Mediaboss Marketing

Since President Trumps inauguration, Republicans have triggered a steady churn of outrage from the left over perceived gaffes, errors and omissions.

Some of it has been rightly deserved (see: erroneous Trump tweet on Gitmo prisoners). Some of the desk-thumping, however, has more than a hint of hypocrisy -- as that outrage machine was largely silent when similar comments were made by the Obama administration.

Here are just a few examples of statements met with thunderous criticism when uttered by Republicans, yet crickets when made by Democrats:

Carson vs. Obama

HUD Secretary Ben Carson, speaking to department employees earlier this week, sparked outrage when he referred to slaves as immigrants.

"That's what America is about, a land of dreams and opportunity," Carson said. "There were other immigrants who came here in the bottom of slave ships, worked even longer, even harder for less. But they too had a dream that one day their sons, daughters, grandsons, granddaughters, great-grandsons, great-granddaughters, might pursue prosperity and happiness in this land."

The NAACP and Chelsea Clinton were both among those offended by Carsons comparison. Actor Samuel L. Jackson tore into Carson in an R-rated tweet.

The problem was, then-President Barack Obama made a similar comparison before.

"It wasn't always easy for new immigrants. Certainly, it wasn't easy for those of African heritage who had not come here voluntarily and yet in their own way were immigrants themselves," he said at a 2015 naturalization ceremony.

The Federalistwent so far as to dig up 11 times Obama had referred to slaves as immigrants, and noted there was barely a peep of outrage each time. What changed?

Lay off the iPhones

Twitter was apoplectic when Rep. Jason Chaffetz, R-Utah, recently said Americans may have to choose between buying a new iPhone and health insurance.

"Well, we're getting rid of the individual mandate. We're getting rid of those things that people said that they don't want. ... Americans have choices, and they've got to make a choice," he said on CNN. "So rather than getting that new iPhone that they just love and want to go spend hundreds of dollars on that, maybe they should invest in their own health care.

Chaffetz was accused of everything from being OK with poor people dying to reviving the poverty is a choice argument."

Yet the criticism glossed over similar remarks made by Obama in 2014.

Asked in a Spanish-language town hall about those who said they cant afford premiums, Obama speculated about someone making $40,000-$50,000 a year, who thinks an insurance option that costs $300 a month is too much.

I guess what I would say is if you looked at that persons budget and you looked at their cable bill, their telephone cell phone bill, other things that theyre spending on, it may turn out that they just havent prioritized health care because right now everybody is healthy," he said.

Shame-rock

Some were put out after the Trump team recently put out green versions of his famous Make America Great Again hats, branded with a four-leaf clover. While said clover is considered a symbol of good luck, some Irish news outlets and others on Twitter grumbled that the three-leaf clover was more appropriate.

The shamrock is a three-leaf sprig of clover and is associated with St Patrick's Day, The Irish Independent complained. The four-leaf clover is a plant, that's rarer in abundance. It's also a sugary, oat piece that's usually found in a box of Lucky Charms cereal.

Yet Obama did something similar in 2012 when his campaign produced an OBama shirt with a four-leaf clover. While the error was noted, it produced little outrage, and even some apologists.

I think thats creative license, Kevin ONeill, a professor of Irish History at Boston College, told The New York Times. If you can add an apostrophe, why not a leaf.

Omission Outrage

A Trump White House statement on International Holocaust Remembrance Day provoked condemnation when it left out any reference to Jewish people the main target of Hitlers genocidal atrocities.

It is with a heavy heart and somber mind that we remember and honor the victims, survivors, heroes of the Holocaust. It is impossible to fully fathom the depravity and horror inflicted on innocent people by Nazi terror, the statement said.

A number of Jewish groups were critical of the omission. But former Democratic vice presidential candidate Tim Kaine, D-Va., went further by comparing the statement to Holocaust denial.

President Obama, President Bush always talked about the Holocaust in connection with the slaughter of Jews. The final solution was about the slaughter of Jews. We have to remember this. This is what Holocaust denial is, he said.

White House Press Secretary Sean Spicer blasted the controversy as nitpicking. He said: "To suggest that remembering the Holocaust and acknowledging all of the people -- Jewish, gypsies, priests, disabled, gays and lesbians -- it is pathetic that people are picking on a statement."

But Kaines comments in particular were striking considering his former running mate former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton released a statement in 2013 that also did not mention the Jewish people.

The statement said: "Each year, we gather together to commemorate the victims of one of the worst tragedies in human history. Indeed, almost 70 years after the end of World War II, we continue to honor those lives that were brutally taken during the Holocaust by the Nazis. This machinery of systematic extermination also took the lives of Roma, gays, persons with disabilities, and others deemed inferior or undesirable by the Nazis."

The statement did condemn Holocaust denial, while also mentioning other genocides, including in Cambodia, Srebrenica, Rwanda and Darfur.

Adam Shaw is a Politics Reporter and occasional Opinion writer for FoxNews.com. He can be reached here or on Twitter: @AdamShawNY.

Originally posted here:
Four times Republicans faced outrage for things Dems did first - Fox News

New York Times

Ouster of South Korean President Could Return Liberals to Power New York Times Now, after being out of power for almost 10 years, the South Korean liberal opposition is on the verge of retaking the presidency with the historic court ruling on Friday that ousted its conservative enemy, President Park Geun-hye, who had been ... and more »

Read more:
Ouster of South Korean President Could Return Liberals to Power - New York Times

Our country is broken. This proposition is so uncontroversial nowadays that it is regarded not with a sense of shock or tragedy but as a banal fact. Many worry that we are beyond repair too divided politically; too different in our views about morality and culture; too unwilling to compromise.

Call me an optimist. I know that, despite all the bickering, Americans across ideological lines share a common ideal. We all want to live in a place where people get the things that they deserve.

But conservatives, too, argue on grounds of merit the best-qualified applicant deserves the job, but affirmative action provides less-qualified minorities an advantage over better-qualified white people.

While liberals and conservatives disagree on this issue, it is only about a superficial fact whether affirmative action does, in fact, distort merit-based hiring. On the tough question the underlying, moral question there is no disagreement: the best-qualified applicant deserves the job.

Or consider the state of our economy. We have all heard the statistics the top 1 percent of Americans have the same share of national income as the bottom 50 percent, and the top 0.1 percent has the same total wealth as the bottom 90 percent.

Is this just? Conservatives say yes because they believe that meritorious and hard-working people deserve the fruits of their labor. They also believe that the rich in America have shown merit and effort in this way.

But liberals who say no rely on the very same moral premise meritorious people do deserve the fruits of their labor, but in America today, they point out, you get rich through family influence, cronyism, or by exploiting the system; not through merit.

Again, all we disagree about is a factual question whether wealth is tied to merit or not. That we can answer. When we do, and when we adjust public policy accordingly, liberals and conservatives alike will feel that justice has been done.

This is all well-known. Researchers have tested how human beings think about justice, and a deservingness principle like the one described reigns supreme across contexts and cultures. For example, if you pay a person less than she thinks she deserves for her work, or more than she thinks she deserves, she is less satisfied with her job than if you paid her what she thinks she deserves.

We know that the deservingness principle has an evolutionary origin. According to Political Scientist Michael Bang Petersen, it helps us distinguish cheaters from reciprocators. We have also discovered that it is hard-wired into the striatum the part of the brain that regulates moral decision-making. We have even seen evidence of the principle in other species, like capuchin monkeys.

In this way, liberals and conservatives are united, deep down, by a powerful moral premise. Both sides should think about what it would mean to take the deservingness principle seriously and rebuild our country around it.

Liberals should recognize that conservative opposition to affirmative action, welfare and taxation is not due to racism, callousness, or greed. The truth is that conservatives worry that these programs penalize merit and effort and reward the undeserving.

As evidence of conservatives good will, consider the Earned Income Tax Credit. It is a payment to poor Americans who work, and one of the largest components of our welfare system. It was enacted under Gerald Ford, expanded under Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush, and has always enjoyed strong support from Republican legislators. Why? Because these welfare recipients show that they are deserving through their work.

On the other hand, conservatives need to understand that our economy is failing to give people what they deserve. Intergenerational mobility in the United States is now the worst in the developed world. Roughly 60-80 percent of a young persons income potential is predetermined by his parents wealth. Merit and effort matter little. The top 1 percent richest Americans inherit, on average, $3 million.

Moreover, corporate executives have gained power over their own pay-setting, reaping rewards whether or not they are deserved. A prime example is Stan ONeal, the former CEO of Merrill Lynch, who posted a $2.3 billion quarterly loss the worst in Merrills history and then floated away on a $162 million golden parachute.

We are rewarding failure, enriching the incompetent at the expense of the talented, and undermining competition, and that should worry all of us.

The deservingness principle is neither a liberal nor a conservative ideal. Therein lies its potential to unite Americans once again, around the common cause of justice.

Thomas Mulligan is a postdoctoral fellow at the Georgetown Institute for the Study of Markets and Ethicsat the McDonough School of Business.

The views expressed by contributors are their own and not the views of The Hill.

Read more from the original source:
Liberals, conservatives have more in common than they think | TheHill - The Hill (blog)

The Liberal government is proposing major changes to the way Parliament functions, including limiting the delay powers of opposition MPs, allowing electronic voting and ending Friday sittings.

Government House leader Bardish Chagger released the proposals in a discussion paper Friday afternoon as MPs headed home for a break week, arguing that it is time to recalibrate the balance of power between the governments duty to pass legislation and the oppositions right to be heard.

We really need to bring the House of Commons into the 21st century, said Ms. Chagger in an interview. The minister said the changes are aimed at making Parliament more predictable and productive.

Opposition MPs immediately slammed the proposals, warning that it would curb their ability to challenge the government.

The proposals echo some of the Parliamentary reform promises made by the Liberals during the election campaign. They include changes to the daily Question Period by having one day a week where the Prime Minister answers all of the questions, as is the case in Britain. Ms. Chagger said the committee should debate whether the Prime Minister should also attend Question Period on other days.

However, the Liberals have already made two failed attempts since the election to change the House of Commons rules. Last May, the government withdrew a controversial motion that would have given it new powers to limit debate. Also last year, a study by the Procedure and House Affairs committee aimed at making Parliament more family friendly held hearings on the idea of eliminating Friday sittings but found no consensus for a change. That same committee is being asked to consider the governments latest proposals. A Liberal motion has circulated that proposed that the committee complete its review by June 2.

Ms. Chagger suggests in her letter that in lieu of Friday sittings, the House of Commons could add more sitting days in January, June and September.

Concern from the opposition Friday focused on changes that would limit the ability of opposition MPs to delay legislation in the House or in committee with long speeches known as filibusters. One section of Ms. Chaggars letter recommends limiting speeches in committee to 10 minutes.

Committees can, at times, become dysfunctional, she wrote. The principle of deliberations in the House and in committees should be to engage in substantive debate on the merit of an issue, not to engage in tactics which seek only to undermine and devalue the important work of Parliament.

Conservative deputy house leader MP Chris Warkentin said his party will strongly oppose changes that limit the ability of MPs to challenge the government.

The idea that they would suggest that MPs bringing the concerns of their constituents forward is somehow an unacceptable use of time for the House of Commons is absolutely reprehensible, he said. To remove those opportunities is really an abuse of power and something that we will definitely oppose.

Mr. Warkentin said his party will not support the elimination of Friday sittings. He said the government appears to be using calls for improved work-life balance as an excuse for limiting accountability.

We believe MPs should work five days a week, and frankly its the experience of most of us that we work seven days a week, he said. I know that theres a lot of Canadians that would suggest that if the Liberals wanted to do less work or if they dont like the job that theyve been elected to do, that there might be somebody else who would replace these members of Parliament.

NDP MP Ian Rankin said the Liberal proposals would be a setback for Canadian democracy that would limit the oppositions powers to hold the government to account.

We do look forward to a healthy debate on this discussion paper, even if it appears healthy debate may be severely restricted around here in the future, he said in a statement.

Follow Bill Curry on Twitter: @curryb

Read the original here:
Liberals' new parliamentary reform plan angers Tories, NDP - The Globe and Mail

CBN News spoke with Justin Danhof of the conservative organization, The National Center for Public Policy Research. Danhof attended Disneys shareholders meeting Wednesday. Hear his reaction in the interview above.

Disney is taking a lot of heat these days from conservatives and liberals for the iconic company's decisions and actions.

Conservatives are upset with the company's choice to include a gay character and gay scene in "Beauty and the Beast," and a gay kiss in a children's cartoon TV show.

Liberals are upset that its CEO, Bob Iger, is on President Donald Trump's business advisory council.

At The Walt Disney Company's annual shareholders meeting in Denver, shareholder representatives opposing the Trump administration called on Iger to step down from the President's Strategic and Policy Forum, saying his involvement shows he and Disney support Trump's policies.

"By its association, Disney is complicit in Trump's Muslim ban and his anti-immigrant, anti-refugee agenda," said Mehrdad Azemun, campaigns director for People's Action, according to ValueWalk.com. "Disney can't pick and choose which of Trump's policies they support and which they don't. The only solution is for Bob Iger to leave Trump's business council."

"We are against Trump's messages and Iger needs to step down," said Lupita Carrasquillo, an economic-justice organizer for the Colorado People's Alliance, according to The Denver Post.

"We all love Disney movies and the messages that they teach, but we should not be teaching children a message of hate," she continued.

A coalition of organizations collected more than a half million signatures to deliver to The Walt Disney Company, calling for Iger not to participate on the council.

Iger, who is a Democrat and supported Hillary Clinton, called his involvement a "privileged opportunity" and refused to step down.

"I made a decision that I thought it was in the best interest of our company and of our industry to have an opportunity to express specific point of views directly to the president of the United States and to his administration," Iger said at the meeting, according to the Los Angeles Times.

One shareholder spoke in favor of Iger's decision.

"I want to thank you for being our voice in the room with the president," shareholder Dwight Morgan said, The Times reported.

Iger didn't just field questions from liberal protesters.

Justin Danhof, general counsel for The National Center for Public Policy Research, a conservative organization, accused Disney-owned ESPN and ABC News of being biased against the Trump administration.

Iger said that's not true.

"I am going to disagree with just about everything you said," Iger said, responding to Danhof, The Times reported. "The charge that ESPN is exhibiting significant political bias in its programming is just completely exaggerated."

"I can stand here today and look you in the face and say I am proud of the efforts of ABC News," the Disney CEO also said to Danhof, The Denver Post reported.

"There are always going to be people yourself included, perhaps the president who are going to believe that it is not being presented in a manner that is consistent with their own beliefs," Iger continued. "That doesn't necessarily mean they are going to be unfair."

Danhof told CBN News after the meeting that he wasn't convinced.

"I left the meeting after Mr. Iger's response with the feeling that if you don't share the views of the liberal elites that work in academia or live in Manhattan that Bob Iger doesn't really want you as a customer on his Disney platforms," Danhof said.

"Those are the 'values'... that I heard espoused today at the Disney shareholder meeting," he continued.

Meanwhile, the company did not address the backlash over a gay scene in "Beauty and the Beast" and a gay kiss in "Star vs. the Forces of Evil," according to Danhof.

"They did show a sneak peek of the 'Beauty and the Beast' movie, but the sneak peek did not include the scene that's been discussed so much in the media," he told CBN News.

Iger did speak favorably of the movie, according to an audio webcast of the shareholders meeting.

Later in the meeting, Iger referenced the values of the overall company.

"Our values include equality, inclusion, fairness, and optimism, of course, and they're reflected across every aspect of our company, including our storytelling," he said.

Read more:
Disney CEO Faces More Backlash - This Time from Liberals - CBN News