Time For School

Go check out this piece by Matt Osborne at the Huffingtonpost. From his opening:

Nontroversy feeds on empty, twisted brains. In this case, a general unfamiliarity with the language of scientific banter allows the "climategate" nontroversy to overwhelm the consensus on global warming. That consensus is built on literally hundreds of thousands of studies at this point; and indeed, the stolen emails contain a wealth of proof that temperatures are rising. Yet the media stovepipe magnifies, even invents, discrepancies and minimizes evidence, even as the ice melts.

He describes 5 stages (here are the first three):

Viral Stage: The emails were posted on climate denial sites first. Note that nontroversy never begins in a neutral forum; the wingnutosphere is always the platform for launch. It is the vector of viral memes. This achieves two objectives: (1) it produces the maximum spread of this "news" before anyone can rebut or debunk it, and (2) reinforces Teh Librul Media™ meme with every passing hour that CNN, ABC, CBS, the NYT, et al fail to screech in chorus.

Then there's:

Larval Stage: Faux Noise -- the right-wing media world that includes both the Daily Mail and Fox News Channel -- runs the story. Scientific literacy is eschewed in favor of banner headlines, forming a feedback loop with the wingnutosphere.... Note that (1) right-wing media is still responsible for spreading the nontroversy, and (2) Teh Librul Media™ meme is ever-present. Indeed, the wingnutosphere demands it.

There is still no actual science in the discussion. Nontroversy always focuses on the human factor and implies the worst.

We can include Richard Mellon Scaife's circle-jerking Op-Ed page in this stage, of course. Next:

Pandemic Stage: "Liberal" mainstream media organizations now run the "facts" and narrative pre-established by the right wing noise machine as one side of a controversy.

In its effort to show "both sides" and report that controversy, the one thing CNN does not report is the actual science of climate change. The public is left with the impression, however unjustified, that scientists have probably done something wrong, and denialists are given exactly the "fair hearing" they don't get from scientific journals.

This part should be familiar to anyone who followed the "controversy" regarding the conflict between Evolution (ie science) and Creationism/Intelligent Design (ie not-science).

It's a good read.

Not What You'd Expect

Oh, so here goes.

Tony Norman, award-winning columnist for the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, winner of a Knight-Wallace Fellowship, and (most importantly) best man at my wedding, made a few boo-boos in today's column.

Boo-boo numero uno:

I was a sucker for environmental propaganda. When I was a kid, I fell for all of the "Keep America Beautiful" public service announcements. The most memorable of those PSA's featured a Native American paddling a canoe across a lake to a trash-strewn shoreline.

As ads go, it was devastating. The Indian had nobility and empathy to spare. As he paddled past factories belching smoke, a narrator with the deep, biblical voice of Orson Welles intoned: "Some people have a deep abiding respect for the natural beauty that was once this country. Some people don't."

Here's the ad:

Sorry, Tony. It was William Conrad NOT Orson Welles who did the voice over for the ad. This post at the Britannica.com says so. Take a look:

This classic television commercial, from the “Keep America Beautiful” campaign of the early 1970s, debuted on the second Earth Day, in 1971, and was one of the most successful public service announcements ever produced, starring actor (actually, Italian-American actor) Iron Eyes Cody as the “crying Indian” with a voice-over by actor William Conrad. [emphasis added]

And there's Tony's boo-boo numero due. Did you see it? Here's what Tony wrote again:

I was a sucker for environmental propaganda. When I was a kid, I fell for all of the "Keep America Beautiful" public service announcements. The most memorable of those PSA's featured a Native American paddling a canoe across a lake to a trash-strewn shoreline.

But the Britannica says Iron Eyes Cody was an Italian-American.

So does Snopes.com:

That "crying Indian," as he would later sometimes be referred to, was Iron Eyes Cody, an actor who throughout his life claimed to be of Cherokee/Cree extraction. Yet his asserted ancestry was just as artificial as the tear that rolled down his cheek in that television spot — the tear was glycerine, and the "Indian" a second-generation Italian-American.

And:

Iron Eyes Cody was born Espera DeCorti on 3 April 1904 in the small town of Kaplan, Louisiana. He was the son of Francesca Salpietra and Antonio DeCorti, she an immigrant from Sicily who had arrived in the USA in 1902, and he another immigrant who had arrived in America not long before her.

AND the tear was glycerine? How else did they lie to us?

See? That proves it: GLOBAL WARMING IS A HOAX!

Sen. Boxer: Viagra Rider

Sen. Boxer Challenges Men Who Support Nelsons Abortion Amendment:


Methinks Boxer reads Digby...
.

Pope: Pro choice women need more time to review new encyclical on abortion

Pope Benedict XVI held up introducing his new papal encyclical on abortion to give women in the United States more time to review it:

Pope Benedict XVI said that the Papal encyclical’s language was not finished, and that groups supporting abortion — notably U.S. feminists — needed more time to review it. Additional time, he added, might lead to greater bipartisan support.

Oh, wait! This only works in reverse.
.

I have no problem with that

I have no problem with the Senate needing the approval of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops -- a group who is exclusively male and who are forbidden from having sexual relations and who act at the behest of a foreign city-state whose leader is a former Hitler Youth -- regarding reproductive rights for the women of the United States of America.

Why would anyone?
.

By "bipartisan support" I assume he means Church and State

From Politico:

Nelson said that the amendment’s language was not finished, and that groups opposed to abortion — notably the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops — needed more time to review it. Additional time, he added, might lead to greater bipartisan support.

.

Stop Stupak

Emily's List has a petition to stop a Stupak-like bill in the Senate here:

http://action.stopstupak.com/p/dia/action/public/?action_KEY=385&tag=KEG_HPost_20091117

.

Post-Gazette repeats old myth (Updated)

UPDATE: Daniel Malloy of the Post-Gazette responds here.
_____________________________________________


When can we finally retire the urban legend repeated in the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette today? Namely this:

The debate puts the first-term senator in an uncomfortable place. His father, former Pennsylvania Gov. Robert P. Casey, challenged Roe v. Wade to the Supreme Court and was infamously denied a chance to speak at the 1992 Democratic convention because of his anti-abortion views.

The only thing infamous is how often folks in the MSM parrot this inaccurate recounting of history. A small sample of which includes:

Bill O'Reilly in 2004

Chris Matthews in 2004

USA Today in 2005

Hardball in 2005

Robert Novak in 2007

The New York Times in 2008

With so many august bodies repeating this claim should the P-G be given a pass?

NO.

Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but they're not entitled to their own version of the facts and repeating the wrong information over and over and over again does not make it true.

For the hundredth time: Gov. Robert P. Casey Sr. was not denied a chance to speak at the 1992 Democratic convention because of his anti-abortion views.

How do we know this? We know this because as Media Matters has noted (time and again):

Yet here's The New York Times, just last week: "Sixteen years ago, the Democratic Party refused to allow Robert P. Casey Sr., then the governor of Pennsylvania, to speak at its national convention because his anti-abortion views, stemming from his Roman Catholic faith, clashed with the party's platform and powerful constituencies."

No. That is not true. That cannot be true. It cannot be the case that he was not allowed to speak because of his views -- other people with the same views were allowed to speak. Forgive the repetition, but reporters at nearly every significant news organization in the country are inexplicably incapable of grasping this extraordinarily simple concept. And when Media Matters pointed out the error, did the Times run a correction? No. The Times apparently stands by its transparent falsehood. That is not a sign of a newspaper that gives a damn about the truth. [Emphasis added]

Here are some folk with anti abortion views who have spoken at Democratic conventions:

Chicago Mayor Richard M. Daley, Sens. John Breaux (D-LA) and Howell Heflin (D-AL), and five other governors who opposed abortion rights did address the convention in 1992, as detailed in a September 16, 1996, article in The New Republic on the Casey myth. In addition, anti-abortion speakers have spoken at every Democratic convention since 1992, including Breaux in 1996 and 2000, former House Democratic Whip David Bonior (D-MI) in 1996 and 2000, and Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) in 2000 and 2004.

So why was Casey Sr. denied a speaking spot?

First of all, there's no reason to assume that he should have been guaranteed a prized speaking spot. Second, his entire speech was about criticizing the Democratic party at their own convention about being out of touch (yes, about abortion) without any mention of the party's candidates. Third -- and most important -- HE REFUSED TO ENDORSE THE PARTY'S CANDIDATES (Clinton/Gore).

Do you think his refusal to endorse the party's candidates at the party's own convention had -- oh, I don't know -- something to do with him being excluded from getting a prized speaking role?

Seriously.

Yet somehow that little fact is never mentioned. NEVER. MENTIONED. And so the myth lives on another day.

[sigh]

.

On The Trib Ed-Board. Again.

Looks like they're learning - if only about how to hide the circle jerk. From today's Sunday Pops:

The next shoe to drop in the growing "climate change" scandal could involve NASA. The Washington Times reports that researcher Christopher Horner is about to sue the space agency to force it to cough up data showing how it shapes its findings and why it's had to repeatedly correct data going back to the 1930s. Stay tuned for the next chapter in what rapidly has become The Greatest Fraud.

So who's this "Christopher Horner" you ask?

Why he's with the Scaife funded Competitive Enterprise Institute, of course. And how do I know this? For one, the Trib has already said so. Only last September:

"If they don't tell you the cost and they don't tell you the benefit, what are they telling you?" asks CEI's Christopher Horner. [emphasis added.]

The Brain-Trust (as well as the Washington Times article mentioned) refers to Horner as "a researcher" implying, I take it, that he's some kind of climate science-researcher.

Epp-epp-epp - not so fast there, pal. According to his page at the CEI:

Christopher C. Horner serves as a Senior Fellow at CEI. As an attorney in Washington, DC Horner has represented CEI as well as scientists and Members of the U.S. House and Senate on matters of environmental policy in the federal courts including the Supreme Court.

While there is no doubt that some attorneys actually do some work and that some of that work actually revolves around research, but to say Horner is "a researcher" is, well, misleading.

And that's the point. The Brain-Trust knows he's from CEI. And (presumably) the Brain-Trust knows that their boss, Richard Mellon Scaife has made it possible for the CEI to get close to a million dollars over the last 3 years.

And yet none of that is mentioned.

They're trying to hide their circle-jerking. But it continues just the same.

But let's take a look at that Washington Times article again. Here's what it says:

Chris Horner, a senior fellow at the Competitive Enterprise Institute, said NASA has refused for two years to provide information under the Freedom of Information Act that would show how the agency has shaped its climate data and would explain why the agency has repeatedly had to correct its data going as far back as the 1930s.

"I assume that what is there is highly damaging," Mr. Horner said. "These guys are quite clearly bound and determined not to reveal their internal discussions about this."

The numbers matter. Under pressure in 2007, NASA recalculated its data and found that 1934, not 1998, was the hottest year in its records for the contiguous 48 states. NASA later changed that data again, and now 1998 and 2006 are tied for first, with 1934 slightly cooler.

And then a few paragraphs down there's this:

NASA's GISS was forced to update its data in 2007 after questions were raised by Steve McIntyre, who runs ClimateAudit.com.

GISS had initially listed the warmest years as 1998, 1934, 2006, 1921 and 1931. After Mr. McIntyre's questions GISS rejiggered the list and 1934 was warmest, followed by 1998, 1921, 2006 and then 1931. But since then, the list has been rewritten again so it now runs 1998, 2006, 1934, 1921, 1999.

The institute blamed a "minor data processing error" for the changes but says it doesn't make much difference since the top three years remain in a "statistical tie" either way.

THAT'S what Horner's hunting?

Here's what we wrote about it at the time (we were quoting this from actual scientist Gavin Schmidt):

The net effect of the change was to reduce mean US anomalies by about 0.15 ºC for the years 2000-2006. There were some very minor knock on effects in earlier years due to the GISTEMP adjustments for rural vs. urban trends. In the global or hemispheric mean, the differences were imperceptible (since the US is only a small fraction of the global area).

There were however some very minor re-arrangements in the various rankings (see data). Specifically, where 1998 (1.24 ºC anomaly compared to 1951-1980) had previously just beaten out 1934 (1.23 ºC) for the top US year, it now just misses: 1934 1.25ºC vs. 1998 1.23ºC. None of these differences are statistically significant.

So due to McIntyre's catch, the US data (but not the global data) was corrected to the tune of a few hundredths of a degree in a statistically insignificant setting. And now it looks like that (US) data has been corrected again.

Tell me again how this undermines the global data?

It doesn't.

There are only two possibilities here: The Brain-Trust knows it's misleading the public or it doesn't. If it's the former, its credibility is undermined and if it's the latter, its credibility is undermined.

The Washington Post Is A Joke

From WAPO:


For those who don't remember the song which criticized emergency response units for taking longer to arrive at emergencies in the black community than those in the white community:


P.S. The original WAPO article was actually about how PE is helping homeless youth in D.C.
.

Quick Shot

From today's Trib Thursday Wrap:

Records released this week show House Speaker Nancy Pelosi spent nearly $3,000 in taxpayer dollars on flowers between June and October. Flowers sure are nice and purty. But should taxpayers be picking up the tab? We think not.

Perhaps, but let's look at some real reporting. From Newsweek:

On its face, three grand sounds like considerable dough, especially for something as disposable as fresh flowers. But is it really that much? Pelosi’s Capitol Hill office isn’t your average dentist’s waiting room. She has a massive setup in the Capitol with dozens and dozens of staffers. Broken up over four months, that’s really just about $750 per month, or $25 a day, which is barely the cost of lunch for two in the House cafeteria, if you skip dessert. Your Gaggler has admittedly never planned a wedding, but would venture that some bigger affairs around Washington can burn through three grand's worth of flowers in about two hours. It also merits mentioning, as Pelosi’s office does, that the Speaker holds a lot more ceremonial events than other members.

Then there's this from the Politico:

[Pelosi's] offices defended the charges, saying the Speaker’s office holds more ceremonial events with visiting dignitaries than other congressional offices. They also use a local florist, and about a third of her flower expenses this quarter were for Jack Kemp’s funeral.

So let's redo the math. If a third of the expenses were for Republican Jack Kemp's funeral, that leaves $2,000 spread out over 4 months, or $500 per month or about $17 bucks a day.

Is the Trib really wasting its time complaining about the Speaker's $17 per day flower habit when it could be circle-jerking again on Climate change?

Ooops wait, they're doing that too:

Hudson Institute scholar Dennis Avery reminds that Der Spiegel, the German magazine, tried to warn the world of climate change research fraud more than two years ago -- but nobody listened. Asks Mr. Avery, "Must we wait for the huge new energy tax to be imposed by the Congress before we take the evidence of climate fraud seriously?"

No mention of the million dollars in Scaife grants (from foundations controlled by Richard Mellon Scaife) that went to the Hudson Institute in the last 3 years:

• $220,000 in 2008 from the Sarah Scaife Foundation
• $340,000 in 2007 from the Sarah Scaife Foundation
• $200,000 in 2006 from the Sarah Scaife Foundation
• $50,000 in 2008 from the Carthage Foundation

You see, my friends, when Richard Mellon Scaife grants such a steaming pile of money for the support of a think-tank and then his editorial board touts the research from that think tank as a credible source of information, he playing both sides; creating the news and then reporting on it.

But the $17 bucks a day for Washington DC flowers is an outrage! An outrage I tell you!

The Trib Editorial Board Just Can't Get It Right

From today's Midweek Briefing:

Accuracy in Media's Cliff Kincaid reminds that there was another interesting guest at President Obama's first state dinner on Nov. 24. Robert W. Creamer, a friend of White House adviser David Axelrod, was released from federal prison in 2006 after serving a five-month sentence for financial crimes. The company one keeps...

First off, the Tribune-Review is supposed to be a "news" organization. That means they're supposed to get their facts straight - the man's name is Robert B. Creamer. Granted, this is a teeny, tiny error. But if a "news" organization can't get the easy ones right, how can we trust it with the complicated ones?

And how easy would it have been to, you know, check the name? This easy. It's from AIM:

The media furor over the White House state dinner crashers ignores the convicted felon who was invited to attend with the approval of Obama's inner circle. The ex-convict, Robert B. Creamer, is a friend of White House adviser David Axelrod and the husband of Democratic Rep. Jan Schakowsky of Illinois. [emphasis added.]

See? How sloppy must a "news" operation be if they can't even quote their own source without making a rookie error?

But let's fill in some of the blanks. What was Creamer sent to prison for? From the Chicago Sun-Times:

The husband of U.S. Rep. Jan Schakowsky (D-Ill.) will spend five months in prison for committing bank fraud as part of his efforts to keep afloat a nonprofit group that he ran.

U.S. Senior District Judge James Moran handed down the punishment on Wednesday to Robert Creamer, who also will serve 11 months under house arrest.

The sentence fell far short of the three-year prison term that prosecutors were seeking for Creamer, who pleaded guilty last year to writing a series of bad checks worth millions of dollars to numerous banks to generate cash -- a scheme known as check-kiting.

In granting a sentence below the recommended federal guidelines, Moran said Creamer's motivation wasn't to profit off the money but to keep his consumer advocacy group, Illinois Public Action, alive.

And this from the USAToday:

The husband of an Illinois congresswoman pleaded guilty Wednesday to tax violations and bank fraud for writing rubber checks and failing to collect withholding tax from an employee.

And:

Creamer, 58, a prominent Chicago political consultant, was accused of swindling nine financial institutions of at least $2.3 million while he ran a public interest group in the 1990s.

Wow. Way back then, huh? So a decade ago he knowingly bounced a healthy pile of checks (which is very very stupid and very very illegal) and then went to jail for it.

This is what Scaife's editorial board meant by "financial crimes."

I am guessing they wanted you to assume Creamer was responsible for the collapse of the economy - but that's just a guess.

By the way, Accuracy In Media was one of the big pushers of the "Vince Foster was murdered" myth. One of the sources of that myth was Christopher Ruddy, writing for the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review. A paper owned by Richard Mellon Scaife. Ruddy's now at Newsmax

Oh, the company one keeps...

Excerpts of the President’s Address to the Nation

“The 30,000 additional troops that I am announcing tonight will deploy in the first part of 2010 – the fastest pace possible – so that they can target the insurgency and secure key population centers. They will increase our ability to train competent Afghan Security Forces, and to partner with them so that more Afghans can get into the fight. And they will help create the conditions for the United States to transfer responsibility to the Afghans.”

“Because this is an international effort, I have asked that our commitment be joined by contributions from our allies. Some have already provided additional troops, and we are confident that there will be further contributions in the days and weeks ahead. Our friends have fought and bled and died alongside us in Afghanistan. Now, we must come together to end this war successfully. For what’s at stake is not simply a test of NATO’s credibility – what’s at stake is the security of our Allies, and the common security of the world.”

“Taken together, these additional American and international troops will allow us to accelerate handing over responsibility to Afghan forces, and allow us to begin the transfer of our forces out of Afghanistan in July of 2011. Just as we have done in Iraq, we will execute this transition responsibly, taking into account conditions on the ground. We will continue to advise and assist Afghanistan’s Security Forces to ensure that they can succeed over the long haul. But it will be clear to the Afghan government – and, more importantly, to the Afghan people – that they will ultimately be responsible for their own country.”

Remember, if the surge or the giant shadow army of contractors bothers you and causes your blood pressure to rise, there's always "Surprised Kitty." I fear that I may be watching a lot of Surprised Kitty tonight...
.

Going Galt (Bang, Bang Edition)

(Click for larger image)
Looks like I should have started that magazine. From Bloomberg.com:

Dec. 1 (Bloomberg) -- “I just wrote my first reference for a gun permit,” said a friend, who told me of swearing to the good character of a Goldman Sachs Group Inc. banker who applied to the local police for a permit to buy a pistol. The banker had told this friend of mine that senior Goldman people have loaded up on firearms and are now equipped to defend themselves if there is a populist uprising against the bank.

.

The Trib Ed-Board Never Learns

From today's Tuesday Takes:

Available data call into "serious question" the claim by Official Pittsburgh that the region enjoyed a $35 million economic boost from September's Group of 20 economic summit. That's according to the Allegheny Institute for Public Policy. In fact, data show RAD tax numbers for September 2009 were actually below those of September 2008 by nearly 3 percent. "There is simply no evidence that ... retailers, restaurants, etc., in aggregate enjoyed an above-normal September level of sales" during the summit. If one were to factor in the total costs associated with the G-20, anyone care to bet any overall gains were de minimis?

Again no mention of the financial support of the Allegheny Institute by the owner of the Trib. Instead of redoing all the work, I'll just cut and paste what I wrote only one month ago:

No mention of the $375,000 in grant money ($125K in 2006, 2007 and 2008) from the Allegheny Foundation - a foundation controlled by Richard Mellon Scaife, owner and publisher of the Pittsburgh Tribune Review.

Or the $360,000 in grant money ($110K in 2006 and $250K in 2008) from the Carthage Foundation - a foundation controlled by Richard Mellon Scaife, owner and publisher of the Pittsburgh Tribune Review.

Or the $235,000 in grant money ($110K in 2006 and $125K in 2007) from the Sarah Scaife Foundation - a foundation controlled by Richard Mellon Scaife, owner and publisher of the Pittsburgh Tribune Review.

For those keeping score that's $970,000 worth of support over the last 3 years and no mention of it when Scaife's editorial page quotes the Allegheny Institute for Public Policy.

As I wrote back then, the circle-jerk continues.

Last day to get the Early Bird Rate for the PA Progressive Summit

Today's the last day you can get a 25% discount on registration to the PA Progressive Summit that will be held in January 2010.

From the web site:

The Pennsylvania Progressive Summit is the largest gathering of progressive activists and leaders in Pennsylvania. We’re coming together to build the progressive movement and to prepare for the legislative and electoral battles of 2010.

We believe that together we can build a permanent progressive majority in Pennsylvania. The Summit is bringing together hundreds of Pennsylvanians to discuss environment, energy, health care, home foreclosures, civil rights, state finances and budget, labor organizing and other progressive issues. It will include panels led by state and national experts; identity, issue and regional caucuses; prominent political, issue and policy-oriented speakers; and the most concentrated gathering of progressive bloggers and field organizers in Pennsylvania to date.

More information and registration at http://www.paprogressivesummit.org
.

File this under: Things We Already Knew

A new report says that the Bush Administration let Osama bin Laden slip from our grasp in Tora Bora.


How Bush escaped criticism for so long is explained here.
.

"Flesh-colored"

Sociological Images notes the problem with describing objects -- such as this dress in an Associated Press article -- as being "flesh-colored":


See the problem now?


Pssst, white skin is not the default. (Although as many comments at SI note, the First Lady's dress is more gold/champagne than the light pinky-peach normally referred to as "flesh-colored"/"nude" so the AP even gets that wrong.)
.

KDKA's Story on #ravenstahlrumors on Twitter

KDKA's Jon Delano interviews Bram Reichbaum of The Pittsburgh Comet, Chris Potter of the Pittsburgh City Paper and me about the online reaction to Lil Mayor Luke's hiring of a Philly attorney to handle speculation about his marital woes:

http://kdka.com/video/?id=65725@kdka.dayport.com
.

Post-Gazette Article on #ravenstahlrumors on Twitter

Raise your hands if you think Pittsburgh's Lil Mayor Luke and his Philly attorney went overboard threatening to sue anyone and everyone who engage in any rumors/speculation about his separation from his wife.

The P-G interviews Gene Grabowski (a former reporter with The Associated Press who now specializes in crisis communications) and me about Lukey's failed media strategy which led to the rampant mockery to be found at http://twitter.com/search?q=%23ravenstahlrumors .

From Grabowski:

"Where I might differ on the strategy, however, is the aggressive statements that his lawyer's making," Mr. Grabowski said.

"For two reasons. One, [the lawyer] himself is making the suggestion of defamatory statements and smears and innuendos. He's the one raising the negativity before the reporters even do.

"No. 2, his language seems unnecessarily aggressive and litigious. I'm reluctant to second-guess other people's strategies, but I would say that if I were still a news reporter, such a statement would set my teeth on edge and actually spur me, not only to be more curious about the circumstances, but probably even more aggressive in my pursuit of the story."

You can read all of what Grabowski and I have to say on this issue here.

NOTE TO ATTORNEYS: No actual rumor-mongering/gossiping occurred during the making of this blog post (nor were any animals hurt).
.