PoliticsView from the Center and Left

Previous 10 Next 10 
To: bentway who wrote (189007)5/11/2012 4:19:28 PM
From: Wharf Rat
of 374634
Teaching our boys to treat ladies with deference, we choose not to place them in an athletic competition where proper boundaries can only be respected with difficulty ... Our school aims to instill in our boys a profound respect for women and girls."

Mostly, that is just preppy for" We don't want to get beat by a girl."

Either that, or they follow sharia law.

Share KeepReplyMark as Last ReadRead Replies (2)

To: Wharf Rat who wrote (189013)5/11/2012 4:30:33 PM
From: Wharf Rat
of 374634
Saudi Arabia Unveils $100 Billion Plan To Make Solar ‘A Driver For Domestic Energy For Years To Come’

By Stephen Lacey on May 11, 2012 at 12:29 pm

Photo: Arnaud Desbordes via Flickr

Even the world’s largest producer of oil understands the value of developing renewable energy.

A few months after Saudi Arabia’s oil minister called global warming “among humanity’s most pressing concerns,” the country is rolling out an ambitious plan to source 41,000 megawatts of solar projects over the next two decades — scaling up a domestic solar industry to support one third of electricity production by 2032.

Solar electricity and petroleum serve completely different markets. However, in this case, solar will be directly replacing the oil that Saudi Arabia uses for desalination plants. Officials are currently rolling out a competitive bidding process for 1,100 megawatts of solar photovoltaics and 900 megawatts of concentrating solar power in the first quarter of 2013.

The plan is part of a larger strategy to scale up various sources of renewable energy, build a new domestic industry, and reduce oil consumption. Officials estimate that the solar plan will reduce domestic consumption of oil by 520,000 barrels per day. PV Magazine reported on the news from a solar conference in Saudi Arabia:

The oil-rich country is planning to place more focus on renewable energy generation. In addition to more solar power, it intends to add wind, geothermal, waste-to-energy and nuclear plants to its energy mix in the future. The program, said to be worth tens of millions of dollars, aims to “catapult Saudi Arabia into the group of global leaders in renewable-energy development.”

Of the 41 GW of solar, photovoltaics is expected to comprise 16 GW, while concentrated solar power (CSP) will encompass 25 GW. “The CSP plants, with their higher capacity factor than PV, are foreseen as a bridge between base-load technologies (including geothermal, waste-to-energy and nuclear) and PV, which will provide coverage for daytime demand,” explained Apricum, a strategy consulting and transaction advisory firm specialized in renewable energy.

In a recent speech, Saudi Arabia’s Oil Minister Ali Al-Naimi expressed concerns about climate change, saying “societal expectations on climate change are real, and our industry is expected to take a leadership role.”

It would be nice to think that the Saudis were doing this for climate change reasons. But they’re doing it for more selfish objectives: jobs and efficiency.

In that same speech, Al-Naimi explained the need to support new energy industries that can create more jobs than the oil sector: “We know that pumping oil out of the ground does not create many jobs. It does not foster an entrepreneurial spirit, nor does it sharpen critical faculties.”

According to the Saudis, what does foster that entrepreneurial spirit? Renewable energy.

In a report from Bloomberg Businessweek on the recent announcement, a consultant with the Saudi government, Maher al- Odan, explained the country’s strategy: “We are not only looking for building solar plants….We want to run a sustainable solar energy sector that will become a driver for the domestic energy for years to come.”

The plan will also help the country save hundreds of thousands of barrels of crude per day. With diplomats and energy experts privately concerned that Saudi Arabia has overstated its oil reserves by as much as 40%, the country will need new resources to make up for declines in production.

This announcement shows the importance of renewable energy — even for the world’s largest exporters of fossil fuels.

Share KeepReplyMark as Last ReadRead Replies (1)

To: Wharf Rat who wrote (189014)5/11/2012 4:37:08 PM
From: epicure
of 374634
I wish Americans were getting out in front on alternative energy. I suspect China will eat our lunch on this one.

Share KeepReplyMark as Last ReadRead Replies (2)

To: epicure who wrote (189015)5/11/2012 4:49:15 PM
From: Wharf Rat
of 374634
We blew it so badly.

Europeans Look To China For Renewable Energy Expansion

Even in the midst of an economic crisis, most European countries are staying committed to deploying renewable energy. But with demand starting to lag due to fiscal constraints, the region’s leaders are looking to large developing countries as growth markets for European companies.
Message 28138714

What's missing here? Us; US

Jimmy Carter delivered this televised speech on April 18, 1977.

Tonight I want to have an unpleasant talk with you about a problem unprecedented in our history. With the exception of preventing war, this is the greatest challenge our country will face during our lifetimes. The energy crisis has not yet overwhelmed us, but it will if we do not act quickly.

It is a problem we will not solve in the next few years, and it is likely to get progressively worse through the rest of this century.

We must not be selfish or timid if we hope to have a decent world for our children and grandchildren.

We simply must balance our demand for energy with our rapidly shrinking resources. By acting now, we can control our future instead of letting the future control us.

Two days from now, I will present my energy proposals to the Congress. Its members will be my partners and they have already given me a great deal of valuable advice. Many of these proposals will be unpopular. Some will cause you to put up with inconveniences and to make sacrifices.

The most important thing about these proposals is that the alternative may be a national catastrophe. Further delay can affect our strength and our power as a nation.

Our decision about energy will test the character of the American people and the ability of the President and the Congress to govern. This difficult effort will be the "moral equivalent of war" -- except that we will be uniting our efforts to build and not destroy.

I know that some of you may doubt that we face real energy shortages. The 1973 gasoline lines are gone, and our homes are warm again. But our energy problem is worse tonight than it was in 1973 or a few weeks ago in the dead of winter. It is worse because more waste has occurred, and more time has passed by without our planning for the future. And it will get worse every day until we act.

The oil and natural gas we rely on for 75 percent of our energy are running out. In spite of increased effort, domestic production has been dropping steadily at about six percent a year. Imports have doubled in the last five years. Our nation's independence of economic and political action is becoming increasingly constrained. Unless profound changes are made to lower oil consumption, we now believe that early in the 1980s the world will be demanding more oil that it can produce.

The world now uses about 60 million barrels of oil a day and demand increases each year about five percent. This means that just to stay even we need the production of a new Texas every year, an Alaskan North Slope every nine months, or a new Saudi Arabia every three years. Obviously, this cannot continue.

We must look back in history to understand our energy problem. Twice in the last several hundred years there has been a transition in the way people use energy.

The first was about 200 years ago, away from wood -- which had provided about 90 percent of all fuel -- to coal, which was more efficient. This change became the basis of the Industrial Revolution.

The second change took place in this century, with the growing use of oil and natural gas. They were more convenient and cheaper than coal, and the supply seemed to be almost without limit. They made possible the age of automobile and airplane travel. Nearly everyone who is alive today grew up during this age and we have never known anything different.

Because we are now running out of gas and oil, we must prepare quickly for a third change, to strict conservation and to the use of coal and permanent renewable energy sources, like solar power.

The world has not prepared for the future. During the 1950s, people used twice as much oil as during the 1940s. During the 1960s, we used twice as much as during the 1950s. And in each of those decades, more oil was consumed than in all of mankind's previous history.

World consumption of oil is still going up. If it were possible to keep it rising during the 1970s and 1980s by 5 percent a year as it has in the past, we could use up all the proven reserves of oil in the entire world by the end of the next decade.

I know that many of you have suspected that some supplies of oil and gas are being withheld. You may be right, but suspicions about oil companies cannot change the fact that we are running out of petroleum.

All of us have heard about the large oil fields on Alaska's North Slope. In a few years when the North Slope is producing fully, its total output will be just about equal to two years' increase in our nation's energy demand.

Each new inventory of world oil reserves has been more disturbing than the last. World oil production can probably keep going up for another six or eight years. But some time in the 1980s it can't go up much more. Demand will overtake production. We have no choice about that.

But we do have a choice about how we will spend the next few years. Each American uses the energy equivalent of 60 barrels of oil per person each year. Ours is the most wasteful nation on earth. We waste more energy than we import. With about the same standard of living, we use twice as much energy per person as do other countries like Germany, Japan, and Sweden.

One choice is to continue doing what we have been doing before. We can drift along for a few more years.

Our consumption of oil would keep going up every year. Our cars would continue to be too large and inefficient. Three-quarters of them would continue to carry only one person -- the driver -- while our public transportation system continues to decline. We can delay insulating our houses, and they will continue to lose about 50 percent of their heat in waste.

We can continue using scarce oil and natural [gas] to generate electricity, and continue wasting two-thirds of their fuel value in the process.

If we do not act, then by 1985 we will be using 33 percent more energy than we do today.

We can't substantially increase our domestic production, so we would need to import twice as much oil as we do now. Supplies will be uncertain. The cost will keep going up. Six years ago, we paid $3.7 billion for imported oil. Last year we spent $37 billion -- nearly ten times as much -- and this year we may spend over $45 billion.

Unless we act, we will spend more than $550 billion for imported oil by 1985 -- more than $2,500 a year for every man, woman, and child in America. Along with that money we will continue losing American jobs and becoming increasingly vulnerable to supply interruptions.

Now we have a choice. But if we wait, we will live in fear of embargoes. We could endanger our freedom as a sovereign nation to act in foreign affairs. Within ten years we would not be able to import enough oil -- from any country, at any acceptable price.

If we wait, and do not act, then our factories will not be able to keep our people on the job with reduced supplies of fuel. Too few of our utilities will have switched to coal, our most abundant energy source.

We will not be ready to keep our transportation system running with smaller, more efficient cars and a better network of buses, trains and public transportation.

We will feel mounting pressure to plunder the environment. We will have a crash program to build more nuclear plants, strip-mine and burn more coal, and drill more offshore wells than we will need if we begin to conserve now. Inflation will soar, production will go down, people will lose their jobs. Intense competition will build up among nations and among the different regions within our own country.

If we fail to act soon, we will face an economic, social and political crisis that will threaten our free institutions.

But we still have another choice. We can begin to prepare right now. We can decide to act while there is time.

That is the concept of the energy policy we will present on Wednesday. Our national energy plan is based on ten fundamental principles.

The first principle is that we can have an effective and comprehensive energy policy only if the government takes responsibility for it and if the people understand the seriousness of the challenge and are willing to make sacrifices.

The second principle is that healthy economic growth must continue. Only by saving energy can we maintain our standard of living and keep our people at work. An effective conservation program will create hundreds of thousands of new jobs.

The third principle is that we must protect the environment. Our energy problems have the same cause as our environmental problems -- wasteful use of resources. Conservation helps us solve both at once.

The fourth principle is that we must reduce our vulnerability to potentially devastating embargoes. We can protect ourselves from uncertain supplies by reducing our demand for oil, making the most of our abundant resources such as coal, and developing a strategic petroleum reserve.

The fifth principle is that we must be fair. Our solutions must ask equal sacrifices from every region, every class of people, every interest group. Industry will have to do its part to conserve, just as the consumers will. The energy producers deserve fair treatment, but we will not let the oil companies profiteer.

The sixth principle, and the cornerstone of our policy, is to reduce the demand through conservation. Our emphasis on conservation is a clear difference between this plan and others which merely encouraged crash production efforts. Conservation is the quickest, cheapest, most practical source of energy. Conservation is the only way we can buy a barrel of oil for a few dollars. It costs about $13 to waste it.

The seventh principle is that prices should generally reflect the true replacement costs of energy. We are only cheating ourselves if we make energy artificially cheap and use more than we can really afford.

The eighth principle is that government policies must be predictable and certain. Both consumers and producers need policies they can count on so they can plan ahead. This is one reason I am working with the Congress to create a new Department of Energy, to replace more than 50 different agencies that now have some control over energy.

The ninth principle is that we must conserve the fuels that are scarcest and make the most of those that are more plentiful. We can't continue to use oil and gas for 75 percent of our consumption when they make up seven percent of our domestic reserves. We need to shift to plentiful coal while taking care to protect the environment, and to apply stricter safety standards to nuclear energy.

The tenth principle is that we must start now to develop the new, unconventional sources of energy we will rely on in the next century.

These ten principles have guided the development of the policy I would describe to you and the Congress on Wednesday.

Our energy plan will also include a number of specific goals, to measure our progress toward a stable energy system.

These are the goals we set for 1985:

-Reduce the annual growth rate in our energy demand to less than two percent.

-Reduce gasoline consumption by ten percent below its current level.

-Cut in half the portion of United States oil which is imported, from a potential level of 16 million barrels to six million barrels a day.

-Establish a strategic petroleum reserve of one billion barrels, more than six months' supply.

-Increase our coal production by about two thirds to more than 1 billion tons a year.

-Insulate 90 percent of American homes and all new buildings.

-Use solar energy in more than two and one-half million houses.

We will monitor our progress toward these goals year by year. Our plan will call for stricter conservation measures if we fall behind.

I cant tell you that these measures will be easy, nor will they be popular. But I think most of you realize that a policy which does not ask for changes or sacrifices would not be an effective policy.

This plan is essential to protect our jobs, our environment, our standard of living, and our future.

Whether this plan truly makes a difference will be decided not here in Washington, but in every town and every factory, in every home and on every highway and every farm.

I believe this can be a positive challenge. There is something especially American in the kinds of changes we have to make. We have been proud, through our history of being efficient people.

We have been proud of our leadership in the world. Now we have a chance again to give the world a positive example.

And we have been proud of our vision of the future. We have always wanted to give our children and grandchildren a world richer in possibilities than we've had. They are the ones we must provide for now. They are the ones who will suffer most if we don't act.

I've given you some of the principles of the plan.

I am sure each of you will find something you don't like about the specifics of our proposal. It will demand that we make sacrifices and changes in our lives. To some degree, the sacrifices will be painful -- but so is any meaningful sacrifice. It will lead to some higher costs, and to some greater inconveniences for everyone.

But the sacrifices will be gradual, realistic and necessary. Above all, they will be fair. No one will gain an unfair advantage through this plan. No one will be asked to bear an unfair burden. We will monitor the accuracy of data from the oil and natural gas companies, so that we will know their true production, supplies, reserves, and profits.

The citizens who insist on driving large, unnecessarily powerful cars must expect to pay more for that luxury.

We can be sure that all the special interest groups in the country will attack the part of this plan that affects them directly. They will say that sacrifice is fine, as long as other people do it, but that their sacrifice is unreasonable, or unfair, or harmful to the country. If they succeed, then the burden on the ordinary citizen, who is not organized into an interest group, would be crushing.

There should be only one test for this program: whether it will help our country.

Other generation of Americans have faced and mastered great challenges. I have faith that meeting this challenge will make our own lives even richer. If you will join me so that we can work together with patriotism and courage, we will again prove that our great nation can lead the world into an age of peace, independence and freedom.

Jimmy Carter, "The President's Proposed Energy Policy." 18 April 1977. Vital Speeches of the Day, Vol. XXXXIII, No. 14, May 1, 1977, pp. 418-420.

Share KeepReplyMark as Last ReadRead Replies (1)

To: epicure who wrote (189015)5/11/2012 4:49:57 PM
From: Sam
of 374634
Sources: Robin Roberts Feared Obama Interview Would Out Her as a Lesbian (SEE UPDATES BELOW)

Last night, Politico published a breakdown of how ABC's Robin Roberts scored the President Obama gay marriage interview yesterday and, through several producers and media analysts, offered up these non-media-related credentials: Black. Christian. 50-year-old. Sports fan. Female.

The only part the report omitted was the near-open secret that Roberts is a lesbian. A source close to ABC executives told us that although the interview is, at this point, the biggest of her professional career, Roberts wasn't overly enthusiastic about the scoop because she thought it would bring her own sexuality to the forefront.

"Most of the discussions [among TV people] today about why Robin got the interview have to do with her being gay," a source told Gawker. "Not that she's black, or friends of the Obamas."

"Obviously they picked her because she's black and gay," said another industry insider familiar with the selection.

Plus, her mother was in town to visit her in New York, sources say. Watershed interview with POTUS or not, Roberts didn't want to stand up mom.

A long time ESPN reporter prior to joining GMA, Roberts has always managed to safely navigate her open secret without any Anderson Cooper-level of commotion. But after sitting across from Obama as he vocalized his "evolved" stance on gay marriage for the first time, it will be more difficult for the ABC anchor to sidestep.

"It's hardly a secret in the business," the insider said. "I've seen her girlfriend. She's around the building all the time—very attractive and well-dressed."

UPDATE: Internet behemoth Matt Drudge, who has just directed his readers to this post, is also commonly understood to be gay.

UPDATE #2: Internet behemoth Matt Drudge, who is commonly understood to be gay, is no longer directing his readers to this post.

Share KeepReplyMark as Last ReadRead Replies (1)

To: Sam who wrote (188998)5/11/2012 6:37:39 PM
From: Wharf Rat
of 374634
What's the next paragraph? Why did they leave it out? Could be classic cherry picking.

Did he get punished? Did he apologize on his own, or with his grandmother holding him by his ear? Did he track her down 20 years later and give her flowers? Did the teachers find out right then and there and keep him after school? Did her much older brothers beat the snot out of him after school? There is a next paragraph in his book.
For that matter, what came B4? "Here's a story that helped teach me tolerance"? "Here's where I first learned about the mysteries of females"?

Seems like a scene I've seen in about 100 movies with young'uns.

Share KeepReplyMark as Last Read

To: Wharf Rat who wrote (188969)5/11/2012 6:48:05 PM
From: Cogito
of 374634
It's going to be pretty hard for Mitten to make the claim that marriage has always been one man and one woman, when that isn't even true in his own family, as recently as three generations ago. He is the direct descendant of a woman who had four "sister wives" as they were known.

I can't wait to see how his campaign is going to handle that. It will involve some pretty fancy footwork.

It's not true in my family, either. I have Mormon ancestors who were involved in plural marriages, too.

Share KeepReplyMark as Last Read

To: Sam who wrote (189011)5/11/2012 7:16:32 PM
From: Win Smith
of 374634
Ok, there's a reaction shot from inner Walkeristan, including this emission from the Scottmeister himself:

Asked specifically about the "divide and conquer" comment, Walker said: "A year and a half ago, I don't remember all of the particulars. We talked about the fact that someone needed to stand up and stand on behalf of the taxpayers."

Walker is so full of crap. If you can make anything like that out of the previous transcript, let me know. Just to refresh, the question Walker was caught on was this:
Hendricks: - so what we're going to do and talk about right now is just concerns that Mary (Willmer-Sheedy) and I have that we probably, are a little controversial to bring up upstairs. OK? I don't want to - because there's press up there.

Walker: OK, sure.

Lichtenstein: Just so you know, nothing I do is going to see the light of day for over another year.

Walker: OK, that's fine.

Hendricks: So we'll just take five minutes. You know, they don't know. Any chance we'll ever get to be a completely red state and work on these unions -

Walker: Oh, yeah.

Hendricks: - and become a right-to-work (state)? What can we do to help you?
Ok, so Hendricks seems to be as close as we can get to an in-state version of all the fat cats Walker has been roaming the country sucking up to ( she's supposedly worth a $billion, and has given $500k to Walker). And she take him aside to bring up the "too controversial for the lesser fat cats" proposition of making Wisconsin right-to-work. Not a word about taxpayer concerns there. And Walker says, basically, "yeah, yeah, I got a plan". And now, in his conveniently dim memory, he was standing up and taking a stand for the taxpayer. I'm beginning to think Walker would be a better match for Willard the mitten than even Ryan, Walker seems to really enjoy making crap up.

The article in full, including more ridiculous BS from the other Wisconsonite darling of the national conservative machine:

Barrett, Walker at odds over 'divide and conquer' union remark

A video showing Gov. Scott Walker talking about a strategy of "divide and conquer" involving unions was ground into the mill of the recall race Friday, with the Republican governor defending his comments and Democrat Tom Barrett saying he was "flabbergasted" by them.

Walker said Friday that he was seeking to move forward and that he did not want to pursue so-called right to work legislation, which would prohibit requiring private-sector employees to pay dues to a union.

The governor made the "divide and conquer" remark in a conversation with Beloit billionaire Diane Hendricks that was videotaped by a documentary filmmaker. The conversation took place at a January 2011 conference of the regional economic development Rock County 5.0 that is co-chaired by Hendricks, and since then Hendricks has since given $510,000 to the governor's campaign.

Asked about the video that surfaced Thursday at a campaign appearance in Burlington, Walker said Friday it was interesting that "our opponents want to rehash, replay the debate. I think the vast majority, myself included, want to move on, move forward."

Asked specifically about the "divide and conquer" comment, Walker said: "A year and a half ago, I don't remember all of the particulars. We talked about the fact that someone needed to stand up and stand on behalf of the taxpayers."

Barrett, the Milwaukee mayor who is challenging Walker in the June 5 recall election, said at a news conference at the West Allis City Hall Friday said that the video made clear that Walker had intended to pass legislation like right to work to weaken both public and private-sector unions. Barrett said that he first heard about the video Thursday night while driving home from Wausau and was"flabbergasted at his language.""If you want to know when Scott Walker is really telling the truth, it's when he's talking to billionaires and when he thinks he's talking to billionaires," Barrett said. "He says one thing to the public, but to people who give him $500,000 or to people he thinks are giving him $1 million to the Republican Governors Association, his message is completely different."

In the conversation on the video, Hendricks was seen asking Walker about right-to-work legislation. "Any chance we'll ever get to be a completely red state and work on these unions - "

"Oh, yeah," Walker broke in.

"- and become a right-to-work?" Hendricks continued. "What can we do to help you?"

"Well, we're going to start in a couple weeks with our budget adjustment bill," Walker said. "The first step is we're going to deal with collective bargaining for all public employee unions, because you use divide and conquer. So for us, the base we get for that is the fact that we've got - budgetarily we can't afford not to. If we have collective bargaining agreements in place, there's no way not only the state but local governments can balance things out . . . That opens the door once we do that. That's your bigger problem right there."

Walker, who sponsored right-to-work legislation two decades ago when he served in the state Legislature, said Friday he has no interest in pursuing it now. "I think it is clear what I've learned from the past year, and I feel strongly about is people don't want to go back and replay that debate," he said in Burlington.

Phil Neuenfeldt, president of the Wisconsin State AFL-CIO, said the clip reminded him of the February 2011 prank telephone call in which a liberal blogger recorded a conversation with Walker after impersonating conservative billionaire David Koch.

"It makes you ill . . . If there was any doubt in their mind in terms of the governor's plans to destroy the unions, this puts it to rest," Neuenfeldt said.

Rep. Robin Vos, an influential Republican lawmaker and the front-runner to be the next Assembly speaker, said that he didn't see anything different in the video than what Walker had said publicly. He questioned why the video had surfaced two days after the Tuesday Democratic recall primary won by Barrett.

"This is a politician trying to make people feel that there is some sinister plot when it fact there is none," Vos said.

"I have always been a supporter of right to work because I believe people should have to choose whether they're in a union, but I am not going to pursue that any time in the foreseeable future and I am confident that Governor Walker is not either," Vos said in a statement.

Vos acknowledged, however, that he would vote for a right-to-work bill if it were to come to a floor vote.

Barrett said that, after watching the video, it was clear to him that Walker had a much broader plan. Barrett said Walker used the words "the first step," a suggestion he ultimately planned to try to enact a right-to-work law. Barrett said that, if elected, he would veto any right-to-work legislation that reaches his desk.

Barrett was in West Allis to accept the endorsement from the 105-member West Allis Professional Police Association. That same group had endorsed Walker in the 2010 gubernatorial election.

Meanwhile, the filmmaker, Brad Lichtenstein said Friday he was focused on faithfully telling the story of the economically savaged community in Rock County in his forthcoming documentary " As Goes Janesville." He said he had held the video clip including Walker for more than a year while he was finishing his film and that he had planned to release the trailer for the documentary around this time before the date of the recall election against Walker had been set for June 5.

Lichtenstein, president of 371 Productions in Milwaukee, acknowledged to the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel that he has done work on Democratic campaigns and had given $100 in 2010 to Barrett. Lichtenstein's wife is a public employee, a professor at the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee.

Lichtenstein said he did not accept any funding for his film from labor or Democratic groups because of the ethical standards required by the Public Broadcasting Service, which is expected to air the film in the fall. Instead, his funding came from groups like The MacArthur Foundation and the Sheldon and Marianne Lubar Family Foundation, he said.

"I have no political agenda with the film, and I'm not releasing the trailer to have a political impact in Wisconsin," Lichtenstein said Friday.

Lichtenstein said he was still talking with his lawyer about a request by the Journal Sentinel to provide the newspaper with the raw footage of the Walker comments to post to the newspaper's website. Reporters for the newspaper have been able to review the raw footage and make a transcript of it to get the context of the conversation and see how it was edited for the trailer.

Lichtenstein said he finished filming the documentary in January 2012 and has put together a rough cut of the film but is still putting the finishing touches on the work. He said he showed the trailer with the Walker clip in it to several audiences over the past month, including students at a university where he was speaking and a group of labor historians.

Neuenfeldt, the state union leader, said he had heard about the footage from someone at the labor history event but hadn't been sure exactly what it showed until it was posted to the Internet Thursday.

Lichtenstein videotaped the conversation that Walker had with Hendricks, the co-founder of ABC Supply, the roofing wholesaler and siding distributor and Mary Willmer-Sheedy, a community bank president for M&I Bank. The filmmaker was recording what Willmer-Sheedy and others in Janesville were doing to try to create jobs in an area hard hit by the shutdown of its General Motors plant and related businesses.

Lichtenstein and Hendricks both told Walker that Lichtenstein was filming a documentary shortly after he started to shoot footage of the governor.

Within minutes of saying hello to the governor in the video, Hendricks tells Walker she wants to ask him about some issues that might be a "little controversial" before the public event, where reporters would be on hand. She mentions that Lichtenstein is filming, and Lichtenstein tells Walker that his work would not come out for over a year.

Lichtenstein said his past films had portrayed all sides in a fair way. He has worked on "With God on Our Side," which is about the religious right, and "Ghosts of Attica," which includes the perspectives of both inmates and correctional officers recalling the takeover of a New York prison by inmates 30 years ago.

"I've never set out to make polemical films," he said. "I'm not (liberal filmmaker) Michael Moore."

Share KeepReplyMark as Last ReadRead Replies (1)

To: Sam who wrote (189017)5/11/2012 7:19:24 PM
From: Win Smith
of 374634

The end of that was LOL funny:

UPDATE: Internet behemoth Matt Drudge, who has just directed his readers to this post, is also commonly understood to be gay.

UPDATE #2: Internet behemoth Matt Drudge, who is commonly understood to be gay, is no longer directing his readers to this post.

Share KeepReplyMark as Last ReadRead Replies (1)

To: koan who wrote (188986)5/11/2012 7:23:23 PM
From: T L Comiskey
of 374634
re....Joe Arpaio

a desperate ..lonely

failure of a human being......

Share KeepReplyMark as Last ReadRead Replies (2)
Previous 10 Next 10 

Copyright © 1995-2018 Knight Sac Media. All rights reserved.Stock quotes are delayed at least 15 minutes - See Terms of Use.