The President Gets It Right

Some highlights from the text:

Our Founders understood that the best way to honor the place of faith in the lives of our people was to protect their freedom to practice religion. In the Virginia Act for Establishing Religion Freedom, Thomas Jefferson wrote that "all men shall be free to profess, and by argument to maintain, their opinions in matters of religion." The First Amendment of our Constitution established the freedom of religion as the law of the land. And that right has been upheld ever since.

Indeed, over the course of our history, religion has flourished within our borders precisely because Americans have had the right to worship as they choose - including the right to believe in no religion at all. And it is a testament to the wisdom of our Founders that America remains deeply religious - a nation where the ability of peoples of different faiths to coexist peacefully and with mutual respect for one another stands in contrast to the religious conflict that persists around the globe.

And now onto that mosque in Manhattan. After calling Ground Zero "hallowed ground" Obama says:

But let me be clear: as a citizen, and as President, I believe that Muslims have the same right to practice their religion as anyone else in this country. That includes the right to build a place of worship and a community center on private property in lower Manhattan, in accordance with local laws and ordinances. This is America, and our commitment to religious freedom must be unshakeable. The principle that people of all faiths are welcome in this country, and will not be treated differently by their government, is essential to who we are. The writ of our Founders must endure.

Exactly.

Did You Know?

Now THIS is interesting!

From Talkingpointsmemo:

Tuesday, Reps. Peter King (R-NY) and Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (R-FL) called Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf -- best known for his work with multicultural Cordoba Initiative to build a mosque and community center in Lower Manhattan -- a "radical" and criticized the Obama Administration for including him on a Middle East speaking tour. That tour, which includes stops in Bahrain, Qatar and the United Arab Emirates, is designed by the public diplomacy office to explain to Muslims abroad what it's like to be a Muslim in America.

Outside of how getting constantly called a radical by American politicians busy flacking the proposed "Ground Zero mosque" for political purposes might affect Rauf's view of what it's like to be a Muslim in America, there's one other big problem with King's and Ros-Lehtinen's accusation: Rauf already represented America in this way, under the Bush Administration.

That's right. That hater of Amurika, George W Bush, that appeaser to the evil-doers, George W Bush - HE actually talked to the enemy that wants to kills us all!!

If one were to hearken back to the halcyon days of the Bush Administration, one would remember that, when Bush adviser Karen Hughes was appointed Undersecretary of State for Public Diplomacy, the Bush Administration saw improving America's standing among Muslims abroad as a part of its national security strategy. And, as such, Hughes set up listening tours, attended meetings and worked with interfaith groups that -- shocking, by today's Republican standards -- included actual Muslims.

One of those people was Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf.

Something to remember the next time you hear that he's going on a "tax-payer funded" trip to the middle east to raise funds for the mosque (or whatever).

That's a talking point coming out of the right wing media. And of course, it's completely wrong.

From Mediamatters.org:

The right-wing media is attacking Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf's upcoming State Department trip to the Middle East to "discuss Muslim life in America and religious tolerance," by falsely claiming he will use the trip as a "taxpayer-funded fundraising jaunt" to finance construction of his Islamic cultural center in New York City. In fact, the State Department has made clear that fundraising of any kind is prohibited during the trip, and Rauf has previously participated in this program, first under President Bush.

But no point in letting reality get in the way of a good religiously bigoted smear, is it?

Frightening. Scary. Saddening.

Hey remember that American Family Association guy who claimed that Hitler was gay and that he (Hitler) recruited homosexuals to be his Stormtroopers because they (teh gays) were especially brutal and vicious?

Well, Bryan Fischer is at it again. By way of TPM and Mediamatters, we find:

Permits should not be granted to build even one more mosque in the United States of America, let alone the monstrosity planned for Ground Zero. This is for one simple reason: each Islamic mosque is dedicated to the overthrow of the American government.

Got that? Not one more mosque anywhere in the United States of America, land of the free and home of the brave. Then there's:

Because of this subversive ideology, Muslims cannot claim religious freedom protections under the First Amendment. They are currently using First Amendment freedoms to make plans to destroy the First Amendment altogether. There is no such thing as freedom of religion in Islam, and it is sheer and utter folly for Americans to delude themselves into thinking otherwise.

Got that? The First Amendment's promise of free exercise of religion doesn't count for muslims.

There is one way for mosques to be built in this City on a Hill, according to Fischer:

If a mosque was willing to publicly renounce the Koran and its 109 verses that call for the death of infidels, renounce Allah and his messenger Mohammed, publicly condemn Osama bin Laden, Hamas, and Abdelbaset al Megrahi (the Lockerbie bomber), maybe then they could be allowed to build their buildings. But then they wouldn’t be Muslims at that point, now would they?

This is frightening, my friends and it can't end anyway but very very badly.

Every freedom loving civilized person has to denounce such religious hatred as shown by the American Family Association's Bryan Fischer.

Not All Lawyers Are Awful

From the AP, tonight:

The country's largest lawyers' group has backed a resolution calling on all state legislatures to let same-sex couples get married.

The American Bar Association voted at its annual meeting Tuesday in San Francisco to support the measure sponsored by the New York State Bar Association.

New York State Bar Association President Stephen P. Younger says the resolution passed overwhelmingly, with only one speaker voicing opposition during debate.

The ABA's approval comes days after a federal judge in San Francisco struck down California's voter-approved same-sex marriage ban. Younger says the timing of the ABA's vote is a coincidence.

And the resolution:

RESOLVED, That the American Bar Association urges state, territorial, and tribal governments to eliminate all of their legal barriers to civil marriage between two persons of the same sex who are otherwise eligible to marry.

Good for them.

The entire resolution can be found here.

More Crazie (And This One's A BIGGIE)

From Talkingpointsmemo:

To many conservatives, almost everything is a secret liberal plot: from fluoride in the water to medicare reimbursements for end-of-life planning with your doctor to efforts to teach evolution in schools. But Conservapedia founder and Eagle Forum University instructor Andy Schlafly -- Phyllis Schlafly's son -- has found one more liberal plot: the theory of relativity.

And TPM concludes:

Why does Andy Schlafly hate the theory of relativity? We're pretty sure it's because he's decided it doesn't square with the Bible.

One reason they're sure? Schafly gives this reason (among others):

9. The action-at-a-distance by Jesus, described in John 4:46-54.

Huh - The Bible is being used to undermine a fundamental scientific theory.

I mean, when has that ever happened before?

Joshua 10:13:

So the sun stood still,
and the moon stopped,
till the nation avenged itself on [a] its enemies,
as it is written in the Book of Jashar.
The sun stopped in the middle of the sky and delayed going down about a full day.

If taken literally, it proves the Sun moves around the Earth and so therefore the Sun cannot be at the center of the Universe - the Earth (obviously) is. The Earth, the Bible teaches, is immobile.

And yet, it moves.

Just when you thought teh crazie on the right couldn't get any crazier, it does.

Rand Paul does not deny kidnapping young woman

Liberty for me, but not for thee.
Via GQ:

The strangest episode of Paul's time at Baylor occurred one afternoon in 1983 (although memories about all of these events are understandably a bit hazy, so the date might be slightly off), when he and a NoZe brother paid a visit to a female student who was one of Paul's teammates on the Baylor swim team. According to this woman, who requested anonymity because of her current job as a clinical psychologist, "He and Randy came to my house, they knocked on my door, and then they blindfolded me, tied me up, and put me in their car. They took me to their apartment and tried to force me to take bong hits. They'd been smoking pot." After the woman refused to smoke with them, Paul and his friend put her back in their car and drove to the countryside outside of Waco, where they stopped near a creek. "They told me their god was 'Aqua Buddha' and that I needed to bow down and worship him," the woman recalls. "They blindfolded me and made me bow down to 'Aqua Buddha' in the creek. I had to say, 'I worship you Aqua Buddha, I worship you.' At Baylor, there were people actively going around trying to save you and we had to go to chapel, so worshiping idols was a big no-no."

Nearly 30 years later, the woman is still trying to make sense of that afternoon. "They never hurt me, they never did anything wrong, but the whole thing was kind of sadistic. They were messing with my mind. It was some kind of joke." She hadn't actually realized that Paul wound up leaving Baylor early. "I just know I never saw Randy after that—for understandable reasons, I think."

When I asked Benton late last week if Paul remembered any of these episodes from his Baylor days, he replied in an email: "During his time at Baylor, Dr. Paul competed on the swim team and was an active member of Young Conservatives of Texas."

And, via CBS:

Benton tells Slate, "We are investigating all our options -- including legal ones. We will not tolerate drive-by journalism by a writer with a leftist agenda."

First, that would be two non-denials by his campaign. I mean, how hard would it be to say something like, "Rand Paul never blindfolded and tied up a woman and tried to force her to smoke pot"?

Second, someone who would blindfold and tie up a woman and try to force her to smoke pot is a sick, twisted, sadistic piece of shit.

Third, why should anyone be surprised that an extreme anti-choicer would be interested in controlling a woman's body (for fun or profit)?

Fourth, I heard Chuck Todd on MSNBC refer to this as a "quirky" story.

(h/t to Spork, TPM.)
.

Teh Crazie Get Crazier (With A Local Connection)

I just found this at mediamatters.org.

Here's the setup. This is from June 23:


And a transcript:

This president has a problem with flies landing on him. Then we had the bees that were swarming the White House. And then, I don't know if you saw this -- do we have the rodents? Here's the president giving a speech and the little rat running -- watch this. OK. I don't know if he's Doctor Doolittle or what exactly. Do you remember this from the live interview? I've never seen that before. Hello. Yes. OK. Now flies landing on his mouth as he's speaking yesterday. I'm not sure what to make of it. Might be that there's a lot of BS and flies are -- but the president's ability to attract rodents and insects is kind of creepy.

To be fair (and we are nothing if we are not fair), Beck has claimed he was joking about the bees and flies and rats and Obama. This is from Mediaite:

Glenn Beck was talking about bees – specifically, asking the audience at Saturday night’s “Bold & Fresh” tour if they would be surprised to see Pres. Barack Obama one day walk out of the White House, covered head to toe in bees, hovering around him, then shake them off, and see them form the presidential seal behind him.

It was a good laugh line – and the crowd erupted. But it served as the conclusion to a lengthier Beck ‘theory’ about why flies, rats and other insects and rodents appear to be ‘attracted’ to Pres. Obama. Is it because, as his co-star Bill O’Reilly suggested, he is the Antichrist? Well I’m not necessarily saying that, said Beck, smiling. Later in the show, O’Reilly brought it back up and Beck finally relented. “Oh come on,” he said. “I’m completely joking!”

Saturday Night would be July 31st. By the way, Krakauer isn't buying that Beck was joking:

But as I sat in the audience, I couldn’t help but wonder if anyone in the 1,000+ crowd had bought into the complete jokes Beck mixed into his very real, and often convincing, conservative stumping.

And then:

Beck talked about his time at CNN again – “Anderson Cooper was nice to me” he noted. He also recounted his first meeting with Larry King. “So, you’re the Mormon,” he recalled King saying. And then there was the talk about bees and rats and “communist revolutionaries” in the White House. It certainly didn’t sound like Beck was joking about that last one.

Maybe he was and maybe he wasn't. But how many crazies in the crowd believed him anyway?

Or crazies elsewhere?

Like our local Rose Tennant of the Quinn and Rose show:


And as Mediamatters described Rose's crazie:

On their June 25 radio program, Pittsburgh hosts Rose Tennent and Jim Quinn read a listener's email that speculated Obama may be "evil," or an "enemy of the USA," citing evidence from Beck's June 23 Fox News show. Tennent then asked: "Isn't there something ... weird about that? Like all the insects and the rodents come out for this man, or something. Like they're attracted to him. You know like those devil movies ... Like they're attracted to the devil or something." Quinn then referred to a scene in The Passion of the Christ in which, he said, an "androgynous devil figure was walking through the Garden of Gethsemane and the worm was coming out of his nose."

And even if Quinn and Rose are as "completely joking" about this as crazie Glenn Beck is, I gotta wonder how many of teh crazies in their audience believe them anyway?

Teh Crazie, Quinn and Rose style.

But...

As much as I bash the editorial page at the Trib, when they get something right I have to give credit where credit is due.

From today:

Much to the chagrin of the mores and folkways crowd, a federal judge has declared unconstitutional California's voter-approved ban on same-sex marriage.

U.S. District Judge Vaughn R. Walker found no legitimate state interest in treating gay and lesbian couples any differently from heterosexual couples. Simply put, such a social construct -- one that is more archaic every day -- violates the U.S. Constitution's equal protection and due process clauses.

And he's spot on.

Though they're not exactly "on" with the next sentence:

Critics have been quick to say that the will of seven million Californians who voted for Proposition 8 has been negated by an activist liberal judge.

Reading it, you might think that what the critics say about the Judge (that he's of the "activist liberal" variety) is actually true.

Did you know he was first appointed to the bench by George H. W. Bush? Or that he was first nominated by Ronald Reagan? He was. Or that Speaker Pelosi opposed his nomination? She did.

Perhaps the Trib should have pointed that out when characterizing Walker as a "activist liberal judge."

The Trib is right however to us the phrase "true bigot" in it's next sentence:

True bigots have taken pains to note that Judge Walker is gay.

When you're right, you're right. Even when you get a few things wrong.

The Straight Poop

From the editorial page of the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review:

A particularly sobering thought comes from The Weekly Standard: "(W)hen federal law governs the way we flush toilets and take a shower -- and threatens punishment for defiance -- there is good reason to worry about the next particle of freedom on the progressive hit list." Sigh.

A little googling brings us to this "Scrapbook" article in the weekly standard, though that piece is more about showerheads than toilets. But had Scaife's braintrust actually read the thing c-a-r-e-f-u-l-l-y they would have spared themselves the embarrassment of a brief history (or arithmetic) lesson.

First the Trib:

Of course, the move (nearly a decade ago) to toilets that allow only 1.6 gallons per flush...[emphasis added]

And now The Weekly Standard:

Unless, of course, you find yourself in your bathroom, and look around. Over there is the federally mandated toilet which, in compliance with the Energy Policy Act (1992), flushes—or attempts to flush—its meager supply of 1.6 gallons of water. [emphasis added]

Do I really need to remind my good friends at The Trib that it's 2010? And that 1992 is a little more than "nearly a decade ago"? Even if you take into account when the law went into effect (1994) that still doesn't wipe away the stain of them getting something so simple (addition and/or subtraction) so wrong.

Ha.

But beyond that, what about the rest of the The Trib's paragraph? They say that the standards limiting flushes to 1.6 gallons:

[H]ave had the expected (to thinking people only) unintended consequences: Many folks end up using more water, not less. Double flushing often is required to get the job done (ahem) and longer showers are required to wash away soap and shampoo. Don't you just love the moronism of do-gooding?

But is this actually true?

Not according to American Standard. This press release from 2004 (And Trib-guys? that would be about 6 years ago) is titled:

10 Years After Low-Flow Toilet Regulations Went Into Effect, Plumbing Innovations Make Major Inroads in Efficiency, Flushability

And it says:

Ten years after the nation’s low-flow toilet regulations went into effect, the U.S. is saving more water every day, with the potential to save billions of gallons more in the next decade and beyond. And while toilet manufacturers continue to develop new technologies that make low-flow toilets more efficient, they also are fast increasing customer satisfaction.

And they give a little history lesson:

In an effort to save water and increase efficiency in municipal wastewater systems, the Energy Policy Act of 1992 (EPAct) was signed into law. Prior to this law, U.S. consumers were happy with their water-guzzling toilets, yet these fixtures were among the most water-consuming appliances in many homes, using anywhere from 3.5 gallons to 5 gallons per flush. In 1994, EPAct went into effect, requiring that all residential toilets be manufactured using the 1.6-gallons-per-flush standard.

Early on, toilets underwent considerable changes. While the majority of toilets worked well and did save water, some consumers were not satisfied with the performance of these new toilets. Driven by anecdotal complaints that household toilets simply didn’t work, some lawmakers even urged repeal of the federal law, albeit unsuccessfully. What consumers were saying was that they wanted to be 100 percent confident that their toilets would get the job done in one flush, every time. Manufacturers listened and continued to strive for improvements, and today the worry-free 1.6-gallon toilet is becoming a reality.

Safeplumbing.org has more:

Indeed, there were problems with some toilets sold in the early-to-mid-1990s. Consumers complained about having to flush twice to clean the bowl, bringing water usage back up to 3.2 gpf; clogs created messes, as well as waste; and small water spots that made it harder to keep the toilet bowl clean and sanitary.

The objective of the U.S. Energy Policy Act of 1992 was water conservation, but the objective of plumbing manufacturers was water efficiency. Fortunately, it didn't take long for the technology to catch up, and by May of 1998 a well-known consumer ratings publication found "several affordable low-flow toilets that work very well."

High-performance flushers hit the market earlier in this millennium. Using advanced hydraulic modeling techniques, engineers literally changed the way water moves through the channels of the toilet to eliminate waste. Newer finishes fired into the chinaware give more power to less water, actually improving bowl-cleansing ability over the old 3.5 gpf gushers.

So no, Taint true. The Trib would be wrong on the double flushing of the toilets. Indeed it's a story of an industry becoming more efficient and its products more beneficial to the public because of a piece of legislation. And wasn't that what that legislation was all about anyway?

Even when they're talking shit, they can't seem to get it right.

The Tribune-Review, My Old Friend

It's been a while since I've done a blog post like this.

Luckily for me, today's Tribune Review offers up so many tendrils that it's easy work to point out the extent of Richard Mellon Scaife's media influence.

Let me start with this editorial on the new START treaty. Needless to say, the braintrust doesn't like it but that's beside the point. We're looking at how deeply entwined the paper is with the pieces sources. And so when we see something like this in Richard Mellon Scaife's newspaper:

Even worse, The Heritage Foundation notes "the Kremlin's post-signing statement ... says that any 'qualitative' or 'quantitative' change to American missile defenses would lead to a possible withdrawal of the Russian federation from the treaty."

We should remember that foundations controlled by Richard Mellon Scaife (the Sarah Scaife and Carthage Foundations) have funneled more than $23 million to the Heritage Foundation.

As I've written before, Scaife is even on the Board of Trustees for the Heritage Foundation.

Two things that never seem to get mentioned whenever the Trib uses the Heritage Foundation for source material.

But let's move on in the editorial:

Richard Perle, former assistant secretary of Defense for arms control, says this "dangerous, shortsighted policy" handicaps the modernization of America's aging nuclear arsenal.

Yes, they're quoting one of the architects of the illegal war in Iraq. But again, that's beside the point.

Richard Perle is affiliated with some of the most prominent conservative organizations around and as such is deeply entwined in Scaife money. For example:

• Perle is a Resident Fellow at the American Enterprise Institute ($7.3 million in Scaife money)
• Perle is a trustee of the Hudson Institute ($3.9 in Scaife money)
• Perle is on the advisory council for the Center for Security Policy ($175K in 2009, $300K in 2008, $300K in 2007, $350K in 2006, $350k in 2005 that's about $1.5 million in Scaife money in the last 5 years alone)

So that's $35.7 million in Scaife money.

So far. We're not done.

Take a look at Craig Smith's interview this week. It's with Richard A Levy and Smith describes him as:

The chairman of the Cato Institute's board of directors, he also sits on boards of the Institute for Justice, The Federalist Society and the George Mason University School of Law.

Ok so that's:

• Cato Institute ($2.2 million in Scaife money)
• Institute for Justice ($1.36 million in Scaife money)
• Federalist Society ($3.955 million in Scaife money)

By my math, that's somewhere around $43 million dollars in Richard Mellon Scaife money given to various think tanks that the editorial page at his newspaper is using for source material.

As I've said any number of times, the circle jerk continues at the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review.

Filling In A Few Blanks

Every now and then the editorial pages at the Tribune-Review and the Post-Gazette cover the same issue and it's child's play to guess which side of which issue each will support.

Today is no exception.

The Trib say: North Shore connector - bad, Coburn-McCain report - good.

The P-G? As you might expect, sees things differently.

Since the overlap begins with the Coburn McCain report, we'll start there.

The Trib:

Laurel: To Tom Coburn and John McCain. The Republican U.S. senators, of Oklahoma and Arizona, respectively, list Pittsburgh's North Shore Connector as the nation's third-worst waste of federal "stimulus" money. And what a waste it is. Its benefits were oversold. It's dramatically over budget. And it's a monument to both the state in ineptness and the ineptness of the state. It is "waste" incarnate.

And the P-G:

Don't mistake the report this week by Republican Sens. John McCain and Tom Coburn for an economic analysis of the federal stimulus. "Summertime Blues" is a political stunt, designed to make the stimulus sound foolhardy by belittling and mischaracterizing projects it has funded.

As usual in supporting it's position, the Trib relies on some Scaife-funded think tank without ever declaring his support for that think tank. In this case the Allegheny Institute for Public Policy is referenced twice. You get what you pay for, I guess.

In it's defense of the Stimulus bill, the P-G points out:

It begins with an oversimplification, long stated by opponents of the $862 billion American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, that "Eighteen months since the law's passage, millions of jobs are still gone and the economy is as uncertain as ever."

That conclusion ignores countervailing findings, such as those issued last week -- by a former McCain adviser who is chief economist for Moody's investment service as well as Princeton economist Alan Blinder -- which said the stimulus program and the bank bailout likely averted a depression.

In doing so, they left something out.

The CBO (that's the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office, for you newbies) has declared that the stimulus package:

• Raised the level of real (inflation-adjusted) gross domestic product (GDP) by between 1.7 percent and 4.2 percent,
• Lowered the unemployment rate by between 0.7 percentage points and 1.5 percentage points,
• Increased the number of people employed by between 1.2 million and 2.8 million, and
• Increased the number of full-time-equivalent (FTE) jobs by 1.8 million to 4.1 million compared with what those amounts would have been otherwise. (Increases in FTE jobs include shifts from part-time to full-time work or overtime and are thus generally larger than increases in the number of employed workers.)

So when Coburn and McCain write:

When Congress passed the $862 billion American Recovery and Reinvestment Act in 2009, otherwise known as the stimulus bill, it passed with assurances that it would stem the loss of American jobs and keep the economy from floundering. As most can see, it hasn’t.

Eighteen months since the law’s passage, millions of jobs are still gone and the economy is as uncertain as ever. The only thing getting a boost is our national debt – the stimulus has helped push it 23 percent higher, to $13.2 trillion, a new record.

You know they're just spinning. And that everything that follows is just a part of the spin. The facts may be true, but as the frame is skewed, so is the conclusion.

As the P-G points out:

No one is suggesting that every dollar of stimulus money has been spent wisely, but this report starts with a weak hypothesis supported by exaggeration. There ain't no cure for this "Summertime Blues."

As it's Friday and Fridays should be fun, here's some Eddie Cochran:


UPDATED to include the frickin link to the CBO report

Sharron Angle makes my brain hurt

US Senate candidate from Nevada Sharron Angle on false idols via Crooks and Liars:


Transcript:

"And these programs that you mentioned -- that Obama has going with Reid and Pelosi pushing them forward -- are all entitlement programs built to make government our God. And that's really what's happening in this country is a violation of the First Commandment. We have become a country entrenched in idolatry, and that idolatry is the dependency upon our government. We're supposed to depend upon God for our protection and our provision and for our daily bread, not for our government."

"And I knew that all along when I started praying over a year ago over it. And this just seemed to be the battle that I needed to go to war with. And I need warriors to stand beside me. You know, this is a war of ideology, a war of thoughts and of faith. And we need people to really stand for faith and trust, not hope and change."

.

"Prancing in the streets" Really, Mika?

So I turn on MSNBC's Morning Joe at 7:00 AM, because I'm an idiot, and co-host Mika Brzezinski -- speaking about the overturn of Proposition 8 -- announces that people were "prancing in the streets" in California yesterday.

The whole zoo crew laughs with her and act like it was some naughty anti-PC joke (or postmodern attempt at irony?).

I believe it was Joe Scarborough who said something about "going deeper into a hole" so perhaps Mika was riffing on something said in the 6:00 - 7:00 hour, but I find it hard to understand how anything previously said on the show could justify her use of the word "prancing" in conjunction with gays celebrating a ruling regarding their due process and equal protection rights.

Thanks for adding a layer of ugly to a civil rights victory, Morning Joe zoo crew!

UGH!
.

Watchin' Teh Crazie - Trib Climate Style

Check this out. This is from today's Thursday Wrap over at Richard Mellon Scaife's rag:

It's the solar activity, stupid: New research from German and Russian scientists, who studied Arctic pine trees, suggest solar activity, not man-made carbon emissions, are responsible for the cyclical warming and cooling of Planet Earth. In fact, the research suggests the Arctic cooled at the same time carbon dioxide levels were rising. But, of course, the science of global warming is settled, right?

The first sign that there's massive spin (or massive editorial incompetence) going on is this: you''ll notice is a pronounced lack of citation. Which scientists? Which university or other scientific center? Where is the research published? Anyway to check to see whether this is on the up-and-up? Scaife's braintrust usually includes a quotation to google. The fact that they didn't here is a big huge (do the kids still use the word "ginormous"?) red flag.

Any honest editorial writer would offer up enough facts for your average googler to track down the story.

But this is the Trib we're talkin' 'bout here.

Luckily, my friends, I am not your average googler.

Here's the paper's abstract:

This study presents a new pine (Pinus sylvestris L.) ring-width chronology and a summer temperature reconstruction for the last 400 years from the Khibiny Low Mountains (Kola Peninsula, NW Russia). Pine trees from sites at the altitudinal timberline of Khibiny Mountains show pronounced climatic signals in tree-ring width. We found a strong positive correlation with summer temperature of July–August (r = 0.58). The reconstruction shows lower summer temperatures from A.D. 1630 to 1840, a subsequent warming up to the mid-20th century and a cooling trend afterwards. According to our data, a temperature increase is observed during the past decade. The good coherence of multi-decadal to secular trends of our reconstruction and series of observed solar activity indicate that solar activity may have been one major driving factor of past climate on Kola Peninsula. [emphasis added.]

First, the study is about the summer temperatures of the local climate of the Kola Peninsula - not the whole arctic, as the Trib's spin implies. Second, in the abstract points out a "temperature increase" from, presumably, 2000 to 2010 - a point conveniently omitted by Scaife's braintrust.

Bet you didn't know that the Helmholtz Association of German Research Centres actually issued a press release for this study. Not that you'd know from the Trib. Some interesting snippets from the press release:

Parts of the Arctic have cooled clearly over the past century, but temperatures have been rising steeply since 1990 also there.

And:

Researchers from the Institute of Geography in Moscow, Hohenheim University and the Helmholtz Centre for Environmental Research (UFZ) report in journal Arctic, Antarctic and Alpine Research: "The data indicate that solar activity may have been one of the major driving factors of summer temperatures, but this has been overlaid by other factors since 1990".

Ah...good to know. Why didn't the Trib say so?

And about that solar activity. From the last paragraph of the press release:

In September 2009, another international team presented model calculations showing that the Arctic had gradually cooled down by around 0.2 °C per thousand years over the last two millennia to the start of the Industrial Age. They attributed this to a gradual decline in solar radiation in the summer. However, the last decade was the warmest of the Common Era and was 1.4 °C above the forecasts, report Darrell S. Kaufman and his colleagues in Science. The new data produced by Kononov, Friedrich and Böttger support the thesis that solar activity seems to be a significant factor influencing summer temperatures in the Arctic, but that its influence has weakened considerably over the past few decades. [emphasis added.]

So low solar activity corresponds to lower summer temperatures in the arctic, but this influence has weakened considerably over the last few decades - that's what the science says.

The Trib spun it to something completely different.

Why am I not surprised.

By the way this is the first (as far as I know) climate editorial since the NOAA declared global warming "undeniable." That wasn't mentioned, but the arctic tree rings were.

Why am I not surprised.

Prop 8 overturned!

Via Pam's House Blend (who got it from Good As You):

REMEDIES

Plaintiffs have demonstrated by overwhelming evidence that Proposition 8 violates their due process and equal protection rights and that they will continue to suffer these constitutional violations until state officials cease enforcement of Proposition 8. California is able to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples, as it has already issued 18,000 marriage licenses to same-sex couples and has not suffered any demonstrated harm as a result,see FF 64-66; moreover, California officials have chosen not to defend Proposition 8 in these proceedings.

Because Proposition 8 is unconstitutional under both the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses, the court orders entry of judgment permanently enjoining its enforcement; prohibiting the official defendants from applying or enforcing Proposition 8 and directing the official defendants that all persons under their control or supervision shall not apply or enforce Proposition 8. The clerk is DIRECTED to enter judgment without bond in favor of plaintiffs and plaintiff-intervenors and against defendants and defendant-intervenors pursuant to FRCP 58.

IT IS SO ORDERED."

Big Sestak Fundraiser in Pittsburgh

In case -- unlike me -- you haven't already received a dozen Facebook invitations to this event, there's an August 16th fundraiser for Rep. Joe Sestak's Senate race.

Sponsors include: Hugh McGough & Kris Rust, 7th Ward Democratic Committee, 14th Ward Democratic Committee, 14th Ward Independent Democratic Club, 19th Ward Independent Democratic Club, 29th Ward Democratic Committee, Gertrude Stein Political Club, NOW PAC, Pennsylvania Young Democrats, Quaker Valley Democratic Organization, South End Active Democrats, Steel City Stonewall Democrats, and Young Democrats of Allegheny County plus a host of hosts of who's who in Pittsburgh progressive Democratic circles.

WHAT: Fundraising Event with Congressman Joe Sestak, PA Democratic Candidate for the U.S. Senate
WHEN: Monday, August 16, 2010, 6:00pm – 8:00pm
WHERE: Pittsburgh Center for the Arts, 6300 Fifth Avenue, Pittsburgh, PA 15232

Details of the event, including a .PDF of the full invitation, can be found at the 19th Ward Independent Democratic Club website (I know because I'm the webmaster there).

You can RSVP to Lindsey Bailet at: lindsey.bailet@joesestak.com or call 610-891-8956.

You can contribute online for this event here.
.

1,435 violations by Marcellus Shale drilling companies

Via the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette:

A new report by the Pennsylvania Land Trust Association said the state has identified 1,435 violations by 43 Marcellus Shale drilling companies since January 2008, prompting environmental groups to call for quick legislative action to protect water and land resources.

According to Monday's report, 952 of the violations were identified as having or likely to have an impact on the environment. Those included 100 violations of the state Clean Stream Law, 268 for improper construction of waste water impoundments; 277 for poor erosion and sedimentation plans during well pad, road and piping construction; 16 for improper blowout prevention; and 154 for discharging industrial waste, including drilling waste water containing toxic chemicals, onto the ground or into streams.

[snip]

The report is based on state Department of Environmental Protection enforcement records obtained through a Right to Know Request filed by the association. The records do not include violations of drilling wastewater haulers: 669 traffic violations and 818 warnings during a three-day enforcement blitz in June.

669 violations in just three days?!!

In related news, US Senate candidate Rep. Joe Sestak has called on the Environmental Protection Agency to conduct a study on the impact of hydraulic fracturing on drinking water.
.

Can't They Find Any NEW Information

From today's Midweek Briefing at the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review:

The American Resistance website soberly notes that Congress authorized amnesty for illegal aliens, in some form or other, not only in 1986, but also in 1994, 1997, 1998 and twice in 2000. Worked real well, eh?

This is the page the braintrust refers to.

But take a look at the splash page for the website.

The site was shut down in December of 2006.

What, they couldn't find anything NEW?

Or maybe they just didn't notice.

More On Bush Tax Cuts

An very smart friend of mine clued me in on this. (Trust me, this guy is so wicked smaht, he actually knows the difference between emfindsamkeit and Sturm und Drang. - look 'em up, there'll be a test later.)

Anyway, in a Wall Street Journal article otherwise devoted to how the Democrats might use the repeal (or non-repeal) of the Bush tax cuts as an issue in the upcoming election, we find this graphic:

You might want to sit with it a moment. Picture paints a thousand words and all that. Everyone except that teeny tiny sliver of the American population making over $300,000 will see their taxes reduced by President Obama's proposed tax policies. For the very wealthy, the tax rate goes back to Clinton-era tax levels.

So therefore the GOP is against Obama's tax policies. Fighting tooth and nail to make sure their base (the "have-mores") get even more.

I realize that the Wall Street Journal is such a blatant mouthpiece for the Democrat Party that it will shamelessly and routinely lie to you about tax policy. All good competent economists know these things:

• Ronald Reagan was always right about everything
• Failing to repeal the Bush tax cuts will result in a the worst financial devastation ever.
• Taxes are always fairer under Republicans
• The economy is always worse under Democrats

As undeniable as Climategate.

An Update.

I touched on this in today's Jack Kelly Sunday posting.

Alan Greenspan had more to say about the Bush tax cuts.

From the Huffingtonpost:

Former Fed Chairman Alan Greenspan said that the push by congressional Republicans to extend the Bush tax cuts without offsetting the costs elsewhere could end up being "disastrous" for the economy.

In an interview on NBC's "Meet the Press," Greenspan expressed his disagreement with the conservative argument that tax cuts essentially pay for themselves by generating revenue and productivity among recipients.

"They do not," said Greenspan.

Whah? They don't pay for themselves?

And Greenspan said that?

What will the wingnuts do now?