4.07.2009

Washington Post reporter calls out George Will for lying in... Washington Post

(David Roberts)

Today, Washington Post reporters Juliet Eilperin and Mary Beth Sheridan have a piece on the alarming decline of Arctic sea ice. In and of itself the story isn’t that surprising: scientists have known for a while that the ice is declining;  new data just confirms that it’s happening faster than originally estimated. That’s consistent with all sorts of new observational data on the effects of climate change, which across the board seem to be exceeding scientists’ most pessimistic predictions.

What jumped out at me is this bit, toward the bottom of the piece:

The new evidence—including satellite data showing that the average multiyear wintertime sea ice cover in the Arctic in 2005 and 2006 was nine feet thick, a significant decline from the 1980s—contradicts data cited in widely circulated reports by Washington Post columnist George F. Will that sea ice in the Arctic has not significantly declined since 1979. [my emphasis]

I can’t think of another instance when a news story at a newspaper explicitly called out an op-ed writer in the same paper for lying, by name. It’s pretty extraordinary. I can only imagine that something like this got passed up the editorial food chain, from science editor Nils Bruzelius to national news editor Kevin Merida, and perhaps beyond. (The Post will not talk on record about their editorial process; they “stand behind their reporting” and so forth.)

Hard to read it as anything but a rebuke from the news team to Post editor Fred Hiatt and his editorial page’s “multi-layer editing process,” which allowed Will to lie and mislead on climate change three times just in the last few months, even after being corrected, publicly, by multiple sources.

Along the same lines, see this new piece on the Post’s weather blog, by Andrew Freeman: “Will Misleads Readers on Climate Science - Again.”

George Will’s recent columns demonstrate a very troubling pattern of misrepresentation of climate science. They raise some interesting questions about journalism, specifically concerning the editing process. Editors and fact checkers are there to ensure that publications like the Washington Post don’t print factually incorrect information.

In response to the Will controversy, numerous people have made the point that people who work for thePost—the ones who aren’t full of shit—have a responsibility to speak out about their employer’s willingness to mislead readers.

It appears some of them are trying.

4.06.2009

So we'll ban peanuts when one kid's allergy flares, but 20 people dead in gun violence this week....

...means nothing. 20 people dead, including 7 cops, in the last week and no outrage. If a series of child molestations harming 20 children had happened, it would be the fault of the left for being soft on crime and we'd be calling to execute the perpetrators.

If 20 kids died last week of peanut allergies, we'd ban peanuts from the public arena.

So what does it take to admit we have a fucking gun problem?

13 in Binghamton

4 police in Oakland

3 more cops in Pittsburgh

When?

The events behind the shootings are as different as can be. The thread that connects them is easy access to firearms.

When will we place blame where it belongs? On their own, the guns themselves didn't massacre these people. But the easy access to them put deadly weapons into the hands of unhinged people and turned these incidents from possible assaults into mass murders.

32 people a day die because of guns. If it were peanuts, they'd be off the shelves.

Discuss.

Please. As a nation can we rationally discuss this? If the subject were anything but guns, we could have a rational discussion. So lets pick a code word to use. How about "death sticks"?

Can we talk about restricting access to death sticks?

Wingnut theatrics are going too far; shootings in Pittsburgh

What's intriguing about this whole mess being ginned up is that the RightWingnuts are accusing the left of trying to stamp on their First Amendment rights by calling out their craziness.

When Dick (heh) Morris advocates killing federal agents on Fox last week, they've officially gone too far.
Those crazies in Montana who say, ‘we’re going to kill ATF agents because the UN’s going to take over’ -- well, they’re beginning to have a case. - Dick Morris
It's not trampling anyone's right to speak to point out that people like Morris and Hannity and Beck are indeed inflammatory and dangerous. and it's not trampling to point out that Richard Poplawski, the 23-year-old who killed three police officers yesterday in Pittsburgh, apparently acted out of fear that his guns were going to be taken away.

It's not trampling to say that, while Beck and Hannity didn't cause Poplawski to ask, their dangerous rhetoric helps to provide a climate conductive to these actions.

Quoth Cesca:
The far-right "they're coming for my guns" poseur militaristic set aren't lone nuts. They're not impressionable kids acting out. They are, in fact, believers in an ideology. An ideology that ordains guns as the only means by which to solve problems or to level the socio-political playing field. It's a kind of religion -- with the obvious players serving as ministers and purveyors of the ideological dogma.
What we're hearing on talk radio and on FOX News is gun porn, far beyond the realms of responsible political chatter. And it's up to Beck and the others to take a hard look at the content of their sermons and to understand that there are too many adults with firearms who are just one segment or NRA interview away from taking the Beck's theatrics too seriously.
As Neiwert at Crooks and Liars points out:
The point is not to silence the people saying these things, but to point out how grotesquely irresponsible they are -- in the hopes that they will cease doing so, and start acting responsibly. It's their choice to use irresponsible rhetoric. It's not just our choice but our duty, as responsible citizens, to stand up and speak out about it.
Then there's just garden-variety crazy with some Classic Hannity, by Steve Benen @ Washington Monthly

Late last week, President Obama spoke in Strasbourg, France, and talked about his commitment to renewing our partnership with America's European allies. He conceded that "we've allowed our alliance to drift" in recent years, and went out of his way to be even-handed about it. The president, for example, acknowledged that the U.S. has, at times, "shown arrogance and been dismissive, even derisive" of the European Union.

But in the next breath, Obama added that Europe has "an anti-Americanism that is at once casual but can also be insidious," adding that too often, Europeans have been too quick to blame America, while neglecting to recognize "the good that America so often does in the world."

Urging both sides of the Atlantic to begin anew, Obama said, "[T]hese attitudes have become all too common. They are not wise. They do not represent the truth.... So I've come to Europe this week to renew our partnership, one in which America listens and learns from our friends and allies, but where our friends and allies bear their share of the burden. Together, we must forge common solutions to our common problems."

On Fox News, Sean Hannity aired the first part -- the part in which the president conceded recent U.S. shortcomings -- and pretended the other parts didn't happen. (In an understatement, Howard Kurtz called Hannity's creative editing "not quite fair.") The ensuing tirade was Hannity at his most Hannity-tastic.
"America is arrogant. That's what Mr. Obama said today, doing his best Dixie Chicks impression.... [T]he liberal tradition of blame America first, well, that's still alive. But should we really be surprised from a man who sat in Reverend Wright's church, from a man who launched his political career in the home of a man who bombed the Pentagon and is unrepentant. Mrs. Obama may not be proud of her country, but I bet she's proud of her husband tonight. [...]

Norm MacDonald's Legendary ESPY Appearance

Norm turned the entire set of the 1998 ESPY's into a roast, and probably pissed a lot of these sports figures off. ESPN won't do this again.

4.03.2009

Drag Me To Hell trailer: do NOT watch late at night

Oh this looks good.

And by good I mean that I think I have brown flecks in my shorts right now.

4.02.2009

It's not a golf shot, it's a seige weapon

(Yahoo! Sports)
The bonus 19th hole at the brand-new golf course at the Legends Golf & Safari Resort in South Africa is a par 3 -- a par 3 whose tee is atop a cliff on Hanglip Mountain, more than 1,400 feet above a green carved like the continent of Africa. You've got to take a helicopter to get to the tee box, and from there it's more than 630 yards to the pin. Once you tee off, it takes nearly 30 seconds for the ball to hit the ground.

Man, you'd need a shovel to repair the ball marks left if you hit the green from that high up. It'd be like a grenade! Plus, you'd better make darn sure the group ahead of you has cleared the green. I don't think yelling "fore" would be enough to prepare somebody for a golf ball dropping from a quarter-mile up.

Video of Padraig Harrington and Raphael Jacquelin (designer of the hole) playing the monster

Bruno red-band trailer out

4.01.2009

Colbert eviscerates Glenn Beck

(Huff Post)
Stephen Colbert ripped apart Fox News host (and New York Times cover boy) Glenn Beck Tuesday night, mocking his 9-12 project, meant to conjure the spirit of compassion and camaraderie Americans felt on September 12, 2001.

"We weren't told how to behave that day after 9/11, we just knew," Beck says to describe the project. "It was right, it was the opposite of what we feel today. Are you ready to be the person you were that day after 9/11, on 9/12?"

"Ready!" Colbert shouted, decked out in a gas mask, holding a gun, and wearing adult diapers.

Colbert then used a classic "Daily Show," exposing the hypocrisy of Beck's 9-12 project by highlighting comments he made on September 9, 2005.

"This is horrible to say, and I wonder if I'm alone in this," Beck said on his radio program that day, "you know it took me about a year to start hating the 9/11 victims' families? I don't hate all of them. I hate probably about 10 of them. But when I see a 9-11 victim family on television, or whatever, I'm just like, 'Oh, shut up!' I'm so sick of them because they're always complaining. And we did our best for them."

"The 9-12 project is not for families directly affected by 9/11, just people building their careers on it," Colbert said.

Colbert went on to mock Beck's now infamous tendency to cry, and to launch his own "democratic experiment, the 10-31 project."

"It will be scare and balanced!" he joked.

The Colbert ReportMon - Thurs 11:30pm / 10:30c
The 10/31 Project
comedycentral.com
Colbert Report Full EpisodesPolitical HumorNASA Name Contest

3.29.2009

Pearl Jam: because you should

Faithful


Red Mosquito


Breath (Camden '03 - I was there)


Hail, Hail (same Camden show)

Christian-owned conservative website calls Michelle Obama a bitch, suggests Oprah fetch mint juleps

Burt Prelutsky writes a column for Townhall.com, the popular website owned by a Christian radio network and the Internet home of culture warriors Dennis Prager, Bill Bennett and Michael Medved.

Here's some of his latest:
Take Michelle Obama...please. Every time I turn around, there she is on a magazine cover. Now, normally, like the Mafia, I lay off the spouses, but inasmuch as this particular spouse attended the same racist church as her hubby for 20 years, I'll make an exception in her case. After all, in spite of the fact that affirmative action got her an Ivy League degree and a $7,000-a-week salary and, moreover, has sent billions of dollars for no particularly good reason to Africa, she insists this is a mean country. The burning question in my circle is: if the First Family gets a female dog, will she be the First Bitch or will she have to settle for second place?
Or:
Naturally, the left-wing media is now trying to convince us that this James Brown-look-alike has all the allure, glamour and fashion sense of Jackie Kennedy.
Or:
If we were a racist society, Oprah Winfrey, your fairy godmother, certainly wouldn't be a billionaire; she'd be fetching someone's mint julep. And Colin Powell and Condoleezza Rice wouldn't grow up to be secretaries of state; they'd be sweeping out the stables. And Will Smith and Denzel Washington wouldn't be movie stars; they'd be in the fields picking cotton.
Sound off here.

So why didn't the right embrace Krugman when he went after Bush?

I like Paul Krugman, and I think it's a good thing to have a national discussion about the economic crisis, the bailout, cleanup of toxic assets and the range of our problems.

I respect the hell out of Paul Krugman and when he criticizes Obama and challenges Tim Geithner, I want to know why.

My question is, why wasn't Newsweek putting him on the cover when he went after Bush for 8 years, which a lefty like Krugman certainly did with regularity? Why weren't the wingnuts bending over backwards to embrace Krugman when he ripped the Bush White House for mismanaging us into this mess? As Bob Cesca correctly points out, this is all about ratcheting up the drama.

Brick Tamland and the GOP analysis of America's financial crisis

It appears that our man Brick Tamland (Steve Carrell in Anchorman) is actually a GOP member of Congress. Here is his analysis of the financial problem and his solution to it.



And here's a link to the Best of Brick