Back in September, Tom Friedman, speaking of China, proclaimed that "there is only one thing worse than one-party autocracy, and that is one-party democracy, which is what we have in America today."  That prompted Jonah Goldberg to call Friedman a "liberal fascist," drawing an example from his seminal book, Liberal Fascism, to demonstrate how Friedman's fawning over the Chi-Coms "is exactly the argument that was made by American fans of Mussolini in the 1920s."

ABC?s Cokie Roberts, who last December asserted that a "lot of people are going to like a whole lot once they see what's in" ObamaCare, during today?s Roundtable discussion on ABC?s This Week defended the "substance" of the health care bill Democrats in the House are being pressured to vote for, as she referred to civil rights legislation that cost some Democrats their seats and argued that this year some Democrats will "lose their seats over process, but they will take the chance because of the substance."

After conservative panel member George Will argued that it is "not good politics" for Democrats to vote for a bill they do not support while depending on a promise by Senate leaders that elements they disagree with will be changed later, Roberts continued to defend the bill:

Well, except for that it might be good substance. And the truth is, American business and American states can no longer afford the health care they?re paying. And unless something is done, it really does affect our competitiveness, and I think, in the end, that that will be the argument that makes the difference. But the process argument right now is clearly going to be very difficult.

Below is a transcript of relevant portions of the Sunday, March 14, This Week on ABC:

COKIE ROBERTS: The truth is the public is divided on this bill, and when you go into questions about how they feel about particular aspects of it, there?s a lot they like. The Democrats have calculated, I think correctly, that they have nothing more to lose on the host of process questions. The Republicans are going to characterize this as a bill passed by a corrupt Congress that has tickle parties, that has, you know, does things in the dead of night on Christmas Eve, and it?s, you know, thousands of pages and on and on and on, and that ship has sailed. So the Democrats might as well get the substance and go to the American people and say we?ve brought about a change in health care because the status quo is unacceptable.

...

The truth is, though, these process votes do matter in terms of election. I remember very well in 1961 ? I wasn?t covering Congress then, but I knew it well ? when some Democrats, Southern Democrats voted to expand the Rules Committee, and the purpose of that was to get civil rights legislation passed, and several of them lost their seats. It was a very principled vote, a process vote, and they did lose their seats. The same thing will happen this year. Democrats will lose their seats over process, but they will take the chance because of the substance.

...

GEORGE WILL: The theory of reconciliation is that the House will vote for a bill full of things they hate and the public hates and later they?ll clean it up, they?ll vote against those things ? 2004, John Kerry got in terrible trouble by having said I voted for this before I voted against this. Every Democrat running this fall is going to have to say, well, I?m going to vote, I have voted against it or I?m going to vote against it even though I voted for it. Now, that is just not good politics.

ROBERTS: Well, except for that it might be good substance. And the truth is, American business and American states can no longer afford the health care they?re paying. And unless something is done, it really does affect our competitiveness, and I think, in the end, that that will be the argument that makes the difference. But the process argument right now is clearly going to be very difficult.

In 2009, according to financial information at nasdaq.com, the New York Times Company's revenues fell by over 17%. The Wall Street Journal reports that the company's full-time employee count shrunk by 1,681, or over 18%. Rumor has it that more layoffs are planned for 2010.

Beginning almost a year ago, the company announced corporate salary cuts of 5%, negotiated similar cuts with newspaper guild members in New York, and steeper cuts of 9% in Boston.

The company eked out full-year pre-tax earnings of roughly $23.7 million (after adding back $3.8 million in taxes to the company's reported net income of $19.9 million).

In the midst of all of this, the Journal reports that Times Company chairman "Pinch" Sulzberger's total compensation more than doubled in 2009 to roughly $6 million, and that his CEO compadre hauled in a similar amount:

New York Times Co. (NYT) Chairman Arthur Sulzberger Jr. and President and Chief Executive Janet L. Robinson received big increases in compensation for 2009--a year when the company suffered layoffs, weakness in advertising markets and from broader worries about the future of print media.

Sulzberger's overall pay more than doubled to $6 million in 2009 as non-equity incentive-plan compensation quadrupled to $2.4 million and his pension value climbed to $1.2 million from $559,826.

Robinson's overall compensation rose 32% to $6.3 million, as similarly sharp increases in non-equity incentive-plan compensation and pension value were partially offset by $1.1 million less in stock awards. Times Co. spokeswoman Abbe Serphos declined to comment.

A company deciding how it compensates its executives would ordinarily be something for shareholders to address and would not be any of our business. But it is in this case for three reasons:

When the first cuts were announced nearly a year ago, the Times "said that salaries would be restored to their normal level next year, but they warned that even that 'depends on the state of our business.'"

Despite the very high likelihood that said cuts will not be restored, and the near certainty that guild members will see no restoration, Mr. Sulzberger's and Ms. Robinson's respective wallets seem to be in pretty healthy states. You'd think that journalists with supposedly great instincts would recognize that they're being played for fools. Then again, what can they do? Where is the market for large numbers of people who typically earn north of $90,000 a year and whose only "marketable skills" rest in twisting the news to fit a far-left agenda and in protecting Democratic presidents and other politicians?

Cross-posted at Bizzyblog.com.

Bloggers and activists on the left are furious when anyone suggests that the religion of Islam leads to violence. But on Thursday, bomb-throwing secularist Barrett Brown on the Daily Kos (and also on the blog True/Slant) compares the Catholic Church ? unfavorably ? to the atrocities of Stalinism and Maoism.

He even wrote, more broadly, that "Next to the Christian God, Stalin was a piker" ? in that, Stalin only killed your body, while God torments the souls of unbelievers like him for eternity. Brown argues that the Catholic Church was a remarkable slaughterer without modern technology:

To smile upon the Church for reigning [sic] in its excesses is to smile upon the Soviet hardliners for reigning in its own. Both were dragged into an age of individual liberty by way of other ideologies. Look back upon the road on which they were taken, and one sees the marks made by fingernails grasping frantically at the ground in an effort to stop the process.

Ah, but the Soviets! Stalin! The Chinese Communists! Mao! Atheists all, we are often reminded - and the most accomplished mass murderers in history. Of course, these particular atheists cheated by virtue of chronology; they had more people to kill, and better methods by which to kill them. Look at what the Catholics did without the convenience of unprecedentedly large populations, to say nothing of machine guns, railroads, telegraphs, tanks, poison gas, mass propaganda, flight, and other staples of the 20th century - and wonder at what they might have accomplished in the course of their own long attempt at world domination had they had access to any of these things.

Is Stalin a worse fellow than the Grand Inquisitor by virtue of having inquired after so many more people than the Inquisitor could hoped to have reached? It is worth noting that not even the most viscous of secular totalitarians could devise a torture as effective as the eternal suffering to which so many Catholic bishops attempted to consign each other by way of the excommunication of whole populations and other weapons of mass damnation. In the eyes of the communist, the damage extends only to death, and is at any rate allowable by virtue of atheistic materialism and the allowances he supposes it to make in pursuit of utopia; in the eyes of the Catholic, the damage was forever, and just by virtue of the morality established by God - and of course he looks down upon all atheists for having no similar source of universal morality of the sort by which the Church has sought to consign so many millions to infinite despair in service to their own, even less probable utopia.

The finest one can say about such a Catholic as actually ascribes to Catholicism is that at least his deranged vision of what ought to happen to those victims of his own Leader's ever-present purge is entirely imaginary. At least, I hope it is; otherwise, I myself shall be subjected, by virtue of having written a few lines and having held the wrong thoughts, to something of infinitely worse degree than anything that occurred at even the height of Stalin's reign.

Next to the Christian God, Stalin was a piker. Of course, simply believing in God does not make one responsible, even rhetorically, for the crimes of the Catholic Church. But neither does being an atheist make one responsible, even rhetorically, for the crimes of the Soviet Union. Before there was any such thing as communism, there were atheists, deists, and agnostics who pledged their allegiance to the Enlightenment - something which never quite took hold in Russia, incidentally.

I took the liberty of imposing some paragraph breaks, since Brown was on such a sulfurous roll that he couldn't find a place to break up his thoughts. Brown is, unsurprisingly, not a fan of Pope Benedict and the current church. These were his dismissive words before he began ranting about the Soviets, complete with Star Wars analogies of evil:

There was a time in which the Catholic Church was not simply the buffoon institution it is today, an enterprise run to an unusual extent by mystical pederasts and mediocre semanticists and good for a few laughs here and there. In our relatively pleasant era, when the Church gives itself over to the leadership of a former Nazi who claims that he had no choice but to give in to his Nazis, we may chuckle at the absurdity of this fellow's demonstrably nonsensical defense, noting that one need only look at the previous officeholder to find an example of someone who chose not to give in to the Nazis.

We may also remark upon how this new fellow resembles Emperor Palpatine, and we may Photoshop an array of bright blue Force lightning bolts coming from his fingers, and we may call it a day. The Catholic Church is still in a position to do great damage to humanity's interests, of course, but we need not worry about it to the same degree that, say, the population of Central and South America would have been back in the 15th century, had said population known what was to come from the ideological and material direction of the Vatican and its most loyal and thus viscous adherents, the Spanish and Portuguese arrivals.

That Apocalypse is over and done with, and even if its echoes may still be felt to some extent by those residing in the countries that later emerged, we may at least be confident that the Church is no longer in a position to assist in such grand ventures by way of its operational agency, the priesthood.

Who is Barrett Brown? He's "mainstream" enough to report he's a contributor to Vanity Fair, The Huffington Post, Skeptic, and The Onion. He also boasts of serving as director of communications for "Enlighten the Vote," a political action committee dedicated to "the advancement of the Establishment Clause."

He touts a 2007 book called "Flock of Dodos: Behind Modern Creationism, Intelligent Design, and the Easter Bunny." He has a new book that he claims is titled " Hot, Fat & Clouded: The Amazing and Amusing Failures of America?s Chattering Class (Being a Partial Record of the Incompetence of Our Republic's Mainstream Pundits, Most of Whom Deserve to be Exiled or at Least Have Their Cars Vandalized)."

[Hat tip: Tom Johnson]

For general discussion and debate. Possible talking point: Does she or doesn't she?

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said Saturday she's confident the House will pass health care legislation and dismissed Republican criticism that she did not have enough votes for the measure. 

Is she being honest or playing a game of poker? What's the next step for ObamaCare?

?How can conservatives win the youth vote that overwhelmingly went for Barack Obama in 2008? At the Conservative Political Action Conference, apparently, some are betting on using racial stereotypes....[Author] Jason Mattera...mocked what he described, with a Chris Rock voice, as ?diversity,? including, he said, college classes on 'cyber feminism' and 'what it means to be a feminist new black man.'....Offering up a slogan, he adopted the Chris Rock voice again: 'Get your government off my freedom!' Can we save our generation from Obama zombies, he asked. He answered himself by borrowing the president?s campaign slogan: 'Yes, my brothahs and sistahs. Yes we can!'? -- From a February 18 nytimes.com ?Caucus? blog post by reporter Kate Zernike while covering the Conservative Political Action Conference, a post headlined ?CPAC Speaker Bashes Obama, in Racial Tones.? Jason Mattera is from Brooklyn and used his own voice, not a ?Chris Rock voice,? when making his anti-Obama gibes.

Times Touts Pro-Obama "Coffee Party," Denigrated Anti-Tax Tea Party Rallies

?Fed up with government gridlock, but put off by the flavor of the Tea Party, people in cities across the country are offering an alternative: the Coffee Party....?I?m in shock, just the level of energy here,? said the founder, Annabel Park, a documentary filmmaker who lives outside Washington. ?In the beginning, I was actively saying, ?Get in touch with us, start a chapter.? Now I can?t keep up. We have 300 requests to start a chapter that I have not been able to respond to.?? -- Times reporter Kate Zernike?s March 2 story on the newly-launched ?Coffee Party? movement, begun by Park, who worked for Obama?s presidential campaign in 2008.
 
vs.

?Although organizers insisted they had created a nonpartisan grass-roots movement, others argued that these parties were more of the Astroturf variety -- an occasion largely created by the clamor of cable news and fueled by the financial and political support of current and former Republican leaders.? -- Reporter Liz Robbins in the paper?s first report on the Tea Party protests, April 16, 2009, nearly two months after the movement began.

Read more of the most biased quotes from the New York Times in the latest edition of Times Watch Quotes of Note. You can also follow Times Watch on Twitter.

Two reports linked by Instapundit earlier today demonstrate at a macro and micro level how weak the claim that Toyota has deliberately jeopardized consumer safety in connection with "sudden acceleration" complaints may ultimately turn out to be.

The macro piece comes from Megan McArdle (pictured at left; "How Real are the Defects in Toyota's Cars?") at her blog at the Atlantic. The magazine's business and economics editor dissected case-by-case detail originally compiled by the Los Angeles Times, which was also analyzed to an extent by Washington Examiner op-ed writer and Overlawyered blogger Ted Frank, to make important points about the likelihood of driver error in many of them.

The micro item comes from Michael Fumento, whose Forbes column takes apart the recent James Sikes "sudden acceleration" incident in California as it rips the establishment media for its total lack of skepticism about the driver's claims and his credibility.

First, to McArdle, who also has nicely done graphs at her post:

One of the great mysteries of the Toyota debacle is why Toyota ignored the complaints for so long.

... (The company's) behavior becomes a bit more explicable when you consider this argument from Ted Frank, who wrote:

"In the 24 cases where driver age was reported or readily inferred, the drivers included those of the ages 60, 61, 63, 66, 68, 71, 72, 72, 77, 79, 83, 85, 89--and I'm leaving out the son whose age wasn't identified, but whose 94-year-old father died as a passenger."

"... These "electronic defects" apparently discriminate against the elderly, just as the sudden acceleration of Audis and GM autos did before them. (If computers are going to discriminate against anyone, they should be picking on the young, who are more likely to take up arms against the rise of the machines and future Terminators)."

... I was interested in Frank's argument, so I took a look at the LA Times article, which is really admirably thorough. Here are the results, categorized into a nifty, though not necessarily particularly useful, spreadsheet. I went one further than Frank, tracking down the ages of all but a couple of the named drivers.

Several things are striking. First, the age distribution really is extremely skewed. The overwhelming majority are over 55.

Here's what else you notice: a slight majority of the incidents involved someone either parking, pulling out of a parking space, in stop and go traffic, at a light or stop sign . . . in other words, probably starting up from a complete stop.

In many of the other cases, we don't really know what happened, because there were no witnesses of exactly when the car started to run away.

... At any rate, when you look at these incidents all together, it's pretty clear why Toyota didn't investigate this "overwhelming evidence" of a problem: they look a lot like typical cases of driver error. I don't know that all of them are. But I do know that however advanced Toyota's electronics are, they're not yet clever enough to be able to pick on senior citizens.

Fumento's takedown of the recent James Sikes incident leaves those who want to claim that the incident is legitimate virtually nowhere to hide, and should be read in full to be fully appreciated:

Toyota Hybrid Horror Hoax

"On the very day Toyota was making a high-profile defense of its cars, one of them was speeding out of control," said CBS News--and a vast number of other media outlets worldwide.

It got far more dramatic, though. The California Highway Patrol responded and "To get the runaway car to stop, they actually had to put their patrol car in front of the Prius and step on the brakes." During over 20 harrowing minutes, according to NBC's report, Sikes "did everything he could to try to slow down that Prius." Others said, "Radio traffic indicated the driver was unable to turn off the engine or shift the car into neutral."

In fact, almost none of this was true. Virtually every aspect of Sikes's story as told to reporters makes no sense. His claim that he'd tried to yank up the accelerator could be falsified, with his help, in half a minute. And now we even have an explanation for why he'd pull such a stunt ...

... Now here's the potential smoking gun: Sikes told the reporters that "I was reaching down and trying to pull up on the gas pedal. It didn't move at all; it was stationary." That's awfully daring for somebody who insisted he didn't even want to take a hand off his steering wheel, notwithstanding that he did so to hold his phone.

... I tried to imitate Sikes' alleged effort in a 2008 Prius.

... it required squashing my face against the radio and completely removing my eyes from the road.

... So why did he do it? Sleuth work at the Web sites Jalopnik.com and Gawker.com reveals that Sikes and his wife Patty in 2008 filed for bankruptcy and are over $700,000 in debt.

... Sikes also has a history of filing insurance claims for allegedly stolen items that are slowly coming to light.

... (The media) have been as determined to not investigate Sikes' claims as Sikes was to not stop his car. It's a Toyota media feeding frenzy and the media aren't about to let little things like incredible stories and readily-refutable claims get in the way.

Ah, but the establishment media has still been able to find the time to look into the potential legal and financial ramifications for Toyota. On Wednesday, the Associated Press's Curt Anderson and Greg Bluestein threw up a 1,300-word report estimating how much class-action and other lawsuits could cost the company (answer: supposedly over $3 billion), after "review of cases, legal precedent and interviews with experts."

Of course it can never be proven, but perhaps the AP pair's interest in documenting the potential damage had something to do with news from the previous day indicating that what has for weeks appeared to be an orchestrated media and government campaign to discredit the company may not be having the desired effect:

Toyota sales up 50 percent from March 2009

A high-ranking Toyota executive says the auto company's North American sales spiked around 50 percent the first eight days of March as incentives helped lure customers after a series of embarrassing safety recalls.

It seems that the car-buying public is far less scared of Toyota's supposed "killer cars" than establishment media journalists are of doing real investigations into the validity of the claims.

Cross-posted at BizzyBlog.com.

Rachel Maddow has to get it right eventually, what with the law of averages and all. We'll just have to remain patient.

Latest targest of her self-righteous wrath? Congressman Bart Stupak, apostate Democrat of Michigan, for his opposition to taxpayer-funded abortion. 

Here's Maddow from her MSNBC show on Wednesday, alleging deceit by Stupak while engaging in it herself twice over -- 

Footage is then shown of Stupak on Fox News from Feb. 24 --

Operative word from Stupak's remarks on Feb. 24 -- other. As in, concerns other than abortion. Here is a fleshed-out version of what Stupak said, shorn of Maddow's selective editing (link here for Fox segment in entirety; remarks below start at 2:07) --

See what Maddow does here? She cites Stupak's remarks from Feb. 24 as alleged evidence of his assertion that "15 to 20" House members were aligned with him in opposition to abortion language in the Senate health bill. But as my de-Maddowed retelling of Stupak's comments makes clear, the "15 to 20" House members he referred to had concerns "other" than abortion.

The context in which Stupak spoke to Fox News is also relevant, which explains why Maddow doesn't mention it. Feb. 24 was one day before the kabuki theater that came to be known as the Blair House summit on health care -- all the more reason for Stupak to touch base with House colleagues.

Maddow suggests further deceit on Stupak's part by implying he was hiding the identities of these 15 to 20 House members because this anti-abortion bloc is much smaller. The number is closer to four or five, Maddow tells her viewers Wednesday. How does Maddow arrive at these numbers? From a single unnamed source she identifies as a "senior House leadership aide" who came by this info after "an informal whip count." Translation: a few phone calls.  (click here for full segment; 3:19 for Maddow citing source)

In the same program, Maddow accuses Stupak of more deception, this time in disputing Stupak's assertion that the Senate health bill provides federal funding for abortion (second part of embedded video) --

Footage is then shown of Stupak on "Good Morning America" on March 4 --

STUPAK: The bill that they're using as the vehicle is the Senate bill and if you go to page 2,069 through page 2,078, you will find in there, the federal government would directly subsidize abortions ...

MADDOW: I love the cite-the-page-numbers trick, it sounds so authoritative, right? But if you actually go to the section of the bill that Congressman Stupak is citing, turns out that's the part of the bill that points out that he's lying. (reads from bill) 'If a qualified health plan provides coverage of [abortion], the issuer of the plan shall not use any amount attributable to any [government funds] for purposes of paying for such services ..."

Count me as a fan of the cite-the-page-numbers trick as well. I'm especially enamored of what's in the section of the Senate health bill immediately preceding the one cited by Maddow (follow this link for the bill; see page 2,071) The section is titled as follows, with capitalized letters in the original -- "ABORTIONS FOR WHICH PUBLIC FUNDING IS ALLOWED".

As in, public funding for abortions. Once again, a la Maddow -- public funding for abortions. A third time, in case she still misses it -- P-U-B-L-I-C  F-U-N-D-I-N-G  F-O-R  A-B-O-R-T-I-O-N-S.

Gee, where would Congressman Stupak get that impression?

Who knows, maybe the section cited by Maddow trumps the one I'm referring to. The bill is written in such dense legalese that only high clergy of the courts would be able to decipher it and they wouldn't agree on the language either.

At the very least, the presence of both provisions in the legislation is a problem, regardless of how strenuously pro-abortion liberals like Maddow claim only one exists.

The folks at Fox News's late night hit "Red Eye" on Saturday lampooned the strange relationship that exists between Venezuelan despot Hugo Chavez and actor Sean Penn.

As NewsBusters has been reporting, Penn has made some bizarre comments recently which include wishing his critics would die screaming of rectal cancer and saying journalists should be jailed for calling Chavez a dictator.

This nuttiness was followed by Chavez thanking Penn for his support and Penn throwing the Washington Examiner's Tara Palmeri out of a Q&A session for asking him about his rectal cancer remark.

All this proved perfect comedic fodder for Gutfeld and Company who first invited Palmeri on to discuss Penn's bizarre behavior and then used Robot Theater to marvelously mock the love affair between these two strange bedfellows in a segment called "Hugo Loves Seany" (video embedded below the fold):

Isn't it sad the rest of the American media don't get what a joke this couple is?

On March 12, Fox News contributor Dana Perino falsely claimed that people would "not see benefits for four to five years after" the health care reform bill passes. In fact, numerous benefits contained in the Senate bill would become available in the first year after the bill is enacted.

Perino falsely claims benefits will take years to begin

Perino: People would "not see benefits for four to five years after" bill is enacted. On the March 12 edition of Fox News' On the Record, Fox News contributor Dana Perino said of the health care reform legislation, "people are going to be taxed for the next several years and not see benefits for four to five years after that."

Fact: Numerous benefits in Senate health care bill would "be available in the first year after enactment" of the bill

Senate Democrats note "Immediate Benefits" of health care bill. According to a document put forth by Senate Democrats summarizing the "Immediate Benefits" of The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, the bill includes numerous benefits that would "be available in the first year after enactment" of the bill. Indeed, Washington Post blogger Ezra Klein published the following list of benefits that the Senate bill would provide "before 2014":

1) Eliminating lifetime limits, and cap annual limits, on health-care benefits. In other words, if you get an aggressive cancer and your treatment costs an extraordinary amount, your insurer can't suddenly remind you that subparagraph 15 limited your yearly expenses to $30,000, and they're not responsible for anything above that.

2) No more rescissions.

3) Some interim help for people who have preexisting conditions, though the bill does not instantly ban discrimination on preexisting conditions.

4) Requiring insurers to cover preventive care and immunizations.

5) Allowing young adults to stay on their parent's insurance plan until age 26.

6) Developing uniform coverage documents so people can compare different insurance policies in an apples-to-apples fashion.

7) Forcing insurers to spend 80 percent of all premium dollars on medical care (75 percent in the individual market), thus capping the money that can go toward administration, profits, etc.

8) Creating an appeals process and consumer advocate for insurance customers.

9) Developing a temporary re-insurance program to help early retirees (folks over 55) afford coverage.

10) Creating an internet portal to help people shop for and compare coverage.

11) Miscellaneous administrative simplification stuff.

12) Banning discrimination based on salary (i.e., where a company that's not self-insured makes only some full-time workers eligible for coverage.

Obama's plan also provides immediate benefits. According to the House Committee on Education and Labor, Obama's health care plan also provides numerous benefits that will enact immediately after the bill's passage or within the first year, including protections for Americans with pre-existing conditions, tax breaks for small businesses, and aid to seniors participating in Medicare Part D. From the House Committee on Education and Labor:

Access to Affordable Coverage for the Uninsured with Pre-existing Conditions

Access to Quality Care for Vulnerable Populations

No Pre-existing Coverage Exclusions for Children

Re-insurance for Retiree Health Benefit Plans

Closing the Coverage Gap in the Medicare (Part D) Drug Benefit

Small Business Tax Credits

[...]

Patient Protections

Extension of Dependent Coverage for Young Adults

Free Prevention Benefits

No Lifetime Limits on Coverage

Restricted Annual Limits on Coverage

Protection from Rescissions of Existing Coverage

Prohibits Discrimination Based on Salary

Glenn Beck has repeatedly attacked the concept of social justice and churches that promote it, asserting that it is "code language for Marxism" and warning that "when you see those words, run." In fact, numerous churches and religious faiths, as well as prominent religious scholars, espouse social justice, including the Catholic Church, the Conservative and Reform movements of Judaism, and the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr.

Social justice is a tenant of mainstream faiths and has been promoted by respected religious scholars

The Catechism of the Catholic Church deals specifically with "Social Justice." From the section of its website devoted to "Social Justice," detailing positions on topics such as "Judaism and Health Care Reform" and "Jewish Community Budget Priorities." ("We have long been involved with the annual budget process, advocating for policies and programs that assist the most vulnerable people in our nation.") And the Union for Reform Judaism's Commission on Social Action "seeks to apply the insights of Jewish tradition to such domestic and foreign issues as human rights, world peace, civil liberties, religious freedom, famine, poverty, intergroup relations, as well as other major societal concerns"; its website cites a statement by Rabbi David Saperstein, director of the Religious Action Center of Reform Judaism, that "the thread of social justice is so authentically and intricately woven into the many-colored fabric we call Judaism that if you seek to pull that thread out, the entire fabric unravels."

National Association of Evangelicals promotes call to "work toward social justice." In presenting its Charitable Choice 2000 program, the National Association of Evangelicals, a speech on the topic of social justice, King stated: "I think with all of these challenges being met and with all of the work, and determination going on, we will be able to go this additional distance and achieve the ideal, the goal of the new age, the age of social justice." He also said: "It is tragic how individuals will often use religion and the Bible or misuse religion and the Bible to crystallize a status quo and justify their prejudices." The U.S. government website about the federal Martin Luther King Jr. Day of Service 10/5/09] 

Beck declares that phrases "lives in the real world," is "compassionate," and "understands social justice" are really "code language for Marxism." While discussing President Obama's remarks about what traits he would look for in a Supreme Court justice, Beck stated on his radio show:

BECK: They're now talking about making sure that they can correct -- progressive phrase -- "social justice." That does not come from the bench.

[...]

BECK: Barack Obama comes out and says he wants somebody who lives in the real world, somebody who is compassionate, and somebody that is -- that understands social justice. That's code language for Marxism. It's called, to quote Hillary Clinton, that very American, early 20th century progressivism, where they did a loophole and a couple of somersaults to deny that they were progressives, to show the difference was enlightenment. Progressive is enlightened. Marxism is at the barrel of a gun. That's the difference to these guys. Really? Yeah, you're telling me that you're not doing things through the barrel of a gun? You're gonna have to. They're going to have to. You don't need enlightenment. Justice is blind. [The Glenn Beck Program, 5/4/09]

Beck clarifies stance on social justice

Beck: Social justice in which "you empower yourself to go out and help the poor" is permissible. On his March 12 radio show, Beck reacted to criticism by the Sojourners' Wallis: 

BECK: So now, Jim Wallis comes out, and he has started to attack me personally because I have said on this program, "social justice" is code language -- code language -- for big government. I want you to understand. When it comes to your church, if your church is preaching social and economic justice, you better do some digging and find out exactly what that means. Because if that means big government, if that means yes, you need to support these big government programs, you don't have a church. What you have is an organ of the government. You have the Anglican Church over in England, which we left. You have the Church of England.

Separation of church and state. It's weird that I have to argue with someone like Jim Wallis the separation of church and state. Now, if your church is talking about social justice in the way that you empower yourself to go out and help the poor, well then that's exactly what Jesus or Allah or Buddha or whoever it is, would like you to do.

GRAY: Yeah, they're trying to make this an anti-poor thing. They're trying to make this that you're against the poor?

BECK: Yeah. Yeah. Yeah.

GRAY: I mean that's just ridiculous.

BECK: And so now, they're ramping up a boycott on Christians to boycott our show. Oh, really? Look out, here it comes again, gang. The smear. [The Glenn Beck Program, 3/12/10]

Beck: "There's a lot of people that will say 'social justice,' and some people don't mean Marxism, but others do." Also, on his March 12 radio show, Beck stated:

BECK: The other thing they do is they always change and confuse the language. Political correctness comes from the progressive movement. Change and confuse the language. Look at this case. Social justice. There's a lot of people that -- who say "social justice" and some people don't mean Marxism. But others do, and you need to know, which is it?

The people who brought us, you know, the language into the political religious sphere were looking for ways to bring progressivism into the church. It continues today. Where's black liberation theology come from? Black liberation theology -- Jeremiah Wright's theology -- comes from South America. The church had the power down there. The church was all-important. What the church said, people listened to. It wasn't the government, because the government was always corrupt. People had faith in the church, and they knew they could never have a communist revolution if it wasn't for the church. If the church wasn't into it, so what did they do? They came up with black liberation theology. It's Marxism. And they got it -- spooned it in -- to the Christians, piece by piece. Just little bit -- progress. Little by little spoon feed it to people until the church would decay and collapse on itself.

Why do people in Europe not go to church? Because it's one with the government. It always has been. You must protect your church and make sure that it is not an organ for the government. That doesn't mean that you don't fight and protest, and you know, your church when it comes to a moral issue like abortion, that you don't stand up and fight for it. But you don't become one with the government. Separation of church and state. Progressives have been waiting for this moment for a hundred years. [The Glenn Beck Program, 3/12/10]

This may forever be remembered as the week when "tickle fight" entered the political lexicon.

The story stretches back to last week, when Eric Massa (D-NY) announced his resignation from the House of Representatives. It took many people by surprise, including conservative commentators, who initially reacted to the story by trumpeting ethics allegations against him to tarnish Democrats. Sean Hannity compared Massa to disgraced Rep. Mark Foley (R-FL), and Rush Limbaugh sounded enthusiastic that Speaker Nancy Pelosi could lose a vote for health care reform.

But the story took an unexpected turn over the weekend when Massa charged that Democratic leaders had pressured him to resign because he was set to vote against the health care bill. On Monday, Hannity and Limbaugh changed their tune accordingly. Hannity sounded off: "[I]t looks like this is only the latest instance of intimidation to come from the Obama White House." And Limbaugh bragged that he was doing his part "to make it a national story."

Enter Glenn Beck. Massa's allegations against the Democratic leadership appeared to confirm all of Beck's theories about the Obama administration, and Beck soon booked Massa for a full hour on his Tuesday Fox News show. It was at this point that the story turned toxic for conservatives.

Earlier that day, conservative blogger Michelle Malkin had called into Beck's radio show and given him prescient advice not to spend an hour with Massa. Their conversation became tense, as Beck seemed annoyed that Malkin would question his judgment. That afternoon, Limbaugh jumped ship on Massa. After earlier touting Massa's side of the story, Limbaugh now said he wanted Massa to remain in Congress as a Democrat because he was a "loose cannon," a "kook," and a "freak."

But Beck pressed ahead with his hour-long interview. Massa did look like a "loose cannon" during his interview with Beck, in a way that did not reflect well on the host. Massa also walked back his allegations against Rahm Emmanuel and admitted to having "tickle fights" with staffers in a house they shared. Beck couldn't get Massa to name names and accuse other Democrats of corruption. Massa instead talked about the need for campaign finance reform, only further frustrating Beck. Media Matters Senior Fellow Eric Boehlert gave the following post-mortem:

Well, in one sense, Beck was right [about devoting an hour to Massa], because yesterday's colossal flop might just make television history. It might go down as one of the most pointlessly absurd -- and yes, truly unwatchable -- hours in cable news. Last night, the snickering had already reached epic levels. And with the can't-watch-TV performance, Beck most likely took the Massa issue off the table for Republicans, since the whole story now looks more like a comedy than an actual scandal. 

"The result," Boehlert concluded, was that Beck became a "national laughingstock."

After the interview, Beck apologized to his viewers for wasting an hour of their time. Only an hour, Glenn?

One further note: Limbaugh apparently wanted to make sure Beck didn't get all the Massa attention. On Tuesday, Limbaugh was chatting with a caller about New York Gov. David Paterson appointing Massa's replacement. Limbaugh, never a man to back away from a race-baiting play on words, said: "So, David Paterson will become the massa who gets to appoint whoever gets to take Massa's place. So, for the first time in his life, Paterson's gonna be a massa."

Other Major Stories

The consequences of Rove's Courage

Karl Rove made some media ripples this week with the release of his memoir, Courage and Consequences. We at Media Matters obtained a copy in advance of its release date, which gave us the opportunity to expose its falsehoods before most people could even get their hands on it. What we found would not shock anyone familiar with Rove's history of "play[ing] fast and loose with the facts": Rove's book was another exercise in rewriting the wrongs of the Bush administration.

For example, in Courage, Rove distorts a 2004 Senate Intelligence Committee report to claim that Bush didn't "lie us into war." Rove writes that Bush's claims that Saddam Hussein had ties to terrorism were substantiated by the Senate report. The report actually said that only some of Bush's statements on Iraq were substantiated. The report went on to contradict Bush's claims about an Iraq-Al Qaeda partnership, and that Saddam was prepared to give weapons of mass destruction to terrorists.

With every book comes a media tour, and Rove spent much of the week appearing on what seemed like every Fox News program in the lineup (plus an hour-long appearance on The Rush Limbaugh Show). Talking-head Rove used one of these opportunities to repeat discredited claims about the Valerie Plame leak. Rove also used his latest Wall Street Journal op-ed to repeat some of the same health care reform falsehoods that were in his book.

No rest for the weary: Fishing freak-out and Glenn Beck's musical epiphanies

What happens when an ESPN column makes a far-fetched claim that President Obama would ban fishing? On ESPNOutdoors.com, Robert Montgomery claimed that a federal strategy "could prohibit U.S. citizens from fishing the nation's oceans, coastal areas, Great Lakes, and even inland waters."

Conservatives took the bait, and it wasn't long before Limbaugh, Gateway Pundit, Fox Nation, RedState, and Michelle Malkin all forwarded the claim.

Was there any truth to it? Would the White House start sending out Secret Service agents to confiscate our fishing poles and shut down our local bait shop?

To the surprise of absolutely no one with a brain, the story was wrong. ESPN acknowledged its mistake.

But apparently nobody told Glenn Beck, who didn't back off the story. "No more fishing," Beck said, adding: "Forget about the frickin' fish. People are losing their rights. Who's more important: the fish or you?" Eventually, even Fox News debunked the claim.

Beck also exposed us to more of his pop music revelations. A few months ago, Beck explored the meaning of The Beatles' "Revolution" with the enthusiasm of a college freshman evangelizing Dark Side of the Moon. This week, he warned his viewers that Woody Guthrie's "This Land Is Your Land" is "about a progressive utopia."

The next day on his radio show, Beck and his crew called Bruce Springsteen's "Born in the U.S.A." "anti-American." My Media Matters colleague Jeremy Holden took Beck and his co-hosts to task for their "simplistic version of patriotism" that "leaves little room for any criticism of America, its policy, or the behavior of its people."

For the road

It was a busy week at Media Matters, and some other items deserve attention, too. Former Bush speechwriter and Washington Post columnist Marc Thiessen continued his DOJ witch hunt with more attacks on the Obama Justice Department. Glenn Beck was called out by the antipoverty group Sojourners for his continued attacks on the concept of social justice. Beck's busy week also had him selling "survival seeds" and stating without irony: "You cannot lie to the American people for very long unless you're really good." And some conservative media figures cast Democrats as "suicide bombers" in their push for health care reform.

Finally, Media Matters welcomed Joe Strupp as its new investigative reporter and senior editor. His blog "Strupp" also launched on the Media Matters website this week.

This week's media columns

This week's media columns from the Media Matters senior fellows: Eric Boehlert looks at the Pentagon shooter, insurrectionism, and right-wing bloggers; Jamison Foser considers whether Washington Post and New York Times editors are running with a bad crowd; and Karl Frisch delves deeper into the right-wing media falling hook, line, and sinker for the latest Obama-centric conspiracy.

Facebook, Twitter, YouTube, MySpace and Digg

Media Matters maintains active online communities on the nation's leading social networking sites. Be sure to join us on Facebook, Twitter, YouTube, MySpace and Digg and join in on the discussion.

Do you listen to podcasts? Try the Media Matters Minute

For months now, radio shows and stations throughout the country have been carrying the Media Matters Minute, a daily minute-long recap of our work topped off with the "most outrageous comment" of the day. We encourage you to subscribe (iTunes / RSS) to the Minute's daily podcast hosted by Media Matters' Ben Fishel.

After Robert Montgomery wrote in an ESPNOutdoors.com column that the federal government had a strategy in the works that "could prohibit U.S. citizens from fishing the nation's oceans, coastal areas, Great Lakes, and even inland waters," it was only a matter of time before the conservative media took the bait -- hook, line, and sinker. Easily made puns aside, the story was tailor-made for "conservative journalism." After all, Montgomery had no evidence for his claims.

Another week, another wild, right-wing-media-driven conspiracy theory centered on the Obama administration.

Conservative blogs led the charge in advancing the dubious story, posting their own spin under headlines like "Obama: The Will Of The People Be Damned - I'LL Decide Who Can Go Fishing" in the case of RedState.com and "Obama's war on fishing?!?!?!" from the queen of right-wing blogging and bellyaching, Michelle Malkin. It mattered little that the story was complete bunk -- unsupported by a shred of proof.

It wasn't long before Fox News' Glenn Beck, a regular purveyor of ridiculous Obama-centric conspiracy theories, took up the yarn. In classic Beck fashion, the crew-cut host told his audience, "I told you a year ago this would happen. I'm not some prophet by any stretch of the imaginations. ... People are losing their rights. Who's more important: the fish or you?"

Beck aside, no smear of the Obama White House would be complete without an assist from Rush Limbaugh, the granddaddy of the conservative media. On back-to-back shows, El Rushbo laid it on thick, one day saying that "fishing is about to become a privilege controlled by Barack Obama," and the next, speaking as if he were Obama: "[Y]ou can't touch me. ... I can stop you from going fishing wherever you want. ... I can do whatever I want to do."

In perhaps the strangest turn of events surrounding the story, FoxNews.com ended up debunking Fox News, with the conservative outlet's reporter Joshua Rhett Miller writing that government documents didn't contain "language pertaining to a potential ban on recreational fishing, as some reports had previously asserted." Of course, some of those "reports" included the Fox Nation website, Fox Business Network, and the previously mentioned Beck.

Ultimately, an ESPNOutdoors.com editor acknowledged "errors" in the handling of the piece and its lack of "balance," but you can expect this one, like so many others, to end up in some chain email from your Fox News-loving uncle in the coming weeks.

The controversy surrounding the latest debunked, conservative-driven conspiracy theory is not the first, nor is it the strangest. Like other bogus stories from the past year, it shares a similar cast of characters, most notably Beck, all eager to tar the president, evidence and journalistic integrity be damned.

Did you know that OnStar, the popular automobile safety feature, is actually a cause for concern because Obama's liberty-killing government could use it to impose "martial law?" You can thank Beck for that one.

Then there was the absurd story that FEMA was building concentration camps for those who disagree with the Obama administration. A year ago, Beck addressed the subject on Fox & Friends stating, "We are a country that is headed towards socialism, totalitarianism, beyond your wildest imagination," later adding that he "wanted to debunk" the theory that FEMA was building camps, but he just couldn't. Beck would go on to spend weeks sowing the seeds of this bizarre conspiracy theory, noting that he would debunk the issue when and if he could, before finally hosting the editor-in-chief of Popular Mechanics to set the story straight.

The FEMA camp conspiracy dovetailed nicely with another Beck-driven tale of totalitarianism: that Obama is busy assembling a "civilian national security force," which Beck said was "what Saddam Hussein" did and "what Hitler did with the SS." Beck's relentless pursuit of this "story" was sparked by a speech in which Obama spoke of expanding the Foreign Service, AmeriCorps, and the Peace Corps. That's right, to Glenn Beck, these respected outfits are akin to Hitler's SS. Shameful.

Reporters who value truth and journalistic integrity should be on notice: Don't trust these Beck-ian right-wing conspiracy theories, the people who spread them, or the networks that offer these kooks a platform. Deeming these folks rational players in the conservative movement deserving of our attention only serves to further undermine the already fragile reputation journalists have among the American people.

It almost makes one yearn for the days when right-wing cranks prattled on about the president's birth certificate. Even Beck wouldn't touch that one.

Karl Frisch is a senior fellow at Media Matters for America, a progressive media watchdog and research and information center based in Washington, D.C. Frisch also contributes to County Fair, a media blog featuring links to progressive media criticism from around the Web, as well as original commentary. You can follow him on Twitter, Facebook, and YouTube, or sign up to receive his columns by email.

Fox & Friends' Steve Doocy falsely suggested that Sen. Robert Byrd opposed using reconciliation to pass health care reform, citing comments Byrd made in 2001. However, Byrd recently defended use of reconciliation to complete passage of health care reform legislation already passed by both the House and the Senate.

Doocy suggests Byrd would oppose reconciliation to finalize health care reform bill

Doocy: Dems are "trying to do essentially what [Byrd] spoke out against." During the March 12 edition of Fox & Friends, Doocy discussed comments Byrd made in 2001 critical of using reconciliation to pass major reform bills. After playing footage of Byrd's comments -- taken from a video first posted by the conservative website Naked Emperor News and promoted by Breitbart.tv -- Doocy stated:

DOOCY: So there you got the guy who invented reconciliation, and what a fantastic speaker he is on the -- was on the floor of the Senate. He's in declining health right now. But you've got to wonder how does he feel now regarding -- they're trying to do essentially what he spoke out against. Remember, essentially back in 1993, they tried to ram this through via reconciliation, and he said you can't do it. It was not designed for this purpose.

Byrd has defended possible use of reconciliation to finalize legislation already passed by the House and Senate

House and Senate have already passed health care reform bills. The Senate passed health care reform legislation with 60 votes on December 24, 2009. The CBO estimated that the bill would reduce the deficit by $118 billion over 10 years. The House passed its health care reform bill on November 7, 2009.

Byrd: "I continue to support the budget reconciliation process for deficit reduction." In a March 4 letter to the editor published in the Charleston Daily Mail, Byrd stated that "the Senate should debate the health reform bill under regular rules, which it did [emphasis added]. The result of that debate was the passing of a comprehensive health care reform bill in the Senate by a 60-vote supermajority." Byrd went on to defend the possible use of reconciliation to finalize passage of health care reform:

"I continue to support the budget reconciliation process for deficit reduction. The entire Senate- or House- passed health care bill could not and would not pass muster under the current reconciliation rules, which were established under my watch.

"Yet a bill structured to reduce deficits by, for example, finding savings in Medicare or lowering health care costs, may be consistent with the Budget Act, and appropriately considered under reconciliation."

Less than two weeks after Rush Limbaugh proposed eating "applesauce" as a solution for not being able to afford dentures due to lack of health insurance, Fox's Steve Doocy endorsed a veterinarian's idea to "fix" health care by "treat[ing] people like dogs." Limbaugh has also cited a lack of a "federal dog health care plan" as evidence that health insurance is not necessary.

Doocy endorses a "treat them like dogs" solution to health care reform

Doocy: Idea to "treat [people] like dogs" "makes a lot of sense." On the March 12 edition of Fox News' Fox & Friends, co-host Steve Doocy reported on a Newsweek column by "very brilliant" veterinarian Karen Oberthaler entitled "Treat People Like Dogs" which suggested that the health care system should resemble the veterinary one. Doocy said the idea "makes a lot of sense," because "we're on the hook" for our pet's medical costs. Doocy said: "[T]here's only 3 percent of Americans who have pet insurance and so we're on the hook for the charges. So, if Americans were on the hook for all the tests and stuff, it would be a lot different." Citing Oberthaler's column, Doocy added: "if you've got a golden retriever...and you know that the dog has got cancer and it's -- you know, there really is no getting any better, would you order a bunch of tests that are going to be costly and right out of your pocket because chances are you don't have the insurance...it also has to do with, you know,  putting the dog through pain at the end of the road."

Limbaugh also suggested modeling the health care system after pet medicine because "there's no insurance involved"

Limbaugh: "There's no federal dog healthcare plan out there, and it's working just fine." On the June 15 edition of Premiere Radio Networks' The Rush Limbaugh Show, Limbaugh argued against public health care programs, claiming "there's no federal dog health care plan out there, and it's working just fine," because the "private market is providing dog owners every option they want for their dogs to be cared for" and that "it's based on the owner's ability to pay, there's no insurance involved."

Limbaugh and other media conservatives have a history of mocking the uninsured

Limbaugh's health care plan: "If you don't have any teeth, so what? What's applesauce for?" Responding to a story Rep. Louise Slaughter (D-NY) told about a woman who wore dentures that previously belonged to her dead sister because she lacked insurance and could not afford to buy her own, Limbaugh stated on February 25:

LIMBAUGH: You know I'm getting so many people -- this Louise Slaughter comment on the dentures? I'm getting so many people -- this is big, I mean, that gets a one-time mention for a laugh, but there are people out there that think this is huge because it's so stupid. I mean, for example, well, what's wrong with using a dead person's teeth? Aren't the Democrats big into recycling? Save the planet? And so what? So if you don't have any teeth, so what? What's applesauce for? Isn't that why they make applesauce?

Beck mocks Slaughter's story: "I've read the Constitution ... I didn't see that you had a right to teeth." On his February 26 radio show, Glenn Beck played an audio clip of Slaughter's account then said, "I am wearing George Washington's dentures right now. I'm wearing his teeth right now." He later added, "I just like wearing dead people's teeth. But in America -- I'm sorry, I didn't know that that was -- I've read the Constitution before. I didn't see that you had a right to teeth." Echoing Limbaugh's remarks the previous day, Beck stated, "The environmentalists should be all over Slaughter. 'How dare you say that?' My gosh, they're just recycling. They're just reusing."

Beck sidekick uses baby voice to mock letters Obama receives. On Beck's February 25 radio show, co-host Steve "Stu" Burguiere stated that Obama "gets 10 letters, Glenn, every night." Co-host Pat Gray asked, "From 2-year-old girls?" Then, one of the co-hosts started speaking in a baby's voice: "I have no health care, Mr. Pwesident, and I have no feet and no tonsils because doctors took 'em out."

Conservative blogger Pamela Geller linked to an audio clip of the segment, which she wrote was "[d]a best! the funniest thang evuh!"

Gateway Pundit attacks Slaughter's "sappy lib sob story of the day, hands down." On his Gateway Pundit blog, Jim Hoft linked to a video clip of Slaughter telling the story about the dentures under the headline, "Horror! Lib Dem Claims Her Constituent Wore Dead Sister's Teeth (Video)." After declaring the account the "sappy lib sob story of the day, hands down," Hoft wrote: "Will Obamacare buy me glasses and contacts? Will Obamacare buy me a gold tooth in the front of my mouth with a little heart on it?"

Ingraham: "Louise Slaughter won the Olympics of sob stories." On Fox News' The O'Reilly Factor, radio host Laura Ingraham said she "liked the dueling sob stories, OK? One Democrat was trying to outdo the next on the sob story about how rotten our health care system is. Louise Slaughter won the Olympics of sob stories by saying one of her constituents had to wear her sister's dentures. OK? It got so bad with the health care system." She later added, "You had Harry Reid on the cleft palate with his -- I mean, the whole thing was ridiculous."

Fox Nation labels anecdote "Summit Insanity." From The Fox Nation, accessed February 25:

Limbaugh mocked story of transplant patient on Medicare who will have to pay own bills after three years. On February 26, referring to a story Rep. James Clyburn (D-SC) recounted at President Obama's health care summit, Limbaugh stated:

LIMBAUGH: This patient was about to receive a transplanted organ -- Clyburn didn't specify what it was -- and the horror -- he's gonna get a -- he's gonna get a totally paid-for transplant. The horror is that he was going to have to start paying his post-op bills in three years.

If this is the worst we can say about American medicine, are we really in that bad a shape after all?

I have a different observation on this. I mean, look at where we are with this. This guy is -- he about had an emotional breakdown 'cause he was told he's gotta start paying his own medical bills after three years. He gets a free transplant; he gets a free after-care for three years and then he's on his own, and he's mad and thinks he's getting screwed.

Limbaugh told caller who can't afford $6,000 to treat broken wrist: "Well, you shouldn't have broken your wrist." In August 2009, Limbaugh had the following exchange with a caller:

CALLER: If we pay for our health care ourselves, would it bring costs down?

LIMBAUGH: Yeah, it would, if -- with other -- yeah, if you get some other players out of the game, yeah -- of course.

CALLER: What do you mean by "other players"? I'm sorry.

LIMBAUGH: Government -- get the government out of it. Get the government -- their stupid regulations. Get the government out of Medicare. You -- look it, the only way that cost or price ratios make sense is based on the consumer's ability to pay. There has to be a direct relationship between the customer and the business at the surface.

CALLER: OK. I just broke my wrist and it's costing me $6,000. I can't afford that.

LIMBAUGH: Well, you shouldn't have broken your wrist.

CALLER: That's true.

LIMBAUGH: You know why it costs $6,000? Because you, technically, aren't paying for it. An insurance policy's paying for it, backed up by some government insurance policy, or what have you.

Despite presenting no evidence that House Speaker Nancy Pelosi was personally aware of concerns regarding former-Rep. Eric Massa's behavior months before those claims were made public, Fox & Friends hosted a panel on March 12 to discuss whether it's "time for Speaker Pelosi to go." But Fox news figures defended then-House Speaker Dennis Hastert after it became public in 2006 that Hastert had likely been personally informed of an inappropriate email then-Rep. Mark Foley (R-FL) sent to a congressional page.

Fox News hosts panel on whether it's "time for Speaker Pelosi to go" over Massa allegations

Doocy: "[S]ome are wondering...is it time for Speaker Pelosi to go?" On the March 12 edition of Fox News' Fox & Friends, co-host Steve Doocy introduced a panel discussion by noting "the ethics violations plaguing Washington," and stating, "Some are wondering on the right, is it time for Speaker Pelosi to go?" Doocy went on to say, "We've heard of these skeevy allegations about" Massa that "apparently Pelosi's office knew about...back in October and people are going, what did she know? When did she know it? This doesn't look good for her."

During the segment, the following on-screen graphic appeared:

Fair and Balanced Fox: Defend Hastert -- who was likely aware of Foley's email -- but attack Pelosi, who says she was not aware of Massa allegations

The disparities between Fox's coverage of the reports surrounding Massa and its reported on March 11, "Pelosi said she personally learned about allegations of misconduct [by Massa] March 3. The speaker said her staff knew about the allegations of sexual harassment around the time they were reported to Mr. Hoyer's office in early February."

WSJ: Leadership aide says Pelosi wasn't informed of "October discussion" about Massa. While Pelosi's staff was reportedly informed of "concerns" about Massa in October 2009, the Journal reported that according to a senior Democratic leadership aide, "Pelosi wasn't informed of the October discussion, and the matter was not referred to the House ethics committee because it did not involve allegations of inappropriate behavior or sexual harassment."

Hoyer's office says Hoyer ensured misconduct allegations were immediately referred to ethics committee. Hoyer's office released the following statement on March 3:

The week of February 8th, a member of Rep. Massa's staff brought to the attention of Mr. Hoyer's staff allegations of misconduct that had been made against Mr. Massa. Mr. Hoyer's staff immediately informed him of what they had been told. Mr. Hoyer instructed his staff that if Mr. Massa or his staff did not bring the matter to the attention of the bipartisan Ethics Committee within 48 hours, Mr. Hoyer would do so. Within 48 hours, Mr. Hoyer received confirmation from both the Ethics Committee staff and Mr. Massa's staff that the Ethics Committee had been contacted and would review the allegations. Mr. Hoyer does not know whether the allegations are true or false, but wanted to ensure that the bipartisan committee charged with overseeing conduct of Members was immediately involved to determine the facts.

By contrast, ethics committee found that Hastert was likely told about Foley emails and apparently took no action. From page 85 of the ethics committee's 2006 report on the Foley scandal:

The Investigative Subcommittee finds that the weight of the evidence supports the conclusion that Speaker Hastert was told, at least in passing, about the e-mails by both Majority Leader [John] Boehner and Rep. [Tom] Reynolds [R-NY] in spring 2006.

[...]

Neither the Majority Leader nor Rep. Reynolds asked the Speaker to take any action in response to the information each provided to him, and there is no evidence that the Speaker took any action.

Ethics committee found that Rep. Boehner and then-Rep. Tom Reynolds (R-NY) failed to show "any curiosity regarding" Foley emails and failed to ask Hastert to take any action. From page 85 of the ethics committee report:

Rep. Alexander did not ask either the Majority Leader or Rep. Reynolds to do anything -- each decided to mention the matter to the Speaker on his own initiative. Like too many others, neither the Majority Leader nor Rep. Reynolds showed any curiosity regarding why a young former page would have been made uncomfortable by e-mails from Rep. Foley. Neither the Majority Leader nor Rep. Reynolds asked the Speaker to take any action in response to the information each provided to him, and there is no evidence that the Speaker took any action.

In 2006, Fox News figures defended Hastert's role in Foley scandal

September 30, 2006: McClatchy reported that Reynolds said he informed Hastert of emails "months ago." On September 30, 2006, McClatchy reported (accessed via Nexis) that Reynolds said he informed Hastert "months ago about the existence of e-mails to a page from Foley":

Rep. Thomas Reynolds, R-N.Y., chairman of the Republican Congressional Campaign Committee charged with maintaining his party's majority, said Saturday that he told House Speaker Dennis Hastert months ago about the existence of e-mails to a page from Foley -- e-mails the boy said "freaked him out."

Hastert said he doesn't remember the conversation but "has no reason to dispute Congressman Reynolds' recollection that he reported to him on the problem and its resolution," his chief of staff and outside counsel said in an internal review released after Reynolds' statement.

The revelations have prompted calls for independent investigations. Some Democrats have alleged a coverup by the House leadership.

Hannity defends Hastert: "The only thing that Hastert knew about was that there was an e-mail." From the October 4, 2006, edition of Fox News' Hannity & Colmes:

JANE FLEMING (director, Young Democrats of America): Yeah, it's clear that Hastert knew over a year ago, and maybe even longer, that this was going on, and he did absolutely nothing about it. And we have to ask: Why did he do nothing about it?

It seems to us that he was covering it up, hoping that it would go away. When it didn't go away, then they had Foley resign, and they still haven't done a full investigation about --

HANNITY: Hey, Jane, Jane --

FLEMING: Yeah?

HANNITY: Let me stop you right here.

FLEMING: Go ahead.

HANNITY: There is no evidence, none that you can cite to our audience --

FLEMING: Yes, there is.

HANNITY: -- wait a minute, wait a minute -- that Dennis Hastert knew anything about the sexual, salacious nature of the instant messages.

[...]

HANNITY: The only thing that Hastert knew about was that there was an email. Now, I spoke to Hastert. He didn't even know about the request for a picture. All he knew was the parents wanted the emails to stop --

ANN COULTER (right-wing pundit): Right.

HANNITY: -- and the parents' request was answered. He didn't know about this, and there's no proof, in spite of liberals screaming it, they can't cite any evidence that Hastert knew.

COULTER: No, of course not.

HANNITY: But here's what we do know. Here's what we do know. The George Soros-funded group, for example, got hundreds of thousands of dollars from the Open Society that gives money to this group, CREW, well, they knew about this -- and I'm reading from The Hill -- quote, "when CREW received copies of Foley's e-mails earlier this summer." So apparently, now there's even discussion that they may have been in contact with Democrats.

Hannity said there's "no evidence" GOP leaders knew Foley was "going after pages," demanded CREW "phone records." From the October 5, 2006, edition of Fox News' Hannity & Colmes:

HANNITY: Let me go back to Michael Barone here for just a second. Michael, this is an important point you were raising here. And I want a full investigation. Democrats are calling for it, but interestingly, I think, you know, I'd like to see -- for example, we know that this website, CREW, funded by George Soros, had these emails now and were bragging on their website as early as July 21.

Now, that raises the questions, because a lot of these CREW members previously worked on Capitol Hill for prominent Democrats. I'd like to see emails, I'd like to see phone records, I'd like to know if there was any contact regarding these things. In other words, what did they know and when did they know it? Because what you're pointing out here, they would have put the safety and security of children, you know --

BARONE: At risk.

HANNITY: -- prioritize partisan politics over the safety and security of children.

[...]

DOUG HATTAWAY (Democratic strategist): That's exactly what the Republican leadership did. They -- the point you're missing, Sean, I think, is wherever these explicit emails showed up -- I don't know what the leadership knew about those -- they knew that this guy was going after pages --

HANNITY: There's no evidence of that at all.

[crosstalk]

HATTAWAY: -- they did nothing about it.

ALAN COLMES (co-host): And thank you very much, Mr. Liddy, Mr. Hattaway, and Mr. Barone. Thank you.

Hannity: "no evidence" Hastert knew, suggested Republican leadership are "innocent people" being "smeared." From the October 3, 2006, edition of Fox News' Hannity & Colmes:

HANNITY: Well, it's taken on a very different dynamic though tonight, and that is that Democrats are saying -- I was watching The Fox Report with Shep tonight, and there's Nancy Pelosi out there campaigning today, saying with just 100 percent certainty that Dennis Hastert knew.

Now, I interviewed Dennis Hastert. I've interviewed John Boehner. They both deny -- and there's absolutely no evidence to corroborate this. Now, we're also getting information tonight that there are Democratically funded websites, by people like Soros, that had knowledge of this long before this was made public.

I'm wondering if we're now moving into a different arena here, where this is so politicized that this is going to backfire against the people trying to make hay out of what is a sexual scandal of one man. Your thoughts?

[...]

HANNITY: All right, perhaps, but we'll examine that in the next segment. But I think more importantly here there's some fundamental, I think, fairness issues here.

Everybody that I know is glad Foley is gone, but there seems to be an issue here to purposefully politicize this issue, and I find that equally repugnant to me. And, more importantly, I think this takes on a whole new dimension, and this is it, that, if in the pursuit of political power you are going to falsely accuse individuals of knowing things about horrible scandals like this, you better have evidence, because we live in America, and those American people you're describing are fair-minded.

DICK MORRIS (Fox News contributor): And that's going to backfire.

HANNITY: And when innocent people are smeared, Dick, I've got to believe that people would tend to side with the people that are being smeared. And I see that this is happening more and more in this scandal.

Brit Hume: "[I]'s always easy to say what [Hastert] should've done, but when you start thinking about the things he could've done, there's not much there." From the October 8, 2006, edition of Fox Broadcasting Co.'s Fox News Sunday:

HUME: Well, I think that toward the end of the week it did begin to look a little brighter. I don't think the weekend revelations, Chris, are particularly important.

The former page of whom you speak was an adult, 21 years old, at the time, and was long out of the House page program. And it appears that Foley's pattern was that he would flirt with these pages, and sometimes in quite a lurid and disgusting way, but nothing ever happened physically until after they were out of the program. And heaven knows how many more will turn up to say that, yes, they, too, carried on with him after they were out of the program, so I -- and besides that, Foley's gone, in disgrace, finished. So how much more of the scandal can be fed by revelations about what he did is questionable.

As for what Hastert knew or didn't know, we probably won't know what the facts are on that until this investigation is concluded. However, let's look back at this a moment.

Let's assume that Hastert did know or that he decided he wanted to do more than simply issue a stern warning when he discovered these overly friendly but not X-rated emails. I think the defense that he makes, or that some make of him, that if he tried to do something really strong, he would have been accused of gay-bashing, there would have been charges that the Republicans were trying to out one of their own members solely because he was gay. It would not have been a pretty sight.

So history doesn't disclose its alternatives, but I think we can pretty well see what that one would have been. And it gives you an idea of -- it's always easy to say what he should've done, but when you start thinking about the things he could've done, there's not much there.

Bill Kristol: "I think there's no evidence that Hastert did anything wrong, in my view." From the October 8, 2006, edition of Fox News Sunday:

KRISTOL: Well, one would think, if one were Foley's chief staff and thought one's boss was doing something really wrong and immoral, one might not just be quiet for the next three years, if Hastert's chief of staff didn't act appropriately. Maybe they thought they had talked to Hastert and to Foley and things -- and he had subsided. Maybe there's some self-serving recollection going on here.

I think there's no evidence that Hastert did anything wrong, in my view. And this is -- I do honestly believe now the media is trying to stampede the social -- you know, they're treating social conservatives like idiots, for one thing, like children. "Oh my God, one of 230 House members was gay and a real creep, and, you know, and therefore we're not going to vote on the issues we care about, therefore we're going to abandon every position we have. We're going to retreat in shudder from the -- retreat in horror from the polls in November and let the Democrats win a majority."

It's not going to happen. The polls have not moved all week. That is the big fact that's going on. The media is trying to stampede the elections, confirm the Democratic victory, and it's not working.

Kristol: "No one has really proven or even plausibly suggested what [Hastert] should have done that he didn't do." From the October 3, 2006, edition of Fox News' The Big Story:

JOHN GIBSON (host): With me now is Fox News political analyst Bill Kristol, who is the editor of The Weekly Standard. He actually spoke to Dennis Hastert just a short time ago.

Bill, what does Dennis Hastert say about this call for him to step town?

KRISTOL: Well, first, he's really repulsed, I think, by Foley's behavior. You know, Denny Hastert was a high school teacher and a high school coach, and this kind of attempt to exploit young boys, I mean, he -- it's just -- he seems really sickened by it.

He's angry at Foley for betraying his trust, his colleagues' trust, the voters of Florida's trust, these page -- pages' trust. He's also angry at the Democrats for making -- trying to make this a big political issue to divert attention from the real issues that should be debated in this congressional election, and I think he's disappointed in some of these few conservatives who I think foolishly have somehow lashed out at Denny Hastert.

The speaker seems to have done what he could have done given what knowledge he had at the time. No one has really proven or even plausibly suggested what he should have done that he didn't do. And I think he's -- he says he's going to, you know, he's not resigning, and he's going to try to get the debate back to the issues.

Mort Kondracke: "Hastert's position is completely defensible." From the October 6, 2006, edition of Fox News' Special Report:

KONDRACKE: Look, I completely agree with what Jim Baker said, and Jim Baker is a very wise politician, that you give the -- you give the enemy one of your people, and they'll just be chomping after more. Look, I agree that Hastert's position is completely defensible, and what the Republicans need to do is to change the subject.

Now, what are they going to change the subject to? They don't, you know, they're not going to want to talk about Iraq. I guess they want to go back to terrorism. I don't think that arguing over Gerry Studds or Barney Frank is gonna -- is gonna really change the subject; it's just going to rivet attention back on this because, look, what the Republicans rely on for their base is morality voters, values voters, married women with children, and evangelicals, and those people are dismayed by this whole thing.

Bill O'Reilly: "Hastert's you know, being witch-hunted down." From the October 4, 2006, edition of Fox News' The O'Reilly Factor:

O'REILLY: And in the "Impact" segment tonight, the Foley controversy continues to dominate the media. The question now is there anything more here? And is the far left involved in exposing Congressman Foley?

Joining us now from the ABC News studio in New York City, the man who broke much of the story, investigative reporter Brian Ross.

Now we are hearing that the roof is going to fall in on Dennis Hastert, the Speaker of the House of Representatives. Hastert's guy issued us a statement just seconds ago, saying, look, Hastert didn't know anything about this. He heard a couple of inappropriate emails were sent. Nothing was sexual. Hastert's, you know, being witch hunted down. What do you have? What do you know? And is Hastert in trouble in your opinion?

[...]

O'REILLY: Whatever. But the fact remains that you tried to get a hold of Speaker Hastert. And so did I today. We both did. He will not talk to you. He will not talk to me. I think that's foolish. I think he has to go out and defend himself.

Because at this point, the heavy odds are that he's going to have to resign for the good of the Republican Party. Am I wrong?

ROSS: Hard for me to judge on the politics of it, but I can give you the facts. And that is that he has given inconsistent statements and actually forgot apparently that he was told about Foley earlier this year by Congressman Tom Reynolds, who today reasserted, "I told the Speaker. Maybe he forgot, but I did tell him."

O'REILLY: But what did he tell him? What did he tell him? You see, here's the real crux of this matter.

ROSS: Right, right.

O'REILLY: Did he tell him this guy is just flirting with these guys, and it is ridiculous, and it's embarrassing, and he's got to stop? Or did he tell him the guy's having a sexual deal on the Internet? See, that -

ROSS: No, he didn't tell him that.

O'REILLY: -- that is what it is.

ROSS: And, look, I know what happened here in terms of the timeline. Those sexually explicit instant messages were not really in anybody's possession outside of a handful of pages until last week -

O'REILLY: All right.

ROSS: -- when we got them from some former pages.

O'REILLY: So it's very possible that Hastert didn't know anything other than the guy's an idiot. He's just doing things that are just immature and ridiculous.

ROSS: Well, a hair more than that, according to Fordham. That this was -- because it was no secret among that group that Foley was likely gay, and that his attention to the young male pages, in particular, troubled a number of staff members.

O'REILLY: All right, so they did raise a red flag -

ROSS: They did.

O'REILLY: -- and apparently Hastert did not act upon. I think that's fair. Is that a fair statement?

ROSS: Well, he -- Scott Palmer, according to Fordham, at least, went and met with Foley. And then others also went there.

O'REILLY: OK, so I think it's a fair statement.

Now the Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington is a far-left group. George Soros gives a lot of money to it through his Open Society Institute. They apparently are the ones that drove this thing behind the scenes. Is that what you're hearing?

ROSS: I'm not familiar with them. They didn't drive us, but I've since seen they have posted some of those original emails on their website. I don't think they had the ones that really are the ones as you say correctly are in contention.

O'REILLY: OK. Because we're trying to figure out who is driving this, who went to The St. Petersburg Times, The Miami Herald, Fox News in Washington and got a hold of some emails.

The emails that we got a hold of were innocuous. There weren't any smoking gun. But we now believe, and The Wall Street Journal believes as well, that a George Soros-funded group drove this story. That could be an interesting wrinkle here.

But now, Fox runs with claims that Pelosi aides may have known about Massa's behavior

FoxNews.com: "Massave Problem." On March 11, FoxNews.com posted a Wall Street Journal article entitled "Pelosi's Office Knew of Massa Concerns." FoxNews.com posted the following image which linked to the article:

Malkin: "The stance of the Democrat majority has been to see no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil." On the March 11 edition of Fox News' Fox & Friends, co-host Gretchen Carlson claimed "now it's coming out that potentially her aides may have known about Congressman Eric Massa and some of the concerns that people had about his activity, sexual misconduct allegations, that maybe they knew as long ago as last year." Fox News contributor Michelle Malkin responded: "[T]his is about Nancy Pelosi, and it is about that very pledge she made so publicly and ostentatiously to clean the swamp, to drain the swamp, and what she has done is overflown it -- overflowed it, and I think the stance of the Democrat majority has been to see no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil. And to hear her talk in such condescending and flippant tones about how her job is not to be a receiver of rumors -- that was the actual quote that she has given now -- what does that tell you about her vigilance regarding integrity among her majority members?"

America's Newsroom: There are "reports now that House Speaker Nancy Pelosi was actually informed months ago" about Massa. On the March 11 edition of Fox News' America's Newsroom, co-host Bill Hemmer claimed there were "new questions about what House Speaker Nancy Pelosi knew about those incidents and, chiefly, when." Co-host Martha MacCallum claimed that there were "reports now that House Speaker Nancy Pelosi was actually informed months ago about some very questionable issues surrounding Eric Massa." Hemmer later asked Fox News reporter Steve Centanni, "What do we know about what Nancy Pelosi's staff first heard, and when, about these concerns about Massa?"

For a few weeks last fall, editors and ombudsmen at The Washington Post and New York Times seemed obsessed with the idea that they should be paying more attention to right-wing media and websites. In the wake of some wildly hyperbolic claims about ACORN, the nation's leading news outlets apologized for being too slow to run chasing after every "scandal" ginned up by Andrew Breitbart, Glenn Beck, and their ilk.

Washington Post executive editor Marcus Brauchli worried "that we are not well-enough informed about conservative issues. It's particularly a problem in a town so dominated by Democrats and the Democratic point of view" -- a concern echoed by his deputies and Post ombudsman Andrew Alexander.

At The New York Times, managing editor Jill Abramson said the Times suffered from "insufficient tuned-in-ness to the issues that are dominating Fox News and talk radio" and that the paper would assign an editor to monitor such media. Public editor Clark Hoyt criticized the Times for being too slow to pick up the ACORN allegations, fretting that the delay made the Times look "partisan." And Hoyt took the Times to task for what he thought was too great an emphasis on the political motivations behind the attacks on ACORN:

By stressing the politics, the article irritated more readers. "A suspicious person might see an attempt to deflect criticism of Acorn by highlighting how those pesky conservatives are at it again," said Albert Smith of Chatham, N.J.

I thought politics was emphasized too much, at the expense of questions about an organization whose employees in city after city participated in outlandish conversations about illegal and immoral activities. (Acorn suggested some videos were doctored but fired or suspended many of the employees.)

Hoyt went on to criticize the Times article for omitting mention of a video of, and allegations about, ACORN workers in Brooklyn.

The hand-wringing at the Post and the Times about being insufficiently attuned to conservative arguments should ring false to any fair-minded person who remembers the role those papers played in the relentless hyping of Clinton-era non-scandals, their heavily slanted coverage of the 2000 presidential campaign, or their disastrously inadequate coverage of the Bush administration's march to war. (Alexander and the Post editors have ducked requests that they reconcile the paper's coverage of those events with their statements that the Post needs to be more responsive to conservatives.)

But even worse than the myopic view of their treatment of conservatives over the years was the misguided premise that the media should pay attention to certain people simply because they are ideologically conservative -- as if a person's ideology, rather than the accuracy and honesty and importance of his claims, determines whether he should be taken seriously.

That's dangerously wrong. It's the kind of thinking that leads the media to grant equal weight to scientists who say the Earth is warming and politicians who respond by pointing out the continued existence of snow.

And, indeed, the conservative media have spent the last several months proving again and again that they simply do not deserve to be taken seriously.

Take, for example, the ACORN tapes that the Post and Times apologized for not covering sooner. Turns out the right-wing activists behind them were badly misrepresenting what they showed (we're still waiting for the Times to correct its false claim that James O'Keefe was dressed in an outlandish pimp costume while meeting with the ACORN employees). And the Brooklyn district attorney has reportedly found that the tapes were misleadingly edited:

The video that unleashed a firestorm of criticism on the activist group ACORN was a "heavily edited" splice job that only made it appear as though the organization's workers were advising a pimp and prostitute on how to get a mortgage, sources said yesterday.

The findings by the Brooklyn DA, following a 5½-month probe into the video, secretly recorded by conservative provocateurs James O'Keefe and Hannah Giles, means that no charges will be filed.

Many of the seemingly crime-encouraging answers were taken out of context so as to appear more sinister, sources said.

Remember: Times public editor Clark Hoyt criticized his paper for not covering that Brooklyn tape. And he complained that the paper's coverage of the ACORN allegations focused too much on the political motives of the accusers. Think maybe he'd like to have that one back?

Or consider The Weekly Standard's comically inept attempts to create scandal out of whole cloth, which involve inventing a totally baseless allegation of vote-buying, then rapidly back-tracking once they're called on the improbability of their claims.

Then there's the absurd-on-its-face conspiracy theory that President Obama wants to ban fishing. Believing such a thing requires tinfoil-hat-level paranoia and inability to reason -- and yet Glenn Beck, Rush Limbaugh, and several right-wing bloggers eagerly peddled that nonsense. Stupid, or dishonest? It doesn't matter -- either way, it's further evidence that nobody should take anything they say seriously.

And how about Beck's claim that an alternative measure of the poverty level proposed by the Obama administration would classify him as "in poverty," despite his millions of dollars in annual earnings. That's obviously false -- yet Glenn Beck said it. How can you trust anything said by someone who is willing to say things that are obviously false? On Fox & Friends, the hosts assert that Democrats "want Americans to pay 70% of their income in taxes." Is that true? Of course not! So why do they say it? Because they have no hesitation whatsoever when it comes to lying.

And yet The New York Times and The Washington Post think they should pay extra attention to claims that come from the right-wing media; that they should be quicker to repeat the nonsense churned out every day by this pack of professional liars, simply because they are conservatives. But the decades-long track record suggests the opposite: The fact that Fox News or The Weekly Standard is promoting some story is pretty good reason to assume it isn't newsworthy.

Jamison Foser is a Senior Fellow at Media Matters for America, a progressive media watchdog and research and information center based in Washington, D.C. Foser also contributes to County Fair, a media blog featuring links to progressive media criticism from around the Web, as well as original commentary. You can follow him on Twitter and Facebook or sign up to receive his columns by email.

Glenn Beck has repeatedly attacked popular music as "propaganda" that is helping to advance a progressive agenda and undermine America. Fox example, Beck warned that Woody Guthrie's "This Land Is Your Land" is "about a progressive utopia" and that the Beatles' "Revolution" "spell[s] it all out" about "how progressives have been operating."

Beck's revelations about "Revolution" and other hits

Beck and crew call Springsteen's "Born in the U.S.A." "anti-American." On Beck's radio show, co-host Pat Gray stated: "How many of us go to the Fourth of July fireworks display, we see the fireworks blasting, exploding in the air, and we hear 'Born in the U.S.A.' by Bruce Springsteen, and we're like, 'Yeah, "Born in the U.S.A." ' And you get filled with patriotic pride, and then you find out that Bruce Springsteen's 'Born in the U.S.A.' is anti-American." After Beck read the lyrics of the song, Gray said, "That's what it's all about. That's what America's about, according to Bruce Springsteen." Beck responded: "See, here's the thing that I don't think people understand yet -- I think you do -- that it is time for us to wake up out of our dream state, wake up out of the propaganda." [Premiere Radio Networks' The Glenn Beck Program, 3/11/10]

Beck warns viewers that Woody Guthrie's "This Land Is Your Land" is "about a progressive utopia." On his Fox News show, Beck read lyrics from "This Land Is Your Land" by Woody Guthrie -- whom he identified as a communist -- and stated: "This song is about a progressive utopia where there are no owners of anything. We all just share it. It's made for you -- it's your land, it's my land. We all have it together. Some people have property now, and some people don't. We can all think of this song as an American song. Yes, it is -- an American progressive song." [Fox News' Glenn Beck, 3/10/10]

Beck analyzes Beatles' "Revolution" to illustrate progressives' plan to slowly institute Marxism. On his radio show, Beck implored his listeners to "listen to the words" of the Beatles' "Revolution." After playing part of the song, Beck asked, "Do you know why those two lines -- evolution and revolution -- are in this song?" Beck then said, "If you know the history of progressives" and stated that progressives and Marxists "believe in all the same stuff." Beck continued: "Their [progressives'] idea was you don't need a bloody revolution. You just evolve things slowly, and you'll change the world." After playing more of the song, Gray said, "This is all -- it's peaceful." Beck responded, "But it's progressive." [The Glenn Beck Program, 1/21/10]

Beck again on "Revolution": "[I]t's all about understanding how progressives have been operating." On his January 25 Fox News show, Beck again warned about the Beatles:

BECK: Last week on radio, we were talking about the Beatles song, "Revolution." I really listened to the words of this and I got to tell you something, the Beatles spells it -- they spell it all out. And it's all about understanding how progressives have been operating.

[...]

BECK: The Beatles knew. They knew, opening and defending Mao, or attacking the Constitution would be suicidal. You can't change it. You can't have a revolution. But you can make the Constitution evolve. You can make it a -- what is it progressives said around the turn of the century -- a living document! Evolution. Evolution, not revolution -- slowly, step-by-step. [Glenn Beck, 1/25/10]

Fox & Friends' Steve Doocy baselessly claimed that Rep. Louise Slaughter (D-NY) is offering a way to pass health care reform legislation "without actually voting on it." However, the House has already voted on and passed a health care reform bill, and a legislative rule reportedly under consideration would still require the House to vote on changes to the Senate's health care reform bill.

Doocy: By passing a rule, the House can "pass the health care bill without actually voting on it"

From the March 11 edition of Fox News' Fox & Friends:

DOOCY: It's interesting, though. While the Democrats are meeting behind closed doors today, Louise Slaughter, who is the chair of the House Rules Committee -- she has apparently got this idea on how the House can vote on this bill without actually voting on it. Because apparently, what -- you know, where people actually come out and say, "I'm for it," or "I'm against it" -- apparently, with each bill they have to come up with a -- they have to agree on a set of rules. And according to the papers this morning, the "Slaughter solution" rule would declare that the House deems the Senate version to have been passed by the House, and then House members would then have to vote on whether or not to accept the rule. So, by passing that rule, then they can pass the health care bill without actually voting on it. That is crazy.

House has already passed health care reform legislation and would still need to vote on changes to Senate bill

House has already passed health care reform bill. Contrary to Doocy's claim that the House "can pass the health care bill without actually voting on it," the House already passed health care reform legislation on November 7, 2009.

Report: House would still have to vote on corrections to the Senate bill. Contrary to Doocy's claim that the House would pass the bill simply by voting "on whether or not to accept the rule," CongressDaily reported (subscription required) that the rule would require that the "House approves a corrections bill that would make changes to the Senate version" for passage. From NationalJournal.com's CongressDaily:

House Rules Chairwoman Louise Slaughter is prepping to help usher the healthcare overhaul through the House and potentially avoid a direct vote on the Senate overhaul bill, the chairwoman said Tuesday.

Slaughter is weighing preparing a rule that would consider the Senate bill passed once the House approves a corrections bill that would make changes to the Senate version.

Fox News has trumpeted stories that House Speaker Nancy Pelosi's staff -- but not Pelosi herself -- may have been made aware of some concerns regarding Rep. Eric Massa (D-NY) last year. However, following the revelation that then-House Speaker Dennis Hastert had likely been personally informed of email then-Rep. Mark Foley (R-FL) sent to a congressional page, Fox News personalities defended Hastert.

Fair and Balanced Fox: Defend Hastert -- who was likely aware of Foley's email -- but attack Pelosi, who says she was not aware of Massa allegations

The disparities between Fox's coverage of the reports surrounding Massa and its coverage of the Republican leadership's handling of the Foley situation are especially striking given the differences in the two stories. After the Foley scandal, the House ethics committee confirmed reports that Hastert was likely told about Foley's inappropriate emails yet took no action. The ethics committee further found that Republican leader John Boehner failed to show "any curiosity regarding" the Foley emails and failed to ask Hastert to do anything about them.

By contrast, there is no evidence that Pelosi personally knew of allegations about Massa before the matter became public, and majority leader Steny Hoyer's office says that Hoyer ensured that the allegations were referred to the ethics committee as soon as he was made aware of them.

Pelosi says she first learned of Massa allegations in March 2010. As The Wall Street Journal reported on March 11, "Pelosi said she personally learned about allegations of misconduct [by Massa] March 3. The speaker said her staff knew about the allegations of sexual harassment around the time they were reported to Mr. Hoyer's office in early February."

WSJ: Leadership aide says Pelosi wasn't informed of "October discussion" about Massa. While Pelosi's staff was reportedly informed of "concerns" about Massa in October 2009, the Journal reported that according to a senior Democratic leadership aide, "Pelosi wasn't informed of the October discussion, and the matter was not referred to the House ethics committee because it did not involve allegations of inappropriate behavior or sexual harassment."

Hoyer's office says Hoyer ensured misconduct allegations were immediately referred to ethics committee. Hoyer's office released the following statement on March 3:

The week of February 8th, a member of Rep. Massa's staff brought to the attention of Mr. Hoyer's staff allegations of misconduct that had been made against Mr. Massa. Mr. Hoyer's staff immediately informed him of what they had been told. Mr. Hoyer instructed his staff that if Mr. Massa or his staff did not bring the matter to the attention of the bipartisan Ethics Committee within 48 hours, Mr. Hoyer would do so. Within 48 hours, Mr. Hoyer received confirmation from both the Ethics Committee staff and Mr. Massa's staff that the Ethics Committee had been contacted and would review the allegations. Mr. Hoyer does not know whether the allegations are true or false, but wanted to ensure that the bipartisan committee charged with overseeing conduct of Members was immediately involved to determine the facts.

By contrast, ethics committee found that Hastert was likely told about Foley emails and apparently took no action. From page 85 of the ethics committee's 2006 report on the Foley scandal:

The Investigative Subcommittee finds that the weight of the evidence supports the conclusion that Speaker Hastert was told, at least in passing, about the e-mails by both Majority Leader [John] Boehner and Rep. [Tom] Reynolds [R-NY] in spring 2006.

[...]

Neither the Majority Leader nor Rep. Reynolds asked the Speaker to take any action in response to the information each provided to him, and there is no evidence that the Speaker took any action.

Ethics committee found that Rep. Boehner and then-Rep. Tom Reynolds (R-NY) failed to show "any curiosity regarding" Foley emails and failed to ask Hastert to take any action. From page 85 of the ethics committee report:

Rep. Alexander did not ask either the Majority Leader or Rep. Reynolds to do anything -- each decided to mention the matter to the Speaker on his own initiative. Like too many others, neither the Majority Leader nor Rep. Reynolds showed any curiosity regarding why a young former page would have been made uncomfortable by e-mails from Rep. Foley. Neither the Majority Leader nor Rep. Reynolds asked the Speaker to take any action in response to the information each provided to him, and there is no evidence that the Speaker took any action.

In 2006, Fox News figures defended Hastert's role in Foley scandal

September 30, 2006: McClatchy reported that Reynolds said he informed Hastert of emails "months ago." On September 30, 2006, McClatchy reported (accessed via Nexis) that Reynolds said he informed Hastert "months ago about the existence of e-mails to a page from Foley":

Rep. Thomas Reynolds, R-N.Y., chairman of the Republican Congressional Campaign Committee charged with maintaining his party's majority, said Saturday that he told House Speaker Dennis Hastert months ago about the existence of e-mails to a page from Foley -- e-mails the boy said "freaked him out."

Hastert said he doesn't remember the conversation but "has no reason to dispute Congressman Reynolds' recollection that he reported to him on the problem and its resolution," his chief of staff and outside counsel said in an internal review released after Reynolds' statement.

The revelations have prompted calls for independent investigations. Some Democrats have alleged a coverup by the House leadership.

Hannity defends Hastert: "The only thing that Hastert knew about was that there was an e-mail." From the October 4, 2006, edition of Fox News' Hannity & Colmes:

JANE FLEMING (director, Young Democrats of America): Yeah, it's clear that Hastert knew over a year ago, and maybe even longer, that this was going on, and he did absolutely nothing about it. And we have to ask: Why did he do nothing about it?

It seems to us that he was covering it up, hoping that it would go away. When it didn't go away, then they had Foley resign, and they still haven't done a full investigation about --

HANNITY: Hey, Jane, Jane --

FLEMING: Yeah?

HANNITY: Let me stop you right here.

FLEMING: Go ahead.

HANNITY: There is no evidence, none that you can cite to our audience --

FLEMING: Yes, there is.

HANNITY: -- wait a minute, wait a minute -- that Dennis Hastert knew anything about the sexual, salacious nature of the instant messages.

[...]

HANNITY: The only thing that Hastert knew about was that there was an email. Now, I spoke to Hastert. He didn't even know about the request for a picture. All he knew was the parents wanted the emails to stop --

ANN COULTER (right-wing pundit): Right.

HANNITY: -- and the parents' request was answered. He didn't know about this, and there's no proof, in spite of liberals screaming it, they can't cite any evidence that Hastert knew.

COULTER: No, of course not.

HANNITY: But here's what we do know. Here's what we do know. The George Soros-funded group, for example, got hundreds of thousands of dollars from the Open Society that gives money to this group, CREW, well, they knew about this -- and I'm reading from The Hill -- quote, "when CREW received copies of Foley's e-mails earlier this summer." So apparently, now there's even discussion that they may have been in contact with Democrats.

Hannity said there's "no evidence" GOP leaders knew Foley was "going after pages," demanded CREW "phone records." From the October 5, 2006, edition of Fox News' Hannity & Colmes:

HANNITY: Let me go back to Michael Barone here for just a second. Michael, this is an important point you were raising here. And I want a full investigation. Democrats are calling for it, but interestingly, I think, you know, I'd like to see -- for example, we know that this website, CREW, funded by George Soros, had these emails now and were bragging on their website as early as July 21.

Now, that raises the questions, because a lot of these CREW members previously worked on Capitol Hill for prominent Democrats. I'd like to see emails, I'd like to see phone records, I'd like to know if there was any contact regarding these things. In other words, what did they know and when did they know it? Because what you're pointing out here, they would have put the safety and security of children, you know --

BARONE: At risk.

HANNITY: -- prioritize partisan politics over the safety and security of children.

[...]

DOUG HATTAWAY (Democratic strategist): That's exactly what the Republican leadership did. They -- the point you're missing, Sean, I think, is wherever these explicit emails showed up -- I don't know what the leadership knew about those -- they knew that this guy was going after pages --

HANNITY: There's no evidence of that at all.

[crosstalk]

HATTAWAY: -- they did nothing about it.

ALAN COLMES (co-host): And thank you very much, Mr. Liddy, Mr. Hattaway, and Mr. Barone. Thank you.

Hannity: "no evidence" Hastert knew, suggested Republican leadership are "innocent people" being "smeared." From the October 3, 2006, edition of Fox News' Hannity & Colmes:

HANNITY: Well, it's taken on a very different dynamic though tonight, and that is that Democrats are saying -- I was watching The Fox Report with Shep tonight, and there's Nancy Pelosi out there campaigning today, saying with just 100 percent certainty that Dennis Hastert knew.

Now, I interviewed Dennis Hastert. I've interviewed John Boehner. They both deny -- and there's absolutely no evidence to corroborate this. Now, we're also getting information tonight that there are Democratically funded websites, by people like Soros, that had knowledge of this long before this was made public.

I'm wondering if we're now moving into a different arena here, where this is so politicized that this is going to backfire against the people trying to make hay out of what is a sexual scandal of one man. Your thoughts?

[...]

HANNITY: All right, perhaps, but we'll examine that in the next segment. But I think more importantly here there's some fundamental, I think, fairness issues here.

Everybody that I know is glad Foley is gone, but there seems to be an issue here to purposefully politicize this issue, and I find that equally repugnant to me. And, more importantly, I think this takes on a whole new dimension, and this is it, that, if in the pursuit of political power you are going to falsely accuse individuals of knowing things about horrible scandals like this, you better have evidence, because we live in America, and those American people you're describing are fair-minded.

DICK MORRIS (Fox News contributor): And that's going to backfire.

HANNITY: And when innocent people are smeared, Dick, I've got to believe that people would tend to side with the people that are being smeared. And I see that this is happening more and more in this scandal.

Brit Hume: "[I]'s always easy to say what [Hastert] should've done, but when you start thinking about the things he could've done, there's not much there." From the October 8, 2006, edition of Fox Broadcasting Co.'s Fox News Sunday:

HUME: Well, I think that toward the end of the week it did begin to look a little brighter. I don't think the weekend revelations, Chris, are particularly important.

The former page of whom you speak was an adult, 21 years old, at the time, and was long out of the House page program. And it appears that Foley's pattern was that he would flirt with these pages, and sometimes in quite a lurid and disgusting way, but nothing ever happened physically until after they were out of the program. And heaven knows how many more will turn up to say that, yes, they, too, carried on with him after they were out of the program, so I -- and besides that, Foley's gone, in disgrace, finished. So how much more of the scandal can be fed by revelations about what he did is questionable.

As for what Hastert knew or didn't know, we probably won't know what the facts are on that until this investigation is concluded. However, let's look back at this a moment.

Let's assume that Hastert did know or that he decided he wanted to do more than simply issue a stern warning when he discovered these overly friendly but not X-rated emails. I think the defense that he makes, or that some make of him, that if he tried to do something really strong, he would have been accused of gay-bashing, there would have been charges that the Republicans were trying to out one of their own members solely because he was gay. It would not have been a pretty sight.

So history doesn't disclose its alternatives, but I think we can pretty well see what that one would have been. And it gives you an idea of -- it's always easy to say what he should've done, but when you start thinking about the things he could've done, there's not much there.

Bill Kristol: "I think there's no evidence that Hastert did anything wrong, in my view." From the October 8, 2006, edition of Fox News Sunday:

KRISTOL: Well, one would think, if one were Foley's chief staff and thought one's boss was doing something really wrong and immoral, one might not just be quiet for the next three years, if Hastert's chief of staff didn't act appropriately. Maybe they thought they had talked to Hastert and to Foley and things -- and he had subsided. Maybe there's some self-serving recollection going on here.

I think there's no evidence that Hastert did anything wrong, in my view. And this is -- I do honestly believe now the media is trying to stampede the social -- you know, they're treating social conservatives like idiots, for one thing, like children. "Oh my God, one of 230 House members was gay and a real creep, and, you know, and therefore we're not going to vote on the issues we care about, therefore we're going to abandon every position we have. We're going to retreat in shudder from the -- retreat in horror from the polls in November and let the Democrats win a majority."

It's not going to happen. The polls have not moved all week. That is the big fact that's going on. The media is trying to stampede the elections, confirm the Democratic victory, and it's not working.

Kristol: "No one has really proven or even plausibly suggested what [Hastert] should have done that he didn't do." From the October 3, 2006, edition of Fox News' The Big Story:

JOHN GIBSON (host): With me now is Fox News political analyst Bill Kristol, who is the editor of The Weekly Standard. He actually spoke to Dennis Hastert just a short time ago.

Bill, what does Dennis Hastert say about this call for him to step town?

KRISTOL: Well, first, he's really repulsed, I think, by Foley's behavior. You know, Denny Hastert was a high school teacher and a high school coach, and this kind of attempt to exploit young boys, I mean, he -- it's just -- he seems really sickened by it.

He's angry at Foley for betraying his trust, his colleagues' trust, the voters of Florida's trust, these page -- pages' trust. He's also angry at the Democrats for making -- trying to make this a big political issue to divert attention from the real issues that should be debated in this congressional election, and I think he's disappointed in some of these few conservatives who I think foolishly have somehow lashed out at Denny Hastert.

The speaker seems to have done what he could have done given what knowledge he had at the time. No one has really proven or even plausibly suggested what he should have done that he didn't do. And I think he's -- he says he's going to, you know, he's not resigning, and he's going to try to get the debate back to the issues.

Mort Kondracke: "Hastert's position is completely defensible." From the October 6, 2006, edition of Fox News' Special Report:

KONDRACKE: Look, I completely agree with what Jim Baker said, and Jim Baker is a very wise politician, that you give the -- you give the enemy one of your people, and they'll just be chomping after more. Look, I agree that Hastert's position is completely defensible, and what the Republicans need to do is to change the subject.

Now, what are they going to change the subject to? They don't, you know, they're not going to want to talk about Iraq. I guess they want to go back to terrorism. I don't think that arguing over Gerry Studds or Barney Frank is gonna -- is gonna really change the subject; it's just going to rivet attention back on this because, look, what the Republicans rely on for their base is morality voters, values voters, married women with children, and evangelicals, and those people are dismayed by this whole thing.

Bill O'Reilly: "Hastert's you know, being witch-hunted down." From the October 4, 2006, edition of Fox News' The O'Reilly Factor:

O'REILLY: And in the "Impact" segment tonight, the Foley controversy continues to dominate the media. The question now is there anything more here? And is the far left involved in exposing Congressman Foley?

Joining us now from the ABC News studio in New York City, the man who broke much of the story, investigative reporter Brian Ross.

Now we are hearing that the roof is going to fall in on Dennis Hastert, the Speaker of the House of Representatives. Hastert's guy issued us a statement just seconds ago, saying, look, Hastert didn't know anything about this. He heard a couple of inappropriate emails were sent. Nothing was sexual. Hastert's, you know, being witch hunted down. What do you have? What do you know? And is Hastert in trouble in your opinion?

[...]

O'REILLY: Whatever. But the fact remains that you tried to get a hold of Speaker Hastert. And so did I today. We both did. He will not talk to you. He will not talk to me. I think that's foolish. I think he has to go out and defend himself.

Because at this point, the heavy odds are that he's going to have to resign for the good of the Republican Party. Am I wrong?

ROSS: Hard for me to judge on the politics of it, but I can give you the facts. And that is that he has given inconsistent statements and actually forgot apparently that he was told about Foley earlier this year by Congressman Tom Reynolds, who today reasserted, "I told the Speaker. Maybe he forgot, but I did tell him."

O'REILLY: But what did he tell him? What did he tell him? You see, here's the real crux of this matter.

ROSS: Right, right.

O'REILLY: Did he tell him this guy is just flirting with these guys, and it is ridiculous, and it's embarrassing, and he's got to stop? Or did he tell him the guy's having a sexual deal on the Internet? See, that -

ROSS: No, he didn't tell him that.

O'REILLY: -- that is what it is.

ROSS: And, look, I know what happened here in terms of the timeline. Those sexually explicit instant messages were not really in anybody's possession outside of a handful of pages until last week -

O'REILLY: All right.

ROSS: -- when we got them from some former pages.

O'REILLY: So it's very possible that Hastert didn't know anything other than the guy's an idiot. He's just doing things that are just immature and ridiculous.

ROSS: Well, a hair more than that, according to Fordham. That this was -- because it was no secret among that group that Foley was likely gay, and that his attention to the young male pages, in particular, troubled a number of staff members.

O'REILLY: All right, so they did raise a red flag -

ROSS: They did.

O'REILLY: -- and apparently Hastert did not act upon. I think that's fair. Is that a fair statement?

ROSS: Well, he -- Scott Palmer, according to Fordham, at least, went and met with Foley. And then others also went there.

O'REILLY: OK, so I think it's a fair statement.

Now the Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington is a far-left group. George Soros gives a lot of money to it through his Open Society Institute. They apparently are the ones that drove this thing behind the scenes. Is that what you're hearing?

ROSS: I'm not familiar with them. They didn't drive us, but I've since seen they have posted some of those original emails on their website. I don't think they had the ones that really are the ones as you say correctly are in contention.

O'REILLY: OK. Because we're trying to figure out who is driving this, who went to The St. Petersburg Times, The Miami Herald, Fox News in Washington and got a hold of some emails.

The emails that we got a hold of were innocuous. There weren't any smoking gun. But we now believe, and The Wall Street Journal believes as well, that a George Soros-funded group drove this story. That could be an interesting wrinkle here.

But now, Fox runs with claims that Pelosi aides may have known about Massa's behavior

FoxNews.com: "Massave Problem." On March 11, FoxNews.com posted a Wall Street Journal article entitled "Pelosi's Office Knew of Massa Concerns." FoxNews.com posted the following image which linked to the article:

Malkin: "The stance of the Democrat majority has been to see no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil." On the March 11 edition of Fox News' Fox & Friends, co-host Gretchen Carlson claimed "now it's coming out that potentially her aides may have known about Congressman Eric Massa and some of the concerns that people had about his activity, sexual misconduct allegations, that maybe they knew as long ago as last year." Fox News contributor Michelle Malkin responded: "[T]his is about Nancy Pelosi, and it is about that very pledge she made so publicly and ostentatiously to clean the swamp, to drain the swamp, and what she has done is overflown it -- overflowed it, and I think the stance of the Democrat majority has been to see no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil. And to hear her talk in such condescending and flippant tones about how her job is not to be a receiver of rumors -- that was the actual quote that she has given now -- what does that tell you about her vigilance regarding integrity among her majority members?"

America's Newsroom: There are "reports now that House Speaker Nancy Pelosi was actually informed months ago" about Massa. On the March 11 edition of Fox News' America's Newsroom, co-host Bill Hemmer claimed there were "new questions about what House Speaker Nancy Pelosi knew about those incidents and, chiefly, when." Co-host Martha MacCallum claimed that there were "reports now that House Speaker Nancy Pelosi was actually informed months ago about some very questionable issues surrounding Eric Massa." Hemmer later asked Fox News reporter Steve Centanni, "What do we know about what Nancy Pelosi's staff first heard, and when, about these concerns about Massa?"

Seizing on allegations made by Rep. Bob Bishop (R-UT), Fox & Friends accused the Obama administration of moving ahead with a "secret" and "sinister" plan to "grab 12, 13 million acres, designating them as federal monuments." In fact, there is no such plan; the allegations are reportedly based on a "very preliminary" Department of Interior memo "brainstorming" possible "candidates" for monument status, and the Interior Department has said "[n]o decisions have been made about which areas, if any, might merit more serious review and consideration."

Fox & Friends baselessly accuses admin of "secret" "land grab" plan

Doocy: Document "says that the government may be on the verge of grabbing 12, 13 million acres." On March 11, Fox & Friends hosts Gretchen Carlson and Steve Doocy hosted the Heritage Foundation's Becky Dunlop to discuss how "somebody got their hands on this Department of Interior document that says that the government may be on the verge of grabbing 12, 13 million acres designating them as federal monuments." According to The Washington Post [archive],  Dunlop resigned her position as an assistant secretary in the Interior Department in 1989 after Republicans and Democrats in Congress "expressed fears that Dunlap was attempting to take two of the government's most sought-after positions and fill them with political appointees."

Carlson: Memo is a "secret document" and it's a "sinister" plan to "tie up land." Carlson stated that "some would argue" that the national monument designation is "a cover. It's a cover for what they actually want to do which is what you're alluding to, which is to tie up this land so that we can't mine this land in the future. Do you believe it's that sinister and this is why it's sort of a secret document?":

DUNLOP: The national monument designation actually takes land and makes it similar to national park land, which means there can really be no development and limited, not no activity, but limited activities. So it would really lock up coal and other minerals which we really need for energy, national security issues and jobs.

DOOCY: What's the monument part? National monument - usually people think that you're going to put a national monument on it.

DUNLOP: It's just a designation.

DOOCY: OK.

DUNLOP: It's a designation.

CARLSON: Well some would argue it's a cover. It's a cover for what they actually want to do which is what you're alluding to, which is to tie up this land so that we can't mine this land in the future. Do you believe it's that sinister and this is why it's sort of a secret document?

DUNLOP: Well the sinister part is lack of transparency. Our government - the way our government was founded, it was for the people to be involved in making decisions. The designation of national monuments is something that the president can do without going to Congress, which means there's really no public debate --

DOOCY: Yeah.

DUNLOP:--and the people are not considered in this decision. [Fox & Friends, 03/11/10]

During the segment, an on-screen graphic appeared calling the memo the "administration's secret agenda":

Carlson: Obama is "planning a massive land grab." On March 10, Carlson stated, "Information from a leaked memo show[s] how President Obama's administration is planning a massive land grab to designate more than 13 million acres of resource rich land across 11 states as federally controlled national monuments." Carlson and co-host Brian Kilmeade then hosted Bishop who said he wants to reform the process to give states "some say in what happens." Carlson asked "Are you saying environmentalists are in bed with the administration, and that they say they want to put up national monuments, but in fact, they want to keep land away from being able to be refined for resources?" Bishop said it's a "concern."

"Secret" memo lists 14 areas that "may be good candidates" for Monument status

Memo lists 14 "candidates" for National Monument designation. The Department of Interior memo lists 14 areas in Western states that "may be good candidates for National Monument designation under the Antiquities Act" and three areas "worthy of protection that are ineligible for Monument Designation and unlikely to receive legislative protection in the near term."  

FoxNews.com contradicts Doocy's claim that government is considering "grabbing 12, 13 million acres." A February 18 FoxNews.com article reported that the 14 areas listed "total more than 13 million acres." Contrary to Doocy's claim that "the government may be on the verge of grabbing 12, 13 million acres," FoxNews.com reported, "Sources say President Obama is likely to choose two or three sites from the list, depending on their size, conservation value and the development threat to each one's environment."

 Memo indicates that assessment of public support would be completed before final decisions. Contrary to Dunlop's assertion that "there's really no public debate and the people are not considered in this decision," the memo itself states that "further evaluations should be completed prior to any final decision, including an assessment of public and Congressional support."

Interior Department: Memo was for "brainstorming," and no decisions have been made

New York Times: DOI spokesperson said "the list was not secret at all." The New York Times reported February 20 that a "spokeswoman for the Department of the Interior, Kendra Barkoff, said the list was not secret at all, but simply a 'very, very, very preliminary,' internal working document resulting from a brainstorming session that Interior Secretary Ken Salazar, a Democrat and former senator from Colorado, had requested about the lands in the West." It quoted her statement that "[n]o decisions have been made about which areas, if any, might merit more serious review and consideration." From the Times article:

A new monument fight erupted this week when Representative Rob Bishop, Republican of Utah, said he had uncovered a "secret" Interior Department memorandum suggesting that the federal government was considering national monument designation for 14 huge blocks of land in nine states from Montana to New Mexico.

A spokeswoman for the Department of the Interior, Kendra Barkoff, said the list was not secret at all, but simply a "very, very, very preliminary," internal working document resulting from a brainstorming session that Interior Secretary Ken Salazar, a Democrat and former senator from Colorado, had requested about the lands in the West.

"No decisions have been made about which areas, if any, might merit more serious review and consideration," Ms. Barkoff said in a statement.

[...]

Ms. Barkoff at the Interior Department said in an interview that Mr. Salazar, as Colorado's attorney general, United States senator and secretary of the interior, had a history of seeking consensus, and that any discussion of monument designation would be open to public and Congressional involvement.

Barkoff said Salazar asked for "brainstorming" about "which areas might be worth considering for further review." The Hill also reported that Barkoff said the memo was "the fruit of 'brainstorming' within Interior's Bureau of Land Management," and quoted her as saying, "Secretary Salazar believes it is important that the Department of the Interior serve as wise stewards of the places that matter most to Americans.  For that reason, he has asked DOI's bureaus to think about what areas might be worth considering for further review for possible special management or Congressional designation."

Referencing HBO's "The Sopranos," Cato Institute senior fellow Michael Tanner wrote in the New York Post that Democrats "are willing to use every trick in the book to get this [health care] bill passed." However, many of Tanner's allegations of suspect tactics by Democrats are not supported by the facts.

Tanner baselessly claimed Dems "considered holding up Brown's seating"

From Tanner's March 10 defined by the U.S. House Committee on Rules as "part of the congressional budget process ... utilized when Congress issues directives to legislate policy changes in mandatory spending (entitlements) or revenue programs (tax laws) to achieve the goals in spending and revenue contemplated by the budget resolution."

Republicans repeatedly used reconciliation to pass former President Bush's agenda. Republicans used the budget reconciliation process to pass Bush's 2001 and 2003 tax cuts as well as the 2005 "Tax Increase Prevention and Reconciliation Act." The Senate also used the procedure to pass a bill containing a provision that would permit oil drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. (The final version of that bill that Bush signed did not contain the provision on drilling.)

Reconciliation has repeatedly been used to reform health care. On February 24, NPR noted that many "major changes to health care laws" have passed via reconciliation. These measures include COBRA, which allows laid-off workers to keep their insurance coverage, and the State Children's Health Insurance Program.

Tanner falsely suggested Rep. Matheson has only recently signaled willingness to support health care reform

Tanner: "No sooner had Rep Jim Matheson (D-Utah) suggested that he might be willing to switch his vote and support the latest version of ObamaCare than his brother was nominated for a federal judgeship." From Tanner's March 10 July 21, 2009, Matheson outlined "some of the substantial changes required before he could vote for" the House health care reform bill and "said the suggested changes represent what will be a common-sense, bipartisan proposal that shares many of the features under review by the U.S. Senate in their committee negotiations." In a November 6, 2009, press release, Matheson "said he will vote against HR 3962" because it does not ensure "that the health care system is secure, stable and affordable." The press release further noted that "Matheson said he is encouraged that a bipartisan, budget-deficit-neutral, cost-lowering bill is on the table in the Senate." After Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid introduced health care reform legislation to the Senate on November 18, Matheson reportedly reported on December 22, 2009, that Matheson "backs the tax on so-called 'Cadillac plans,' especially after analysts with the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office said it is one of the most powerful ways to slow health care inflation." Obama's proposal includes a version of the tax; the House plan does not. Moreover, The New York Times reported on October 28, 2009, that Matheson "prefers nonprofit member-run cooperatives, rather than a government plan." The Associated Press noted on February 22 that "Obama did not include the government-run insurance plan sought by some Democrats. He kept the Senate approach, which gives Americans purchasing coverage through new insurance exchanges the option of signing up for national plans overseen by the federal office that manages the government health plan available to members of Congress. Those plans would be private, but one would have to be nonprofit." The Salt Lake Tribune also reported on November 5, 2009, that Matheson proposed "drop[ping] the nationwide health insurance exchange called for in the [House] bill in favor of state-based exchanges." As the AP noted on February 22, "liberals hoped Obama would go with a national exchange like the House bill did, but he stuck with the Senate's state-based approach."

Rep. Matheson's office and White House have called the "selling judgeships" smear "ridiculous" and "absurd." Politico's Chris Frates reported that Matheson's spokeswoman "called the question 'patently ridiculous,' saying there was no deal made between her boss and the president that guaranteed Scott Matheson's nomination in exchange for Rep. Matheson's vote." Frates later noted that a "White House official calls the charge 'absurd.' 'Scott Matheson is a leading law scholar and has served as a law school dean and U.S. Attorney. He's respected across Utah and eminently qualified to serve on the federal bench,' the official said." statement regarding Scott Matheson's appointment on March 4, saying, "Sen. Bennett has heard of all kinds of pressure being applied and offers being made to Democrats for votes on health care, but Scott Matheson's nomination is not one of those because it has been in the works for a long time." Utah's Deseret News reported that Rep. Jason Chaffetz (R-UT) congratulated Obama on his selection and praised Scott Matheson as "an excellent nominee." A March 5 The Salt Lake Tribune article noted that "pretty much everyone who knows the Mathesons" have "called the claim simply absurd" and reported that Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-UT) "said he knew Scott Matheson was going to be the nominee more than a month ago and disputes any idea that Obama was trying to get a vote for the nomination."

Tanner misleadingly cited "special deals" Dems used to pass health reform

Tanner: Dems "bought votes with pork and special deals." From Tanner's March 10 op-ed:

Whether or not you believe former Rep. Eric Massa's bizarre accusations of locker-room confrontations and conspiracies to drive him from office, there is no doubt that the Obama administration and its congressional allies are willing to use every trick in the book to get this bill passed.

They've already bought votes with pork and special deals -- the "Louisiana purchase" ($300 million to bolster that state's Medicaid program, which swayed Sen. Mary Landrieu); the "Cornhusker kickback" ($100 million to Medicaid there, sweetening the pot for Sen. Ben Nelson), and Florida's "Gator Aid" (a Medicare deal potentially worth $5 billion, a hefty price for Sen. Bill Nelson's vote). Plus the millions for Connecticut hospitals, Montana asbestos abatement and so on.

"Louisiana Purchase" was necessary Medicaid fix. Contrary to the claim that funding for Louisiana in the Senate health care bill is a "trick ... to get this bill passed," the funds are urgently needed to fix the state's Medicaid problems, which are a result of Hurricane Katrina; moreover, many of the state's Republican lawmakers say the fix is necessary, despite criticizing Landrieu for securing it in the bill.

PolitiFact: The "Gator Aid" provision was included in Senate Finance Committee bill and would have benefited seniors in multiple states, not just Florida. Contrary to Tanner's suggestion that a provision shielding Medicare Advantage enrollees living in certain areas was the "price for Sen. Bill Nelson's vote" on the final Senate health care bill, PolitiFact noted that "Nelson's provision wasn't a last-minute addition. The Medicare Advantage exemption was included in the health care reform bill that passed the Senate Finance Committee in October." PolitiFact also stated that the provision would not only benefit seniors in Florida, but also "in Oregon, New York, New Jersey and California."

Obama proposal removes "Cornhusker kickback," "Gator Aid." Obama's February 22 proposed changes to the Senate health care bill would "[e]liminat[e] the Nebraska FMAP provision and provid[e] significant additional Federal financing to all States for the expansion of Medicaid."  On March 2, Obama stated, "[M]y proposal does not include the Medicare Advantage provision ... which provided transitional extra benefits for Florida and other states."

In a March 11 Wall Street Journal editorial, Fox News Contributor Karl Rove falsely claimed that the Senate health care bill has "abortion-funding language," adds to the deficit and contains no immediate benefits. In fact, the Senate bill prohibits federal funding of abortion, contains numerous immediate benefits, and, according to the Congressional Budget Office, reduces the deficit.

Rove: Senate bill funds abortion, adds to the deficit, and doesn't provide immediate benefits

Rove:  Senate bill contains "abortion funding language." In a March 11 Wall Street Journal editorial, Rove falsely suggested the Senate bill allowed for federal funding of abortion. Rove wrote, "Pro-life House Democrats are deeply disturbed by the Senate abortion-funding language."

Rove: "Senate bill adds hundreds of billions of dollars to the deficit." Rove also falsely claimed the Senate bill would add to the deficit, writing, "Blue Dogs are upset by the fact that the Senate bill adds hundreds of billions of dollars to the deficit."

Rove falsely suggested Senate bill contained no immediate "benefits." Rove also claimed that "[t]he Senate bill's tax increases and Medicare benefit cuts kick in right away while its benefits (subsidies for health-care coverage) don't start until 2013 and aren't fully operational for seven years," falsely suggesting that the only "benefits" in the bill are "subsidies for health-care coverage."

Senate bill prohibits health insurers from using federal subsidies to pay for abortion services restricted by Hyde

The Senate health care reform bill as passed states that if a "qualified health plan" offered under the health insurance exchange provides coverage of abortion services for which public funding is banned, "the issuer of the plan shall not use any amount attributable" to the subsidies created under the bill "for purposes of paying for such services."

Senate bill establishes a separate premium to segregate funds used to pay for abortions from federal funds. The Senate bill as passed further requires issuers to "collect from each enrollee" in plans that cover abortions a "separate payment" for "an amount equal to the actuarial value of the coverage of" abortion services. This value must be at least $1 per enrollee, per month. All such funds are deposited into a separate account used by the issuer to pay for abortion services; federal funds and the remaining premium payments are used to pay for all other services.

Current law allows for Medicaid to provide coverage for abortions restricted by Hyde by using similar fund segregation. According to a November 1, 2009, study by the Guttmacher Institute, 17 states provide coverage under Medicaid for "all or most medically necessary abortions," not just abortions in cases of life endangerment, rape, and incest. Those states "us[e] their own funds" -- not federal funds -- "to pay" for the procedures. Therefore, in 17 states, Medicaid, a federally subsidized health care program, covers abortions in circumstances in which federal money is prohibited from being spent on abortion.

CBO: Senate health care bill will lower the deficit

CBO: Senate bill yields "a net reduction in federal deficits of $132 billion" over 10 years. On December 19, 2009, CBO reported of the Senate bill incorporating the manager's amendment:

CBO and JCT estimate that the direct spending and revenue effects of enacting the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act incorporating the manager's amendment would yield a net reduction in federal deficits of $132 billion over the 2010-2019 period.

CBO: Over second 10 years, Senate bill would save "between one-quarter percent and one-half percent of GDP." In a December 20, 2009, letter amending the December 19 report, CBO director Douglas Elmendorf wrote:

All told, CBO expects that the legislation, if enacted, would reduce federal budget deficits over the decade after 2019 relative to those projected under current law -- with a total effect during that decade that is in a broad range between one-quarter percent and one-half percent of GDP.

Numerous benefits from Senate health care bill would "be available in the first year after enactment" of the bill

Senate Democrats note "Immediate Benefits" of health care bill. Despite Rove's suggestion, according to a document put forth by Senate Democrats summarizing the "Immediate Benefits" of The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, the bill includes numerous benefits that would "be available in the first year after enactment" of the bill. The benefits include "access to affordable coverage for the uninsured with pre-existing conditions," "access to quality care for vulnerable populations," "no pre-existing coverage exclusions for children," "re-insurance for retiree health benefit plans," "closing the coverage gap in the Medicare (Part D) Drug Benefit," "small business tax credits," "ensuring value for premium payments," protection of "patients' choice of doctors," "prohibiting insurers from requiring prior authorization before" a "woman sees an ob-gyn," "ensuring access to emergency care," "extension of dependent coverage for young adults," "coverage of prevention and wellness benefits"; "free, annual wellness visit" for Medicare beneficiaries," a prohibition on "insurers from imposing lifetime limits on benefits," "restricted annual limits on coverage," and prohibiting "insurers from rescinding insurance when claims are filed," among other immediate benefits.

On March 10, Sean Hannity falsely claimed that "we're going to pay taxes on this bill what for three, four years, before the bill is even implemented." In fact, numerous benefits contained in the Senate bill would become available in the first year after the bill is enacted.

Hannity: "We're going to pay taxes" for years before the bill is implemented

From the March 10 edition of Fox News' Hannity:

HANNITY: The math, it's never added up. And we keep forgetting one important fact here, and that is, we're going to pay taxes on this bill what for three, four years, before the bill is even implemented. I mean, that's like, alright, I'm going to pay -- I'm going to pay off my car for four years, but I don't get the car for four years. And that has not really been talked a lot -- a lot about.

Fact: Numerous benefits in Senate health care bill would "be available in the first year after enactment" of the bill

Senate Democrats note "Immediate Benefits" of health care bill. According to a document put forth by Senate Democrats summarizing the "Immediate Benefits" of The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, the bill includes numerous benefits that would "be available in the first year after enactment" of the bill. Indeed, Washington Post blogger Ezra Klein published the following list of benefits that the Senate bill would provide "before 2014":

1) Eliminating lifetime limits, and cap annual limits, on health-care benefits. In other words, if you get an aggressive cancer and your treatment costs an extraordinary amount, your insurer can't suddenly remind you that subparagraph 15 limited your yearly expenses to $30,000, and they're not responsible for anything above that.

2) No more rescissions.

3) Some interim help for people who have preexisting conditions, though the bill does not instantly ban discrimination on preexisting conditions.

4) Requiring insurers to cover preventive care and immunizations.

5) Allowing young adults to stay on their parent's insurance plan until age 26.

6) Developing uniform coverage documents so people can compare different insurance policies in an apples-to-apples fashion.

7) Forcing insurers to spend 80 percent of all premium dollars on medical care (75 percent in the individual market), thus capping the money that can go toward administration, profits, etc.

8) Creating an appeals process and consumer advocate for insurance customers.

9) Developing a temporary re-insurance program to help early retirees (folks over 55) afford coverage.

10) Creating an internet portal to help people shop for and compare coverage.

11) Miscellaneous administrative simplification stuff.

12) Banning discrimination based on salary (i.e., where a company that's not self-insured makes only some full-time workers eligible for coverage.

Obama's plan also provides immediate benefits. According to the House Committee on Education and Labor, Obama's health care plan also provides numerous benefits that will enact immediately after the bill's passage or within the first year, including protections for Americans with pre-existing conditions, tax breaks for small businesses, and aid to seniors participating in Medicare Part D. From the House Committee on Education and Labor:

Access to Affordable Coverage for the Uninsured with Pre-existing Conditions

Access to Quality Care for Vulnerable Populations

No Pre-existing Coverage Exclusions for Children

Re-insurance for Retiree Health Benefit Plans

Closing the Coverage Gap in the Medicare (Part D) Drug Benefit

Small Business Tax Credits

[...]

Patient Protections

Extension of Dependent Coverage for Young Adults

Free Prevention Benefits

No Lifetime Limits on Coverage

Restricted Annual Limits on Coverage

Protection from Rescissions of Existing Coverage

Prohibits Discrimination Based on Salary

It was every businessperson's nightmare. Arriving at Harv's Metro Car Wash in midtown Wednesday afternoon were two dark-suited IRS agents demanding payment of delinquent taxes. "They were deadly serious, very aggressive, very condescending," says Harv's owner, Aaron Zeff.

Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) -- energized and animated on ABC's "This Week" on Sunday -- announced that the American public was tiring of the "crap" and "spin" offered by the Obama administration in an effort to get health care passed.

The South Carolina Republican appeared shortly after White House senior adviser David Axelrod suggested Sen. Scott Brown (R-Mass.) was being disingenuous for criticizing a health care bill that resembled the one he supported in Massachusetts.

"The interview I just heard is spin," Graham protested. "I thought the campaigning was over. Are you trying to tell me and the American people that Scott Brown, got elected campaigning against a Washington bill that really is just like the Massachusetts bill? The American people are getting tired of this crap. No way in the world is what they did in Massachusetts like what we are about to do in Washington. They didn't cut Medicare when they passed the bill in Massachusetts. They didn't raise $500 billion on the American people when they passed the bill in Massachusetts. To suggest that Scott Brown is basically campaigning against the bill in Washington that is like the one in Massachusetts is complete spin."

Graham went on towhack the White House on a host of other health-care-related fronts. He accused the president of "arrogance" in pushing legislation in a non-bipartisan fashion. And he called the idea of using reconciliation to get a bill passed a "sleazy process" that would "open up Pandora's box."

"If they do this it is going to poison the well for anything else they would like to achieve this year or years after," Graham warned.

On some issues, the South Carolinian is one of the few Republican allies the White House has in the Senate.

If you are reading this on Sunday and haven't set your clock ahead, you're probably late for something. At 1:59 a.m. March 14th, the clocks moved ahead to 3:00 a.m. Daylight savings has arrived, and the phrase, "Spring Ahead" means we lose an hour of time -- poof -- just like that. Those first mornings are brutal, aren't they? Our house is crabby for a week. Makes me wonder what the heck is behind daylight savings anyway. Where did it come from and is it worth the hassle?

Daylight Savings, or Summer Time, as it is called elsewhere, was conceived to make better use of daylight hours, and move an hour of light from the morning to the evening. Some like it, and many don't. According to webexhibits, work productivity decreases as everyone adjusts to the time change. Auto accidents increase and sleep disturbances certainly affect adults as well as children. Heart attacks seem to spike the first week of daylight savings.

Farmers hate it. "The chickens don't adapt to the changing clock until several weeks later," said Canadian poultry producer Marty Notenbomer. Mother Nature and her animals could care less about our human trickery.

Turns out, our very own Benjamin Franklin first conceived the idea of shifting daylight in 1784, but it wasn't enacted into law in the United States until 1918, when the standard time zones were also established. It was then repealed in 1919, with a Congressional override of President Wilson's veto, and control went to individual states. The idea has been filled with controversy, split implementation, and mixed results ever since.

In the 1940's-1960's there was so much confusion over which towns were observing daylight savings and when, that the railroad and radio stations could barely function. In 1965 the adjoining towns of Minneapolis and St. Paul couldn't agree on whether to observe Daylight Savings. The result was a one hour time difference within the same local district. Imagine the hassle with that one!

Finally a national standardizing law was finally passed in 1966 with the Uniform Time Act. It was revised in the 70's and again in the 80's. In 2005, the passage of the Energy Policy Act was passed, which extended Daylight Saving Time by four weeks, with the hope that it would save 10,000 barrels of oil each day through reduced use of power by businesses during daylight hours. Unfortunately, it is possible that little or no energy is saved by Daylight Saving Time. We love our air conditioners, and with longer evenings, a cold mint julep just isn't going to cut it.

In 2005, several counties in Indiana observed daylight savings - with the incentive it they would save an estimated $7 million in electricity costs. However, after studies were conducted, it turned out they actually spent $8.6 million more -- most likely due to the increased use of air conditioners later in the day after work. I remember the hot summer months when electrical grids in the East Coast were straining to keep up with the demand, and wonder if daylight savings may have outworn its use.

I had no idea this one little hour lost was filled with so much hassle and so much history. Clearly we are creatures of habit, and the circadian rhythms are flowing in our bodies for good reason. Biological clocks are not meant to be switched at a whim. Even algae has a biological clock, and when researchers at Vanderbilt University disrupted the clock the algae grew much more slowly than normal algae.

So, how do we all adjust to this nuisance and manage to Spring our biological clock ahead? Naps don't seem to help, and it is advised not to look at the clock during the day, but allow your body to naturally adjust to the light change. The best bet is to get out for a run or brisk walk to help kick in some extra serotonin. After a day or two, the routine resumes for most.

What do you think Huff Po readers? Do you love daylight savings or hate it? How do you adjust? Is the change becoming an energy and financial drain on our economy? Love to hear your comments below.

American society appears to be undergoing a crisis in trust. Most of the major organizations that we depend upon, including governments of all types, corporations, our health care system, our financial institutions, and our schools all seem to be failing us. Indeed, I do not believe it is an exaggeration to claim that our society is actually undergoing a disintegration process whereby the fundamental premises and values supporting our institutions are all being called into question. While such disintegration is of course very painful to experience, it is also a tremendous opportunity for genuine transformation. My essay will attempt to outline some of the most important values and strategies necessary for the creation of, and the transformation to, high trust organizations.

Higher Purpose

Virtually all of our societal organizations seem to have either forgotten or have never really known why they exist and what their higher purposes are. Instead, they have often elevated narrow individual and institutional self-interest into the only purposes that they recognize as valid. Our governments all too frequently serve the politicians and the public service unions rather than their citizens. Our schools too often serve their educational bureaucracy and teachers' unions instead of their students and their parents. Our health care system too often seeks to maximize the profits of pharmaceutical companies, hospitals, doctors, and insurance companies rather than the health and wellness of patients. Many of our corporations primarily exist to maximize the compensation of their executives, and secondarily shareholder value, rather than value creation for customers, employees, and other major stakeholders.

The single most important requirement for the creation of higher levels of trust for any organization is to discover or rediscover the higher purpose of the organization. Why does the organization exist? What is it trying to accomplish? What core values will inspire the organization and create greater trust from all of its stakeholders?

While there are potentially as many different purposes as there are organizations, I believe that great organizations have great purposes. The highest ideals that humans aspire to should be the same ideals that our organizations also have as their highest purposes. These include such timeless ideals as:

The Good: Service to others--improving health, education, communication, and the quality of life. Southwest Airlines, Nordstroms, The Container Store, Amazon.com, and Joie de Vivre Hospitality are examples of this great purpose.

The True: Discovery & furthering human knowledge. Google, Intel, Genentech, and Wikipedia all express this higher aspiration.

The Beautiful: Excellence & the creation of beauty. Apple and Berkshire Hathaway share this ideal in their own unique ways.

The Heroic: Courage to do what is right to change & improve the world. Grameen Bank and the Gates Foundation express this higher purpose in their actions.

Organizations that place these higher purposes at the very core of their business model tend to inspire trust from all of their major stakeholders: customers, employees, investors, suppliers, and the larger communities that they exist in. Higher purpose and shared core values tend to unify the organization behind their fulfillment and usually act to pull the overall organization upwards to a higher degree ethical commitment. Higher levels of trust are a natural result of this unity of purpose, shared core values, and greater ethical commitment.

Conscious Leadership -- Walking the Walk

Next to the power of higher purpose, nothing is more important for creating high levels of organizational trust than the quality and commitment of the leadership at all levels of the organization. It doesn't matter if an organization has a higher purpose if the leadership doesn't understand it and seek to serve it. The various stakeholders of an organization, especially employees and customers, look to the leadership to "walk-the-talk"--to serve the purpose and mission of the organization and to lead by example. It is especially important that the CEO and other senior leadership embody the higher purpose of the organization.

As the co-founder and CEO of Whole Foods Market, I'm the most visible person in the company. One of the most important parts of my job is touring our stores and talking to our team members, customers, and suppliers. I know that in virtually everything that I say and do, our team members are always studying me, trying to determine whether they can trust me and the mission of the company. I'm always on stage. So walking the talk is very important. I try to communicate the mission and values of Whole Foods at every opportunity and I try to live those core values myself with complete fidelity. Fidelity to the mission and values builds trust, while any deviance undermines it. High trust organizations and hypocritical leadership are mutually exclusive.

Teams Everywhere

Human beings evolved in relatively small tribal bands. Many scientific studies have indicated that our ability to maintain close trusting relationships with family, friends, and co-workers is constrained to probably not more than about 150 people. We can, of course, know many more people than this, but it is hard to know them well enough to develop close bonds of trust based on actual experiences. At Whole Foods we recognize the importance of smaller tribal groupings to maximize familiarity and trust. We organize our stores and company into a variety of interlocking teams. Most teams have between 6 and 100 team members and the larger teams are subdivided further into a variety of sub-teams. The leaders of each team are also members of the Store Leadership Team and the Store Team Leaders are members of the Regional Leadership Team. This interlocking team structure continues all the way upwards to the Executive Team at the highest level of the company.

It has been our experience at Whole Foods that trust is optimized in this type of smaller team organizational structure. This is because each person is a vital and important member of their teams. The success of the team is dependent upon the invaluable contributions of everyone on the team. Trust is optimized when it flows between all levels within the organization. Many leaders make the mistake of believing that the key to increasing organizational trust is to somehow get the work force to trust the leadership more. While this is obviously very important, it is equally important that the leadership trust the workforce. To receive trust, it is usually necessary that we give trust. Organizing into small interlocking teams helps ensure that trust will flow in all directions within the organization -- upwards, downwards, within the team, and across teams.

Empowerment = Trust

While small teams are essential to optimizing the flow of organizational trust, equally important is the philosophy of empowerment. The effectiveness of teams is tremendously enhanced when they are fully empowered to do their work and to fulfill the organization's mission and values. Empowerment must be much, much more than a mere slogan, however. It should be within the very DNA of the organization. Empowerment unleashes creativity and innovation and rapidly accelerates the evolution of the organization. Empowered organizations have tremendous competitive advantage because they have tapped into levels of energy and commitment which their competitors usually have difficulty matching.

Nothing holds back empowerment more than the leadership philosophy of command and control. Command and control (C&C) is actually the opposite of empowerment and it greatly lessens trust. C&C usually involves detailed rules and bureaucratic structures to enforce the rules. Such detailed rules almost always inhibit innovation and creativity. People get ahead in the organization not through being innovative, but by following the rules and playing it safe. C&C may produce compliance from the workforce, but it seldom unleashes much energy or passion for the purpose of the organization. Empowerment = Trust. C&C = Lack of Trust.

The Importance Of Transparency and Authentic Communication

A very important measurement and condition of trust is transparency. If we want to optimize trust then we must seek to optimize transparency. When we decide to keep something hidden the motivation is almost always a lack of trust. We are afraid that the information that we wish to hide would cause more harm than good if it were widely known. While of course, some discretion is usually necessary to protect important organizational information from migrating to one's competitors or to outsiders who wish to harm the organization, such discretion can easily be overdone. Transparency is a very important supporting value for empowerment. Indeed, it is difficult for an organization to be empowered if it lacks transparency.

Whole Foods Market strives to optimize transparency to all of our stakeholders. Authentic communication with honesty and integrity are essential attributes of both transparency and trust. This is the exact opposite of what many organizations do, which is to try to "spin" their messaging to tell people what they believe people want to hear so that people will think well of them. This lack of honest, authentic communication and transparency usually boomerangs, however, and undermines trust and creates cynicism. One of the main reasons why Americans don't trust many political leaders, including the various Presidents that have led us, is that we discover that they routinely lie to us. They don't tell us the truth and we come to understand that they don't trust us and feel that they need to manipulate us. We tell the truth to people that we trust.

The high-trust organization takes the risk of revealing too much information. We must be willing to take the risk that some valuable information may fall into the wrong hands because our commitment to empowerment and trust necessitates taking that risk. Creating transparency and authentic communication is an ongoing challenge that every organization faces. We must continually strive to remove the barriers that prevent it, knowing that we can't maintain high levels of organizational trust without it.

Fairness in All Things

Nothing unravels trust more quickly in an organization than either the reality or the perception of unfairness. Another important virtue of creating a culture of transparency is that it helps ensure that unfairness is clearly seen and can therefore be corrected quickly. It is essential that the ethic of fairness apply to all key organizational processes such as hiring, promotion, compensation, discipline, and termination. Favoritism and nepotism undermine organizational trust. They cannot be tolerated. People are often prone to envy and any perceived unfairness exacerbates this tendency greatly, giving it the energy of justification.

Creating a Culture of Love and Care

Ultimately we cannot create high trust organizations without creating cultures based on love and care. The people we usually trust the most are the people that we also believe genuinely love and care for us. All too often, love and care are not qualities that we associate with organizations. We tend to look for love and friendship with our families and friends, but not from our work. Why is this? Many people believe that love and care in the organizational setting interfere with efficiency and get in the way of making the "tough but necessary" decisions that the organization requires for success. This type of thinking reflects our own lack of integration of love and care in our own lives. We have created an artificial barrier that is holding back our own personal growth and the full potential of our organizations.
Fear is the opposite of love. When fear predominates in the organization, love and care cannot flourish. The opposite is also true--love and care banish fear. How can we create more love and care in our organizations? To answer this would require another essay and perhaps even an entire book. After discovering the higher organizational purpose, nothing is more important than encouraging and nurturing love and care. Here are a few suggestions that will hopefully stimulate further thinking on this incredibly important goal of creating more love and care in our organizations:

• The leadership must embody genuine love and care. This cannot be faked. If the leadership doesn't express love and care in their actions then love and care will not flourish in the organization. As Gandhi said: "We must be the change that we wish to see in the world."

• We must "give permission" for love and care to be expressed in the organization. Many organizations are afraid of love and care and force them to remain hidden. Love and care will flow naturally when we give them permission and encourage them.

• We should consider the virtues of love and care in all of our leadership promotion decisions. We shouldn't just promote the most competent, but also the most loving and caring. Our organizations need both and we should promote leaders who embody both.

• Cultivate forgiveness rather than judgment and condemnation. Too many organizations believe that judgment of others and criticizing failures are essential for creating excellence. While striving for excellence is important for all organizations, this can be done at a higher level of consciousness without condemnation. Forgiveness doesn't mean condoning mistakes and failures. It simply means that we help the other person to learn from their mistakes through non-judgmental feedback and encouragement.

• End all your organizational meetings with "appreciations". This is something that Whole Foods Market has been doing for about 25 years now with wonderful results for spreading love and care. Give everyone participating in the meeting the opportunity to voluntarily appreciate and thank other members in the group for services they have contributed or qualities that are admired. This one simple cultural practice of appreciating our fellow team members moves us out of judgment and fear into the consciousness of love.

Conclusion

We have the opportunity to create more conscious and higher trust organizations in the 21st century. To do so will require three major changes. First the organization must become conscious of what its higher purposes are. Without consciousness of higher purposes organizations will not reach their fullest potential because the creative energy within the organization will not be fully expressed.
Secondly, we'll need our leaders to evolve to higher levels of consciousness and trust themselves. We will not be able to create high trust organizations without more conscious and high trust leaders. Less conscious leaders will tend to hold their organizations back.

Thirdly, we will need to evolve the cultures of our organization in ways that create processes, strategies, and structures that encourage higher levels of trust. These will necessarily include the important ideals of teams, empowerment, transparency, authentic communication, fairness, love and care.

WASHINGTON (The Borowitz Report) - Facing a possible Congressional ethics investigation, embattled former Rep. Eric Massa was upbeat today, telling reporters, "I welcome a good probe."

Mr. Massa's remark surprised reporters because the ethics investigation could prove to be thorough, but the former congressman was unruffled: "Let the probing begin, and the deeper better."

"Here's the thing about a probe," he said. "It always feels good in the end." More here.

http://www.thenation.com/blogs/notion/540777/reclaiming_a_legacy_the_death_of_fatima_meer_and_the_world_cup

I journeyed to South Africa to celebrate the life of the late poet, anti-apartheid fighter, and sports activist Dennis Brutus. During my stay, another giant of the South African freedom struggle passed away: Fatima Meer. Fatima left us at the age of 81 and embodied a tireless grassroots resistance that stretched back to the 1940s. She was best known in the West as the author of Nelson Mandela's first official biography, Higher than Hope (translated into 13 languages.) Others knew her as a renowned academic who had published more than 40 books. In South Africa, she was nothing less than iconic political royalty.

Over the course of decades, Fatima Meer confronted apartheid with storied bravery: holding vigils outside brutal political prisons, organizing marches of Indian and African women in defiance of protest bans; surviving assassination efforts after attempting to rally alongside Steven Biko. The fact that she did this as an Indian Moslem woman was, in South Africa, both unprecedented and highly influential. But unlike so many others, her legacy of resistance didn't screech to a halt following apartheid's fall. Despite remaining a member of Mandela's African National Congress, she continued to fight for racial and economic justice in the new South Africa even when it meant harshly critiquing her dear friend Nelson. She stood steadfastly with the social movements saying, "If democracy has been clearly and resoundingly implemented then the people should be able to stand up for their rights and not allow themselves to be trampled by officials or politicians."

Given her stature, it's not surprising that the African National Congress rushed to claim her legacy, giving Fatima Meer a public, state funeral, which I attended. Winnie Mandela herself was present and spoke about their decades of friendship. (Dennis Brutus, suffice it to say, did not receive a state funeral. As his friend Patrick Bond said to me, "If Dennis had a state funeral he would have gotten up and left.") The ANC's embrace of Fatima in death raised more than a few eyebrows at the service. Many remarked how bizarre it was seeing the very politicians she lambasted, singing her praises and the very police she confronted, carrying her casket. Fatima's ally, Ashwin Desai, said archly, "I love Monty Python movies and therefore I had no problem with the service. Because that's what it was: Monty Python." Another friend whispered to me, "The last time Fatima was near so many police, there was tear gas."

No one from the social movements that Fatima nurtured was given time to speak. Trevor Ngwane from the Anti-Privatization Forum said to me afterward, "We appreciate the state funeral but she was against the state. She was against state policies. She was against state privatizations. Fatima fought in the streets, in the boardrooms, in the newspapers. So it's a bit rich of the ANC to claim her. Yes she was with them for many years but she was with us as well."

There will be more grassroots remembrances of Fatima Meer in the weeks to come. And yet the most powerful potential tribute may be less than 90 days away. Fatima told friends that she was frustrated and furious with the financing of the 2010 World Cup to be held across South Africa. One political colleague of Fatima, Dr. Lubna Nadvi said to me after the funeral, "There is no question: the best tribute to Fatima would be the largest possible march on the World Cup." Given the state attacks on street traders, township dwellers, and students in advance of the tournament, there could be nothing more fitting. Given the fact that the ANC has championed the World Cup, having the memory of Fatima Meer on the other side of the barricades would be a just reclamation of her political identity. That's where her dear friend Dennis Brutus would be. That's where she would be. And that would be the ultimate commemoration of their towering legacies.

[Dave Zirin is the author of the forthcoming "Bad Sports: How Owners are Ruining the Games we Love" (Scribner) Receive his column every week by emailing dave@edgeofsports.com. Contact him at edgeofsports@gmail.com.]

White House Senior Adviser David Axelrod warned on Sunday that health care industry lobbyists were descending on skeptical Democratic lawmakers "like locusts" in an effort to scuttle the final vote on a reform bill.

Appearing on ABC's "This Week," Axelrod rationalized the difficulties of getting a majority vote behind a final health care package by pointing to the pressures these lawmakers face.

"It has been a long and arduous debate," he said. "It is a tough issue for members of congress because there is an enormous lobbying campaign going on, on the other side. Lobbyists from the insurance industry descending on Capital Hill like locusts and trying to pressure people to vote against this bill. There is a lot of pressure on people, but I believe we will be there at the end of the day."

The Obama confidant used the same line during an appearance on CNN's "State of the Union" as well, telling host Candy Crowley that "the lobbyists for the insurance industry have landed on Capitol Hill like locusts, and they are going to be doing everything they can in the next week to try and muscle people into voting."

If, indeed, there was a ramped up lobbying campaign to move lawmakers against the bill, the White House (at least publicly) wasn't fretting its effectiveness. Axelrod, on both shows, predicted that health care reform would ultimately pass. As did White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs, who told "Fox News Sunday": "We'll have the votes when the House votes within the next week."

Mr. Jobs, Mr. Schmidt and their companies are now engaged in a gritty battle royale over the future and shape of mobile computing and cellphones, with implications that are reverberating across the digital landscape.

In the last six months, Apple and Google have jousted over acquisitions, patents, directors, advisers and iPhone applications.

Two hundred years of words, I will need to describe the destruction my eyes have seen.

Those are the words Jean-Dany Joachim used to describe a visit to his home country of Haiti after the quake, which looked, as he put it, like a country "with its guts open." Joachim, the "poet populist" of Cambridge, Massachusetts, used his poetic talents to help digest the emotion flooding through him. Here's an excerpt from his poem, "To Hear And To See Are Two Different Things, That's True."

I went and I am back, tande ak we se de
It was like in a dream,
or one of those movies that show the after world.
Two hundred years of words I will need to describe
the desolation my eyes have seen.
Two hundred years of memory to heal the scars
many years of labor,
and many more years of relearning.
I saw Port-au-Prince with its guts open,
its bare bones exposed to nothingness.
I saw tangible fear.
I could feel the anxiety and the anguish of the survivors,
but also I saw life waking up slowly.
That reminded me of ants,
coming out of their holes after a heavy rain.

By the poem's conclusion, Joachim, like the survivors, is waking up. And he finds himself feeling tied to Haiti again.

I woke up at the first cockcrow,
a familiar sound that brought back
memories of my childhood.
It was four o'clock.
The fresh odor of morning caressed my face,
as I unzipped my tent's door and got outside.
There were still plenty of stars in the sky,
and the moon was slowly stepping out.
The sun still had a couple more of hours before making its appearance.
I got ready. I suspected that everybody else was sleeping.
I went for my first walk through the new Port-au-Prince.
Life was waking up slowly.
I became part of it.

Joachim isn't the only Haitian American using poetry to help understand, digest, or just witness the disaster. Three such poets took part in a recent "Poets for Haiti" event at Harvard University to benefit the relief organization "Partners in Health."

A high school student named Fabienne Casseus captured her struggle for understanding in her poem "Reflector." Here's a striking excerpt, in which she personifies Haiti in the form of a woman looking in the mirror:

You hung over, unbalanced
Wrenching your belly for support
Willing yourself to strength
But it was too late for a new beginning
Too soon for redemption
You had made yourself death
Your fingertips retraced everything
As if reassuring their existence.

Marilene Phipps-Kettlewell, born and raised in Port-au-Prince, read from an untitled poem that tied her religious upbringing to the city's (literal) downfall.

I was a child, always gazing at the sky...

Yet, on January 12,
the port au prince sky let go of its Christ,
God the father let go of his son's hands
and let him take the fall.
The roof over all saints who long ago had watched
over my first communion vows at The Sacred Heart
collapsed over the whole city.
The roof over all saints watching over the whole city
collapsed over us all.

Patrick Sylvain, a professor at Brown University, was scheduled to be in Port-au-Prince for a conference during the quake, but bowed out when his wife began experiencing labor pains. She experienced great pain on the day of the disaster, and two days later they lost the baby. One of his cousins was also killed in the quake. His pain drove him to write poetry for the first time in years. He described that need to NPR: "I had to write, because poetry for me is a releasing valve, compiling those fragments of emotions into something that could make sense without theorizing about it, because it's pure emotion."

Here's an excerpt from the poem he wrote, called "Ports of Sorrow,"

Early January afternoon, I stand in my own port of pain
Intertwined with my wife as we moan death-like an incision
To the core. Barbed notes in a soprano's throat.

Port-au-Prince has become an archipelago of open tombs
Consumed slowly by the sun and forming an ever lasting covenant.
This unrelenting port is a cup of their blood. May the sins
Of the prince be forgiven and forgive those who have trespassed
Against "the wretched of this earth."

...

Port-au-Prince has neither port nor prince,
As tempests incessantly sweep through,
1804's bright filament becomes faint and sad,
Dimming like a dying firefly. Life mocks us
With sadistic laughter. I feel burdened by death,
Losses and corpses swarming in my chest.
I need a stronger port to anchor their souls.

Joachim wrote of his first night sleeping in a tent in Port-au-Prince, "my heart was so close to this earth that trembled." And for some, at least, using poetry to get that close can help.

U.S. regulators will announce a major Internet policy this week to revolutionize how Americans communicate and play, proposing a dramatic increase in broadband speeds that could let people download a high-definition film in minutes instead of hours.

Last week there was increased chatter of a deal being brokered by the White House and Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.). In exchange for dropping efforts to try 9/11 plotters in federal court in New York, the South Carolina Republican would help deliver GOP support for closing the detention facility at Guantanamo Bay.

Neither political party has embraced these informal negotiations. But the strength of the opposition was laid out on Sunday, when House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-Ohio) announced that he wouldn't support appropriating money for closing Gitmo even if a gun was pointed at his head.

"We have a world-class facility at Guantanamo," Boehner said on CNN's "State of the Union." "They keep saying they are going to [close it]. They want $500 million from this Congress to rehabilitate this prison in northwest Illinois. I want to see who the members are who are going to vote for this. I wouldn't vote for this if you put a gun to my head."

Boehner went on to argue that the appropriate avenue for the administration was to hold military tribunals for terrorist suspects "right there at Guantanamo." Anything less, he added, would "increase the threat level here" because if terrorist were brought to a domestic location "their friends may want to come."

It was all a bit hyperbolic. But that's how Republicans (save, perhaps, Graham, who has taken heat from Republicans for his stance) have approached the debate. Civil liberty groups and progressives, for all the passion that they have brought to the idea of holding civilian trials and getting Gitmo closed, have not been backed with much, if any, emotional or political commitment from Congressional Democrats.

As Virginia Thomas tells it in her soft-spoken, Midwestern cadence, the story of her involvement in the "tea party" movement is the tale of an average citizen in action.

"I am an ordinary citizen from Omaha, Neb., who just may have the chance to preserve liberty along with you and other people like you," she said at a recent panel discussion with tea party leaders in Washington. Thomas went on to count herself among those energized into action by President Obama's "hard-left agenda."

But Thomas is no ordinary activist.

Continuing to promote "The Marriage Ref" by simply being Jerry Seinfeld, the comedian joined Seth Meyers last night for the segment "Really!?! With Seth And Jerry." Seinfeld took on the role originated by Amy Poehler as he and Meyers laid into Eric Massa. Asked Seinfeld: "Why do I have the feeling that Massa massages were followed by Massa-bations?"

WATCH:

Last night's Digital Short saw the lead singer of The Strokes, Julian Casablancas, lend a helping to the Lonely Island boys. Using a boombox to change the world, he and Andy Samberg did just that. Impromptu dance parties, spontaneous nursing home orgies -- when it comes to powerfully holding up boomboxes, Lloyd Dobler's got nothing on these guys.

WATCH:

TOKYO — A strong magnitude 6.6 earthquake hit off the eastern coast of Japan on Sunday, rattling buildings across a broad swath of the country, including the crowded capital.

There were no reports of casualties, with only light damage to structures near the epicenter, according to local officials.

The quake hit at 5:08 p.m. and was felt most strongly in central Fukushima prefecture about 130 miles (210 kilometers) northeast of Tokyo, according to the Japan Meteorological Agency.

"It was fairly strong, but didn't knock over anything in the office," said Ken Yoshida, a town official in Naraha, one of the hardest-hit areas. He said an earthen wall in town was partially toppled.

The earthquake was centered about 50 miles (80 kilometers) off the eastern coast at a depth of about 25 miles (40 kilometers), the meteorological agency said.

The government said there was no danger of a tsunami, although slight changes to ocean levels were a possibility in some areas.

It was strong enough to gently sway large buildings in Tokyo and was felt across a broad stretch of Japan's main Honshu and northern Hokkaido islands.

Japan's early warning system predicted the earthquake just before it hit, with public broadcaster NHK interrupting a sumo match to warn residents to take cover.

The country is one of the world's most earthquake-prone countries. In 1995, a magnitude-7.2 quake in the western port city of Kobe killed 6,400 people.