The Hamster

Posted by Eric at 11:59 PM | Comments (5)

O'Reilly Empire to Target Kids

Ha, no really. The $60 million a year media / entertainment (that's what he is - entertainment) product will start factoring kids, reports Business Week:

Love him or hate him, O'Reilly has done a masterful job of using the groundswell of support for his conservative views to build himself into a multimedia brand. For enduring that kind of pace, O'Reilly is reaping the rewards and helping lots of other media outlets cash in on his popularity as well. Sweep in TV, radio, books, newspapers, and the Internet, and O'Reilly generates an estimated $60 million a year for his outlets through ad and books sales, syndication fees, and merchandise sales. "Bill is one of our cherished marquee authors," says Stephen Rubin, president of Doubleday Broadway Publishing Group, a unit of Random House Inc. that has published four of O'Reilly's works. "It doesn't hurt that he shamelessly promotes his books." His latest tome has sold 644,000 copies since it was released last year, according to sales tracker Nielsen BookScan ...

O'Reilly has created three separate corporations to handle his business affairs -- one each for TV, radio, and his Web site, billoreilly.com. He has about 25 people working for him, but he prides himself on being hands-on, writing his own TV-show scripts, speeches, newspaper column, and books. It's not as if he can't afford some help. His Fox contract pays him $4 million a year, still less than half what broadcast anchors make, according to industry sources. He is estimated to earn tens of millions of dollars more on his books and Web site. He accepts one speaking gig a month at an estimated $50,000 to $70,000 per appearance. He says he gives a lot of his loot to charities, including Families of Military Casualties. "I'm not a materialistic person. I wasn't born with that gene," says O'Reilly.

So what's next? O'Reilly, who has a wife and two daughters, is looking to spread his message of self-reliance to another generation. He says a kids' book, The O'Reilly Factor For Kids: A Survival Guide, is set to be published in October by Harper Collins, owned by Fox parent News Corp. In just seven years since joining Fox News at its launch, O'Reilly has become a national presence. "Where I am now is where I should be," he responds when asked about any larger ambitions. And that's just fine with the slew of companies riding the O'Reilly wave.

Posted by Eric at 08:58 PM | Comments (22)

O'Reilly Empire to Target Kids

Ha, no really. The $60 million a year media / entertainment (that's what he is - entertainment) product will start factoring kids, reports Business Week:

Love him or hate him, O'Reilly has done a masterful job of using the groundswell of support for his conservative views to build himself into a multimedia brand. For enduring that kind of pace, O'Reilly is reaping the rewards and helping lots of other media outlets cash in on his popularity as well. Sweep in TV, radio, books, newspapers, and the Internet, and O'Reilly generates an estimated $60 million a year for his outlets through ad and books sales, syndication fees, and merchandise sales. "Bill is one of our cherished marquee authors," says Stephen Rubin, president of Doubleday Broadway Publishing Group, a unit of Random House Inc. that has published four of O'Reilly's works. "It doesn't hurt that he shamelessly promotes his books." His latest tome has sold 644,000 copies since it was released last year, according to sales tracker Nielsen BookScan ...

O'Reilly has created three separate corporations to handle his business affairs -- one each for TV, radio, and his Web site, billoreilly.com. He has about 25 people working for him, but he prides himself on being hands-on, writing his own TV-show scripts, speeches, newspaper column, and books. It's not as if he can't afford some help. His Fox contract pays him $4 million a year, still less than half what broadcast anchors make, according to industry sources. He is estimated to earn tens of millions of dollars more on his books and Web site. He accepts one speaking gig a month at an estimated $50,000 to $70,000 per appearance. He says he gives a lot of his loot to charities, including Families of Military Casualties. "I'm not a materialistic person. I wasn't born with that gene," says O'Reilly.

So what's next? O'Reilly, who has a wife and two daughters, is looking to spread his message of self-reliance to another generation. He says a kids' book, The O'Reilly Factor For Kids: A Survival Guide, is set to be published in October by Harper Collins, owned by Fox parent News Corp. In just seven years since joining Fox News at its launch, O'Reilly has become a national presence. "Where I am now is where I should be," he responds when asked about any larger ambitions. And that's just fine with the slew of companies riding the O'Reilly wave.

Posted by Eric at 08:58 PM | Comments (0)

Scary Liberal Actors

Even more sillinesswith the government and the entertainment industry:

Hollywood is fretting that outspoken stars could hijack Sunday's Oscars (news - web sites), the scene of frequent political outbursts, to score points ahead of this year's US presidential polls.

And amid a tough crackdown by US federal authorities on the broadcast of "indecent" material, Oscar bosses worry that an unexpected political tirade could be censored, tarnishing the image of cinema's top awards.

The Academy Awards (news - web sites), attended by all of Hollywood's good and great and watched by up to one billion television viewers across the globe, presents a tempting soap-box for politically active stars who win awards.

With free-speaking left-wing actors Tim Robbins and Alec Baldwin sure to take the stage this year as presenters if not as best supporting actor winners, and with equally combatant Sean Penn also nominated, organisers are bracing for possible fireworks as conservative Bush seeks re-election.

Posted by Eric at 12:50 PM | Comments (11)

Scary Liberal Actors

Even more sillinesswith the government and the entertainment industry:

Hollywood is fretting that outspoken stars could hijack Sunday's Oscars (news - web sites), the scene of frequent political outbursts, to score points ahead of this year's US presidential polls.

And amid a tough crackdown by US federal authorities on the broadcast of "indecent" material, Oscar bosses worry that an unexpected political tirade could be censored, tarnishing the image of cinema's top awards.

The Academy Awards (news - web sites), attended by all of Hollywood's good and great and watched by up to one billion television viewers across the globe, presents a tempting soap-box for politically active stars who win awards.

With free-speaking left-wing actors Tim Robbins and Alec Baldwin sure to take the stage this year as presenters if not as best supporting actor winners, and with equally combatant Sean Penn also nominated, organisers are bracing for possible fireworks as conservative Bush seeks re-election.

Posted by Eric at 12:50 PM | Comments (8)

John Kerry: Bush Lite?

Not so fast, says Bush expert David Corn. John Kerry, he writes in The Nation, "has voted consistently in favor of abortion rights and environmental policies, opposed Bush's tax cuts for the wealthy, led the effort against drilling in the Alaskan wilderness, pushed for higher fuel economy standards, advocated boosting the minimum wage and pressed for global warming remedies." Perhaps more importantly for Corn, however, "are key moments when he displayed guts and took tough actions that few colleagues would imitate."

In early 1986 Kerry's office was contacted by a Vietnam vet who alleged that the support network for the CIA-backed Nicaraguan contras (who were fighting against the socialist Sandinistas in power) was linked to drug traffickers. Kerry doubted that the Reagan Administration, obsessed with supporting the contras, would investigate such charges. He pushed for a Senate inquiry and a year later, as chairman of a Foreign Relations subcommittee, obtained approval to conduct a probe.

It was not an easy ride. Reagan Justice Department officials sought to discredit and stymie his investigation. Republicans dismissed it. One anti-Kerry effort used falsified affidavits to make it seem his staff had bribed witnesses. The Democratic staff of the Senate Iran/contra committee--which showed little interest in the contra drug connection--often refused to cooperate. "They were fighting us tooth and nail," recalls Jack Blum, one of Kerry's investigators. "We had the White House and the CIA against us on one side and our colleagues in the Senate on the other. But Kerry told us, 'Keep going.' He didn't let this stuff faze him." ...

On September 10, 1996, as he was in a tight re-election contest against William Weld, the popular Republican governor of Massachusetts, Kerry voted against the Defense of Marriage Act, which would deny federal benefits to same-sex couples and permit states to not recognize same-sex marriages conducted in other states. He was one of only fourteen senators to oppose the measure. Several leading Senate liberals--including Paul Wellstone, Tom Harkin and Pat Leahy--had voted for it. But on the floor of the Senate that day, Kerry, who noted that he did not support same-sex marriage, said, "I am going to vote against this bill...because I believe that this debate is fundamentally ugly, and it is fundamentally political." He refused to pretend that the bill was not a wedge-issue trap devised by conservative Republicans. The legislation, he charged, was "meant to divide Americans," and he argued fiercely that it was unconstitutional. "If this were truly a defense of marriage act," he said, "it would expand the learning experience for would-be husbands and wives. It would provide for counseling for all troubled marriages, not just for those who can afford it. It would provide treatment on demand for those with alcohol and substance abuse.... It would guarantee daycare for every family that struggles and needs it."

Posted by Eric at 08:58 AM | Comments (23)

John Kerry: Bush Lite?

Not so fast, says Bush expert David Corn. John Kerry, he writes in The Nation, "has voted consistently in favor of abortion rights and environmental policies, opposed Bush's tax cuts for the wealthy, led the effort against drilling in the Alaskan wilderness, pushed for higher fuel economy standards, advocated boosting the minimum wage and pressed for global warming remedies." Perhaps more importantly for Corn, however, "are key moments when he displayed guts and took tough actions that few colleagues would imitate."

In early 1986 Kerry's office was contacted by a Vietnam vet who alleged that the support network for the CIA-backed Nicaraguan contras (who were fighting against the socialist Sandinistas in power) was linked to drug traffickers. Kerry doubted that the Reagan Administration, obsessed with supporting the contras, would investigate such charges. He pushed for a Senate inquiry and a year later, as chairman of a Foreign Relations subcommittee, obtained approval to conduct a probe.

It was not an easy ride. Reagan Justice Department officials sought to discredit and stymie his investigation. Republicans dismissed it. One anti-Kerry effort used falsified affidavits to make it seem his staff had bribed witnesses. The Democratic staff of the Senate Iran/contra committee--which showed little interest in the contra drug connection--often refused to cooperate. "They were fighting us tooth and nail," recalls Jack Blum, one of Kerry's investigators. "We had the White House and the CIA against us on one side and our colleagues in the Senate on the other. But Kerry told us, 'Keep going.' He didn't let this stuff faze him." ...

On September 10, 1996, as he was in a tight re-election contest against William Weld, the popular Republican governor of Massachusetts, Kerry voted against the Defense of Marriage Act, which would deny federal benefits to same-sex couples and permit states to not recognize same-sex marriages conducted in other states. He was one of only fourteen senators to oppose the measure. Several leading Senate liberals--including Paul Wellstone, Tom Harkin and Pat Leahy--had voted for it. But on the floor of the Senate that day, Kerry, who noted that he did not support same-sex marriage, said, "I am going to vote against this bill...because I believe that this debate is fundamentally ugly, and it is fundamentally political." He refused to pretend that the bill was not a wedge-issue trap devised by conservative Republicans. The legislation, he charged, was "meant to divide Americans," and he argued fiercely that it was unconstitutional. "If this were truly a defense of marriage act," he said, "it would expand the learning experience for would-be husbands and wives. It would provide for counseling for all troubled marriages, not just for those who can afford it. It would provide treatment on demand for those with alcohol and substance abuse.... It would guarantee daycare for every family that struggles and needs it."

Posted by Eric at 08:58 AM | Comments (15)

New Book Friday

Perhaps one of the better, and more recent anti-Bush books out there is "Fraud: The Strategy Behind the Bush Lies and Why the Media Didn't Tell You."

From Publisher's Weekly

Building on tenets laid out in The Press Effect, which he coauthored with Kathleen Hall Jamieson, Waldman deconstructs Bush's image as plainspoken, compassionate Dubya and accuses the media of failing to properly scrutinize the values of his presidency. Bush's inarticulateness misleads a gullible public into perceiving the president as a "real," ordinary American, Waldman argues, contending that Bush's administration actually serves a business elite rather than the average American. Meticulously combing through footnoted sources, Waldman carves an alternative portrait of a privileged and ruthless Bush who was gleeful over executions as Texas's governor, guilty of Enron-style business practices and contemptuous of the protective role of government. American journalists, in Waldman's view, are either muzzled or lack the policy expertise and research strengths to expose Bush effectively; as a result, the public is woefully confused. Waldman goes on to demythologize the so-called liberal bias of the media, comparing journalists' past persecution of Clinton with the relative mildness of present-day critiques of Bush. In his breakdown of Bush's tax policies and of the Republican Party's dominance by ultraconservative Southerners, Waldman is particularly strident. An assembly of sources and facts and a useful guide to right-wing rhetoric makes this handbook of anti-Bush ammunition-complete with an appendix that provides a "Guide to Key Lies and Misdirections-useful to partisans along with other Bush critiques by David Corn, Eric Alterman and Mark Green.

From provocative ethicist and author Peter Singer, whose books have sold more than 700,000 copies: a chilling exposé of George W. Bush’s moral failure on dozens of hot-button issues.

More than any president in recent memory, George W. Bush invokes the language of good versus evil and right versus wrong. Controversial professor of ethics Peter Singer has put his spotlight on President Bush’s moral claims. The results are required reading.

Examining public pronouncements that have rarely been subjected to ethical analysis, on topics from stem-cell research and tax cuts to Iraq and the drive for American preeminence, The President of Good and Evil reveals the president’s pattern of ethical confusion and self-contradiction. Delivering his charges in accessible, logical, and lively chapters, Singer asks whether Bush has lived up to the values so often touted in current presidential prose.

The President of Good and Evil follows in the bestselling traditions of Stupid White Men and Lies . Singer has never shied away from controversy, and now enters the most visible arena of his life, with powerful arguments that throw new light on America under Bush.

The President of Good and Evil: The Ethics of George W. Bush

Posted by Eric at 03:42 AM | Comments (38)

New Book Friday

Perhaps one of the better, and more recent anti-Bush books out there is "Fraud: The Strategy Behind the Bush Lies and Why the Media Didn't Tell You."

From Publisher's Weekly

Building on tenets laid out in The Press Effect, which he coauthored with Kathleen Hall Jamieson, Waldman deconstructs Bush's image as plainspoken, compassionate Dubya and accuses the media of failing to properly scrutinize the values of his presidency. Bush's inarticulateness misleads a gullible public into perceiving the president as a "real," ordinary American, Waldman argues, contending that Bush's administration actually serves a business elite rather than the average American. Meticulously combing through footnoted sources, Waldman carves an alternative portrait of a privileged and ruthless Bush who was gleeful over executions as Texas's governor, guilty of Enron-style business practices and contemptuous of the protective role of government. American journalists, in Waldman's view, are either muzzled or lack the policy expertise and research strengths to expose Bush effectively; as a result, the public is woefully confused. Waldman goes on to demythologize the so-called liberal bias of the media, comparing journalists' past persecution of Clinton with the relative mildness of present-day critiques of Bush. In his breakdown of Bush's tax policies and of the Republican Party's dominance by ultraconservative Southerners, Waldman is particularly strident. An assembly of sources and facts and a useful guide to right-wing rhetoric makes this handbook of anti-Bush ammunition-complete with an appendix that provides a "Guide to Key Lies and Misdirections-useful to partisans along with other Bush critiques by David Corn, Eric Alterman and Mark Green.

From provocative ethicist and author Peter Singer, whose books have sold more than 700,000 copies: a chilling exposé of George W. Bush’s moral failure on dozens of hot-button issues.

More than any president in recent memory, George W. Bush invokes the language of good versus evil and right versus wrong. Controversial professor of ethics Peter Singer has put his spotlight on President Bush’s moral claims. The results are required reading.

Examining public pronouncements that have rarely been subjected to ethical analysis, on topics from stem-cell research and tax cuts to Iraq and the drive for American preeminence, The President of Good and Evil reveals the president’s pattern of ethical confusion and self-contradiction. Delivering his charges in accessible, logical, and lively chapters, Singer asks whether Bush has lived up to the values so often touted in current presidential prose.

The President of Good and Evil follows in the bestselling traditions of Stupid White Men and Lies . Singer has never shied away from controversy, and now enters the most visible arena of his life, with powerful arguments that throw new light on America under Bush.

The President of Good and Evil: The Ethics of George W. Bush

Posted by Eric at 03:42 AM | Comments (30)

USPIRG: How EPA Is Misleading The Public About The Superfund Program

The Bush administration "has failed to include reinstatement of the polluter pays fees in its budget proposals, and Superfund’s trust fund is now bankrupt," says the US Public Interest Group.

EPA claims: Funding for the Superfund program has not decreased in the past few years.

The facts: Superfund funding decreased by 25 percent during 2001-2004 compared with 1992-2000.

EPA claims: EPA remains committed to the polluter pays principle.

The facts: Taxpayers will pay the entire cost of cleaning up abandoned Superfund sites this year, compared with only 18 percent in 1995, the year Superfund’s polluter pays fees expired. The Bush administration has opposed reinstating Superfund’s polluter pays fees.

EPA claims: It doesn’t matter who pays to clean up Superfund toxic waste sites.

The facts: Superfund was founded on the principle that those most closely associated with creating toxic waste sites should bear the financial burden of cleaning them up. Regular taxpayers are much less likely to be closely associated with the creation of toxic waste sites than industries that buy, use, or benefit from toxic chemicals.

In case you were wondering, there are some health effects from Superfund sites:

Health Effects: Arsenic is a known to cause cancer of the lungs, bladder, and skin. Arsenic is also linked to cancer of the liver, kidney, colon and nasal passages, and to a variety of non-cancer health effects, including heart disease, diabetes, adverse impacts on the immune system, lungs, and gastrointestinal track, and thickening and discoloration of the skin. There is also evidence linking arsenic to adverse reproductive and developmental impacts.

LEAD
Health Effects: Lead can damage almost every organ and system in the human body, especially the immune and reproductive systems, and can cause heart disease and kidney damage. Lead is exceptionally damaging to the central nervous system, particularly in children where it can cause brain damage. Lead has can also decrease IQ scores, slow growth, and cause hearing problems in infants or young children.

MERCURY
Health Effects: Mercury can cause brain and kidney damage, and poses an especially high risk of adverse neurological development of fetuses.

Posted by Eric at 03:17 AM | Comments (11)

USPIRG: How EPA Is Misleading The Public About The Superfund Program

The Bush administration "has failed to include reinstatement of the polluter pays fees in its budget proposals, and Superfund’s trust fund is now bankrupt," says the US Public Interest Group.

EPA claims: Funding for the Superfund program has not decreased in the past few years.

The facts: Superfund funding decreased by 25 percent during 2001-2004 compared with 1992-2000.

EPA claims: EPA remains committed to the polluter pays principle.

The facts: Taxpayers will pay the entire cost of cleaning up abandoned Superfund sites this year, compared with only 18 percent in 1995, the year Superfund’s polluter pays fees expired. The Bush administration has opposed reinstating Superfund’s polluter pays fees.

EPA claims: It doesn’t matter who pays to clean up Superfund toxic waste sites.

The facts: Superfund was founded on the principle that those most closely associated with creating toxic waste sites should bear the financial burden of cleaning them up. Regular taxpayers are much less likely to be closely associated with the creation of toxic waste sites than industries that buy, use, or benefit from toxic chemicals.

In case you were wondering, there are some health effects from Superfund sites:

Health Effects: Arsenic is a known to cause cancer of the lungs, bladder, and skin. Arsenic is also linked to cancer of the liver, kidney, colon and nasal passages, and to a variety of non-cancer health effects, including heart disease, diabetes, adverse impacts on the immune system, lungs, and gastrointestinal track, and thickening and discoloration of the skin. There is also evidence linking arsenic to adverse reproductive and developmental impacts.

LEAD
Health Effects: Lead can damage almost every organ and system in the human body, especially the immune and reproductive systems, and can cause heart disease and kidney damage. Lead is exceptionally damaging to the central nervous system, particularly in children where it can cause brain damage. Lead has can also decrease IQ scores, slow growth, and cause hearing problems in infants or young children.

MERCURY
Health Effects: Mercury can cause brain and kidney damage, and poses an especially high risk of adverse neurological development of fetuses.

Posted by Eric at 03:17 AM | Comments (4)

1,100 People Enter $10,000 "Doonesbury" Contest

From Editor and Publisher, people are taking up Garry Trudeau's offer. Whether they'll pan out is another story.

More than 1,100 people have entered a $10,000 contest announced in this week's "Doonesbury" strips. Garry Trudeau is offering the money to anyone who can prove George W. Bush fulfilled his 1972 National Guard duty in Alabama.

But Trudeau joked he had other motives for the satirical competition. "To burn off cash," he told E&P in a Thursday e-mail interview. "I've been looking for something to do with a huge tax cut I didn't need. Part of the blowback from Bush's largesse to the unpoor is that people like me have become fat cats." ... David Stanford, whose title is "duty officer of the Doonesbury Town Hall," said most of the National Guard veterans responding so far say "just locate the morning reports." Stanford, referring to the 1,100 responses, added: "As someone who compulsively hits 'send and receive' every 10 minutes, it has been a rewarding week."

When's the contest deadline? "We haven't decided yet. Might be open-ended through the election," replied Trudeau, whose comic runs in 1,400-plus papers via Universal Press Syndicate.

Posted by Eric at 03:08 AM | Comments (20)

1,100 People Enter $10,000 "Doonesbury" Contest

From Editor and Publisher, people are taking up Garry Trudeau's offer. Whether they'll pan out is another story.

More than 1,100 people have entered a $10,000 contest announced in this week's "Doonesbury" strips. Garry Trudeau is offering the money to anyone who can prove George W. Bush fulfilled his 1972 National Guard duty in Alabama.

But Trudeau joked he had other motives for the satirical competition. "To burn off cash," he told E&P in a Thursday e-mail interview. "I've been looking for something to do with a huge tax cut I didn't need. Part of the blowback from Bush's largesse to the unpoor is that people like me have become fat cats." ... David Stanford, whose title is "duty officer of the Doonesbury Town Hall," said most of the National Guard veterans responding so far say "just locate the morning reports." Stanford, referring to the 1,100 responses, added: "As someone who compulsively hits 'send and receive' every 10 minutes, it has been a rewarding week."

When's the contest deadline? "We haven't decided yet. Might be open-ended through the election," replied Trudeau, whose comic runs in 1,400-plus papers via Universal Press Syndicate.

Posted by Eric at 03:08 AM | Comments (6)

John Kerry Weak on Defense?

Fred Kaplan says there may be "embarrassing" votes in John Kerry's history, but the RNC's spin "reeks of rank dishonesty":

On a couple of the weapons, the RNC report cites H.R. 5803 and H.R. 2126. Look those up. They turn out to be votes on the House-Senate conference committee reports for the defense appropriations bills in October 1990 (the same year as S. 3189) and September 1995.

In other words, Kerry was one of 16 senators (including five Republicans) to vote against a defense appropriations bill 14 years ago. He was also one of an unspecified number of senators to vote against a conference report on a defense bill nine years ago. The RNC takes these facts and extrapolates from them that he voted against a dozen weapons systems that were in those bills. The Republicans could have claimed, with equal logic, that Kerry voted to abolish the entire U.S. armed forces, but that might have raised suspicions. Claiming that he opposed a list of specific weapons systems has an air of plausibility. On close examination, though, it reeks of rank dishonesty.

Another bit of dishonesty is RNC Chairman Ed Gillespie's claim, at a news conference today, that in 1995, Kerry voted to cut $1.5 billion from the intelligence budget. John Pike, who runs the invaluable globalsecurity.org Web site, told me what that cut was about: The Air Force's National Reconnaissance Office had appropriated that much money to operate a spy satellite that, as things turned out, it never launched. So the Senate passed an amendment rescinding the money—not to cancel a program, but to get a refund on a program that the NRO had canceled. Kerry voted for the amendment, as did a majority of his colleagues.

Posted by Eric at 02:53 AM | Comments (10)

John Kerry Weak on Defense?

Fred Kaplan says there may be "embarrassing" votes in John Kerry's history, but the RNC's spin "reeks of rank dishonesty":

On a couple of the weapons, the RNC report cites H.R. 5803 and H.R. 2126. Look those up. They turn out to be votes on the House-Senate conference committee reports for the defense appropriations bills in October 1990 (the same year as S. 3189) and September 1995.

In other words, Kerry was one of 16 senators (including five Republicans) to vote against a defense appropriations bill 14 years ago. He was also one of an unspecified number of senators to vote against a conference report on a defense bill nine years ago. The RNC takes these facts and extrapolates from them that he voted against a dozen weapons systems that were in those bills. The Republicans could have claimed, with equal logic, that Kerry voted to abolish the entire U.S. armed forces, but that might have raised suspicions. Claiming that he opposed a list of specific weapons systems has an air of plausibility. On close examination, though, it reeks of rank dishonesty.

Another bit of dishonesty is RNC Chairman Ed Gillespie's claim, at a news conference today, that in 1995, Kerry voted to cut $1.5 billion from the intelligence budget. John Pike, who runs the invaluable globalsecurity.org Web site, told me what that cut was about: The Air Force's National Reconnaissance Office had appropriated that much money to operate a spy satellite that, as things turned out, it never launched. So the Senate passed an amendment rescinding the money—not to cancel a program, but to get a refund on a program that the NRO had canceled. Kerry voted for the amendment, as did a majority of his colleagues.

Posted by Eric at 02:53 AM | Comments (1)

Church Displays 'Jews Killed Lord Jesus' Sign

From TheDenverChannel.com,

The Colorado Council of Churches also tried to get Pastor Maurice Gordon to change the sign but he refused and wouldn't even answer the phone or answer the door, 7NEWS reported.

Rev. Jim Ryan, a spokesman for the council, was quick to point out that it is a small minority who feel this way about Jews and that most Christians don't share that sentiment. Although the "Jews Killed the Lord Jesus" line comes from First Thessalonians, second chapter, verses 14 and 15, many Christian scholars interpret that passage to mean that when Paul refers to the Jews, he is referring to certain Jews who opposed Jesus' teachings and does not mean all Jews.

"It is ironic that a church named 'Lovingway' would advance such an attitude of hurtfulness," Ryan said. "Christ gave his life for all people. To blame a particular group of people, then or now, is a misuse of the Gospel of love and grace. The Colorado Council of Churches wishes to make it clear that this one congregation does not speak for the vast majority of the Christian community. In fact, we stand in direct opposition to the message on this sign and its implications."

"We also call upon the leaders of other Christian groups in Denver to reaffirm the statements they have made: that all of mankind shares responsibility for Jesus' death, and that blame should not be placed collectively on the Jews of the time or the Jews of today," DeBoskey said. "We fervently hope that Jews and Christians can use this time as an opportunity for dialogue and learning, not blame and divisiveness."

Posted by Eric at 02:28 AM | Comments (13)

Church Displays 'Jews Killed Lord Jesus' Sign

From TheDenverChannel.com,

The Colorado Council of Churches also tried to get Pastor Maurice Gordon to change the sign but he refused and wouldn't even answer the phone or answer the door, 7NEWS reported.

Rev. Jim Ryan, a spokesman for the council, was quick to point out that it is a small minority who feel this way about Jews and that most Christians don't share that sentiment. Although the "Jews Killed the Lord Jesus" line comes from First Thessalonians, second chapter, verses 14 and 15, many Christian scholars interpret that passage to mean that when Paul refers to the Jews, he is referring to certain Jews who opposed Jesus' teachings and does not mean all Jews.

"It is ironic that a church named 'Lovingway' would advance such an attitude of hurtfulness," Ryan said. "Christ gave his life for all people. To blame a particular group of people, then or now, is a misuse of the Gospel of love and grace. The Colorado Council of Churches wishes to make it clear that this one congregation does not speak for the vast majority of the Christian community. In fact, we stand in direct opposition to the message on this sign and its implications."

"We also call upon the leaders of other Christian groups in Denver to reaffirm the statements they have made: that all of mankind shares responsibility for Jesus' death, and that blame should not be placed collectively on the Jews of the time or the Jews of today," DeBoskey said. "We fervently hope that Jews and Christians can use this time as an opportunity for dialogue and learning, not blame and divisiveness."

Posted by Eric at 02:28 AM | Comments (4)

Oscar Predictions

Since the Oscars are Sunday, let's do the Hamster predictions for The Academy Awards.

BEST PICTURE
Winner: Lord of the Rings

BEST DIRECTOR
Winner: Peter Jackson

BEST ACTOR
Winner: Bill Murray

BEST ACTRESS
Winner: Charlize Theron

BEST SUPPORTING ACTOR
Winner: Tim Robbins

BEST SUPPORTING ACTRESS
Winner: Renee Zellweger

BEST ANIMATED FEATURE
Winner: Finding Nemo

BEST SCREENPLAY
Winner: Sofia Coppola, Lost in Translation

BEST ADAPTED SCREENPLAY
Winner: Fran Walsh, Philippa Boyens and Peter Jackson, Lord of the Rings

BEST DOCUMENTARY
Winner: The Fog of War

Posted by Eric at 01:20 AM | Comments (30)

Oscar Predictions

Since the Oscars are Sunday, let's do the Hamster predictions for The Academy Awards.

BEST PICTURE
Winner: Lord of the Rings

BEST DIRECTOR
Winner: Peter Jackson

BEST ACTOR
Winner: Bill Murray

BEST ACTRESS
Winner: Charlize Theron

BEST SUPPORTING ACTOR
Winner: Tim Robbins

BEST SUPPORTING ACTRESS
Winner: Renee Zellweger

BEST ANIMATED FEATURE
Winner: Finding Nemo

BEST SCREENPLAY
Winner: Sofia Coppola, Lost in Translation

BEST ADAPTED SCREENPLAY
Winner: Fran Walsh, Philippa Boyens and Peter Jackson, Lord of the Rings

BEST DOCUMENTARY
Winner: The Fog of War

Posted by Eric at 01:20 AM | Comments (8)

Hamster Numbers: No Child Left Behind

"“President Bush promised to fully fund this law. But since its signing two years ago, he has refused to provide the resources that schools, teachers and students need. The Appropriations bill for this year, now pending before the Senate¸ would create a shortfall of over $7.5 billion in funding for elementary and secondary education. This comes on top of a shortage of $5.5 billion from last year and $4.2 billion from fiscal year 2002. And reports are that the upcoming budget will be another $8 billion or more short.

“That’s a total of over $25 billion below what the President said the schools needed and what he promised to provide. That means that approximately 5 million children will not get the highly-qualified teachers, after-school programs, and tutoring services we promised them in the upcoming year. In my book, the President and the Republican Congress get an ‘F’ for effort." -- Congressman George Miller, January 14, 2004.

Posted by Eric at 12:20 AM | Comments (13)

Hamster Numbers: No Child Left Behind

"“President Bush promised to fully fund this law. But since its signing two years ago, he has refused to provide the resources that schools, teachers and students need. The Appropriations bill for this year, now pending before the Senate¸ would create a shortfall of over $7.5 billion in funding for elementary and secondary education. This comes on top of a shortage of $5.5 billion from last year and $4.2 billion from fiscal year 2002. And reports are that the upcoming budget will be another $8 billion or more short.

“That’s a total of over $25 billion below what the President said the schools needed and what he promised to provide. That means that approximately 5 million children will not get the highly-qualified teachers, after-school programs, and tutoring services we promised them in the upcoming year. In my book, the President and the Republican Congress get an ‘F’ for effort." -- Congressman George Miller, January 14, 2004.

Posted by Eric at 12:20 AM | Comments (0)

February 26, 2004

Thursday Stories