Trib Editorial Board (Yawn) And The Heritage Foundation

It's Saturday Morning and so you know what Richard Mellon Scaife's brain trust is doing.

From this morning's editorial page:

The Obama administration insists that the government can still spend its way to better times with a new jobs package for which the House this week approved $154 billion.

But the more government spends, the more it crowds out private investment, business growth and job creation, as documented in a new Heritage Foundation analysis.

No mention of the:

• $600,000 granted to the Heritage Foundation by the Sarah Scaife Foundation in 2008.
• $400,000 granted to the Heritage Foundation by the Sarah Scaife Foundation in 2007.
• $800,000 granted to the Heritage Foundation by the Sarah Scaife Foundation in 2006.
• $100,000 granted to the Heritage Foundation by the Allegheny Foundation in 2007.

As stated at this blog more than a few times, the Sarah Scaife and Allegheny Foundations are both controlled by Richard Mellon Scaife, owner of the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review.

Doncha think they should have mentioned the close to $2 million granted over the past three years to the Heritage Foundation by their boss, Richard Mellon Scaife?

The journalistic circle-jerk continues.

The President's Lost Another Columnist

The P-G's Tony Norman:

The Rock Obama knows something that Barack Obama seems to have forgotten -- that the Republican strategy for regaining power is predicated upon the defeat of the White House's entire domestic agenda -- period.

To say I'm disappointed with Mr. Obama's passivity in the face of this threat to his presidency and the Democratic majority is putting it mildly. I'm appalled by it.

And:

I'm beginning to believe that Barack Obama would have been better off serving at least one full-term in the U.S. Senate before becoming president.

Had he been Sen. Obama during a Hillary Clinton presidency when comprehensive health care legislation was making the rounds, he would have had a front row seat for Sen. Joe Lieberman's shameful monkey business.

His unwillingness to punish disloyal Democrats or go to war with Republicans has created a leadership vacuum Sen. Lieberman and other opportunists are happy to occupy.

Yea, what Tony said.

Limbaugh pissed that insurers will have to cover "women’s issues"

What a fucking douchebag!

Text:

LIMBAUGH: About the premiums going up, and my brilliant dissertation on why prices will go up in the private sector, even if the public option is not there, and even if the Medicare buy-in is not there. It’s not just preconditions that are mandated to be covered in the health care bills in either the House or the Senate.

There was a recent amendment that was mandating private insurers to provide mammogram and other women’s issues coverage, including spousal abuse! Insurance for spousal abuse! And mammograms! Even though the mammogram age has been raised to the age of 50. You think of all the mandates that will be added onto private insurance, and this is just the tip of the iceberg.

The "Insurance for spousal abuse!" refers to the fact that some health insurance companies say that victims of domestic violence have a "pre-existing condition" and deny them coverage because of that.

As Think Progress noted, poor widdle Rushy can't figure out why only 37% of women view him favorably.

Again, what a fucking douchebag!
.

Special Announcement

There's a pretty good chance one of your blog hosts will be sitting in for Valerie McDonald Roberts on this week's OffQ tomorrow night.

I won't exactly say which one of us it is, but I'll give you a hint: it's not the other one.

The Trib Brain Trust Tells Half The Story. Again.

From today's Pittsburgh Tribune Review (the Thursday Wrap):

Climate-change cleric Al Gore once again finds himself on the wrong end of an inconvenient truth. At the U.N. climate summit in Copenhagen he told attendees that "fresh" estimates show a 75 percent likelihood that the north polar ice cap will disappear in five to seven years, The Times of London reported. Except the scientist whose research Mr. Gore referenced said he had no clue where Ozone Al came up with that finding. The former veep later said it was a "ballpark" figure. Brrrrrrrr!

I'll say it right off. Gore did get the figure wrong. But when you won't be surprised by what Richard Mellon Scaife's brain-trust left out. Turns out that the (of course unnamed) scientist the brain-trust references agrees (in a "ballpark" sort of way) with what Gore said.

This is from the original Times Online article:

In his speech, Mr Gore told the conference: “These figures are fresh. Some of the models suggest to Dr [Wieslav] Maslowski that there is a 75 per cent chance that the entire north polar ice cap, during the summer months, could be completely ice-free within five to seven years.”

However, the climatologist whose work Mr Gore was relying upon dropped the former Vice-President in the water with an icy blast.

“It’s unclear to me how this figure was arrived at,” Dr Maslowski said. “I would never try to estimate likelihood at anything as exact as this.”

Mr Gore’s office later admitted that the 75 per cent figure was one used by Dr Maslowksi as a “ballpark figure” several years ago in a conversation with Mr Gore.

Further down the same article we find:

Dr Maslowki, who works at the US Naval Postgraduate School in California, said that his latest results give a six-year projection for the melting of 80 per cent of the ice, but he said he expects some ice to remain beyond 2020.

He added: “I was very explicit that we were talking about near-ice-free conditions and not completely ice-free conditions in the northern ocean. I would never try to estimate likelihood at anything as exact as this,” he said. “It’s unclear to me how this figure was arrived at, based on the information I provided to Al Gore’s office.” [emphasis added.]

But Gore's point is that the Arctic ice is melting very very quickly and Maslowski's point is that the Arctic ice is melting very very quickly. Any idea why Scaife's gang would omit that part?

And for those chewing the fat on thinning arctic ice, take a look at this BBC report from almost exactly 2 years ago:

Scientists in the US have presented one of the most dramatic forecasts yet for the disappearance of Arctic sea ice.

Their latest modelling studies indicate northern polar waters could be ice-free in summers within just 5-6 years.

Professor Wieslaw Maslowski told an American Geophysical Union meeting that previous projections had underestimated the processes now driving ice loss. [emphasis added]

And a few paragraphs later:

"Our projection of 2013 for the removal of ice in summer is not accounting for the last two minima, in 2005 and 2007," the researcher from the Naval Postgraduate School, Monterey, California, explained to the BBC.

"So given that fact, you can argue that may be our projection of 2013 is already too conservative."

One wouldn't expect Scaife's brain-trust to waste their time with such in depth research (which took me all of 30 minutes) when there's spin to be spun - especially Al Gore spin!

Teh Crazie - Al Gore style.

In real need of some good cheer right now

Here it is:


.

Fred Honsberger

It is with great sadness that I write these words: My friend Fred has passed away.

As with Maria, Fred and I had some serious political differences. In fact, I think I agreed with about 2% of most anything he said on any given day (and this would include weather and traffic). In spite of all that, one-on-one I found him to be quite a warm and approachable guy. He had me on his radio show a few times and on Sunday mornings, as I happily skewer the P-G's Jack Kelly, I just as happily drink my Sunday morning coffee from a bright and shiny Honzman Mug.

He even announced my engagement on KDKA's 50,000 watt airwaves - how cool was that?

Maria is exactly right when she wrote:

It might not even be a stretch to say that there may have never been a 2pj without Fred Honsberger as I had developed a fondness for blogging at the old blog but wanted to stretch beyond the limitations about writing on Honsberger's chosen topics of the day.

I can say that the day-to-day rhetorical jousting I did with Fred paved the way for the blogging I do here.

My heartfelt condolences to his wife and his family and those folks who knew him better than I did.

Ravenstahl, Trosky, Brackney, Crawford, Harper battle it out on JibJab

Can't seem to embed this but you can view it at:
http://sendables.jibjab.com/view/woauJpbwqAGHMsDz

(h/t to Early Returns)
,

RIP Fred Honsberger

Via the Post-Gazette:

Longtime KDKA-AM radio talk host Fred Honsberger died this morning. He was 58.

The station reported that Mr. Honsberger died at home following a lengthy battle with medical issues.

It probably goes without saying that Fred and I had real philosophical differences. Back when he had his TV show Honsberger Live I was a frequent caller and we argued pretty much all the major issues of the day. And, that goes to one thing that I highly respected about Fred: he wasn't afraid to hold up his opinions to criticism. I know that I was bumped up in the caller queue so that we could go at it. He wasn't an O'Reilly who cut people off when they were making real points (though he didn't suffer fools gladly). Fred relished the challenge. He was also extremely gracious when I met him in person.

Many may know that David and I had a blog before 2pj which was all about refuting Fred's TV show. Fred read it daily. He had me on his radio show even after he knew that I was "Liz Adobe" on the old blog.

It might not even be a stretch to say that there may have never been a 2pj without Fred Honsberger as I had developed a fondness for blogging at the old blog but wanted to stretch beyond the limitations about writing on Honsberger's chosen topics of the day.

So, RIP Fred. I will miss not having the chance for one more go-round. You gave as good as you got.
.

Howard Dean: Kill the bill

From The Plum Line:

In a blow to the bill grinding through the Senate, Howard Dean bluntly called for the bill to be killed in a pre-recorded interview set to air later this afternoon, denouncing it as “the collapse of health care reform in the United States Senate,” the reporter who conducted the interview tells me.

More here.
.

You're soaking in it!

Oh hell! Let's just wallow in all the recent bad news from this gloomy day:

Rahm To Reid: Give Lieberman What He Wants (Talking Points Memo)

"The fundamental failing of the newest Senate proposal is that it requires individuals to purchase health insurance, but does nothing to rein in what insurance companies charge. There is nothing to stop spiraling health costs from eating up an ever-increasing percentage of our national productivity." (OpenLeft)

Rep. Capuano Tells Fellow Dems: 'You're Screwed' (HuffPo)

Calls to lower the minimum wage (WAPO) and reduce unemployment benefits (ThinkProgress)

Krugman: "[I]f politicians refuse to learn from the history of the recent financial crisis, they will condemn all of us to repeat it" (NYT)

Death penalty to remain in Ugandan anti-gay bill (DallasVoice)

A blogger finds success after pulling a Bronte and publishing under a male pseudonym (Salon)

.

More Proof That The Trib Editorial Board Misleads

From today's Op-Ed page at The Trib:

Never mind all those damaging e-mails from scientists from England's Climatic Research Unit, which earlier this year destroyed its original climate data set used by the U.N. as a primary reference.

From the AP (that's "Associated Press" by the way) on Saturday:

E-mails stolen from climate scientists show they stonewalled skeptics and discussed hiding data — but the messages don't support claims that the science of global warming was faked, according to an exhaustive review by The Associated Press.

The 1,073 e-mails examined by the AP show that scientists harbored private doubts, however slight and fleeting, even as they told the world they were certain about climate change. However, the exchanges don't undercut the vast body of evidence showing the world is warming because of man-made greenhouse gas emissions. [emphasis added]

It's not like Richard Mellon Scaife's "news" paper doesn't site cite the AP. Today there's this report on Tiger Woods. And this report on Senator Joe Lieberman's opposition to a push to expand Medicare. There's even this report about the Copenhagen Conference (but it's about how things are not going well there).

But somehow they just never got around to publishing the AP "exhaustive review" showing how the stolen e-mails "don't undercut the vast body of evidence showing the world is warming because of man-made greenhouse gas emissions." And since they never published it, I guess (and this is just a guess) they feel they can get away with misleading (ie "lying to") their readers who probably never read it.

How surprising for them.

Meanwhile, Across The Pond...

Things are getting rather heated for Gordon Brown's predecessor. From the Guardian:

Tony Blair used "deceit" to persuade parliament and the British people to support war in Iraq, Sir Ken Macdonald, the former director of public prosecutions, said today.

In an article in the Times, Macdonald attacked Blair for engaging in "alarming subterfuge", for displaying "sycophancy" towards George Bush and for refusing to accept that his decisions were wrong.

I don't think The Guardian even got close to describing the fire in Macdonald's article. Here's how it begins:

The degree of deceit involved in our decision to go to war on Iraq becomes steadily clearer. This was a foreign policy disgrace of epic proportions and playing footsie on Sunday morning television does nothing to repair the damage. It is now very difficult to avoid the conclusion that Tony Blair engaged in an alarming subterfuge with his partner George Bush and went on to mislead and cajole the British people into a deadly war they had made perfectly clear they didn’t want, and on a basis that it’s increasingly hard to believe even he found truly credible. Who is any longer naive enough to accept that the then Prime Minister’s mind remained innocently open after his visit to Crawford, Texas?

Macdonald's article comes in light of this interview from the sycophant:

Tony Blair has said he would have invaded Iraq even without evidence of weapons of mass destruction and would have found a way to justify the war to parliament and the public.

And that's stirred up a whole mess o' trouble over there. From The Herald:

Tony Blair’s confession that he would have taken Britain to war in Iraq even if he had known Saddam Hussein had no weapons of mass destruction leaves him more vulnerable to legal action, a leading international lawyer warned yesterday.

Professor Philippe Sands QC, director of the Centre of International Courts and Tribunals at University College London, and a member of Cherie Blair’s Matrix law chambers, said the former prime minister’s admission that he would have deployed “different arguments” besides the weapons to justify the war and the removal of Saddam, means “he fixed on the policy first and then found the justification”.

Prof Sands, who claims Mr Blair and the former US president George Bush violated international law in the 2003 invasion, said: “The fact that the policy was fixed by Tony Blair irrespective of the facts on the ground, and irrespective of the legality, will now expose him more rather than less to legal difficulties.”

And the reason we can't even ask similar questions here is...?

If Tony Blair is guilty of war crimes George W Bush certainly is.

Joe Lieberman threatens filibuster on HCR

From TPM:

In a move that senior leadership aides say has left them stunned, Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-CT) has told Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) that he will filibuster a tentative public option compromise unless it's stripped of its key component: a measure that would allow people aged 55-64 to buy insurance through Medicare

...because he is a complete piece of shit who has received close to a half million dollars from the insurance industry throughout his career and he'd rather that people literally die than risk upsetting his corporate masters. (My apologies to shit.)


.

Jack Kelly Sunday

Jack Kelly does his usual song and dance with this week's column.

Ok, let's jump right into it. He begins:

I'm sure a 6-year-old with a crayon could do something not unlike that," snarked White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs Tuesday.

The object of Mr. Gibbs' scorn was Gallup's tracking poll for the day before, which showed only 47 percent of respondents approve of the job President Barack Obama is doing, with 46 percent disapproving.

Perhaps Mr. Gibbs' skin was thin because this was the lowest ranking for a president at this point in his presidency since Gallup began conducting presidential approval polls in 1938.

Right there, there's a spin. Here's Gallup's press release regarding the poll Jack mentions. And right in the middle of the release we can read this:

Thus far in December, Obama has averaged 50% job approval. That is similar to the December averages for Ronald Reagan (49%) and Bill Clinton (53%), who also took office when the economy was struggling. All other recent presidents elected to their first terms had approval averages of 57% or above in their first December in office.

But didn't Jack say that Obama's numbers were the lowest? Oh that's right, he's talking daily tracking poll and I am talking monthly average. But that shouldn't matter and you'll see in the next section why.

Here we go. Here's what Jack writes:

Meanwhile, a CNN/Opinion Research Poll also released Monday indicated 46 percent of respondents have a favorable impression of Sarah Palin, while 46 percent have an unfavorable one.

The polls were not quite the same. Gallup asked people what they thought of the job Mr. Obama was doing, not whether or not they liked him.

Even with that caveat, though, the convergence between Mr. Obama and Ms. Palin is remarkable. There is no statistical difference between the one and the other.

And so while the polls are "not quite the same" (in fact they're two different polls taken by two different firms asking two different questions of two different groups of people) Jack says there's no statistical difference between one and the other.

So I think I can call Jack out on his spin about Obama's poll numbers. Fact, is, Obama's numbers aren't all that different from (two-term) presidents Reagan and Clinton. By the way according to Gallup, (one-term) president Jimmy Carter was sitting at 57% at this point in 1977 and (one-term) president George H. W. Bush was sitting way up at 71%. And we all know how well their second terms went.

So this data is important, why?

Jack then compares Obama and Palin press coverage:

The turnabout in fortunes is all the more remarkable because no political figure in recent history has been subject to such vilification from our news media as Sarah Palin. No malicious rumor was too preposterous to report. No accomplishment was important enough to mention.

Meanwhile, no presidential candidate or president has received more favorable press coverage than Barack Obama.

What Palin accomplishments? She quit her job to...I'm not really sure to do what. So let's just take a look at what happens next. Here's Jack:

President Barack Obama has enjoyed substantially more positive media coverage than either Bill Clinton or George W. Bush during their first months in the White House," concluded a Pew Research study last May. Forty-two percent of stories in major newspapers and television news programs about Mr. Obama were favorable, compared to 22 percent for Mr. Bush and 27 percent for Mr. Clinton.

Note those two tiny words: last May. Here's Pew's reporting about the first 100 days of the Obama administration. Of course Jack leaves a few things out:

Several factors may be at play in the favorable tone Obama has received during these first months. One element is the pace and sweep of Obama's activities. Bush and Clinton both started their presidencies pursuing policy agendas much more of their own making than Obama has. But the data suggest the current president has managed the media narrative anyway by responding to the economic crisis with so many new proposals and doing so many events that it has been hard for both his critics and the media to keep up.

Another factor may be the media reflecting, and in turn, influencing public opinion. According to Pew Research surveys, President Obama is more popular at this point in his presidency than were either Bush or Clinton. Past studies have shown a recurring pattern of press coverage tending to follow favorability ratings

So Pew states that favorable press coverage tends to follow higher favorability ratings. Anyone remember the election of '92? Clinton started out with only 43% of the popular vote (though he won the electoral college handily). And 2000? We don't really need to restate Bush's loss of the popular vote and the Supreme shenanigans that got him his job, do we?

Gee, I wonder why they weren't as popular as Obama.

But let's look at Jack's next rhetorical flourish. He's looking to present Palin as more popular than Obama with this:

"The very fact she was willing to take the chance of appearing in a room full of her most disdainful critics is testimony to her courage," wrote Dan Thomasson of Scripps Howard. "She came away with at least a consensus of grudging admiration."

"Her appearance produced the extraordinary scene of inside-the-Beltway cynics and their significant others asking for autographs," Mr. Thomasson noted.

Wanna know how Thomasson's piece begins? Like this:

Sarah Palin may not be your huckleberry when it comes to the presidency, but she came to Washington the other night and proved she has more political sex appeal than anyone on the scene with the exception of Barack Obama.

Huh.

This is what Jack does. He spins just enough on just enough "facts" to weave a tapestry of misleads and misinformation that almost outside of the bounds of reality.

It's almost as if he writes for the Tribune Review editorial board.

Not That It'll Matter Much

But check this out from the AP:

E-mails stolen from climate scientists show they stonewalled skeptics and discussed hiding data — but the messages don't support claims that the science of global warming was faked, according to an exhaustive review by The Associated Press.

The 1,073 e-mails examined by the AP show that scientists harbored private doubts, however slight and fleeting, even as they told the world they were certain about climate change. However, the exchanges don't undercut the vast body of evidence showing the world is warming because of man-made greenhouse gas emissions.

And:

In the past three weeks since the e-mails were posted, longtime opponents of mainstream climate science have repeatedly quoted excerpts of about a dozen e-mails. Republican congressmen and former vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin have called for either independent investigations, a delay in U.S. Environmental Protection Agency regulation of greenhouse gases or outright boycotts of the Copenhagen international climate talks. They cited a "culture of corruption" that the e-mails appeared to show.

That is not what the AP found. There were signs of trying to present the data as convincingly as possible.

Again, nothing in this AP report will probably sway the climate skeptics. With a devotion to a empirically empty cause that borders on religious fanaticism, no amount of real world, reality-based evidence will change their belief that the Earth is not warming and even if it is man-made pollution is not contributing to it.

Have a Happy Happy Happy Happy Hanukkah!

FactCheck.org on "Climategate"

Surprise, surprise, surprise! "Climategate" is much less than meets the eye.

So says Factcheck.org. They say the claims that the stolen e-mails show "man-made global warming" to be a fabrication are "unfounded."

Some bullet points:

• The messages, which span 13 years, show a few scientists in a bad light, being rude or dismissive. An investigation is underway, but there’s still plenty of evidence that the earth is getting warmer and that humans are largely responsible.
• Some critics say the e-mails negate the conclusions of a 2007 report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, but the IPCC report relied on data from a large number of sources, of which CRU was only one.
  
• E-mails being cited as "smoking guns" have been misrepresented. For instance, one e-mail that refers to "hiding the decline" isn’t talking about a decline in actual temperatures as measured at weather stations. These have continued to rise, and 2009 may turn out to be the fifth warmest year ever recorded. The "decline" actually refers to a problem with recent data from tree rings.
  

And:

The e-mails (which have been made available by an unidentified individual here) do show a few scientists talking frankly among themselves — sometimes being rude, dismissive, insular, or even behaving like jerks. Whether they show anything beyond that is still in doubt. There are two investigations underway, by the U.K.’s Met Office and East Anglia University, and the head of CRU, Phil Jones, has "stepped aside" until they are completed. However, many of the e-mails that are being held up as "smoking guns" have been misrepresented by global-warming skeptics eager to find evidence of a conspiracy. And even if they showed what the critics claim, there remains ample evidence that the earth in getting warmer.

Even as the affair was unfolding, the World Meteorological Organization announced on Dec. 8 that the 2000-2009 decade would likely be the warmest on record, and that 2009 might be the fifth warmest year ever recorded. (The hottest year on record was 1998.) This conclusion is based not only on the CRU data that critics are now questioning, but also incorporates data from the U.S. National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). All three organizations synthesized data from many sources.

And so on.

Ample evidence. From multiple sources. The stolen e-mails do nothing to negate the science.

From this letter to Congress:

As U.S. scientists with substantial expertise on climate change and its impacts on natural ecosystems, our built environment and human well-being, we want to assure policy makers and the public of the integrity of the underlying scientific research and the need for urgent action to reduce heat-trapping emissions. In the last few weeks, opponents of taking action on climate change have misrepresented both the content and the significance of stolen emails to obscure public understanding of climate science and the scientific process.

We would like to set the record straight.

The body of evidence that human activity is the dominant cause of global warming is overwhelming. The content of the stolen emails has no impact whatsoever on our overall understanding that human activity is driving dangerous levels of global warming. The scientific process depends on open access to methodology, data, and a rigorous peer-review process. The robust exchange of ideas in the peer-reviewed literature regarding climate science is evidence of the high degree of integrity in this process.

And then there's this from 18 leading US Science organizations (including the American Association for the Advancement of Science, the American Geophysical Union, and the American Meteorological Society):

Observations throughout the world make it clear that climate change is occurring, and rigorous scientific research demonstrates that the greenhouse gases emitted by human activities are the primary driver. These conclusions are based on multiple independent lines of evidence, and contrary assertions are inconsistent with an objective assessment of the vast body of peer-reviewed science. ... If we are to avoid the most severe impacts of climate change, emissions of greenhouse gases must be dramatically reduced.

But one guy in an e-mail used the word "trick" in dealing with tree-ring data, so you know that proves beyond any doubt that global warming is a hoax.

It's Teh Crazie - science style.

The Trib Editorial Board. AGAIN

From today's editorial page:

With voter registration fraud alone no guarantee of Democrat wins, far-left elements are working to elect sympathetic secretaries of state across the nation. So contends Matthew Vadum, senior editor at Washington's Capital Research Center.

Cue the source check. Capital Research Center was granted:

• $225,000 by the Richard Mellon Scaife controlled Sarah Scaife Foundation in 2008
• $250,000 by the Richard Mellon Scaife controlled Sarah Scaife Foundation in 2007
• $250,000 by the Richard Mellon Scaife controlled Sarah Scaife Foundation in 2006

That's about three quarters of a million dollars in the last three years being funneled to the Capital Research Center by Richard Mellon Scaife so that Mattew Vadum can write an article that Scaife's editorial board can cite as source material.

Regardless of whatever Vadum writes (and he writes that Al Franken stole the 2008 election from Norm Coleman - with the help of ACORN, of course), the Richard Mellon Scaife's journalistic circle-jerk continues.

Don't these guys ever get tired?

sigh

We don't really know what the Gang of Ten in the Senate has decided to bestow upon us in terms of health care reform a bill (some clues here and here), but we do pretty much know what won't be in it (cribbed from Daily Kos diary):

Single-Payer
Robust Public Option
Public Option available to all
Repeal insurance industry anti-trust exemption
Negotiated drug prices and rebates
Allow states to offer Single Payer
Negotiated rates Public Option
Expansion of Medicaid
Negotiated rates Public Option opt-out

We also know what the insurance industry thinks about it: "We WIN".

[sigh]
.