Climategate…Again? "Just another shameless effort to manufacture a false controversy, once again" @andrewbreitbart @foxnews #p2 #tcot

http://motherjones.com/blue-marble/2011/11/climategate-again

Here we go again. Once more on the eve of a major United Nations negotiating session on climate change, an anonymous commenter has posted thousands of emails between scientists online. Climate change critics have already latched onto the emails as "Climategate 2.0." Much like the first iteration of the manufactured controversy, the commenter released the emails with a selection of short, out-of-context quotes designed to make scientists look nefarious.

The latest release includes 5,000 additional emails, and the poster claims to have another 220,000 on a private site that he or she does not intend to release. The poster again goes by the handle "FOIA," as was used when the first round of emails was released in November 2009.

Several of the scientists who wrote the emails have confirmed that the latest batch is legitimate. Officials at the University of East Anglia in the United Kingdom has already posted a statement, indicating that what they have read so far appear to be actual emails, and that they believe these are additional emails acquired at the same time as the initial theft.

Many are speculating that the release was intended to derail the upcoming climate talks in Durban, South Africa—which would be true, if anyone were paying attention to them in the first place. (I'll have more on Durban in a few days.) And as with the first round, a lot of what is portrayed as sinister plotting or subterfuge among scientists is really just how science works—people disagree, they criticize each other's work, and they sometimes aren't very nice. And, just like in the last round, some of them show scientists discussing how to avoid turning over their emails to skeptics that would use them to bash the science. I'm hoping the irony of that isn't lost on anyone.

Pennsylvania State University climate scientist Michael Mann, who has probably been the subject of more skeptic hatred than any of the other scientists involved in the emails, told me in an email that this latest round seems like a weak attempt to reignite controversy. "I guess they had very little left to work with, having culled in the first round the emails that could most easily be taken out of context to try to make me look bad," said Mann. "Just another shameless effort to manufacture a false controversy, once again, on the eve of a key international climate change summit."

I'd hesitate to call attention to a bunch of stolen, out-of-context emails at all, except for the fact that part of the reason that Climategate 1.0 was blown so far out of proportion is that most people ignored it for so long and let the denial crowd frame the conversation. By the time reasonable people caught up, it was already out of control. Journalists basically ran with the skeptic's talking points, and despite numerous investigations and exonerations, the incident remained a stalking horse for the global warming denial crowd. For a more detailed, and lengthy, examination, see my piece on the incident from April.

How Bad Is Pepper Spray? @foxnews #p2 #tcot

from http://motherjones.com/blue-marble/2011/11/how-bad-pepper-spray

This horrifying video of UC Davis police indiscriminately pepper-spraying peaceful student protesters has gone viral. Two officers have been placed on leave. But for anyone who's never been pepper sprayed, it's hard to imagine exactly what it feels like. Over at Scientific American, Deborah Blum makes a valiant attempt to explain.

Using a scale of intensity developed 100 years ago by Wilbur Scoville, Blum notes that commercial-grade pepper spray is 1,000 times "hotter" than a jalapeño pepper. Most sprays are between 2 million and 5.3 million Scoville units—and the higher-end figure is the type police use. Here's the chart:

As Blum notes, getting sprayed in the face isn't at all like putting too much hot sauce on your burrito:

The reason pepper-spray ends up on the Scoville chart is that – you probably guessed this - it's literally derived from pepper chemistry, the compounds that make habaneros so much more formidable than the comparatively wimpy bells. Those compounds are called capsaicins and – in fact – pepper spray is more formally called Oleoresin Capsicum or OC Spray.

But we've taken to calling it pepper spray, I think, because that makes it sound so much more benign than it really is, like something just a grade or so above what we might mix up in a home kitchen. The description hints maybe at that eye-stinging effect that the cook occasionally experiences when making something like a jalapeno-based salsa, a little burn, nothing too serious.

Until you look it up on the Scoville scale and remember, as toxicologists love to point out, that the dose makes the poison. That we're not talking about cookery but a potent blast of chemistry.

Blum looks at research linking pepper spray to cardiac, respiratory, and neurological problems and even sudden death. It's scary stuff.

chicago bears #55 Lance Briggs creates a comic: Suits Up For Pilot Season With "Seraph"

Top Cow's 2011 group of Pilot Season titles boasts a number of impressive names, but only one can be seen on television every Sunday. Lance Briggs, whose "Pilot Season: Seraph" just came out, also happens to be a linebacker for the Chicago Bears. A lifelong comic book fan, Number 55 has teamed with writer Phil Hester and artist Jose Luis to tell the tale of Seraph, a man who, after trying to kill himself, discovers that not only is he not dead, he's been imbued with supernatural powers.

While on a trip to Top Cow headquarters, the company expressed interest in the concept of "Seraph," an idea Briggs had in his head for a while. The football pro immediately set to work on a bible for the series, resulting in about 30 characters and various scenarios that Hester combed through to develop their Pilot Season one-shot in hopes that it will be the gateway for a full series. CBR News spoke with Briggs about the book's origin, the main character's demons and the story's larger themes of religion and faith.

rest at http://www.comicbookresources.com/?page=article&id=35586

China media says US sitting on debt 'bomb' #p2 #tcot

China's state media Tuesday blasted the United States over its "ticking debt bomb" and urged American lawmakers to be more responsible after they failed to agree on deficit-cutting measures.

China is the world's largest foreign holder of US Treasuries with a portfolio of around $1.15 trillion, prompting Beijing's keen interest in the state of the US economy.

"Washington's political elites... are obligated to muster the courage to defuse the ticking debt bomb and start to show the world they have the wisdom and determination not to further jeopardise the fragile global economic recovery," Xinhua news agency said in a commentary.

A US Congress "supercommittee" Monday failed to reach a deal to rein in the government's galloping deficits due to angry partisan battles over how best to revive the nation's sluggish economy.

The move confirmed widespread expectations that the 12-member committee would miss its goal to cut US deficits by $1.2 trillion over 10 years amid political feuds over tax hikes on the rich and cuts to social spending.

rest at http://www.terradaily.com/reports/China_media_says_US_sitting_on_debt_bomb_999.html

Psychopath Alert: Fox News Host Dismisses Pepper Spray Attack By Cops: 'It's A Food Product, Essentially' #p2 #tcot

here http://www.sott.net/articles/show/238016-Psychopath-Alert-Fox-News-Host-Dismisses-Pepper-Spray-Attack-By-Cops-It-s-A-Food-Product-Essentially-

idiot: Fox's Megyn Kelly - Pepper spray's 'a food product' and other reasons people protest @foxnews #p2 #tcot @andrewbreitbart

Fox's Megyn Kelly has been taking some heat (hi-yo!) for what looks like her dismissal of the seriousness of the UC Davis pepper spraying incident and other similar incidents around the country by asserting that pepper spray, "is a food product, essentially." And that's undoubtedly an idea that deserves to be slapped down, so it's no surprise that it has been, with actual science, no less.

The ridicule has been plentiful, of course. (Mustard gas is a condiment! Bullets are nutritional supplements!) But if you watch the entire video, Kelly actually comes off as being at least within spitting distance of reasonable. Though it should be said that a poop-flinging monkey could likely do the same if he was sitting opposite Bill O'Reilly, who goes out of his way to imply both that the pepper spraying is OK because UC Davis is a liberal campus, and that say that people "don't... have the right to Monday morning quarterback the police."

Lots of larger questions are raised directly, or at least implied, during the three minute discussion. Is pepper spray an appropriate application of police force for such a low-level infraction? Is it reasonable for police to resort to its use prior to any attempt to arrest? Instead of any attempt to arrest?

But here's what struck me in the exchange. Both O'Reilly and Kelly note with raised eyebrows that it was reportedly Chancellor Linda Katehi who ordered UC Davis police to use pepper spray on the protesters, and that police chief Annette Spicuzza and two of the officers who complied with those orders have been placed on administrative leave while the chancellor refuses to step down.

The pepper spraying is undoubtedly a huge issue that deserves all the attention it's getting and more. But how perfect an illustration of the dynamics of what we'll call "one percenter-ism" is it that the chancellor gives the orders and it's those down the food chain who suffer the consequences?

Now, it may well turn out that the police return to their jobs while the chancellor is ultimately forced from her position, but it'd be an exceedingly rare instance of this particular brand of justice if it did. And I'm not saying that's the preferred outcome, either. The facts of the case are still too unclear to be able to reach that particular conclusion.

But it's certainly telling that as Fox's stars put their heads together to find ways to stand up for the UC Davis police and administration in the face of national outrage, even these two one-percenters can't help but stumble onto one of the chief arguments of the ninety-nine percent—that justice is two-tiered in this country, and its scales are tipped heavily in favor of those already hoarding the wealth and power.

At GOP debate, Santorum claims Africa is a ‘country’ #p2 #tcot @andrewbreitbart

Topics: Former Pennsylvania Sen. Rick Santorum ♦ republican presidential candidate

 

Former Pennsylvania Sen. Rick Santorum became the latest Republican presidential candidate to misspeak about Africa Tuesday.

During CNN's debate on foreign policy, Santorum said that "Africa was a country," instead of a continent.

Former Bush Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz, who now serves as a scholar for the American Enterprise Institute, asked the candidates how their policies would promote growth in poor countries.

"Well, as the author of The Global Fund bill and the Millennium Challenge in the United States Senate, and as someone who worked with the president on [the U.S. President's Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief] PEPFAR to deal with the issue of AIDS in Africa, I believe it's absolutely essential," Santorum replied.

"Africa was a country on the brink of complete meltdown and chaos."

But Santorum is in good company.

At a CNN debate in Las Vegas earlier this year, Republican presidential candidate Michele Bachmann seemed not to know that Libya was in Africa.

"Now with the president, he put us in Libya," Bachmann declared. "He is now putting us in Africa. We already were stretched too thin, and he put our special operations forces in Africa."

rest at

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2011/11/22/at-gop-debate-santorum-claims-africa-is-a-country/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+TheRawStory+%28The+Raw+Story%29

@questlove should apologize for Bachman [sic] song as soon as NASCAR fans do for booing the First Lady @andrewbreitbart #p2 #tcot

from http://www.pensitoreview.com/2011/11/22/well-get-back-to-you-on-that/

@questlove should apologize for Bachman [sic] song as soon as NASCAR fans do for booing the First Lady.

Neal Brennan, comedian, on Twitter, reacting to outrage over The Roots playing the song, "Lying Ass Bitch" on the Jimmy Fallon Show as guest Michele Bachmann walked out. The idea was said to be that of drummer ?uestlove. Fallon himself tweeted, "@questlove is grounded."

@gop Super Committee Fails: How Republican Tax Intransigence Killed It: A Timeline @speakerboehner #p2 #tcot

By now we have all heard the latest in the months-long debate over reducing the nation's deficit — barring a last-minute miracle, the congressional super committee tasked with finding at least $1.5 trillion in deficit reduction will fail to come to an agreement. Cue handwringing by pundits lamenting the inability of both Democrats and Republicans to compromise.

The notion that both sides share in the blame is an easy line for commentators to repeat, but it isn't true. Time and time again, the only thing preventing an agreement on long-term deficit reduction has been the Republicans' absolute refusal to consider any tax increases on high-income households as part of the solution. Michael Linden and I created a timeline of major events in the past six months of deficit talks:

• February 14, 2011: President Barack Obama submits budget for 2012 with about $2 trillion in deficit reduction, half of which come from spending cuts.
• April 15, 2011: House passes Rep. Paul Ryan's (R-WI) budget, which includes $5.8 trillion in spending cuts along with tax cuts for the richest Americans.
• May 5, 2011: Vice President Joe Biden begins debt talks.
• May 11, 2011: Speaker John Boehner (R-OH) says he will not raise debt limit without spending cuts that match how much the limit is raised.
• June 23, 2011: Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-VA) walks away from debt ceiling talks with Biden after refusing to consider any tax increases. The administration had offered $2.4 trillion in spending cuts for $400 billion in taxes, an 83:17 split.
• July 7, 2011: Obama and Boehner begin debt-ceiling negotiations.
• July 9, 2011: Boehner walks away from Obama's "grand bargain": $4 trillion in debt reduction comprised of $1 trillion in revenue and $3 trillion in spending cuts, including entitlement reforms.
• July 19, 2011: The Gang of Six proposes a $4 trillion deficit reduction plan, including $2 trillion in revenue.
• July 22, 2011: Again, Boehner walks away from negotiations after Obama offers $1.2 trillion in revenues and $1.6 trillion in spending cuts, including entitlements.
• July 31, 2011: Debt ceiling agreement is reached, cutting $1 trillion in spending immediately and establishing the super committee to reduce deficits by at least an additional $1.2 trillion.
• October 26, 2011: Democrats first super committee offer is $3 trillion in deficit reduction comprised of about $1.3 trillion in revenues and $1.7 trillion in spending cuts, including cuts to Medicare and Medicaid. Republicans immediately reject it. Republicans' first super committee offer is $2.2 trillion in deficit reduction, which includes no new tax revenues.
• November 8, 2011: Republicans' second super committee offer is $1.5 trillion in deficit reduction. It does include $300 billion in new tax revenue, but in exchange for extending the Bush tax cuts and lowering the top tax rate. The plan would ultimately cut taxes for the wealthy and raise them for everyone else.
• November 10, 2011: Democrats' second offer is $2.3 trillion in deficit reduction, consisting of $1.3 trillion in spending cuts and $1 trillion in revenue. The revenue would be split between $350 billion in concrete measures and $650 billion in future tax reform. Republicans reject it.
• November 11, 2011: Democrats agree to Republicans' top lines including just $400 billion in revenues and $875 billion in spending cuts, but refuse to accept the GOP's tax cut for the rich. Republicans reject it and make their final offer: $640 billion in spending cuts and $3 billion in revenues.

What this timeline shows is just how much Democrats have been willing to bend, only to have Republicans reject very generous offers. Back in June, Democrats reportedly offered a mere $400 billion in tax increases as part of a $2.4 trillion deficit reduction package — a 83:17 ratio of spending cuts to tax increases. Republicans said no.

And they haven't budged an inch since then, stubbornly insisting that any deficit reduction package consist entirely of spending cuts. Even after Democrats on the super committee agreed to the Republican top line of $400 billion in revenues, Republicans refused to make a deal.

Looking at all the offers rejected by Republicans, it comes as no surprise that the super committee will not reach a deal. By rejecting any mix of spending cuts and tax increases, Republicans ensured that there would be no agreement a deficit reduction package.

rest at http://www.truth-out.org/super-committee-fails-how-republican-tax-intransigence-kills-it-timeline/1321914735

Thom Hartmann: Occupy Wall Street is Bringing Down the Big Banks @andrewbreitbart #ows #p2 #tcot

In today's On the News segment: Occupy Wall Street is bringing down the big banks, Gang of 12 SuperCommittee failed to come up with a compromise, according to a new study – you're better off watching no news than GOP TV's Fox so-called News, religious lobbying groups on Capitol Hill have increased five-fold since Roe v. Wade, and more.

from http://www.truth-out.org/news-thom-hartmann-occupy-wall-street-bringing-down-big-banks-and-more/1321984652

fear the @GOP - GOP Super Committee Co-Chair: Lawmakers Failed Because Democrats Refused To Privatize Medicare #p2 #tcot @speakerboehner

http://thinkprogress.org/health/2011/11/22/374514/gop-super-committee-co-chair-lawmakers-failed-because-democrats-refused-to-privatize-medicare/

Rep. Jeb Hensarling (R-TX) faults the Democrats' refusal to accept partial Medicare privatization for the super committee's inability to come up with a bipartisan plan to lower spending in today's Wall Street Journal. He writes, "Democrats on the committee made it clear that the new spending called for in the president's health law was off the table" and pretends that the spending in the Affordable Care Act added to the deficit (it actually reduces it). "Republicans offered to negotiate a plan on the other two health-care entitlements—Medicare and Medicaid—based upon the reforms included in the budget the House passed earlier this year," he continues and lays out the premium support proposal offered by Alice Rivlin and Pete Domenici:

The Medicare reforms would make no changes for those in or near retirement. Beginning in 2022, beneficiaries would be guaranteed a choice of Medicare-approved private health coverage options and guaranteed a premium-support payment to help pay for the plan they choose….These seniors would be able to choose from a list of Medicare-guaranteed coverage options, similar to the House budget's approach—except that Rivlin-Domenici would continue to include a traditional Medicare fee-for-service plan among the options.

This approach was also rejected by committee Democrats.

The Congressional Budget Office, the Medicare trustees, and the Government Accountability Office have each repeatedly said that our health-care entitlements are unsustainable. Committee Democrats offered modest adjustments to these programs, but they were far from sufficient to meet the challenge. And even their modest changes were made contingent upon a minimum of $1 trillion in higher taxes—a move sure to stifle job creation during the worst economy in recent memory.

Hensarling doesn't mention that the Rivlin-Domenici premium-support proposal doesn't so much lower national health care spending as it shifts it to the beneficiary. The plan reduces the federal contribution to Medicare by capping costs for each beneficiary and offering premium support credits that won't keep up with actual health care spending. The federal government spends less, but seniors will pay more out of pocket for health care benefits every year. The proposal also breaks up the market clout of traditional Medicare and rather than ratcheting up some of efficiencies and payment reforms in the Affordable Care Act, it sets the nation on an untested path of private competition — leaving seniors vulnerable to the manipulations of for-profit health insurers.

Democrats, for their part, offered rather substantial concessions on Medicare spending. As the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities argued, the Democrats' $3 trillion deficit proposal to the super committee "stands well to the right of plans by the co-chairs of the bipartisan Bowles-Simpson commission and the Senate's 'Gang of Six,' and even further to the right of the plan by the bipartisan Rivlin-Domenici commission." The plan contained "substantially smaller revenue increases than those bipartisan proposals while, for example, containing significantly deeper cuts in Medicare and Medicaid than the Bowles-Simpson plan." For instance, Bowles-Simpson offered $383 billion in Medicare and Medicaid, while Democrats put $475 billion on the table.

President Obama introduced $320 billion in health care savings, mostly from the pharmaceutical industry and other providers, including rural hospitals, teaching hospitals, and biotechnology firms. But the plan even incorporated the GOP's push for greater means testing in Medicare, asking some wealthier beneficiaries to pay more for coverage and sought to give beneficiaries "skin in the game" — as the GOP puts it — to discourage over treatment.

All of these are significant concessions — as are the health cuts included in the trigger mechanism — but Hensarling and Republicans aren't interested in bipartisan agreement. They're not accepting anything short of Medicare privatization.

sick: Former AIG CEO Sues Claiming Taxpayers Need To Pony Up $25 Billion More @gop @andrewbreitbart #p2 #tcot

http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2011/11/22/374472/former-aig-ceo-sues-claiming-taxpayers-need-to-pony-up-25-billion-more/

For many years, insurance behemoth AIG was so poorly managed that the American taxpayer eventually had to invest nearly $70 billion in the incompetently run company to prevent its collapse from taking the entire U.S. economy along with it (much of this money has since been repaid). Former AIG CEO Maurice Greenberg, however, thinks that the American people haven't done enough to protect his massive fortune, so his company filed a lawsuit demanding even more taxpayer money:

Starr International, the company run by the former head of insurance giant American International Group (AIG), has filed a $25 billion lawsuit against the federal government, arguing that the takeover of the insurance company at the height of the financial crisis was unconstitutional.

When the government took an 80 percent interest in AIG during the financial crisis, it did so without "due process or just compensation," in violation of the Fifth Amendment of the Constitution, according to the suit filed Monday in the U.S. Court of Federal Claims.

The unbridled arrogance of this lawsuit is astonishing. While the wealthy insurance baron is correct that the Constitution does not allow private property to be taken "without just compensation" — a requirement that generally requires the government to pay a property owner the fair market value for their property — his legal complaint can be rebutted with just one chart:

That's the near total collapse of AIG's stock price immediately after investors learned that the insurance giant was little more than a smoking pile of toxic assets. So, at the time when the federal government took a supermajority interest in AIG, the fair market value for this interest was only slightly north of zero. Rather than receiving zero dollars for AIG's mix of toxic sludge, however, AIG received tens of billions of dollars from the American people.

Now, however, its former CEO wants even more.

Study Shows Fox News Viewers Less Informed on Major Stories @foxnews #p2 #tcot

Quick, were Egyptian protesters successful in their bid to overthrow longtime president Hosni Mubarak earlier this year?

According to a new poll (PDF) from Fairleigh Dickinson University, if you watch Fox News you are significantly less likely to know the correct answer to that question than if you mostly avoid news shows and newspapers all together.

After controlling for factors like partisanship, education, and other demographic factors, the pollsters found that Fox New viewers were 18 points less likely to know that the revolt was successful than their non-active news consuming counterparts. Fox News viewers were also 6 points less likely to know that the Syrian uprising has yet to succeed.

"Because of the controls for partisanship, we know these results are not just driven by Republicans or other groups being more likely to watch Fox News," said Dan Cassino, a Fairleigh Dickinson political science professor who took part in the analysis of the PublicMind data. "Rather, the results show us that there is something about watching Fox News that leads people to do worse on these questions than those who don't watch any news at all."

The poll surveyed 612 adult residents of New Jersey (insert Snooki joke here), asking them where they got their news from in the previous week and then a handful of questions about current events. (The survey was taken last month, so the current Egyptian protests that broke out in recent days could not have added to the confusion). Respondents were given 12 possible news options: NPR, The Daily Show with Jon Stewart, a Sunday morning political news show, a national newspaper like the New York Times or USA Today, a political blog or news website, a national news broadcast, CNN, MSNBC, a talk radio show, a local newspaper, a local television news broadcast and Fox News.

For comparison, other media sources appeared to boost respondents' knowledge. From the PublicMind report:

rest at http://slatest.slate.com/posts/2011/11/21/fairleigh_dickinson_publicmind_poll_shows_fox_news_viewers_less_informed_on_major_news_stories.html?from=rss/&wpisrc=newsletter_slatest

Banks' Spending on Lobbyists Reaches Record High #p2 #tcot @andrewbreitbart

U.S. banks have taken a beating to their public images lately, between Occupy Wall Street protests and a wave of customers moving their money to credit unions.

Their bottom lines, though? Well, those are looking pretty good.

Banks just posted their highest quarterly profits in four years, the Wall Street Journal reported Tuesday, with a net income of $35 billion. That's a whopping 49-percent increase from the same quarter last year. This was the industry's ninth consecutive profitable quarter, the Journal notes.

It's not that banks are lending a lot of new money, however. The gains have come as the economy's gradual recovery has reduced banks' need to set aside large amounts of cash to cover losses on bad loans. Still, Bloomberg News reported Tuesday that bank purchases of risky, leveraged loans has also risen to its highest level in four years.

What else are banks doing with their growing profits, at a time when they're under public pressure for perceived excesses, including their outsize influence in Washington?

Spending more money on lobbyists, of course!

An analysis by the Charlotte Observer, hometown paper of Bank of America, found that "the money banks spend on lobbying is on pace to reach a record high again this year as the industry battles to weaken or repeal hundreds of rules being crafted by federal regulators." From the story:

At this time last year, the commercial banking industry had spent about $42 million on lobbying, the center's data show. So far this year, the figure stands at nearly $47 million. Should this year's pace continue, 2011 will be the sixth straight year that commercial bank lobbying has set a record, according to the (Center for Responsive Politics, a research group that tracks federal lobbying activity).

rest at http://slatest.slate.com/posts/2011/11/22/banks_spending_on_lobbyists_hits_record_high_amid_rising_profits.html?from=rss/&wpisrc=newsletter_slatest

Mercedes Exec Arrested Under Ala. Immigration Law #p2 #tcot

Good thing Alabama passed the nation's toughest immigration law: No longer can Mercedes-Benz executives drive around the state with impunity.

A German manager for the automaker, which opened a factory in the Alabama in 1993, was hauled into jail last week after an officer pulled him over because his rental car didn't have tags. He had his German identification card with him, but not his passport. The new law, passed in June, requires police to arrest anyone they suspect of being in the country illegally if the suspect can't produce identification.

He was released after one of his business associates retrieved his passport from his hotel, Tuscaloosa Police Chief Steven Anderson told The Associated Press.

Upon hearing of the incident, Alabama governor Robert Bentley called the state's homeland security director to find out what had happened, the Washington Post reports. But there was no mistake; the arrest was exactly what was supposed to happen under the law that Bentley signed earlier this year. And, presumably, it's what now happens on a routine basis to other, less-prominent people around the state, whether in the country legally or not.

rest at http://slatest.slate.com/posts/2011/11/21/mercedes_benz_executive_arrested_under_alabama_immigration_law.html?from=rss/&wpisrc=newsletter_slatest