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.
Culture Critique : Dictionary ban? America is lost.
Oh no! Little Timmy learned the word for what he caught us doing on the couch! Ban the dictionary!
Dictionaries have been removed from classrooms in southern California schools after a parent complained about a child reading the definition for "oral sex".
Merriam Webster's 10th edition, which has been used for the past few years in fourth and fifth grade classrooms (for children aged nine to 10) in Menifee Union school district, has been pulled from shelves over fears that the "sexually graphic" entry is "just not age appropriate", according to the area's local paper.
: oral stimulation of the genitals : cunnilingus, fellatio
Questions I have: Why is "oral sex" a problem, but not "sexual intercourse?" It even mentions anal! Why, exactly, is it bad in the first place for kids to know sex exists? Ever since I first learned about sex, I was confused by the weird taboo we have on talking about it. Every culture, even every family, has a different opinion on when kids should start learning about sex, but clearly if they see that definition for oral sex and understand what it means, they already know enough to have figured it out, right? I just don't get it.
Martin Luther King had a dream. He dreamed of equality. He dreamed of freedom. He dreamed of justice. Certainly, some of his dreams came true, but not all of them have come true, but at least we're getting there. Sort of. Right?
When the architects of our republic wrote the magnificent words of the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence, they were signing a promissory note to which every American was to fall heir. This note was a promise that all men, yes, black men as well as white men, would be guaranteed the unalienable rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
Now, I can't speak for Dr. King. I would like to think that he would be able to see the hypocrisy of a black woman saying she's proud she can now take part in discriminating against gays. I would like to think that, but I'm not naive. Dr. King was a very religious man, and many people who follow his teachings are completely against gay marriage. Maybe he would have been, too.
However, Martin Luther King isn't the only inspiring representation of the desire for equality. There are people out there right now fighting for the right of every legal adult to marry any other legal adult. There is a court case right now in a federal court attempting to overturn Proposition 8. This could be used to make gay marriage legal nationally. However, we all have to realize not only the fact that people should be allowed to love and marry whoever they like, but that we are actually hurting ourselves by not allowing them to do so. Gay marriage would be good for the economy. Anti-equality activists talk of the "sanctity of marriage," but divorce rates are higher in states with gay marriage bans. Many high-profile anti-gay activists are divorced themselves, and Newt Gingrich has been divorced twice. We're supposed to take these people seriously when they talk about the "sanctity of marriage?"
I have a dream, too. I have a dream that one day everyone really will be considered equal under the law and by fellow citizens. I think we can pull that off. Don't disappoint me, America.
I, for one, think this is an awesome and brave project this teacher is doing. I hope it makes a difference.
Now I'm feeling majorly exposed. I could absolutely lose my job over this. In just the first ten days of school lunches I've gotten a bigger response than I expected. It makes me nervous.
Most teachers do feel the same way that I do about the lunches served in the building. So that's reassuring. We've all discussed the lunches and how bad they are in passing. Then we go back to teaching. No one has done much.
I'm not a hero, but I am a whistleblower. But instead of calling a "tip line," I've shouted it to thousands of people. Oops.
Something happened a long time ago in Haiti, and people might not want to talk about it. They were under the heel of the French. You know, Napoleon III, or whatever. And they got together and swore a pact to the Devil. They said, we will serve you if you'll get us free from the French. True story. And so, the Devil said, okay it's a deal
Of course, this isn't the first time ol' Pat has made comments like this, and I'm sure it won't be the last. He's also threatened Orlando with destruction for flying rainbow flags, blamed 9/11 on gays and secularists, and that Hurricane Katrina was because of Marti Gras - well, basically. Of course, by discussing him I'm falling prey to his little game; he knows he'll make tons of money if we talk about him. It's a real catch 22... If there really was a god out there capable of doing this kind of thing, though, I'd hope his next target would be Pat Robertson.
UPDATE: My friend Molly sent me this:
This made me curious how he possibly cooked that up so I did a little research and here's what I found out... "Dutty Boukman was a houngan, or vodoun priest whose death was considered a catalyst to the slave uprising that marked the beginning of the Hatian Revolution." So I guess because he practiced 'voodoo' and wasn't Christian, he must have made a pact with the devil, eh? ha! Also, I realize where he was coming from with the hope for rebuilding and the looooong reach for optimism here (everything happens for a reason?), but at the expense of 100,000 lives??
Pat Robertson better pray God takes pity on his poor misguided soul.
My question, and what I think is even more important, is how he can just say things like "The Hatian people made a pact with the devil" and be taken serious by ANYONE. Maybe I missed some history lesson here, but when has Pat ever proven he has this direct line to Yahweh that he claims to have? His claims seem to me to have a pretty dubioushistory.
When we gaze into the eyes of our beloved pets, can we ever really know what they’re thinking? Is it naive to assume they might be experiencing something close to the emotions we feel? Or, on the contrary, is it ridiculous to assume that they AREN’T feeling anything back? In this hour of Radiolab, we explore what science can say about what goes on in the minds of animals
Listen here. The whale story is especially touching and amazing.
It seems that Judge Walker is being anything but sympathetic to Cooper's case, took him to task hard and got him caught in a humiliating bundle of contradictions:
Walker: If the Prez’s parents had been in Virginia when he was born, their marriage would have been unlawful. Doesn’t that show a TREMENDOUS change in the institution of marriage? doesn’t that show evolution? Isn’t that correct?
Cooper: Racial restrictions were never a feature of the institution of marriage. (laughter in our courtrtoomm)
Cooper: These restrictions were loathesome, and a detail. "Man and woman" has been universal, across time and all societies.
walker: Is the evidence going to show these racial restrictions are different than the restrictions imposed by Prop 8?
(like a bug pinned to a piece of wood)
Cooper: Naturally procreative instincts....
Walker: Only purpose?
Cooper: Basis of marriage is procreation. It is a pro-child societal institution.
Walker: Many things attend marriage, will your evidence show that those are all secondary to procreation?
Cooper: This is about deinstitutionalizing marriage...
Walker: Yes, you say that. But will your evidence show that?
Also interesting, Olson and David Boies, who were on opposite sides of Bush v. Gore, are both on the anti-prop-8 side.
The judge is probing extensively whether or not the problem would be solved if the state of California “got out of the marriage business.” He and Olson had a colloquy about whether domestic partnership for all would solve the problem. Olson had to have a note handed to him from his team to say that only opposite-sex couples over 62 can have domestic partnership. Judge Walker is very interested in seeing what change has occurred that should force the federal judiciary to enter the issue. He wants to know what evidence will show that makes the matter worthy of judgment.
This is what I've been saying for years should be done. If the right wants to define marriage as a religious institution, then let churches have their marriage, but there should be no collusion between churches and government in that sense. What a church calls a "marriage" and what a government considers a legal partnership should not have to legally coincide. I say let governments issue partnerships (to EVERYONE who is a consenting adult of sound mind, of course) and let individual religious institutions decide whether or not to "marry" people. That won't have any affect on the partnerships either way, of course, but it would take away the ability of wingnuts to act like governments allowing people to marry who they want somehow goes against some biblical principle that the state has no right to worry about in the first place.
Environment : US President Obama gives Clean Energy a $2.3 Billion boost
U.S. President Barack Obama unveiled a $2.3 billion tax credit on Friday to boost jobs by promoting clean energy, as new data showed the country's unemployment rate remained stuck in the double digits.
Obama said the credit, from funds earmarked under a $787 billion stimulus package he signed last February, would create 17,000 U.S. jobs and be matched by an additional $5 billion in private capital.
"Building a robust clean energy sector is how we will create the jobs of the future, jobs that pay well and can't be outsourced," Obama said.
"This initiative is good for middle-class families. It is good for our security. It is good for our planet," he said.
Culture Critique : North Carolina Smoking Ban - 1 Day In
I spent last night at several Winston-Salem bars and can report that they were all abiding by the smoking ban. I can also report that it was an amazing experience. I felt like I was in New York again... and that's fantastic. I was able to spend the whole time talking to people and even hung out in some bars that I usually can't stay in for very long. I didn't have to inhale any second-hand smoke, and less importantly but still happily, I don't have to febreeze or otherwise deodorize my clothes and coat.
I just thought that since I'd done some research on this topic, I'd share with you what I found.
Many studies have been published in the health industry literature on the economic effect of smoke-free policies. The majority have found that there is no negative economic impact associated with bans and many findings that there may be a positive effect on local businesses. A 2003 review of 97 such studies of the economic effects of a smoking ban on the hospitality industry found that the "best-designed" studies concluded that smoking bans did not harm businesses.
Conclusion: All of the best designed studies report no impact or a positive impact of smoke-free restaurant and bar laws on sales or employment. Policymakers can act to protect workers and patrons from the toxins in secondhand smoke confident in rejecting industry claims that there will be an adverse economic impact.
Clean indoor air laws are easily implemented, are well accepted by the public, reduce nonsmoker exposure to secondhand smoke, and contribute to a reduction in overall cigarette consumption. There are currently thousands of clean indoor air laws throughout the Unites States, and the majority of Americans live in areas where smoking is completely prohibited in workplaces, restaurants, or bars. The vast majority of scientific evidence indicates that there is no negative economic impact of clean indoor air policies, with many studies finding that there may be some positive effects on local businesses. This is despite the fact that tobacco industry-sponsored research has attempted to create fears to the contrary. Further progress in the diffusion of clean indoor air laws will depend on the continued documentation of the economic impact of clean indoor air laws, particularly within the hospitality industry. This article reviews the spread of clean indoor air laws, the effect on public health, and the scientific evidence of the economic impact of implementation of clean indoor air laws.
Now sure, you can find some business-funded studies that say the opposite, but who would you trust? Up to you. Either way, it doesn't matter, because this fight is over.
By the way, questioning the constitutionality of these laws won't get you very far. Denver Post:
A district court judge ruled today that the state has the right to ban smoking where it sees fit — a decision that dashed the efforts of an Adams County topless club to permit smoking by its patrons.
"The public interest in protecting the health of non-smoking patrons from harm...is a legitimate exercise of the state's police powers," said District Judge Chris Melonakis
The complaint filed Tuesday states that the statute "is impermissibly vague" about what conduct is criminalized and therefore violates the plaintiffs' constitutional right to due process.
Now for the best part - how will the ban effect health in North Carolina? If it's like others that have come before it, quite a bit:
The effect of the smoking ban should mean rates in the UK fall from around 50 per 100,000 people to around 40 per 100,000 by 2024.
Politics : Barack Obama - Leader? It doesn't appear so...
I don't like agreeing with this, much less anything else in The Huffington Post, but Drew Westen has a point:
What's costing the president are three things: a laissez faire style of leadership that appears weak and removed to everyday Americans, a failure to articulate and defend any coherent ideological position on virtually anything, and a widespread perception that he cares more about special interests like bank, credit card, oil and coal, and health and pharmaceutical companies than he does about the people they are shafting....
Consider the president's leadership style, which has now become clear: deliver a moving speech, move on, and when push comes to shove, leave it to others to decide what to do if there's a conflict, because if there's a conflict, he doesn't want to be anywhere near it.
Health care is a paradigm case. When the president went to speak to the Democrats last week on Capitol Hill, he exhorted them to pass the bill. According to reports, though, he didn't mention the two issues in the way of doing that, the efforts of Senators like Ben Nelson to use this as an opportunity to turn back the clock on abortion by 25 years, and the efforts of conservative and industry-owned Democrats to eliminate any competition for the insurance companies that pay their campaign bills. He simply ignored both controversies and exhorted.
Leadership means heading into the eye of the storm and bringing the vessel of state home safely, not going as far inland as you can because it's uncomfortable on the high seas. This president has a particular aversion to battling back gusting winds from his starboard side (the right, for the nautically challenged) and tends to give in to them. He just can't tolerate conflict, and the result is that he refuses to lead....
The time for exhortation is over. FDR didn't exhort robber barons to stem the redistribution of wealth from working Americans to the upper 1 percent, and neither did his fifth cousin Teddy. Both men told the most powerful men in the United States that they weren't going to rip off the American people any more, and they backed up their words with actions. Teddy Roosevelt was clear that capital gains taxes should be high relative to income taxes because we should reward work, not "gambling in stocks." This President just doesn't have the stomach to make anyone do anything they don't want to do (except women to have unwanted babies because they can't afford an abortion or live in a red state and don't have an employer who offers insurance), and his advisors are enabling his most troubling character flaw, his conflict-avoidance.
We're disappointed, Mr. President. Those of us who worked for your election (the sane ones, at least) still knew you'd be a politician. However, being a politician doesn't mean it's impossible to be a man and fight for the things you at least professed to believe in. Maybe your friendliness with special interests is what actually got you elected. Maybe there were tons of backroom deals, and you offered big business more than McCain could, so they worked harder for you. I'd hate to think that was true, but I'm no sucker.
I think I know what you're trying to do. You're trying to be hands-off in the hopes that you don't appear too liberal and can make it through a reelection that's sure to be difficult. Maybe you're doing that so you can go all-out starting in 2013. However, Mr. President, we don't have that much time. The uninsured don't have that much time. Our soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan don't have that much time. Our economy certainly doesn't have that much time.
You can turn this around, Mr. President. If you lead, and you lead fairly, the people will reward you for it with reelection. Right now, things are looking grim for you. I may even campaign for a primary opponent against you or even vote for a third party. The greens are starting to look good...
While voters oppose the health care plan, they back two options cut from the Senate bill, supporting 56 - 38 percent giving people the option of coverage by a government health insurance plan and backing 64 - 30 percent allowing younger people to buy into Medicare.
Now, a majority oppose the bill, but is that because they all oppose some semblance of "liberal" or "socialist" elements of it? Apparently... no:
Ipsos, however, did something that no other pollster has done. They asked the people who opposed the bill why they opposed it: because they are opposed to health care reform and thought the bill went too far? Or because they support health care reform but thought the bill didn't go far enough?
It turns out that a significant minority of about 25 percent of the people who opposed the plan -- or about 12 of the overall sample -- did so from the left; they thought the plan didn't go far enough.
Ipsos also asked a parallel question of people who supported the plan: did any of them support the plan because they oppose health care reform and thought that the plan was sufficiently watered-down so as to "keep health care reform from happening"? A small number of people picked this response: about 10 percent of those in favor of the plan, or 3 percent of the entire sample.
One way to look at this: 43 percent of people favor health care reform, whereas 38 percent oppose it (20 percent are undecided). But the actual plan under consideration gets numbers that are more or less the reverse of that -- 34 percent in favor, 46 percent opposed -- because a significant number of people think the plan doesn't go far enough.
Interesting. Depressing. This is no democracy. This is a corporatist republic.
