text:
US sues S&P over pre-crisis mortgage ratings
WASHINGTON — The U.S. government says Standard & Poor's knowingly inflated its ratings on risky mortgage investments that played a key role in triggering the 2008 financial crisis.
In charges filed late Monday in Los Angeles federal court, the Justice Department said the credit rating agency gave high marks to mortgage-backed securities because it wanted to earn more business from the banks that issued the investments.
The case is the government's first major action against one of the credit rating agencies that stamped their approval on Wall Street's mortgage bundles. It marks a milestone for the Justice Department, which has been criticized for failing to make bigger cases against the companies involved in the crisis.
"Put simply, this alleged conduct is egregious — and it goes to the very heart of the recent financial crisis," Attorney General Eric Holder told a news conference Tuesday. He called the case "an important step forward in our ongoing efforts to investigate and punish the conduct that is believed to have contributed to the worst economic crisis in recent history."
At the news conference, acting Associate Attorney General Tony West said "we think that at the very least," S&P is liable for more than $5 billion in civil penalties.
Joining the Justice Department in the announcement were attorneys general from California, Connecticut, Delaware, the District of Columbia, Illinois, Iowa and Mississippi, who have filed or will file separate, similar civil fraud lawsuits against S&P. More states are expected to file suits, the Justice Department said.
S&P, a unit of New York-based McGraw-Hill Cos., called the lawsuit "meritless" in a lengthy statement.
"Hindsight is no basis to take legal action against the good-faith opinions of professionals," the company said. "Claims that we deliberately kept ratings high when we knew they should be lower are simply not true," it said.
Rating agencies are widely blamed for contributing to the financial crisis that caused the deepest recession since the Great Depression. They gave high ratings to pools of mortgages and other debt assembled by big banks and hedge funds, suggesting there was little risk for investors. That gave even risk-averse investors the confidence to buy them.
Some investors, including pension funds, can only buy investments that carry high ratings. In effect, rating agencies like S&P greased the assembly line that allowed banks to push risky mortgages out the door.
When the housing market collapsed in 2007, the agencies acknowledged that mortgages issued during the bubble were far less safe than the ratings indicated. They lowered the ratings on nearly $2 trillion worth, spreading panic that spiraled into a crisis.
In its statement Tuesday, S&P said its ratings "reflected our current best judgments" and noted that other rating agencies gave the same high ratings. It said the government also failed to predict the subprime mortgage crisis.
But the government contends in its lawsuit that S&P was more concerned with making money than issuing accurate ratings. It says the company delayed updating its ratings models, rushed through the ratings process and kept giving high ratings even after it was aware that the subprime market was flailing.
The complaint includes a trove of embarrassing emails and other evidence that S&P analysts saw the market's problems early:
— In 2007, an analyst who was reviewing mortgage bundles forwarded a video of himself singing and dancing to a song written to the tune of "Burning Down the House": "Going - all the way down, with/Subprime mortgages." The video colleagues laughing at his performance.
— A PowerPoint presentation that year said being "business friendly" was a core component of S&P's ratings model."
— In a 2004 document, executives said they would poll investors as part of the process for choosing a rating. One executive replied, asking, "Does this mean we are to review our proposed criteria changes with investors, issuers and investment bankers? ... (W)e NEVER poll them as to content or acceptability!" The executive's concerns were ignored, the government said.
— Also that year, an analyst complained that S&P had lost a deal because its criteria for a rating was stricter than Moody's. "We need to address this now in preparation for the future deals," the analyst wrote.
Acting Associate Attorney General Tony West said the documents "make clear that the company regularly would 'tweak,' 'bend,' delay updating or otherwise adjust its ratings models to suit the company's business needs." He said that in 2007, S&P issued ratings that it "knew were inflated at the time they issued them."
S&P said the emails were "cherry picked," that they were "taken out of context, are contradicted by other evidence, and do not reflect our culture, integrity or how we do business."
It said the government left out important context. For example, an email that says deals "could be structured by cows" and then rated by S&P was unrelated to the types of mortgage investments at issue in the government's suit, S&P said. It said the analyst's concerns were addressed before a rating was issued.
Ratings agencies like S&P are a key part of the financial crisis narrative. When banks and other financial firms wanted to package mortgages and sell them to investors, they were required to seek a rating from a rating agency. Those investors suffered huge losses when housing prices plunged and many borrowers defaulted on their mortgage payments.
By 2006, S&P was well aware that the subprime mortgage market was collapsing, the government said, even though S&P didn't issue a mass downgrade of subprime-backed securities until halfway through 2007. The mortgages were performing so poorly "that analysts initially thought the data contained typographical errors," according to one document cited in the lawsuit.
In a 2007 email, another analyst said some at S&P wanted to downgrade mortgage investments earlier, "before this thing started blowing up. But the leadership was concerned of p(asterisk)ssing of too many clients and jumping the gun ahead of Fitch and Moody's."
The government's case sides with critics of rating agencies who have long argued that the agencies suffer from a fundamental conflict of interest. Because they are paid by the banks that create investments they are rating, the agencies had to compete for banks' business. If one agency appeared too strict, banks could shop around for a better rating.
The government's lawsuit says that "S&P's desire for increased revenue and market share ... led S&P to downplay and disregard the true extent of the credit risks" posed by the investments it was rating.
S&P typically charged $150,000 for rating a subprime mortgage-backed security and $750,000 for certain other securities. If S&P lost the business to Fitch or Moody's, its main competitors, the analyst who issued the rating would have to submit a "lost deal" memo explaining why he or she lost the business.
S&P analysts ended up trying to keep banks — its clients — happy, even if it meant approving sloppy ratings, the government said.
The government charged S&P under a law aimed at making sure banks invest safely, and said that S&P's alleged fraud made it possible to sell the investments to banks.
If S&P is eventually found to have committed civil violations, it could face fines and limits on how it does business. The government said in its filing that it's seeking financial penalties.
There are no criminal charges, which would require a higher burden of proof and carry the threat of jail time.
McGraw-Hill shares dropped $2.72, or 5.4 percent, to $47.58 in morning trading Tuesday after plunging nearly 14 percent on Monday after the lawsuit was first reported.
Shares of Moody's Corp., the parent of Moody's Investors Service, another rating agency, lost $1.05, or 2.2 percent, to $48.40 in morning trading Tuesday after closing down nearly 11 percent on Monday.


text:
Thank you, Dodger fans…
Well, it was hardly the finish we all had hoped for back in February at Camelback Ranch, but it was a great day and hopefully those of you at the stadium or watching on TV enjoyed it.
From Brad Ausmus' retirement ceremony and two-hit game, to John Lindsey taking out the lineup card with Joe Torre and even getting in the box score with a pinch-hit appearance…and from Hong-Chih Kuo setting the record for the lowest single-season ERA in franchise history, to Joe Torre's farewell speech and ceremony, it'll actually be a day to remember for many Dodger fans who have supported this team all year.
I know that more than 15,000 people left the stadium with some sort of gift (one of which took home a Hyundai Sonata), while David Hasselhoff's rendition of God Bless America was a huge hit (as was his cameo in Don't Stop Believing).
On behalf of everyone at the Dodgers, we truly thank you for your support this season. You all come out, win or lose, through thick and thin and for that, you have our deepest gratitude.
Keep checking back at the blog all winter, as we'll be updating regularly. And have a safe Fall…
30 Comments
Thank-you, again, Josh for all you do for us. I'm looking forward to see what is going to happen in the off-season. And, I'm sure, as soon as the Hot Stove talks begin, we here, on ITD, will have plenty to talk about.
I want to also thank all of the players who tried their hardest to get us into the playoffs again. Next year, guys.
Amen trublu4ever! Thank you Josh!
A big "Thank You", Josh for all your efforts.
Yeah, the results for this season weren't anywhere close to what we were hoping for, but, as they said in Brooklyn those many years ago, "Wait til next year."
I'm also looking forward to the Hot Stove discussions and expect to see some lively chat here along with some great new songs 🙂
See ya all later! God bless!!!!
Thank you Josh and everyone else that helps you here with the blog!
It was a bad year but still I have so many good memories of the season from the Caravan days to Spring Training trips, to other road trips and of course being at our Blue Heaven on Earth. I got misty saying goodbye to friends at the stadium. The goodbyes started when I saw ushers walking in to the stadium and they continued at each stadium level.
See you soon OLOCR! See you next year boys in Blue! In the meantime, I'll look at the postseason, follow the Hot Stove and maybe go the Fall League.
The winner of the MLB Bloggers league was my LA Locos Azules.
May the Giants go out in the first round!
Good Evening ITD Readers and Writers!!!!!
I didn't get a chance to even watch the games this weekend, other than through my phone. We are well into our fall ball season for the highschool teams. Our Valley Sports Academy team spent the weekend in San Jose playing in a tournament. We didn't do well in terms of wins at all. We lost all three, but we lost all three within one run, and they were all low scoring game. The most runs scored in one game was 3 so good pitching and defense is certainly taking center stage right now.
For those of you that read the story about one of our player's mom's passing away during a very tragic event. Well, the tragic event is that her husband is now being charged with murder in which he is pleading not guilty. Anyhow, I had the pleasure of spending the weekend with Chris, the player. He is one of our relief pitchers so he only comes in for an inning at a time. He has kind of an underarm, sidearm pitch going, which is very off speed and you can maybe only use him for one or two innings at the most since it won't take long for a good team to tee off on him if they get the timing down. Anyhow, for two days now I saw him pitch his two innings like nothing in the world mattered other than being on that mound. And to think the other team had no clue what this young man has gone through in the last two weeks and what he is about to head into with a trial lurking in the weeks, months and possibly years to come. I sat through dinners with him, and other than an occasional sadness you would see, he looked and acted pretty normal. He and his brother are toughing it out, but boy, it certainly isn't going to be easy at all.
What does this have to do with the Dodgers? Well, it is baseball and Dodgers are baseball. But in terms of the players, we don't really know what is going through the players heads. We don't know what they are thinking when they are up to bat, playing the field or pitching off the mound. They could have a sick wife/girlfriend, baby, relative, or friend at home, they could have a good friend that needs their help with something (with minor or major it's not for us to judge), or they could just not feel well themelves. I know they get paid lots and lots of money to try and clear their heads and do their best, but we just never really know what they are going through in their heads. In this last two weeks, I have really paid attention to how I react to people who may be upset or angry at something that doesn't seem that big of a deal. It may come down to the fact that they just had a pretty crappy day from the start, whether it is something minor or major. Just like everyday people, our Dodgers (the team of players) are people too, and maybe they just had a bad day, or in some cases, a bad season.
It's a strange feeling not being part of the post season, and it's even stranger hearing the other side of my household being part of it. I was really hoping for the three way tie today just to see how it all played out, but in the end, the Padres needed to earn that win and couldn't do it. They lost the division back when they had the 10 game losing streak and really were never able to get out of that hole they made for themselves. The Dodgers dug their hole early in the season and were never able to recover. I am not sure of the reasons, but now that the season is done, all we can do is look forward to next season and hope the powers that be really think about what is best for the team. I know, I know…………………..but we can hope, can't we?
As much as this team drove me nuts this season, I will certainly miss them. There were such high hopes for our core young guns, and for one reason or another, it just didnt' happen for them. Some things were out of their control due to injury and for some, it really did seem to be all in their head at times. We can hope it all gets worked out over the off-season. We can also hope for a new owner. I still think that was a major factor in the team's performance, not directly but certainly indirectly. I think the McCourts put their own affairs as being more important than the team on the field. If they were really thinking what was best for the team, they could have figured things out without the dog and pony show we saw this season leading up to these last three weeks we had to endure their court proceedings through the media.
I read this early from one of our writers, but if it is true the Logan White has been fired than the front office really isn't listening to a thing we have been saying for years now. Then again, someone also mentioned why should he stick around when he will be snatched up by somebody who will value what he can do for their team. I agree!!! Logan deserves better than this!!!
Glad to see you back Mr. JhallWally!!!!!
I wouldn't be a good Ethieraholic if I didn't mention Andre. Like every end of the season. I will miss his swing, his smile, and watching his frustrations because those are just as much as part of him now as his swing. I love the intensity because it reminds me of my son…………….which he hates when I compare them. His final numbers weren't really all that bad considering he was on the DL. Give him those 20 games back, without an injury, and we are looking at a much different season IMO. I am happy with his season. I think he did all he could do under the pressure he (and Matt too) was put under to produce the same way he produced in 2009.
Josh – Thanks once again for giving us this forum. I know it hasn't been an easy season for you as well. I can't imagine what your job entails right now, and I don't think your off-season will be a piece of cake either. I know we don't make it any easier, but like many have said, it's just because we love our Dodger Blue so much. We just want what's best for them. I know you want the same and you also want to keep your job. Check in when you can, but otherwise have a great off season.
I can't wait for the Hotstove League to begin.
Glad the Dodgers won today!!!!
Denny's race not so great, but it's not bad either.
Glad the Redskins won today!!!!
Glad the Chargers won today!!!!
Glad the Rams won today!!!!
WTG Kuo for setting the Dodgers all-time franchise ERA record (minimum 50 innings) at 1.2000,
By nedajerk on October 3, 2010 5:28 PM
This is the worst day of my life to see those fool clinching the NL west. You should've seen the Giants main mlb board with all those F bombs they given to there own players, manager, coaches and owner everyday they don't even deserve the division.
By nedajerk on October 3, 2010 6:23 PM
I hate to get threaded but copy my last message and blah at the Raiders losing and I thought this was the year lol. At least the 49ers lost again with a last minute FG and boy Nate Clement really mess up big time and the 49ers should've had won that game.
Thanks Josh for the forum. Hope you have a great "Autumn" and hope to hear from you soon. I'm sure Dodgers will be having a lot of activities this off season! Good luck and God bless you.
Nelly thanks for sharing. That was a touching story about the Pitcher that lost his mom. I will have them in my prayers. It is true, we don't know what is going through our players head when they are out there playing. Sometimes we forget that they are human just like us. We forget that they have problems, bills, illnesses, families, religions just like us. They have it tougher than us, they have an audience picking at their every move.
As an Ethieraholic I will miss Andre too. And I hope he comes back next season wearing Dodger Blue! I?m still a Martinista and I do miss Russell. Hope he gets better soon and starts his rehab. I truly do hope he comes back wearing Dodger Blue as well. The catchers we have did good but Martin is still my favorite Dodger Catcher.
I wish Torre happiness and lots of blessings. Hopefully he gets to enjoy baseball again, even if it?s from some beach watching it on TV. I?m sure the whole politics behind the game got to him. He is a great person and will be missed.
Ausmus, happy retirement. Hope he had a great time with the Dodgers.
To all the BOYS IN BLUE hope they have a great off season. This was a tough season for them, but a lot of them had great accomplishments. And it is funny that our Pitching gave us a lot of problems, but they had the biggest accomplishments. NEXT YEAR, NEXT YEAR WE WILL GET THEM!
Anybody at the game yesterday wait around to hear the Yankee manager give his going away speech? I have heard and read that when he mentioned Frank McCourt that there was a loud chorus of boos:) Just wanted to see if anyone was there to give us their thoughts on how it really happened.
Thanks for your services, Joe Torre (not). Don't let the door hit you in the *** on your way out. My only wish is for Ned and Frank to go out that same door very, very soon.
I did not go but did hear it online. But it seems that the boos were mostly for Ned Coletti! Unless the boos reached the mic late. Even Torre's Daugther reacted to the boos. But I hope she understands that they were not for her DAD but for NED & FRANK!
http://losangeles.dodgers.mlb.com/video/play.jsp?content_id=12744733&c_id=la here is the link to Torre's speech
Logan White: "I can't say whether there's a new contract or not. At this moment I'm still a Dodger. I wish I could say more, but I can't."
White: "There's been a lot of speculation, a lot of stuff written on the Internet. I'm flattered by the respect Dodger fans have shown me."
Thanks lbirken – you are good about putting things into perspective. Always willing to read your two cents, including your recent post about the game yesterday. I am glad you had a great time. I am finding I just love watching baseball. I am happy watching the Dodgers, and I am just as happy watching my son and his teams.
A funny side note about yesterday's game. Yesterday we played at the home of the San Jose Giants. Well, our catcher is an actual Giants fan. He was so excited about playing on the same field and on the same dirt as Buster Posey, he grabbed a little of the dirt around him so he can sprinkle it on his catcher's spot on the highschool field. The things we do as fans to have the connection to our favorite teams/players is what keep us young at heart for a long, long time.
lbirken – I seem to be on PST, not ITDFST and I got time warped ahead of you :))
Hey CP!!!! Glad you had a great time at the game as well 🙂
Josh – I know this has been mentioned, and I know this has nothing to do with you, but if you have any say over at mlblogs, please tell them they need to fix this time warping issue.
636566cy, I was at the game yesterday and I can tell you the boos clearly were for Frank McCourt and nobody else. Frank was at the game but wisely did not directly participate in the ceremony honoring Joe after the game. The ceremony itself was short and sweet. After the last out, the Dodger players came out on the field and rather than the quick high fives they usually do after a win, there were a lot of hugs. I think it was an emotional day for the players. The players all stayed on the field as Joe made his way toward home plate along with a large group of photographers. There were a lot of people around home plate but I could not clearly see Frank. The announcer made some introductions of the people participating in the ceremony and it included Ned and Manion. Joe was given a painting and he made some comments, the most important in my mind when he acknowledged the fans for their passion and for treating Joe and his family so well. Joe mentioned Frank's name in his remarks and that is when the boos happened. I can honestly say the boos were not as loud as might be expected but then again, the announced attendence was a little over 37,000 and I doubt there were that many there and certainly not that many at the time of the ceremony.
I might add it was a fun day at the ballpark. The crowd was into the game and did not seem to care about the standings. We all wanted to see a good game of baseball and more importantly, a win. Sure, there was the allure of the prizes but I can honestly say everyone had a good time whether they won a prize or not. For the record my wife and friends who joined us were shut out again on Fan Appreciation Day unless you want to count the silly flip-flops given to each fan at the entrance. We have attended many fan appreciation days over the years and exept for one year when we won a light weight jacket that no one ever used, we have not won anything. There is just something special about the last day of the season as there is about the first.
I would be remiss if I did not mention how exciting it was to watch Brad Ausmus play his last game. It seems few players retire on their own terms and not due to injury. We missed the pre game ceremony honoring Brad but it was so good to see him get a hit his first at bat but even more special to see him get a hit in his last at bat. Joe pinch ran for him and he got a lot of hugs in the dugout. We have all heard what a good person Brad is and his presence will be missed.
Nelly, thanks for your post reminding us the athletes of whom we expect so much, whether they are pros, college, high school or younger, are people just like the rest of us. When most of us mess up at work, few people know about it but when a pro or college player messes up, everyone knows about it almost as soon as it happens. Yes, as Nelly said the pros get paid a lot of money and they should be expected to perform at a high level every game or match. For the most part, they do. As Vinny has said many times, the players make it look so easy because they are so good at what they do. But Vinny also has been so good at telling us something about the player as a person. He recognizes the players are people too with the same problems we all have, and often maybe even more. Sometimes we do need the reminder.
Good afternoon ITD boys and girls!
To CY & Rosie: I was at the game yesterday and heard Torre?s speech. When he mentioned Frank?s name, yes, the crowd did BOO Frank?s name. They did a bit when he mentioned Ned?s name, but that could also be a little ?residual? boos for Frank. Don?t know. But I was one that did boo. No one likes Frank AT ALL?
Yesterday was bittersweet for me. I?m sorry that my Dodgers didn?t make the playoffs this year. My mom and I went, and no, we STILL didn?t win anything. We (like everyone else in the park) got leftover Bleacher Beach flip flops. But still didn?t win anything. Our row got close to getting a Casey Blake bobblehead, but our row wasn?t included. Emma did stop by our seats; that was nice. But I was thrilled for Ausmus; he is such a good guy! Again, I hope, I hope, I hope that Mattingly appoints him a coaching position for 2011. I read the article on the home page that the 2011 coaching staff isn?t close to being set yet?
I am o.k. with Duncan returning and I hope Donnie gives Wallach an opportunity. I like Bowa but perhaps it is time for a change. Schaefer should also not come back as he is too tied into Joe's way of thinking. Clearly this team needs a new voice and some new energy.
Hi ITD!
nice post Nelly!.
Yeah, I was there and heard the boos but like Ibirken said it was not as loud as expected.
My friend Erik and I were able to tell Vin Scully one more time that we love him! He applauded us!
CP, sorry I barely was able to stay just a little bit. I would have sat for an inning if there was an empty seat. When I was walking to your seat, I was hearing someone say "Emma" It was my friend Dee who was sitting around there.
I did not win anything either. We got the bleacher beach mats when we came in thru the field level but other friends that came afterwards got the flip flops. When I went to the Top Deck I saw some of my friends with beach towels or the flip flop hats. A friend was able to get me a flip flop hat.
I was feeling a little bit gloomy like the weather, but I am over it.
Good luck D.Lowe! Beat the Jints & Lincecum.
I'm hearing Bowa and Duncan are out as coaches.
Emma ? That?s okay that you couldn?t stay; it was getting kinda crowded at the time. I was just thrilled to see you to; I know my mom was happy to see you! You take care; we?ll be talking during the off season!
Trumom, I sure hope Bowa is out. I have nothing against Duncan, but the best of all worlds would have a new coaching staff. The article on the 2011 coaching staff already has that Schaefer won?t be back next year. I say YEAH!
I blame Ned, Frank, and our Bullpen….Frank for being a tight-wad…..Ned for getting us no help and the bullpen for blowing all those big leads early in the season. I mean, 8 runs, not enough…7 runs, hold your breath and pray. I DON'T blame Dre, Matt and James. How the hell do you think they were feeling standing out there and watch their games leads disappear every day. I know I would be saying, "What the F***" is going on with this crappy bullpen!"
ummmmmm…………….what we need is a new owner, a new GM and a new manager. We (sorta) got one of the three. That will certainly change the attitude of the Dodgers fans. The first two lines from the article on the homepage with Ned and Mattingly claiming there needs to be an attitude adjustment versus roster changes.
General manager Ned Colletti and incoming manager Don Mattingly indicated Monday that the Dodgers need more attitude adjustment than roster adjustment.
"I don't know who you lay it on. I think you lay it on everybody," Colletti said of the club's fourth-place finish after back-to-back division titles.
I just realized we are an hour and 23 minutes ahead of PST.
time check – 7:49pm (PST)
More about Logan White. This one and yesterdays are from Molly Knight, who has been following the McCourts and their court issues. Her and Dylan Hernandez have twitter accounts, and they update the fans regularly on what is happening with the Dodgers.
Sorry – forgot the comment……….
Also told him Dodger fans are already dangling from the ledge after this season and may jump if he leaves. He's humbled by your support 🙂
Thanks to everyone for the updates on the whole McCourt mention during Joe's speech on Sunday.
Good morning ITD.
I think it It was Saturday when I saw a twitter from Dlyan at the game that said that he was really really bored but that he was too full to eat. I looked at it and was thinking that he should be glad that he is getting paid to watch games. I was at the game and I was not bored.
i was talking to Byron on Sunday about Andre and Devon. I also told him that I was hoping Logan White does not leave us. He just smiled. He also let me know that they removed the cameras on the freeways in Arizona. He said lots of people were not paying the fees. We paid all three of the tickets we got last year.
attitude adjustment? Screw u Coletti. We need a GM adjustment…what a piece of crap roster you put together.
Attitude starts from the top, why anyone would want to work for those ******** is beyond me. It is work, even if is just a game. When you know the owners do what they do why should u even care? And when your GM makes stupid move after stupid move why even care(i mean if you are a player not loyal fans like we are)

subset: commoncrawl


text:
Wednesday, June 22, 2011
on summertime
Posted by The Author at 2:44 PM
Labels: dakwah and tarbiyyah, graphic art
1 comments:
- Nyna Roxford said...
The font is quite small for me to read. Magnified, but still blur. O.O
- June 22, 2011 at 8:57 PM
Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)


text:
Guests: Jonathan Martin, Glen Johnson, Simon Marks, Barney Frank, Will
Ferrell, Zach Galifianakis
CHRIS MATTHEWS, HOST: Road rage.
Let`s play HARDBALL.
Good evening. I`m Chris Matthews in Washington.
"Let Me Start" tonight with Mitt Romney`s bumpy adventure. Before
this week, his most infamous trip out of the country was when he roped the
family dog to the roof. No more. And after trashing the Brits` Olympics,
then degrading the Arabs, we figured there`d be worse trouble coming in
Poland. And boy, we were right.
Here`s the word from Romney`s spokesman on that leg of the trip. Hold
your ears. This is official. "Kiss my -- " he yelled to the reporters
asking for a word from the candidate. He yelled at the other one, "Shove
it." These are his people speaking for Mitt Romney.
Anyway, is this the message for Mr. and Mrs. North America and all the
ships at sea, "Kiss my -- " and "Shove it"?
Well, talk about a bad audition. His people wanted to show how well
he`d behave overseas. So who is the character we`ve seen the last week,
the one we`ve discovered out there in the country or the world, Mitt Romney
or Don Rickles?
Tonight, before I welcome Will Ferrell and Zach Galifianakis to the
show, let`s talk about the latest crazy road trip of Mitt Romney`s.
Jonathan Martin is with Politico. He was part of the traveling press corps
covering Mitt Romney on that foreign trip. He joins from us Poland. Glen
Johnson is "The Boston Globe`s" politics reporter. And with me here in the
studio is Simon Marks, the chief correspondent for Feature Story News.
Jonathan Martin -- J-Mar -- I know you don`t like to get into this,
but let`s talk about the fact you`re on the spot, you`ve got dateline
integrity, you`re looking good. Here`s the now infamous dust-up in Warsaw.
Early this morning, reporters covering Romney tried to shout questions
to the governor as he got into his motorcade. Romney had only answered
three questions from the press corps during the entire three-country trip.
His spokesman made it clear he wasn`t answer any more than those three.
Let`s watch what happened.
QUESTION: Governor Romney!
QUESTION: ... some of the mishaps on your trip?
QUESTION: Governor Romney, do you have a statement for the
QUESTION: What about your gaffes?
QUESTION: Governor Romney, do you feel that your gaffes have
overshadowed your foreign trip?
RICK GORKA, ROMNEY CAMPAIGN PRESS AIDE: ... holy site for the Polish
people. Show some respect.
QUESTION: Governor Romney, just a few questions...
GORKA: Show some respect here.
QUESTION: We haven`t had another chance to ask him questions.
GORKA: (EXPLETIVE DELETED) This is a holy site for the Polish
people. Show some respect.
MATTHEWS: Well, that going to go down in history in the Bartlett`s
quotations, "Kiss my" -- you know the rest of it -- and "This is a holy
site." Putting those two thoughts together is pretty hard for most people.
Jonathan, what did you fellows and women think when you heard in the
press corps that conjunction of words, "Kiss my" followed by "This is a
holy site"?
JONATHAN MARTIN, POLITICO: Well, I think it reflects the frustration
on Governor Romney`s staff because, you know, they`re trying to do their
job and sort of corral us.
But look, we have a job to do, too, in the press corps. And that is
to, for our readers, get answers for a candidate for president of the
United States. And the fact is that he had not given any real time to the
traveling press corps in a question-and-answer session, a traditional press
conference like many candidates do and like President Obama did four years
ago when he was then Senator Obama.
And so we have no choice but to yell questions, when we have an
opportunity, to the candidate when he`s walking to his motorcade after he
finishes a public event. It`s unfortunate that it got to that. But look,
this is what happens when we`re trying to get answers and there`s no
opportunity to ask Governor Romney questions in a traditional question-and-
answer press conference.
MATTHEWS: Yes. You know what it looks like when you watch him here -
- I`m sitting here with Simon Marks of Feature Story News -- when you`re
with -- when you`re watching Romney on the road, he looks like one of those
robots in the Hall of the Presidents down at Disney World. They stand up,
they walk very robotically. They don`t -- they only talk the thing they
always say over and over again to the tourists coming by.
He doesn`t look like he wants to engage with any human being on this -
- why`d he go overseas if he doesn`t want to meet anybody?
SIMON MARKS, FEATURE STORY NEWS: Well, he went overseas in part, of
course, particularly with -- with the Middle Eastern trip in mind, to try
and shore up his support back home with American Jewish folks.
MATTHEWS: And evangelicals, yes.
MARKS: But there are real issues for him to address and be questioned
about. The speech that he made, with the historic Old City of Jerusalem
behind him, suggesting that he supports the move of the capital to
Jerusalem, then has questions that result from it about, Does that mean you
want to move the U.S. embassy to Jerusalem?
There are real issues that arise out of that, that he`s not giving
members of the traveling press corps an opportunity to ask him about.
MARTIN: There`s no political down side, though. Yes, there`s no
political down side there, though, Chris, for a Republican candidate for
president who`s trying to cut into the Jewish vote to, you know, come off
as pandering to American Jews. That`s all up side for him.
MATTHEWS: Yes.
MARTIN: Look, I understand the view may be different overseas. But
politically, for Romney, Jerusalem was the best stop, I think, because he
wants to get 35 percent, perhaps even higher, of the Jewish vote in
America. You can`t be too pro-Israel if that`s what your goal is. So that
was the least of his problems, I think, overseas.
His larger challenge was the fact that, look, he has a problem with
context in and with setting and doesn`t understand the impact of his words
sometimes, most vividly displayed when he was talking about the Olympics
and the U.K.`s preparation for the Olympics and hurt himself for the first
two, three days of this trip.
MATTHEWS: Well, going over -- I want to get to Glen Johnson. I do
not want to get into the politics in the Middle East. It`s too tricky
right now. But going over there and pandering the way he did, anybody, a
3-year-old could do that. It`s not whether he can pander, it`s whether
he`s got the acuity, as you said, Jonathan, to know what he`s talking
about, the nuances of these very tricky situations which are going to be
going on when we`re all 100 years old. We`re still going to fighting about
the Middle East. And you don`t start wars and you don`t start trouble.
Anybody can pander. Can he think? And can he answer questions on the
spot? That`s my question.
GLEN JOHNSON, "BOSTON GLOBE": Well, the issue, too, also, is that he
had a good story to tell going over to London. He was the guy that
resurrected the 2002 Olympic winter games in Salt Lake City, and he talked
about none of that in London. He ended up talking about -- you know,
defending himself in these questions about the -- London`s preparations and
not about the positive lessons that he drew out of his Olympic experience
himself. And so there was a huge missed opportunity.
As Jonathan said, the opportunity going into Jerusalem was to lay out
a foreign policy vision, and yet there, he detracted completely from that
speech with a conversation and comment that he made in a private fund-
So the big touchstone moments, including today in Warsaw, where he
wanted to do another foreign policy speech looking to the east, he also was
-- that was overshadowed with Rick Gorka`s comments. So at each point
where he tried to lay substance or had substantive to talk about, it got
overshadowed by his own deed or word.
MATTHEWS: OK, let`s take a look -- not surprisingly, Democrats having
a lot of fun with the Romney trip.
MARTIN: Hey, Chris...
MATTHEWS: Former Obama -- let me just do this -- chief of staff Rahm
Emanuel said this of Romney to "The LA Times" yesterday. Quote, "At every
level, this trip has shown more of how Mitt Romney is not ready for the
Oval Office. I don`t know how he`ll handle the head of state job. He`s
made a mess of being a tourist."
Well, that`s their Democratic shot at him for his conduct this trip.
MARTIN: Yes, Chris, I think Glen`s got it right. The biggest
surprise to me was why in the heck the Romney folks did not try to take
more advantage of his good news story about saving the Salt Lake games in
I thought that was the chief reason, besides going to Israel for day
and getting a picture with Bibi, that he was going on this trip, was to
remind Americans, Look, I`m not just some rich corporate tycoon. I also
saved the `02 Olympics in America.
He didn`t air any ads about that. There was no effort (ph) with the
press corps in London to remind us about that. It was baffling that he did
not seize that opportunity more. And I think, to me, that is perhaps the
biggest missed opportunity of this trip.
MATTHEWS: I think, in sports terms, you have a big 10 schedule. You
got 11 or 12 games, right? And you think you got the easy one. This was
the easy one and he wasn`t up for it, ironically.
Let`s take a look at the interview that Carl Cameron had with Romney -
- of Fox News, of course. Romney took on the press on this and coverage of
his trip. And that`s to be expected.
MITT ROMNEY (R-MA), FMR. GOV., PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: I realize that
-- that there will be some in the fourth estate or whichever estate who are
far more interested in finding something to write about that is unrelated
to the economy, to geopolitics, to the threat of war, to the reality of
conflict in Afghanistan today, to a nuclearization of Iran. They`ll
instead trying to find -- try and find anything else to divert from the
fact that these last four years have been tough years for our country.
MATTHEWS: Maybe if he`d said something about geopolitics and
something deep, people would have reported it.
MARKS: I think he had an opportunity to change the subject and get
people to ask him substantive questions. If you look at what he said in
Poland a few hours ago, he slammed Vladimir`s Putin`s stewardship of
Russia, he slammed the repressive brutality of Alexander Lukashenko, who
runs Belarus. No one`s talking about that tonight.
MATTHEWS: Why does he act...
MATTHEWS: Why does he do this macho man thing? He`s never been in
the military. He`s never been in a schoolyard fight. He`s not some tough
-- this metaphorical foreign policy drives me crazy. He always wants to
fight, and yet he doesn`t have any knowledge of fighting. He wants
somebody else to fight. He wants another war front.
MARKS: Well, he`s using the backdrop of Poland, where battles have
been waged in the past against repressive regimes, to try and raise the
issue that there are still repressive regimes at work in parts of Europe.
But he`s got no opportunity to get that message across because of now the
MARKS: ... corrosive nature of his relationship...
MARKS: ... with his own press corps.
MATTHEWS: I think the easiest position for him to take on every front
is to be more aggressive, more tough on foreign policy, at least in words,
than the president, Glenn. It doesn`t show intelligence. It doesn`t show
guts. He hasn`t once said, Obama`s right on this one. He never once says,
I would be more moderate than him on this one. He`s always to the right.
It`s the same old Tea Party crap. Go to the right, go to the right, go to
the right. It`s safe over there. Your thoughts, Glen?
JOHNSON: Well, it reminds me of where we were four years ago. I
actually flew on a trip with then Senator Obama from Chicago to Andrews Air
Force Base, where he got on his plane to fly over to Afghanistan for his
first trip there.
And at the time, there was a real question about his preparation to
handle foreign policy. And I think, you know, White House is emphasizing
his anti-terrorism moves since then, getting Osama bin Laden and all that.
And you see now with Mitt Romney, that same unfamiliarity with foreign
And when you`re fed a script like he is, where he goes to Jerusalem
and says things that he hasn`t really internalized yet, or he goes to
Poland and says things that he hasn`t really internalized yet, you know,
you see some level of timidness there or uncertainty.
And it comes off in just the body English that you talked about
earlier in the show. You know, he`s brought out there, he says these
things, and then he walks to the car. And when questions are thrown at
him, he doesn`t want to deviate from that because he`s leaving his comfort
zone there of the script that had been put in front of him.
And so I think this whole trip just underlines for him that domestic
policy and jobs, as you heard him just talk about, are where he wants to
fight this campaign. Foreign affairs is still a new territory for him.
MATTHEWS: OK, a lot of Republicans are saying he shouldn`t have gone
on the trip, he would have been better staying home.
Anyway, Jonathan Martin, thank you for coming back, coming to us from
Poland. Glen Johnson, thank you, and Simon Marks.
Coming up, gay marriage. Democrats look like they are ready to
endorse same-sex marriage nationally in their party platform. And guess
what? Republicans can`t wait for this. In fact, one of them said, or
actually asked, It`s politically correct, but is it politically smart?
Also, in the last few days, a couple Republicans, as I said, have come
forward to say their party has lurched so far to the right these days, it`s
out of control.
And speaking out of control, get ready for this. Rush Limbaugh has
concluded, in his depth of knowledge, that the Olympics opening ceremony
was a socialist tribute to President Obama. Only in the land of ditto-
heads and only in the "Sideshow." Coming up.
Finally, a special treat tonight. Will Ferrell, as I said, and Zach
Galifianakis join us to talk politics and about their new movie, "The
Campaign." You don`t want to miss that, coming up soon here.
This is HARDBALL, place for politics.
MATTHEWS: New poll numbers from two key states. Let`s check the
HARDBALL "Scoreboard."
Starring in Pennsylvania, where President Obama`s lead is down to 3
points in a new Susquehanna poll, 46 to 43. But keep in mind the Obama
campaign must be looking at other polling because they`re feeling good
enough to have pulled their TV ads in the Keystone State, at least for now.
In Florida, a new PPP poll puts the race at 1 point now, Obama up by
1, 48-47. And a third poll now from Missouri, a state that has been
trending Republican in recent elections. A new Mason/Dixon poll shows Mitt
Romney leading President Obama 51-42.
We`ll be right back.
MATTHEWS: Welcome back to HARDBALL. Will the 2012 Democratic
platform endorse same-sex marriage? Well, the party`s platform drafting
committee took the first step this weekend, recommending that it be
included. Next comes the tricky part, the wording. Will the plank call
for a federal law covering all Americans, or endorse a state-by-state
Trickier still is how this will play with voters. Some Democrats
worry that they may just have created a wedge issue here, dividing their
own supporters, uniting Republicans against them.
U.S. Congressman Barney Frank is on the platform drafting committee
doing the work on this. "Time" magazine`s Mark Halperin is a senior MSNBC
political analyst.
Gentlemen, I want you to watch a conversation I had a while back in
the summer, by the way, with Antonio Villaraigosa, who`s the mayor of Los
Angeles, also, of course, the chair of the Democratic national convention
this summer in Charlotte, North Carolina. Let`s watch what he had to say.
MATTHEWS: When the Democrats write their platform this summer, when
you write your platform on same-sex, will you endorse a state-by-state
approach to this or a federal law that basically guarantees the right of
people to marry someone of the same sex? Will it be federal or state-by-
state the party will support?
MAYOR ANTONIO VILLARAIGOSA, LOS ANGELES: Well, I think I`ve made it
fairly clear. I think that marriage equality is a fundamental liberty that
the federal government and our Constitution ought to protect. I`ve made
that very clear. You`re not nailing me to anything, my friend.
I believe in that. I think it`s about family values. I think we
ought to...
VILLARAIGOSA: -- -keep families together on the immigration side, but
also when someone wants to marry, they want to have a loving relationship,
the federal government should not be interfering with that right.
MATTHEWS: Should the federal government support the right to a same-
sex marriage in the law?
VILLARAIGOSA: Yes.
MATTHEWS: OK, Congressman Frank, is that how far your drafting is
taking us to...
REP. BARNEY FRANK (D), MASSACHUSETTS: No, Chris, I literally don`t
understand what that means. There is a fundamental confusion here. There
has never been a federal law saying what marriage is. Marriage has been
left to the states.
Now, first I would say, as far as this being a wedge issue, the
Democrats already in the U.S. House of Representatives and through the
president have made clear that we are opposed to bans on same-sex marriage.
The House voted.
I`m just -- I`m puzzled. People get it backwards. A platform is
supposed to tell the elected officials how they should vote. We`ve already
voted. In the House, 10 days ago, on an amendment to reaffirm the Defense
of Marriage Act, which denies recognition to those state marriages which
have been allowed, the Republicans voted 230-5 to reaffirm this
cancellation of our marriages and the Democrats voted 161-17 against DOMA.
So the two parties are already split there.
But the point is, there is no federal law to be passed. Look at the
situation with race. When there were states that would not allow
interracial marriage, even after the Civil Rights Acts had passed in `64
and `65, there was no federal law saying that interracial marriage had to
be allowed. It was done by the Supreme Court.
The constitutional framework has always been states decide who gets
married. Our objection to DOMA is that it for the first time has the
federal government picking and choosing who can get married.
But there`s never been a federal law defining marriage. I don`t know
how you would do one. It goes beyond the role of the federal government.
The role of the federal government is, as I said, to recognize what the --
the states have done.
Now, it is true that the Supreme Court stepped in, in the Loving case,
to say you can`t use race, but that was a court decision. It wasn`t a
congressional enactment and it wasn`t (INAUDIBLE) phony issue.
MATTHEWS: OK, well, Congressman, you know there are other precedents.
We had the Civil Rights Act in `64. It said...
FRANK: It did nothing about marriage, Christopher!
MATTHEWS: ... you couldn`t deny somebody access to public
FRANK: No, Christopher, you`re wrong!
MATTHEWS: That`s a federal law. So just tell me this...
FRANK: You`re wrong. You`re wrong, Chris.
MATTHEWS: I`m wrong about what?
FRANK: In 1964, there were federal -- state laws against interracial
marriage. And the law you`re talking...
MATTHEWS: I`m not talking about interracial marriage. I`m talking
about public accommodations. You say there is no precedent for the federal
government declaring something a right.
FRANK: Defining marriage.
No, Chris, please, don`t distort what I said. I said there is no
precedent for a federal law defining marriage.
FRANK: Of course federal laws declare things all the time.
But you have made my point. In `64, in that far-reaching Civil Rights
Act and then later in the Voting Rights Act, the federal government didn`t
try to strike down the state ban on interracial marriages. That had to be
done through the courts.
FRANK: It was not something that could be reached by statute.
MATTHEWS: OK. So what did Mayor Villaraigosa mean when he said
federal law?
FRANK: What do you think I would answer you that? That you should
ask Mayor Villaraigosa.
FRANK: I think what happened is people who haven`t followed the law
understand, yes, we would like it to be national, but literally that has
never happened.
And the issue -- and what`s happening I think is people are trying to
-- I don`t know -- unintentionally cloud the issue. It has always been up
to the states. The Defense of Marriage Act interfered with the states.
FRANK: The only federal rule on the subject was the Defense of
Marriage Act, which the Democrats are trying to overthrow. I would hope if
President Obama is reelected he would appoint justices who would then
follow the Constitution.
MATTHEWS: Right.
FRANK: But that`s the level at which it would be dealt with, as it
was in race.
MATTHEWS: OK. Let`s talk about the politics, Mark Halperin. If the
Democrats were to ask for a far-reaching platform plank the said in the
plank the policy of the United States should be marriage equality, would
that be a big problem for them politically in North Carolina, Ohio, places
like that?
MARK HALPERIN, MSNBC SENIOR POLITICAL ANALYST: It would be a huge
problem. But Congressman Frank is right.
MATTHEWS: It`s going to be state by state.
HALPERIN: There`s no way it can end up that way.
The only way I can think of that you could craft a federal statute
that would have the effect you are talking about is if you linked it to
something, if you said states can`t get certain kinds of aid, but given the
recent Supreme Court decision and general precedents, I don`t think there
is a chance that will happen.
State by state and overturned DOMA is I suspect where they are headed.
And the politics of that are already I think divided.
MATTHEWS: Well, let`s talk about it. If it comes out as a state-by-
state proposal, it`s up to the states and the Democratic Party recognizes
that situation...
HALPERIN: And urges states to make it legal.
MATTHEWS: How is that going to affect Ohio?
HALPERIN: I think Ohio, Iowa, Virginia, and North Carolina are all
states where Democrats can look at it and say if the targeted messages go
out right, this could on balance hurt them. And those are four really
important states.
MATTHEWS: Your thoughts, Mr. Frank, about how this will affect the
FRANK: Chris, this is -- I`m puzzled by this.
The president has already said that is his position. He said DOMA is
unconstitutional and he believes people should have a right to get married
to people of the same sex and he`s actually taken concrete action to oppose
it. I believe all the Ohio Democrats voted against the Defense of Marriage
So, on this issue, the Democratic position is already there. Frankly,
people are giving the platform a lot more prominence than it has ever
really earned.
MATTHEWS: Let me make a prediction, Mr. Frank, Congressman. I
predict that at the beginning of the Democratic Convention in Charlotte,
when nothing else is happening Monday and Tuesday, when the word is out
about the platform, we will be talking a lot about that on the front pages
of newspapers across the country. This is a big issue politically.
FRANK: Except that -- I understand it is an issue. But I`m baffled
by the media.
Why wasn`t it a big issue when the president of the United States
repudiated DOMA and said it was unconstitutional and refused to defend it?
Why wasn`t it a big issue when the House of Representatives voted on it and
the Democrats voted 90 percent in favor of it? It is a position. There`s
nothing new about it. This notion the platform is the key, the president
has already taken action.
MATTHEWS: First time in history, because -- you know where I stand.
FRANK: The first time in history.
MATTHEWS: But the first time in history, Congressman Frank, first
time in history a major political party in this country -- we only have two
of them -- comes out for marriage equality, that`s big news. It`s going to
be huge.
FRANK: You are wrong here in this sense. It is not the first time.
The president of the United States and 90 percent of the House
Democrats have already done it. This worship of a party platform, I can`t
even remember what was ever in any party platform.
MATTHEWS: Well, you are on it now. You are writing it.
FRANK: No, what has happened is the Democratic position has already
been very clear from the president and from the votes in the House.
HALPERIN: I think he`s right.
MATTHEWS: Thank you, Congressman Frank, as always.
MATTHEWS: Mark, quickly, will it have an impact at the convention?
HALPERIN: Taking cabs in every city in America -- no cab driver will
mention it to you.
MATTHEWS: OK. I think it`s going to be an issue at the convention.
Up next: Jon Stewart on Mitt Romney`s international insult tour.
And coming up later in the hour, Will Ferrell and Zach Galifianakis,
star of the new political comedy "The Campaign," they are coming here.
And this is HARDBALL, the place for politics.
CONAN O`BRIEN, HOST, "CONAN": Mitt Romney`s campaign still trying to
do damage control after remarks that Romney made while in the U.K.
Probably Romney`s worst gaffe was when he visited Buckingham Palace
and said to Queen Elizabeth, you call this a house?
MATTHEWS: Back to HARDBALL and the "Sideshow."
It all started with that comment Romney made about London`s
preparations for the Olympics. Disconcerting was the word he used.
Well, here`s Jon Stewart on the question of, how could he botch that
JON STEWART, HOST, "THE DAILY SHOW WITH JON STEWART": Before the
Games officially opened, our own Mitt Romney headed to London. Romney`s
Mr. Olympics, having saved the Salt Lake City Games in 2002. And England
is our closest ally. What could possibly go wrong?
BRIAN WILLIAMS, ANCHOR, "NBC NIGHTLY NEWS": In the short time you
have been here in London, do they like ready to your experienced eye?
MITT ROMNEY (R), PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: You know, it is hard to know
just how well it will turn out. There are a few things that were
STEWART: What are you doing? This is no time to display your
sophisticated knowledge of the inner workings of Olympic preparation.
STEWART: You are a guest at a dinner party that already started.
Just nod your (EXPLETIVE DELETED) head and say the rumaki is delicious.
That`s all you got to do.
STEWART: Loop another one up there for me.
WILLIAMS: In the short time you have been here in London, do they
like ready to your experienced eye?
STEWART: Oh, yes.
OK. That`s it. Done.
MATTHEWS: Well, here`s something you probably haven`t considered
about the Olympics opening ceremony. Which performance was more socialist,
the one we saw on Friday or the ceremony in Beijing four years ago?
Well, you got it. El Rushbo taking note of this year`s ceremony and
its nod to the U.K.`s national health service.
RUSH LIMBAUGH, RADIO TALK SHOW HOST: I mean, the people of Great
Britain don`t even like the national health service. And then it hit me.
And then it hit me. It was actually done on behalf of President
Kardashian. They did it for Obama.
I -- nobody will convince me otherwise. I remember the ChiCom opening
ceremony. You know what stands out? You had tens of thousands of people
all doing the same thing. It was like watching zombies. So, now then we
move to the U.K. and we have got that opening ceremony, where we had -- I
think it is even worse.
Theoretically, the U.K. is made up of free people. And what did they
choose to highlight about themselves but a bunch of collectivism.
MATTHEWS: Well, you heard it there. We have the Brits to thank for
what can only be called a meticulously planned homage to President Obama
and socialized medicine, also known as the Olympics opening ceremony, only
in Rushbo`s mind.
Finally, how do we know that campaign ads are officially dominating
the presidential race? At a "no cameras allowed" fund-raiser last night,
the president told a -- told the story of a couple who attended one of his
events with their 4-year-old son, Sammy. "There was a picture of me
somewhere, they said, and, Sammy, who is that? And he said, and that`s
Barack Obama. And what does Barack Obama do? And the boy thinks for a
second and he says, he approves this message," well, the tag line to every
ad the campaign puts out.
Anyway, up next, in the past few days, three Republicans have come
forward to say their party has gone too far to the right.
And, remember, we have got Will Ferrell coming up here right in these
chairs and Zach Galifianakis, stars of the new movie "The Campaign," coming
up a little later.
You`re watching HARDBALL, the place for politics.
MILISSA REHBERGER, MSNBC CORRESPONDENT: I`m Milissa Rehberger.
Here`s what happening.
Opening statements took place earlier in the murder trial of Drew
Peterson. Prosecutors say he killed his third wife and staged it to look
like an accident. Peterson`s fourth wife disappeared in 2007 and is
presumed dead.
Experts say it was probably a great white shark that attacked a
swimmer off of Cape Cod today. The man suffered severe bites on his legs.
And stocks lost ground ahead of tomorrow`s decision from the Fed. The
Dow fell 64. The S&P was off six and the Nasdaq slipped six -- back to
REP. STEVEN LATOURETTE (R), OHIO: The expectation is, if you want to
go up in the ranks of either party, you have got to give them your wallet
and your voting card.
And the overwhelming criticism of me over the years is that sometimes
I vote funny according to my party, and I`m not interested in giving them
my wallet or my voter card.
MATTHEWS: Wow. Welcome back to HARDBALL.
That`s Ohio Congressman Steven LaTourette announcing his retirement
from Congress and his frustration with the Republican Party, after serving
nearly 20 years. He`s not the only one. Republican Congressman Richard
Hanna of New York told a Syracuse newspaper -- quote -- "I have to say that
I`m frustrated by much we, I mean the Republican Party, are willing to give
deferential treatment to our extremes in this moment of history."
Combine this with the Republicans who denounced Tea Party favorite
Michele Bachmann in the last several days, and fissures in the party appear
to be growing.
Michael Smerconish is a radio talk show host and Michael Steele is
former chair of the Republican National Committee. Both are MSNBC
political analysts.
Now, it`s important to note that LaTourette in his retirement took a
couple -- a shot at both parties, but he was clearly retiring from one.
MATTHEWS: And his problem was at home. As it often is in politics,
you`re tougher on your brothers and sisters than you are on the other side.
Michael Smerconish, for years now, I have noticed that you have tried
to carve something of a moderate position near the center coming from the
Republican side that the suburban voters tend to adhere to. They are not
wingers. They are not Tea Partiers. They tend to want less government,
but they are not crazy. They don`t want to get rid of government.
And they want fair taxes. Where are the voice -- are we going to see
less and less voice from people like that in years ahead?
MICHAEL SMERCONISH, MSNBC POLITICAL ANALYST: I sure hope so, because
the largest growing group of voters in this country are not R`s or D`s.
They are I`s. They are independents.
And the sort of behavior that you`re talking about is what has driven
many of us straight out of the Republican Party. The Republican Party has
got to stop taking marching orders from talk radio hosts and, frankly,
start taking more marching orders from guys like Michael Steele.
That`s the future of the party. The demographics are not on the side
of the GOP. So, if they don`t get with the new program soon, they are
going to be out of existence.
MATTHEWS: Michael, you were the boss of the Republican -- I think
boss is probably too strong a term. You`re such a mild-mannered guy.
MICHAEL STEELE, MSNBC POLITICAL ANALYST: Oh, yes, in this town.
MATTHEWS: But you were head of the Republican Party, but what is it
about your party? Let`s start with yours. You can take a shot at the
other side, obviously -- about the parties that get pulled so far to the
right that someone like Bachmann is taken seriously by people, not by
everybody, not by McCain, not by Steve Schmidt, not by Ed Rollins, not by
Lindsey Graham or people like that, but taken seriously by people like Newt
Gingrich, by Limbaugh and those people.
They get the big noise out there.
STEELE: Well, there is this idea that you get a lot of noise from
people who are out there pushing a particular agenda or particular idea.
And what I argued as chairman of the RNC is that`s great. That`s part
of the who we are and how we have grown as a party, how we have managed to
be successful, following the Reagan legacy of embracing the diversity of
the country and inviting people to be in...
MATTHEWS: You are talking about embracing crazy talk, though.
STEELE: No.
MATTHEWS: When you go out and target somebody like -- no -- like Huma
Abedin, who works for Hillary Clinton, and say let`s make her a Muslim
Brotherhood suspect, is that part of what you want to have in your rich
family and diversity?
STEELE: No, that`s not -- no, this is the point you are making, and
I`m agreeing with it.
STEELE: And that is those extreme conversations where you sound
ridiculous, look ridiculous and in fact are ridiculous delegitimize the
efforts of, you know, everyday Republicans who are trying to stick to some
core principles about government and taxes and freedom, and want that
expressed in their leadership.
Instead, what`s happened is, there is a hijacking and a hostage-taking
mind-set in some cases, if you don`t, therefore, I will, instead of just
saying, how does this fit into the overall narrative of what we are and
what we believe? How do we look at an 18-year-old African-American male
and say this is a place where you belong politically, there is an
opportunity for you here?
STEELE: We don`t do that -- Michael Smerconish is absolutely right --
we go the way of the Whigs.
MATTHEWS: Yes, let me talk...
STEELE: And that was something I was very sensitive of as chairman.
MATTHEWS: This isn`t long-ago history. Right now -- Michael, you
know this as well.
You look over the whole Northeast, all of New England, there used to
be a Republican senator or two in every one of those states when we were
growing up. They are all gone.
STEELE: Yes.
MATTHEWS: The Northeast has been evacuated by the Republican Party.
It has gone down to the Southwest, to the Sunbelt, to where people are
willing to listen to some of this really wild right-wing talk.
SMERCONISH: Well, you are right.
And, you know, "The National Journal," I think, has done an
extraordinary job of actually documenting the dearth of candidates and
officeholders in the center, both from the left and the right. If you go
to Ronald Reagan`s watch in the early `80s, "The National Journal"
documents that 60 percent of the Senate was somewhere in the middle --
today, every Republican more conservative than every Democrat, every
Democrat more liberal than every Republican in the Senate. There`s a total
absence of moderates. It`s just not a good thing for the country.
And the country, I think, has gone in a different direction.
So they are totally out of sync with the rest of the nation or at
least I would argue.
CHRIS MATTHEWS, HOST: I love that statistic. Can you get it to me?
That 60 percent of the United States Senate in 1980s is somewhere in the
middle. I love that statistic, because it`s so untrue today.
Michael, is there any chance Republican Party can go back to the
center right instead of hard right?
MICHAEL STEELE, FORMER RNC CHAIRMAN: I believe so. I look at the
next team, the farm, the bench coming up -- yes.
You look at the Paul Ryans, you look at these guys, the Bob
McDonnells, the Chris Christies -- these guys, particularly those like
Chris Christie, who are governing in blue states, North eastern states,
bring a very different message and very different style of Republicanism to
the table which is long overdue. I think it is important -- important
focus for the next few years.
MATTHEWS: Thank you so much, Michael Steele. And thank you, Michael
Smerconish, two voices of reason.
Up next -- tonight, at least -- Will Ferrell, Zach Galifianakis,
stars of the very funny new political movie, "The Campaign," they are
coming here right now, when we get back.
We`ll be right back.
MATTHEWS: Well, Michele Bachmann may be looking to put her Muslim
Brotherhood controversy in the rear view mirror. And guess who she is
looking to team up with on Medicaid reform? U.S. Congressman Keith
Ellison, one of the Muslim Americans she suggested -- she suggested -- may
have ties to the Muslim Brotherhood.
Early this month, Bachmann did say that government investigators
should look into Ellison and top State Department aide Huma Abedin and
others to find out whether the Brotherhood has infiltrated the U.S.
We`ll be right back.
MATTHEWS: We are back.
Two of the funniest men in Hollywood, Will Ferrell -- there he is --
and Zach Galifianakis teamed up for their latest film, "The Campaign."
It`s a biting satire of our modern age of politics. Take a look.
MATTHEWS: I love the pacifier going to the ground there. It`s not
exactly "Mr. Smith Goes to Washington," is it? Will Ferrell and Zach
Galifianakis here to play some real HARDBALL.
You know, this movie, this movie, is really funny. It is up there
with your best stuff, guys. I love "Anchorman."
WILL FERRELL, ACTOR: Thank you. Thank you.
MATTHEWS: Ron Burgundy.
FERRELL: Ron Burgundy.
MATTHEWS: You did us credit.
FERRELL: It`s classic. It`s pretty accurate, right?
MATTHEWS: Nailed me.
Anyway, Zach, "Hangover," best movie ever -- deepest movie ever.
ZACH GALIFIANAKIS, ACTOR: Thank you.
MATTHEWS: Most important movie ever.
GALIFIANAKIS: I only do political movies.
MATTHEWS: You know what, when I -- I watched this movie last night.
I`m a political nut, as well as a movie nut. And everybody watching ought
to pay attention to this little thought because you guys are funny. But it
ain`t funny when you are telling -- it`s hours, hour and a half of really
funny slapstick and wit and satire.
But you are talking about two awful people, these two guys. John
Lithgow and Dan Aykroyd, and they go around like rich guys, like guys of
"Trading Places." pick winners and losers in campaigns with their billion.
FERRELL: Yes.
MATTHEWS: How do you feel about that?
FERRELL: You know, I mean, we -- we really -- just wanted the movie
to be nonpartisan in politics.
MATTHEWS: It ain`t. It`s totally against Citizens United.
FERRELL: Yes, well, we wanted -- you know, we wanted to put a mirror
up to the fact that there is all this money flowing into --
MATTHEWS: What do you think? As American.
FERRELL: I love it. I love it. I think it is great.
FERRELL: I don`t think it is hindering the, you know, from people
from governing at all.
MATTHEWS: Zach, your uncle was the congressman from North Carolina,
from Chapel Hill, when I was in grad school. Is he still there? This
stuff is real. North Carolina race you are talking about for Congress.
GALIFIANAKIS: He ran against Jessie Helms in 1972 for Senate after
when he was a congressman.
MATTHEWS: HE beat him, right?
GALIFIANAKIS: No.
MATTHEWS: He finished that guy, didn`t he?
GALIFIANAKIS: No, no. No, he didn`t. But, yeah, just kind of a
throwback to the dirty politics that have been -- North Carolina seen.
South sees it a lot. What`s interesting about the movie is it is set in
the polite South but there`s all these terrible mudslinging that are going
MATTHEWS: Let me ask you about this, let`s take a look at this. You
played a guy who I swear is John Edwards.
FERRELL: There`s a little bit of John Edwards and a little bit of
Donna Shalala.
MATTHEWS: Let`s take a look at the scene from the movie Donna
MATTHEWS: I know here. She is great. Here is the movie in which
the adviser is giving the candidate character advice. Here`s Zach with
some tough political reality lessons being given to him. Let`s watch.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Right now, your likability is 26 percent. The
focus group words that come up about you are odd, clammy, probably Serbian.
He looks like the Travelocity gnome.
GALIFIANAKIS: What?
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: If you want to help this district the first thing
you have to do, Marty, is win.
GALIFIANAKIS: I do want to help the district. I love my home. It
is just -- it all happened so fast.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I think Cam Brady can be beaten. But I don`t
believe you believe that.
You know what, I`m going to call your dad and tell them you don`t
have the rocks for this.
GALIFIANAKIS: You put your phone away. This might be hard for you
to believe but this dog has a ton of fight in him, a ton of fight. When I
get a scent, I hunt, brother. I hunt all day long.
MATTHEWS: See, how this guy, sort of effeminate, soft spoken, and
this political consultant turns him into some wild man, macho man from the
right wing.
GALIFIANAKIS: His ego gets the best of him. I think that`s what
happens sometimes in politics. People get pulled from obscurity and they
are like, hey, you want to be vice president? OK. Yes, I can do that.
But they`re not qualified.
MATTHEWS: What would George W. think about this movie?
FERRELL: He`s probably --- he`d probably think it`s a funny movie.
A lot of laughs, yes. I`m glad I`m done with the circus. It`s a real
circus out there. Forget about it, you know?
MATTHEWS: Did he ever call you up and say you got me, George W., the
president? Because everyone thinks of you as him.
FERRELL: I have heard from various sources he thought I was pretty
funny. Yes, but no, I never had direct contact.
MATTHEWS: That sort of act of his is like an act, he doesn`t really
act like that in life? If he normally behaved like that, buzz he does in
public. He`s always trying to be tough.
FERRELL: Right. Trying to be tough and my way or the highway.
MATTHEWS: I want you to take a look at new talent. Somebody did
kind of -- showed up in this movie four, five times.
FERRELL: Oh, a young hot actor. Yes.
MATTHEWS: Let`s take a look at his role. I wonder if this guy has a
future. Let`s take a look.
MATTHEWS: Breaking news out of North Carolina. Democratic incumbent
Cam Brady getting a run for his money by newcomer Marty Huggins. This is
likely to hurt him with the Christian right, social conservatives, really
any group that opposes baby punching.
Remember the politician that punched a baby? He`s at it again. He
just punched Uggie, the dog from the Academy Award winning film "The
Election day winding down, North Carolina`s 14th district, one of the
last to call it. Today, opponent Marty Huggins did the craziest stunt to
MATTHEWS: You know what is scary --
FERRELL: You`re in it way too much.
MATTHEWS: I can do that like I believe it.
FERRELL: Excellent.
MATTHEWS: Jay Roach, your director, who did "Game Change" and did
"Recount", he`s great. He knows his political theater really well.
FERRELL: He does, and he`s also -- you know, he`s responsible for
the Austin Powers movies and "Meet the Parents". He`s kind of unique in
that he knees how to do the broad band comedies and he`s also is well-
versed in politics. So, there`s a perfect combination.
MATTHEWS: Let me ask you a serious questions. When I watched with
my two boys, and I was thinking, they were in their 20s, and I keep
thinking, one just turned 30, and I`m thinking, is this helping young
people vote? Yes, Will Ferrell, is this --
FERRELL: What did they say?
MATTHEWS: Well, they`re going to vote because I`m going to talk to
them and I`m going to encourage it, although one of my kids is to the left
of Obama, which I have to work on a little bit. I don`t know where he`s
going sometimes. He`s such a perfectionist. He`s mad about Gitmo and
things like that. A lot of people are.
FERRELL: Yes.
MATTHEWS: What do you think about this --- are you worried when you
see a movie that is slapstick and shows the evils of the Koch brothers and
all that stuff and big money and how`s it manipulating campaigns -- does
that worry you that kids are going to say, why vote?
FERRELL: I think we`re both optimistic that it`s -- first of all, to
get people in the door, it`s just funny. It`s just funny characters, and
we`re kind of going at each other. And then underneath that, there`s that
message of, you know, we need to keep an eye on this, otherwise this system
is not going to work for us anymore.
MATTHEWS: By the way, I have to say as a political expert -- well, I
am, that`s what I am an expert.
GALIFIANAKIS: You are.
MATTHEWS: it`s real. The way you guys portray, it will pass any
test of accuracy. And it`s frightening how real it is. Two guys, these
rich guys, can walk around and just gain results with their huge money.
GALIFIANAKIS: On your point earlier, we were discussing that. A
couple 17-year-olds see the movie and they`re not politically aware and
discuss it after the movie, all the money in Citizens United. That`s a
good discussion for teenagers to start having, I think.
MATTHEWS: Yes, I think it`s a great thing. I think people ought to
see the movie. I mean it. It`s great movie for the summer. A lot of fun
and truth in it.
"The Campaign" is going to be in theaters next Friday, August 10th,
around the country. Lots of theaters, especially one near you.
Thank you, Will Ferrell. And thank you, Zach Galifianakis. We`ll be
right back.
GALIFIANAKIS: Well, as a Christian, I guess it would be easy for you
to recite the Lord`s Prayer.
FERRELL: Is that what we`re resorting to, guess this Toppo tactics.
GALIFIANAKIS: I would like to hear it.
FERRELL: Fine, I`m happy to.
Our father art who is up in heaven, Aloe Vera be thy name. The
thigh, thy kingdom, the magic kingdom as it is on earth in helicopter.
MATTHEWS: Let me finish tonight with this. I just saw the movie
"The Campaign". The producers gave me a DVD to watch at home for tonight`s
And this is a very funny movie. If you love these guys, Will Ferrell
and Zach Galifianakis, and most people do, it`s impossible not to see the
craziness in the story of a Democrat running against a challenger who comes
out of nowhere to try to beat him -- beat him with the huge money of a
couple brothers who bear a striking resemblance to the Koch brothers.
But beneath the jokes and slap sticks, there`s a hard reality. This
is what politics is on the verge of becoming in this country. A couple
guys of rich guys with huge money made money in gas and oil who use the
latest statistics and political intel to go and pick off a person who
doesn`t vote their interests, putting in someone who will right down the
line. Now that isn`t funny.
The communists used to attack our democracy as nothing more than a
show put on and paid for by the Rockefellers. It was a sham, they said,
during the Cold War, to believe that the American people honestly and
freely choose their leaders. But isn`t it funny to see even in a comedy
movie that that old charge is becoming true.
We have seen elections here and there exactly what the communists
used to say about us, that we`re kidding ourselves. That elections were
really run by people with big money for people with big money.
I don`t like the Citizens United decision. I don`t like people who
think they have a right to as many votes as they have dollars. I don`t
like it for the simple reason that it`s not what we Americans believe in.
Not what Americans fight for, not what unites as a country.
I want the real thing, democracy, and this stuff going on now will go
on this fall, is not it. If you disagree with me, raise your hand right
now at home. And if you don`t, you know what I know, and it`s bad.
That`s HARDBALL for now. Real HARDBALL. Thanks for being with us.
"THE ED SHOW" starts right now.
Copyright 2012 CQ-Roll Call, Inc. All materials herein are protected by
United States copyright law and may not be reproduced, distributed,
transmitted, displayed, published or broadcast without the prior written
permission of CQ-Roll Call. You may not alter or remove any trademark,
copyright or other notice from copies of the content.>
Guests: Jonathan Martin, Glen Johnson, Simon Marks, Barney Frank, Will


text:
This session is for budding entrepreneurs and those considering opening their own small business and a great place for you to start exploring the fundamentals of starting a business. There must be a hundred questions running around in your head! Find answers to these questions!
This session is presented by BACD's advisors.
After attending this session, we strongly recommend that you also attend the BACD Business Fundamentals: Business Planning, Marketing & Sales, and Financials & Operations. These sessions are designed to help you get your business started and ready to maintain and grow successfully.
In this session we will go through a Start Up Checklist:
- Your Business Idea
- Business Structure
- Licenses and Permits
- Business Registration
- HST and Payroll
- Financial Record Keeping
- Business Insurance
- Capital, Grants and Funding
- Hiring Employees
Please arrive 15 minutes prior to the event, to allow time for check-in
Do I have to bring my printed ticket to the event?
No, you do not need to bring a ticket with you
What can/can't I bring to the event?
You don't need to bring anything but your questions and a notebook if needed.
Is there Parking?
Yes there is free parking, we encourage you to come early to get a spot.
For more information, call us at (905) 668-4949 or email firstname.lastname@example.com


text:
You have no items in your Shopping Basket.
Contact Us
Dobies Growing Guides
Vegetable Garden Planner
• Swinging seat
• Supplied with galvanised base fittings (Rust resistant)
• This product must be secured to a solid base
• Natural timber finish
• Manufactured from quality FSC® softwood
• Pressure treated to protect against rot
• Can be painted or stained if desired
• Easy 2 person assembly
• Comprehensive instructions and all fittings included
• Allow 600mm in front and behind the seat to allow for seat swing
Dimensions: EXTERNAL - 2330mm height, 2235mm width, 1090mm depth. SEAT - 1200mm width, 470mm depth.
(PLEASE NOTE: A postage surcharge per item ordered is applicable.)
Aftercare - Easy:False
Aftercare - Moderate:False
Aftercare - High:False
Edible Flower:False
Likes Acidic Soil:False
F1 Variety:False
All Dobies products should reach you in perfect condition, just as they left us. If you are dissatisfied in any way with their condition on arrival, please let us know within 14 days. We are only liable for the cost of the goods as quoted on the website plus the cost of delivery if the goods are faulty.
Order online or call 0344 967 0303 For product or any other queries, please email Customer Services Customer Services call 0333 240 5933
Dobies, Long Road, Paignton, Devon TQ4 7SX


text:
Reasons to pledge
- Contributing more to open access outlets than closed outlets gently pushes the system towards open access.
- Provide a model of action that others can easily adopt. As it stands, many sympathizers aren't sure what they should do.
- Make more people realize how many of us believe in open access.
- Taking a stand helps us as stick to our guns and not get caught up as much in the closed journal game. We need help with this because the incentives in academia favor the closed outlets.
- Making yourself known as an open access supporter helps open access outlets find reviewers and editors.
Pledgers' response to reviewing request
Dear Journal/Editor, I have pledged to spend the majority of my time reviewing for open-access outlets, and have already reached my limit for closed outlets this year. I can only agree to review this manuscript if the publisher agrees to make it open access within 12 months, as most publishers already do for papers presenting NIH-funded research, or if the authors post a pre-print in an institutional or university repository.
Not convinced?
For many of us, a guiding principle is that taxpayers and students paid for our research, so they ought to be able to read it. I don't see any insurmountable obstacles remaining to achieve open access for almost all academic research. But progress toward that goal has been slow. For the reasons given above, the pledge would accelerate progress.
Arriving at this version of the pledge has been a struggle. Every researcher has their own priorities and constraints. I've tried to create a pledge that lots can sign onto, while still including a specific concrete commitment rather than just things like I will attempt to… or I will try to… The hoped-for result is a mass of people having made a specific commitment, which might make more of a splash than a vague pledge. So I hope you'll sign on even if something best for you would be broader or have different emphasis.
There are many ways to support open access. One good step is ensuring that even the content of your closed-journal papers are freely accessible, and on a official website indexed systematically by academic search engines. Deposit the final draft of your articles (this version is owned by you even if you sign away copyright of a journal's typeset version) in your institution's repository. Stevan Harnad explains in this presentation.


text:
Michelle Obama Hilariously Breaks Down Why Melania Trump's Inauguration Gift Exchange Appeared So Awkward
The former FLOTUS also explained to Ellen Degeneres how Barack stepped in and saved the day.
The new health care law helps some people, hurts others and confuses almost everyone. Hoping to simplify things a bit, The Associated Press asked its Twitter, Facebook and Google Plus followers for their real-life questions about the program and the problems they're running into as the March 31 deadline approaches to sign up for coverage in new insurance markets.
Two of their questions and AP's answers.
Q: "Is it really true that the IRS can't do anything to you if you refuse to get insurance and also refuse to pay the penalty?" - David Myer, 46, a consulting geophysicist in Encinitas, Calif.
A: You could say the IRS has one hand tied behind its back here. But that still leaves the other hand. The tax collectors don't have nearly as many tools to go after insurance avoiders as it has to enforce tax laws. It can, however, dip into people's tax refunds to collect the penalty for those who don't get health insurance. Most filers qualify for a tax refund, so they would be exposed to that collection tactic. Beyond that, it can send insistent letters, and who wants to get those?
Elizabeth Maresca, a former IRS trial attorney, told the AP that an unfriendly letter about an outstanding health insurance penalty probably will have much the same effect as one about tax arrears. "Most people pay because they're scared, and I don't think that's going to change," she said.
That said, the IRS can't seize bank accounts, dock wages, charge interest on unpaid penalties or apply criminal or civil sanctions to force people to obtain health coverage.
Q: "Why are there limits as to who can sign up? If someone has an employer plan that they don't like, they can't switch the plan to one of the new ones." - Duane E. Maddy, a graphic designer and digital artist in Dunbar, W.Va.
A: It's true, the new system is set up so people who get health insurance at work stay on it. For better or worse, the law aims to preserve employer-based insurance, not give everyone an easy bailout to the new individual markets.
That said, you can shop for coverage in the new state exchanges even if you have insurance at work. But it may not make financial sense to switch. It depends on whether your work insurance is considered affordable. If it's not, you may be able to get a subsidized plan on the exchange - and a better deal.
What's unaffordable? The government defines it this way: If you are paying more than 9.5 percent of your income for your health insurance premiums at work, you're paying too much. You can move to an exchange plan and possibly get subsidized premiums there.
So you'll have to do some math and wade through fine print to see what your options might be. It's also possible to switch to an exchange if your workplace plan fails to meet certain other conditions, although most job-based coverage is expected to meet that test. To be sure, the government doesn't make any of this easy to understand.
BET Health News - We go beyond the music and entertainment world to bring you important medical information and health-related tips of special relevance to Blacks in the U.S. and around the world. Click here to subscribe to our newsletter.
(Photo: Joe Raedle/Getty Images)
The former FLOTUS also explained to Ellen Degeneres how Barack stepped in and saved the day.
"When my teacher asks me a question thinking I'm not paying attention, but I get it right."


text:
Post your picks or discuss anything related to betting NCAA football here.
Sponsored by:
Use this control to limit the display of threads to those newer than the specified time frame.
Allows you to choose the data by which the thread list will be sorted.
Order threads in...
Note: when sorting by date, 'descending order' will show the newest results first.
Forum Rules


text:
For general information:
For information about salary, hiring trends, research-related issues:
Marilyn Mackes, Executive Director610.868.1421, ext. firstname.lastname@example.com
Marilyn Mackes is the executive director of the National Association of Colleges and Employers (NACE), a position she assumed in 1997. Mackes leads an organization of more than 3,100 employing organizations and educational institutions engaged in the career development and employment process of college students and alumni. In her extensive interactions with recruiting professionals, leaders in business and education, and the media, she addresses issues such as employment and salary trends, benchmarking and best practices, candidate expectations, and developing effective recruiting strategies.
As a leader and consultant in the corporate college relations and recruiting field, Mackes has worked with various professional, corporate, educational, and government organizations in the United States and abroad. She regularly conducts media interviews regarding the college employment market and has appeared on ABC Nightly News, CNN Headline News, MSNBC, CBS, and The NewsHour with Jim Lehrer.
Edwin W. Koc, Director of Research, Public Policy, and Legislative Affairs610.868.1421, ext. email@example.com
Edwin W. Koc oversees NACE's research program, providing analysis and insight on trends, and works closely with the association's advocacy committee on issues affecting higher education and the employment process for new college graduates.
Prior to joining NACE, Koc was the director of research at the MidAtlantic Employers Association and the senior research analyst at the Pennsylvania Economy League - Eastern Division. Koc has a bachelor's degree in history from the University of Scranton and has completed all the requirements, except the dissertation, for a Ph.D. in political science from the University of Pennsylvania.
Andrea J. Koncz, Research Manager610.868.1421, ext. firstname.lastname@example.com
Andrea Koncz analyzes and reports on employment and job market trends for new college graduates. She also researches starting salary information for NACE's Salary Survey report, and responds to inquiries regarding the national and regional job market for new college graduates, including starting salary information for more than 90 disciplines. She also reports on employers' hiring projections through NACE's annual Job Outlook report, and is available to discuss the recruiting methods employers favor, the skills they seek in college candidates, and the challenges they face in assimilating new hires into the workplace.


text:
When I was a young journalist working as the environment editor for a Thai newspaper back in the 1990s, one of the first things I learned was this: In order to cover the environment, you have to understand the energy sector—not just what it emits, but the politics, economics, and technical issues surrounding it. And vice versa: Those reporting on energy development have to understand its environmental impacts to provide good coverage.
The interlocking nature of these issues has again become tragically evident in recent weeks following the disaster in northeast Japan. The media coverage—including a proverbial renaissance of reporting on nuclear power—has generally reflected the comprehensive nature of these events in a compelling way, but much of it has failed to explain the full implications of climate change in the debate about what comes next.
When the earthquake and tsunami first hit on March 11, it seemed to be a humanitarian story, rather than an environmental one. This was the planet impacting people, not people affecting the planet. Some tried to make it the latter. The Bolivian communications minister attributed the earthquake, erroneously, to global warming and blamed the world for failing to listen to his prime minister, Evo Morales, who has sought far tougher action against climate change by developed countries. A columnist for Grist also made claims linking tsunamis to climate change, before retracting them.
They didn't need to stretch so hard. The story quickly turned into an environmental parable with plenty of profound lessons. First and foremost, it demonstrated the raw awesome power of nature. The pictures and video of the tsunami sweeping over everything in its path—even generating a nightmarish whirlpool, rarely seen outside of Homeric legend—reminded us of who really runs this show. Most frightening of all, we learned that even a wealthy, technologically advanced, and earthquake-aware country like Japan can be overwhelmed, suggesting we have to respect the "the limits of safeguards and human foresight," as The New York Times put it.
Then the scale and implications of the nuclear disaster at the Fukushima Daiichi reactors became evident, grabbing the public's attention and holding it, even if, in countries like the United States, the media quickly turned its attention to the violence in Libya. The silver lining to this still-unfolding crisis has been the tremendous amount of renewed focus on the risks and benefits of nuclear power, a debate which spread in the press around the world, with numerous repercussions in the policy realm.
From Thailand to Argentina, governments have set up safety reviews and protestors have revived demonstrations against nuclear plants. In South Asia, the Times of India and Dawn reported respectively that India and Pakistan would each take steps to increase safety at their nuclear plants. But Bhubaneswar-based journalist Manipadma Jena maintains that India's response has been largely "academic," and Indian civil society's reaction lackluster compared to, for instance, the Indo-U.S. nuclear deal signed in 2008, which spawned protests in the streets. Nepalese journalist Navin Khadka of the BBC reports that essentially there have been no major policy shifts in the region. In general, global coverage seemed to reflect the revived safety concerns over nuclear power, but without providing enough context about the risks of other energy options, especially those that contribute to climate change.
That lack of context is evident in Der Spiegel's coverage, for instance, which predicts "the end of the nuclear era". Although the future of nuclear power has certainly become cloudier - particularly in Germany, which shut down seven nuclear plants - on a global level this could be only a temporary setback, and possibly even a prod toward needed reform. Charles Ebinger of the Brookings Institution told Greenwire that China, India, South Korea, the United Kingdom, and most likely Indonesia and Malaysia will eventually continue with their nuclear building plans. Indeed, the main obstacle to more nuclear power plants may remain economic, albeit partly because increased safety concerns can increase the up-front costs required to build them.
For journalists and science communicators, a major challenge has been to accurately convey the risks inherent in nuclear technology, and comparing them to other sources of power. Both the Columbia Journalism Review and the Earth Journalism Network offered briefing materials on how to communicate risks responsibly. Bloggers for ProPublica, Discover, and DeSmog Blog all emphasized the limited reach of Fukushima's impacts so far. David Ropeik in Scientific American and Gregg Easterbrook in Reuters warned that fears of nuclear disaster are generally overblown. Taking the opposite position were Amory Lovins in The Huffington Post and Jonathan Schell in Yes, who argued that the risks of meltdowns are simply too great.
There was plenty of irresponsible reporting, too, an interview carried out by Nancy Grace of CNN Headline News serving as a particularly egregious example of a journalist raising alarms without seeming to understand the science. Ropeik worried that poor risk communication by the Japanese authorities has stoked mistrust, fear, and anger toward nuclear power.
What seems clear, however, is that even taking Chernobyl into account, nuclear power has caused far fewer deaths than coal. "Some studies indicate that on a per-kilowatt-hour basis, the electricity from coal-fired generation is 4,000 times more deadly than electricity from nuclear generation, primarily because of harmful emissions and premature deaths," noted Richard Caperton, an energy policy analyst at the Center for American Progress.
The problem is that nuclear disasters, although rarer than those in the coal industry, tend to be more highly publicized. This is one of the reasons why nuclear power has a high "dread to risk" ratio, a subject ably explored by Andrew Revkin at his New York Times blog, Dot Earth.
Looming over this whole debate like a dark cloud is the threat of climate change. One of the reasons for nuclear power's increasing popularity in recent years is that, as a low emitter of greenhouse gases, its development can become one of the "wedges" used to mitigate global warming. As with the threat of a nuclear meltdown, humans find it difficult to assess the risk of climate change because it presents a low probability of a catastrophic disaster—although that probability increases with each year we fail to act against it. What's more, effective regulation of both nuclear power and fossil fuels in the U.S. have been stymied by "regulatory capture"—when regulators are controlled by the industry they're supposed to oversee—of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission and (while under the George W. Bush Administration) the EPA, respectively.
But it is the divergences between nuclear power and climate change that have been least remarked upon by the press. Despite the global debate surrounding it, nuclear power is ultimately a local issue. Yes, plumes of radiation and contamination of food and water can potentially travel long distances, but the threat posed is mostly confined to a certain radius. Climate change, on the other hand, is the ultimate global issue, "the disaster that we refuse to see coming," as Ezra Klein of The Washington Post puts it, although he asserts that "in a rough way" it is "easier to predict."
Journalists and most other commentators are used to depicting these debates as pitting "environment vs. development." But with nuclear power touted as one of the energy alternatives to prevent climate change, that dichotomy is becoming out-dated, increasingly replaced by a public discourse of "global vs. local." What is good for the planet may not be good for local people, and vice versa.
We face the same conundrum with—and the media have provided far less attention to—the issue of large dams. They, too, have a renewed popularity among policymakers because they're seen as a climate-friendly energy source (although decaying plant matter in reservoirs do release methane, a powerful greenhouse gas). What's more, in a world facing increasing water stress, dams are a crucial means for storing and providing fresh water. And yet they are incredibly destructive to local communities and ecosystems, and thus fiercely opposed by local people.
So even if we find the resolve to mitigate climate challenge, the responses we adopt are likely to be just as contentious as the fights over dams and nuclear. Ironically, the two major policy carrots the Obama White House offered to U.S. legislators in seeking to pass a climate bill were increased support for offshore drilling and nuclear power. Both have literally blown up in the administration's face over the last year. Even seemingly innocuous initiatives in support of energy efficiency, transportation alternatives and renewable energy have been coming under attack, either from the right (spurning compact fluorescent lights and high-speed rail) or the left (fighting bike lanes and wind farms).
What does it all mean? Whether for policymakers or the press, coming to grips with energy and environment—not energy vs. environment—is getting harder all the time. The vast resources of the web allow dedicated netizens to explore all the interlocking issues, but it's rare to find a journalist who provides it all in one place.
The writer James Fahn is the executive director of Earth Journalism Network. This article was originally published in Columbia Journalism Review and has been reprinted with permission.
Thanks for reading to the end of this story!
We would be grateful if you would consider joining as a member of The EB Circle. This helps to keep our stories and resources free for all, and it also supports independent journalism dedicated to sustainable development. For a small donation of S$60 a year, your help would make such a big difference.