Point your guns in the opposite direction. You have far more in common with us than with those you’re protecting, and you have more to fear from them than from us. Fire your tear gas and rubber bullets at those who partition the planet, who try to tell us everything can be bought and sold, everything belongs to those who have money, everything belongs to those in power, everything belongs to them.
FRANKFORT --- A former Clay County precinct worker testified Friday that top election officers in the county taught her how to change people's choices on voting machines to steal votes in the May 2006 primary.
Wanda White testified that Clerk Freddy Thompson the county's chief election officer helped show her how to manipulate voting machines along with Charles Wayne Jones, the Democratic election commissioner.
The scheme involved duping people to walk away from the voting computer before they had finished their selections, then changing their choices, said White, the Democratic judge in a precinct in Manchester.
White said she stole more than 100 votes that election.
How is this not a front page story? Why is there not rioting in the streets? Is this just total conspiracy nuttery?
Several witnesses have testified that it was customary in Clay County for slates of candidates to join together and pool their money in a unified vote-buying effort.
White said the slate Mobley was on in 2006 — the one she was to work for — included judge-executive candidate Carl "Crawdad" Sizemore; Tommy Harmon, who was running for magistrate; Kevin Johnson, who was running for sheriff; and Circuit Clerk James Phillips, who was seeking re-election.
White did not testify that she saw any of those candidates put in cash for vote-buying.
She did say, however, that she was aware of a number of people putting up cash to buy votes in earlier elections, including Jennings B. White, who was clerk two terms; Judge-Executive James Garrison; and Barbara White Colter, who served several terms as state representative.
Colter lost in 2002. When she tried a comeback in 2004, she borrowed $20,000 from Kennon and Wanda White to buy votes, Wanda White said.
In a study conducted recently by The Nation, many of the talking heads on cable news were found to also be working as paid lobbyists, often with stakes in the issues they're invited on-air to discuss. Author Sebastian Jones says the problem is much more widespread than we may have suspected.
Interesting. Do go on:
What viewers weren't told was that Ridge had been paid more than half a million dollars in executive pay and another quarter mil in stock options by a nuclear power company called Exelon. MSNBC identified him as just a former governor.
Sebastian Jones wondered whether this was an isolated incident or if lobbyists often posed as unpaid experts on cable news shows. He conducted a four-month study that was recently published in The Nation.
Wow.
We started in 2007, a sort of an arbitrary date, keeping tabs on when we would see people who were not being properly identified, who were working for companies in their day job but then were going on MSNBC, FOX News, CNN and discussing policies that related to the companies, sometimes even the companies, frankly. When we were all done, we got to 75.
BROOKE GLADSTONE: Seventy-five regular unidentified spokespeople presented as disinterested experts?
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the House of Representatives of the Eighty-fifth Legislature of the State of South Dakota, the Senate concurring therein, that the South Dakota Legislature urges that instruction in the public schools relating to global warming include the following:
(1) That global warming is a scientific theory rather than a proven fact;
(2) That there are a variety of climatological, meteorological, astrological, thermological, cosmological, and ecological dynamics that can effect [sic] world weather phenomena and that the significance and interrelativity of these factors is largely speculative; and
(3) That the debate on global warming has subsumed political and philosophical viewpoints which have complicated and prejudiced the scientific investigation of global warming phenomena; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Legislature urges that all instruction on the theory of global warming be appropriate to the age and academic development of the student and to the prevailing classroom circumstances.
Politics : Domestic Terrorism In Austin - Clarification Of My Viewpoint
Before anyone gets angry at me for "politicizing" this, I have no intention of politicizing or scoring points. People have died, and my intentions are to stop it from happening again. Republicans aren't evil. However, people like Glenn Beck and Rush have ginned up so much anger and hate that this sort of thing is inevitable. Obviously, my immediate jumping into this seems tasteless, but I guarantee if he was a muslim, everyone would do the same...
People like David Neiwert at Orcinushave beenwarningthat this sort of thing was going to happen because of all the (semi-understandable, but usually over-the-top) anger by mostly white people about having a black president who they think is a "socialist," even though they can't tell you what that means. I'm literally more afraid of these nutters than I am of foreign terrorists, because they are allowed to just run around pulling shit off like this and are not called terrorists, even by Obama, the "liberal, socialist, radical."
Regardless of the lies spewed by right-wingers about what the DHS's report on domestic terrorism said, it was originally created by the Bush administration, and it too warned about these actions. These problems have been a long time coming, and I'm unsurprised but saddened by them. Please, let's just look at this as what it is - domestic terrorism that likely wouldn't have happened if so much crazy wasn't spilling out of our televisions and radios.
UPDATE: Because it appears the guy was more crazy and less tea party, I retract that part of my assessment. This guy was all over the map, and trying to classify his politics would be like trying to shoot crazy people in a barrel (which I don't advocate, by the way).
How can any rational individual explain that white elephant conundrum in the middle of our tax system and, indeed, our entire legal system? Here we have a system that is, by far, too complicated for the brightest of the master scholars to understand. Yet, it mercilessly “holds accountable” its victims, claiming that they’re responsible for fully complying with laws not even the experts understand. The law “requires” a signature on the bottom of a tax filing; yet no one can say truthfully that they understand what they are signing; if that’s not “duress” than what is. If this is not the measure of a totalitarian regime, nothing is.
but...
The communist creed: From each according to his ability, to each according to his need.
The capitalist creed: From each according to his gullibility, to each according to his greed.
So, he was anti-government and anti-irs, but not really classifiable politicaly as anything but "disturbed."
I don't think it is strange that I don't believe most scientists. I do believe that a lot of those scientist feel pressured to agree or face being chastised. There are a lot of other very intelligent people that don't believe in it either. Which causes me to think that maybe things are not what they seem. Is the climate changing- probably. Do I think humans are the main factor- no. Do we need to cut our pollution levels drastically- yes. By the way I do have three sources for my news AP(left), Fox(right) and Reuters(somewhere in the middle).
My response:
All I'm saying is, don't you think it's strange that you don't believe most scientists, who say global warming exists and is mainly caused by man, but you believe the, what, 5 who say it isn't but can't get their research published in respectable journals? I think it's a fair question.
In anonymous surveys, a huge majority of climate scientists and other scientists profess to believe in man-made climate change, but you think some significant portion of those feel pressured? To answer untruthfully on an anonymous survey?
I think you're giving a cadre of geeks way too much credit for being devious there. It sounds like an extremely far-fetched conspiracy theory.
Regardless of your news source, the fact is what normal people think pales in comparison to what the people who actually know about the subject and study it every day say. Scientific inquiry isn't a democracy. Facts are facts, no matter what anyone's opinion is.
Almost every anti-global warming advocate is publicly known to be paid by the oil industry or similar groups. Scientists are typically underpaid and overworked, because they want to find the truth. You don't spend late nights in the lab because you're trying to find the best way to lie. Who's paying the huge number of scientists to make this up? I mean, you're welcome to your opinion, but it makes no sense.
His study, which has not been peer reviewed, is illustrated with photographs of weather stations in locations where their readings are distorted by heat-generating equipment."
"Has not been peer reviewed."
Mark my words, if he gets it reviewed, he'll be laughed at. If it's reviewed and fails, that of course won't be reported by Fox.
Does anyone find it interesting that we hear from Fox etc "global warming's not real! It snowed, so it's not real! Ha! Stupid scientists!" Then this guy and his buddies, whose research hasn't even been reviewed, gets a huge writeup in Fox? Give me a break.
More on Christy and Spencer, the climate change denialists this story is about, whose research has already been debunked:
We now know, of course, that the satellite data set confirms that the climate is warming , and indeed at very nearly the same rate as indicated by the surface temperature records. Now, there’s nothing wrong with making mistakes when pursuing an innovative observational method, but Spencer and Christy sat by for most of a decade allowing — indeed encouraging — the use of their data set as an icon for global warming skeptics. They committed serial errors in the data analysis, but insisted they were right and models and thermometers were wrong. They did little or nothing to root out possible sources of errors, and left it to others to clean up the mess, as has now been done.
For the sake of argument, is the debate actually evolution vs. "intelligent design" or evolution vs. creationism? Not that it matters - they're the same thing. See cdesign proponentists.
Rule 1 of debating creationism vs. evolution - Nobody who disbelieves evolution understands it. It's such a simple thing overall that anyone who took the time to actually understand it would see how clear it was. It's obvious, but you'll never convince anyone, and nobody will move an inch in either direction from the starting point. As has been pointed out, it's faith vs. evidence, and if you like to think in a faith-based way, you assume everyone else does too, and vice versa. However, I'd refrain from moving from an evolution/creationism discussion to a religious discussion. That's even more impossible.
A few important points to remember:
1.) "The theory of evolution" is a theory, but in the same way the "theory of gravity" is a theory. The theory doesn't question WHETHER evolution happened. That's a fact. It questions the details of how it happened (survival of the fittest, natural selection, etc). We know gravity exists; the theory is about why and how. This "just a theory" nonsense drives me bonkers.
2.) There ARE transitional fossils. Apparently it's ok to just say "there are no transitional fossils!" and smile slyly, as though you've won. It'd be a pretty big deal if there weren't any, but of course, there are plenty. There's at least one, Archaeoptrix, which I know most would have heard of in High School, because I did. It was a transitional bird-like dinosaur that even had some still-preserved wing material with feathers, and cemented the idea that birds are descendants of dinosaurs. There's also Odontochelys, a transitional turtle, Yanoconodon, a transitional fossil that sits between the transition of reptiles to mammals, and they could mean there are no transitional human fossils, but that's incorrect too. Here's an image that compares a human skeleton, an Australopithecus human ancestor, and a chimp or chimp-like primate from the Pan genus.
4.) If you hear "second law of thermodynamics," the fear should start. If you get "if we evolved from monkeys, why are there still monkeys," I advise you to find hammer to beat the person over the head with. There's no brain there; you won't hurt anything inside (not really... I don't advocate violence). If you do find yourself crying because someone went for those old canards, reference this for the monkeys argument and this talkorigins page for thermodynamics... if you feel like wasting their time and yours by arguing with someone who is so ignorant of the subject. Sadly, tons of people are. Honestly, I probably could have just referred you to this page and not written anything, but I like talking about these things, obviously.
Glad to answer any more specific questions, but I've probably given you way more than you wanted already.
Randy Scheunemann, the lobbyist who advised McCain on foreign policy and was one of the architects of the Iraq War, and Kim Daniels, a little-known conservative attorney who specializes in "rights of conscience" health care issues.
The whole thing is very reminiscent of George W. Bush's "handlers," Rove, Cheney, Rumsfeld, and and the Neocons (great band name). In the comments, someone linked to this vaccuous and cringe-inducing article from HuffPo titled "Sarah Palin Plays Chess." Sure, it's from Huffington Post, the paper of record (if you're an antivaxxer), but still, that's some title. If that's not enough to catch your eye, I don't know what is.
However, the article is actually really disappointing, considering its title.
She already had notes in front of her on the podium. Surely she could remember three simple themes. Why write notes on her hand?
Here's my take on why: she knew that they would be visible when she gave the speech. And she knew that she would be made fun of -- as so stupid that she needs to write notes on her hand. And that's one of her most effective tactics -- to be made fun of. It's an integral part of her strategy of standing in for hardworking, Middle Americans, derided by the condescending, know-it-all liberal elites.
Now, on its face this seems just completely idiotic, and it basically is, but there's a bit of truth in it. However, it's not Palin who is coming up with these "tactics," if they can really be called that seriously. It's her brain trust. Palin couldn't grift her way out of a wet paper bag, much less into the White House, but a Rove-esque group of puppeteers might be able to grease enough palms and woo enough idiots to pull it off for her. And this? Well, this just makes me laugh... and cry...
Palin is a brilliant strategist. First, note that I just repeated Palin's key talking points: Palin has even us fellow travelers at The Huffington Post repeating, "Energy, Taxes, Lift American Spirits." Talk about earned media.
A brilliant strategist? She's no more brilliant than Bush. In fact, she's quite clearly less so. Bush was able to pay and trick his way through Harvard. I don't think Palin would have even been able to pull that off with the millions she's making on the talk circuit.
I almost feel sorry for her, but she's just smart enough that she knows what she's doing. She does make a fabulous puppet, doesn't she? The emptier they are, the better you can move them about... Palin plays chess, alright. She's a pawn.
New information suggests that a report criticizing data for climate change prepared and presented at the highest legislative levels may have been grossly and covertly influenced by the energy industry:
The purportedly independent report that Dr. Edward Wegman prepared in 2006 for the Congressional Committee on Energy and Commerce was actually a partisan set-up, according to information revealed today.
Wegman, who had presented himself as an impartial "referee" ... was coached throughout his review by Republican staffer Peter Spencer. Wegman and his colleagues also worked closely with one of the teams (and especially with retired mining stock promoter Stephen McIntyre) to try to replicate criticism of the Hockey Stick graph, while at the same time foregoing contact with the actual authors of the seminal climate reconstruction.
Politics : Bill O'Reilly and John Stewart - The Missing Tapes
This is fascinating - the Stewart / O'Reilly clips that Fox cut from the broadcast but graciously left on the full, uncut interview on their website. Stewart really has this whole thing down, and he describes it all SO WELL, and his theory about the Fox narrative is just so on point that I wonder if he's not being wasted at Comedy Central at this point.
Here's one example. I feel dirty linking to Fox, but here's the full interview, and it's really worth the time.
Going to a Super Bowl party. Not that I care anything about football, but beer and junk food? That's something I can get behind. Could be worse - could be going to church!
Even the U.N. Environmental Program's Jan Liu agreed to such a possibility in a previous article I wrote for AlterNet on intensifying weather events and thermohaline shutdown. "While the general average trend is one of a warming climate," he said, "this does not mean that extreme cold events or snowstorms will not take place. In fact, as you rightly point out, climate change may even contribute to an increasing intensity of snowstorms, as moisture levels in the atmosphere rise."
...
But somehow, the idea that global warming, which is admittedly monkeying with global atmospheric pressures and flows, has nothing to do with either a weakening Arctic Oscillation, currently as negative as it's been since the '50s, or weakening Gulf Stream, that could possibly lead to a decrease in thermohaline circulation capable of plunging Europe into another ice age, is a non-starter among not just deniers but also climate-change true believers. Which is ridiculous, if you think about it.
Both are always careful to remind the would-be dot-connectors that we are confusing weather with climate, even though they admit they have little scientific clue as to where one begins and the other ends. Logic dictates you can't have weather without a climate, and right now, ours is off its moorings. Anthropogenic warming has thrown what was once a stable climate into disarray, and may be leading as much to ruinous droughts as to record-breaking freezes. And arbitrarily separating them into linear camps utterly misses the point of global warming's greatest lesson: Volatility is the new normal, in weather, in the economy, in politics, in whatever. And woe to those who aren't ready to adapt to the new normal.
And if this is the case, we're hapilly skipping along, with the mollifying sound of news reports on "climategate" and snarky right-wingers laughing "how about that global warming" as we move into a new ice age. If you don't want to believe we're causing this, that may be ok, because it might be too late to stop this trend now anyway.
Phil Jones, the beleaguered British climate scientist at the centre of the leaked emails controversy, is facing fresh claims that he sought to hide problems in key temperature data on which some of his work was based.
A Guardian investigation of thousands of emails and documents apparently hacked from the University of East Anglia's climatic research unit has found evidence that a series of measurements from Chinese weather stations were seriously flawed and that documents relating to them could not be produced.
However, this bit will be ignored by most:
The revelations on the inadequacies of the 1990 paper do not undermine the case that humans are causing climate change, and other studies have produced similar findings.
Politics : National Poll of Republicans Provides Shocking, Unbelievable Results
Even I can't believe this. Surely there's some kind of tabulation error? Says he'll release the results probably tomorrow:
Just got back big poll of 2,000 Republicans. Gotta digest it, but
39% of them want Obama impeached.
63% think Obama is a socialist,
only 42% believe he was born in US,
21% think ACORN stole 2008 electionsActually, on the "ACORN stealing 2008 election for Obama" Q, 21% say yes, 55% say "not sure"
53% think Sarah Palin is more qualified to be president than Obama.
23% want to secede from US
73% think gay men and women shouldn't be allowed to teach in public schools
31% want contraceptives outlawed
That's a frightening set of numbers. I can only think of two reasons for these results offhand. One is that this is the response of a primarily white party feeling threatened by a black president, and another is that this is what happens when you lose all power after having most of it for many years. Obviously, I don't think that all or even most Republicans are racist, but this is a very frightening set of numbers.
Research 2000, who did the poll, is connected to DailyKos in that they do polls for them, but it's been pretty good about seeming believable in the past.
Some of our most active media clientele include the Bergen Record, The Raleigh News & Observer, The Concord Monitor, The Manchester Journal Inquirer, The New London Day, The Reno-Gazette, The Fort Lauderdale Sun-Sentinel, The Spokesman-Review, KCCI-Television in Des Moines, Iowa, WRAL-Television in Raleigh, North Carolina, St. Louis Post-Dispatch, and KMOV-Television in St. Louis, Missouri.
I'm seriously hoping there's some problem here, however, this story makes it even more believable.
About 65% of likely voters said they know just "some" or "not too much" about the Tea Party when asked. Nevertheless, the Tea Party seems to be winning the message war, capturing the voice of populist anger in the country -- the majority of respondents expressed support for the goals of the movement and the people in it.
Pres. Obama today spoke to House Republi-
cans at their two-day retreat in Baltimore, MD. He repeated his State of the Union address plea for bipartisanship on health care and other economic issues. GOP leaders will comment later, following shortly after a question-and-answer session with the President.
Culture Critique : Scott Roeder guilty of first-degree murder in Tiller case
Scott Roeder, who drove to George Tiller's church for the sole purpose of gunning him down in cold blood, has been found guilty. There was some concern that the court would let him argue for manslaughter because he was "protecting unborn babies," but the court didn't allow that. This is definitely a victory, regardless of your stance on abortion, because preplanned murders should never be allowed.
