« January 21, 2007 - January 27, 2007 |
Main
| February 11, 2007 - February 17, 2007 »
On the February 7 edition of the Christian Broadcasting Network's The 700 Club, host Pat Robertson said that people who have received too much plastic surgery "got the eyes like they're Oriental" while he put his fingers up to the side of his face.
Robertson and CBN special features producer Kristi Watts were talking about Fox News host Greta Van Susteren's plastic surgery. Robertson said that Van Susteren "looks great." Watts then asked whether Robertson had "seen someone who got [plastic surgery] too much." Robertson replied, "Yeah, they got the eyes like they're Oriental, and, you know, it's all pulled."
As Media Matters for America noted, Robertson has called Islam a "Christian heresy" and said that "Jewish people" are "very thrifty" and "extraordinarily good business people." Media Matters also noted that after officials in Orlando, Florida, voted in 1998 to fly rainbow flags from city lampposts during the annual Gay Days event at Disney World, Robertson issued the city a warning: "I don't think I'd be waving those flags in God's face if I were you. ... [A] condition like this will bring about the destruction of your nation. It'll bring about terrorist bombs, it'll bring earthquakes, tornadoes and possibly a meteor."
From the February 7 edition of the Christian Broadcasting Network's The 700 Club:
ROBERTSON: You know there's a lady named Greta Van Susteren, who's on Fox.
WATTS: Yeah.
ROBERTSON: Got a very popular --
WATTS: Oh, I saw her.
ROBERTSON: She looked gorgeous last night, but she had a really serious facial deal. And it did a wonder --
WATTS: Sister needed help.
ROBERTSON: Sister got the help.
WATTS: Sister -- she needed some help, yeah.
ROBERTSON: But she got it. She just looks great, and she's so popular.
WATTS: But have you ever seen someone who got it too much, and so they come up to you, and they're like, "Pat, how are you doing? It's so good to see you."
ROBERTSON: Yeah, they got the eyes like they're Oriental, and, you know, it's all pulled. So, make sure you do it right. But -- it's -- that's one way you can go, but it'll cost you five or six thousand dollars probably. All right. What else?
U.S. News & World Report - The departure of nearly a dozen U.S. attorneys--including some overseeing high-profile politically charged criminal investigations--has sparked congressional inquiries as to whether the Justice Department is politicizing the hiring and firing of federal prosecutors. Deputy Attorney General Paul McNulty was in the hot seat today answering just that very question before the Senate Judiciary Committee.
Courtest of Good Magazine
Good on GOOd: After launching with much fanfare and following up with a standout sophomore cover story on everywhere-everything everyman John Hodgman, GOOD has opted to throw itself into the media mix with its upcoming Media Issue. A tad brash, given it's just the third issue, but shrewd of GOOD, too — they know that everybody loves a list, especially "bigshot editor" and, now, GOOD contributor Graydon Carter, who, after a brief shout-out to "the smart, charming gazette you hold in your hands", kicks off the issue's centerpiece, a list of the "51 Best Magazines Ever," with a concise and erudite history of the "marvelous invention" that is the magazine (from Graydon's lips to your ears: "Magazines — or rather, certain magazines — aren't going away any time soon") (note that "certain" is the rub here, as elsewhere GOOD notes that 60% of new magazines don't last a year). The list, compiled by the GOOD team, features plenty of the usual suspects, but with sharp qualifiers ( for example they cite Esquire...under Harold T.P. Hayes from 1961-1973, that is) and Spy, but only, of course, in the vaunted "Funny Years." The New Yorker, The Atlantic Monthly (sic), The New York Times Magazine, Wired, Rolling Stone, and a pre-Conde Nast Details make the cut, as do Ebony, The Face, Cosmo, and Life (1936-1972) and many more besides (Mad, Colors and Tiger Beat, plus Fuck You/A Magazine of the Arts, possibly clinching that 51st spot). Lists are easy and 51 gives you a wide berth for hits and misses, but either way the feature stands as a refreshing reminder that the magazine really is a "marvelous invention" (clanging death knells notwithstanding).
Elsewhere, GOOD even takes a stab at media insiderism with its very own poke at Radar ("more fun to talk about then to actually read") (did we mention that it's only their third issue? And that they were brash? We'd warn darkly of karma here, were it not for the heavy stock paper and lush, plentiful ads, including a backpage Ralph Lauren Rugby ad declaring itself "dedicated to Volunteerism And Community Service"). Jack Lechner's ode to HBO and David Puner's article on how network newscasts are struggling to stay relevant in the age of internet, while well-written, won't be news to most readers. However, Ethan Zuckerman, a fellow at Harvard's Berkman Center for Internet and Society, puts out a fascinating piece on how the internet is managing to upend, or at least rattle, established orders in other parts of the world, including Bahrain, where Google Maps has exposed unfair land parceling, and Kenya, where ordinary citizens have come to question the credentials of parliamentarians whose biographies were published online. This is the kind of news that, more than any party or feel-good celebrity, goes to show that, however hard a time some may have buying into its do-good credo, GOOD is really on to something. Here's hoping people notice. And that GOOD doesn't let them forget, when it turns its eye on a subject the media is less inclined to talk about than itself.
*Oh, please. Of course we went there. Today is goofy pun day on ETP!
It will be quite telling if John Edwards listens to the likes of Donohue and the right wing nutosphere.
The New York Times and Associated Press have both reported criticism by Catholic League president Bill Donohue of two bloggers hired by John Edwards' presidential campaign; Donohue contends that the bloggers are "anti-Catholic, vulgar, trash-talking bigots."
But neither the Times article, by reporter John M. Broder, nor the AP article, by writer Nedra Pickler, included any mention of Donohue's own history of vulgar, trash-talking bigotry — or of Donohue's decision to dismiss anti-Catholic bigotry on the part of a key anti-Kerry operative in 2004….read on
A blast from the past. Here's William in one of his embarrassing tirades against Hollywood.
Download (0) | Play (0) Download (0) | Play (0)
Donohue: They will do anything for a buck, they wouldn’t care. If you asked them to sodomize their own mother in a movie they would do so-and they would do it with a smile on their face.
Stewart: In my defense I was young, and I needed the money.
By our count, Ex-Sen. John Edwards's presidential campaign is paying more than a half dozen political consultants (media, polling, communications, fundraising, Internet) to.... well, do nothing of substance, according to Edwards himself. And he writes his own speeches, so the campaign doesn't apparently need a speechwriter.
MyDD's Jonathan Singer scored the Edwards interview that produced this gem of an exchange:
Singer: Realistically, you're going to have consultants on your campaign.
Edwards: Not doing much.
Singer: I mean there are going to be polls taken…
Edwards: Sure. My pollster doesn't… I decide what I'm going to say. The speech I gave today – I wrote it. Nobody else wrote it. I have to admit that we did have a speech written that I didn't give. I gave my speech. And that's what I do now. Anything that matters I do it myself.
I had a town hall meeting in New Hampshire Wednesday and I talked and answered questions, and every word that came out of my mouth was just me. Nobody told me what to say or suggested what I should say. I don't do that anymore.
Singer: Expanding on that, inherently in a campaign you're giving a stump speech, though and you get into a rhythm
Edwards: That's true. But where does the stump speech come from is part of it. Every word of my stump speech came from me. Every word. Nobody has written a stump speech for me. Every word came from me – the one I'm doing now.
Staffer: That was true in the good stump speech.
U.S. News & World Report - The departure of nearly a dozen U.S. attorneys--including some overseeing high-profile politically charged criminal investigations--has sparked congressional inquiries as to whether the Justice Department is politicizing the hiring and firing of federal prosecutors. Deputy Attorney General Paul McNulty was in the hot seat today answering just that very question before the Senate Judiciary Committee.
Police urge caution opening post as the DVLA becomes the latest organisation to receive a letter bomb.
Courtest of Good Magazine
Good on GOOd: After launching with much fanfare and following up with a standout sophomore cover story on everywhere-everything everyman John Hodgman, GOOD has opted to throw itself into the media mix with its upcoming Media Issue. A tad brash, given it's just the third issue, but shrewd of GOOD, too — they know that everybody loves a list, especially "bigshot editor" and, now, GOOD contributor Graydon Carter, who, after a brief shout-out to "the smart, charming gazette you hold in your hands", kicks off the issue's centerpiece, a list of the "51 Best Magazines Ever," with a concise and erudite history of the "marvelous invention" that is the magazine (from Graydon's lips to your ears: "Magazines — or rather, certain magazines — aren't going away any time soon") (note that "certain" is the rub here, as elsewhere GOOD notes that 60% of new magazines don't last a year). The list, compiled by the GOOD team, features plenty of the usual suspects, but with sharp qualifiers ( for example they cite Esquire...under Harold T.P. Hayes from 1961-1973, that is) and Spy, but only, of course, in the vaunted "Funny Years." The New Yorker, The Atlantic Monthly (sic), The New York Times Magazine, Wired, Rolling Stone, and a pre-Conde Nast Details make the cut, as do Ebony, The Face, Cosmo, and Life (1936-1972) and many more besides (Mad, Colors and Tiger Beat, plus Fuck You/A Magazine of the Arts, possibly clinching that 51st spot). Lists are easy and 51 gives you a wide berth for hits and misses, but either way the feature stands as a refreshing reminder that the magazine really is a "marvelous invention" (clanging death knells notwithstanding).
Elsewhere, GOOD even takes a stab at media insiderism with its very own poke at Radar ("more fun to talk about then to actually read") (did we mention that it's only their third issue? And that they were brash? We'd warn darkly of karma here, were it not for the heavy stock paper and lush, plentiful ads, including a backpage Ralph Lauren Rugby ad declaring itself "dedicated to Volunteerism And Community Service"). Jack Lechner's ode to HBO and David Puner's article on how network newscasts are struggling to stay relevant in the age of internet, while well-written, won't be news to most readers. However, Ethan Zuckerman, a fellow at Harvard's Berkman Center for Internet and Society, puts out a fascinating piece on how the internet is managing to upend, or at least rattle, established orders in other parts of the world, including Bahrain, where Google Maps has exposed unfair land parceling, and Kenya, where ordinary citizens have come to question the credentials of parliamentarians whose biographies were published online. This is the kind of news that, more than any party or feel-good celebrity, goes to show that, however hard a time some may have buying into its do-good credo, GOOD is really on to something. Here's hoping people notice. And that GOOD doesn't let them forget, when it turns its eye on a subject the media is less inclined to talk about than itself.
*Oh, please. Of course we went there. Today is goofy pun day on ETP!
Police urge caution opening post as the DVLA becomes the latest organisation to receive a letter bomb.
How each of us can keep our money from funding genocide in Darfur.
DURING THREE visits to Darfur and neighboring Chad, I have been witness to the first genocide of the 21st century. In a displaced persons camp called Zam Zam, I met Halima, who described the day her village was attacked, first by Sudanese government bombers, then by the merciless, government-backed janjaweed militia. She said, "The janjaweed tore my baby son from my arms and bayoneted him in front of my eyes."
Another young mother, Fatima, told how she fled her burning village with her baby tied to her back. When the janjaweed shot her, the bullet passed through the child, killing him. During my visit, I watched a small boy, shot in the lungs, struggling to breathe, and I saw others whose eyes had been gouged out with knives.
So you can imagine my horror when I recently discovered that I had inadvertently been helping to finance the genocide in Darfur. My own pension money was in Fidelity Investments mutual funds. Fidelity has immense holdings in PetroChina Co. and Sinopec Corp., two oil companies that have poured billions of dollars into Khartoum's coffers.
From 70% to 80% of the oil revenue, according to Human Rights Watch, has been used by the government of Sudan to purchase assault helicopters, bombers, armored vehicles and small arms, as well as to train and arm the janjaweed -- the people and weapons responsible for murdering Halima's and Fatima's babies, along with more than 400,000 other people.
I have always taught my children that with knowledge comes responsibility. Who among us would knowingly be complicit in the murder of innocent people? So I withdrew my savings from Fidelity and wrote a letter to them explaining why. I didn't expect my letter alone to make the difference, of course, but I hoped that my action together with that of others would persuade them to take responsible action. But so far, rather than divesting, they have, over the last year, significantly increased their holdings in PetroChina.
Fidelity says: "We believe the resolution of complex social and political issues must be left to the appropriate authorities of the world that have the responsibility, and capability, to address important matters of this type."
Well, I disagree. It's true that Asia and the West have failed to take the necessary steps to end the genocide, but that doesn't mean the rest of us (corporations included) can shirk our moral obligations. Fidelity's effort to shift the responsibility away from its own decision to invest in companies that fund atrocities is cynical and hypocritical.
A new public campaign, FidelityOutOfSudan.com, asks Fidelity to own up to its responsibility.
The moral necessity of divesting from commercial and capital investments in Sudan is broadly recognized and growing. Colleges and universities have divested, particularly from Sudan's oil industry, with Harvard leading the way, citing a "compelling case for action in these special circumstances, in light of the terrible situation unfolding in Darfur and the leading role played by PetroChina's parent company in the Sudanese oil industry, which is so important to the Sudanese regime." When the University of California divested, it was a huge victory.
Six states, including California, have already taken a moral position by divesting. Twenty-four other states are considering such legislation.
And, of course, we are all responsible for our own savings and retirement accounts. Each of us must send a clear message to our investment advisors that we refuse to have our savings used to slaughter innocent people.
--Mia Farrow
Originally published in the Los Angeles Times.
How each of us can keep our money from funding genocide in Darfur.
DURING THREE visits to Darfur and neighboring Chad, I have been witness to the first genocide of the 21st century. In a displaced persons camp called Zam Zam, I met Halima, who described the day her village was attacked, first by Sudanese government bombers, then by the merciless, government-backed janjaweed militia. She said, "The janjaweed tore my baby son from my arms and bayoneted him in front of my eyes."
Another young mother, Fatima, told how she fled her burning village with her baby tied to her back. When the janjaweed shot her, the bullet passed through the child, killing him. During my visit, I watched a small boy, shot in the lungs, struggling to breathe, and I saw others whose eyes had been gouged out with knives.
So you can imagine my horror when I recently discovered that I had inadvertently been helping to finance the genocide in Darfur. My own pension money was in Fidelity Investments mutual funds. Fidelity has immense holdings in PetroChina Co. and Sinopec Corp., two oil companies that have poured billions of dollars into Khartoum's coffers.
From 70% to 80% of the oil revenue, according to Human Rights Watch, has been used by the government of Sudan to purchase assault helicopters, bombers, armored vehicles and small arms, as well as to train and arm the janjaweed -- the people and weapons responsible for murdering Halima's and Fatima's babies, along with more than 400,000 other people.
I have always taught my children that with knowledge comes responsibility. Who among us would knowingly be complicit in the murder of innocent people? So I withdrew my savings from Fidelity and wrote a letter to them explaining why. I didn't expect my letter alone to make the difference, of course, but I hoped that my action together with that of others would persuade them to take responsible action. But so far, rather than divesting, they have, over the last year, significantly increased their holdings in PetroChina.
Fidelity says: "We believe the resolution of complex social and political issues must be left to the appropriate authorities of the world that have the responsibility, and capability, to address important matters of this type."
Well, I disagree. It's true that Asia and the West have failed to take the necessary steps to end the genocide, but that doesn't mean the rest of us (corporations included) can shirk our moral obligations. Fidelity's effort to shift the responsibility away from its own decision to invest in companies that fund atrocities is cynical and hypocritical.
A new public campaign, FidelityOutOfSudan.com, asks Fidelity to own up to its responsibility.
The moral necessity of divesting from commercial and capital investments in Sudan is broadly recognized and growing. Colleges and universities have divested, particularly from Sudan's oil industry, with Harvard leading the way, citing a "compelling case for action in these special circumstances, in light of the terrible situation unfolding in Darfur and the leading role played by PetroChina's parent company in the Sudanese oil industry, which is so important to the Sudanese regime." When the University of California divested, it was a huge victory.
Six states, including California, have already taken a moral position by divesting. Twenty-four other states are considering such legislation.
And, of course, we are all responsible for our own savings and retirement accounts. Each of us must send a clear message to our investment advisors that we refuse to have our savings used to slaughter innocent people.
--Mia Farrow
Originally published in the Los Angeles Times.