Tim Hetherington, Award Winning Photojournalist and Director, Killed in Libya Today (UPDATED)
Posted: April 20, 2011 Filed under: Foreign Affairs, Libya, U.S. Military, U.S. Politics | Tags: Afghanistan, Chris Hondros, Gaddafi, Korengal Valley, Libya, Misrata, NATO, photojournalism, Restrepo, Sebastian Junger, Tim Hetherington 9 Comments
Sebastian Junger, left, and Tim Hetherington at Army Outpost Restrepo in Korengal Valley, Afghanistan. (Outpost Films / September 10, 2007)
British journalist Tim Hetherington, who co-directed and photographed the award-winning documentary Restrepo died today in Misrata, Libya. While making the film, Hetherington and his co-director Sebastian Junger worked closely with U.S. troops in an isolated and dangerous outpost in Afghanistan over an extended period of time. Restrepo won the Grand Jury Prize at the Sundance Film Festival and was nominated for an Oscar. Hetherington was 41.
Tim Hetherington, best known for co-directing the Oscar-nominated documentary on the Afghanistan war “Restrepo,” was killed in Libya on Wednesday while covering the conflict as a photojournalist for Panos Pictures, according to one of his other employers, Vanity Fair magazine.
Along with Hetherington, the New York Times reports three other journalists were wounded in the same incident: Chris Hondros, working for Getty photo agency; Guy Martin, working for Panos also; and Michael Christopher Brown, who has worked as a freelancer for several large publications.
Hondros and Martin were said to have grave wounds, and may not survive, the Times reports.
The day before he died, Hetherington tweeted: “In besieged Libyan city of Misrata. Indiscriminate shelling by Qaddafi forces. No sign of NATO.”
Hetherington, one of the best known photojournalists and winner of the prestigious Dupont Award, produced powerful pieces for ABC News’ “Nightline” from the Korengal Valley, Afghanistan, and directed the documentary “Restrepo,” which was nominated for an Academy Award.
[….]
“Tim was one of the bravest photographers and filmmakers I have ever met,” said ABC News’ James Goldston, who worked closely with Hetherington as executive producer of “Nightline.”
“During his shooting for the Nightline specials he very seriously broke his leg on a night march out of a very isolated forward operating base that was under attack. He had the strength and character to walk for four hours through the night on his shattered ankle without complaint and under fire, enabling that whole team to reach safety.”
Hetherington was embedded with the Army unit in Afghanistan when Army Staff Sgt. Salvatore Giunta put his life on the line to save his comrades. Giunta later became the first living recipient of the Medal of Honor since Vietnam.
RESTREPO is a feature-length documentary that chronicles the deployment of a platoon of U.S. soldiers in Afghanistan’s Korengal Valley. The movie focuses on a remote 15-man outpost, “Restrepo,” named after a platoon medic who was killed in action. It was considered one of the most dangerous postings in the U.S. military.
And from the “directors’ statement”:
Our intention was to capture the experience of combat, boredom and fear through the eyes of the soldiers themselves. Their lives were our lives: we did not sit down with their families, we did not interview Afghans, we did not explore geopolitical debates. Soldiers are living and fighting and dying at remote outposts in Afghanistan in conditions that few Americans back home can imagine. Their experiences are important to understand, regardless of one’s political beliefs.
UPDATE: American photojournalist Chris Hondros has died of wounds from the same attack in which Tim Hetherington died.
The Washington Post has put up a gallery of Hondros’ work.
Out of Touch, Out of Mind
Posted: April 20, 2011 Filed under: Federal Budget, Federal Budget and Budget deficit | Tags: taxes 18 Comments
The deficit burble in the beltway appears to be happening without the consent or input of the governed. If polls are any indication, the congress and the White House are moving the exact opposite direction of public will. First, it’s been clear for some time that the majority of people think raising taxes on the rich and letting the Bush Tax Cuts for Billionaires go away is the correct prescription. They thought that when Obama joined the Tax Cuts for Billionaires club and their opinions still haven’t changed.
Alarmed by rising national debt, Americans are clear about how they want to attack the federal government’s runaway budget deficits: raise taxes on the wealthy and keep hands off Medicare and Medicaid.
At the same time, the new McClatchy-Marist poll of the nation found that voters don’t want the debt ceiling raised, despite warnings that failing to do so would force the government into default and the economy into a tailspin.
By a 2-1 ratio, voters support raising taxes on yearly incomes above $250,000.
It’s even more clear what voters think about the slashing and hacking of Medicare, Social Security, and Medicaid. It’s a big ol’ resounding Hell NO!!
The Post-ABC poll finds that 78 percent oppose cutting spending on Medicare as a way to chip away at the debt. On Medicaid — the government insurance program for the poor — 69 percent disapprove of cuts.
There is also broad opposition to cuts in military spending to reduce the debt, but at somewhat lower levels (56 percent).
In his speech last week, the president renewed his call to raise tax rates on family income over $250,000, and he appears to hold the high ground politically, according to the poll. At this point, 72 percent support raising taxes along those lines, with 54 percent strongly backing this approach. The proposal enjoys the support of majorities of Democrats (91 percent), independents (68 percent) and Republicans (54 percent). Only among people with annual incomes greater than $100,000 does less than a majority “strongly support” such tax increases.
Let me first suggest a few things. First, remove deductions on second mortgages, boats, and overpriced McMansions. If it’s not an average family home, it doesn’t need a tax subsidy. Second, equally tax investment and labor income. There should be no tax privileges given to rich people that inherit wealth and then spend their days sitting around reaping profits from speculation. I agree with Katrina Vanden Heuvel of The Nation that calls this policy “Tinkle Down” economics. It’s really bad policy and it’s supremely unfair.
Then in December, the Obama-GOP deal extended the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy at a two-year cost of about $70 billion a year. Now Congress is making $40 billion in painful budget cuts this year. Meanwhile, President Obama, Representative Paul Ryan and others are battling over budgets and tax plans for the next decade and beyond. For the most part, what’s been missing from these suffocatingly narrow discussions is an easy source of income: taxing investments like ordinary income.
The folks over at Responsible Wealth believe not only that the Bush tax cuts on upper-income folks should be ended but also that money made from money (i.e., capital gains and dividends) should be taxed like money made from work, not at the preferential 15 percent rate. They have a simple calculator that calculates your tax savings using just three numbers from your tax form (or from your head), and an interactive graph with videos of people talking about their taxes. It’s worth checking out at responsiblewealth.org.
Taxing capital gains and dividends at regular income rates would save $84.2 billion in 2011 alone, twice the amount we’re cutting from this year’s budget.
I guess Congress thinks we’re all dumb Americans who can’t do math. However, people must be getting tired of the media meme on how brave
and courageous Paul Ryan is by suggesting we throw grandma from the train. Even his own district isn’t buying it. About time.
During a town hall meeting in Milton, a constituent who described himself as a “lifelong conservative” asked Ryan about the effects of growing income inequality in our nation. The constituent noted that huge income disparities contributed to the Great Depression and the Great Recession, and thus wanted to know why the congressman was “fighting to not let the tax breaks for the wealthy expire.”
Ryan argued against “redistribut[ing]” in this manner. After the constituent noted that “there’s nothing wrong with taxing the top because it does not trickle down,” Ryan argued that “we do tax the top.” This response earned a chorus of boos from constituents:
CONSTITUENT: The middle class is disappearing right now. During this time of prosperity, the top 1 percent was taking about 10 percent of the total annual income, but yet today we are fighting to not let the tax breaks for the wealthy expire? And we’re fighting to not raise the Social Security cap from $87,000? I think we’re wrong.
RYAN: A couple things. I don’t disagree with the premise of what you’re saying. The question is what’s the best way to do this. Is it to redistribute… (Crosstalk)
CONSTITUENT: You have to lower spending. But it’s a matter of there’s nothing wrong with taxing the top because it does not trickle down.
RYAN: We do tax the top. (Audience boos). Let’s remember, most of our jobs come from successful small businesses. Two-thirds of our jobs do. You got to remember, businesses pay taxes individually. So when you raise their tax rates to 44.8 percent, which is what the president is proposing, I would just fundamentally disagree. That is going to hurt job creation.
This does not hurt job creation. It didn’t hurt job creation in the Eisenhower years. It didn’t hurt job creation in the Clinton Years. Also, remember Reagan presided over the biggest tax increase in history, do they argue that job creation was rotten by the end of the Reagan years? This is a ridiculous argument based in that old Laffer Curve and Supply Side, VooDoo economics that they just keep resurrecting. Even two of Reagan’s advisers–Bruce Bartlett and David Stockman–are out decrying that fairy tale. It’s simply not backed by history, disproved by past economic performance, and insane.
The Democratic Party and the White House should be reading these poll numbers and discussing the facts RIGHT now. They should–at the very least–end the Bush/Obama preferential tax treatment for the rich. Paul Ryan and his ilk need to be outed for the charlatans they are on every talk show. I have no idea why this isn’t being done unless there’s a huge beltway conspiracy between the media, the Republicans, and the Democrats to carry on with no regard to voter’s wishes or interests.
Donald Trump’s Deep Thoughts on Abortion, Religion
Posted: April 19, 2011 Filed under: 2012 presidential campaign, abortion rights, Surreality, U.S. Politics, We are so F'd | Tags: 2012 presidential election, ABC Good Morning America, abortion, Donald Trump, evangelical Christians, fundamentalism, George Stephanopoulos, idiocy, NBC News, religion, Savannah Guthrie 39 CommentsI’ve never been very interested in Donald Trump. To be honest, until today I had never actually heard him speak two consecutive sentences. Trump has given several interviews lately, and based on watching them and/or reading the transcripts, I must say the man strikes me as a complete idiot. Next to him, the “P” woman looks slightly above average in intelligence.
Trump addressed his “pro-life” stance with Savannah Guthrie of NBC News and George Stephanopoulos of ABC News. Here are his words of wisdom on the subject.
Vaugn Ververs at MSNBC’s First Read:
Donald Trump appeared stumped when asked [by Savannah Guthrie] about the legal principle that served as the cornerstone for the Roe v. Wade decision that legalized abortion….
Guthrie: “Is there a right to privacy in the Constitution?”
Trump: “I guess there is, I guess there is. And why, just out of curiosity, why do you ask that question?”
When pressed to explain how his position on the right to privacy “squares” with his anti-abortion position, Trump responded: “Well, that’s a pretty strange way of getting to pro-life. I mean, it’s a very unique way of asking about pro-life. What does that have to do with privacy? How are you equating pro-life with privacy? ”
Guthrie asked, “well, you know about the Roe v. Wade decision.” Trump responded, “yes, right, sure. Look, I am pro-life. I’ve said it. I’m very strong there.”
Trump left the interview still not seeing a connection between a woman’s right to choose whether or not to have an abortion and the right to privacy. What a loon!
On ABC’s Good Morning America, George Stephanopolous asked Trump directly about the fairly recent change in his abortion stance.
Stephanopoulos: At that time, you were also pro-choice. Now you say you’re against abortion. When did you change your mind on that?
Trump: I would say, you know, a while ago. Quite a while ago.
Stephanopoulos: Why?
Trump: Because a number of cases, but in one particular case, I had a friend and I have a friend. And he would– did not want a child and his wife didn’t want a child. And they were going to abort. And they didn’t do it for very complicated reasons. And now they have the child. And it’s the apple of his eye. And he said, “Thank God.” He changed also, by the way. “Thank God, I didn’t do it.” And I’ve seen that, and I’ve seen other things. And I am pro-life.
That makes a lot of sense. Some rich golfing buddy of Trump’s didn’t want a baby but then changed his mind after the baby was born. Therefore all women must be forced to bear children they don’t want.
Maybe a religious conversion contributed to the change in Trump’s views since 1999 when he told Tim Russert he was pro-choice? He assured David Brody of the Christian Broadcasting Network that he (Trump) is church-going Christian.
David Brody: You talk a lot about business obviously, but talk to me a little bit about how you see God. How you see God in everything from what happened to your brother (he died of alcoholism at the age of 42) to how your life is today.
Donald Trump: I believe in God. I am Christian. I think The Bible is certainly, it is THE book. It is the thing. I was raised and I gave you a picture just now and perhaps you’ll use that picture I found it from a long time ago. First Presbyterian Church in Jamaica queens is where I went to church. I’m a protestant, I’m a Presbyterian. And you know I’ve had a good relationship with the church over the years. I think religion is a wonderful thing. I think my religion is a wonderful religion.
[….]
Brody: Do you actively go to church?
Trump: Well, I go as much as I can. Always on Christmas. Always on Easter. Always when there’s a major occasion. And during the Sundays. I’m a Sunday church person. I’ll go when I can.
He’ll go on Christmas and Easter and when he can the rest of the year? I’m not sure Trump understands the evangelicals any better than he understands the U.S. Constitution. Maybe Trump is actually secretly auditioning for a new reality show? He can’t possibly be serious about running for President of the U.S. Can he?









Recent Comments