Is Our Children Learning History?

Rick Santorum certainly isn't.

From thinkprogress:

According to a national test released last week, “just 13 percent of high schools seniors” demonstrated proficiency in U.S. history. Speaking to the Story County GOP Central Committee in Ames, Iowa, presidential candidate Rick Santorum attributed the poor scores to a leftist plot to keep students in the dark about U.S. history so they don’t learn American values

And they quote Lil Ricky:

We don’t even know our own history. There was a report that just came out last week that the worst subject of children in American schools is — not math and science — its history. It’s the worst subject. How can we be a free people. How can we be a people that fight for America if we don’t know who America is or what we’re all about. This is, in my opinion, a conscious effort on the part of the left who has a huge influence on our curriculum, to desensitize America to what American values are so they are more pliable to the new values that they would like to impose on America. [Bolding in original.]

For Rick, everything's a lib'rul plot to take over Murika. Simply everything.

Here's the NAEP's summary of the assessment if you wanted to take a look. And how do they see things? A few bullet points:

• At all grades, the average U.S. history scores in 2010 were higher than the scores in 1994, and the score for eighth-graders was also higher than in 2006.
• Twenty percent of fourth-graders, 17 percent of eighth-graders, and 12 percent of twelfth-graders performed at or above the Proficient level on the 2010 U.S. history assessment.
  
• At grades 4 and 8, the percentages of students at or above Proficient in 2010 were higher than the percentages in the first assessment in 1994, but over the same time period the percentage of twelfth-graders at or above Proficient was not significantly different.
  

While it's not a good picture, at least it's an improving picture - except for 12 graders.

Anyone have any idea on why? From the AP:

"The history scores released today show that student performance is still too low," Education Secretary Arne Duncan said in a statement. "These results tell us that, as a country, we are failing to provide children with a high-quality, well-rounded education."

Education experts say a heavy focus on reading and math under the federal No Child Left Behind law in the last decade has led to lagging performance in other subjects such as history and science.

"We need to make sure other subjects like history, science and the arts are not forgotten in our pursuit of the basic skills," said Diane Ravitch, a research professor at New York University and former U.S. assistant education secretary. [Emphasis added.]

Assistant Education Secretary under George H. W. Bush, by the way.

Then there's this, also from thinkprogress:

The Texas Board of Education has been meeting this week to revise its social studies curriculum. During the past three days, “the board’s far-right faction wielded their power to shape lessons on the civil rights movement, the U.S. free enterprise system and hundreds of other topics”

Yes, the lib'rul Texas Board of Education did this:

• The Board removed Thomas Jefferson from the Texas curriculum, “replacing him with religious right icon John Calvin.”
  
• The Board refused to require that “students learn that the Constitution prevents the U.S. government from promoting one religion over all others.”
  

And then there's more on Rick's own understanding of US History.

Yes, our nation's collective ignorance is all a lib'rul plot.

The Truth About Fox "News"

From Jon Stewart.

For a long time, I've wondered about where Fox "News" comes down on the ideological spectrum - or at least how they see themselves. Do they see themselves as unbiased or do they see themselves as a counterweight to what they perceive as a liberal bias in the media.

Are they in the middle of the seesaw or are they on the other side?

Well now we have our answer:

A partial transcript from Huffingtonpost. After Fox host Chris Wallace says that Fox "tells the other side of the story, Stewart's analysis is in full mock mode:

We don't tell both sides of the story, we tell one side...the other side, the one we perceive is never told. Because as you know, news only comes in two sides. And if the conservative side isn't being told what's being told must be liberal. Fox News isn't fair and balanced. It's balancing the system, man. Don't you get it? The system's unfair and unbalanced. To balance the system, Fox has to be the purest form of right wing resin. Because of how heavy left wing America is. Hollywood, comedians, every single news organization, the Internet, facts, history, science, it's all just left wing bullshit, man....

He summarizes the mock:

Is Fox unbalanced? Yeah. Seriously, their ears are nearly touching the floor. But it's only because the system is unbalanced.

They're not at the center of the seesaw, they're miles to the right.

The Noise Machine At Work (Again)

Another lesson in how the right-wing noise machine works. Pay attention, please.

In today's Tribune-Review, there's an editorial that begins like this:

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency soft-pedals rigorous analysis showing its policies kill growth and jobs while trumpeting as truth junk analysis portraying burdensome regulations as economically beneficial.

A new National Taxpayers Union (ntu.org) study makes the mendacity clear: The EPA publicly proclaims bogus findings from its second report on the Clean Air Act's costs and benefits that fit its anti-growth agenda -- but is mum about that report's contradictory findings of economic harm.

We've done this before and so I don't want to spend too much time on it.

According to the Mediamatters transparency project, the largest chunks of foundation money, by far, come from foundations controlled by the publisher of the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review, Richard Mellon Scaife. About $1.5 million over the years (unadjusted for inflation, by the way).

So this is how the right wing noise machine works, Richard Mellon Scaife lays out gobs and gobs of money to support a conservative think tank (in this case the National Tax Payers Union). That think tank produces a report that is trumpeted on the pages of the Tribune-Review, the newspaper Richard Mellon Scaife owns.

And none of this is ever mentioned to the Trib's readership.

The circle jerk continues.

Jack Kelly Sunday

Oh, the stuff Jack leaves out...

In his column in the Post-Gazette this week, Jack Kelly defends, yet again, his favorite ex (because you know she quit) Governor of Alaska, Sarah Palin.

Specifically he's writing about the pile of emails of hers recently released by the State of Alaska. And he starts with three examples of praise from the media. Take a look:

Emails from Sarah Palin's time as Alaska governor "show a double-fisted Blackberry user fully comfortable with handling nearly every aspect of state government," wrote the McClatchy Newspapers.

The emails paint "a picture of her as an idealistic, conscientious, humorous and humane woman slightly bemused by the world of politics," said Toby Harnden of the London Telegraph.

"She comes across as practical and not doctrinaire," wrote Molly Ball in Politico. "She was hands-on and adverse to partisan politics."

This was not what some journalists expected to write. "If critics were hoping to see Palin revealed as a hypocrite, they're out of luck," said Ms. Ball. "Her private statements are in line with her public ones."

The point he's trying to make, of course, is that the emails showed Palin to be anything other than what the lame stream media portrays her to be and now once they've been made public even that same lame stream media is forced to be honest and to show her in a good light.

Oh the stuff Jack leaves out. Take a look at what in the very next two paragraphs in that McClatchy piece:

But long before she became a national figure, the documents also hint at the obsession Palin had with managing her image - and the frustration the prolific e-mailer had with the news coverage of her governorship.

She came into office with a January 2007 reminder to members of her staff that they should feel free to "share your opinions, speak freely to the press, public, legislators, one another, etc." But that changed as time went on. A little more than a year later, she ghostwrote a proposed letter to the editor of the Anchorage Daily News - quoting herself - in reply to a complaint that she had failed to appear at the 2008 Miss Alaska pageant.

Or this from Harden of the Telegraph:

To an extent, the emails remind Americans of the person they saw take the stage at the Republican National Convention in Minnesota nearly three years ago – refreshing, plain-speaking, open and uncomplicated.

Since then, her image has hardened into one of a brittle, even paranoid, politician who seethes with resentment, feels aggrieved and entitled and is intent on pursuing celebrity even at the expense of her family.

Or this from Molly Ball at Politico:

Once, there was a different Sarah Palin.

She was hands-on and averse to partisan politics. She championed openness in government and had normal relations with the media. She was a little starstruck by her interactions with national politicians but unafraid to do battle with the chief executives of the world’s largest oil companies.

The emails from her governorship, released Friday, brought back the memory of a long-lost Palin: the popular, charismatic, competent woman of the people.

This was the vice presidential candidate John McCain’s team thought they were getting, before her darker tendencies — defensiveness, thin skin, grudge-keeping — hardened into tics. Together with the newly released, pro-Palin documentary “The Undefeated,” which focuses on her rise to the spotlight, the emails are reminders of a sympathetic figure who was not yet the brittle, divisive caricature Palin has become.

Such praise.

His larger point is that any positive coverage of Palin (like his) is a reliable picture of reality and any negative coverage is just so much more of the Palin Derangement Syndrome. Coverage that doesn't need to be taken seriously.

Jack is certainly reliable in his support of the failed Governor of Alaska but how realistic is he?

When has have to selectively quote his positive coverage in order to make it, in fact, postive, what does that say about the subject matter?

ALEC - The American Legislative Exchange Council

Yesterday I happened across this posting at Crooksandliars. It's about something called the American Legislative Exchange Council:

If you're not familiar with ALEC, here's the high-level overview. ALEC is the acronym for American Legislative Exchange Council, a secret right-wing consortium created to write boilerplate legislation for states to use to advance the right-wing agenda. Some of ALEC's handiwork can be seen in Ohio, Wisconsin, Arizona, and Florida, to name a few.

ALEC has a new game called Publicopoly. Some of the "properties" include government operations, health, environment, telecommunications, infrastructure, education and public safety. But of course, it's not such a new game after all. The object of the game is to privatize everything. To that end, they have aggregated the reports of think tanks like the Mackinac Center, the Reason Foundation, the Platte Institute, and the Heartland Institute. [Emphasis added.]

The "secret" isn't the website but who's writing this legislation for the right wing legislators to use. Here's what ALEC has to say about it's legislation:

One of the most important resources ALEC provides to its members is model legislation. Through the combined effort and unique partnership of public and private sector members, model legislation is drafted, deliberated and approved by one of ALEC's nine Task Forces. These bills provide a valuable framework for developing effective policy ideas aimed at protecting and expanding our free society.

While ALEC provides the resources, our members, long known for their legislative activism, introduced hundreds of bills based on ALEC model legislation. During the latest legislative cycle, dozens of ALEC model bills were enacted into law.

And guess, JUST GUESS who's got all this started? According to the mediamatters transparency project, the Richard Mellon Scaife controlled Allegheny Foundation has given $1.7 to ALEC over the years.

That's even more than the $1.25 million Exxon gave to ALEC.

Of all the foundation donations, Allegheny Foundation is the biggest.

And these numbers may be low. In 1999 the Washington Post published:

Another form of proselytizing is conducted by the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC), founded in 1973 by Paul Weyrich. ALEC's members are predominantly conservative state legislators. The organization provides training, information and draft legislation to make them more effective. Of the country's 6,500 state legislators, 3,000 belong to ALEC, including dozens of leaders of state legislatures and senates. Twelve sitting governors are ALEC graduates, as are 77 members of Congress. The group's first president was a then-member of the Illinois House named Henry Hyde.

ALEC makes a mark with its model legislation. The last time it counted (1995-96), 132 ALEC bills were enacted in various states, from charter school legislation to pro-business bills on environmental and regulatory topics. Many states used its version of welfare reform legislation.

ALEC is unabashedly pro-business. Its expert task forces, which write the model legislation, are composed of legislators and business representatives. About two-thirds of ALEC's $6 million budget comes from corporate contributions.

Scaife has given ALEC more than $2 million since 1975, keeping the group alive in its early years. Now his donations ($75,000 last year) are an insignificant part of its budget.

The "insignificant" support of between $15K and $75K per year has continued since then.

I wonder how much ALEC legislation has oozed into Harrisburg? I wonder how much commentary Scaife's braintrust has written about it? I wonder if ANYONE knew that without Scaife's millions, ALEC probably wouldn't be the organization it is today.

Robert Reich explains the US economy in less than 2 minutes and 15 seconds

Anthony Weiner to Resign

Not much more to say.
.

New Willie Horton-style Web Ad -- Now with Misogyny!

Not Safe For Work:

Talking Points Memo is spot on when they called this ad against Los Angeles Councilwoman Janice Hahn (D) -- running in a special election to replace the retired Democratic Rep. Jane Harman (CA-36) -- "Willie Horton on steroids." But its all that and more. Let's go down the check list:

False accusations about her actions regarding gang members: ☑

False inference that the gang members in question are African-American -- Obama! -- when they were primarily Latinos: ☑

Depicting the opponent as demonic: ☑

Calling the opponent a "ho" and a "bitch": ☑

Depictions of various gangsters (Al Capone), gang members, Che Guevara and Charlie Manson (?!): ☑

Depicting the opponent as a pole dancing stripper with (bonus!) a smelly crotch: ☑

Depicting Hahn as about to be sexually violated with an automatic weapon...WHAT?...WTF? This has got to be the sickest, most vile ad ever.

And, we get to thank Citizens United for this one. The ad is not being run by her opponent, tea party Republican Craig Huey. It's being run by the brand-new Turn Right USA PAC. Via TPM:

Turn Right USA, the sponsor, is a brand new political action committee which only filed its paperwork with the Federal Election Commission on Monday. The paperwork indicates that Turn Right USA intends to operate as a so-called "super PAC," capable of raising funds in unlimited amount, but will not use those funds to directly support federal candidates or committees.

Just a Reminder

This is just a reminder that when Lil Ricky Santorum said at the GOP presidential candidate debate on Monday:

"Not only have I been consistently pro-life, I have not just taken the pledge, but I've taken the bullets to go out there and fight for this and lead on those issues."

That there are actual people who have taken real bullets over providing women with legal abortions:

Dr. Gunn was murdered in 1993.
In 1993, Dr. Tiller was shot but not killed.
In 1994, Dr. John Bayard Britton and his escort, James H. Barrett, were assassinated.
In 1994, Dr. Garson Romalis was shot but not killed.
In 1995, Dr. Hugh Short was shot and killed.
In 1997, Dr. Jack Fainman was shot but not killed, the shooter was a suspect in an unnamed NY physician's murder
In 1998, Dr. Barnett Slepian is shot and killed. His murderer, James Koop, was the suspect in 1997's shooting of Dr. Fainman and the other unnamed doctor.
In 2009, Dr. Tiller was shot, again, and killed.

In 1994, Shannon Lowney and Leanne Nichols were shot and killed at clinics in MA.
In 1998, Officer Robert Sanderson was killed during a clinic bombing and nurse Emily Lyon was severely injured.

What a douchebag.
.

Councilwoman Rudiak to Meet President Obama at the White House

Speaking of Rudiak, via press release:

Pittsburgh – City Councilwoman Natalia Rudiak will travel to Washington, D.C. Friday to meet with members of the Obama administration and attend an intimate reception with the President to discuss important issues facing states and cities across the country.

“The President has been a steadfast ally of cities in America, but our main streets need help and Republicans in Congress have done nothing but force cut after cut to cities like Pittsburgh,” said Rudiak.

“We’ve seen cuts to programs that help Pittsburgh with our police protection, street paving, building demolition, youth job programs, economic development, the capital budget, and much more, and I’m looking forward to speaking with the President about how we can restore these programs.”

The Councilwoman will speak with the President about Pittsburgh’s support for public safety grant programs, the Community Development Block Grant program, renewing the Build America Bonds program, and speeding up federal reimbursements to the City. All of these issues have a significant impact on the City’s operations.

Rudiak is meeting with Obama as a member of People for the American Way Foundation’s Young Elected Officials Network.
.

Bloggers On Parade!

That would be Bram Reichbaum of The Pittsburgh Comet appearing before Pittsburgh City Council in his capacity working for Councilwoman Theresa Kail-Smith and her anti adult entertainment legislation.


That would be once upon a time blogger and current staffer for Councilman Bruce Kraus, Matt "H" Hogue; Councilwoman Natalia Rudiak; and Ken Wolfe, Legislative Aide to State Rep. Jake Wheatley, celebrating Matt's birthday.
.

Indecision 2012 - The Awakening

For my money, the best bit is two minutes in-- the look on Lil Ricky's face is priceless.

From Our Friends Down Under

A website from Australia called "The Conversation" is undertaking a two-week long series on the science of climate change - with an eye towards the "skeptics" who are looking to "cloud the debate."

From the introduction:

The overwhelming scientific evidence tells us that human greenhouse gas emissions are resulting in climate changes that cannot be explained by natural causes.

Climate change is real, we are causing it, and it is happening right now.

Not that this'll change Rick Santorum's mind, of course. But let's continue. The Conversation describes the issue:

A vast number of scientists, engineers, and visionary businesspeople are boldly designing a future that is based on low-impact energy pathways and living within safe planetary boundaries; a future in which substantial health gains can be achieved by eliminating fossil-fuel pollution; and a future in which we strive to hand over a liveable planet to posterity.

At the other extreme, understandable economic insecurity and fear of radical change have been exploited by ideologues and vested interests to whip up ill-informed, populist rage, and climate scientists have become the punching bag of shock jocks and tabloid scribes.

Aided by a pervasive media culture that often considers peer-reviewed scientific evidence to be in need of “balance” by internet bloggers, this has enabled so-called “sceptics” to find a captive audience while largely escaping scrutiny.

Australians have been exposed to a phony public debate which is not remotely reflected in the scientific literature and community of experts.

Beginning today, The Conversation will bring much-needed and long-overdue accountability to the climate “sceptics.”

Americans, too.

The first post is on the Greenhouse Effect:

It would be easy to form the opinion that everything we know about climate change is based upon the observed rise in global temperatures and observed increase in carbon dioxide emissions since the industrial revolution.

In other words, one could have the mistaken impression that the entirety of climate science is based upon a single correlation study.

In reality, the correlation between global mean temperature and carbon dioxide over the 20th century forms an important, but very small part of the evidence for a human role in climate change.

Our assessment of the future risk from the continued build up of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere is even less informed by 20th century changes in global mean temperature.

For example, our understanding of the greenhouse effect – the link between greenhouse gas concentrations and global surface air temperature – is based primarily on our fundamental understanding of mathematics, physics, astronomy and chemistry.

Much of this science is textbook material that is at least a century old and does not rely on the recent climate record.

For good measure, they point out some evidence anyway. They point out that Venus is extremely hot, in large part due to greenhouse gases. They point out that temperature change is "uniquely" associated with greenhouse gases, such as:

• greater warming in polar regions than tropical regions
• greater warming over the continents than the oceans
• greater warming of night time temperatures than daytime temperatures
• greater warming in winter compared with summer
• a pattern of cooling in the high atmosphere (stratosphere) with simultaneous warming in the lower atmosphere (troposphere).

And so on.

Of course none of this is true because some stolen emails in England were talking about "fixing" the tree ring data.

Another Urban Myth At The Trib

From today's Midweek Briefing:

The folks at Human Events, a conservative newspaper, have been running a series of "365 ways to drive a liberal crazy." They're culled from James Delingpole's book of the same name. No. 164: "Quote liberal hero Karl Marx: 'There is only one way to kill capitalism -- by taxes, taxes, and more taxes.'" Sadly, liberals still won't get it.

To begin with, I can't see how Karl Marx is much of a liberal hero. Socialist hero, sure. Communist hero, definitely. But liberal hero? Only if you equate those three very different terms. But I guess in the collective hive-mind that is the Scaife braintrust (and remember they also believe climate change to be a hoax) anything to the right of Scaife himself is a radical Marxist. So this one's iffy at best.

But what of that quotation of Marx?

According to the Irregular Times, MARX NEVER SAID IT:

Anybody who’s actually read Karl Marx knows that Karl Marx would never have written those words. Marx saw taxes as connected to state power, and he held a dubious opinion of state power throughout history, up to and including the modern form of the democratic republic. Marx favored the smashing of the bourgeois state, not its engorgement through taxation.

But why believe the Irregular Times? I've never seen the site before. It could be the rantings of a paranoid schizophrenic for all I know.

They do include a link to the Marx & Engels archive - pretty sharp for a schizophrenic, if you ask me.

There's a search engine attached to the archive so you can look to see if Marx actually said what Scaife's braintrust said it said. And so, when I search for the exact phrase "kill capitalism" I get nothing, bupkis, nada, the null set. In short, it ain't in there.

But what does Marx say about taxes? The Irregular Times furnishes us with something Marx did say:

It is high treason to pay taxes. Refusal to pay taxes is the primary duty of the citizen!

So next time you meet a Tea Partier (or Sovereign Citizen, or Grover Norquist acolyte or any other right wing anti-tax zealot) just tell them that when they demand lower taxes in order to starve the guv'ment they're actually quoting Karl Marx.

That'll drive them crazy.

Race to the bottom

Pretty much says it all:


(Click to enlarge)
Via Talking Points Memo.

The Trib Calls The Kettle Biased

From the editorial page of today's Tribune-Review:

Federal Communications Commission documents confirm that the supposedly independent agency is anything but neutral on so-called "net neutrality."

The damning paper trail -- obtained by Judicial Watch via the Freedom of Information Act -- begins after March 2009, when President Obama's "Democrat appointees solidified their 3-2 control of the agency," The Washington Times reports.

It shows coordination with the far-left group Free Press, which opposes faster Internet service for those willing to pay for it.

Free Press, partially funded by far-left billionaire George Soros, was founded by a Marxist journal's editor and a contributor to the leftist "flagship" The Nation, and advocates expanding government control.

Can you guess where this is going? Can you?

Scaife's braintrust is looking to undermine the credibility of Free Press by pointing out that it's "partially funded by far-left billionaire George Soros," but, of course, they conveniently fail to mention the money (more than $8 million, as it turns out) poured into Judicial Watch by far-right billionaire Richard Mellon Scaife, owner of the Tribune-Review and boss of bosses at the editorial page there.
You can stop giggling now.

And they get "net neutrality" wrong as well. Here's how PC Magazine defines it:

A level playing field for Internet transport. It refers to the absence of restrictions or priorities placed on the type of content carried over the Internet by the carriers and ISPs that run the major backbones. It states that all traffic be treated equally; that packets are delivered on a first-come, first-served basis regardless from where they originated or to where they are destined.

Only in the echo chamber of the right wing media could this be called "government regulating online content" as the braintrust dutifully does later in the editorial.

And what of this "damning paper trail"? You can see the Scaife-funded Judicial Watch page here. Media matters describes what the Scaife-funded Judicial Watch found:

The evidence Judicial Watch uses to justify their allegation comes from emails between FCC Commissioner Michael Copps and media reform organization Free Press. The e-mails detail communications between Copps and Free Press regarding the placement of an op-ed in favor of net neutrality regulations (which would guarantee that internet service providers can't favor their own content over others) , as well as arrangements for a meeting between Copps and a representative of Free Press.

And they go on to say that:

None of this is unusual. Government officials regularly meet and speak before outside groups, like the conservative Heritage Foundation and the progressive Center For American Progress.

We can talk about the tens of millions Scaife's given to the Heritage Foundation (which also opposes neutrality on the net, by the way) but I think we all know that story.

Only in the wingnut press could "neutrality" become a guv'ment intrusion on our liberties. And by "our" they mean "big business."

Of course.

What The Frack? Catholic Cemeteries ♥ Gas Drilling!

Via The Trib:

A Monroeville drilling company could tap natural gas beneath 15 cemeteries in Allegheny and Washington counties under a lease signed by the Catholic Cemeteries Association of the Diocese of Pittsburgh, the association's director said Tuesday.

The association leased nearly 1,060 acres of cemetery land in 2008 to Huntley & Huntley Inc., including the 200-acre Calvary Cemetery in Hazelwood, which City Councilman Doug Shields called "ground zero" in the debate over whether natural gas drilling should be permitted in Pittsburgh.

"You don't put oil and gas fields in urban areas," Shields said during a news conference about legislation he will propose next month to ban drilling in city limits. "There's too much that can go wrong."

According to the article, Bishop David Zubik could not be reached for comment. Which I guess means no one could ask exactly how deep the consecration of cemetery ground extends...six feet?...20 feet?...I guess less than a mile...Or mention anything about, oh, I don't know, Jesus and the money changers in the temple...

I will add that this story brings to mind any number of horror movie plots starting with this one. And, of course, doesn't Pittsburgh have enough zombie problems already without stirring up more trouble?

Seriously, the article even quotes "high-priced consultant to the gas industry, former Gov. Tom Ridge" having a problem with this. Unfortunately, the real problem with fracking is more for the living than the dead.

Sick, sick, sick.

UPDATE: I saw this on my Facebook New Feed the other day and didn't realize that the article was from last year until it was pointed out to me by Paz in the comments section here. That said, it still blows my mind.

In case you missed it

I've been out of town for a couple of days, so I'm playing catchup. In case you missed all the news stories on the flash mob that kicked of Pride Weekend, here it is:

Lil Ricky And The Personhood Dog Whistle

Via Thinkprogress, we learn of former Senator Rick Santorum's extreme position on a woman's right to choose. He was being interviewed by David Gregory when this exchange occurred:

QUESTION: Do you believe that there should be any legal exceptions for rape or incest when it comes to abortion?

SANTORUM: I believe that life begins at conception, and that that life should be guaranteed under the Constitution. That is a person. [Emphasis added.]

QUESTION: So even in the case of rape or incest, that would be taking a life?

SANTORUM: That would be taking a life, and I believe that any doctor that performs an abortion, I would advocate that any doctor that performs an abortion, should be criminally charged for doing so.

And in doing so, in using the word "person," Rick's blowing a dog whistle to the anti-choice crowd he's hoping would support him in his presidential race.

Not that his anti-choice position was much of a secret. He recently debated Rev Al Sharpton on this topic in the philosophically friendly confines of the Sean Hannity show. In doing so, he brought up a hitherto unknown (at least to me) racial position on choice/personhood:

Former Sen. Rick Santorum, perennially a potential Presidential candidate, is not going on the defensive for his recent comment that President Barack Obama’s stance on abortion was particularly shocking based on his race. In fact, he is so sure of his position that he was willing to defend it in the face of one of America’s loudest race crusaders, Rev. Al Sharpton. Sean Hannity gave the a couple of segment on his show tonight, popped the proverbial popcorn, and let the games begin.

But this is a good opportunity to take a look at the "personhood" legislation oozing through some state legislatures. NARAL has a definition:

Members of the anti-choice “personhood” movement are launching a comprehensive assault on reproductive rights at the state level through legislation and ballot initiatives. These measures attempt to redefine "personhood" either by creating a legal definition for when life begins or by conferring legal rights upon a fertilized egg. In addition to outlawing abortion, these efforts could lead to bans on many common forms of birth control, and on stem-cell research and invitro fertilization.

By doing so, these proposals are designed to challenge Roe and eliminate the constitutional rights recognized therein. According to the anti-choice group Personhood USA, which claims operations in at least 30 states, “the common thread among all of these efforts is the goal to fill what is becoming known as the ‘Blackmun Hole’ in Roe v. Wade. This is where Justice Blackmun implied in the Roe v. Wade decision that if the case were established that the pre-born was a person, the argument for abortion collapses.”

On the "What is Personhood?" page of the PersonhoodUSA webpage, we see something familiar. After giving their definition of "personhood" (which more or less matches NARAL's) they explain:

A person, simply put, is a human being. This fact should be enough. The intrinsic humanity of unborn children, by definition, makes them persons and should, therefore, guarantee their protection under the law. For more than thirty years, however, this has not been the case. The situation we are left with is this. In America today, there is a huge and singular group of living human beings who have no protection under the law and are being killed en masse every day. Is that not astounding?! It is astounding, but not wholly unprecedented.

There have been at least two other instances in American history in which specific groups of human beings were stripped of their rights of personhood as a means of justifying their horrible mistreatment. African-Americans and Native-Americans both felt the brunt of a system which denied their humanity, stripped their personhood and subjected them to horrors beyond measure. While the legal framework that made such injustice possible has now been removed, it remains firmly in place for unborn Americans.

Unfortunately, Thinkprogress points out:

Moreover, Santorum’s position that the Constitution compels laws protecting fetuses places him at odds with the Supreme Court’s most conservative members. In DeShanney v. Winnebago County, the Supreme Court held that the Constitution’s guarantee that no person shall be denied “life . . . without due process of law” does not actually require the government to criminalize anything — a decision that runs directly counter to Santorum’s position on abortion. Justice Antonin Scalia, who has gone so far as to say that the Constitution does not prevent gender discrimination, was in the majority in DeShanney.

Personhood Legislation could also, NARAL asserts, ban contraception. It would ban abortions for rape and incest and if Rick Santorum who supports "Personhod" had his way, criminalize the doctors performing them.

Tell me again what his chances are for actually winning?

March for Corporate Accountability Today

Wednesday we saw a rally to tell Target to keep the corporate cash out of politics. Today there's a rally and march to "to demand that multi-billion dollar oil and gas company ExxonMobil pay its fair share of taxes to help build a better future for Pittsburgh."

As the Post-Gazette reported yesterday:

ExxonMobil Corp. has bolstered its position in the Marcellus Shale play with a billion-dollar acquisition, paying $1.69 billion for Warrendale-based Philips Resources and TWP Inc.

Slag Heap notes about the sale:

For environmentalists, it's yet another sign that the heavies are taking an increasing interest in the state's gas desposits. And that means that when citizens seek to protect water supplies, for example ... these companies are poised to blow them out of the water.

You might have thought that Marcellus drillers had plenty of influence already, given the seven-digit sums the industry contributed to Gov. Tom Corbett and other pols last year. But that's chump change compared to what a big hitter like Exxon can do when it decides to put its mind to it.

From the rally press release:

By taking advantage of tax breaks and loopholes to the tune of $4.1 billion over the last three years, ExxonMobil is depriving Pittsburgh, Allegheny County and Pennsylvania of much-needed revenue, which is forcing cuts to education, public transit, healthcare and other critical public services needed to strengthen Pennsylvania’s economy. Exxon’s daily profits alone – $213 million – are double the proposed state budget cuts to all 43 school districts in Allegheny County and are ten times the $20 million cuts forced to Pittsburgh bus routes earlier this year.

March for Corporate Accountability
WHAT: March and rally to hold ExxonMobil accountable to Pittsburgh communities
WHO: Hundreds of community members from across Pittsburgh
WHEN: Friday, June 10
3:30 Rally and Speakers at Market Square
4:15 March across Smithfield Bridge
4:30 Rally at Exxon Station (73 E. Carson St.)
WHERE: Starting at Market Square and ending at Exxon Station (73. E. Carson St.)
.

Yes, Investigate!

From today's Tribune-Review:

Congressional subpoenas must reveal what the Justice Department won't explain about a Border Patrol death and its ham-handed effort to link illegally sold guns with Mexican drug cartels.

With Justice largely stonewalling, U.S. Rep. Darrell Issa, R-Calif., chairman of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, plans to subpoena officials involved with a Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) program known as "Fast and Furious," reports The Hill newspaper.

A bad idea from the start, the program authorized U.S. gun stores to illegally sell thousands of firearms to Mexican cartels' "straw purchasers" -- in hopes of tracing those guns to, and prosecuting, cartel bigwigs. [emphasis added.]

Can I point something out?

USAToday reports that "Operation Fast and Furious" is part of a larger ATF operation, "Project Gunrunner."

And guess, just guess when that started?

Locally in Laredo, Texas in 2005 and then expanded nationally in 2006 - so when Scaife's braintrust says it was "a bad idea from the start," I trust they recognize that it was yet another bad idea from their friends in Bush Administration.

Lil Ricky, Climate Change, And Teh Gays

I'm not sure if former(because he lost by 18 points)Senator Rick Santorum is trying to out crazie Representative Michelle Bachman and former(because she quit)Governor Sarah Palin, but he's certainly giving it the old college try.

First he's on Rush Limbaugh's radio show and calls climate change "absurd":

Former Congressman and current Republican presidential candidate Rick Santorum is turning up the heat on the issue of man-made global warming, calling it "patently absurd," a stance putting him at odds with perceived frontrunner Mitt Romney.

"I believe the Earth gets warmer and I also believe the Earth gets cooler, and I think history points out that it does that," Santorum said on Rush Limbaugh's radio show this afternoon.

"The idea that man – through the production of CO2 (carbon dioxide) which is a trace gas in the atmosphere, and the man-made part of that trace gas is itself a trace gas – is somehow responsible for climate change is, I think, patently absurd."

Oops. I stand corrected. I should have said "patently absurd."

And yes, I got that from World Net Daily. Who better to track teh crazie than teh crazie itself?

But let's take a look at Rick's "evidence" shall we?

Today, Santorum of Pennsylvania was adamant in his stance against man-made climate change, saying there were numerous factors that help regulate the temperature on the planet, specifically citing El Nino, La Nina, sunspots, and moisture in the air.

He said the political left uses the issue to its benefit no matter what the temperature is: "It's really a beautifully concocted scheme because they know the Earth is going to cool and warm. And so, if it's been on a warming trend for a while, [they say] 'Let's take advantage of that and say that we need the government to come in and regulate your life some more because it's getting warmer.'

"Just like they did in the '70s when it was getting cooler. They needed the government to come in and regulate your life because it's getting cooler. It's just an excuse for more government control of your life and I've never been for any scheme or even accepted the junk science between the whole narrative."

Ok, let's establish the baseline here. The earth is warming. Here's a graph from NASA:


In one sense Rick is right. The Earth does cool. Sometimes. But then it warms up more. Just saying that the earth warms and cools is a knowing distortion. Of course the earth cools. It was cooler last night than it was during the day. It was cooler last December than it will be this July. There are always cycles but none of those change the fact that over time Rick, the earth is getting warmer and warmer.

I guess he hasn't read that NOAA has declared global warming undeniable. But given the fact that a few years ago he wanted to limit the public's access to NOAA in favor of his campaign contributors at Accuweather.

Via ThinkProgress we learn of Rick's future plans:

During an appearance on CNN this evening, GOP presidential candidate Rick Santorum (R-PA) hinted that he would push for a federal constitutional amendment outlawing same-sex marriage if he were elected president, arguing that gay or lesbian relationships could destabilize the culture, rob children “of the potential of having a mom and a dad,” and undermine religious liberties

And he was quoted as saying:

nce people realize the consequence to society of changing this definition, it’s not that we’re against anybody. People can live the life they want to live. They can do whatever they want to do in the privacy of their home with respect to that activity. Now you’re talking about changing the laws of the country. and it could have a profound impact on society, on faith, on education. Once people realize that, they say, you know what, we respect people’s life to live the life they want to lead but don’t change how with that definition.

Really? People can do whatever they want in the privacy of their own homes? That's not what he said in 2008:

"If the Supreme Court says that you have the right to consensual (gay) sex within your home, then you have the right to bigamy, you have the right to polygamy, you have the right to incest, you have the right to adultery. You have the right to anything," Santorum said in the AP interview, which was published Monday.

Ok, I'll make the cheap shot.

Rick Santorum is patently absurd.

Thanks for visiting us, Target!

(Click to enlarge)

We'll visit you later today.

I forgot to add in my previous post how ironic it is that a company which brands itself as being the hip big box alternative store with the name designers (many of whom are out gay) would give to an anti gay politician. We expect that of Walmart, honey. Really, how can you be "Targé" if you aren't pro gay?

Oh, The Stuff The Trib Leaves Out.

Today, on the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review editorial page, there's yet another lesson in political obfuscation.

The op-ed is a reaction to this opinion piece in the USAToday by former interim DCCC chair, Donna Brazile. She makes the case, so obvious to those of us watching, that the GOP is looking to block voters from the polls by forcing them to show photo ID. The voters the GOP is looking to block would, of course, tend to vote for the Democratic Party.

From the AP:

Empowered by last year's elections, Republican leaders in about half the states are pushing to require voters to show photo ID at the polls despite little evidence of fraud and already-substantial punishments for those who vote illegally.

Democrats claim the moves will disenfranchise poor and minority voters — many of whom traditionally vote for their candidates. The measures will also increase spending and oversight in some states even as Republicans are focused on cutting budgets and decreasing regulations.

Brazile talks Florida:

The Florida Legislature recently sent an overhaul of the state's election code to Republican Gov. Rick Scott. Among other things, this bill would slash early voting from 14 days down to eight. And it would, according to the non-partisan League of Women Voters, impose fines on voter registration drives for all completed voter registration forms that are not returned to the state within 48 hours — a big reduction from the current 10-day deadline.

Yet another hurdle: Voters who had moved to another county (potentially millions of people) would not be able to update their addresses at the polls on Election Day. Under the proposed law, these voters would have to cast a provisional ballot, which used to be cast when a voter's eligibility was questioned. Such ballots sometimes are not counted. Do we really want to see Florida's 2000 election controversy replayed?

In the states pushing for strict photo ID requirements, Republican lawmakers have argued that voter impersonators need to be stopped. Yet in Ohio or Wisconsin — two swing states where GOP legislatures are pushing for mandates — there is no record of this ever happening.

So Scaife's braintrust talks Florida, too:

Why, this has the potential to become a Florida 2000 election redux, the argument goes.

For the record, out of all the allegations of voter harassment in Florida back then, the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights found just two instances of "perceived" voter intimidation. The U.S. Justice Department found no credible evidence.

Notice, however, the subtle shift in charges. Brazile wasn't talking specifically about voter intimidation. The braintrust is, however. And then they change the subject:

But flagrant voter fraud is real. Writing for National Review Online, civil rights commissioner Peter Kirsanow provides some of the more egregious examples:

• A 2001 voter-registration drive among blacks in St. Louis produced 3,800 new voter cards. Not one was legitimate.

• Before the last presidential election, about 140,000 Floridians were registered in multiple jurisdictions.

• Rampant absentee ballot forgeries derailed the 1998 Miami mayoral election.

Let me just mention in passing that Peter Kirsanow, the guy quoted by Scaife's braintrust, serves on the advisory board of the National Center for Public Policy Research. Do I need to point out the hundreds of thousands of dollars in Scaife money the NCPPR has received over the years? Do I need to point out how that wasn't mention by Scaife's braintrust?

If, of course, you take a look at the first two examples used by Kirsanow and the Trib, you'll see that they're not about voter fraud. They're about voter registration irregularities. Unless they can show that the multiple jurisdiction data in Florida has led to people voting twice, they're not talking voter fraud here.

And that last one? Xavier Suarez, the winner of that overturned election, is a Republican.

Freep this poll!

At the P-G:

"Republican state lawmakers have introduced a bill that would outlaw strikes by public school teachers. Would you like to see this become law?."

Speaking of banning...

I'm not all that emotionally invested in lap-dance banning and strip club zoning (though I can understand how some are), but for the love of God, can someone please ban this commercial which invades my home on a regular basis?

(Not exactly safe for work)

I guess we have to give it to Blush for hiring the disabled as this woman apparently does not have the use of her arms and hands while walking.
.

Protest at Target Tomorrow: Help take the bull's-eye off of our democracy and the gay community

The Supreme Court decision in the Citizens United case last year opened the floodgates of corporate money into American politics. One of the first companies to take advantage of the change in law was Target which made a $150,000 contribution to support a strongly anti-gay, pro-chamber-of-commerce candidate. Target faced a backlash when their contribution became known, but according to http://www.protesttarget.com/why.html, "Target responded to the uproar by implementing superficial changes to its political giving policy. But today it STILL continues its political spending."

We need to:



It's time to remind Target and other corporations gearing up for the 2012 elections that our democracy is not for sale, and that when companies try to buy our elected officials to do their bidding, we the people will be watching.

Protest the Target shareholders meeting
June 8 at noon
Target store
6231 Penn Ave.
Pittsburgh, PA 15206

You can RSVP at anyone of the following sites:

MoveOn
ProtestTarget.com
Common Cause

I'll see you there!

.
.
This action is being sponsored by the following groups:

With participation from the local MoveOn
and Democracy for Pittsburgh groups.
.

Yes, Weiner is a wiener

Anthony Weiner (D-NY) takes questions from the media
When are guys like these going to learn that it's the lies and the cover-up that get you in the end and that NOTHING IS PRIVATE ON THE INTERTOOBZ?

Also, note to some on the left: We are supposed to be reality-based. Some bloggers were beginning to look like birthers as they twisted themselves into pretzel-like shapes defending Weiner (I do not fault anyone, however, from being initially skeptical given the source). I'm thinking here of a recommended Daily Kos diary post in particular which attempted to show that the photo was Photoshopped. The diarist said they had been using Photoshop since '93 -- well, so have I and I didn't see what you were seeing which is why I never linked to it.

Lastly, Weiner is a wiener because he managed to throw some credibility to Andrew Breitbart -- a man who took over the presser demanding an apology from Weiner -- who has yet to apologize to Shirley Sherrod or ACORN.

Just UGH all the way around.
.

URGENT ACTION ITEM: New Battle of Blair Mountain

A group of miners display one of the bombs dropped on them
Via Wikipedia:

The Battle of Blair Mountain was one of the biggest civil uprisings in the United States history and the largest armed insurrection since the American Civil War. For five days in late August and early September 1921, in Logan County, West Virginia, between 10,000 and 15,000 coal miners confronted an army of police and strikebreakers backed by coal operators during a struggle by the miners to unionize the southwestern West Virginia coalfields. Their struggle ended only after approximately one million rounds were fired,[2] and the United States Army intervened by presidential order.

Now, mountain top removal mining is about to decimate the site of this historic battle. Hundreds of marchers -- including Pittsburgh Sierra Club's Randy Francisco -- are retracing the steps of the miners to stop Blair Mountain from "becoming just another barren, flat-topped strip mine." According to Friends of Blair Mountain, "The March on Blair Mountain is a unifying rally involving labor unions, environmental organizations, scholars, artists, and other citizens and groups."

In 1921, the miners were stopped by private planes that "were hired to drop homemade bombs on the miners" and by "Army bombers from Maryland were also used for aerial surveillance, a rare example of Air Power being used by the federal government against US citizens." In 2011, corporations and the government are still in cahoots, but their methods are more subtle (via Pink Coat Communications):

Local authorities, "encouraged" by mining companies, have routed the peaceful marchers out of their campgrounds. For their safety marchers now have to camp miles and miles away forcing organizers to shuttle folks back and forth. With gas at nearly $4 a gallon this could kill the march.

The marchers are in urgent need of your help to continue their efforts:

YOU CAN HELP! Donate to the marchers at http://marchonblairmountain.org/ (click on the Appalachia rising paypal button) or at directly at Appalachia Rising's paypal site

They only need about $1500 to complete the march, but without it, their effort cannot continue safely! They are in and out of cell phone range and only sporadically able to post information so this has not hit the press yet. Its important that we help them now though as they are in imminent danger of being forced to quit.

UPDATE: Latest update @ The Pittsburgh Seam

Ruth Ann's Prayer

Let me start off by saying that I like Ruth Ann Dailey. She's a very nice person, very smart, good writer and when she writes about music she's almost always gets it right.

But when she writes about graduation prayers, as she did this week, she gets it wrong. She shaded her arguments just enough them to qualify as a "straw man" argument.

Here's what she did. Her opening paragraphs:

Here's how the annual American fight over public school prayer played out this year:

In late May an agnostic family in a suburb of San Antonio, Texas, sued to remove the invocation and benediction from Medina Valley High School's graduation ceremony. Their lawsuit, filed with the help of Americans United for Separation of Church and State, claimed the prayers would force their son to participate in religious activities.

Last Tuesday, a U.S. District Court judge ruled in their favor, saying that formal prayers would make it seem that the school was "sponsoring a religion."

On Wednesday the state attorney general asked a federal appeals court to overturn the decision.

On Thursday the school's valedictorian filed a lawsuit, with the help of the pro-faith and limited-government Liberty Institute, to reinstate and lead the ceremonial prayers.

On Friday the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals stepped in and reversed the lower court's ban on prayer.

Ooo. She was sooo close! But the lower court did not issue a "ban on prayer." And the higher court did not "reverse" it, either.

Here's the lower court's ruling. The issue here is not prayer but official prayer. The ruling took out the words "Benediction" and "Invocation" from the program. It also instructed the students chosen to give what would have been them to be "statements of their own beliefs" rather than instructing those assembled in prayer.

That agnostic family was challenging the idea that they'd be told to pray at that graduation. The students giving speeches were free (as they always are) "to state their own personal beliefs" during the ceremony. They could give the sign of the cross, for example. Or kneel to Mecca, if they wished.

They just couldn't tell the crowd to pray.

And the upper court's ruling didn't reverse the lower court as much as dissolve its temporary restraining order and and preliminary injunction remand it to district court for further proceedings.

The upper court noted that "Benediction" and "Invocation" were removed from the program.

Now compare that to the prayer that takes up the rest of her column. She introduces it with:

Since the issue is likely to flare up again next year and to feature immaturity all the way around, here's an all-purpose speech for the prayer-minded class leader. It can be easily adapted to suit whatever the last court ruling might be.

And ends it with:

Despite the acrimonious lawsuit that preceded today's event, if I were allowed to offer a prayer, I would echo Abraham Lincoln's second inaugural address -- 'With malice toward none, with charity for all, with firmness in the right as God gives us to see the right, let us finish the work we are in, to bind up the nation's wounds ...'

"Or we could stop wounding one another and just grow up. That would be my prayer today, if I were allowed to pray.

But the students in Medina Texas were allowed to pray.

They just shouldn't be allowed to force anyone else to pray.

And that's where Ruth Ann gets it wrong.

Help save Hawa Abdullah

UN worker Hawa Abdullah is being held by Sudanese authorities on false charges of spreading Christianity in refugee camps in Darfur -- an offense punishable by death. Please help put pressure on Secretary of State Hillary Clinton to intervene on her behalf. You can read all about it at billpeduto.com.

<-- Posed picture being used as "evidence." .

All that really needs to be said about Rick Santorum's run for the presidency

Click here.
(Or you can wallow in the frothy mix at Early Returns.)
.

Yawn...They're Doing It Again

Who? The Editorial Board of the Tribune-Review.

What are they doing? Richard Mellon Scaife's braintrust is, yet again, failing to disclose his financial ties to the think-tank they reference in an editorial. Take a look:

The Obama administration's lax immigration enforcement includes failure to reform immigration courts that illegal aliens routinely ignore.

Mark Metcalf, a former Miami immigration court judge, extensively details the problems in a new Center for Immigration Studies (cis.org) report, "Built to Fail: Deception and Disorder in America's Immigration Courts."

Media Matters lists about $1.4 million dollars in grants from foundations controlled by Richard Mellon Scaife between 1991 and 2007. This does not count the additional grants of $150,000 and $125,000 from the Sarah Scaife Foundation in 2008 and in 2009, respectively.

Of course no mention of the millions of dollars of Scaife Foundation money funneled to the CIS can be found in the editorial on Scaife's editorial page. That would be transparent but that's not how the right wing propaganda machine works.

Now take a closer look at the editorial. Or you can read the report first hand, if you like. Notice something? The Obama Administration is being criticized for (now wait for it) not cleaning up a mess left behind by the Bush Administration.

From the editorial:

He says deportation orders are rarely enforced -- in part because immigration judges lack authority to enforce their own orders -- even when those targeted ignore them or skip court. Among 1.9 million aliens freed to await trial from 1996 through 2009, 40 percent vanished.

Department of Justice statistics mask the grim truth, too. Justice contends 39 percent of aliens missed immigration court dates in 2005 and 2006; Mr. Metcalf says the real figure is 59 percent.

Look at the dates. Tell me again who was president from 2001 to 2009? This can't be Clinton's fault can it? I mean he was President from 1996 to 2001. Those were also the Lewinsky years. Brought to you, in part, by the Scaife funded Arkansas project. Thanks, Dick.

There's some more from Metcalf's report:

From 2002 through 2006 — in the shadow of 9/11 — 50 percent of all aliens free pending trial disappeared. Court numbers show 360,199 aliens out of 713,974 dodged court.

In the Shadow of 9/11 the Bush Administration allowed this to happen?

And it's Obama's fault for not cleaning it up in 2 years.

This is Scaife's braintrust at work.

Thanks again, Dick.

John Edward's Coming To Pittsburgh!

Not the one you think. Check the punctuation.

On the way to work last week, I saw a billboard advertising a visit by "Internationally acclaimed psychic medium" John Edward. That's Edward - with no "s". The douche bag who's been indicted is Edwards - with an "s". I'm not talking about him but imagine what sort of political hell it would be for the Democrats had he been elected.

I am talking about John Edward, the "psychic." Please note the irony quotes as they're quite intentional. Edward's gonna be in town in November.

Let me first say that in a capitalist society, much like the one in which we all live, each of us is free, for the most part, to spend our money as we see fit. So if you want to part with the $125 necessary to see John Edward do a group reading, you are of course completely free to do so. It's your money.

Before you do, however, you might want to watch the first episode of the first season of Penn and Teller's Showtime series. The series, in case you were wondering, is called "Bullshit." That pretty much sums up P&T think of John Edward, James van Praagh and other "psychics" who claim to speak with the dead.

You can find the video for the show on youtube, if you're so inclined to go look for it.

Before you spend the $125 to see Edward, you should also know what a "cold reading" is. More than 20 years ago philosopher Denis Dutton defined it as a practical use of something called "The Barnam Effect":

That there is a sucker born every minute is the cynical slogan most often attributed to the great nineteenth-century circus entreprenuer Phineas Taylor Barnum. Though there is in fact no record that he ever made such a remark, Barnum did claim that his success depended on providing in his shows “a little something for everybody.” Both the cynicism and his recipe for success are relevant to understanding the persistent tendency for people to embrace fake personality descriptions as uniquely their own. This in turn gives a particular aptness to Paul Meehl’s phrase, the Barnum Effect, to describe the phenomenon. [emphasis added.]

In discussing the Cold Reading technique used by a night club magician named William W Larsen, Dutton writes:

His standard cold reading description is his so-called Life Span Reading, which can be used “straight or with a crystal ball,” or can be “given while seemingly reading the subject’s palm, laying out the cards, toying with numbers, or gazing at tea leaves in a cup.” It is a one-size-fits-all reading which can be delivered to “any adult person of either sex.” As Larsen puts it, it is “based upon events which occur in the vast majority of human lives yet, adroitly stated, the reading will become personalized and the person receiving the reading will be willing to believe that the seer has correctly told the past and probably foreseen the future.” Every word is the purest Barnum: a clever account of the subject’s life and personality up to the present time in terms of six “life cycles” of vague length (some last “but a few days,” while others “may endure for years”). There was in childhood a close brush with death “by you or someone close to you.” There were trials and many changes, the loss of someone close, and an illness or “bad accident.” Along with the predictable Barnum personality attributes (including, on the negative side, “a note of stubborness”), there are forecasts of finanacial gain, perhaps having to do with real estate or “property changing hands.” [Emphasis added.]

And then:

Larsen explains to his magician readers that the procedure works so well because the cold reading “you will give is the one that will pretty generally fit any person of that sex and age group. Only occasionally will you miss entirely and even then you will be a miracle man to the majority. For example, in a room of 50 people you read for one and happen to hit, you are 100% a mental genius. But, should you wholly fail, you are still a psychic wonder to 49 other people.” However, he continues, you will find that you will not miss often: “The average person will accept anything you tell him or her, and apply it personally. In other words, they”ll make your reading fit themselves. As a psychic, people want to believe you.” [Emphasis added.]

In this setting the "psychic" will be facing an audience who all want to speak with someone who's passed away. If it's an older person, it's a good chance the deceased is younger. If it's a younger person, there's a good chance it's older. A miss (ie a mistake) is quickly stepped over, corrected and then forgotten by the audience. The death itself is either quick or prolonged. If it's prolonged, it's a disease of some sort. If it's quick, there's a good chance it's an act of violence or a heart attack that came out of nowhere.

See how easy that is? And I'm not even trying!

The guesses all proceed in this way until a hit is made. In reality, the "psychic" has no ESP but the audience thinks he or she does and is awed by the act anyway.

Think of that before you shell out the $125.

Edward is not new to the "psychic" game. He got an award in 2001. Each year the Amazing Randi gives out something called a "Pigasus" award and that year, Edward won in the "Psychic" category. Take a look:

Category #4, for the "psychic" performer who fooled the greatest number of people with the least talent, of course goes to John Edward, the man who plays "Twenty Questions" for higher stakes than anyone ever has — millions of dollars a year — via the "Crossing Over" TV show that is featured on major networks, here and abroad. Edward, far more often wrong than right in his guesses, uses the grieving, the bereaved, the vulnerable, as his subjects and victims, people who desperately look for evidence that their loved ones are still around somewhere. Though hardly the most talented performer of this variety of scam, Edward adopts an aggressive attitude and an unctuous smirk to lubricate his escape from his frequent blunders.

It's your money. Caveat emptor.

Two Women - One Horrid and One Glorious

Today is June 4 and today is the day, in 1919, that the 19th Amendment was passed by Congress (ratification would take place on August 20, 1920). The 19th is the Amendment guaranteeing women the right to vote.

Something, by the way, that the horrid Ann Coulter thinks is a bad idea. From the Guardian:

Who exactly has the vote who shouldn't have? "Women," she says, laughing. "It's true. It would be a much better country if women did not vote. That is simply a fact. In fact, in every presidential election since 1950 - except Goldwater in '64 - the Republican would have won, if only the men had voted."

And The New York Observer:

If we took away women's right to vote, we'd never have to worry about another Democrat president. It's kind of a pipe dream, it's a personal fantasy of mine, but I don't think it's going to happen. And it is a good way of making the point that women are voting so stupidly, at least single women.

Fortunately today is also the birthday of the glorious Cecilia Bartoli. Who is she? Just watch. She's the one in front in the pink dress:


The piece is K 165 of Mozart, the "Exsultate, jubilate" and here's the score, if you wanted to follow along. Or just the text if you can't read music.

While it's far more likely that the Universe just is - that there's no design or balance to it and that happiness (to quote, yet again, Bertrand Russell) begins when facing the fact that the world is horrible - it's good to know that not all of it is horrid Ann Coulter.

Some of it is glorious Cecilia Bartoli singing glorious Mozart.

Pretty much whenever she opens her mouth...

Just watch:

I am nothing if not trendy!

Via the Post-Gazette:

The national unemployment rate ticked up again in May to 9.1 percent, an incremental change from April's 9 percent rate, but the second month of increases, a sign that the jobs recovery may have stalled.

The Bureau of Labor Statistics also reported that the number of jobs increased by 54,000, which is half of what some analysts had predicted. The country needs more than 125,000 new jobs to keep up with population growth every month.

I walked into work yesterday to find out that the company that I was working for was shutting down...that day. (I'm going to miss you guys!)

On the upside, now that I will no longer be working Saturdays, maybe I'll go see the Tom Tom Club performing at the Three Rivers Arts Festival.


(h/t to WARN Act)
.

World Net Daily: Still Peddling Teh Birther Crazie

As it's been a week or so since we took a peek into birther central, World Net Daily, I thought it might be a good idea to take another peek.

Man oh man oh man, you will not believe what they're peddling now.

On June 2, Politico reported:

White House Counsel Bob Bauer will step down from his post and return to private practice, where he will assist President Barack Obama’s reelection campaign, the White House announced Thursday.

Kathryn Ruemmler, the current principal deputy counsel to the president, will take Bauer’s place when he returns to the Washington office of the Perkins Coie law firm.

Bauer will resume the role he had during Obama’s 2008 presidential run, serving as general counsel to the campaign and to the Democratic National Committee, and as personal lawyer to Obama, the White House said. The change will allow him to help Obama’s reelection campaign navigate an increasingly complex legal thicket created by a recent Supreme Court ruling that allowed more corporate spending on politics and by the prospect of new, well-funded political committees trying to shape the 2012 presidential race.

Pretty cut and dried, right?

Not so much for Jerome Corsi, PhD. From WND:

The author of the best-selling "Where's the Birth Certificate? The Case That Barack Obama Is Not Eligible To Be President" charged today the resignation of White House counsel Bob Bauer is the result of his participation in the release of Barack Obama's "Certificate of Live Birth," which he fears would not stand up to the scrutiny of any serious investigation by the FBI, Congress or the media.

And here's Corsi's conspiracy:

But Jerome Corsi, Ph.D., who authored the "Where's the Birth Certificate?" book that debuted at No. 6 on the New York Times best-sellers list after reaching No. 1 several weeks earlier at Amazon.com, said, "I think Bauer's resignation marks the beginning of the Obama eligibility cover-up starting to unwind."

Corsi believes Bauer "felt compelled" to resign because of the growing substance to worries that the eligibility issue will blow up into a full-scale investigation.

"Bauer sent Perkins and Coie attorneys to Honolulu to pick up from the Hawaii Department of Health what he believed would be two certified copies of Obama's 1961 long-form, hospital-generated birth certificate," Corsi said.

"When the White House released to the public the birth certificate in the form of a PDF computer file obviously created on Adobe software and a Xerox copy, Bauer realized the Hawaii DOH had participated in the fraud," Corsi charged.

Corsi said he had been tipped off early in February that a long-form birth document for Obama had been forged and that the document was to be released.

See, the story is that before the long form certificate was released the birthers believed that the long form certificate said something different than the short form released in 2007.

Now that it's known that the long form and the short form tell the same tale, the long form, according to Corsi and the birthers, must be a forgery.

It's all so simple, isn't it?

As a footnote, the birthers at WND are moving to another area of research - Obama's passport.

Take a look:

In this era of tight airport security, the Transportation Safety Administration typically will not allow a passenger to board an airplane if the name printed on the ticket differs from the way it appears on government-issued identification.

Now that the White House has released President Obama's purported long-form birth certificate, a question arises as to why the name on that document does not match the name on his State Department passport.

It says "Barack Hussein Obama II" on the birth certificates but only "Barack Hussein Obama" on the passport!

As the State Department takes the info off of whatever embossed birth certificates are submitted, there's now a question as to why they don't match. From WND:

Presumably, the State Department intends to use the full name presented on the birth certificate as the name presented on the passport.

Since Obama has refused to release his passport records, it is impossible to determine what documents were submitted to the State Department to obtain the passport.

WND: Crazie, crazier, craziest.

Notice Anything?

It's a real tweet, by the way.

Actually, there are bigger issues at play than an extra T. Thinkprogress has the story.

Sarah Palin's an idiot.

Yes, Let's Meet David Evans

From the editorial page at today's Tribune-Review:

It's most unsettling to the cluckers of climate change when one of their own leading adherents, who formerly toed the line, becomes skeptical and drop-kicks the "science."

Meet David Evans.

A scientist with six university degrees, Mr. Evans consulted for the Australian Greenhouse Office (today's Department of Climate Change) from 1999 to 2005. He studied carbon in plants, debris, forestry and agricultural products.

The remarks Scaife's braintrust uses come from this column at the Financial Times.

The thing you should've noticed in the op-ed is how the braintrust describes Evans - "a scientist with six university degrees." But which six? You'd think one of them is in climate science.

But you'd be wrong.

Here's the description from the bottom of the FT column:

David Evans consulted full-time for the Australian Greenhouse Office (now the Department of Climate Change) from 1999 to 2005, and part-time 2008 to 2010, modelling Australia’s carbon in plants, debris, mulch, soils, and forestry and agricultural products. He is a mathematician and engineer, with six university degrees, including a PhD from Stanford University in electrical engineering. The comments above were made to the Anti-Carbon-Tax Rally in Perth, Australia, on March 23.

Given that the Trib cut and pasted whole phrases from this description, they had to know that he wasn't a climate scientist. But still, it's a PhD in electrical engineering - and that's nothing to sneeze at.

But you'd think that were he an expert in the field, he'd have some peer-reviewed publications under his belt, right?

Um, no. According to this "skeptic watch" page, Evens published one peer-reviewed paper. In 1987. And it wasn't about climate change. Interesting.

Also the material in the presentation Evans made at that Anti-Carbon-Tax Rally in Perth, that became the FT column that the braintrust used to "debunk" climate science was itself debunked.

In 2007.

Nice going, guys. You made this one easy.