, only the actual quotes will.......if they can be found. That's why I recall it so well, as it was very profound that you'd actually support such an effort.
-
I don't see how such a law would be enforced absent a government takeover of the media, and i would certainly be against that, so i doubt i made such a claim. But you said i did, so i will wait patiently for the proof.
-
IIRC, after you couldn't get me to agree to the notion I was advocating some form of fairness doctrine, you conceded the bias, & supported some measure or mandate, though not sure if it was legislative or not. It likely was legislative, since it would be the only venue such a mandate could be enforced
When I have time later, I'll try looking back over a year ago, to try and locate that thread, if it still exists
-
As i said, i will wait patiently for you to produce documentation for your claim.
-
No problemma
-
Shhh: Obama's Favorite Slumlord Sentenced to Decade in Prison
The Associated Press reports on the legal fate of crooked Chicagoland slumlord and political fixer, Antoin "Tony" Rezko:
A former top fundraiser for ousted Gov. Rod Blagojevich, whose trial exposed a culture of pay-to-play politics in Illinois, was sentenced Tuesday to serve seven more years in prison for corruption. Antoin "Tony" Rezko, a former Chicago real estate developer and fast-food entrepreneur, has been in custody for 3 1/2 years while awaiting sentencing. He was sentenced to a total of 10 1/2 [years] but will get credit for that time he has served.
His attorneys had asked U.S. District Judge Amy St. Eve to set him free, arguing that he already has served more time than others who were convicted as part of the federal investigation of Blagojevich have or are expected to. Prosecutors had asked that Rezko receive a prison term of between 11 and 15 years. Rezko was convicted in 2008 of fraud, money laundering and plotting to squeeze $7 million in kickbacks from firms that wanted to do business with the state during Blagojevich's tenure. The governor was arrested six months later and convicted this year on charges that included trying to sell or trade an appointment to President Barack Obama's old Senate seat. He is set to be sentenced next month and is expected to get about 10 years.
Eight paragraphs in, the AP reporter deigns to name-check the president, but only to offer a perfunctory assurance that Obama is blessedly untainted by the stench of this scandal:
The 56-year-old Rezko also was a political fundraiser for Obama during his campaigns for Illinois senator, though not for his presidential campaign. Obama has not been accused of wrongdoing in the case, but his relationship with Rezko became an issue during the 2008 election.
Why was "his relationship with Rezko...an issue during the 2008 campaign," again? Let's flash back to my column from June 2008 for a handy refresher:
Prior to Wednesday's verdict, the national Obamedia paid scant attention to the relationship between their preferred candidate and Mr. Rezko, who was convicted on 16 of 24 federal counts. A jury found Obama's longtime friend and financier guilty of aiding and abetting bribery, mail fraud, wire fraud, and money laundering—all of which will likely contribute to a lengthy prison sentence. The federal convict and the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee have known each other for the better part of two decades, with the former raising approximately $250,000 for the latter's various campaigns. After Rezko first offered Obama a job in the early 1990s, a friendship and political alliance was born; the two men shared dinners, joint outings with their wives, and a lucrative political network. Rezko served on Obama's financing committee during his 2004 campaign, helping to raise approximately $160,000 for the aspiring U.S. Senator. Shortly thereafter, dark clouds began to gather over Chateau Rezko.
By 2005, Rezko's shady business deals and alleged illegal activities had been widely reported in the Chicago press. Even so, Obama decided it would be a wise move to enter into a major property deal with his scandal-tainted friend. On the very same day Obama paid $1.65 million (a substantially smaller sum than the asking price) for his Hyde Park mansion, another buyer purchased an adjoining lot for $625,000—an additional sum the Obama's could not afford. The new owner? Rezko's wife, Rita, who somehow managed to secure the property despite an annual salary of $37,000. A short while later, Mrs. Rezko generously sold a strip of her new property to Obama so he could build a fence he had been hoping for. At the time of this second transaction, Obama admits he knew Rezko was experiencing some "legal problems." Nonetheless, the deal went through and a lovely wrought-iron fence—paid for by Rezko—was erected between the two properties. The whole episode worked out pretty nicely for Obama. One might even call it an "exchange we can believe in."
After Hillary Clinton pointedly pursued this point during a contentious 2008 primary debate, ABC News' Brian Ross investigated the matter and filed this report (apologies for the choppy video):
Brian Ross on Obama and Tony Rezko (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4SrtyFY6qTA#)
When confronted about this hazy timeline by the Chicago Tribune editorial board, candidate Obama acknowledged a few minor "lapses in judgment," but insisted that the same-day purchases of adjoining plots of land was entirely coincidental. The Trib editors pronounced the tale "plausible." Remember, Obama went on national television in January 2008 to claim he'd had "no inkling" that Rezko was involved in any "wrongdoing." Two months later, he was spinning a new yarn about making a "bone-headed move" by entering real estate dealings with a man whose legal troubles had been widely reported in the Chicago press. Minor details. The media was far more interested in giggling about how many homes John McCain owned.
None of this will, or should, be an issue in 2012. President Obama will have to run on his record as the nation's chief executive.
But today's headline serves a helpful reminder that much of the press is hopelesly biased, (http://townhall.com/tipsheet/guybenson/2011/11/22/shhh_obamas_favorite_slumlord_sentenced_to_decade_in_prison) and that Barack Obama's HopenChange act was a massive fraud from the beginning. He was, and is, steeped in the Chicago Way.
-
Bebe Rebozo