Impact Assessment - World-of-Newave.info http://answers.world-of-newave.info/impact-assessment.htm Latest news and articles about Impact Assessment en-us Copyright (c)2004-2008.§/Newave SARL. All rights reserved. webmaster@world-of-newave.com (Webmaster) Sun, 23 Nov 2008 19:21:31 GMT Sun, 23 Nov 2008 19:21:31 GMT Newave Lisa XML Engine v1.0 - http://www.world-of-newave.info/about.htm 60 http://www.world-of-newave.info/images/wi8831.gif World-of-Newave.info - Knowledge and Informational Database http://www.world-of-newave.info/ 88 31 {ENVIRONMENT > NEWS} - ENVIRONMENT-CHILE: Patagonia Dams On Hold http://articles.world-of-newave.info/science/environment/news/environment-chile-patagonia-dams-on-hold-20081186619.htm http://articles.world-of-newave.info/science/environment/news/environment-chile-patagonia-dams-on-hold-20081186619.htm Fri, 21 Nov 2008 12:30:01 GMT SANTIAGO, Nov 20 (IPS) - Environmental groups in Chile welcomed the decision by the HidroAysén energy company to seek a nine-month extension of the environmental impact assessment phase of a controversial project to build five hydroelectric dams in wilderness areas in the south of the country. Ipsnews.Net ENVIRONMENT-CHILE: Patagonia Dams On Hold {new window}   Www.Ipsnews.Net - SANTIAGO, Nov 20 (IPS) - Environmental groups in Chile welcomed the decision by the HidroAysén energy company to seek a nine-month extension of the environmental impact assessment phase of a controversial project to build five hydroelectric dams in wilderness areas in the south of the country.
Environmental groups in Chile welcomed the decision by the HidroAysén energy company to seek a nine-month extension of the environmental impact assessment phase of a controversial project to build five hydroelectric dams in wilderness areas in the south of the country. {...}
Indexed: November 21, 2008, 12:30 pm - Page Size: 66KB
Category: Science > Environment > News

]]> Science > Environment > News {EUROPE > NEWS AND MEDIA} - Officer who killed Jean Charles de Menezes breaks down at inquest http://articles.world-of-newave.info/regional/europe/united-kingdom/news-and-media/officer-who-killed-jean-charles-de-menezes-breaks-20081083623.htm http://articles.world-of-newave.info/regional/europe/united-kingdom/news-and-media/officer-who-killed-jean-charles-de-menezes-breaks-20081083623.htm Sat, 25 Oct 2008 00:04:42 GMT For members of the public he was merely a voice, hidden behind 10-foot screens to protect his anonymity, and known only as Charlie 12. At 1.46pm, two hours into his evidence, he suddenly became human.Much has been written about what happened inside tube carriage 53613, where Jean Charles de Menezes lost his life in a confluence of circumstances on which an inquest jury will have to pass judgment. Yet until now nothing has been heard from the man who pulled the trigger at point blank range, firing at least three times into the head of de Menezes, who he assumed was a suspected suicide bomber.In a conference room at Oval cricket ground yesterday, the firearms officer, who has served 25 years in the police, faced the dead man's mother and brother to explain his role in the tragedy. For five weeks the de Menezes family, the media, the lawyers and those members of the public who have attended the inquest every day have waited for the moment when Charlie 12 was brought to court to give evidence. Like 49 other police witnesses, his identity was protected by screens that block his face from everyone except a select group in the courtroom. But for those sitting in the public area of the court yesterday, the arrival of C12 into his seat was met with emotional anticipation reserved for him alone.He read the oath in a firm, strong voice, promising to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. Two thirds of the way through his evidence, he faltered only slightly when he said he knew what the family were about to hear would be extremely distressing. "I cannot begin to put myself in the position that they are in," he said. "I am a family man myself and to lose a son or any member of your family in this situation, I just cannot believe. I offer them my sincere condolences."But it was only after the hearing that his feelings overwhelmed him, and he broke down.Over almost three hours of questioning from Nicholas Hilliard QC, counsel for the coroner, C12 described his actions on July 22 2005. A specialist firearms officer since 1998, he had never fired a gun at a suspect before. On the morning of July 22 he was in the team of firearms officers who were informed they would be involved in an anti-terrorist operation following the previous day's attempted bombings in London, and two weeks after the July 7 tube bombs.He collected his Glock pistol, two magazines containing 17 rounds each and specialist 124-grain ammunition, said to be the most suitable for immediate incapacitation.At 7.45am, he and others were given a 25-minute briefing which gave him details of Hussain Osman, one of the would-be suicide bombers who was on the run after failing to blow up his bomb at Shepherd's Bush tube the day before, and was told he "may have to use ... unusual tactics that we had not used before".After a second, more detailed briefing from the anti-terrorist branch at 8.45am, C12 said, "I was left in no doubt as to the type of suspects we were preparing to intercept. That they were prepared to take their own and others' lives and the danger faced would be immeasurable."We were possibly about to face suspects who were trained and had attempted to commit atrocities on innocent human beings ... there was a real, tangible danger that if we didn't act quickly or correctly then there would be extreme loss of life."How would you feel? What would you do? These devices could be concealed around the body, hidden from view. How would you act faced with this type of threat?"The whole journey was an extremely emotional one for me ... at the briefing and at the possibility of not going home again at the end of the day."Deployed with the other firearms teams, C12 arrived at Stockwell tube. Informed by surveillance teams the suspect had left the bus, there was a long period of radio silence and then the words: "Towards platform one and two."Over the radio he heard: "All units state red, state red". "I immediately left my vehicle and sprinted toward the entrance to the tube. My firearm was in my waistband ... and I carried a blue overshirt and a handheld radio it was an attempt to remain covert."As he ran into the station, he saw another firearms officer, C2, coming the other way. "I distinctly remember seeing him, and we had eye contact ... it was certainly reassuring that another firearms officer was there."Running into the station, he jumped the barriers, pushing away a member of London Underground staff and pulling out his gun. "I could hear people behind me shouting 'Armed police, get out of the way.'" He ran down the escalator, passing a surveillance officer who said: "He's on the north-bound tube."Heading towards the tube carriage he saw another man standing in open double doors who gesticulated towards his left. "I had to try and pick out where this suspect was, I had to try and remember to be covert ... If I hadn't, if I had shown myself as a police officer ... we could be dealing with the detonation of a bomb," he said."I remember trying to take in as much information as I could and keep as close as I could to the side of the tube while looking in and trying to pick up any information I could from inside the carriage."C12 said despite believing the suspect was a suicide bomber, it was not inevitable that he would open fire. "I did not have any preconceived ideas of what I was going to do."Another surveillance officer at the doors made a clear, overt gesture with his right hand and said, "That's him," pointing towards the suspect. Pausing in his narrative, C12 told the jury he had to make it clear the speed at which the next events unfolded. He said he believed, mistakenly, the suspect was wearing a bulky denim jacket, and when he entered the train, de Menezes reacted. "He immediately looked in our direction and stood up."It was a free-flowing movement from looking in our direction and standing up, he immediately came towards us and closed down the distance between us. His hands were waist height ... I couldn't understand the reaction." He believed De Menezes was aggressive and was moving towards him in order to maximise the impact of the blast from the bomb."I shouted 'armed police' [and] at the same time brought my gun up from my leg and pointed it at his head area."He continued to move towards me ... it was at that stage I thought: 'He is going to detonate, he is going to kill us and I have to act now in order to stop this from happening ... "If I didn't act members of the public would be killed, my colleagues would be killed and I would be killed. I had a duty to protect the public."De Menezes was grabbed by another surveillance officer, Ivor, and pushed into his seat. "I went with Ivor so when de Menezes reached the chair we were all together like in a rugby scrum. I had to get my gun past Ivor and I remember the gun actually coming into contact with him. I don't know how close the gun was, but it had to be close because I couldn't afford to miss."Asked if he intended to kill, he replied: "Yes sir." Asked why he fired three times, he said: "I had to be certain the life was extinct, that there wasn't any more threat, that this person couldn't detonate a bomb. I fired a number of shots because I could detect movement, albeit it might have been caused by the bullets ... I had to make sure that the threat no longer existed."Satisfied that the man was dead, he shouted: "Bomb, everyone off" to clear the carriage.In the next few moments he left the tube with the other firearms officer, C2. As he recalled how the men checked each other for injuries, he broke down and could not go on."Just take your time," Hilliard told him. "Please don't think you are under any pressure," said the coroner, Sir Michael Wright. "Would you like a break?" The officer's response was inaudible beneath suppressed sobs and the hearing was adjourned for 10 minutes.When he returned, C12 finished what he had tried to say: "We were covered in blood," he said. "We just lifted up each others T-shirts just to make sure we weren't hurt."At midday the next day he discovered had killed the wrong man. "How did you feel?" said Hilliard."A sense of disbelief, and shock, sadness, confusion," said the officer. "Everything I have ever trained for, threat assessment, seeing threats, perceiving threats and acting on threats proved wrong, and I am responsible for the death of an innocent man. That is something I have got to live with for the rest of my life."Jean Charles de Menezesguardian.co.uk © Guardian News & Media Limited 2008 | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds Guardian.Co.Uk Officer who killed Jean Charles de Menezes breaks down at inquest {new window}   Www.Guardian.Co.Uk - For members of the public he was merely a voice, hidden behind 10-foot screens to protect his anonymity, and known only as Charlie 12. At 1.46pm, two hours into his evidence, he suddenly became human.Much has been written about what happened inside tube carriage 53613, where Jean Charles de Menezes lost his life in a confluence of circumstances on which an inquest jury will have to pass judgment. Yet until now nothing has been heard from the man who pulled the trigger at point blank range, firing at least three times into the head of de Menezes, who he assumed was a suspected suicide bomber.In a conference room at Oval cricket ground yesterday, the firearms officer, who has served 25 years in the police, faced the dead man's mother and brother to explain his role in the tragedy. For five weeks the de Menezes family, the media, the lawyers and those members of the public who have attended the inquest every day have waited for the moment when Charlie 12 was brought to court to give evidence. Like 49 other police witnesses, his identity was protected by screens that block his face from everyone except a select group in the courtroom. But for those sitting in the public area of the court yesterday, the arrival of C12 into his seat was met with emotional anticipation reserved for him alone.He read the oath in a firm, strong voice, promising to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. Two thirds of the way through his evidence, he faltered only slightly when he said he knew what the family were about to hear would be extremely distressing. "I cannot begin to put myself in the position that they are in," he said. "I am a family man myself and to lose a son or any member of your family in this situation, I just cannot believe. I offer them my sincere condolences."But it was only after the hearing that his feelings overwhelmed him, and he broke down.Over almost three hours of questioning from Nicholas Hilliard QC, counsel for the coroner, C12 described his actions on July 22 2005. A specialist firearms officer since 1998, he had never fired a gun at a suspect before. On the morning of July 22 he was in the team of firearms officers who were informed they would be involved in an anti-terrorist operation following the previous day's attempted bombings in London, and two weeks after the July 7 tube bombs.He collected his Glock pistol, two magazines containing 17 rounds each and specialist 124-grain ammunition, said to be the most suitable for immediate incapacitation.At 7.45am, he and others were given a 25-minute briefing which gave him details of Hussain Osman, one of the would-be suicide bombers who was on the run after failing to blow up his bomb at Shepherd's Bush tube the day before, and was told he "may have to use ... unusual tactics that we had not used before".After a second, more detailed briefing from the anti-terrorist branch at 8.45am, C12 said, "I was left in no doubt as to the type of suspects we were preparing to intercept. That they were prepared to take their own and others' lives and the danger faced would be immeasurable."We were possibly about to face suspects who were trained and had attempted to commit atrocities on innocent human beings ... there was a real, tangible danger that if we didn't act quickly or correctly then there would be extreme loss of life."How would you feel? What would you do? These devices could be concealed around the body, hidden from view. How would you act faced with this type of threat?"The whole journey was an extremely emotional one for me ... at the briefing and at the possibility of not going home again at the end of the day."Deployed with the other firearms teams, C12 arrived at Stockwell tube. Informed by surveillance teams the suspect had left the bus, there was a long period of radio silence and then the words: "Towards platform one and two."Over the radio he heard: "All units state red, state red". "I immediately left my vehicle and sprinted toward the entrance to the tube. My firearm was in my waistband ... and I carried a blue overshirt and a handheld radio it was an attempt to remain covert."As he ran into the station, he saw another firearms officer, C2, coming the other way. "I distinctly remember seeing him, and we had eye contact ... it was certainly reassuring that another firearms officer was there."Running into the station, he jumped the barriers, pushing away a member of London Underground staff and pulling out his gun. "I could hear people behind me shouting 'Armed police, get out of the way.'" He ran down the escalator, passing a surveillance officer who said: "He's on the north-bound tube."Heading towards the tube carriage he saw another man standing in open double doors who gesticulated towards his left. "I had to try and pick out where this suspect was, I had to try and remember to be covert ... If I hadn't, if I had shown myself as a police officer ... we could be dealing with the detonation of a bomb," he said."I remember trying to take in as much information as I could and keep as close as I could to the side of the tube while looking in and trying to pick up any information I could from inside the carriage."C12 said despite believing the suspect was a suicide bomber, it was not inevitable that he would open fire. "I did not have any preconceived ideas of what I was going to do."Another surveillance officer at the doors made a clear, overt gesture with his right hand and said, "That's him," pointing towards the suspect. Pausing in his narrative, C12 told the jury he had to make it clear the speed at which the next events unfolded. He said he believed, mistakenly, the suspect was wearing a bulky denim jacket, and when he entered the train, de Menezes reacted. "He immediately looked in our direction and stood up."It was a free-flowing movement from looking in our direction and standing up, he immediately came towards us and closed down the distance between us. His hands were waist height ... I couldn't understand the reaction." He believed De Menezes was aggressive and was moving towards him in order to maximise the impact of the blast from the bomb."I shouted 'armed police' [and] at the same time brought my gun up from my leg and pointed it at his head area."He continued to move towards me ... it was at that stage I thought: 'He is going to detonate, he is going to kill us and I have to act now in order to stop this from happening ... "If I didn't act members of the public would be killed, my colleagues would be killed and I would be killed. I had a duty to protect the public."De Menezes was grabbed by another surveillance officer, Ivor, and pushed into his seat. "I went with Ivor so when de Menezes reached the chair we were all together like in a rugby scrum. I had to get my gun past Ivor and I remember the gun actually coming into contact with him. I don't know how close the gun was, but it had to be close because I couldn't afford to miss."Asked if he intended to kill, he replied: "Yes sir." Asked why he fired three times, he said: "I had to be certain the life was extinct, that there wasn't any more threat, that this person couldn't detonate a bomb. I fired a number of shots because I could detect movement, albeit it might have been caused by the bullets ... I had to make sure that the threat no longer existed."Satisfied that the man was dead, he shouted: "Bomb, everyone off" to clear the carriage.In the next few moments he left the tube with the other firearms officer, C2. As he recalled how the men checked each other for injuries, he broke down and could not go on."Just take your time," Hilliard told him. "Please don't think you are under any pressure," said the coroner, Sir Michael Wright. "Would you like a break?" The officer's response was inaudible beneath suppressed sobs and the hearing was adjourned for 10 minutes.When he returned, C12 finished what he had tried to say: "We were covered in blood," he said. "We just lifted up each others T-shirts just to make sure we weren't hurt."At midday the next day he discovered had killed the wrong man. "How did you feel?" said Hilliard."A sense of disbelief, and shock, sadness, confusion," said the officer. "Everything I have ever trained for, threat assessment, seeing threats, perceiving threats and acting on threats proved wrong, and I am responsible for the death of an innocent man. That is something I have got to live with for the rest of my life."Jean Charles de Menezesguardian.co.uk © Guardian News & Media Limited 2008 | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds
Officer who killed Jean Charles de Menezes breaks down at inquest | UK news | The Guardian {...} Over almost three hours of questioning, man known only as Charlie 12 describes his actions on July 22 {...}
Published: October 25, 2008, 12:04 am - Indexed: October 25, 2008, 11:50 am - Page Size: 54KB
Category: Regional > Europe > United Kingdom > News and Media

]]> Regional > Europe > United Kingdom > News and Media {LITERATURE > CYBERPUNK} - Insurance co. testing brain fitness software on older drivers http://articles.world-of-newave.info/arts/literature/genres/cyberpunk/insurance-co-testing-brain-fitness-software-on-2008102747.htm http://articles.world-of-newave.info/arts/literature/genres/cyberpunk/insurance-co-testing-brain-fitness-software-on-2008102747.htm Thu, 02 Oct 2008 12:13:54 GMT The Allstate insurance company is testing a program where drivers over 50 play a videogame designed to improve their driving abilities and reduce the number of accidents. According to a Chicago Tribune article, the software exercises visual processing speed and precision. If successful, the company may offer discounts to customers who go through the training. Over at SharpBrains, brain fitness consultant Alvaro Fernandez interviews Tom Warden, who runs Allstate's Research and Planning Center. From SharpBrains: (Fernandez:) How will you measure success, and by when will you know if your expectations are met? (Warden:) Given that we have already started recruiting participants and training may start as soon as next week, we may have some interesting results by the end of March 2009 or perhaps during the summer. In order to have statistically meaningful numbers, we will have to see how many people enroll in the study and the size of the observed impact. We will analyze the program compliance rates since this type of intervention needs to be engaging enough for people to devote a number of hours to at home. But, at the end of the day, what we want to see is whether using the program will translate into lower accident rates and better safety. A potential concern we have heard in similar cases, where an insurance company offered a computer-based assessment or training program, is Privacy. How can users of InSight who are also Allstate policy holders know that whatever information the program gathers cannot be used against them, for example to deny coverage or increase premiums? That's a great question. We are aware of that potential concern, and we are putting processes in place so that Allstate doesn't get access to any cognitive information on a particular individual. The Posit Science program is gathering the information, and Posit Science will only share data with us at an aggregated level, for overall research purposes. Allstate will be completely blind as to who uses the program. Insurance company tests brain fitness software... Boingboing.Net Insurance co. testing brain fitness software on older drivers {new window}   Www.Boingboing.Net - The Allstate insurance company is testing a program where drivers over 50 play a videogame designed to improve their driving abilities and reduce the number of accidents. According to a Chicago Tribune article, the software exercises visual processing speed and precision. If successful, the company may offer discounts to customers who go through the training. Over at SharpBrains, brain fitness consultant Alvaro Fernandez interviews Tom Warden, who runs Allstate's Research and Planning Center. From SharpBrains: (Fernandez:) How will you measure success, and by when will you know if your expectations are met? (Warden:) Given that we have already started recruiting participants and training may start as soon as next week, we may have some interesting results by the end of March 2009 or perhaps during the summer. In order to have statistically meaningful numbers, we will have to see how many people enroll in the study and the size of the observed impact. We will analyze the program compliance rates since this type of intervention needs to be engaging enough for people to devote a number of hours to at home. But, at the end of the day, what we want to see is whether using the program will translate into lower accident rates and better safety. A potential concern we have heard in similar cases, where an insurance company offered a computer-based assessment or training program, is Privacy. How can users of InSight who are also Allstate policy holders know that whatever information the program gathers cannot be used against them, for example to deny coverage or increase premiums? That's a great question. We are aware of that potential concern, and we are putting processes in place so that Allstate doesn't get access to any cognitive information on a particular individual. The Posit Science program is gathering the information, and Posit Science will only share data with us at an aggregated level, for overall research purposes. Allstate will be completely blind as to who uses the program. Insurance company tests brain fitness software...
Insurance co. testing brain fitness software on older drivers - Boing Boing {...}
Published: October 2, 2008, 12:13 pm - Indexed: October 3, 2008, 10:46 am - Page Size: 48KB
Category: Arts > Literature > Genres > Cyberpunk

]]> Arts > Literature > Genres > Cyberpunk {ISSUES > BIAS AND BALANCE} - Hannity misled about several Obama foreign policy positions to ask: "[D]oes that sound like a guy that has the experience to be the commander in chief?" http://articles.world-of-newave.info/society/issues/business/media/bias-and-balance/hannity-misled-about-several-obama-foreign-policy-20080980519.htm http://articles.world-of-newave.info/society/issues/business/media/bias-and-balance/hannity-misled-about-several-obama-foreign-policy-20080980519.htm Sat, 13 Sep 2008 01:32:30 GMT On the September 11 edition of Fox News' Hannity & Colmes, co-host Sean Hannity followed a series of misleading assertions about Sen. Barack Obama by asking Fox News contributor Lanny Davis: "[D]oes that sound like a guy that has the experience to be the commander in chief?" Specifically, Hannity said: When Barack Obama said that our troops are air-raiding villages and killing civilians, which is causing major problems there, when he said he could cut military spending, billions of dollars, cut investment in unproven missile defense systems, will not weaponize space, slow development of Future Combat Systems, when he said he would rid the world of nuclear weapons, set a goal of doing that, does that sound like a guy that has the experience to be the commander in chief? And do you think it was wrong when he accused our troops of air-raiding villages and killing civilians? But Hannity mischaracterized Obama's statement about his plans to "cut military spending, billions of dollars." And in suggesting Obama was somehow misguided for proposing "slow[ing] development of Future Combat Systems," Hannity did not mention that the McCain campaign has said that the program "should be ended." Further, while Hannity suggested that Obama's goal of a world without nuclear weapons indicated he did not have the experience to be commander in chief, a bipartisan group of experts echoed Obama's position. Moreover, in his repeated references to Obama's statement that "we're air-raiding villages and killing civilians" in Afghanistan, Hannity again failed to note that Obama's claim is reportedly accurate. Airstrikes and civilian deaths in Afghanistan As Media Matters for America has documented, Hannity has previously attacked and mischaracterized Obama's August 13, 2007, statement that "[w]e've got to get the job done there [in Afghanistan] and that requires us to have enough troops so that we're not just air-raiding villages and killing civilians, which is causing enormous pressure over there." On the August 15, 2007, edition of Hannity & Colmes, Hannity falsely suggested that Obama "attack[ed] our troops as murderers," and on the August 21, 2007, show, claimed that Obama's comments were "not true." In fact, U.S. airstrikes in Afghanistan -- and accounts of resulting civilian casualties -- have been widely reported in the media and have reportedly provoked criticism from Afghan President Hamid Karzai and a British commander stationed there. Additionally, the Associated Press reported in a "Fact Check" responding to conservative attacks on Obama: "Western forces have been killing [Afghan] civilians at a faster rate than the insurgents." From the August 14, 2007, AP "Fact Check" article: "We've got to get the job done there and that requires us to have enough troops so that we're not just air-raiding villages and killing civilians, which is causing enormous problems there," Obama said. [...] A check of the facts shows that Western forces have been killing civilians at a faster rate than the insurgents have been killing civilians. The U.S. and NATO say they don't have civilian casualty figures, but The Associated Press has been keeping count based on figures from Afghan and international officials. Tracking civilian deaths is a difficult task because they often occur in remote and dangerous areas that are difficult to reach and verify. As of Aug. 1, the AP count shows that while militants killed 231 civilians in attacks in 2007, Western forces killed 286. Another 20 were killed in crossfire that can't be attributed to one party. Afghan President Hamid Karzai expressed his concern about the civilian deaths during a meeting last week with President Bush. Bush said he understands the agony that Afghans feel over the loss of innocent lives and that he is doing everything he can to protect them. He said the Taliban are using civilians as human shields and have no regard for their lives. "The president rightly expressed his concerns about civilian casualty," Bush said of Karzai. "And I assured him that we share those concerns." Further, in a July 7, 2007, article on NATO and U.S. airstrikes that reportedly killed more than 100 Afghan civilians, Reuters cited the assessment of military analysts that "a shortage of ground troops means commanders often turn to air power": President Hamid Karzai has repeatedly called for the NATO-led International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) and the separate U.S. force in Afghanistan to coordinate more closely with his troops to curb a spate of civilian deaths from airstrikes. But Western unwillingness to accept casualties among their own soldiers and a shortage of ground troops means commanders often turn to air power to beat the Taliban, and that almost inevitably leads to civilians [sic] deaths, military analysts say. Setting a goal of a world without nuclear weapons A bipartisan coalition of experts, including former Secretaries of State Henry Kissinger and George Shultz, former Defense Secretary William J. Perry, and former Sen. Sam Nunn (D-GA) offered a proposal for nuclear arms similar to the position Obama has articulated. In an essay headlined "A World Free of Nuclear Weapons" published in the January 4, 2007, Wall Street Journal, the group noted that "Ronald Reagan called for the abolishment of 'all nuclear weapons,' which he considered to be 'totally irrational, totally inhumane, good for nothing but killing, possibly destructive of life on earth and civilization.' " Further, they wrote: Reassertion of the vision of a world free of nuclear weapons and practical measures toward achieving that goal would be, and would be perceived as, a bold initiative consistent with America's moral heritage. The effort could have a profoundly positive impact on the security of future generations. Without the bold vision, the actions will not be perceived as fair or urgent. Without the actions, the vision will not be perceived as realistic or possible. Obama highlighted the proposal by Shultz, Perry, Kissinger, and Nunn in a January 17 press release, in which he asserted: I welcome the renewed call by Sam Nunn, George Shultz, Henry Kissinger, and William Perry to urge the United States to support a world free of nuclear weapons. These four Americans have shown leadership on this issue for many months, and I have embraced this goal throughout my campaign. As I said in a speech on October 2 [2007]: "Here's what I'll say as President: America seeks a world in which there are no nuclear weapons." Military spending Hannity's assertion that Obama "could cut military spending, billions of dollars" leaves out a key word in Obama's actual statement. As Media Matters has noted, Obama told the group Caucus4Priorities that he would cut "tens of billions of dollars in wasteful spending," not overall defense spending in general. Future Combat Systems Hannity also asserted that Obama would "slow development of Future Combat Systems." In fact, as Wired blogger Noah Shachtman noted, Future Combat Systems is a specific Army program that the McCain campaign has said "should be ended." The McCain campaign budget plan that McCain senior economic adviser Douglas Holtz-Eakin provided to The Washington Post editorial board, published July 14, states: Balance the budget requires slowing outlay growth to 2.4 percent. The roughly $470 billion dollars (by 2013) in slower spending growth come from reduced deployments abroad ($150 billion; consistent with success in Iraq/Afghanistan that permits deployments to be cut by half -- hopefully more), slower discretionary spending in non-defense and Pentagon procurements ($160 billion; there are lots of procurements -- airborne laser, Globemaster, Future Combat System -- that should be ended and the entire Pentagon budget should be scrubbed) and reductions in mandatory spending ($160 billion) from a mix of excessive agricultural and ethanol subsidies, slower health care cost growth, Medicaid savings from the expansion of private insurance, and other reforms. From the September 11 edition of Fox News' Hannity & Colmes: HANNITY: All right, here's my final question. DAVIS: -- and we don't need that kind of provocation. HANNITY: When Barack Obama said that our troops are air-raiding villages and killing civilians, which is causing major problems there, when he said he could cut military spending, billions of dollars, cut investment in unproven missile defense systems, will not weaponize space, slow development of Future Combat Systems, when he said he would rid the world of nuclear weapons, set a goal of doing that, does that sound like a guy that has the experience to be the commander in chief? And do you think it was wrong when he accused our troops of air-raiding villages and killing civilians? DAVIS: Well, when you quote things, Sean, I have to believe that you're quoting -- HANNITY: I just played it. I just played it earlier in the show. DAVIS: I don't know -- I don't know the context, so all I can say is that some of those words sound as if they're taken out of context. HANNITY: I played the quote exactly, and I was reading verbatim. I just played it earlier in the show. DAVIS: I'm only protecting the both of us that Senator Obama might say they were taken out of context. But, so, I don't know those quotes. MICHAEL STEELE (Fox News contributor): Hey, Sean. Hey, Sean. Sean, that's called the backstroke, baby. Let's get out of it as quickly as possible. HANNITY: Yeah. Thank God the music is playing. Lanny wants to get out of here. Mediamatters.Org Hannity misled about several Obama foreign policy positions to ask: "[D]oes that sound like a guy that has the experience to be the commander in chief?" {new window}   Mediamatters.Org - On the September 11 edition of Fox News' Hannity & Colmes, co-host Sean Hannity followed a series of misleading assertions about Sen. Barack Obama by asking Fox News contributor Lanny Davis: "[D]oes that sound like a guy that has the experience to be the commander in chief?" Specifically, Hannity said: When Barack Obama said that our troops are air-raiding villages and killing civilians, which is causing major problems there, when he said he could cut military spending, billions of dollars, cut investment in unproven missile defense systems, will not weaponize space, slow development of Future Combat Systems, when he said he would rid the world of nuclear weapons, set a goal of doing that, does that sound like a guy that has the experience to be the commander in chief? And do you think it was wrong when he accused our troops of air-raiding villages and killing civilians? But Hannity mischaracterized Obama's statement about his plans to "cut military spending, billions of dollars." And in suggesting Obama was somehow misguided for proposing "slow[ing] development of Future Combat Systems," Hannity did not mention that the McCain campaign has said that the program "should be ended." Further, while Hannity suggested that Obama's goal of a world without nuclear weapons indicated he did not have the experience to be commander in chief, a bipartisan group of experts echoed Obama's position. Moreover, in his repeated references to Obama's statement that "we're air-raiding villages and killing civilians" in Afghanistan, Hannity again failed to note that Obama's claim is reportedly accurate. Airstrikes and civilian deaths in Afghanistan As Media Matters for America has documented, Hannity has previously attacked and mischaracterized Obama's August 13, 2007, statement that "[w]e've got to get the job done there [in Afghanistan] and that requires us to have enough troops so that we're not just air-raiding villages and killing civilians, which is causing enormous pressure over there." On the August 15, 2007, edition of Hannity & Colmes, Hannity falsely suggested that Obama "attack[ed] our troops as murderers," and on the August 21, 2007, show, claimed that Obama's comments were "not true." In fact, U.S. airstrikes in Afghanistan -- and accounts of resulting civilian casualties -- have been widely reported in the media and have reportedly provoked criticism from Afghan President Hamid Karzai and a British commander stationed there. Additionally, the Associated Press reported in a "Fact Check" responding to conservative attacks on Obama: "Western forces have been killing [Afghan] civilians at a faster rate than the insurgents." From the August 14, 2007, AP "Fact Check" article: "We've got to get the job done there and that requires us to have enough troops so that we're not just air-raiding villages and killing civilians, which is causing enormous problems there," Obama said. [...] A check of the facts shows that Western forces have been killing civilians at a faster rate than the insurgents have been killing civilians. The U.S. and NATO say they don't have civilian casualty figures, but The Associated Press has been keeping count based on figures from Afghan and international officials. Tracking civilian deaths is a difficult task because they often occur in remote and dangerous areas that are difficult to reach and verify. As of Aug. 1, the AP count shows that while militants killed 231 civilians in attacks in 2007, Western forces killed 286. Another 20 were killed in crossfire that can't be attributed to one party. Afghan President Hamid Karzai expressed his concern about the civilian deaths during a meeting last week with President Bush. Bush said he understands the agony that Afghans feel over the loss of innocent lives and that he is doing everything he can to protect them. He said the Taliban are using civilians as human shields and have no regard for their lives. "The president rightly expressed his concerns about civilian casualty," Bush said of Karzai. "And I assured him that we share those concerns." Further, in a July 7, 2007, article on NATO and U.S. airstrikes that reportedly killed more than 100 Afghan civilians, Reuters cited the assessment of military analysts that "a shortage of ground troops means commanders often turn to air power": President Hamid Karzai has repeatedly called for the NATO-led International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) and the separate U.S. force in Afghanistan to coordinate more closely with his troops to curb a spate of civilian deaths from airstrikes. But Western unwillingness to accept casualties among their own soldiers and a shortage of ground troops means commanders often turn to air power to beat the Taliban, and that almost inevitably leads to civilians [sic] deaths, military analysts say. Setting a goal of a world without nuclear weapons A bipartisan coalition of experts, including former Secretaries of State Henry Kissinger and George Shultz, former Defense Secretary William J. Perry, and former Sen. Sam Nunn (D-GA) offered a proposal for nuclear arms similar to the position Obama has articulated. In an essay headlined "A World Free of Nuclear Weapons" published in the January 4, 2007, Wall Street Journal, the group noted that "Ronald Reagan called for the abolishment of 'all nuclear weapons,' which he considered to be 'totally irrational, totally inhumane, good for nothing but killing, possibly destructive of life on earth and civilization.' " Further, they wrote: Reassertion of the vision of a world free of nuclear weapons and practical measures toward achieving that goal would be, and would be perceived as, a bold initiative consistent with America's moral heritage. The effort could have a profoundly positive impact on the security of future generations. Without the bold vision, the actions will not be perceived as fair or urgent. Without the actions, the vision will not be perceived as realistic or possible. Obama highlighted the proposal by Shultz, Perry, Kissinger, and Nunn in a January 17 press release, in which he asserted: I welcome the renewed call by Sam Nunn, George Shultz, Henry Kissinger, and William Perry to urge the United States to support a world free of nuclear weapons. These four Americans have shown leadership on this issue for many months, and I have embraced this goal throughout my campaign. As I said in a speech on October 2 [2007]: "Here's what I'll say as President: America seeks a world in which there are no nuclear weapons." Military spending Hannity's assertion that Obama "could cut military spending, billions of dollars" leaves out a key word in Obama's actual statement. As Media Matters has noted, Obama told the group Caucus4Priorities that he would cut "tens of billions of dollars in wasteful spending," not overall defense spending in general. Future Combat Systems Hannity also asserted that Obama would "slow development of Future Combat Systems." In fact, as Wired blogger Noah Shachtman noted, Future Combat Systems is a specific Army program that the McCain campaign has said "should be ended." The McCain campaign budget plan that McCain senior economic adviser Douglas Holtz-Eakin provided to The Washington Post editorial board, published July 14, states: Balance the budget requires slowing outlay growth to 2.4 percent. The roughly $470 billion dollars (by 2013) in slower spending growth come from reduced deployments abroad ($150 billion; consistent with success in Iraq/Afghanistan that permits deployments to be cut by half -- hopefully more), slower discretionary spending in non-defense and Pentagon procurements ($160 billion; there are lots of procurements -- airborne laser, Globemaster, Future Combat System -- that should be ended and the entire Pentagon budget should be scrubbed) and reductions in mandatory spending ($160 billion) from a mix of excessive agricultural and ethanol subsidies, slower health care cost growth, Medicaid savings from the expansion of private insurance, and other reforms. From the September 11 edition of Fox News' Hannity & Colmes: HANNITY: All right, here's my final question. DAVIS: -- and we don't need that kind of provocation. HANNITY: When Barack Obama said that our troops are air-raiding villages and killing civilians, which is causing major problems there, when he said he could cut military spending, billions of dollars, cut investment in unproven missile defense systems, will not weaponize space, slow development of Future Combat Systems, when he said he would rid the world of nuclear weapons, set a goal of doing that, does that sound like a guy that has the experience to be the commander in chief? And do you think it was wrong when he accused our troops of air-raiding villages and killing civilians? DAVIS: Well, when you quote things, Sean, I have to believe that you're quoting -- HANNITY: I just played it. I just played it earlier in the show. DAVIS: I don't know -- I don't know the context, so all I can say is that some of those words sound as if they're taken out of context. HANNITY: I played the quote exactly, and I was reading verbatim. I just played it earlier in the show. DAVIS: I'm only protecting the both of us that Senator Obama might say they were taken out of context. But, so, I don't know those quotes. MICHAEL STEELE (Fox News contributor): Hey, Sean. Hey, Sean. Sean, that's called the backstroke, baby. Let's get out of it as quickly as possible. HANNITY: Yeah. Thank God the music is playing. Lanny wants to get out of here.
Media Matters - Hannity misled about several Obama foreign policy positions to ask: "[D]oes that sound like a guy that has the experience to be the commander in chief?" {...} On Hannity & Colmes , Sean Hannity made misleading assertions about Sen. Barack Obama's positions on civilian deaths in Afghanistan, military spending, and nuclear weapons, and then asked, "[D]oes that sound like a guy that has the experience to be the commander in chief?" {...}
Published: September 13, 2008, 1:32 am - Indexed: September 13, 2008, 1:00 pm - Page Size: 31KB
Category: Society > Issues > Business > Media > Bias and Balance

]]> Society > Issues > Business > Media > Bias and Balance {ISSUES > BIAS AND BALANCE} - Media Matters: When did experience become a flaw? http://articles.world-of-newave.info/society/issues/business/media/bias-and-balance/media-matters-when-did-experience-become-a-flaw-20081194732.htm http://articles.world-of-newave.info/society/issues/business/media/bias-and-balance/media-matters-when-did-experience-become-a-flaw-20081194732.htm Sat, 22 Nov 2008 01:56:43 GMT Midway through Bill Clinton's first year as president, Time magazine reported that among the new president's problems was "a staff that has almost no White House or executive experience," pointing to then-political director Rahm Emanuel as a prime example. Fast-forward 15 years: President-elect Barack Obama has chosen Emanuel to serve as his chief of staff. With years of high-level White House work under his belt, not to mention the connections and clout that come from having been one of the most powerful members of Congress, it would be quite a stretch to say that Emanuel lacks the experience to effectively serve Obama. So this time, some in the media have a different complaint. As CNN's Anderson Cooper put it, Emanuel is "probably the ultimate Washington insider. ... [T]he critics will say, well, look, if Obama is talking about change, why is he having a Washington insider?" So: Emanuel was insufficiently experienced to serve as political director in 1993 -- and now we're to believe that he's too experienced in Washington to serve as chief of staff? What gives? Was there a brief window in 2003 in which Emanuel's level of experience was just right? Or is there something strange about the media's assessment of President-elect Obama's staffing decisions? That Time assessment of Emanuel in 1993 was not unique. For 16 years, there has been near-universal agreement that the Clinton administration's early struggles (real and perceived) were in large part due to a lack of White House and Washington experience on the part of Clinton's staff. Clinton hadn't even taken office before USA Today reported in December 1992 that the "limited Washington experience" of the incoming White House chief of staff, Mack McLarty, "raises the specter of Jimmy Carter's inexperienced inner circle." Six months later, Newsweek noted that McLarty's "lack of familiarity with Washington ways is now considered a political liability." The influential journalists Jack Germond and Jules Witcover later wrote that the choice of McLarty had been "a major surprise and the brunt of considerable criticism, on grounds that McLarty, like Clinton himself, was inexperienced in the Washington meat grinder." By mid-1994, when a staff restructuring resulted in Leon Panetta's appointment as chief of staff, an Albany Times-Union editorial was typical of media reaction: [Clinton's] sudden shuffle of White House staff is the latest evidence that he has finally grasped a central fact of Washington political life: It's not the place for the inexperienced, no matter how well-intentioned they may be. [...] He's also learned that the chief of staff position is no place for a neophyte. It takes someone with Mr. Panetta's credentials as an insider to fill this pivotal post. That's all the more true at a time when the White House is trying to push through key health care and welfare legislation. During a January 2001 look back at the Clinton presidency, Nightline host Ted Koppel summed up years of conventional wisdom: "The new president had put together a staff with virtually no experience in governing from the White House" -- something Nightline made clear was a mistake. When President George W. Bush chose Andy Card, who had served in senior White House roles in two previous administrations, as his chief of staff, the selection -- along with decisions to put other longtime Washington insiders in key positions -- was received favorably by the news media. Three days into Bush's presidency, CNN's Bill Schneider told viewers that "Bush is now surrounded by a lot of insider Washington deal makers, who have a lot of experience; like Dick Cheney and Andrew Card, his chief of staff; Paul O'Neill at treasury, and Donald Rumsfeld at defense. I think, a hard line and a smiling face and a willingness to make deals -- that could be a formula for success." A month later, The Washington Post ran a 2,000-word profile of Card that emphasized the benefit of Card's experience and portrayed him as bringing efficiency and order to the White House. So, the history is clear: President Clinton was lambasted by the news media for not having enough old Washington hands on his staff; President Bush was praised for choosing veterans of previous Republican administrations. Which brings us back to the present, and to the bizarre spectacle of journalists and pundits blasting Barack Obama for choosing staff members and Cabinet secretaries who are experienced and qualified. Here, for example, is MSNBC's Chris Matthews, noting that Hillary Clinton, Eric Holder, John Podesta, and Rahm Emanuel either have or are reported to have roles in Obama's transition or administration: This is what you do when you don't have elections. You simply promote the people ... who had the deputy jobs. You can do this in any bureaucratic state. You could do it in the old Soviet Union, do it anywhere you have a bureaucracy. You don't need to hold elections to promote deputies to the top job when it comes time, right? You don't need elections for this crap, do you? ... You just keep promoting people from within in any old, tired bureaucracy. That's what you do. This is nothing short of insane. Eric Holder, reportedly Barack Obama's choice for attorney general, did indeed have one of the "deputy jobs" at the Justice Department -- in the Clinton administration, not the Bush administration. It's a pretty safe bet that if we didn't have an election a few weeks ago -- if the Bush administration were continuing indefinitely -- Eric Holder would not be the next attorney general. It's an even safer bet that Rahm Emanuel would not be chief of staff. Much of the nation may wish the Bush administration never happened, but it did. None of the people Matthews mentioned are being "promoted from within" -- not a single one. (Matthews, by the way, was unconcerned about hiring officials from former administrations when George W. Bush was doing the hiring: In 2001, he praised Dick Cheney, Don Rumsfeld, and Colin Powell as "real heavyweights in terms of experience.") Matthews' MSNBC colleague Pat Buchanan is very much on the same page, repeatedly complaining that the incoming Obama administration will be filled with "retreads." Yes: Pat Buchanan, born and raised in Washington, D.C.; educated at Georgetown; a veteran of two GOP White Houses and himself twice a candidate for the presidency; a 20-year fixture on cable news -- that Pat Buchanan is complaining about too many "retreads." That was a common theme on MSNBC, where longtime Washington insiders Chris Matthews, David Gregory, and Christopher Hitchens -- among others -- suggested that the choice of former Clinton administration officials was contrary to the idea of "change": Chris Matthews: "The possibility that Barack Obama might pick Hillary Clinton to be his secretary of state has a lot of people asking, 'Whatever happened to change, the change we can believe in?' " David Gregory: "Is this change you can believe in? The Obama team is going to face these questions about big-time Clinton administration people into the fold now in some of the biggest jobs in the Cabinet. Eric Holder certainly fits that bill." Christopher Hitchens: "This is the woman who, if you were for change that you can believe in, whichever change it was, you were voting against. ... [I]t's Clinton redo, not just Rahm Emanuel. Whatever this is, it's not change." This has been a sentiment expressed commonly in the media, nowhere more frequently than on MSNBC, but the suggestion that bringing on former Clinton administration officials -- even Clinton herself -- is inconsistent with a desire for change is pure bunk. Asserting such inconsistency requires some deeply flawed assumptions: that everyone who worked in the Clinton administration is alike; that the Clinton and Bush administrations pursued identical policies with identical effectiveness; or that the desire for "change" is simply a desire for change in the types of people who hold government jobs. People want a change in policy and a change in effectiveness. They want a change from George W. Bush, of whom disapproval is near-universal. The idea that 67 million people voted for Barack Obama because they disliked the Clinton administration is ludicrous. It ignores the wide and deep disgust with the direction Bush has taken the nation and the stunning incompetence with which he has done so. And it overlooks the obvious fact that people voted for Barack Obama because they like him and they like his policy positions. But there is no evidence -- none -- that the nation as a whole has a deep desire to shun some of the people most qualified and experienced for administration jobs simply because they worked for Bill Clinton. Hard-core Republicans and Washington journalists may have such a desire, but that's about it. The whining from journalists about Clinton alumni in the Obama administration is even sillier when you consider that they would presumably criticize Obama if he chose people without prior White House experience, as they criticized Bill Clinton. So the only way Obama can escape criticism is if he hires a bunch of people who worked in the Reagan and Bush administrations. Perversely, after two straight elections in which the American people convincingly rejected failed Republican rule, the punditocracy would be less likely to criticize Obama for abandoning his promise of change if he retained the services of the very Bush administration officials who screwed up the country so badly in the first place. No piece of transition news has rankled the chattering class as much as the rumored selection of Hillary Clinton to be secretary of state -- not, in most cases, because they think her unqualified, but because they just don't like her. Christopher Hitchens, for one, lashed out at the news on MSNBC, leading the cable channel to treat his comments as though they were both surprising and important. They are neither. Hitchens hates the Clintons. Maybe not as much as he hates Mother Teresa, but there is little doubt that he hates them. Christopher Hitchens criticizing a Clinton is roughly as surprising as a Boston native speaking ill of New York Yankees shortstop Derek Jeter. Despite the fact that there is no indication that anyone outside of its own studios cares what Christopher Hitchens has to say about the Clintons, MSNBC has played his comments over and over again, and even invited him back on the next day to interview him about their previous interview of him. Host David Gregory explained MSNBC's obsession with Hitchens' comments by insisting -- all evidence to the contrary -- that "everybody is talking about" them. Hitchens' bizarre comments about Hillary Clinton included his claim that he has never heard that she is respected by military leadership -- a claim that, if true, merely confirms that Hitchens knows far too little about Clinton for his assessment of her to be taken seriously. And he claimed that in 1993, Hillary Clinton instructed her husband not to intervene in the Balkans because she was afraid that it would interfere with her health-care initiative -- but the book he cited to support his claim does not do so. As Media Matters' Eric Boehlert noted this week, the media has been essentially alone in their anguish about Clinton serving as secretary of state: The press represents nobody but the press on this topic. Meaning, the press has no political cover on this story because there's no partisan angle to the SoS story, which means their long-running Clinton hatred is just sort of out there, exposed for all to see. Think about. It's been virtually impossible to find any senior members of Congress--Republican or Democrat--who publicly oppose Clinton as the SoS, which in and of itself is rather astonishing. And within the liberal blogosphere, where one might expect there to be vocal opposition to Clinton since so many within the netroots opposed her during the primaries, most A-list writers have been extremely quiet in terms of airing opposition. [...] So, if you're keeping score at home, that means the Obama White House is in favor of Clinton, Republicans in Congress are in favor, Democrats in Congress are in favor, and liberal activists are, essentially, in favor. (And so are most Americans.) In the early stages of the last two administrations (both the result of "change" elections), the media made much of the importance of new presidents bringing on old hands with White House experience. Suddenly, they portray such moves as inconsistent with the idea of "change." There are really only two possible explanations for this inconsistency: They are blinded by their hatred of the Clintons, or are desperate for something -- anything -- to use as an excuse to criticize Obama. Either way (or both), they look like fools by coming down in favor of inexperience. America is a nation at war, with stock and housing markets that are falling faster than a flock of turkeys dropped out of an airplane, a broken health-care system, and countless other problems -- and the punditocracy thinks Barack Obama should refuse to hire anyone who worked in the most successful administration of the past several decades. Incredible. Jamison Foser is Executive Vice President at Media Matters for America. Mediamatters.Org Media Matters: When did experience become a flaw? {new window}   Mediamatters.Org - Midway through Bill Clinton's first year as president, Time magazine reported that among the new president's problems was "a staff that has almost no White House or executive experience," pointing to then-political director Rahm Emanuel as a prime example. Fast-forward 15 years: President-elect Barack Obama has chosen Emanuel to serve as his chief of staff. With years of high-level White House work under his belt, not to mention the connections and clout that come from having been one of the most powerful members of Congress, it would be quite a stretch to say that Emanuel lacks the experience to effectively serve Obama. So this time, some in the media have a different complaint. As CNN's Anderson Cooper put it, Emanuel is "probably the ultimate Washington insider. ... [T]he critics will say, well, look, if Obama is talking about change, why is he having a Washington insider?" So: Emanuel was insufficiently experienced to serve as political director in 1993 -- and now we're to believe that he's too experienced in Washington to serve as chief of staff? What gives? Was there a brief window in 2003 in which Emanuel's level of experience was just right? Or is there something strange about the media's assessment of President-elect Obama's staffing decisions? That Time assessment of Emanuel in 1993 was not unique. For 16 years, there has been near-universal agreement that the Clinton administration's early struggles (real and perceived) were in large part due to a lack of White House and Washington experience on the part of Clinton's staff. Clinton hadn't even taken office before USA Today reported in December 1992 that the "limited Washington experience" of the incoming White House chief of staff, Mack McLarty, "raises the specter of Jimmy Carter's inexperienced inner circle." Six months later, Newsweek noted that McLarty's "lack of familiarity with Washington ways is now considered a political liability." The influential journalists Jack Germond and Jules Witcover later wrote that the choice of McLarty had been "a major surprise and the brunt of considerable criticism, on grounds that McLarty, like Clinton himself, was inexperienced in the Washington meat grinder." By mid-1994, when a staff restructuring resulted in Leon Panetta's appointment as chief of staff, an Albany Times-Union editorial was typical of media reaction: [Clinton's] sudden shuffle of White House staff is the latest evidence that he has finally grasped a central fact of Washington political life: It's not the place for the inexperienced, no matter how well-intentioned they may be. [...] He's also learned that the chief of staff position is no place for a neophyte. It takes someone with Mr. Panetta's credentials as an insider to fill this pivotal post. That's all the more true at a time when the White House is trying to push through key health care and welfare legislation. During a January 2001 look back at the Clinton presidency, Nightline host Ted Koppel summed up years of conventional wisdom: "The new president had put together a staff with virtually no experience in governing from the White House" -- something Nightline made clear was a mistake. When President George W. Bush chose Andy Card, who had served in senior White House roles in two previous administrations, as his chief of staff, the selection -- along with decisions to put other longtime Washington insiders in key positions -- was received favorably by the news media. Three days into Bush's presidency, CNN's Bill Schneider told viewers that "Bush is now surrounded by a lot of insider Washington deal makers, who have a lot of experience; like Dick Cheney and Andrew Card, his chief of staff; Paul O'Neill at treasury, and Donald Rumsfeld at defense. I think, a hard line and a smiling face and a willingness to make deals -- that could be a formula for success." A month later, The Washington Post ran a 2,000-word profile of Card that emphasized the benefit of Card's experience and portrayed him as bringing efficiency and order to the White House. So, the history is clear: President Clinton was lambasted by the news media for not having enough old Washington hands on his staff; President Bush was praised for choosing veterans of previous Republican administrations. Which brings us back to the present, and to the bizarre spectacle of journalists and pundits blasting Barack Obama for choosing staff members and Cabinet secretaries who are experienced and qualified. Here, for example, is MSNBC's Chris Matthews, noting that Hillary Clinton, Eric Holder, John Podesta, and Rahm Emanuel either have or are reported to have roles in Obama's transition or administration: This is what you do when you don't have elections. You simply promote the people ... who had the deputy jobs. You can do this in any bureaucratic state. You could do it in the old Soviet Union, do it anywhere you have a bureaucracy. You don't need to hold elections to promote deputies to the top job when it comes time, right? You don't need elections for this crap, do you? ... You just keep promoting people from within in any old, tired bureaucracy. That's what you do. This is nothing short of insane. Eric Holder, reportedly Barack Obama's choice for attorney general, did indeed have one of the "deputy jobs" at the Justice Department -- in the Clinton administration, not the Bush administration. It's a pretty safe bet that if we didn't have an election a few weeks ago -- if the Bush administration were continuing indefinitely -- Eric Holder would not be the next attorney general. It's an even safer bet that Rahm Emanuel would not be chief of staff. Much of the nation may wish the Bush administration never happened, but it did. None of the people Matthews mentioned are being "promoted from within" -- not a single one. (Matthews, by the way, was unconcerned about hiring officials from former administrations when George W. Bush was doing the hiring: In 2001, he praised Dick Cheney, Don Rumsfeld, and Colin Powell as "real heavyweights in terms of experience.") Matthews' MSNBC colleague Pat Buchanan is very much on the same page, repeatedly complaining that the incoming Obama administration will be filled with "retreads." Yes: Pat Buchanan, born and raised in Washington, D.C.; educated at Georgetown; a veteran of two GOP White Houses and himself twice a candidate for the presidency; a 20-year fixture on cable news -- that Pat Buchanan is complaining about too many "retreads." That was a common theme on MSNBC, where longtime Washington insiders Chris Matthews, David Gregory, and Christopher Hitchens -- among others -- suggested that the choice of former Clinton administration officials was contrary to the idea of "change": Chris Matthews: "The possibility that Barack Obama might pick Hillary Clinton to be his secretary of state has a lot of people asking, 'Whatever happened to change, the change we can believe in?' " David Gregory: "Is this change you can believe in? The Obama team is going to face these questions about big-time Clinton administration people into the fold now in some of the biggest jobs in the Cabinet. Eric Holder certainly fits that bill." Christopher Hitchens: "This is the woman who, if you were for change that you can believe in, whichever change it was, you were voting against. ... [I]t's Clinton redo, not just Rahm Emanuel. Whatever this is, it's not change." This has been a sentiment expressed commonly in the media, nowhere more frequently than on MSNBC, but the suggestion that bringing on former Clinton administration officials -- even Clinton herself -- is inconsistent with a desire for change is pure bunk. Asserting such inconsistency requires some deeply flawed assumptions: that everyone who worked in the Clinton administration is alike; that the Clinton and Bush administrations pursued identical policies with identical effectiveness; or that the desire for "change" is simply a desire for change in the types of people who hold government jobs. People want a change in policy and a change in effectiveness. They want a change from George W. Bush, of whom disapproval is near-universal. The idea that 67 million people voted for Barack Obama because they disliked the Clinton administration is ludicrous. It ignores the wide and deep disgust with the direction Bush has taken the nation and the stunning incompetence with which he has done so. And it overlooks the obvious fact that people voted for Barack Obama because they like him and they like his policy positions. But there is no evidence -- none -- that the nation as a whole has a deep desire to shun some of the people most qualified and experienced for administration jobs simply because they worked for Bill Clinton. Hard-core Republicans and Washington journalists may have such a desire, but that's about it. The whining from journalists about Clinton alumni in the Obama administration is even sillier when you consider that they would presumably criticize Obama if he chose people without prior White House experience, as they criticized Bill Clinton. So the only way Obama can escape criticism is if he hires a bunch of people who worked in the Reagan and Bush administrations. Perversely, after two straight elections in which the American people convincingly rejected failed Republican rule, the punditocracy would be less likely to criticize Obama for abandoning his promise of change if he retained the services of the very Bush administration officials who screwed up the country so badly in the first place. No piece of transition news has rankled the chattering class as much as the rumored selection of Hillary Clinton to be secretary of state -- not, in most cases, because they think her unqualified, but because they just don't like her. Christopher Hitchens, for one, lashed out at the news on MSNBC, leading the cable channel to treat his comments as though they were both surprising and important. They are neither. Hitchens hates the Clintons. Maybe not as much as he hates Mother Teresa, but there is little doubt that he hates them. Christopher Hitchens criticizing a Clinton is roughly as surprising as a Boston native speaking ill of New York Yankees shortstop Derek Jeter. Despite the fact that there is no indication that anyone outside of its own studios cares what Christopher Hitchens has to say about the Clintons, MSNBC has played his comments over and over again, and even invited him back on the next day to interview him about their previous interview of him. Host David Gregory explained MSNBC's obsession with Hitchens' comments by insisting -- all evidence to the contrary -- that "everybody is talking about" them. Hitchens' bizarre comments about Hillary Clinton included his claim that he has never heard that she is respected by military leadership -- a claim that, if true, merely confirms that Hitchens knows far too little about Clinton for his assessment of her to be taken seriously. And he claimed that in 1993, Hillary Clinton instructed her husband not to intervene in the Balkans because she was afraid that it would interfere with her health-care initiative -- but the book he cited to support his claim does not do so. As Media Matters' Eric Boehlert noted this week, the media has been essentially alone in their anguish about Clinton serving as secretary of state: The press represents nobody but the press on this topic. Meaning, the press has no political cover on this story because there's no partisan angle to the SoS story, which means their long-running Clinton hatred is just sort of out there, exposed for all to see. Think about. It's been virtually impossible to find any senior members of Congress--Republican or Democrat--who publicly oppose Clinton as the SoS, which in and of itself is rather astonishing. And within the liberal blogosphere, where one might expect there to be vocal opposition to Clinton since so many within the netroots opposed her during the primaries, most A-list writers have been extremely quiet in terms of airing opposition. [...] So, if you're keeping score at home, that means the Obama White House is in favor of Clinton, Republicans in Congress are in favor, Democrats in Congress are in favor, and liberal activists are, essentially, in favor. (And so are most Americans.) In the early stages of the last two administrations (both the result of "change" elections), the media made much of the importance of new presidents bringing on old hands with White House experience. Suddenly, they portray such moves as inconsistent with the idea of "change." There are really only two possible explanations for this inconsistency: They are blinded by their hatred of the Clintons, or are desperate for something -- anything -- to use as an excuse to criticize Obama. Either way (or both), they look like fools by coming down in favor of inexperience. America is a nation at war, with stock and housing markets that are falling faster than a flock of turkeys dropped out of an airplane, a broken health-care system, and countless other problems -- and the punditocracy thinks Barack Obama should refuse to hire anyone who worked in the most successful administration of the past several decades. Incredible. Jamison Foser is Executive Vice President at Media Matters for America.
Media Matters - Media Matters: When did experience become a flaw? {...}
Published: November 22, 2008, 1:56 am - Indexed: November 23, 2008, 1:26 pm - Page Size: 23KB
Category: Society > Issues > Business > Media > Bias and Balance

]]> Society > Issues > Business > Media > Bias and Balance {ISSUES > BIAS AND BALANCE} - Scarborough again baselessly claimed Franken can "steal" votes in Minnesota Senate race http://articles.world-of-newave.info/society/issues/business/media/bias-and-balance/scarborough-again-baselessly-claimed-franken-20081192126.htm http://articles.world-of-newave.info/society/issues/business/media/bias-and-balance/scarborough-again-baselessly-claimed-franken-20081192126.htm Fri, 21 Nov 2008 20:19:58 GMT On the November 21 edition of MSNBC's Morning Joe, co-host Joe Scarborough declared that Minnesota Democrat Al Franken "only needs to steal 130 more votes to win" his Senate race against incumbent Sen. Norm Coleman (R), which is currently undergoing a recount. Scarborough similarly asserted on November 19, "If Al Franken can steal enough votes in Minnesota, that's get -- that gets Democrats to 59" Senate seats. In neither case did Scarborough offer any evidence of any wrongdoing by Franken or any willingness on Franken's part to do anything wrong to win. As Media Matters for America noted, Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty (R) stated as recently as November 16 that "[a]s of this moment, there is no actual evidence of wrongdoing or fraud in the process." Media Matters can find no evidence that Pawlenty has since revised his assessment. According to a November 15 Minneapolis Star-Tribune article, Pawlenty also said "he had complete confidence in the integrity of the recount that will be overseen by the state Canvassing Board" and quoted him stating: "That five-person Canvassing Board ... will run a fair and appropriate process, and they will render a fair and appropriate result." Scarborough also falsely asserted on the November 21 edition of Morning Joe, "all the votes that were mis -- miscast were all miscast for the same guy, huh?" In fact, during the recount, some votes that were originally counted for Franken have been reassigned to Coleman, and vice versa (precinct by precinct results from the recount can be found here). Additionally, shortly after Scarborough said Franken can win by "steal[ing]" votes, MSNBC analyst Pat Buchanan replied: "Look, you've got a station wagon up in the Iron Range that's hold -- got more of them in there, I'm sure, Joe." Later in the broadcast, Scarborough similarly said, "Buchanan says Al Franken can steal 130 votes easily. He said he can usually hide 130 votes in the back of a station wagon." Buchanan and Scarborough were echoing the widely discredited rumor that 32 absentee ballots from Minneapolis were mishandled in the course of being transported by car, an allegation that has been dismissed by both the Coleman campaign and Pawlenty. Fritz Knaak, a lawyer for Coleman, reportedly said on November 8, "We were actually told [ballots] had been riding around in [Minneapolis director of elections Cynthia Reichert's] car for several days, which raised all kinds of integrity questions." However, the Associated Press reported that same day that Knaak "said a Minneapolis attorney reassured Coleman's campaign that no one but an elected official had access to the 32 ballots and there was no tampering." On November 10, Knaak reportedly said of the purported incident, "It does not appear that there was any ballot-tampering, and that was our concern." Similarly, Pawlenty -- who also initially forwarded the car-ballot rumor -- said on the November 16 broadcast of Fox Broadcasting Co.'s Fox News Sunday that "[t]here's a news report in Minnesota that the ballot-in-the-trunk story has now been retracted, that it wasn't accurate." From the November 21 edition of MSNBC's Morning Joe: ANDREA MITCHELL (guest co-host): And in Minnesota, Republican Senator Norm Coleman's edge over Democrat Al Franken faded somewhat in the second day of a statewide recount. According to the secretary of state in Minnesota, Franken now trails Coleman by just 129 votes out of nearly 3 million cast. SCARBOROUGH: All right, so, Pat Buchanan, Al Franken only needs to steal 130 more votes to win that thing, and you've got to be thinking, "That's child's play." BUCHANAN: Look, you've got a station wagon up in the Iron Range that's hold -- got more of them in there, I'm sure, Joe. MITCHELL: These are the good government guys in Minnesota. They don't work that way, you know -- SCARBOROUGH: Yeah, these are the good government guys, but they're -- that all the votes that were mis -- miscast were all miscast for the same guy, huh? And again, Buchanan's thinking, "This is child play. I can steal 130 votes" -- MITCHELL: This is Michael -- now this is - SCARBOROUGH: -- "by the time I went to get a beer." MITCHELL: This is Walter Mondale country. These guys are reformers. SCARBOROUGH: Yeah, they are, reform -- whatever. BUCHANAN: I can find those, easy, Joe. SCARBOROUGH: Yeah, 130's nothing. Nothing, nothing. [...] MITCHELL: And in Minnesota, Republican Senator Norm Coleman's edge over Democrat Al Franken faded somewhat in the second day of a statewide recount. According to Minnesota's secretary of state, Franken now trails by only 129 votes out of nearly 3 million cast. SCARBOROUGH: All right. And Buchanan says Al Franken can steal 130 votes easily. He said he can -- MITCHELL: Out of the Iron Range. SCARBOROUGH: -- usually hide 130 votes in the back of a station wagon. Mediamatters.Org Scarborough again baselessly claimed Franken can "steal" votes in Minnesota Senate race {new window}   Mediamatters.Org - On the November 21 edition of MSNBC's Morning Joe, co-host Joe Scarborough declared that Minnesota Democrat Al Franken "only needs to steal 130 more votes to win" his Senate race against incumbent Sen. Norm Coleman (R), which is currently undergoing a recount. Scarborough similarly asserted on November 19, "If Al Franken can steal enough votes in Minnesota, that's get -- that gets Democrats to 59" Senate seats. In neither case did Scarborough offer any evidence of any wrongdoing by Franken or any willingness on Franken's part to do anything wrong to win. As Media Matters for America noted, Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty (R) stated as recently as November 16 that "[a]s of this moment, there is no actual evidence of wrongdoing or fraud in the process." Media Matters can find no evidence that Pawlenty has since revised his assessment. According to a November 15 Minneapolis Star-Tribune article, Pawlenty also said "he had complete confidence in the integrity of the recount that will be overseen by the state Canvassing Board" and quoted him stating: "That five-person Canvassing Board ... will run a fair and appropriate process, and they will render a fair and appropriate result." Scarborough also falsely asserted on the November 21 edition of Morning Joe, "all the votes that were mis -- miscast were all miscast for the same guy, huh?" In fact, during the recount, some votes that were originally counted for Franken have been reassigned to Coleman, and vice versa (precinct by precinct results from the recount can be found here). Additionally, shortly after Scarborough said Franken can win by "steal[ing]" votes, MSNBC analyst Pat Buchanan replied: "Look, you've got a station wagon up in the Iron Range that's hold -- got more of them in there, I'm sure, Joe." Later in the broadcast, Scarborough similarly said, "Buchanan says Al Franken can steal 130 votes easily. He said he can usually hide 130 votes in the back of a station wagon." Buchanan and Scarborough were echoing the widely discredited rumor that 32 absentee ballots from Minneapolis were mishandled in the course of being transported by car, an allegation that has been dismissed by both the Coleman campaign and Pawlenty. Fritz Knaak, a lawyer for Coleman, reportedly said on November 8, "We were actually told [ballots] had been riding around in [Minneapolis director of elections Cynthia Reichert's] car for several days, which raised all kinds of integrity questions." However, the Associated Press reported that same day that Knaak "said a Minneapolis attorney reassured Coleman's campaign that no one but an elected official had access to the 32 ballots and there was no tampering." On November 10, Knaak reportedly said of the purported incident, "It does not appear that there was any ballot-tampering, and that was our concern." Similarly, Pawlenty -- who also initially forwarded the car-ballot rumor -- said on the November 16 broadcast of Fox Broadcasting Co.'s Fox News Sunday that "[t]here's a news report in Minnesota that the ballot-in-the-trunk story has now been retracted, that it wasn't accurate." From the November 21 edition of MSNBC's Morning Joe: ANDREA MITCHELL (guest co-host): And in Minnesota, Republican Senator Norm Coleman's edge over Democrat Al Franken faded somewhat in the second day of a statewide recount. According to the secretary of state in Minnesota, Franken now trails Coleman by just 129 votes out of nearly 3 million cast. SCARBOROUGH: All right, so, Pat Buchanan, Al Franken only needs to steal 130 more votes to win that thing, and you've got to be thinking, "That's child's play." BUCHANAN: Look, you've got a station wagon up in the Iron Range that's hold -- got more of them in there, I'm sure, Joe. MITCHELL: These are the good government guys in Minnesota. They don't work that way, you know -- SCARBOROUGH: Yeah, these are the good government guys, but they're -- that all the votes that were mis -- miscast were all miscast for the same guy, huh? And again, Buchanan's thinking, "This is child play. I can steal 130 votes" -- MITCHELL: This is Michael -- now this is - SCARBOROUGH: -- "by the time I went to get a beer." MITCHELL: This is Walter Mondale country. These guys are reformers. SCARBOROUGH: Yeah, they are, reform -- whatever. BUCHANAN: I can find those, easy, Joe. SCARBOROUGH: Yeah, 130's nothing. Nothing, nothing. [...] MITCHELL: And in Minnesota, Republican Senator Norm Coleman's edge over Democrat Al Franken faded somewhat in the second day of a statewide recount. According to Minnesota's secretary of state, Franken now trails by only 129 votes out of nearly 3 million cast. SCARBOROUGH: All right. And Buchanan says Al Franken can steal 130 votes easily. He said he can -- MITCHELL: Out of the Iron Range. SCARBOROUGH: -- usually hide 130 votes in the back of a station wagon.
Media Matters - Scarborough again baselessly claimed Franken can "steal" votes in Minnesota Senate race {...} On Morning Joe , Joe Scarborough again suggested that Al Franken is willing to "steal" votes in order to prevail against Sen. Norm Coleman. In making the suggestion, Scarborough again gave no evidence of any wrongdoing by Franken. Gov. Tim Pawlenty stated as recently as November 16 that "[a]s of this moment, there is no actual evidence of wrongdoing or fraud in the process." {...}
Published: November 21, 2008, 8:19 pm - Indexed: November 23, 2008, 1:25 pm - Page Size: 21KB
Category: Society > Issues > Business > Media > Bias and Balance

]]> Society > Issues > Business > Media > Bias and Balance {LITERATURE > CYBERPUNK} - Janet Napolitano as Homeland Security chief? "We could do worse" http://articles.world-of-newave.info/arts/literature/genres/cyberpunk/janet-napolitano-as-homeland-security-chief-we-20081183324.htm http://articles.world-of-newave.info/arts/literature/genres/cyberpunk/janet-napolitano-as-homeland-security-chief-we-20081183324.htm Thu, 20 Nov 2008 17:50:42 GMT Reason's David Weigel thinks Arizona Governor Janet Napolitano (rumored to be Obama's pick) wouldn't be a bad choice for Secretary of Homeland Security. My favorite part of Weigel's piece is his assessment of Rudy Giuliani: I think history has already forgotten Battlin' Bernie Kerik, the laughably corrupt and mobbed-up cop whom Rudy Giuliani commended to George W. Bush as a great replacement for Ridge. Kerik's nomination caught fire like styrofoam in a microwave, and we as a nation got the first clue that Giuliani had been replaced at some point in 2001-2004 by a strange, bald cyborg that needed to recharge batteries by making inopportune phone calls to its "wife." Dammit, Janet, I Love You... Boingboing.Net Janet Napolitano as Homeland Security chief? "We could do worse" {new window}   Www.Boingboing.Net - Reason's David Weigel thinks Arizona Governor Janet Napolitano (rumored to be Obama's pick) wouldn't be a bad choice for Secretary of Homeland Security. My favorite part of Weigel's piece is his assessment of Rudy Giuliani: I think history has already forgotten Battlin' Bernie Kerik, the laughably corrupt and mobbed-up cop whom Rudy Giuliani commended to George W. Bush as a great replacement for Ridge. Kerik's nomination caught fire like styrofoam in a microwave, and we as a nation got the first clue that Giuliani had been replaced at some point in 2001-2004 by a strange, bald cyborg that needed to recharge batteries by making inopportune phone calls to its "wife." Dammit, Janet, I Love You...
Janet Napolitano as Homeland Security chief? "We could do worse" - Boing Boing {...}
Published: November 20, 2008, 5:50 pm - Indexed: November 21, 2008, 11:42 am - Page Size: 73KB
Category: Arts > Literature > Genres > Cyberpunk

]]> Arts > Literature > Genres > Cyberpunk {ISSUES > BIAS AND BALANCE} - That was then ... Matthews lauded "experience" of Bush's Cabinet picks in 2001, but says Obama's selection of prior administration vets is "crap" http://articles.world-of-newave.info/society/issues/business/media/bias-and-balance/that-was-then-matthews-lauded-experience-of-bush-20081115322.htm http://articles.world-of-newave.info/society/issues/business/media/bias-and-balance/that-was-then-matthews-lauded-experience-of-bush-20081115322.htm Wed, 19 Nov 2008 03:10:54 GMT On the November 18 edition of MSNBC's Hardball, amid reports that President-elect Barack Obama has decided to nominate Clinton Justice Department veteran Eric Holder to be attorney general, host Chris Matthews said, "This is what you do when you don't have elections. You simply promote the people ... who had the deputy jobs. You could do this in any bureaucratic state, you could do it in the old Soviet Union. ... You don't need elections for this crap." But in 2001, responding to then President-elect George W. Bush's selection to his cabinet of veterans of prior administrations, Matthews offered a very different assessment of such actions. Purporting to quote "an NBC driver" on the January 3, 2001, edition of Hardball, Matthews said the driver, a Vietnam veteran, is "like a lot of guys you meet," and said, "They want guys who've been around and survived." Matthews then said of then-President elect George W. Bush's Cabinet picks: "You've got it in this Cabinet. There's some real heavyweights in terms of experience." At the time, Bush had nominated Donald Rumsfeld to be secretary of defense, the same position he held under President Ford, and Colin Powell, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff under George H.W. Bush, to be secretary of state. He had also named Dick Cheney, defense secretary under President George H.W. Bush, to be his running mate. While Matthews raised the question of whether, in his Cabinet picks, Bush "risk[ed] being overwhelmed by their maturity and veteran status," he did not suggest that Bush was mimicking "the old Soviet Union" in selecting people who had served in previous administrations. From the January 3, 2001, edition of MSNBC's Hardball with Chris Matthews (retrieved from the Nexis news database): MATTHEWS: Let's talk about this big fight over the Cabinet. First of all, it's -- the most impressive Cabinet appointment in the world right now is -- is Colin Powell, your friend. BILL BENNETT (secretary of education under President Reagan): Well, obviously... MATTHEWS: Clearly. BENNETT: ... hailed worldwide and everyone in America loves him. MATTHEWS: Probably the most impressive Cabinet appointment since Jefferson or whatever back in the early days of our republic. Do you think he might find his way into a vice-presidential nomination in four years? BENNETT: Sure he can. And who knows what Cheney wants to do? He could have found his way into a presidential nomination. If you remember, some of us were encouraging... MATTHEWS: But this will be the less -- this would be less dramatic. This would be a smooth transition. BENNETT: Yeah, this would be an easy transition. Exactly right. MATTHEWS: And he -- I've been thinking about this overnight. The Bush people have a tremendous ace in the hole. It's Colin Powell. He may run the next time. That ticket would be undefeatable. BENNETT: Well, it's an ace in the hole for that. It's, also, an ace in the hole, I think, for some serious issue of foreign policy. If we need an appeal to the nation, the president makes it. Colin Powell can also speak and persuade a lot of people. MATTHEWS: I had an NBC driver the other day, I was doing the TODAY show, and he said something really powerful to me, like a lot of guys you meet. You know what he said? He said people -- and he was in Vietnam for -- he said people like to be around veterans. They like to be with a guy who's been there 10 months. They don't want to be surrounded by raw recruits, and... BENNETT: That's right. MATTHEWS: ... and guys that -- you know, just guys who were brought in -- grunts, as they were called. BENNETT: Right. MATTHEWS: They want guys who've been around and survived. You've got it in this Cabinet. There's some real heavyweights in terms of experience. BENNETT: Yeah. MATTHEWS: Does your guy, the president elect, risk being overwhelmed by their maturity and veteran status? I mean, you've got Dick Cheney in the room. Don Rumsfeld, the former secretary of Defense. You've got Colin Powell, a world hero. And you're the least... BENNETT: Right. MATTHEWS: ... impressive guy in the room. BENNETT: Well, I don't think so, but very strong. I -- you know, when I went to a university once, the president of the university told me if your department chairman -- there's only one test for a good department chairman -- hire people whose -- who are -- whose light will shine brighter than his, that's a secure guy. This is a very strong bunch of people. It's also -- and a lot of people are somewhat surprised -- a conservative Cabinet. I mean, it's... MATTHEWS: Very. BENNETT: ... diverse and all this, but this is a very strong, conservative Cabinet. From the November 18 edition of Hardball: MATTHEWS: But first tonight, as President-elect Obama assembles his governing team, some of the members of the new administration charged with change look awfully familiar. Joining me, MSNBC's political analyst Pat Buchanan and American Prospect editor and author of Obama's Challenge Robert Kuttner. Pat, let's take a look at some of these faces. I mean, they are not the new kids on the block. Eric Holder tonight, for attorney general. Hillary Clinton for secretary of state. Joe Lieberman stays on as senator from Connecticut and prime member of the Democratic caucus. Look at this list. We've got Lieberman on, [John] Podesta [co-chairman of Obama's transition team], [Rahm] Emanuel [incoming White House chief of staff], Holder, Clinton -- the list goes on. I'm looking for the new face. Pat? BUCHANAN: Well, we're in -- look, we're in retread city, is what's going on. This is the Nixon -- I mean, the Clinton alumni association showing up here. MATTHEWS: No, you're a Nixon alumni association. BUCHANAN: I'm Nixon alumni. But you know, but Eric Holder is, I mean, he's a very competent, able man, but the thing he's most famous for, as you mentioned, is a pardon -- Frank Rich's pardon, which he expedited on behalf of Bill Clinton. He was going to run for mayor of D.C. He's as local as you can get. I mean, I don't see anyone from outside, real change here. I mean, these people are undeniably competent, but this is what you'd expect if someone else had won. MATTHEWS: This is what you do when you don't have elections. You simply promote the people -- Robert Kuttner -- who had the deputy jobs. You could do this in any bureaucratic state, you could do it in the old Soviet Union, do it anywhere you have a bureaucracy. You don't need to hold elections to promote deputies to the top job when it comes time, right? You don't need elections for this crap, do you? Robert? KUTTNER: Well, I was disappointed -- MATTHEWS: You just keep promoting people from within in any old, tired bureaucracy. That's what you do. You don't think. It's very Republican thinking, Pat, by the way. By the way, he didn't pardon Frank Rich of The New York Times; he pardoned Marc Rich. BUCHANAN: It was Marc Rich. MATTHEWS: I know you've got Frank on your mind. But, uh -- just kidding. We all make mistakes here. Mediamatters.Org That was then ... Matthews lauded "experience" of Bush's Cabinet picks in 2001, but says Obama's selection of prior administration vets is "crap" {new window}   Mediamatters.Org - On the November 18 edition of MSNBC's Hardball, amid reports that President-elect Barack Obama has decided to nominate Clinton Justice Department veteran Eric Holder to be attorney general, host Chris Matthews said, "This is what you do when you don't have elections. You simply promote the people ... who had the deputy jobs. You could do this in any bureaucratic state, you could do it in the old Soviet Union. ... You don't need elections for this crap." But in 2001, responding to then President-elect George W. Bush's selection to his cabinet of veterans of prior administrations, Matthews offered a very different assessment of such actions. Purporting to quote "an NBC driver" on the January 3, 2001, edition of Hardball, Matthews said the driver, a Vietnam veteran, is "like a lot of guys you meet," and said, "They want guys who've been around and survived." Matthews then said of then-President elect George W. Bush's Cabinet picks: "You've got it in this Cabinet. There's some real heavyweights in terms of experience." At the time, Bush had nominated Donald Rumsfeld to be secretary of defense, the same position he held under President Ford, and Colin Powell, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff under George H.W. Bush, to be secretary of state. He had also named Dick Cheney, defense secretary under President George H.W. Bush, to be his running mate. While Matthews raised the question of whether, in his Cabinet picks, Bush "risk[ed] being overwhelmed by their maturity and veteran status," he did not suggest that Bush was mimicking "the old Soviet Union" in selecting people who had served in previous administrations. From the January 3, 2001, edition of MSNBC's Hardball with Chris Matthews (retrieved from the Nexis news database): MATTHEWS: Let's talk about this big fight over the Cabinet. First of all, it's -- the most impressive Cabinet appointment in the world right now is -- is Colin Powell, your friend. BILL BENNETT (secretary of education under President Reagan): Well, obviously... MATTHEWS: Clearly. BENNETT: ... hailed worldwide and everyone in America loves him. MATTHEWS: Probably the most impressive Cabinet appointment since Jefferson or whatever back in the early days of our republic. Do you think he might find his way into a vice-presidential nomination in four years? BENNETT: Sure he can. And who knows what Cheney wants to do? He could have found his way into a presidential nomination. If you remember, some of us were encouraging... MATTHEWS: But this will be the less -- this would be less dramatic. This would be a smooth transition. BENNETT: Yeah, this would be an easy transition. Exactly right. MATTHEWS: And he -- I've been thinking about this overnight. The Bush people have a tremendous ace in the hole. It's Colin Powell. He may run the next time. That ticket would be undefeatable. BENNETT: Well, it's an ace in the hole for that. It's, also, an ace in the hole, I think, for some serious issue of foreign policy. If we need an appeal to the nation, the president makes it. Colin Powell can also speak and persuade a lot of people. MATTHEWS: I had an NBC driver the other day, I was doing the TODAY show, and he said something really powerful to me, like a lot of guys you meet. You know what he said? He said people -- and he was in Vietnam for -- he said people like to be around veterans. They like to be with a guy who's been there 10 months. They don't want to be surrounded by raw recruits, and... BENNETT: That's right. MATTHEWS: ... and guys that -- you know, just guys who were brought in -- grunts, as they were called. BENNETT: Right. MATTHEWS: They want guys who've been around and survived. You've got it in this Cabinet. There's some real heavyweights in terms of experience. BENNETT: Yeah. MATTHEWS: Does your guy, the president elect, risk being overwhelmed by their maturity and veteran status? I mean, you've got Dick Cheney in the room. Don Rumsfeld, the former secretary of Defense. You've got Colin Powell, a world hero. And you're the least... BENNETT: Right. MATTHEWS: ... impressive guy in the room. BENNETT: Well, I don't think so, but very strong. I -- you know, when I went to a university once, the president of the university told me if your department chairman -- there's only one test for a good department chairman -- hire people whose -- who are -- whose light will shine brighter than his, that's a secure guy. This is a very strong bunch of people. It's also -- and a lot of people are somewhat surprised -- a conservative Cabinet. I mean, it's... MATTHEWS: Very. BENNETT: ... diverse and all this, but this is a very strong, conservative Cabinet. From the November 18 edition of Hardball: MATTHEWS: But first tonight, as President-elect Obama assembles his governing team, some of the members of the new administration charged with change look awfully familiar. Joining me, MSNBC's political analyst Pat Buchanan and American Prospect editor and author of Obama's Challenge Robert Kuttner. Pat, let's take a look at some of these faces. I mean, they are not the new kids on the block. Eric Holder tonight, for attorney general. Hillary Clinton for secretary of state. Joe Lieberman stays on as senator from Connecticut and prime member of the Democratic caucus. Look at this list. We've got Lieberman on, [John] Podesta [co-chairman of Obama's transition team], [Rahm] Emanuel [incoming White House chief of staff], Holder, Clinton -- the list goes on. I'm looking for the new face. Pat? BUCHANAN: Well, we're in -- look, we're in retread city, is what's going on. This is the Nixon -- I mean, the Clinton alumni association showing up here. MATTHEWS: No, you're a Nixon alumni association. BUCHANAN: I'm Nixon alumni. But you know, but Eric Holder is, I mean, he's a very competent, able man, but the thing he's most famous for, as you mentioned, is a pardon -- Frank Rich's pardon, which he expedited on behalf of Bill Clinton. He was going to run for mayor of D.C. He's as local as you can get. I mean, I don't see anyone from outside, real change here. I mean, these people are undeniably competent, but this is what you'd expect if someone else had won. MATTHEWS: This is what you do when you don't have elections. You simply promote the people -- Robert Kuttner -- who had the deputy jobs. You could do this in any bureaucratic state, you could do it in the old Soviet Union, do it anywhere you have a bureaucracy. You don't need to hold elections to promote deputies to the top job when it comes time, right? You don't need elections for this crap, do you? Robert? KUTTNER: Well, I was disappointed -- MATTHEWS: You just keep promoting people from within in any old, tired bureaucracy. That's what you do. You don't think. It's very Republican thinking, Pat, by the way. By the way, he didn't pardon Frank Rich of The New York Times; he pardoned Marc Rich. BUCHANAN: It was Marc Rich. MATTHEWS: I know you've got Frank on your mind. But, uh -- just kidding. We all make mistakes here.
Media Matters - That was then ... Matthews lauded "experience" of Bush's Cabinet picks in 2001, but says Obama's selection of prior administration vets is "crap" {...} Amid reports that President-elect Barack Obama has decided to nominate Clinton Justice Department veteran Eric Holder to be attorney general, Chris Matthews criticized Obama on Hardball : "You could do this in any bureaucratic state, you could do it in the old Soviet Union. ... You don't need elections for this crap." But in 2001, Matthews said of George W. Bush's Cabinet picks, which included veterans of past administrations: "There's some real heavyweights in terms of experience." {...}
Published: November 19, 2008, 3:10 am - Indexed: November 19, 2008, 10:21 am - Page Size: 23KB
Category: Society > Issues > Business > Media > Bias and Balance

]]> Society > Issues > Business > Media > Bias and Balance {EUROPE > NEWS AND MEDIA} - Child protection stifled by £30m computer system - report http://articles.world-of-newave.info/regional/europe/united-kingdom/news-and-media/child-protection-stifled-by-30m-computer-system-20081146012.htm http://articles.world-of-newave.info/regional/europe/united-kingdom/news-and-media/child-protection-stifled-by-30m-computer-system-20081146012.htm Wed, 19 Nov 2008 00:13:26 GMT A government computer system intended to improve the handling of child abuse cases has led to social workers having to spend more than 100 hours for every case filling out forms, cutting the time they have to make visits.Reports by two universities have revealed that the Integrated Children's System (ICS), launched in 2005 following the death of Victoria Climbié, is so laborious it typically takes more than 10 hours to fill in initial assessment forms for a child considered to be at risk. A "core assessment" takes a further 48 hours on average, according to government-commissioned research by York University. The system, which cost £30m to implement, creates deadlines that further restrict the time available for family visits.Concern about the system comes as Haringey council faces two government inquiries into the handling of the case of 17-month-old Baby P, who died from more than 50 injuries despite being under a child protection order. Last night the council's Labour cabinet met for the first time since the story emerged. The Liberal Democrats on the council called for the resignations of councillor Liz Santry, cabinet member for children and young people, and the council leader, George Meehan.Meehan last night issued a "heartfelt and unreserved apology" on behalf of the council to "those who knew and cared for the well being of Baby P; those residents of Haringey who feel let down by the actions of the child protection agencies in our area; and the wider public."We are very sorry for the events which led up to the death of Baby P; sorry for the suffering he endured; sorry for the failure of all the child protection agencies involved to protect him, to save his life. We are truly sorry," he said.He defended the borough's social workers who, he said, "have continued to do their best, often in very difficult circumstances". He called on the public "to recognise that denigrating their service does nothing to improve child protection".Meehan added: "There has, however, been failure by all the agencies involved to protect this little child from the pain and suffering which led to his death; and for that we are truly and genuinely sorry."Earlier, Ed Balls, the secretary of state for children, schools and families, unveiled new laws aimed at protecting vulnerable children.The NSPCC called on the directors of children's services in 150 English local authorities to examine all their child protection plans and identify by Christmas those children in greatest danger.But the pressure on social workers, effectively tied to their desks by bureaucracy, reveals systemic problems in child protection. "Workers report being more worried about missed deadlines than missed visits," said Professor Sue White, who is studying five child protection departments for the University of Lancaster. "The [computer] system regularly takes up 80% of their day."ICS replaced a system where social workers wrote case notes in narrative form, which many argue made it easier for different officials to quickly pick up the details of complex cases. In the review by the University of York of the first authorities to adopt the system, the use of tick boxes was criticised because of "a lack of precision that could lead to inaccuracy". It added that the system "obscured the family context". The level of detail demanded by ticking boxes "sacrificed the clarity that is needed to make documentation useful," it concluded."If you go into a social work office today there's no chatter, nobody is talking about the cases, it is just people tapping at computers," said White. One social worker interviewed by White's team said: "I spend my day click- clicking and then I'll get an email from someone else - say a fostering agency- asking for a bit more information on a child: 'Could we please have a pen picture of the three children'. It's horrendous. "It's impossible to get a picture of the child," said another. "It's all over the place on the computer system ... That coupled with the number of people involved in the case makes my life very difficult."Eileen Monroe, an expert on child protection at the London School of Economics, said some local authorities are petitioning the government to allow them to drop the system. "The programme is set up to continually nag you, and the child's misery just doesn't nag as loudly."Baby PChild protectionPolitics and technologyguardian.co.uk © Guardian News & Media Limited 2008 | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds Guardian.Co.Uk Child protection stifled by £30m computer system - report {new window}   Www.Guardian.Co.Uk - A government computer system intended to improve the handling of child abuse cases has led to social workers having to spend more than 100 hours for every case filling out forms, cutting the time they have to make visits.Reports by two universities have revealed that the Integrated Children's System (ICS), launched in 2005 following the death of Victoria Climbié, is so laborious it typically takes more than 10 hours to fill in initial assessment forms for a child considered to be at risk. A "core assessment" takes a further 48 hours on average, according to government-commissioned research by York University. The system, which cost £30m to implement, creates deadlines that further restrict the time available for family visits.Concern about the system comes as Haringey council faces two government inquiries into the handling of the case of 17-month-old Baby P, who died from more than 50 injuries despite being under a child protection order. Last night the council's Labour cabinet met for the first time since the story emerged. The Liberal Democrats on the council called for the resignations of councillor Liz Santry, cabinet member for children and young people, and the council leader, George Meehan.Meehan last night issued a "heartfelt and unreserved apology" on behalf of the council to "those who knew and cared for the well being of Baby P; those residents of Haringey who feel let down by the actions of the child protection agencies in our area; and the wider public."We are very sorry for the events which led up to the death of Baby P; sorry for the suffering he endured; sorry for the failure of all the child protection agencies involved to protect him, to save his life. We are truly sorry," he said.He defended the borough's social workers who, he said, "have continued to do their best, often in very difficult circumstances". He called on the public "to recognise that denigrating their service does nothing to improve child protection".Meehan added: "There has, however, been failure by all the agencies involved to protect this little child from the pain and suffering which led to his death; and for that we are truly and genuinely sorry."Earlier, Ed Balls, the secretary of state for children, schools and families, unveiled new laws aimed at protecting vulnerable children.The NSPCC called on the directors of children's services in 150 English local authorities to examine all their child protection plans and identify by Christmas those children in greatest danger.But the pressure on social workers, effectively tied to their desks by bureaucracy, reveals systemic problems in child protection. "Workers report being more worried about missed deadlines than missed visits," said Professor Sue White, who is studying five child protection departments for the University of Lancaster. "The [computer] system regularly takes up 80% of their day."ICS replaced a system where social workers wrote case notes in narrative form, which many argue made it easier for different officials to quickly pick up the details of complex cases. In the review by the University of York of the first authorities to adopt the system, the use of tick boxes was criticised because of "a lack of precision that could lead to inaccuracy". It added that the system "obscured the family context". The level of detail demanded by ticking boxes "sacrificed the clarity that is needed to make documentation useful," it concluded."If you go into a social work office today there's no chatter, nobody is talking about the cases, it is just people tapping at computers," said White. One social worker interviewed by White's team said: "I spend my day click- clicking and then I'll get an email from someone else - say a fostering agency- asking for a bit more information on a child: 'Could we please have a pen picture of the three children'. It's horrendous. "It's impossible to get a picture of the child," said another. "It's all over the place on the computer system ... That coupled with the number of people involved in the case makes my life very difficult."Eileen Monroe, an expert on child protection at the London School of Economics, said some local authorities are petitioning the government to allow them to drop the system. "The programme is set up to continually nag you, and the child's misery just doesn't nag as loudly."Baby PChild protectionPolitics and technologyguardian.co.uk © Guardian News & Media Limited 2008 | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds
Child protection stifled by £30m computer system - report | Society | The Guardian {...} Survey reveals growing pressure on social workers, while Haringey council leader issues apology for death of Baby P {...}
Published: November 19, 2008, 12:13 am - Indexed: November 19, 2008, 10:26 am - Page Size: 56KB
Category: Regional > Europe > United Kingdom > News and Media

]]> Regional > Europe > United Kingdom > News and Media {EUROPE > COMPUTERS AND INTERNET} - Police vet live music, DJs for 'terror risk' http://articles.world-of-newave.info/regional/europe/united-kingdom/business-and-economy/computers-and-internet/police-vet-live-music-djs-for-terror-risk-20081173216.htm http://articles.world-of-newave.info/regional/europe/united-kingdom/business-and-economy/computers-and-internet/police-vet-live-music-djs-for-terror-risk-20081173216.htm Tue, 11 Nov 2008 15:43:14 GMT Locking down garage...and RnB, basement A dozen London boroughs have implemented a "risk assessment" policy for live music that permits the police to ban any live music if they fail to receive personal details from the performers 14 days in advance. The demand explicitly singles out performances and musical styles favoured by the black community: garage and R&B, and MCs and DJs.? Theregister.Co.Uk Police vet live music, DJs for 'terror risk' {new window}   Www.Theregister.Co.Uk - Locking down garage...and RnB, basement A dozen London boroughs have implemented a "risk assessment" policy for live music that permits the police to ban any live music if they fail to receive personal details