Laura Ingraham: Celebrities Can Talk About Fracking But a Neurosurgeon Can't Discuss Healthcare

Conservative talk radio host Laura Ingraham on Tuesday made a marvelous observation about the media firestorm surrounding Dr. Benjamin Carson's speech last week at the National Prayer Breakfast.

Appearing on Fox & Friends, Ingraham said, "We can have celebrities talk about fracking and all sorts of political issues...but the head of pediatric neurosurgery at one of the top hospitals in the world" shouldn't discuss healthcare (video follows with partial transcript and commentary):

LAURA INGRAHAM: So we can have celebrities, right, talk about fracking and all sorts of political issues, but we actually have the head of neurosurgery, pediatric neurosurgery, at one of the top hospitals in the world, who gets up on that stage at the National Prayer Breakfast, and he addresses a number of topics, right, but from a common sense, very respectful fashion. He wasn’t mean-spirited. He wasn’t nasty. But the reaction was so profound from the public, thinking, “Why don’t we have politicians who speak in these common sense terms?”

Absurd, but not at all surprising.

Consider the anthropogenic global warming debate.

The media are far more interested in what Al Gore - a man that did terribly in science classes while at Harvard! - and pop star Sheryl Crow have to say on this subject than actual scientists including the over 31,000 that have signed the Oregon Petition.

America's press in 2013 aren't interested in facts or a serious discussion on issues facing the nation.

Instead, the modus operandi is to fill the airwaves and print with nonsensical propaganda while demonizing anyone that deigns to disagree with it.

As Dr. Carson said Monday, "An uneducated populace will fall for anything" including "pundits on television."

(HT Mediaite)

View the original article here

Motion Picture Academy To Discuss The Oscars, Academy Members Seem Confused

After an Academy Awards ceremony that seemed to be programmed out of the conviction that the best way to improve the relevance of the movies is to emphasize its most profitable work rather than its most, well, relevant, the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences seems to have surprised a number of its members by sending out invitations to meetings in three cities to discuss what the Academy does and ought to do. That this is happening seems entirely reasonable and sensible, and so the really newsworthy element surrounding all of this is that Academy members the New York Times talked to seem to be surprised and disconcerted that it’s happening:

In the last few years the Academy, which presents the Oscars, has been the subject of almost constant hand-wringing concerning the quality and ratings of its annual awards show, the age and ethnic diversity of its membership, and efforts to shore up the cultural relevance of film. Still, the group has rarely, if ever, opened the door for a global discussion of its aims or operation. Mr. Koch did not respond to a query about the meeting on Friday, and a spokeswoman for the Academy declined to comment. Several Academy members who have been active in the awards process said on Friday that they were puzzled by the announcement. One highly placed studio executive, who spoke on condition of anonymity to avoid conflict with the Academy, said he believed it was an attempt by Ms. Hudson, who has held her post for about two years, to get input from members as she and others plot their agenda.

I guess it doesn’t necessarily surprise me that the 94 percent of Academy voters who are white and the 77 percent of them who are men might not really want to talk about the fact that they’re an overwhelming majority. But it’s a nice test of how committed actual folks are to their values to see if they’re willing to discuss their privilege and to consider measures that would dilute them. And after the Academy Awards’ schizophrenic pendulum swings between hosts from different generations and senses of what are the most effective ways to emphasize the importance of the movies, it makes sense to stage an actual conversation rather than leaving things in the hands of producers who don’t seem to be coming up with good solutions on their own. Good on Academy president Hawk Koch and chief executive Dawn Hudson for saving the dates. Now it’ll be up to their members to actually contribute, rather than act like it’s bizarre that an organization would attempt to reassess itself.

View the original article here

Laura Ingraham: Celebrities Can Talk About Fracking But a Neurosurgeon Can't Discuss Healthcare

Conservative talk radio host Laura Ingraham on Tuesday made a marvelous observation about the media firestorm surrounding Dr. Benjamin Carson's speech last week at the National Prayer Breakfast.

Appearing on Fox & Friends, Ingraham said, "We can have celebrities talk about fracking and all sorts of political issues...but the head of pediatric neurosurgery at one of the top hospitals in the world" shouldn't discuss healthcare (video follows with partial transcript and commentary):

LAURA INGRAHAM: So we can have celebrities, right, talk about fracking and all sorts of political issues, but we actually have the head of neurosurgery, pediatric neurosurgery, at one of the top hospitals in the world, who gets up on that stage at the National Prayer Breakfast, and he addresses a number of topics, right, but from a common sense, very respectful fashion. He wasn’t mean-spirited. He wasn’t nasty. But the reaction was so profound from the public, thinking, “Why don’t we have politicians who speak in these common sense terms?”

Absurd, but not at all surprising.

Consider the anthropogenic global warming debate.

The media are far more interested in what Al Gore - a man that did terribly in science classes while at Harvard! - and pop star Sheryl Crow have to say on this subject than actual scientists including the over 31,000 that have signed the Oregon Petition.

America's press in 2013 aren't interested in facts or a serious discussion on issues facing the nation.

Instead, the modus operandi is to fill the airwaves and print with nonsensical propaganda while demonizing anyone that deigns to disagree with it.

As Dr. Carson said Monday, "An uneducated populace will fall for anything" including "pundits on television."

(HT Mediaite)

View the original article here

Bozell, Varney Discuss Media Ignoring Pro-Free Market Speech by Dr. Carson at Prayer Breakfast

Dr. Ben Carson has received little coverage in traditional media outlets for a speech he gave last Thursday at a prayer breakfast in which he advocated a flat tax and health savings accounts to improve the American economy and the health care system, respectively. The little attention he has gotten has been negative, with the media indignant that the world renowned neurosurgeon dared to "disrespect" the president by offering policy proposals that deviated from the government-centered ones of Mr. Obama's liking.

Even so, NewsBusters publisher Brent Bozell noted on the Tuesday edition of Varney & Co., because of talk radio, and the Internet, "the toothpaste is out of the tube" and while it may take longer for more people to become aware of it, "This story will not stop growing." "This proves why the networks are becoming increasingly irrelevant," the Media Research Center founder told the Fox Business Network anchor Stuart Varney. [MP3 audio here; video of segment follows page break]

View the original article here

Washington Post On Climate: Obama Must ‘Discuss The Science, The Real Reason To Cut Carbon Emissions’

Obama surprised almost everyone when he channeled his inner climate hawk in his powerful second inaugural address. Now everyone is wondering what he will say in his State of the Union address Tuesday.

This weekend, the Washington Post editorial board weighed in:

President Obama will deliver his 2013 State of the Union address on Tuesday, and expectations are high that he will devote significant time to climate change. We hope that he adopts a different approach to explaining the need for action than he did in much of his first term.

In past addresses, talking about green jobs didn’t work, nor did talking about energy independence. The credible way to justify fighting climate change is to discuss the science, the real reason to cut carbon emissions. There is overwhelming evidence that the planet is warming. The widespread burning of fossil fuels, meanwhile, pumps heat-trapping greenhouse gases into the atmosphere every second….

It is certainly nice to see the Washington Post opinion page — home to George Will and other deniers — acknowledge that those of us who have been urging blunt talk on climate science for years have been right all along (see Brulle [1/11]: “By failing to even rhetorically address climate change, Obama is mortgaging our future and further delaying the necessary work to build a political consensus for real action).

Let me say that while I think talking about green jobs and energy independence was — and is — a good idea, those who urged only talking about those things were clearly wrong in retrospect. That’s because the oil and gas folks have been able to make a rhetorically strong (albeit flawed) case that they are the ones who can deliver jobs and reduced oil imports. Only one set of technologies can deliver jobs, energy independence, and preserve a livable climate. So only one set of technologies can avoid betraying our children and future generations. Game, set, and match.

Certainly team Obama worked hard to make sure that when he and other political and environmental leaders did talk about the need for action, the science was left out (see “Team Obama Launched The Inane Strategy Of Downplaying Climate Change Back In 2009“).

To remind you of how much the President has muzzled himself in recent years, recall what he said about the “never seen before” Fargo flooding in March 2009:

“I actually think the science around climate change is real. It is potentially devastating,” Obama told reporters Monday. “If you look at the flooding that’s going on right now in North Dakota and you say to yourself, ‘If you see an increase of two degrees, what does that do, in terms of the situation there?’ That indicates the degree to which we have to take this seriously.“

Precisely. Yet for nearly four years of record heat, record drought, record wildfires — and record-shattering frankenstorms, Obama had little to offer but climate silence.

That’s why it was so surprising he said last month:

We will respond to the threat of climate change, knowing that the failure to do so would betray our children and future generations.  Some may still deny the overwhelming judgment of science, but none can avoid the devastating impact of raging fires, and crippling drought, and more powerful storms.

Now it’s time for him to spell out the threat even more clearly — as well as the technologies and policies needed to address it.

jQuery(document).ready(function(){jQuery('#comment_submit').click(function(){if(jQuery('#comment_check:checked').length

View the original article here

Watch Live: Ambassador Rice and Nick Kristof Discuss Foreign Policy in a Google+ Hangout

Today, join Ambassador Susan E. Rice and New York Times columnist Nicholas D. Kristof as they break ground on the frontier of social media and U.S. foreign policy. In a live Google+ Hangout, Ambassador Rice and Mr. Kristof will discuss the world’s most pressing challenges and America’s role in an increasingly interconnected world. They will be joined live by a selection of citizens who will ask questions from the U.S. and overseas. 

Watch the conversation live at 2:30 p.m. EST on The Times’s homepage or on the New York Times Google+ page, and join the conversation on Twitter using the hashtag #NYTHangout. For more work on U.S. work at the United Nations, follow @AmbassadorRiceand @USUN on Twitter and ‘Like’ Ambassador Rice on Facebook.

Ed. Note: Follow the White House on Google+ for news, behind-the-scenes photos and chances to join White House Hangouts with administration officials.

View the original article here