90.9 WBUR - Boston's NPR news station
Top Stories:
PLEDGE NOW
Week In The News: Flight Search, Annexation, Recall

Malaysia Flight 370. Crimea, annexed by Russia. Car company troubles. March Madness. Our weekly news roundtable goes behind the headlines.

Russian President Vladimir Putin speaks with Defense Minister Sergei Shoigu, right, during a meeting in Moscow's Kremlin on Thursday, March 20, 2014. Russia faces further sanctions from the European Union on Thursday over its annexation of the Crimean Peninsula as tensions in the region remained high despite the release of a Ukrainian naval commander. (AP)

Russian President Vladimir Putin speaks with Defense Minister Sergei Shoigu, right, during a meeting in Moscow’s Kremlin on Thursday, March 20, 2014. Russia faces further sanctions from the European Union on Thursday over its annexation of the Crimean Peninsula as tensions in the region remained high despite the release of a Ukrainian naval commander. (AP)

A missing plane took over the news again this week.  Flight 370.  Just gone.  But there was much more.  Russia, swallowing Crimea.  Not blinking at Western sanctions.  Everyone wondering how far Putin will go.  Another big GM auto recall and a record fine on Toyota.  The highest ranking US military officer ever court-martialed in a sexual assault case, off with a minor reprimand.  We’ve got news from the first second of the Big Bang.  Rand Paul reaching big tent.  Obamacare in the home stretch for sign-up.  This hour On Point: our weekly news roundtable goes behind the headlines.

– Tom Ashbrook

Guests

Karen Tumulty, national political correspondent for the Washington Post. (@ktumulty)

Michael Hirsh, chief correspondent for the National Journal. (@michaelphirsh)

Jack Beatty, On Point news analyst.

From Tom’s Reading List

TIME: GM CEO Mary Barra’s Stark Apology: ‘Terrible Things Happened’ — “Barra said the company has sent out letters to customers, and recalled an additional 1.55 million autos as part of its ongoing internal safety review. GM is increasing production lines to help replace parts in faulty recalled cars and dedicating a slew of new customer-service representatives to deal with the problem, she said.”

National Journal: Hillary Clinton Steps Away From Obama on Foreign Policy — “In recent weeks, as the standoff over Ukraine escalated, Hillary Clinton did something that she never did as secretary of State: She put considerable distance between herself and the president she served loyally for four years. While Barack Obama cautiously warned Vladimir Putin to back off his claims on Ukraine, Clinton rolled out a rhetorical cannon, comparing the Russian president’s moves to the seizure of territory by Adolf Hitler that set off World War II.”

Washington Post: Senators return from Ukraine, call for aid package, Russia sanctions — “Upon their return, four of the senators appeared on Sunday morning talk shows to increase the sense of urgency surrounding the bill, which passed the Senate Foreign Relations Committee last week but has gotten tangled in a separate set of issues involving changes to the International Monetary Fund that some Republicans oppose.”

Please follow our community rules when engaging in comment discussion on this site.
  • Fredlinskip

    In order for the EU to apply any sanctions towards Russia, all 28 members must agree?
    Good luck with that.
    BY 2015 maybe they will have decided to do something.

    • Don_B1

      That is almost always the problem with democracies getting together to oppose another country where that opposition will require a substantial cost, at least until one of them is invaded by the aggressor country.

  • pete18
  • Fiscally_Responsible

    The scientific community announced further proof of the Big Bang Theory this past week as evidenced by space ripples. If I am correct, the Big Bang Theory is generally presented as the starting point of our universe. Three questions. How did the matter that supposedly exploded at the big bang come into existence? If someone argues that it always existed, that would seem to take a great amount of faith and does not offer a satisfactory explanation as everything in our existence has a beginning. That would seem to require the same amount of faith as the person who believes that an eternal, omnipotent, transcendent being, namely God, created matter out of nothing. Secondly, how did empty space come into existence? Thirdly, if for the sake of argument, we assume that matter always existed, why did it suddenly explode 14 billion years ago? Why didn’t it explode 28 billion years ago? Or better yet, why didn’t it explode infinity ago since it existed from eternity past? I am not trying to be a wise guy by asking these questions, but genuinely would like to understand how those who accept the Big Bang Theory explain these very difficult questions. To simply choose the moment of the Big Bang Theory as the starting point appears to me to be arbitrary and convenient as it does not answer the deepest question of how space, time, and matter came into existence in the first place.

    • SteveTheTeacher

      How did the matter that supposedly exploded at the big bang come into existence?

      I’ve found that even top Physicists still have different perspectives on some of the core concepts regarding the structure/origin of space-time and matter. Here’s my understanding.

      Matter is composed of particles which, according to String Theory, are the vibrational modes of a one dimensional string in multi-dimensional space-time.

      Why does space-time have this structure and starting point?

      In multiverse theory, there are universes with different structures of space-time and different times at which they come into / go out of existence. So our universe has this structure and starting point because such a universe is possible. Our conscience presence in this universe is just happenstance. Perhaps in other universes, with different structures and starting points, there are other conscious beings asking similar questions.

      • Fiscally_Responsible

        I sincerely appreciate your explanation. But what caused all of that to occur? And again, assuming all of that is true and has existed for eternity, why didn’t the Big Bang occur eternity ago?

        • SteveTheTeacher

          I don’t believe that there is a concensus among Physicists.

          I’m favor the theory that this all occurred in the manner and time in which it occurred because it is the consequence of the particular dimensionality of our spacetime. Differently structured dimensionalities that are possible exist in different universes that are at different stages of development – different ages i.e. if a structure is mathematically possible, it exists at some stage in its development somewhere. Any conscience beings in any of these differently structured universes could ask similar questions.

          The question of age of the universe may be a function are our ability to sense time. Perhaps if we had a different sense of time, we would look at the overall lifespan of our universe.

          Until there is proof, however, this is all just theory.

        • Ray in VT

          Maybe it did. Perhaps this universe is only the most recent version of our universe, having banged and crunched many times.

          • Fiscally_Responsible

            But what started it all?

          • Ray in VT

            Who knows? Science can answer many questions. Some it cannot. Some questions are not a part of the scope of science.

          • Fiscally_Responsible

            It seems to me that the scientific community is claiming to be able to answer a very fundamental question when it claims to understand the universe by proving the big bang. If they cannot answer the fundamental questions concerning the origin of matter/space/time before the big bang supposedly occurred, they are not providing any definitive answers to the ultimate questions of life and existence. At this point, their objective analysis of what is observable collapses and they believe what they believe (e.g. “matter always existed”) based simply on faith. Their scientific explanation becomes something of a facade.

          • Ray in VT

            At one point we could not prove that the Earth was round, but the mathematical basis for such a conclusion existed over 2,000 years ago. Science takes time, and it is limited by many factors.

            Science searches for facts, all of which are not yet available to us. It still offers far more in the way of concrete facts than relying upon a belief is some sort of all knowing, all powerful creator of everything. Someone once said something to the effect that God is everything that science cannot prove. I just want some proof. If religion could offer that, then I would be more inclined towards it.

          • Don_B1

            Eratosthenes calculated the circumference of the Earth (proving that it was round) while in Egypt around the time of his appointment as the head of the Library at Alexandria, 245 BCE. He may also have calculated the distance of the Earth from the Sun.

          • Ray in VT

            He was pretty close on the Earth. I don’t recall hearing about a similar calculation for the Sun. I find really amazing the advanced mathematical and astronomical calculations that societies were able to make centuries or millennia ago.

          • Don_B1

            His calculation was really clever: he measured the angle to the sun from the shadow cast by a vertical post at two points on the Earth, one some 50 miles (as I remember) directly north of the other at noon on the same day. Then the angle to the sun could be calculated by triangle mathematics and the difference in the angles at the two locations showed the amount of the earth’s circumference lay between those two points on the Earth, so the total circumference was just that difference multiplied by the ratio of 360° over the calculated angle. [Sorry for the probably awkward exposition.]

          • SteveTheTeacher

            As an atheist, I used to assume that science and math was above the leaps of faith of religion.

            However, as I studied topics such as Godel’s incompleteness theorem, I came to understand that even science and math are founded on leaps of faith. Even in math, there are things that can not be proven true or false.

            Example:
            (aleph)0 = countable infinity

            (aleph)1 = the next infinity with a cardinality higher than (aleph)0.

            It in not possible to prove whether it is true all false that the real numbers equal (aleph)1.

            It is also not possible to prove true or false whether 2^(aleph)alpha = (aleph)alpha+1

          • jefe68

            As I understand it, religion uses absolutes to explain what is unknown. The Catholic church has evolved over time as science developed and was able to explain away what was thought to be the work of God.
            We no longer see the earth as flat nor as the center of our solar system. The Catholic Church has excepted evolution as well. Funny how those absolutes seem to give way to the discoveries of science.

          • Ray in VT

            I was raised Catholic, and whereas there is much about the Church with which I disagree, I at least give it credit for accepting science.

          • Don_B1

            Exactly! Your use of the term, “absolutes,” might better be replaced with the term, “dogma,” which refer to founding principles of a belief system, which supposedly depends on each one’s truth or the whole system might fall apart.

            However, often there are unnecessary additions to the belief system’s dogma that lead to huge problems between those who recognize the particular belief is not necessary and those who, for reasons which are not often rational, refuse to recognize that non-necessity.

          • Don_B1

            Those that want to explore this issue can start with learning about Gödel’s Incompleteness Theorems, where the inability of any mathematical system more complicated than simple integer arithmetic (basically counting) cannot both prove all true theorems and be consistent, which means that both the theorem and its negative cannot both be proven true.

          • Fiscally_Responsible

            I appreciate your honesty in admitting that science and math are founded upon leaps of faith. Most atheists and scientists refuse to admit that, or fool themselves into thinking that what they believe is totally based on what is observable, logical, and based upon fact. Ultimately, their view of the universe has an underlying set of faith-based beliefs in what can not be observed, explained, or proven.

          • Don_B1

            You (and maybe SteveTheTeacher, but more likely just a mis-wording on his part) have seized on “leaps of faith” as a foundation of science and math, which has the following problem(s):

            1) Science is the study of real world objects and the collection of data that is related to that data. It collects that data to enable the detection of causal relationships between events. When this process is performed carefully, the whole of history shows that the results so obtained are robust and allow predictions of the results of actions. And only when predictions are shown to be accurate is the science of the process under inspection/study considered acceptable as a scientific theory. That does not always mean that the theory is complete, as more data may show that different things happen when there are different conditions than the ones that were studied when the theory was formulated. An easy example of this is the development of Newton’s Law of Motion, which were shown to not be complete, but simply approximations of what happens when the speed of the object being considered was much less than the speed of light, which requires Einstein’s Theory of (Special) Relativity.

            2) Mathematics is founded on sets of axioms, which through rigorous systems of proof lead to mathematical relationships between various mathematical objects which can be defined in terms of those axioms. When real world objects can be shown to have the same characteristics as the mathematical objects, then it is reasonable to believe that the mathematical relationship obtains between the real world objects. Mathematics is, at its core, the study of patterns and the relationships between those patterns.

            While it may take some degree of faith that all the past experience of science allowing humans to develop a deep understanding of the world around them and the usefulness of mathematics to enable both the codification of the relationships and the ability to quantify those relationships in highly accurate ways will continue, it is not a “leap of faith” in the way you are implying. It is a deeper faith in that humans can even begin to comprehend the universe, not that humans, once that ability is assumed, can do it well and answer ever more complicated questions that before each new level of understanding is achieved is viewed as not answerable.

            [Sorry that the quick response may have left this less intelligible than maybe it should be.]

          • SteveTheTeacher

            In addition to being an atheist, I am a proud Geek. I’ve studied a lot of math, Physics, etc. The more I learn, the more humbled I feel.

            I am open to the reality that a more intelligent species may find my leap of faith in the notion of the existence of space and time invariant relations as ridiculous (or profound) as the notion of god.

            The famous mathematician Norbert Wiener said:

            “In mathematics you don’t understand things, you just get used to them.”

            Perhaps my belief in the fundamental mathematical/physical structure of the universe has more to do with my being comfortable with this notion.

        • Jasoturner

          Perhaps causality is not relevant here. Why do neutral carbon atoms have six electrons? There is no reason, but that is what carbon is…

          • Don_B1

            The structure of the atom, even the possibility of some atoms, is shown to be a function of the strength relationship of the four known physical forces, gravity, the electromagnetic force, and the nuclear strong and weak forces. Changing the ratios of some of those forces would make the combinations of protons and neutrons in the nucleus of many atoms totally unstable.

            See some of the works of John Gribbin, a British astrophysicist and science writer for discussion.

            If I remember correctly, his book, In the Beginning: After COBE and before the Big Bang published by Bullfinch Press, gives the most detail. It is also possible that he has written a more detailed account in one of his other publications. See his works, listed here:

            http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Gribbin

          • Jasoturner

            But why six electrons rather than eight for our friend carbon? It is simply that way. I was not contending that there might not be a cause of atomic formation at all.

          • Don_B1

            Because there is basically an element for each integer number from 1 to 92 (and above if you consider elements that exist only over nanoseconds).

            What I was indicating was that without the particular ratio of the physical forces in this universe (and physicists have speculated on why those ratios have occurred) the atom of carbon might not be stable and therefore would not exist. And that ratio is the reason that an element with six electrons, which balance the charge of the six protons in the nucleus, does exist.

        • Don_B1

          Much of what your are wondering about may well be discussed here:

          http://www.columbiaspectator.com/news/2014/02/26/brian-greene-teach-first-world-science-u-courses

          though this deals directly with relativity (special) it may well touch on other things.

          Neil DeGrasse Tyson has a website worth exploring:

          http://www.haydenplanetarium.org/tyson/

          and a new series on Fox/NGC with an update/successor to the Carl Sagan Cosmos program (which is still available from Amazon for just over $100.

    • OnPointComments

      “In the beginning there was nothing, which exploded.” –Terry Pratchett

    • Ed75

      Two questions are easy: the big bang was not only the beginning of matter, but also of space: it didn’t explode into empty space, there was no space. The picture is of a balloon that is being blown up.
      The second question is about time: the big bang was not only the start of matter and of space, but also of time. So to ask ‘Why then and not before’ is not a possible question. There was no time before that.
      The third question: Father Spitzer, an astro-physicist, argues that the proven theories we have so far make the idea of an expand/crunch/expand eternal universe not possible, and makes other universes (which are just mathematical possibilities) not necessary. The best explanation, even scientifically, seems to me that there was nothing, and then there was something. We call the person who started it God.
      (Mr. Tyson in Cosmos said of Genesis ‘how could there be light before the sun and moon are created – the big bang produces a lot of light, non-visible, which we pick up today, long before the sun and moon.)

      • Fiscally_Responsible

        But if matter and space did not exist prior to the big bang, then why was there a big bang? Something must have existed prior to that supposed event. How did that predecessor come into being? I am raising the most fundamental of questions, which the scientific community has no answers for, other than a different form of faith-based system.

        • Don_B1

          Many physicists believe it was a large-scale instance of what has been observed in empty space, where, at the quantum level, matter and antimatter appear from the “void” and then recombine in a burst of energy and thus disappear.

          But see my earlier post on where to learn more about cosmology.

        • Ed75

          It’s amazing that we can know these things, one proof of God for me. But they seem to think that at the start all the mass of the universe was in something the size of a pea, or smaller. (Now atoms have 99.999…% empty space, this is complete density.) That’s not really the big bang. What happened next, in the next partial second, was an expansion or inflation that took place with matter moving faster than the speed of light. This initial matter coupled with this massive expansion seems to me what they refere to as the Big Bang.
          Science is trying, anaylzing radiation it can still detect from this event, but it hasn’t gotten back before the first few seconds. The gravity waves this week was a peak into those early moments, as predicted by Einstein’s theory. Incredible. But if God created what exists out of nothing, there need not have been something that existed prior, before that only God had being.

          • Ray in VT

            So what created God? If the universe needs to have been created, then why does the creator not need to have been created?

          • Ed75

            I should have said that the scientists don’t know where the initial matter came from, we say God created it out of nothing. Anyway, God is by definition not created, God is pure being. Other things exist (‘ex-ist’ – stand out from) because he shares being with them. The words Yahweh spoke to Moses are very exact: Tell them my name is ‘I am’. Being itself.

          • Ed75

            (Aristotle called God the prime mover, the uncaused cause … if he had been created, he wouldn’t be God, whatever created him would be God.)

          • Fiscally_Responsible

            God is the uncaused cause of everything that exists. He is eternal, which we can’t understand. He existed for eternity apart from His creation, which took place at a given point in time as a break from eternity past. He exists outside of His creation (transcends it). It is impossible for anyone to really understand how something or someone could have existed from eternity past as everything in our experience has a beginning point. Yet that is what the Bible teaches, and Christians accept it by faith as it is taught. Big bang theorists believe by faith that matter always existed, or it came into being from something else, but ultimately they also believe that something always existed. The difference is that Christians readily admit that much of what they accept about origins, they believe by faith. Big bang theorists refuse to admit that if pressed with questions such as I have asked, that faith is ultimately the basis for what they believe as well. By framing what they believe as science, or by arbitrarily using the big bang as the starting point, they are able to avoid the questions/issues that prove that theirs is ultimately a similar faith-based system.

          • Ray in VT

            Sure. Whatever you want to think. Tell me, why should something so powerful care if two guys get it on, or why is it that once wearing a shirt of two fabrics was an abomination, but then it became fine? Science is always searching for answers, even to the most difficult questions, which is something that faith, with it’s handed down myths, rarely seeks, in my experience.

          • JS

            I take umbrage with your assumption that, ” Big bang theorists believe by faith that matter always existed…”. All the Big Bang says it that matter exploded and created the universe. What was before, where did the mater come from, these questions haven’t been answered, so there is no “faith” in them, just more questions for scientists to ponder. Again, what is wrong with saying, “We don’t know ….yet.”

        • JS

          Lets take your question back a few thousand years: “How does the lava spew forth from the volcano? How can fire come from rock?” Back then there was no answer…till scientist started asking the right questions. To talk about “before the Big Bang” or “Something from Nothing” is akin to the people of 10,000BC asking where does lava come from. We just haven’t gotten there yet, and may not be even asking the right questions.

          • Don_B1

            Exactly!

            As a corollary, I loved Neil DeGrasse Tyson’s statement that what he considered the most important questions are the questions that will be asked when the next discovery is made or theory proposed because that new information will raise new questions that cannot be imagined now.

          • JS

            “Knowledge is an island in an infinite sea of mystery; as the island grows, so does the shoreline along which we encounter the mysterious.” – Chet Raymo

    • Ed75

      Oh, and nothing outside that balloon.

    • jimino

      Matter works in mysterious ways.

      Call it “God” if you want. But giving it a human face is the most arrogant thought ever formed by mankind.

      • Fiscally_Responsible

        I was simply trying to ask what I thought were very logical and legitimate questions targeted at those who present the Big Bang Theory as the definitive answer to the origin of everything. My point was simply that defining the Big Bang moment as the starting point is arbitrary and ultimately doesn’t really answer the deepest questions. It seems that those who espouse the Big Bang Theory should be able to grapple with the questions that I asked if they really believe that their theory provides suitable answers to the fundamental questions. I believe that the ones who are demonstrating arrogance are actually the ones who espouse the Big Bang Theory without grappling with the questions that I have raised.

        • Don_B1

          In addition to the suggestions I have posted earlier on this program’s blog, there is a great discussion of this new discovery on this week’s Science Friday:

          http://sciencefriday.com/segment/03/21/2014/detecting-the-bang-from-the-big-bang.html?

          which you can listen to online (in the webpage linked above or on your local NPR station if it carries it. If not, please request your local NPR station to begin to carry it.

        • JS

          I answered all your questions, “We don’t know….yet.”

    • nj_v2

      Big Bang? “God” created it all in six days.

      • Fiscally_Responsible

        I raised some legitimate questions that those who support the big bang theory should be willing and able to answer rather than getting away with a rather fantastic assumption that the big bang was the explosion of matter “that was always here”. My point is that Christian faith in an eternal, transcendent God is generally criticized as simplistic and based upon blind faith. Yet big bang theorists typically get a pass by not being asked the hard questions that I have asked, such as where did all of this space and matter come from. People such as yourself hide behind a wall of sarcasm because they do not have answers to the questions that I have asked and which demonstrate that belief in the big bang is just another form of faith. The question is, did matter/space create itself, or does it make more sense to believe in an infinite, eternal, intelligent designer who transcends the creation that He spoke into existence? As Psalms 14:1 and 53:1 point out, “the fool has said in his heart, ‘there is no God’”.

        • JS

          “we don’t know…yet.”

        • Don_B1

          Your problem is that you are trying to equate science with religion. Since Religion presumes to provide an answer to all questions, you think that science must do the same.

          Not true!

          But Religion actually gives a simplistic answer to most questions beyond moralistic ones, and even some of those are simplistic. As an example, calling homosexuality immoral is simplistic because once it is recognized that it is not a “choice,” there is no valid reason for discriminating against those who have been created that way (by God, if you believe God created each individual).

          In Science, each discovery builds on previous discoveries and it takes time to build the framework to enable the next discovery. Each new discovery seems to create new questions, which must then be answered, which reveal yet new questions.

          Remember the maxim from John Wooden (UCLA basketball coach): “It’s what you learn after you know it all that counts.”

        • nj_v2

          Simply because our current level of rational understanding is not yet capable of understanding all aspects of Universe, doesn’t mean i’m ready to embrace the simple-minded fantasies offered by most organized religions.

          I’m more agnostic (or Buddhist/pagan/agnostic), so i’m not so much willing to say “There is no God” so much as “I don’t have to ability to conceptualize what some form of overarching, pervasive, infinite ‘intelligence’ might be.”

    • JS

      Whats wrong with, “We don’t know, but are trying to figure that out.” as an answer?

  • Jasoturner

    As we race to liquify and export natural gas, we seem to be largely ignoring the fact that as it becomes a global commodity, natural gas will become much more expensive for us here in the U.S. Currently, gas trades for up to $20/Dec in Japan, and only about $6/Dec here. How should this factor into our thinking about Russian adventurism and their control of vast energy resources that serve our European friends? Shall we inadvertently beggar ourselves in a effort to reduce the power of Russia’s energy franchise?

    • WorriedfortheCountry

      It is incredibly short sighted to push for energy exports. The nat. gas revolution has been the only thing to prop up our economy over the last couple years and has the chance to create a new export economy in higher value products from resurgent US manufacturing and chemicals from nat. gas feed stocks. Carl Pope claimed (here OnPoint) it would hurt Russia much more if we could drive oil below $90/barrel. He claimed that using CNG for transportation cold do it. I’m not sure but is is certainly better than a rush to exporting.

    • hennorama

      Jasoturner — perhaps we should be more interested in whether Carbon Capture and Sequestration (CCS) for coal is shown to be reasonably practical and effective, since coal is pretty abundant in Europe.

      The Kemper plant in Mississippi is scheduled to start up this year, although its circumstance may not be easily replicated.

      EU nations Germany, Poland, Czech Republic, Greece, Romania and Bulgaria are all top 20 coal producers, and all are in the top 20 in terms of worldwide reserves.

      BTW, Ukraine and Turkey are in the top 20 as well.

      Sources:
      http://sequestration.mit.edu/tools/projects/kemper.html
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coal_by_country

      • WorriedfortheCountry

        Strange comment. A revolution in CCS would have zero impact on Putin’s empire building. Unless I’m missing something?

        Get back to us when CCS is “easonably practical and effective” and affordable.

        • hennorama

          WftC — TYFYR.

          In the same way that the US becoming more energy independent and less reliant on petroleum produced in the Middle East and North Africa changes the geopolitical calculus, if Europe is able to do something similar vis-a-vis Russia, that changes the circumstances considerably.

          Neither LNG nor CCS is a short-term solution, obviously, but these are not actually short-term issues, are they?

          Thanks again for your response.

      • http://neilblanchard.blogspot.com/ Neil Blanchard

        Carbon capture and storage is probably a unicorn just like hydrogen cars.

        • WorriedfortheCountry

          Why the hate on hydrogen cars? They are just another form of electric car and there is a lot of smart money investing in them — especially from folks that have experience with batteries.

          • Don_B1

            Toyota has a demonstration vehicle and Mercedes-Benz has a vehicle also:

            http://ecomento.com/2014/03/20/mercedes-benz-hydrogen-fuel-cell-vehicle-could-arrive-in-2017/

            But the necessary infrastructure is definitely lagging!

          • WorriedfortheCountry

            Honda and Kia are investing too.
            It looks like CA will be leading on the infrastructure but there are still many hurdles.

          • Don_B1

            I believe those other car manufacturers were mentioned in the linked article.

          • http://neilblanchard.blogspot.com/ Neil Blanchard

            They are about as likely to happen as world peace – there are several huge practical hurdles that are just not going to be workable.

            Making hydrogen takes much more energy than it yields. It takes about 3.5X more electricity than just using a battery.

            Transporting hydrogen is very expensive, and very dangerous. Making it onsite is even harder. You can only drive HALF of the range away from a hydrogen fueling station.

            Compressing hydrogen is still low density, and yields less range than batteries.

            Fuel cells are very expensive, and they last about 75,000 miles.

            Hydrogen explodes. Hydrogen compressed to 10,000PSI explodes even bigger.

            Hydrogen leaks right through metal. You lose about 10% of it every week or so?

          • WorriedfortheCountry

            There are a lot of smart people who disagree with you. How do we know? Because they are investing oodles of their own money. What does Neil know that they don’t?

            I don’t know if they’ll be successful but I hope they work it out.

          • http://neilblanchard.blogspot.com/ Neil Blanchard

            No, the people who think hydrogen will be practical are the ones who want to make a profit from it. The same sort of people who said that nuclear power was cheap and safe.

          • WorriedfortheCountry

            Yes, but they are investing their own money in it. The market is usually pretty good as an arbiter of success. Why are you routing against it?

          • http://neilblanchard.blogspot.com/ Neil Blanchard

            Listen, when the market figures out how to solve climate change and pollution, then I’ll root for it.

            The market is profit driven, not reality driven. The market is what brought us slavery, and pollution.

          • WorriedfortheCountry

            Hmmm….. I’m trying to figure out your response. Hydrogen fuel cell vehicles ARE the holy grail for CO2 emissions and particulate pollution if they can be made economical. I still don’t get your aversion to them.

          • http://neilblanchard.blogspot.com/ Neil Blanchard

            They take far more energy to run than BEV’s (battery electric vehicles). Hydrogen is bunk as an energy storage system. Batteries are *much* better, and the electrical infrastructure is already here.

            What’s the mystery with that?

          • WorriedfortheCountry

            The experts disagree with you so the mystery is why you’ve made ‘absolute’ statements driving the nail in hydrogen.

            “By 2030, the Department of Energy, in conjunction with NAS, estimates that the price for an average FCV will be around $34,181, before government subsidies. That’s in comparison to the price for a BEV, which in 2030 is $34,979 .

            True, the FCV owner will have to pay for hydrogen, but the total ownership cost per mile is $0.358, just slightly above the $0.355 cost for battery-powered cars. More pointedly, when refueling, the greenhouse gas emissions from hydrogen produced from natural gas are estimated to be 45% to 60% of a gasoline-powered car by 2035 — less overall than the GHG emissions from charging a BEV.”

            http://www.fool.com/investing/general/2013/11/16/toyotas-hydrogen-vs-teslas-batteries-which-car-wil.aspx

          • http://neilblanchard.blogspot.com/ Neil Blanchard

            Hydrogen fuel cells will never be widespread, or practical.

            We cannot have *any* greenhouse gas emissions – from fossil fuels, in 12-15 years – if we want to avoid the worst of climate change.

          • WorriedfortheCountry

            Given the DOE projection for GHG emissions between the two technologies you should be routing for FCVs to be successful.

          • http://neilblanchard.blogspot.com/ Neil Blanchard

            Rout: rout·ing, routs
            1. To put to disorderly flight or retreat: “the flock of starlings which Jasper had routed with his gun” (Virginia Woolf).
            2. To defeat overwhelmingly. See Synonyms at defeat.

            It is spelled rooting.

            Hydrogen is a lousy energy storage system. It is not an energy source. FCV’s will always have higher energy input than BEV’s. Because. Physics.

          • WorriedfortheCountry

            Ah, we found the flaw in your thought process. You assume hydrogen production efficiencies and FC efficiency cannot be improved. There is research in both areas. Right now there appears to be projected parity between the two technologies. However, the range of FCV gives it an edge. To be fair, battery research is not static either. Looks like a horse race to me. I hope they both succeed.

          • JS

            WorriedfortheCountry, you spelled something wrong, therefore your argument is invalid! (sarcasm directed at Neil)

          • http://neilblanchard.blogspot.com/ Neil Blanchard

            EV’s are already ~92% efficient plug-to-wheel. Batteries are already good enough, and any improvements is gravy.

            Making hydrogen is what it is – and it is less than 30% efficient, and that is before you compress it, or transport it.

            Hydrogen is a non-starter. It will never happen on a large scale.

          • Jasoturner

            But this is a different issue.

            Hydrogen powered engines are readily constructed with today’s technology and manufacturing.

            You are really bringing up concerns about the production, transportation and storage of hydrogen. Who knows? Maybe they figure out a way to trap hydrogen within buckey-balls or something and learn how to extract it without burning the carbon cage itself. Maybe you set up huge solar plants in the desert to do nothing but crack water all day.

            There are definitely some interesting ideas out there…

            http://www.nature.com/news/liquid-storage-could-make-hydrogen-a-feasible-fuel-1.12518

          • http://neilblanchard.blogspot.com/ Neil Blanchard

            We already know how to have solid metal be a “sponge” for hydrogen – but that doesn’t solve getting and transporting hydrogen.

        • Ray in VT

          Maybe, but I’m in favor of pursuing it as a possible option.

        • hennorama

          Neil Blanchard — thank you for your response.

          You may be correct about CCS. The Kemper plant will certainly answer several questions about their particular combination of processes, outputs, and end uses, and whether this type of CCS can work on a large scale.

      • Jasoturner

        Good day to you hennorama,

        I am very skeptical of this technology. Most waste repositories eventually leak, for one thing. For another, carbonic acid will be formed in storage areas that contain moisture. How this will affect underground life is not understood as far as I know. It has also been written that a large leak could potentially blanket a significant area of land with CO2, driving out oxygen, with the concomitant unpleasant side effects.

        Yes, CCS will be interesting to study in situ. Perhaps I will be pleasantly surprised by it’s effectiveness and utility.

        At least there is a smidgeon of hope out there, too…

        http://www.nytimes.com/2014/03/18/science/the-challenge-how-to-keep-fusion-going-long-enough.html

        • hennorama

          Jasoturner — TY for your response.

          I too am skeptical of the technology, but if it works ….

          The Kemper project has a confluence of circumstances that may not be replicable:

          It is next to a lignite mine, a source of cheap fuel and resulting low transport costs.

          There’s inexpensive treated wastewater available for its processes.

          It will sell and pipe the CO2 to two companies that will use it to recover additional oil from old wells.

          At the least, a great deal will be learned about the potential for large-scale CCS.
          And, if it works …

  • Ed75

    A busy week in the news. The Vatican is going to open the archives about Pope Pius XII soon, and the greatest smear campaign of the 20th century, that he did not help the Jewish people, will be uncovered as ridiculous. (See Pave the Way Foundation, http://www.ptwf.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=132:pope-pius-xii&catid=91&Itemid=595).
    People – even two cardinals – are suggesting that people who are married in the Church and get divorced and remarry without an anullment might be able to receive Communion after a penitential time. No, not even possible. The pope and Cardinal Burke, among others, have made this clear. But the media doesn’t cover the whole story, only the pieces it likes.
    There will be strong debate in the October Synod on the family.
    The pope, it turns out, is speaking about Christ, not only about pro-life and marriage issues. But he is leaving that more to us.
    It turns out that Pope Benedict has been consulted by Pope Francis from time to time, so it’s as if we have two popes working for our church and the world. Wonderful. See the latest World Over on EWTN (Sunday 7:00) for details.

  • Don_B1

    It would be nice to remember the life of Robert S. Strauss, who died on Wednesday at the age of 95, having made contributions, some controversial in national politics, one of the most important probably, the convincing of Ronald Reagan that his continuing denial of his administration’s involvement in Iran-Contra (bringing it up got him thrown out of Reagan’s Oval Office, but Reagan admitted involvement the next day on national television).

    http://www.nytimes.com/2014/03/21/us/politics/political-parties-have-seen-shift-in-center-of-power.html?rref=homepage

    Follow the link to the Strauss obituary for more details.

    • TFRX

      Don’t forget Lawrence Walsh passed this week also.

      The media coverage of his work investigating the Iran Contra scandal was a watershed “through the looking glass” point, and our corporate media have not recovered.

  • SteveTheTeacher

    “It would be great if the bad guys used a corner of the internet. If
    they had a domain badguys.com, that would be awesome. . . But we are all on the same network. I use the same email service as the terrorists. We need to be able to pick that apart to find what we need. . . In doing so we’re going to necessarily encounter innocent Americans and innocent foreign citizens that are going about their business . . . If you aren’t connected to a meta-data target you are not of interest to us.”

    - NSA Deputy Director Richard Ledgett

    Our “enemies” live in homes too. Does that imply that the NSA should have the right to search all homes?

    Deputy Director Ledgett’s interpretation of the 4th amendment renders it moot.

    And, if the NSA’s concept of “connected to a meta-data target” is similar to that used by the Pentagon in their crowd killing drone strikes algorithms, a lot of innocent people will swept up in a form of digital collateral damage.

  • Shag_Wevera

    Wisconsin senator Ron Johnson yesterday proposed a no-fly zone over the Ukraine. Just wanted to get that out there.

    • Ray in VT

      A no fly zone for whom and for what reason?

      • Shag_Wevera

        By us to aid the Ukrainians. Yes, a no fly zone with American aircraft on the Russian border. The interview was on NPR yesterday, in case anyone wants to hear it.

  • JP_Finn

    Interested to hear more about the latest developments in Ukraine/Crimea, and also Venezuela (which appears to have fallen off the daily news radar).

    Please, nothing further on that Malaysian Airlines flight! Sure, it’s mysterious, but considering the untold thousands of flights that are safely and routinely completed each day the world over, it’s a miracle planes don’t disappear more often. Certainly a tragedy, but I’d venture to suggest there are more important things to discuss…

  • Coastghost

    The disappearance of MA370 raises this (belatedly) to mind: flight data recorders and cockpit voice recorders have been standard equipment on commercial airliners for years and decades. WHY has no one ever introduced a cockpit camera?

    • creaker

      if they can set up internet access for passengers, why aren’t they streaming audio/video/telemetry from the plane, so that all this information is available even if the plane no longer is?

  • SteveTheTeacher

    I’d like to see Tom Ashbrook, Jack Beatty, or the guests discuss, or at least acknowledge, the discussions of the UN Human Rights Council. The HRC is considering a declaration condemning the US government for violation of human rights through its unmanned drone and crowd killing (killing by computer algorithm) program.

    The US ambassador to the UN, Samantha Power a frequent and outspoken critic of foreign powers violations of human right has been conspicuously silent on this matter and the US is boycotting these talks.

    • J__o__h__n

      She has been too busy stupidly insulting Russian literature this week.

      • SteveTheTeacher

        I don’t know how you feel John, but I am more concerned with the dangers posed by right wing hawkish Democrats than by right wing hawkish Republicans.

        The Republicans make it clear. They are willing to exploit, oppress, and use military force for their personal benefit. The characterize those who oppose them as their “enemies.” They tell those of us not blessed with wealth and power, that if we keep playing the game by their rules, like the lottery, we’ll eventually win. Many of us don’t fall for this illusion.

        Democrats try to justify their exploitation, oppression, and use of military force as in our interest and the interest of humanity. They tell us that that those who oppose them are our enemies. They warn those of us not blessed with wealth and power, that if we don’t play the game by their rules, we’ll suffer dire consequences. Many of us are deluded by their dissembling.

  • hennorama

    Fred Phelps, anti-gay preacher and leader of the Westboro Baptist Church, died on Wed. at age 84.

    In 1999, after being publicly denounced by several prominent conservative Christian leaders, Phelps said “You can’t preach the Bible without preaching hate!”

    One hopes no one organizes an anti-Phelps rally at his funeral.

    • J__o__h__n

      It would be a fitting tribute to the Reverend. Supposedly his church kicked him out so they might be the ones with the “FRED IN HELL” signs.

      • Ray in VT

        I also saw it reported that he got expelled from his own church because he somewhat moderated his position, or at least his rhetoric. One of my professors once said that revolutions eat their own, but I suppose that one can say that about other things as well.

        • Don_B1

          Reminds one of the Jonathan Swift program yesterday!

    • TFRX

      I want to know who’ll have the nerve to walk their talk and actually wear their “God hates f-gs” T-shirts in memorium for the late Phelps.

    • WorriedfortheCountry

      Was there any reporting that ole Fred ran for political office several times? Was there any reporting of ole Fred’s party affiliation? No?

      Well it was Democrat.

  • creaker

    This whole dinging individuals and calling it “sanctions” has been hilarious. Quite silly.

  • http://neilblanchard.blogspot.com/ Neil Blanchard

    We should freeze all oil contracts with Russia. Rex Tillerson (CEO of Exxon Mobil) is a “Friend of Russia”, and he is buddy-buddy with our pal Putin.

  • Ray in VT

    Does the GOP wonder why it has trouble attracting minority support when members of the party take stances such as the one by a North Dakota State Senator who says that businesses should not only be able to refuse to serve customers based upon their sexual orientation, but upon their race as well.

    http://www.salon.com/2014/03/17/gop_lawmaker_phil_jensen_wants_to_legalize_race_based_discrimination/

    • MrNutso

      They are unwilling to police their own.

      • Don_B1

        The reason that neither party organizations can maintain discipline is the unmitigated influence of BIG MONEY since the Citizens United decision. See:

        http://www.nytimes.com/2014/03/21/us/politics/political-parties-have-seen-shift-in-center-of-power.html?rref=homepage

        for just an inkling of the distortions of real democracy that decision has wrought.

      • Ray in VT

        There is that. I think that also one has to take into account that very group has its share of nuts. For instance, look at the woman who won the GOP primary in Illinois. I don’t think that the party really wants someone running who attributes tornadoes to gay marriage, or whatever she said, but one can end up with such people. I do think, however, that this state senator’s comments have a particular ideological basis that has at least a degree of support in the GOP at present. Rand Paul has, I think, said something fairly similar.

        • jefe68

          Susanne Atanus, what a piece of work.

          • Ray in VT

            Yeah. She’s going to get stomped in the general election. Of course I think that she would get slammed in the general even if she did not hold such views, given the district.

    • William

      Do you think when Alex Sink (Democratic candidate for Congress) who said a few weeks ago we needed illegals to “clean our hotel rooms and do landscaping” was rather racist remark on her part or that is just how she thinks as a Southern Democrat?

      • Ray in VT

        Do you mean these comments:

        SINK: “Immigration reform is important in our country. It’s one of the main agenda items of the beaches’ Chamber Of Commerce for obvious reasons. Because we have a lot of employers over on the beaches that rely upon workers, and especially in this high-growth environment, where
        are you going to get people to work to clean our hotel rooms or do our landscaping? And we don’t need to put those employers in a position of
        hiring undocumented and illegal workers.”

        • William

          No more like this.

          http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D1Jowte3Nwo

          “We don’t need to put the employers in the position of hiring illegals”. So, it’s our fault that employers hire illegals?

          • J__o__h__n

            No, it is the illegal job creators’ fault.

          • Ray in VT

            Oh, that’s totally different. That video isn’t at all like the quote that I posted. It isn’t in fact exactly what I posted.

          • William

            Don’t you find it amazing she cares little for the huge number of unemployed people here, especially in the black community, and just wants to serve a special interest group, wealthy businessmen, to import more cheap maids, busboys and lawn guys.

          • Ray in VT

            I find it interesting that that is your take away from her comments, which is not at all how I see them.

            She also went on to say this:

            “For every example that you hear, I think about the high school valedictorian — I believe he lives in this district now. He was brought here when he was a young man, nine or ten years old. He didn’t choose to come here. His parents brought him. He was undocumented. And what does he do? How does he get an education? He did everything right. He became an incredible student. He even eventually ended up going to law school and becoming a lawyer. But right now he can’t practice law because of his undocumented status. That’s not right.”

            Interesting how you chose to frame it in a manner consistent with how Faux News and right wing media did in order to create some outrage.

          • TFRX

            Go back to WilliamWorld.

          • William

            You usually don’t comment on much other than food stamps or giving up long term unemployment payments.., both of which you have first hand experience in receiving huh?….

          • TFRX

            Oh noes, I’m a moocher! You caught me!

            (*yawn* Here’s where I have to say I’m kidding so idiots like you don’t think I’m serious.)

            I comment plenty on your batshattery. I’m literally a mirror of your ignorance.

            Go home, troll.

        • jimino

          Are you claiming only illegal immigrants can hold those jobs? Anyone who is willing to work in those conditions for that wage is eligible for hire. Nobody is excluding American citizens except themselves. I don’t understand your point. What is it?

          • Ray in VT

            Did you mean this as a response to William?

  • toc1234

    here’s your answer Jack… “HAHAHAHAHAAHAH… now bugger off”

  • Coastghost

    I continue to ask: how can Americans expect foreign leaders to take US “respect for national sovereignty and territorial integrity” seriously in the light of Senator Obama’s 1 Aug 2007 address to the Woodrow Wilson Center? That was the very day Obama promised that an Obama Administration would NOT respect “national sovereignty and territorial integrity”.

  • perihelion22

    Am I the only person in the world who knows that Osama bin Laden’s birthday was March 10 and the plane disappeared March 9? Am I the only person who believes that One World Trade Center NYC is/was the target? Am I the only person in the world who believes that the complete lack of a hefty reward is a clear indicator that the government(s) already know(s) what happened? And the Chinese are going to be pissed.

    As Lily Thomlin says, “It is getting hard to stay cynical enough to keep up with
    reality.” Cheeeeeez….

    • MrNutso

      Yes.

    • http://neilblanchard.blogspot.com/ Neil Blanchard

      What are the chances of that?

      1 / 365 …

    • hennorama

      perihelion22 — yes, you’re the only one.

      Please allow me to feed your conspiracy theory:

      Osama bin Laden was buried at sea, reportedly in the Indian Ocean. Is this really just a search for his body?

      • Don_B1

        LOL, LOL

  • Crozet_barista

    THe criticism from Republicans that Obama looks weak in the face of the Crimea crisis is part of that party’s goals to destroy or sabotage Obama’s presidency as they have been doing since January 2009 non-stop. If Obama looks weak on the outside it can be fully attributed to the fact that the GOP is waging a new civil war against him within our borders, no matter the consequences for the country.

    • TFRX

      It’s “Mission Accomplished” for our nation’s right wing to get our press corps to talk this way. They’ve done what they want to.

      Compare that to the lapel flag-pins of a dozen years ago, which were pretty much compulsory in the media.

  • WorriedfortheCountry

    Hirsh: “Who does the regime consider Obama’s Kissinger? Obama himself.”

    ‘Nuff said.

  • William

    I agree with Obama. Stay out of this USSR/Ukraine mess. If “Shootin Putin” wants to take the Crimea back let him have it.

  • Joe

    Please – Kissinger has no standing to criticize anyone – he was behind out disastrous Vietnam policies which caused the deaths of thousands of Americans and who knows how many Vietnamese.

    • MrNutso

      I just read it was 12% to 13% of their (Vietnamese) population at the time.

    • nj_v2

      It’s precious, isn’t it? Citing war-criminal Kissinger, siding with Putin, as a serous reference for foreign policy.

  • J__o__h__n

    Hillary Clinton’s comparison of Putin to Hitler reminds me of the main reason I didn’t vote for her. She is so eager to appear to be tough militarily that she lacks judgement. Her vote for the Iraq war was part of this pattern not an outlier.

  • MrNutso

    D.B. Cooper? Didn’t she watch Prison Break?

  • nj_v2

    Selected, right-wing, Rethuglicon, Teabagger regression, ignorance, and jacka**ery of the week:

    http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2014/03/10/3381721/conservative-actvists-at-cpac-arent-gearing-up-for-2016-they-want-to-refight-the-1964-election/

    Tea Party Activists Aren’t Gearing Up For 2016 — They Want To Refight 1964

    The conservative movement’s choice for president believes that whites-only lunch counters should be legal. He believes that business owners’ rights trump civil rights, that Medicare should be undermined or even destroyed, and that workers simply have too much power to demand better wages and working conditions from their employers.

    I write this words today, two days after voters in the Conservative Political Action Conference’s straw poll selected Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY) as their preferred candidate for president in 2016, but they could have just as easily been written in 1964 as Arizona Sen. Barry Goldwater was consolidating the support he’d need to become the GOP’s presidential candidate.…

    (snipped)

    http://www.motherjones.com/blue-marble/2014/03/science-deniers-cosmos-neil-tyson

    Science Deniers Are Freaking Out About “Cosmos”

    If you think the first episode of the new Fox Cosmos series was controversial (with its relatively minor mentions of climate change, evolution, and the Big Bang), Sunday night’s show threw down the gauntlet. Pretty much the entire episode was devoted to the topic of evolution, and the vast profusion of evidence (especially genetic evidence) showing that it is indeed the explanation behind all life on Earth. At one point, host Neil deGrasse Tyson stated it as plainly as you possibly can: “The theory of evolution, like the theory of gravity, is a scientific fact.” (You can watch the full episode here.)

    Not surprisingly, those who deny the theory of evolution were not happy with this. Indeed, the science denial crowd hasn’t been happy with Cosmos in general. Here are some principal lines of attack:

    Denying the Big Bang…
    Denying evolution…
    Denying climate change…

    (snipped)

    http://www.alternet.org/tea-party-and-right/americas-right-wing-has-literally-gone-gay-crazy?akid=11614.1084699.j1gvAh&rd=1&src=newsletter971929&t=5

    America’s Right-Wing Has Gone Gay Crazy
    The madness has spread from the Christian Right’s talking heads to the leading lights of the Republican Party.

    In the 1930s, the hyper-religious were so freaked out by marijuana that they financed a propaganda film revolving around a group of high school students who murder, rape, kill themselves, or descend into madness after smoking pot. The film was titled Reefer Madness. Today, if you were to write a screenplay based on the rabid ramblings and legislative actions of the hyper-religious, it’d be Homosexual Madness.…

    This week, Franklin Graham, son of Rev. Billy Graham, wrote an op-ed praising Vladimir Putin’s strong anti-gay legislation, while at the same time lamenting that President Obama isn’t similarly hostile to gay Americans. “Isn’t it sad, though, that America’s own morality has fallen so far that on this issue — protecting children from any homosexual agenda or propaganda — Russia’s standard is higher than our own?” Graham wrote. He ignored the fact that gay Russians are routinely imprisoned, bashed and murdered simply for being gay, thanks to the impunity Russia’s anti-gay legislations afford its bigoted perpetrators.æ

    (excerpts)

    http://talkingpointsmemo.com/dc/house-gop-obamacare-schizophrenia

    Erratic House Republicans Have Officially Lost It On Obamacare

    What do House Republicans want to do with Obamacare? Depends on the day.

    Last week, they passed a delay of the law’s individual mandate, pure political showmanship that appealed to the right-wing base that hasn’t given up the dream of fully repealing the law.

    But Tuesday they’re expected to pass three minor tweaks to the law, with Democratic support — a rare bit of actual governing for the House when it comes to the Affordable Care Act.

    Hold on, though. They’re not done yet.

    Later this week they’ll hold payments to doctors under Medicare hostage unless Democrats agree to delay Obamacare’s individual mandate to buy health insurance, a non-starter with the Democratic Senate and the White House.

    If your head’s spinning, that’s life for House Republicans and the health care reform law. They’re all over the place.…

    (snipped)

    • Ray in VT

      Regarding your Cosmos point, such as this story about a station cutting out a reference to evolution:

      http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/03/13/oklahoma-station-cut-cosmos-evolution-video_n_4958024.html

    • http://neilblanchard.blogspot.com/ Neil Blanchard

      Here’s the Cosmos videos online:

      http://www.fox.com/watch/183733315515

      I wonder why the segment on Bruno and the Inquisition was not more controversial with science deniers?

      • Ray in VT

        My wife and I have been watching it with our boys, and we are quite enjoying the show.

        • tbphkm33

          Is this where the FOX station in Oklahoma cut part of the show to censor evolution theory being discussed? Saw something about that on a news feed.

          • TFRX

            That was from the first episode.

            Imagine the dead air required to “descience” all the evolution talk in the second hour.

          • Ray in VT

            That’s all just scary. It must be strange to believe that science is controversial. Apparently some creationists are complaining because their views aren’t getting time on Cosmos.

  • MrNutso

    I would like to know what the punishment would be if it were an NCO or private?

  • Steve_in_Vermont

    For a good read concerning climate change try The Sixth Extinction by Elizabeth Kolbert. I’ve been studying invasive species for years and came to the conclusion years ago that the biggest “invasive” on our planet is man.
    Our natural world is extremely complicated and interdependent in ways we often don’t understand. We are learning; however, it’s usually after-the-fact and when it’s to late. We’re in deeper trouble than we realize.

    • http://neilblanchard.blogspot.com/ Neil Blanchard

      The Sixth Extinction is an excellent book, and I read it right after reading Elizabeth Kolbert’s earlier book Field Notes From A Catastrophe.

    • Don_B1

      Ms. Kolbert’s reporting at The New Yorker has been exceptional and worth reading also.

  • WorriedfortheCountry

    Nate Silver has launched his 538 venture. He has included a data-driven science section.

    Here is a recent essay:
    “Disasters Cost More Than Ever — But Not Because of Climate Change”

    http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/disasters-cost-more-than-ever-but-not-because-of-climate-change/

    • Ray in VT

      Which has been criticized by a number of prominent climate scientists for what they see as sloppy methods and reasoning.

      • WorriedfortheCountry

        “In defense of Nate Silver

        FiveThirtyEight’s critics are unhinged. If Silver’s data-driven approach gets in the way of your political aims, so much the better.”

        http://theweek.com/article/index/258396/in-defense-of-nate-silver

        More coverage here:
        Dr. Judith Curry:
        “The post is vintage RP Jr, citing results from the IPCC SREX and using data from SwissRe.

        RP Jr’s post at 538 has elicited what is probably the most reprehensible and contemptible smear job that I have ever seen of a scientist, at least from an organization that has any pretense of respectability. ”
        http://judithcurry.com/2014/03/20/nate-silvers-538-inconvenient-statistics/#more-14997

        • Ray in VT

          Sure. What do climate scientists know about things like this?

          There would be plenty of other contenders for the “most reprehensible and contemptible smear job” were it not for the fact that so many of the smears against climate scientists come from individuals and groups that lack “any pretense of respectability”.

          • WorriedfortheCountry

            Judith Curry IS a climate scientist.

            More from Dr. Curry:
            “In this article, there is not a single critique of anything RP Jr actually said in his 538 post. Before looking at the author of the post, I assumed it was either Joe Romm or Michael Mann, since it has their unmistakable hatchet job signature. Instead, the author is Kiley Kroh, co-editor of Climate Progress (Joe Romm is the founder and overseer of ClimateProgress). ClimateProgress is an element of ThinkProgress, a liberal American political blog that is an outlet for the Center for American Progress. CAP’s first President and CEO was John Podesta, who is now a Special Advisor to the Obama Administration (and also Chairman of the Board of CAP).”

          • http://neilblanchard.blogspot.com/ Neil Blanchard

            Judith Curry is an outlier.

          • WorriedfortheCountry

            Non-responsive.

            There is NOTHING inaccurate in her words I quoted. If you can find anything please let us in on it.

          • http://neilblanchard.blogspot.com/ Neil Blanchard

            She’s wrong on the climate.

          • WorriedfortheCountry

            You can’t back that up but her scientific acumen isn’t the point of this thread. Try again.

          • http://neilblanchard.blogspot.com/ Neil Blanchard

            You know how science works, right? Data has to back what you say. The data doesn’t back what Judith Curry says.

          • WorriedfortheCountry

            Yes and I know how propaganda works too.

          • http://neilblanchard.blogspot.com/ Neil Blanchard

            If you did, then you’d recognize Watts Up … and Heartland Institute and anything else funded by the Koch brothers for what it is: propaganda.

            Science is our best understanding of reality. Watch the Cosmos series:

            http://www.fox.com/watch/183733315515

          • WorriedfortheCountry

            I’ve seen the first two episodes and was a bit disappointed. I’m a sucker for these things and a fan of Dr. Tyson. Ep. 2 was a slight improvement over ep. 1 so I’ll stick with it for now.

            I’m a fan of Nova. Last I checked the Koch’s fund Nova. I don’t think you understand what is done over at WUWT. There is plenty of valuable content over there. Anyone with any critical thinking skills can discern the facts vs. any POV slant.

          • http://neilblanchard.blogspot.com/ Neil Blanchard

            David Koch needs to be kicked out of PBS. He is trying to buy legitimacy, but he cannot.

          • WorriedfortheCountry

            That is a bizarre criticism.
            Koch will have contributed far more good to the world that either you or I hope to.

            He has contributed over $400M to cancer and medical research since 1998.

          • http://neilblanchard.blogspot.com/ Neil Blanchard

            Please mention some of the Koch’s “good contributions”.

          • WorriedfortheCountry

            Just a few from wikipedia:

            In 2007, he contributed $100 million to the Massachusetts Institute of Technology to help fund the construction of a new 350,000-square-foot (33,000 m2) research and technology facility to serve as the home of the David H. Koch Institute for Integrative Cancer Research.[25] He has given a total of $185 million to MIT since joining the MIT Corporation in 1988.[23]

            $20 million to Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine in Baltimore. The building he financed was named the David H. Koch Cancer Research Building.[26]

            $30 million to the Memorial Sloan–Kettering Cancer Center in New York[27]

            $25 million to the University of Texas M. D. Anderson Cancer Center in Houston to establish the David Koch Center for Applied Research in Genitourinary Cancers[28]

            $15 million to New York-Presbyterian Hospital Weill Cornell Medical Center[29]

            $5 million to the House Ear Institute, in Los Angeles, to create a center for hearing restoration[22]

            $25 million to the Hospital for Special Surgery in New York City[30]

            $100 million, the largest philanthropic donation in the history of New York-Presbyterian Hospital, beginning a $2 billion campaign which will conclude in 2019 to create a new ambulatory care center and renovate the infrastructure of all of the hospital’s five sites.[31]

          • http://neilblanchard.blogspot.com/ Neil Blanchard

            Countervailing terrible things the Koch’s are doing: they are buying our democracy, polluting our world, and causing untold damage to the climate.

            You know – the thing that we depend on for our lives.

          • WorriedfortheCountry

            The Koch’s spend far less ‘buying’ elections than the unions. I never once heard you gripe about the unions.

          • http://neilblanchard.blogspot.com/ Neil Blanchard

            How does that change anything? Do two wrongs make a right? Where is all this union spending?

            Are the unions also profiting by dumping carbon dioxide into the atmosphere?

          • Ray in VT

            Far less than can be proven, given all of the dark money that is out there. The groups that they are backing are massively outspending the unions in outside money.

          • pete18

            Maybe that dark money is hidden in the ocean.

          • Steve__T

            No it’s in the back pockets of the 1%.

          • Ray in VT

            Nah. I think that a good amount of it is funding misleading anti-ACA ads.

          • pete18

            Much better to spend public money showing celebrities and strange boys in pajamas encouraging people to sign up in a program that isn’t working.

          • Ray in VT

            What? The government is advertising for/promoting a program. Let’s impeach Obama.
            I’m glad that you have determined that it isn’t working. You should tell those people who are now covered and/or at lower costs. They might like to know.

          • pete18

            Are there any more people covered now than before Obama Care?

          • Ray in VT

            A very simple online search should be able to tell you that. The percentage of the population reporting that they lack health insurance has dropped pretty significantly in recent months.

          • Steve__T
          • nj_v2

            Unions!! Booga booga!

          • Ray in VT

            How much has he contributed to cancer through his company’s selling of and fighting the regulation of known carcinogens?

          • nj_v2

            How much has he contributed to the subversion of democracy through funding organizations like ALEC?

          • tbphkm33

            “Koch” is Germany for bullsh**

          • pete18

            It’s actually liberal for, “Ain’t got no argument, need to make up a boogie man to distract.”

          • Ray in VT

            Sounds an awful lot like attacking the messenger, who is noting problems and criticisms of Pielke’s work from the scientific community.

            I guess that it was a good thing that I was referring to smears like those that come from people like Anthony Watts, not a climate scientist and maybe not even a college graduate, or Steven Goddard, or Heartland’s “experts”.

          • WorriedfortheCountry

            Again:
            “In this article, there is not a single critique of anything RP Jr actually said in his 538 post.”

          • Ray in VT

            Just noting a history of inaccurate statements, cherry picking and the like. Based upon those criticisms, I find your apparent lack of skepticism to be interesting. Let’s give the community a chance to respond, unless you are, once again, seeking to spike the football and make a claim about something be a stake in the heart or a game changer or something.

          • WorriedfortheCountry

            There was no attempt to point out a ‘game changer’ or anything of the sort. The entire point is exposing the propaganda machine on the left.

          • Ray in VT

            Not this time, but you have done it a number of times previously. Do you only like partisan attacks when they come from the right?

          • jefe68

            You have to ask that question?
            The evidence is on this forum day in and day out.
            And when you through it back in their faces they whine.

          • WorriedfortheCountry

            “Let’s give the community a chance”
            I thought they already did and it is their reflexive critique that is being criticized on the merits.

            But sure, any serious analysis should be welcomed — as always.

          • Ray in VT

            Some pretty prominent scientists have criticized previous statements and
            such from this author as sloppy or misleading. I think that it is
            important to consider that when looking at what else he is putting out.
            I especially liked his Google based “findings”. That was a good one.
            At any rate, I don’t blame members of the climate science community for
            responding as they do, considering the attacks that they receive from
            “think tanks” and their “experts”, often alleging conspiracy or
            incompetence. I’d probably be ticked off if I was them too.

      • jefe68

        Yep. It’s the cult of misinformation that is amplified by the right.

        • WorriedfortheCountry

          Nate Silver is on the right? Who knew?

          • jefe68

            I’m not talking about him, but he’s wrong about climate change. As are you oh mendacious one.

          • WorriedfortheCountry

            Gee, what am I wrong about? I don’t believe I communicated a position other than the science is immature and a work in progress.

            And how am I being mendacious? That is an ugly charge.

    • Ray in VT

      I should have said “whose work has been criticized by a number of prominent scientists for what they see as sloppy methods and reasoning”, referring to the author of the article. That was the intent of my statement.

      • WorriedfortheCountry

        Ah, but that borders on an ad hominem attack since it doesn’t address the validity of the essay in question.

        And who are these ‘prominent scientists’ and what is their motivation?

        • Ray in VT

          So, we should not take the quality or accuracy of one’s previous work into account when looking at a new work? I think that such things should be taken into account. I call it being skeptical and employing critical thinking.

          The “prominent scientists” have been quoted. I am sure that you would impugn their motives.

          • WorriedfortheCountry

            I still don’t know who these ‘prominent scientists’ are and frankly I’m not interested. There is plenty of criticism to go around in the climate science community (see Michael Mann). Pielke II is a luke-warmer (not a skeptic) who has some different ideas on policy.

            Here is an interesting analysis from the left-stream MSM on the whole kerfuffle — including a comparison to Ezra Klein’s recent problems with the left’s thought police.

            http://www.nationaljournal.com/energy/nate-silver-is-having-an-ezra-klein-moment-20140320

          • Ray in VT

            So you haven’t looked into criticisms of his work and don’t care to know who has done it an why? That sounds like the sort of reflexive action that you accuse others of being guilty of. Are you referring to Klein’s hiring of someone with a history of prejudiced comments regarding gays and lesbians?

          • WorriedfortheCountry

            No, I didn’t search out criticism of Pielke and you didn’t offer any specifics– just the ad hominen aspersions by nameless and face-less peers. But that is OK because these nameless folks are respected by Ray.

            The NJ reports on Pielke II’s apparent sin:

            “I see my views on climate change deviating in small but
            significant ways from, basically, the mainstream view, which makes the
            vitriol so much more disturbing,” he said, arguing that a diversity of
            ideas is needed to confront climate change. “There is a small but vocal
            contingent that basically brokers no dissent, and I am very emphatic
            that if action on climate change is going to survive politically over
            decades, that those calling for action have to hold themselves to the
            utmost of scientific standards.”
            Pielke has criticized the climate movement for pursuing what he argues are politically impractical and ineffective solutions. For instance, he
            calls the campaign against the Keystone pipeline “misguided” and is
            skeptical of the political viability of efforts to put a substantial
            price on carbon.”

          • Ray in VT

            Considering that you provided criticism of the criticism of Pielke I figured that you that checked on that original criticism before repeating the defense of Pielke and his work. The names of the prominent scientists who criticize his work and why is right there.

          • jefe68

            The Mark Twain rule seems apply when dealing with the right wing meme brigade.

            By the way: Richard Lindzen is one of the approximately 3 percent of climate scientists who believe the human influence on global warming is relatively small (though Lindzen is now retired, no longer doing scientific research). More importantly, he’s been wrong about nearly every major climate argument he’s made over the past two decades. Lindzen is arguably the climate scientist who’s been the wrongest, longest.

            http://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2014/jan/06/climate-change-climate-change-scepticism

          • WorriedfortheCountry

            Wow. Oh double wow.
            You post a link to an article written well known climate progagandist Dana Nutticelli.

            In true Nutticelli form he just makes things up to smear Lindzen. At least this time he admits it. We have this gem: ” Based on his comments in that 1989 talk, I pieced together what Lindzen’s global temperature prediction might have looked like”

            I guess those guys are so used to making up their climate science out of whole cloth that they feel comfortable with this nonsense.

          • jefe68

            And you post BS from climate change deniers.

            I can find more links to discredit Lindzen but what’s the point. You are not interested any debating this.
            The self righteous right wing hatchet show is in full swing.

          • WorriedfortheCountry

            And here is a point by point rebuttal to the Nutticelli nonsense written by an IPCC expert reviewer:

            “Lindzen libeled by Nuccitelli”

            http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/01/13/lindzen-libeled-by-nuccitelli/

          • pete18

            Wow, you got “meme” and your Mark Twain comment into one post. Well done.

          • Ray in VT

            I have seen a good amount of criticism of his work. It seems that a number of climate skeptics have done significant work in attempting to show the validity of some of the things that he has said, but it doesn’t seem that they have had much success.

        • OnPointComments

          MOTIVATION OF PROMINENT SCIENTISTS

          STEP 1: Scientists make meaningless or ambiguous statements about AGW.
          STEP 2: Advocates and media translate statement into alarmist declarations.
          STEP 3: Politicians respond to alarm by feeding scientists more money.
          STEP 4: Return to Step 1.

          from Richard S. Lindzen, Ph.D., professor of atmospheric sciences, emeritus, Massachusetts Institute of Technology.

          • WorriedfortheCountry

            Perfect!!!

    • http://neilblanchard.blogspot.com/ Neil Blanchard
      • WorriedfortheCountry

        Hmmm…. That was pretty much covered elsewhere and rebutted but thanks to the link to the musings of a graphic artist. I did follow the link to one of the articles referenced and found this interesting piece:

        “This energy source could solve all of our problems — so why is no one talking about it?

        Hint: It’s because it can’t be weaponized”

        Well that was interesting. And it even provides juice to charge those electric cars.

        http://theweek.com/article/index/257268/this-energy-source-could-solve-all-of-our-problems-mdash-so-why-is-no-one-talking-about-it

        • http://neilblanchard.blogspot.com/ Neil Blanchard

          A graphic artist? You didn’t read it did you? Pielke is a pretender, and he is a shill, and he is wrong. No matter who hired him.

          • WorriedfortheCountry

            Yes, I did. The author’s bio claims he is a graphic artist. Surprised you didn’t know it.

            The attacks on RP II were addressed further down in the thread with Ray. Inconveniently for the critics RP II sticks to the IPCC and the data.

            “In defense of Nate Silver

            FiveThirtyEight’s critics are unhinged. If Silver’s data-driven
            approach gets in the way of your political aims, so much the better.”

            http://theweek.com/article/ind

            More coverage here:
            Dr. Judith Curry:
            “The post is vintage RP Jr, citing results from the IPCC SREX and using data from SwissRe.

            RP Jr’s post at 538 has elicited what is probably the most
            reprehensible and contemptible smear job that I have ever seen of a
            scientist, at least from an organization that has any pretense of
            respectability. ”
            http://judithcurry.com/2014/03

          • http://neilblanchard.blogspot.com/ Neil Blanchard

            You sir/madam are a science denier.

  • OnPointComments

    President Obama to Vladimir Putin: “Look, don’t you see what you’re doing though? You’re forcing people to accept something that the majority of them don’t even want.”

    Putin: “In Russia we have word for this: Obamacare.”

    –The Tonight Show with Jimmy Fallon

  • pete18

    The American Physical Society, a prominent group of physicists and scientists, are reviewing their stance on Global Warming and are asking their members to respond to a series of questions, which include those below. To those of you in the “science is settled crowd” are any of these questions unreasonable, or without basis in the recent observations and measurements? Do they represent a degree of understandable skepticism that about the conclusions drawn from the recent data? Or is this nothing but the result of amplified misinformation funded by the Koch brothers that has muddied the otherwise pure scientific research and conclusions about the planet’s coming destruction?

    “While the Global Mean Surface Temperature (GMST) rose strongly from 1980-98, it has shown no significant rise for the past 15 years…[The APS notes that neither the 4th nor 5th IPCC report modeling suggested any stasis would occur, and then asks] …

    To what would you attribute the stasis?

    If non-anthropogenic influences are strong enough to counteract the expected effects of increased CO2, why wouldn’t they be strong enough to sometimes enhance warming trends, and in so doing lead to an over-estimate of
    CO2 influence?

    What are the implications of this statis for confidence in the models and their projections?

    What do you see as the likelihood of solar influences beyond TSI (total solar irradiance)? Is it coincidence that the statis has occurred during the weakest solar cycle (ie sunspot activity) in about a century?

    Some have suggested that the ‘missing heat’ is going into the deep ocean…

    Are deep ocean observations sufficient in coverage and precision to bear on this hypothesis quantitatively?

    Why would the heat sequestration have ‘turned on’ at the turn of this century?

    What could make it ‘turn off’ and when might that occur?

    Is there any mechanism that would allow the added heat in the deep ocean to reappear in the atmosphere?

    IPCC suggests that the stasis can be attributed in part to ‘internal variability’. Yet climate models imply that a 15-year stasis is very rare and models cannot reproduce the observed Global Mean Surface Temperature even with the observed radiative forcing.

    What is the definition of ‘internal variability’? Is it poorly defined
    initial conditions in the models or an intrinsically chaotic nature of the climate system? If the latter, what features of the climate system ARE predictable?

    How would the models underestimate of internal variability impact detection and attribution?

    How long must the statis persist before there would be a firm declaration of a problem with the models? If that occurs, would the fix entail: A retuning of model parameters? A modification of ocean conditions? A re-examination of fundamental assumptions?

    Sea ice
    The observational record of sea ice during the satellite era (from 1979) is shown in the figure below depicting data from the National Snow and Ice Data Center (NSIDIC). The long term decline of the 13 month running average in the Arctic and the slight secular increase in the Antarctic are evident.

    To what extent do you believe the recent Arctic decline to be unusual, given that Section 5.5.2 of the AR5 WG1 report states:
    “There is medium confidence that the current ice loss and
    increasing SSTs in the Arctic are anomalous at least in the context of the last two millennia.”?

    The ability of the models to reproduce these trends is shown in AR5 WG1 Figure 10.16 on the following
    page.

    Please comment on the ability of the models to reproduce the Arctic trend, but not the Antarctic trend.

    The figure caption reads: “Only CMIP5 models which simulated seasonal mean and magnitude of seasonal cycle in reasonable agreement with observations are included in the plot.” Only 6 (Antarctic) or 11 (Arctic) CMIP5 mode
    ls were used, while there are some 40 models in the ensemble. One may therefore conclude that the bulk of the CMIP5 models do not reproduce reasonable seasonal mean and magnitude of the ice cycle. Is that the case? And if so, what are the implications for the confidence with which the ensemble can be used for other purposes?

    http://www.aps.org/

    http://www.aps.org/policy/statements/upload/climate-review-framing.pdf

    http://quadrant.org.au/opinion/tony-thomas/2014/03/finally-real-climate-science/#_ednref6

  • WorriedfortheCountry

    “AAA: Range of electric cars cut in cold, hot weather”

    “The AAA Automotive Research Center in Southern California found that the average range of an electric car dropped 57% in very cold weather – at 20 degrees Fahrenheit – and by 33% in extreme heat, a temperature of 95 degrees.”

    Oh no Neil. We can’t root for cooling or warming. Looks like battery EVs need the goldilocks environment to work.

    http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/business/2014/03/20/cold-sharply-cuts-range-of-electric-vehicles/6622979/

    • http://neilblanchard.blogspot.com/ Neil Blanchard

      Electricity from renewable energy sources are the only way we can succeed into the next century.

      Those issues are easily overcome. Engineering already has solutions for all of them. I myself am building an electric car that will largely answer all of them.

      Oh, and by the way, ICE cars also lose quite a bit of range in the cold and the hot, as well.

      • WorriedfortheCountry

        “We humans need to keep the Goldilocks climate we used to have before we started burning fossil fuels!”

        I doubt those batteries will notice the .8C difference. Did you?

        • http://neilblanchard.blogspot.com/ Neil Blanchard

          It’s way beyond that – we have another ~0.8C baked in even if we stopped immediately. That is not too much of a cushion to the 2C that we need to avoid at all costs.

    • Guest

      How are you going to heat a car in 20 below zero weather?

      • WorriedfortheCountry

        The article referenced a degradation of 57% at +20F (vs. a nominal +75F).

  • marygrav

    Please try to understand that Colonialism is over and that Russia is not a Banana Republic. If you push too hard, it will push back. Every other nation state that the US has threatened with sanctions, have not been nuclear armed nor European, white. Threatening the “darkies” is easy, except when they come from Afganistan.

    The Hegemony of the West is unraveling because of its economic and moral condition. War has worn the US out and economics and globalization has worn the balance of the world out.

    The US is in no condition to help free Ukraine when it cannot even free Detroit; issue Food Stamps to the old and needy; extend long term unemployment; repair its bridges; clean its water; house its homeless; treat its veterans; let it people vote; and control the arms killing and destroying its children.

    Let the old war horses like John McCain and Linsey Graham and the loud mouth like Joe Biden go to war or to hell whichever comes first and leave the rest of US alone in peace.

    Maybe these guys need to read or listen to Stephen Kinszer’s The Brothers and see what grandstanding has gotten US in the past. Let history alone to form itself. The world will be better off without US guiding it.

    • Bluejay2fly

      Beware of the Military Industrial Congressional Complex those words were uttered by Eisenhower in the early 1960′s.

      • tbphkm33

        Well quoted :)

  • tbphkm33

    Hours ago someone asked about camera’s in cockpits of airliners, for that data to be included in the on board data recorders.

    I wanted to once again, question why airports do not have their runways ringed by HD cameras? It would only cost a few thousand per runway. A lot could be learned, as most accidents happen on or close to runways. Even with the missing Malaysian airliners, camera footage could potentially show if the front landing gear wheels were under inflated for their weight or if one wheel came apart on takeoff, thus stressing the other tire.

    Runways camera’s would have provided a lot of information for last summers crash in San Francisco and for the Paris crash of the Concord.

    Seems to me, for a few thousand dollars per runway, airports and airlines should be jumping on installing such camera systems.

  • tbphkm33

    On Putin – I suspect the main thing he has managed to do is redraw the larger boarders of Europe, not by absorbing the Crimea into Russia, but by causing Ukraine, Poland, Belarus, Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia to seek much tighter integration with Europe and the West. This may well be the end of the buffer countries. Five years from now, Russia might feel much more encroached upon. Germany is already calling for a larger European block to negotiate energy contracts with Russia.

    • KrazyHarold

      Neocon talking points!

      • tbphkm33

        ?????????????????????????

  • quinlandk

    I suggest the Malaysian government contact James Cameron about borrowing his “Vertical Torpedo sub”. Seriously.

  • OnPointComments

    COURT RULES FEDS MUST RECOGNIZE VOTER ID LAWS
    http://spectator.org/blog/58444/court-rules-feds-must-recognize-voter-id-laws

    Excerpt:
    …a U.S. district court ruled that Arizona and Kansas can pass voter ID laws and the federal government has no right to stop them. It’s a relief to see the feds actually respecting states’ rights for a change. Both states were also permitted to require proof of citizenship before an individual can vote…

    We all know…the real reason Democrats fight these laws. They do it for the purpose of hiding voter fraud.

    OPPOSING VOTER ID LAWS IN THE NAME OF RACE IS INSULTING TO MINORITIES
    http://townhall.com/columnists/davidlimbaugh/2014/03/21/opposing-voter-id-laws-in-the-name-of-race-is-insulting-to-minorities-n1812141/page/2

    Excerpt:
    Unless you have a very low opinion of minorities, how could you conceivably argue that it is racist to require that all voters prove their identity as a condition to voting? If anything racist is involved here, it is in the suggestion that minorities are too incompetent to furnish their IDs. How could you disrespect minorities any more that that?

    • nj_v2

      Townhall,com!? Hahahahahahahahahaha!!

    • tbphkm33

      Institutionalized Troll alert

    • TFRX

      I believe it’s called Clownhall.

      Whatsamatter, chump–you pissed that Clownhallers aren’t on every NPR program’s Rolodex?

  • OnPointComments

    MEDIA, SURPRISINGLY, ASK TO SEE CLIMATE SCIENTIST’S EMAILS
    http://news.investors.com/print/ibd-editorials/031814-693773-media-demand-to-read-hockey-stick-creator-michael-mann-emails.aspx

    Excerpt:
    More than a dozen news organizations want to see the emails of global warm-monger Michael Mann to see what the creator of the hockey stick graph has been saying in private…news outlets from National Public Radio to the Washington Post to the Associated Press to Politico — 17 in all — have joined a freedom-of-information request filed by the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press.

    It’s rather remarkable, then, that so many news outlets want to see Mann’s emails. But what else could they do, given that temperatures in the last 17 years have been cooler than models predicted while the weather and the climate have remained within the historic variability. It’s only natural for some skepticism to develop.

    • nj_v2

      Investors Business Daily!? Hahahahahahahaha!!!

      • pete18

        This is the new non-response from the left, the source chuckle.

        Does IBD have something wrong? Are these news groups NOT asking to see Mann’s e-mails? Do you think what is in his e-mails is NOT relevant to the global warming debate?

        • TFRX

          IBD has earned the reputation of being hacks who if they’re alone in saying something, they’re basically wrong 99% of the time.

          If they get something right, everyone else in the world has it right.

          I don’t have all the time in the world to read everything. Ignoring IBD editorials does wonders for any sentient being’s signal-to-noise ingestion ratio.

          • WorriedfortheCountry

            If you don’t read it then why bother commenting? It just puts your ignorance on full display.

          • pete18

            Again I ask, does IBD have something wrong? Are these news groups NOT asking to see Mann’s e-mails? Do you think what is in his e-mails is NOT relevant to the global warming debate?

        • nj_v2

          Desperately trying to be take seriously, pete18 demurs, “Does IBD have something wrong?”

          Clearly and obviously, yes, unless one is an ignorant, right-wing hack, unaware of both the science of climate change and the basic facts of the lawsuit.

          From the hack IBD, pretend-news piece:

          “But what else could they do, given that temperatures in the last 17 years have been cooler than models predicted while the weather and the climate have remained within the historic variability.”

          The suit makes or needs no claim of motivation. This is pure opinionated bullsh*t injected into news reportage.

          That why IBD and the hacks like you who fawn over such crap aren’t worth the time of day.

    • tbphkm33

      OnPointComments – even you have to realize these post of yours are no more than online masturbation. Don’t you ever get tired of it? Don’t you yearn to interact on a more intellectual basis than just promoting dribble and links?

      • OnPointComments

        “Arguing with liberals…it’s like playing chess with a pigeon; no matter how good I am at chess, the pigeon is just going to knock over the pieces, crap on the board and strut around like it’s victorious.” — Anonymous

        • jefe68

          Ah yes the stench of right wing dogma.

          • pete18

            Case in point.

          • StilllHere

            You play that guy like a fiddle. Fun to watch.

          • jefe68

            It’s funny how you right wingers like to dish out crap and when it gets thrown back in your faces you cry like children who did not get their way. Always the victim you lot.

          • pete18

            So far, there are nothing but dry eyes on this side of the ledger. Must be hard to see clearly with that beak of yours.

          • jefe68

            Then stop whining.

        • KrazyHarold

          That is a good one!

        • jefe68

          The problem with arguing with conservatives. They don’t care about facts, they have feelings. They don’t care about data, they have slogans. They don’t care about numbers, they make them up all the time.

        • StilllHere

          Here come some pigeons …

        • nj_v2

          “Don’t argue with fools. They’ll drag you down to their level and beat you with experience.”

      • pete18

        Yeah, OPC, why don’t you take your hands out of your pants and type something artful and insightful? You know like stringing together a litany of witty ad hominem monikers, such as Nopublicans/TeaBaggers, to substitute for arguments with those that you disagree with, which you can then repeat interminably.

    • TFRX

      More IBD editorial shat?

      I hope they pay you well.

      • StilllHere

        More of your editorial shat?
        I hope you don’t do this for free, though I doubt you get paid much.

        • TFRX

          More IBD shat?

          Come up with an original thought instead of posting your regular retinue of crap on Saturdays.

          • StilllHere

            You stop your shat first.

  • JONBOSTON

    Another week another bravura performance by Obama as president.I can only imagine the level of contempt that Putin must have for Obama. Our adversaries must laugh and our friends and allies cringe every time Obama opens his mouth and issues another surreal reminder to Putin that he’s violating “international law” and 21st century decorum. It’s gotten so bad that I’m beginning to feel sorry for Obama.But hey , he gets to act like royalty as he jets off to Fla for another weekend of golf while Michelle enjoys a week in China and Obama practices his best Alfred E Neuman impression of ” why me worry” as Russian troops mass at Ukraine’s border. At least Obama has Jack Beatty as his ever reliable sycophant. My head’s still spinning after hearing Jack’s laughable comment praising Obama’s brilliance in dealing with Syria. Just unbelievable. Can it get any worse?

    • tbphkm33

      It could get worse… the likes of you could be in power…

      • JONBOSTON

        Why is it The left never debates the issues but
        Instead engages in attacks on ithose they disagree with? Help me understand the greatness of Obama by extolling on the virtues of our pathetic pretend president.

        • jefe68

          You’re not interested in debating.
          You post diatribes and somehow think it’s a debate.

          • JONBOSTON

            You didn’t address a single issue I raised How can we have a debate if all you do is complain about “regressive right wingers”, the Tea Party, Halliburton,Koch bros ,etc.. That name calling is just a substitute for the debate of ideas. And I believe the left is very guilty of this.

          • jefe68

            As I said, your not interested in what I or anyone else who is progressive has to say. So please, spare me your self righteous indignation.

        • StilllHere

          Prepare for insults from the usuals in response.

        • nytw

          Because they have no logical or truthful arguments to use in a debate.

    • jefe68

      ah the quant musings of the regressive right.

      • JONBOSTON

        Name one country where America is more respected today than in 2008. Name one foreign leader who has a close relationship with Obama . Name one situation where Obama has demonstrated presidential leadership. Extoll on the virtues of the ACA. Why has Obama delayed all of the ACA mandates?

        What is Obama’s program to grow the economy? How has Obama helped the middle class? What is Obama’s foreign policy? How has Obama united this country? The price of greatness is responsibility. Give me one example where Obama has taken responsibility for anything. Why hasn’t Obama approved the Keystone pipeline? The recession officially ended in June 2009. Explain for me how the stimulus program, cash for clunkers, etc succeeded in growing the private sector which was the original premise for ARRA.

        • jefe68

          I’m sure why this respect thing is such a huge thing for right wingers. Is it about your manhood?

          The stimulus did work, it was to small by the way. If nothing was done it would have been worse. Of course that’s hard to prove as there was not examples other than in countries that did use austerity and there economies really did falter, Ireland and Great Britain are good examples.

          My take on your comments are you are more interested in playing the right wing meme game then in dealing with the issues. You seem to be looking for simple answers to what are complex problems when it comes to the economy.

          As to the Keystone pipeline, well that’s a fools errand in my opinion.

          • JONBOSTON

            I bring up the “respect” thing because Obama’s 2008 campaign centered on this theme, namely that he would regain the respect of other countries after the Bush years. Or don,t you recall his apology tour in 2009? The $787 billion stimulus could have been better spent on tax reform in order to incentivize investment and spur job growth. Instead most of the money was given to profligate spending state governments or to reduce the payroll tax. Or don’t you recall Obama’s realization that there aren’t shovel ready jobs. Or don’t you recall that Obama began to assert that ARRA “saved” jobs when it obviously was notncreating new jobs.More helpful to the economy was the FED’s TARP program. BTW, the UK economy has out performed other EU countries.

          • JONBOSTON

            Simply mind boggling that Obama still hasn’t approved Keystone. It creates immediate shovel ready jobs,lessens our dependence on foreign oil, makes possible the export of LNG to the EU , and will built anyway .

          • jefe68

            It’s not going to create that many jobs.
            There are very valid reasons as to why this thing should not be built.

            1. It will spill. The State Department’s review of the project clearly says Keystone XL will spill oil. Not may, but will. The existing Keystone pipeline has already leaked 14 times since it began operating in June 2010, including one leak that dumped 21,000 gallons of tar-sands crude. Keystone XL would carry up to 35 million gallons of oil every day — so any leak has the potential to be massive.

            2. It won’t be a major job producer. The State Department estimates that Keystone XL will result in only 20 permanent, operational jobs in the U.S and 2,500 to 4,650 temporary jobs. What’s more, after Keystone XL oil makes it to Texas, much of it will be exported beyond U.S. borders without paying U.S. taxes – never benefitting our economy or slacking our thirst for oil.

            3. It will threaten vast pristine landscapes, rivers and wildlife. Running between Alberta, Canada and the Gulf Coast of Texas, Keystone XL will cross nearly 1,750 water bodies, like rivers and steams, and risk contaminating the Ogallala Aquifer (the drinking water source for millions of people). It would also cut through the heart of prime wildlife habitat, including homes for at least 20 imperiled species.

            4. It will expand the destruction of Canada’s boreal forests. Tar sands oil is the dirtiest oil on Earth. Producing oil from sand has terrible impacts on the environment, including the destruction of tens of thousands of acres of boreal forest, pollution of hundreds of millions of gallons of water — each barrel of oil from tar sands requires three barrels of water to produce.

            Read more: http://www.care2.com/causes/5-reasons-keystone-xl-pipeline-is-a-bad-idea.html#ixzz2whz8zdSh

          • WorriedfortheCountry

            Here is a contrarian response to your environmental concerns. Developing the Canadian tar sands will reduce CO2 emissions over the long term. Why?
            Because the developers are investing in molten salt thorium reactors (MSRs) to generate portable heat to remove the oil insitu (they currently burn nat. gas to generate the heat). Eventually, the MSRs will be a cheaper source of energy (100% carbon free) and will put the oil sands out of business.

          • JONBOSTON

            Pipelines are safer than rail transportation. Recall the derailment in Canada that wiped out a small town. And it’s not a choice between building it to benefit the US or not building it at all. It will be built. Obama likes to point out that it won’t create many permanent jobs. But all infrastructure projects involve few permanent jobs.

        • StilllHere

          You won’t get an answer, just insults…

        • jimino

          If you want to engage in debate, start with identifying what you think should be done about all your areas of inquiry, then see what others have to say.

          Do you really not comprehend that a significant portion of people who consider themselves liberal or progressive believe Obama to have been a failure for being too conciliatory to and implementing the very policies of the so-called conservatives, with predictably poor results?

          Of course, if you never say what you believe or want done other than it ain’t what Obama has done, I guess we will never know.

          • JONBOSTON

            I never would have guessed. Obama is a neocon. If he’s a conservative, is he also a racist since , like Paul Ryan, he laments the bankruptcy of the inner city culture. Or maybe he’s a homophobe because he opposed same sex marriage before 2012. Or maybe he hates hispanics

          • jimino

            If you have nothing to say about the topics you originally raised, none of which are remotely related to this comment, why not just say so?

          • JONBOSTON

            Name any topic and I will respond. I’m working off my IPOD and not Mac computer because I had surgery Thurs and remain in the hospital.

          • Steve__T

            Wishes for a good recovery.

          • JONBOSTON

            Thank you…….

          • JONBOSTON

            You’re punching above your weight class. Most of your commentary is simple minded idiocy.

  • Cacimo

    Obama thinks so highly of himself that he does not need a foreign policy advisor similar to Kissinger, Albright, etc.. That certainly explains why US foreign policy has been a disaster.

    • TFRX

      Albright is similar to Kissinger, the war criminal? Hahaha.

  • KrazyHarold

    The EU is very unpopular in many of the member states. If these states had referendums the EU would be half the size. The EU is run by crony capitalist and is every bit as corrupt as the Russia oligarchy! I hear all this nonsense about exporting the US NG to the EU to replace Russian NG. Compressed NG and shipping it to the EU is far more expensive that piping it! Plus the US hasn’t build the facilities which will take 2-3years to complete if they start today! If Russia turns off the gas to Germany Berlin will be rationing power! They mothballed their nuclear power plants in favor of NG power plants to save the environment!

  • StilllHere

    Obama is desperate for rspcet, but doesn’t know how to earn it.

  • gslouch

    Wow! This site has simply become a place for talkin’ trash. Too bad! Love your show Tom!!

    • tbphkm33

      Oh, don’t worry – every few weeks the two sides just have to go after each other. Its all in jest.

  • WorriedfortheCountry

    “Harry Reid lets Obama, Eric Holder cover up IRS scandal”

    “The Obama-Holder IRS coverup has become so blatant that Jay Sekulow, the attorney who represents 41 of the groups targeted by the tax agency, was blunt in his reaction to the decision: “An independent prosecutor — with no political agenda — is truly needed to uncover the origin and depth of this unconstitutional targeting scheme. By rejecting this request, the Justice Department puts politics ahead of the rule of law.””

    http://washingtonexaminer.com/examiner-editorial-harry-reid-lets-obama-eric-holder-cover-up-irs-scandal/article/2546031

    • TFRX

      More troll crap from right-wing hack sites. Quel surprise.

      • pete18

        I am shocked, shocked to find out that there is another non-response disguised as righteous indignation about the messenger going on in here!

        • tbphkm33

          Get off your ass and write a well thought out and developed post on your own, as opposed to this Nopublican/TeaBagger drivel of posting links. Glad to see you guys finally figured out how to cut & paste, now how about figuring out critical thinking and writing skills… oh wait, in that process you would realize how inane the conservative message really is and realize its not how the world works.

          • pete18

            Is there an example somewhere from your own writing that you can point to so I can learn this process?

          • StilllHere

            Don’t hold your breath.

        • jefe68

          The right wing victim train keeps on rolling along.

      • tbphkm33

        Nopublican/TeaBagger Trolling – giving trolls around the world a bad name.

  • WorriedfortheCountry

    “6 Arguments Only A Liberal Could Believe”

    “3) (Before Obamacare was passed) Everyone should support Obamacare because it will cover all of the uninsured, it’ll save you money on health care, you’ll get to keep your doctor and it’ll be super convenient! It’s going to be the greatest thing ever! (Now) Sure, Obamacare mostly insures people it knocked off of their existing insurance, it costs a lot more, you can’t keep your doctor and the website is insanely difficult to deal with, but it’s the greatest thing ever!”

    Generalizations can be flawed but there is a nugget of truth in these examples (just peruse these threads). Here’s another:

    “2) We’re all going to die because man is causing global warming! Proof? It’s science! Granted, no one can explain the science that proves global warming. But, science isn’t about science, it’s about repeating the word “science” over and over again like a magic incantation. Science, science, sciencey, sciencey science! See? It’s science and scientists agree that it’s science! Why do you hate science so much? Why do you want polar bears to die? Oh, and science!”

    http://townhall.com/columnists/johnhawkins/2014/03/18/6-arguments-only-a-liberal-could-believe-n1810570/page/full

    • tbphkm33

      Ah, the feeble regurgitation of links back to half-baked Nopublican/TeaBagger mythology/propaganda. 95% of conservatives I have meet are “daddy-Republicans,” simple minded ideology based on the fact their daddy said this was the way the world worked. I don’t know if there is even one original thinker amongst the bunch.

      • WorriedfortheCountry

        Congratulations! Your reflexive name-calling, non-response supports the thesis of the essay.

        • tbphkm33

          Institutionalized Troll Alert

      • pete18

        Right on schedule.

        • tbphkm33

          Yep, like I said, “pete18″ another fine example of a “daddy Nopublican”

          • pete18

            It’s impressive how many excuses you have not to engage. By the way, both my parents were liberals, as was I when I was younger (not that any of this matters). Work on another theory and make sure it continues to keep you from ever involving yourself in content or ideas.

          • jefe68

            I guess you just developed more sociopathic tendencies as you grew older. One day you’re going to need medical care. It’s not a matter if, it’s a a matter of when. Unless you’re very wealthy you will have financial problems if you have an extended hospital stay or a serious illness.

            You political dogma wont help with those bills.

      • pete18

        You need to get out more.

    • nj_v2

      TownHall(dot)com!? Hahahahahahahaha!!

      • WorriedfortheCountry

        Thank you for providing more evidence supporting the author’s thesis.

        • nj_v2

          Posting this crap from places like Townhall and wanting to be taken seriously about the science is like posting stuff from the National Enquirer and claiming it’s real journalism.

          That you’ve repeatedly done this makes it abundantly clear that you don’t understand or care the issues and that you can’t be taken seriously.

          In the absence of any hint of reform, growth, or real intellectual development, ridicule and dismissal has become my default reaction to this garbage.

          • WorriedfortheCountry

            Funny coming from you given that you regularly post a litany of leftist diatribes. Notice that there is rarely the kind of reflexive response from conservative posters to your linked posts.

            There is a nugget of truth in all 6 examples in the essay. If you can’t see it I can only conclude that you blinded by your ideology. The climate example isn’t about science. It is about how many leftists shut down discussion of the science.

          • nj_v2

            Your article is crap. The author creates bulls**t, charicatures and strawmen and pats himself on the back knocking them down.

            Unlike many of the conservoclowns out here, i’m not partisan. I don’t support the corporate Democrats. I don’t defend the fake, neoliberals. I’ve criticized Obama on real issues, not fake, bogus crap made up by the insane right. I criticize many of the Obama-apologist, wimpy, fake “left” sites like MoveOn.

            When you’re ready to discuss real issues based on real facts, let me know.

    • Steve__T

      “nuggets of truth make lies easier to swallow”.

  • WorriedfortheCountry

    Another excellent essay.

    “Why Liberals Attempt to Silence Honest Debate”

    “The suppression of open discourse is anathema to our nation’s founding principles”

    “Neither the Fairness Doctrine nor the proposed CIN are actually intended to increase “fairness”; they are designed to suppress points of view which dissent with government, especially a left-of-center government.”

    http://thefederalist.com/2014/03/19/why-liberals-attempt-to-silence-honest-debate/#disqus_thread

    • tbphkm33

      If there only was a worthy debate opponent – instead of these fools that only recently discovered cut & paste of web links and equate that to a debate???

      Develop your own thoughts and present them, only a fool let others speak for him.

      • WorriedfortheCountry

        Another feeble attempt to silence honest debate. Thanks for readily showcasing the left.

        • tbphkm33

          WHAT DEBATE – you are never capable of debate, only capable of cutting & pasting links? Do you even comprehend what a debate is?

          • WorriedfortheCountry

            Yawn. Get back to me when you are interested in discussing the content of the essay.

          • Steve__T

            You don’t get it. He misses his friend, re read his post.

          • WorriedfortheCountry

            Ah, maybe Honest Debate has a new job at The Federalist.

          • Steve__T

            Nope, just on vacation.

    • StilllHere

      Clearly this is going to result in insults for you from those who could benefit most. Pity.

  • OnPointComments

    I know union corruption can’t be considered news since it happens so frequently, but…SEIU’s scam that took money from Medicaid checks of families that care for disabled relatives in their homes has resulted in a fine, plus a lawsuit to get back some of the dues.

    SEIU FINED ALMOST $200,000 OVER ACTIONS TIED TO 2012 BALLOT PROPOSAL CAMPAIGN
    http://www.michigancapitolconfidential.com/19891

    Excerpt:

    The Service Employees International Union, the labor group behind the home health care dues skim, has been fined $199,000 for concealing that it bankrolled Proposal 4 in 2012, which would have locked a forced unionization scheme into the state constitution.

    The fine for campaign finance violations is the second-largest ever levied in Michigan, according to a press release from the secretary of state’s office. Between 2006 and when the dues skim finally ended in early 2013, the SEIU took more than $34 million from home-based caregivers, most of whom were taking care of family and friends.

    “We suspected all along that the SEIU was trying to hide its real intentions, which were to prolong the dues skim so it could continue to steal money from some of the state’s most needy people,” said Patrick Wright, director of the Mackinac Center Legal Foundation.

    The Mackinac Center Legal Foundation has filed a complaint against the SEIU to try to get back some of the dues that was paid to SEIU.

    • OnPointComments

      Incidentally, for those who constantly worry about money in elections, SEIU spent the following in the 2012 election cycle:

      $18,224,695 – PACs, candidates, outside spending groups
      $2,494,857 – lobbying
      $23,011,004 – PACs, party committees, Super PACs, 501Cs

      Greater than 99% of the nearly $44 million of SEIU’s political expenditures went to Democrats and Democrat/liberal PACs.

      • Steve__T

        In the coming weeks, the Supreme Court is expected to issue another big decision on campaign finance, one that could further open the floodgates to unfettered and anonymous contributions. Already, three times as much money has been raised for this year’s elections as four years ago, when the Citizens United decision was announced.

        Investigative reporter Andy Kroll adds this analogy on super PAC dark money from a conversation that he had with an unnamed senator.

        I had a conversation with a progressive senator who is not a fan of super PACs and at the time did not have his own sort of individual super PAC… And I said, ‘What is this like when you’re going to go up against an opponent who does have a super PAC and does have a motivated one percenter in his corner?’ And he said, ‘It’s like going into a boxing ring. I’m wearing boxing gloves. And the other guy has an Uzi.

        • OnPointComments

          All of your comment may be true, but often the argument is framed by reporters like Andy Kroll as if only Republicans and conservatives spend money on elections and have Super PACs. Political spending is bipartisan.

          • Steve__T

            You should have listened to the interview.

          • OnPointComments

            A quick perusal of Mother Jones reporter Andy Kroll’s articles listed on the Mother Jones website shows that he is far more concerned about conservative political spending than he is about liberal political spending.

          • Steve__T

            You should have listened to the interview.
            Try this link, also in the discussion is Kim Barker, an investigative reporter with the independent, non-profit news organization ProPublica. I’m sure you believe them to be to the left also. But if what I said earlier is true Political spending comes down to who has the most bucks wins dam the voters.

            http://billmoyers.com/episode/whos-buying-our-midterm-elections/

          • OnPointComments

            I just listened to the interview. You’re correct that I consider every person in the interview to have a liberal viewpoint. Based on this interview, I would say that Moyers, Barker, and Kroll are much more interested in conservative spending than liberal spending. The most frequently repeated name in the interview is “Koch.”

          • WorriedfortheCountry

            Any mention of Soros or Steyer?

          • OnPointComments

            2 mentions of Steyer
            11 mentions of Koch
            0 mentions of Soros

          • OnPointComments

            Unsurprisingly, for me at least, Moyers brought up Steyer with the question “Do you differentiate in any way between the Koch brothers, the Koch empire, and the billionaire like Tom Steyer who wants to educate the public on climate change and defeat climate deniers, and Bloomberg who wants to take on the gun culture?”

            Andy Kroll answered with: “I think you have to. I mean, I think you have to in one sense, judge them on the merits of the issue that they are putting their money behind. On the other side, you seem to have a lot of conservatives who they’re very passionate about this issue or that. But those issues also happen to align with the bottom line of their companies. However, the spending– the raising and spending of that money on both sides has an effect on our democracy.”

            Get that? Liberals are educating the public, conservatives are adding to the bottom line. As I said, in my opinion, the interview definitely had a liberal viewpoint.

        • OnPointComments
    • tbphkm33

      Nopublican/TeaBagger Troll Alert.

      • OnPointComments

        Why is it that liberals always want the things they say are so beneficial to society, like unions and Obamacare to name two, to be mandatory? If these things are so wonderful, wouldn’t everyone choose them without being forced?

        • jefe68

          Maybe because some folks want a society that’s not based on the primitive idea of dog eats dog.

          • pete18

            And to do this they make people’s healthcare MORE expensive, less available, less flexible, while adding to the deficit and
            taking away jobs. The road to hell is paved by people who think they have superior intentions.

          • jefe68

            So you’re solution to health care is to do nothing. Is that it? The US is the only industrial nation without a decent health care system. Ours is a for profit system that costs twice as much and guess what, it’s not even covering 80% of the population.

            The cost of health care was never part of the ACA, which was a huge mistake in my view. I’m not going to go back and forth with you on this as you seem to not even a basic understanding of how dysfunctional health care system is.

            I was never in favor of the ACA, I want a single payer system.

            This video is from 2011, if you think this is how our nation should be, akin to a third world nation, that’s leaning towards being sociopathic in my opinion.

            http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sORTJMyRA7Y

          • pete18

            You are missing my point. The disfunction of Obamacare came from the attitude of those with superior intentions that considered anything that had to do with understanding the market forces involved with healthcare as part of the villainous “dog eat dog” world to be avoided at all costs. While doing nothing wasn’t my first choice there is no doubt that would have been far superior than what Obamcare has wrought.

            I’ve posted some of the market based ideas that I think would be a better approach to healthcare multiple times in the past but no one ever responds to them. Seems to be a pattern when those on the conservative side offer their ideas on this topic.

        • notafeminista

          Leftists can’t stand the thought that someone might think differently than they do, and thus, choose differently. They after all, do know what’s best for everyone.

          • JS

            How about,”lobstahbisque can’t stand the thought that someone….” Labeling a whole group based on one persons opinion weakens your arguments.

        • lobstahbisque

          Ya mean like abortion?

          • notafeminista

            Abortion is beneficial to society?

          • lobstahbisque

            Yes, in that it’s a CHOICE you numbskull. Plus it prevents us from
            making redundant copies of ourselves which, in reducing
            population growth, takes the strain off of resources.

          • notafeminista

            So people are not a benefit to society……….?
            Or maybe you are saying some people are not a benefit to society?

          • lobstahbisque

            You mean Romney’s 47 percent? No that’s the Republican meme, “takers” you’re talking about. Don’t confuse the two. It is a CHOICE not to bring unwanted children into the world.

          • notafeminista

            Well the children certainly don’t have any choice in it.

          • lobstahbisque

            Zygotes don’t HAVE choice. The problem of population growth will be a bi-partisan issue when it dawns on the right that proper birth control is a looming survival issue not only of poor women, but everybody. Blah blah bah….

          • notafeminista

            …and there you have it folks. “proper” birth control (read: that with which we lefties can control) will be a bi-partisan issue when it dawns on the right (read: people too stupid and stubborn to permit lefties to control their lives) is a looming survival issue not only of poor women, but everybody. (read: because as previously stated, the Left does know what is best for everybody. They know it.)

          • lobstahbisque

            Go ahead, stubbornly cling to your guns and God, your Palin and your Schlafly. I wouldn’t mind your archaic views if they didn’t take the rest of us down with people like you, but eventually the light of educated reason will prevail, and so will the long arc of justice.

          • TFRX

            Go home, trollista.

      • hdesignr

        What are you adding to the conversation by name calling?

        I agree with some points you have brought up in other topics. Using terms like ‘nopublican’ and ‘teabagger’ makes you sound like an ass.

        • harverdphd

          well…..

      • harverdphd

        I see you’ve given up trying to make sense and be civil….works for me -

        • StilllHere

          Not sure he ever tried.

  • nytw

    Rand Paul obviously despises our troops who are fighting to protect America. He should resign and move to Russia or Iran.

  • JONBOSTON

    Highly recommend everyone check out Romney’s interview today on Face The Nation. It’s so depressing to think how better off this country would have been with Romney in the oval office instead of the gross incompetent we’re stuck with.

    • nj_v2

      Yep, Mittens would have curtailed Russian adventurism just the way Eisenhower prevented Russian incursion into Hungary in 1956, and the way Johnson prevented the Russian invasion of Czechoslovakia in 1968, and how Carter prevented the invasion of Afghanistan in 1979, and the way Dubya successfully prevented the incursion into Georgia in 2008.

      • notafeminista

        Implication being that Russia aside, President Obama’s tenure thus far, has been without flaw.

      • JONBOSTON

        You’ve made a straw man argument . I made no such claim. I merely said if you want to listen to someone qualified for the oval office listen to his interview. If you want to listen to someone whose made himself the laughingstock of the world , listen to Obama’s interview on Two ferns or Ellen DeGeneres.
        What does the Hungarian and cZech invasions have to do with Ukraine? They were Soviet incursions into two countries that were part of the Soviet empire and not NATO allies. My broader thought is that weakness invites aggression, such as when The Soviets invaded Afghanistan. And Putin has Obama’s number, namely zero.

    • TFRX

      That boiseterous nobody, who was talking smack about the Russians in 2012, was going to…what?

      It’s highly recommended in that we get what we dodged with Romney’s defeat.

      • JONBOSTON

        I agree. We get three more years of watching our pretend president strut down the steps of Airforce 1 and practice his salute. I bet you he stands in front of a mirror after every round of golf and admires himself and his salute. Do you think he has in his closet a C-I-C uniform that he’s dying to show off to his friends in Hollywood ?

    • ExcellentNews

      Well, the billionaires of this country would certainly have been much better off. No inheritance tax, another war or two to pump taxpayer money into the offshore bank accounts, tinpot posturing to make the Nascar crowd think that they somehow rule the rest of the world, media-peddled fear interleaved with plump advertiser slots… and much more.

      As another shill for Rupert Murdoch and the Koch brothers, you are forgiven for thinking that “this county” consists of the 500 or so billionaires that sponsor the Republican party. As your pal Romney said it so well, it is clear that he does not consider the rest of America to count for much (maybe except as cannon fodder or providing valet services).

      GoBama!

      • JONBOSTON

        Your resort to cliches, cartoon characterizations, and just outright stupidity makes me laugh. And you’re right, even idiots, morons and welfare types need representation if not free contraceptives. Stop feeling sorry for yourself and bleeding resentment of the producers in our society. It won’t get you a job or off welfare.

  • hennorama

    Another week without a new shooting war involving the U.S. military.

    Thanks, Obama.

  • http://hammernews.com/ hammermann

    Once again – I live in Kyiv and have covered this since beginning of Nov (predicted Yanu wouldn’t sign EU AA a week before he reneged). 98% of the tripe about extremists, anti-Semetic, xenophobic factions is nonsense- standard boilerplate Soviet/Russian propaganda they’ve been doing for 90 years!!! I haven’t seen a speck of evidence of any actions like that- Maidan was composed of people from every corner of Ukraine, Jews, foreigners, I even have 3-4 very pro-Maidan Russians in my hotel. Russians despise the Ukrainian independence movements (so-called Bandarites) because they were the only peoples in the SU who resisted their monstrous slaughters (10-15 million people murdered in Ukraine), so they’ve been trying to discredit them since the 1920′s. Unfortunately, Western journalists are absolute suckers for this stupid tactic and BS story- Nazi’s still sell, and the tiny possibility of a RW revival is trumpeted as a great threat to Western civilization, whereas Russian bullying, abuse, extortion, brutality , and now INVASION get short shrift. Propaganda works, and every time you repeat that baloney, you are effectively being Putin’s stooge.

    Please, don’t be SO LAZY, and easily led astray. One more insidious effect of these neo-Nazi lies is that they tie Ukraine’s hands- anything they do to defend themselves- throwing out the Russian “tourist” rioters for example- is cited as proof of extremism, or worse, instability that requires Russian intervention..

  • Ahmad Alhassan

    The
    Western leaders are assuming that they can steel a march on the
    Russians (like ringing Russia in “anti-Iran” missile defenses) and
    checkmate the target without actually engaging in major war. This is
    exactly the aim of the Kiev putsch. These geniuses ignore the very
    strong possibility that no military confrontation with Russia in its
    backyard is possible unless it involves major warfare.

    http://theoriginalamed.blogspot.com/2014/03/ukrine-flashpoint-ii.html

ONPOINT
TODAY
Sep 2, 2014
U.S. Sen. Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., talks with Mark Wilson, event political speaker chairperson, with his wife Elain Chao, former U.S. Secretary of Labor, at the annual Fancy Farm Picnic in Fancy Farm, Ky., Saturday, August 4, 2012. (AP)

Nine weeks counting now to the midterm elections. We’ll look at the key races and the stakes.

Sep 2, 2014
Confederate spymaster Rose O'Neal Greenhow, pictured with her daughter "Little" Rose in Washington, D.C.'s Old Capitol Prison in 1862. (Wikimedia / Creative Commons)

True stories of daring women during the Civil War. Best-selling author Karen Abbott shares their exploits in a new book: “Liar, Temptress, Soldier, Spy.”

RECENT
SHOWS
Sep 1, 2014
Pittsburgh Steelers outside linebacker Jarvis Jones (95) recovers a fumble by Carolina Panthers quarterback Derek Anderson (3) in the second quarter of the NFL preseason football game on Thursday, Aug. 28, 2014 in Pittsburgh. (AP)

One outspoken fan’s reluctant manifesto against football, and the big push to reform the game.

 
Sep 1, 2014
This Friday, Aug. 22, 2014 photo shows a mural in in the Pullman neighborhood of Chicago dedicated to the history of the Pullman railcar company and the significance for its place in revolutionizing the railroad industry and its contributions to the African-American labor movement. (AP)

On Labor Day, we’ll check in on the American labor force, with labor activist Van Jones, and more.

On Point Blog
On Point Blog
Our Week In The Web: August 29, 2014
Friday, Aug 29, 2014

On hypothetical questions, Beyoncé and the unending flow of social media.

More »
Comment
 
Drew Bledsoe Is Scoring Touchdowns (In The Vineyards)
Thursday, Aug 28, 2014

Football great — and vineyard owner — Drew Bledsoe talks wine, onions and the weird way they intersect sometimes in Walla Walla, Washington.

More »
Comment
 
Poutine Whoppers? Why Burger King Is Bailing Out For Canada
Tuesday, Aug 26, 2014

Why is Burger King buying a Canadian coffee and doughnut chain? (We’ll give you a hint: tax rates).

More »
1 Comment