Surprising, this Czar might be worse...

[Bob]

http://www.debatepolitics.com/us-pol...bama-czar.html

Any Dems left on the Mane? Just curious, as most Dems I know and have voted for, I woudl think they have a problem with this guy (the Green Jobs Czar, Van Jones.). Get past the messenger (and even if you cant) listen to this Czar's own words. Again, when will the Dems realize that there comes a point, when left crosses over into the Communist rhelm and this guy crossed over that bridge allong time ago. The president promised to defend the Constitution, Bush over stepped in his various power grabs -- Obama and his admin are sadly perfecting the idea of "over-stepping." Are you seeing a pattern yet with both parties? I sure as hell hope so.

[Rohirrim]

"We are entering an era during which our very survival will demand invention and innovation on a scale never before seen in the history of human civilization. Only the business community has the requisite skills, experience, and capital to meet that need. On that score, neither government nor the nonprofit and voluntary sectors can compete, not even remotely.

So in the end, our success and survival as a species are largely and directly tied to the new eco-entrepreneurs — and the success and survival of their enterprises. Since almost all of the needed eco-technologies are likely to come from the private sector, civic leaders and voters should do all that can be done to help green business leaders succeed. That means, in large part, electing leaders who will pass bills to aid them. We cannot realistically proceed without a strong alliance between the best of the business world —and everyone else."

Yep. He sure sounds like a commie bastard alright.

[footstepsfrom#27]

Originally Posted by Bob

http://www.debatepolitics.com/us-pol...bama-czar.html

Any Dems left on the Mane? Just curious, as most Dems I know and have voted for, I woudl think they have a problem with this guy (the Green Jobs Czar, Van Jones.). Get past the messenger (and even if you cant) listen to this Czar's own words. Again, when will the Dems realize that there comes a point, when left crosses over into the Communist rhelm and this guy crossed over that bridge allong time ago. The president promised to defend the Constitution, Bush over stepped in his various power grabs -- Obama and his admin are sadly perfecting the idea of "over-stepping." Are you seeing a pattern yet with both parties? I sure as hell hope so.

Bob...anytime you read Glenn Beck you need to double check literally everything he says. Almost everything in that video was built on half truth and deceit. Take the arrests...he was FALSELY arrested while marching in a peaceful march and the San Francisco police not only apologized, they compensated him and others financially for what happened. It was 16 years ago in law school during the Rodney King fiasco that he developed socialistic philosophies as a result of it, but he's been a staunch capitalist for over 10 years, linked with the Ashoka Foundation as a fellow in 2000, the top social enterprise busines development organization in the world. Ashoka develops social entrepreneurs...a busines sea change coming from the world's best business schools. Among the adherants...Bill Gates, eBay founder Jeff Skoll, 2006 Nobel Prize winner in economics Muhammad Yunus, Google Foundation CEO Larry Brilliant, economics wiz C.K. Prahalad...the list goes on; a group of fervent capitalists one and all. This appointment reflects a lot of that strategy.

Check it out: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Van_Jones

By the late 1990s, Jones began promoting capitalism as he transformed into an environmentally friendly capitalist. He emerged as one of the foremost champions of green business, entrepreneurship and market-based solutions. In his 2008 best seller The Green Collar Economy, Jones contended that invention and investment will take us out of a pollution-based grey economy and into a healthy new green economy. Jones wrote:

"We are entering an era during which our very survival will demand invention and innovation on a scale never before seen in the history of human civilization. Only the business community has the requisite skills, experience, and capital to meet that need. On that score, neither government nor the nonprofit and voluntary sectors can compete, not even remotely.

So in the end, our success and survival as a species are largely and directly tied to the new eco-entrepreneurs — and the success and survival of their enterprises. Since almost all of the needed eco-technologies are likely to come from the private sector, civic leaders and voters should do all that can be done to help green business leaders succeed. That means, in large part, electing leaders who will pass bills to aid them. We cannot realistically proceed without a strong alliance between the best of the business world —and everyone else."

[Bob]

Originally Posted by Rohirrim

"We are entering an era during which our very survival will demand invention and innovation on a scale never before seen in the history of human civilization. Only the business community has the requisite skills, experience, and capital to meet that need. On that score, neither government nor the nonprofit and voluntary sectors can compete, not even remotely.

So in the end, our success and survival as a species are largely and directly tied to the new eco-entrepreneurs — and the success and survival of their enterprises. Since almost all of the needed eco-technologies are likely to come from the private sector, civic leaders and voters should do all that can be done to help green business leaders succeed. That means, in large part, electing leaders who will pass bills to aid them. We cannot realistically proceed without a strong alliance between the best of the business world —and everyone else."

Yep. He sure sounds like a commie bastard alright.

Sounds like someone who is attempting to put on his new mask...and affect change within teh system, rather than his old approach .... he was a Comuninist: (the following from Wikipedia)
Jones started his career as a staunch critic of capitalism; his outrage over the Rodney King verdict radicalized him to the point where he declared himself a communist and actively began protesting police brutality.[17] He later got involved with Standing Together to Organize a Revolutionary Movement (STORM), a collective which "dreamed of a multiracial socialist utopia". Frustrated keeping coalitions together to make positive social change, Jones "discarded the hostility and antagonism with which he had previously greeted the world, which he said was part of the ego-driven romance of being seen as a revolutionary." "Before, we would fight anybody, any time," Jones says of his transformation. "No concession was good enough; we never said 'Thank you.' Now, I put the issues and constituencies first. I'll work with anybody, I'll fight anybody if it will push our issues forward. ... I'm willing to forgo the cheap satisfaction of the radical pose for the deep satisfaction of radical ends".[17] Jones ended his involvement with STORM (and STORM officially dissolved in December 2002).[18]

Wow, way....back in 2002 huh? I think I believe him when he says that his job is much like his old one, that he is now a community organizer within the government...I know I am not allowed to use their own words against them, but you want more of his words from 2007... that show him for what he is? Or is he a Dem, and is all that matters to you?

[Bob]

Do you know who he named his four year old after? It sure wasnt Bill Gates....

[footstepsfrom#27]

Originally Posted by Bob

Sounds like someone who is attempting to put on his new mask...and affect change within teh system, rather than his old approach .... he was a Comuninist: (the following from Wikipedia)
Jones started his career as a staunch critic of capitalism; his outrage over the Rodney King verdict radicalized him to the point where he declared himself a communist and actively began protesting police brutality.[17] He later got involved with Standing Together to Organize a Revolutionary Movement (STORM), a collective which "dreamed of a multiracial socialist utopia". Frustrated keeping coalitions together to make positive social change, Jones "discarded the hostility and antagonism with which he had previously greeted the world, which he said was part of the ego-driven romance of being seen as a revolutionary." "Before, we would fight anybody, any time," Jones says of his transformation. "No concession was good enough; we never said 'Thank you.' Now, I put the issues and constituencies first. I'll work with anybody, I'll fight anybody if it will push our issues forward. ... I'm willing to forgo the cheap satisfaction of the radical pose for the deep satisfaction of radical ends".[17] Jones ended his involvement with STORM (and STORM officially dissolved in December 2002).[18]

Wow, way....back in 2002 huh? I think I believe him when he says that his job is much like his old one, that he is now a community organizer within the government...I know I am not allowed to use their own words against them, but you want more of his words from 2007... that show him for what he is? Or is he a Dem, and is all that matters to you?

Jone's involvement with STORM was primiarily based on the group's civil rights stance. His busines associations since 1997 show him to be closely linked with private enterprise and business entrepreneurship:

2009 - New York Times Bestselling Author for The Green Collar Economy
2009 - Time 100 Most Influential People, Time Magazine
2009 - selected as one of the Ebony Power 150
2009 - the Hubert H. Humphrey Civil Rights Award, presented to those who best exemplify selfless and devoted service in the cause of equality.
2009 - "Rolling Stone 100: Agents of Change” (#89); Rolling Stone Magazine[21]
2009 - Eco-Entrepreneur Award, Institute for Entrepreneurship, Leadership & Innovation; Howard University
2009 - Individual Thought Leadership, Energy & Environment Awards; Aspen Institute[22]
2008 - One of 17 “Sexiest Men Living”; Salon.com[23]
2008 - Best Dressed Environmental List (#1 of 30); Sustainable Style Foundation[24]
2008 - Time Magazine Environmental Hero
2008 - designation as one of Essence Magazine's 25 most influential/inspiring African-Americans
2008 - Elle Magazine Green Award
2008 - One of the George Lucas Foundation's "Daring Dozen"
2008 - Hunt Prime Mover Award
2008 - Campaign for America's Future "Paul Wellstone Award";
2008 - Global Green USA "Community Environmental Leadership" Award
2008 - designation as one of the nation's "Plenty 20" in the October/November 2008 edition of Plenty Magazine
2008 - San Francisco Foundation Community Leadership Award
2008 - One of Fast Company's "12 Most Creative Minds"
2008 - Puffin/Nation prize for "Creative Citizenship"
2008 - World Economic Forum "Young Global Leader"
2000 - International Ashoka Fellowship
1998 - Reebok International Human Rights Award
1997-1999 - Rockefeller Foundation "Next Generation Leadership"

[footstepsfrom#27]

Originally Posted by Bob

Do you know who he named his four year old after? It sure wasnt Bill Gates....

I work in social enterprise consulting with corporations and small businesses alike. I know what this guy's about because I understand this industry. He's not a socialist.

[footstepsfrom#27]

His son is named for this guy; an African nationalist who led independence movements against colonial Portugal...good for him there's nothing wrong with that. You could focus on his politics if you wish but do you honestly think that's why he name him for this guy? Lots of black people are named after African luminaries...his history of civil rights advocacy shows that's been his primary motivation...

Amílcar Lopes Cabral- September 1924(1924-09-12) – 20 January 1973) was an African agronomic engineer, writer, Marxist and nationalist guerrilla and politician. Also known by his nom de guerre Abel Djassi, Cabral led African nationalist movements in Guinea-Bissau and the Cape Verde Islands and led Guinea-Bissau's independence movement. He was assassinated in 1973 by Guinea-native agents of the Portuguese colonial authorities, just months before Guinea-Bissau declared unilateral independence.

[rastaman]

Ummmmmmmm to bad there hasn't been a way to take every Environmental- Earth hating conservative around the world and send them to populate the MOON.

[Bob]

Originally Posted by footstepsfrom#27

His son is named for this guy; an African nationalist who led independence movements against colonial Portugal...good for him there's nothing wrong with that. You could focus on his politics if you wish but do you honestly think that's why he name him for this guy? Lots of black people are named after African luminaries...his history of civil rights advocacy shows that's been his primary motivation...

Amílcar Lopes Cabral- September 1924(1924-09-12) – 20 January 1973) was an African agronomic engineer, writer, Marxist and nationalist guerrilla and politician. Also known by his nom de guerre Abel Djassi, Cabral led African nationalist movements in Guinea-Bissau and the Cape Verde Islands and led Guinea-Bissau's independence movement. He was assassinated in 1973 by Guinea-native agents of the Portuguese colonial authorities, just months before Guinea-Bissau declared unilateral independence.

Thanks for not sanitizing it -- "Marxist and nationalist guerrilla" I named my kids after American heros (for three of them) not a communist among them, as that is not something I aspire to, nor my Children -- and to get to that end game in America I think one would have to shread the meaning of our founding documents. So although he may be "well-dressed" and sexy and getting awards for helping enforce equal-ness and respected by the left -- I have heard him speak, and yes I am concerned.

In a nut shell -- I think I am more concerned with the politics of up and down over right and left -- and although I am "right" of center, I dont have a problem with those who are "left" if they leave me and my Liberties as defined by the Constitution alone. But it does seem to be true that there comes a tipping point when far right and far left are so radical and militant (a word he used to describe himself) that they feel it it is ok to "force" others who are not in agreement. Did you hear Bill Mahr's comments on late night TV last week, regarding healthcare? "There too stupid" and what he said about Max Baucus (someone I have voted for for about 10 years now) Its the arrogance demonstrated that is reflected in the extremes -- that feel it is ok to "drag" people in a certain direction -- I am assuming he feels he is justified because he is that much smarter than everyone else?

[footstepsfrom#27]

Originally Posted by Bob

Thanks for not sanitizing it -- "Marxist and nationalist guerrilla" I named my kids after American heros (for three of them) not a communist among them, as that is not something I aspire to -- and to get to that end game in America I think one woudl have to shread the meaning of our founding documents. so although he may be "well-dressed" and sexy and getting aways for helping enforce equal-ness and respected by the left -- I have heard him speak, and yes I am concerned.

In a nut shell -- I think I am more concerned with the politics of up and down over right and left -- and although I am "right" of center, I dont have a problem with those who are "left" but it does seem to be true that there comes a tipping point when far right and far left are so radical and militant (a word he used to describe himself) that they feel it it is ok to "force" others who are not in agreement. Did you hear Bill Mahr's comments on late night TV last week, regarding healthcare? "There too stupid" and what he said about Max Baucus (someone I have voted for for about 10 years now) Its the arrogance demonstrated that is reflected in the extremes -- that feel it is ok to "drag" people in a certain direction -- I am assuming he feels he is justified because he is that much smarter than everyone else?

Check your PM box.

[Rohirrim]

Originally Posted by Bob

Thanks for not sanitizing it -- "Marxist and nationalist guerrilla" I named my kids after American heros (for three of them) not a communist among them, as that is not something I aspire to, nor my Children -- and to get to that end game in America I think one would have to shread the meaning of our founding documents. So although he may be "well-dressed" and sexy and getting awards for helping enforce equal-ness and respected by the left -- I have heard him speak, and yes I am concerned.

In a nut shell -- I think I am more concerned with the politics of up and down over right and left -- and although I am "right" of center, I dont have a problem with those who are "left" if they leave me and my Liberties as defined by the Constitution alone. But it does seem to be true that there comes a tipping point when far right and far left are so radical and militant (a word he used to describe himself) that they feel it it is ok to "force" others who are not in agreement. Did you hear Bill Mahr's comments on late night TV last week, regarding healthcare? "There too stupid" and what he said about Max Baucus (someone I have voted for for about 10 years now) Its the arrogance demonstrated that is reflected in the extremes -- that feel it is ok to "drag" people in a certain direction -- I am assuming he feels he is justified because he is that much smarter than everyone else?

Bill Maher was speaking, specifically, about the people who were standing up at town hall meetings and shouting, "Keep your government hands off my Medicare" and other such gems. Are we so PC now that we can't call it what it is? That is a stupid statement. Anybody who is that deeply uninformed should not include their voice in the public dialogue. Just because you have freedom of speech doesn't necessarily mean you should say something.

[footstepsfrom#27]

A lot of people have created symbolic, all inclusive talking points into their definition of both capitalism and socialism, without reguard for any of the history of these two economic systems, how they've been employed across different cultures or their sociological reference points that make economics a slave of both political and racial concerns. A commie in Russia or Bulgaria from 1975 probably has little in common with a guy in Uganda or Chile, even though both would say they are Marxists.

The history of socialism and Marxism in Africa is much different than it is in Europe, the US or South America. African Marxists movements rose in conjunction with black nationalism, the struggle of nations to throw off colonialism and European oppression. The sole economic driver in European colonialism in Africa was profit production by capitalists. Socialism and Marxist philosophy found a niche in Africa in response to that. A similar expression exists in South America, though not in response to European colonialism but rather to religious dogma expressed through the Catholic church's South American form of politics called liberation theology. The average black African marxist was interested in primarily one thing; getting Europeans and their control of his country out the door. Capitalism as an economic system was the product of European exploitation as well as the cause of it. Hence we've seen politics defined in terms of economics as a racial response to oppression in Africa, not so much as a theory of social society as it was in Europe.

Why does this matter? It matters because lots of human rights and civil rights proponents for African nationalism have formerly been swept into the economics of anti-colonial freedom movements. It may seem odd to the average American who forms ideas in his mind about Marxism related to Soviet Russia, but the driving force motivating socialism in Africa was freedom from tyrany, not the desire to subvert it. Marxism takes root most easily in countries where there is sharp division between economic classes and large underclass dissatisfaction, a distinctive it shares with Facism as well. Colonialism and capitalism have been marriage partners in subjugating Africa for hundreds of years...both through direct physical force and now through what I call corporate colonialism...the ability of corporations acting as fiduciary agents on behalf of western countries (mostly) to rape African natural resources and exploit cheap labor in the name of profit. With the exception of China, most of the current colonialism expressed through abusive economics is coming from the western nations...the US and Europe.

So when you see a guy naming his kid for an African freedom fighter who was trying to throw off colonialism from Portugal, it doesn't really tell us anything simply because we know the guy was a Marxist. Most African freedom movements began with some form of socialism or Marxist doctrine underpinning them. At the same time it has to be recognized that is not true today for the most part. In fact capitalism has become the dominant economic voice in black nationalist movements as these countries have struggled to become part of the world's economy.

[Bob]

Originally Posted by Rohirrim

Bill Maher was speaking, specifically, about the people who were standing up at town hall meetings and shouting, "Keep your government hands off my Medicare" and other such gems. Are we so PC now that we can't call it what it is? That is a stupid statement. Anybody who is that deeply uninformed should not include their voice in the public dialogue. Just because you have freedom of speech doesn't necessarily mean you should say something.

Should is very different that can -- you know as well as I do, that in any group folks on both sides have varing levels of education and information -- I like to think everyone has a right to speak, that we have to fight for. Bill M's statements were representative of something very evil, and much more dangerous than some folks speaking out and expressing their Constitutional views. Bill can say what he wants, it is his right, but he is advocating taking the right of others to speak, or at least to be listened to by those who hold power You heard him right? The use of the word "drag them" implies take away their free will -- and the reason he felt justified in saying this (I am assuming) is because he feels so much smarter, and has so much more information than the majority who feels differently then him -- tyrants all have this foundation, to justify (in the end) anything thy wish.

His statements about making Max Baucus an offer he couldnt refuse by someone putting the head of one of his interns in his bed -- was reflective of the next evolution of ideological "debate" in otherwords no debate -- crush the majority, threaten violence against them.

[Bob]

Originally Posted by footstepsfrom#27

A lot of people have created symbolic, all inclusive talking points into their definition of both capitalism and socialism, without reguard for any of the history of these two economic systems, how they've been employed across different cultures or their sociological reference points that make economics a slave of both political and racial concerns. A commie in Russia or Bulgaria from 1975 probably has little in common with a guy in Uganda or Chile, even though both would say they are Marxists.

The history of socialism and Marxism in Africa is much different than it is in Europe, the US or South America. African Marxists movements rose in conjunction with black nationalism, the struggle of nations to throw off colonialism and European oppression. The sole economic driver in European colonialism in Africa was profit production by capitalists. Socialism and Marxist philosophy found a niche in Africa in response to that. A similar expression exists in South America, though not in response to European colonialism but rather to religious dogma expressed through the Catholic church's South American form of politics called liberation theology. The average black African marxist was interested in primarily one thing; getting Europeans and their control of his country out the door. Capitalism as an economic system was the product of European exploitation as well as the cause of it. Hence we've seen politics defined in terms of economics as a racial response to oppression in Africa, not so much as a theory of social society as it was in Europe.

Why does this matter? It matters because lots of human rights and civil rights proponents for African nationalism have formerly been swept into the economics of anti-colonial freedom movements. It may seem odd to the average American who forms ideas in his mind about Marxism related to Soviet Russia, but the driving force motivating socialism in Africa was freedom from tyrany, not the desire to subvert it. Marxism takes root most easily in countries where there is sharp division between economic classes and large underclass dissatisfaction, a distinctive it shares with Facism as well. Colonialism and capitalism have been marriage partners in subjugating Africa for hundreds of years...both through direct physical force and now through what I call corporate colonialism...the ability of corporations acting as fiduciary agents on behalf of western countries (mostly) to rape African natural resources and exploit cheap labor in the name of profit. With the exception of China, most of the current colonialism expressed through abusive economics is coming from the western nations...the US and Europe.

So when you see a guy naming his kid for an African freedom fighter who was trying to throw off colonialism from Portugal, it doesn't really tell us anything simply because we know the guy was a Marxist. Most African freedom movements began with some form of socialism or Marxist doctrine underpinning them. At the same time it has to be recognized that is not true today for the most part. In fact capitalism has become the dominant economic voice in black nationalist movements as these countries have struggled to become part of the world's economy.

Interesting post -- of course Communism in Africa will be flavored differently -- like how I believe Socialism in America will be structured and packaged differently here. I can see how Communism can be appealing to those who feel they cannot affect change -- I don’t think it usually works to increase freedom for the greatest number of people -- the masses still live in abject poverty after one dictator is caste out in favor of a different flavored one. I certainly feel that the collective, Borg voice is always muted, manipulated and distant to the concerns of the Polis -- power when centralized destroys good intentions in government and trends quickly toward oppression -- human nature has taught us that.

[Spider]

Bush appointed a terrorism czar , not one mention of the bedwetters about the word czar , now all of the sudden they are havin kittens .......And you guys wonder why we on the left dont take you serious .........

[Rohirrim]

Originally Posted by Bob

Should is very different that can -- you know as well as I do, that in any group folks on both sides have varing levels of education and information -- I like to think everyone has a right to speak, that we have to fight for. Bill M's statements were representative of something very evil, and much more dangerous than some folks speaking out and expressing their Constitutional views. Bill can say what he wants, it is his right, but he is advocating taking the right of others to speak, or at least to be listened to by those who hold power You heard him right? The use of the word "drag them" implies take away their free will -- and the reason he felt justified in saying this (I am assuming) is because he feels so much smarter, and has so much more information than the majority who feels differently then him -- tyrants all have this foundation, to justify (in the end) anything thy wish.

His statements about making Max Baucus an offer he couldnt refuse by someone putting the head of one of his interns in his bed -- was reflective of the next evolution of ideological "debate" in otherwords no debate -- crush the majority, threaten violence against them.

I'm sure you realize that Bill Maher is a comedian, right? I mean, you do, don't you? Do you get this freaked out about everything? Like if an unidentified bird flies over your house do you do a nose dive into the basement? Or whip out an AK? Perhaps you could visit your local MD and get a little medication? I'll bet your favorite sport is road rage.

[Bob]

Originally Posted by Spider

Bush appointed a terrorism czar , not one mention of the bedwetters about the word czar , now all of the sudden they are havin kittens .......And you guys wonder why we on the left dont take you serious .........

I think Nixon was the first to appoint a Czar -- the drug Czar -- and we have had them since. It is the number, the power, and the types of idiots he is appointing that concern me -- some of them are not Dems, they are Communists and in the not too distant past said they were...the Czar over the FCC did talk in glowing terms about the Chavez revolution -- I think to get that clip again.

[Bob]

Originally Posted by Rohirrim

I'm sure you realize that Bill Maher is a comedian, right? I mean, you do, don't you? Do you get this freaked out about everything? Like if an unidentified bird flies over your house do you do a nose dive into the basement? Or whip out an AK? Perhaps you could visit your local MD and get a little medication? I'll bet your favorite sport is road rage.

Like radicals -- you deflect, but yes he's a VERY funny guy, and was completely joking when he said it.

[footstepsfrom#27]

Originally Posted by Bob

I think Nixon was the first to appoint a Czar -- the drug Czar -- and we have had them since. It is the number, the power, and the types of idiots he is appointing that concern me -- some of them are not Dems, they are Communists and in the not too distant past said they were...the Czar over the FCC did talk in glowing terms about the Chavez revolution -- I think to get that clip again.

Here ya go: http://www.orangemane.com/BB/showthr...ar#post2524955

[tnedator]

Are opinions still the same on Jones? Should the White House continue to back him, or should he resign?

[tnedator]

The White House was less aggressive in pushing back when questioned about Mr. Jones' remarks.

One administration official even took pains to point out that Mr. Jones did not report directly to the president. He "is not an assistant to the president and he is not the 'Green Jobs Czar,' as that position does not exist in the White House," the official said.

The sheer abundance of inflammatory statements by Mr. Jones rekindled questions about the methods the administration has used to vet its appointees. Numerous videotapes of his more controversial speeches were within easy reach on the Internet, as was the petition by the group 911Truth.org.

http://washingtontimes.com/news/2009...home_headlines

Maybe Jones and that guy on the Mane selling books about the WTC bombing being an inside job, are actually one and the same.

[tnedator]

On CNN’s Situation Room last night, I was asked about the White House’s green jobs adviser’s signature of at least one (and maybe two) statements endorsing the denialist point of view. The White House is apparently excusing its man on the grounds that he did not appreciate the significance of the documents. My reply: “This is a man in charge of supervising $80 billion worth of contracts - and your defense of him is that he signs things without reading them?”

http://www.newmajority.com/van-jones-and-911-denialism

[tnedator]

Yep, there is no media bias in the MSM

The Van Jones (non) feeding frenzy
By: Byron York
Chief Political Correspondent
09/04/09 11:30 AM EDT
From a Nexis search a few moments ago:

Total words about the Van Jones controversy in the New York Times: 0.
Total words about the Van Jones controversy in the Washington Post: 0.
Total words about the Van Jones controversy on NBC Nightly News: 0.
Total words about the Van Jones controversy on ABC World News: 0.
Total words about the Van Jones controversy on CBS Evening News: 0.

If you were to receive all your news from any one of these outlets, or even all of them together, and you heard about some sort of controversy involving President Obama's Special Adviser for Green Jobs, Enterprise and Innovation, your response would be, "Huh?" If you heard that that adviser, Van Jones, had apologized for a number of remarks and positions in the recent past, your response would be, "What?" And if you were in the Obama White House monitoring the Jones situation, you would be hoping that the news organizations listed above continue to hold the line -- otherwise, Jones, who is quite well thought of in Obama circles, would be history.



9/5/09 UPDATE: The New York Times, ABC and NBC hold the line

After the Jones controversy reached a boiling point on Friday, the Washington Post published a story, "White House Says Little on Embattled Jones," on page A-3 of its Saturday edition. But the New York Times remained silent on the story.

Likewise, on Friday night the "CBS Evening News" reported the Jones matter, but ABC's "World News" and "NBC Nightly News" again failed to report the story.

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/op...-57271402.html

[Rohirrim]

Just because Glenn Beck gets a hard on and goes berserk over something, you expect the MSM to pick up on it? Why? It's a non-story. Hell, Rupert Murdoch's publishing company published the guy's book. Tell that to Glenn Beck. Rupert is his boss. Obviously, he doesn't give a **** either.

Message to Bob (please read slowly): Just 'cause you see it on TV, doesn't make it real.

Now, repeat over and over and over again.