Public interest and transparency advocacy group Judicial Watch filed a federal Freedom of Information Act Request to force the Obama administration the release photographs of the raid on Osama Bin Laden’s compound in Pakistan last weekend. Included in the suit is a request that pictures of Bin Laden’s corpse be released to the public.
Last night at roughly 11:oopm EST, President Obama announced that the United States was in custody of the body of Osama Bin Laden, the founder of al- Qaida and the leader behind the 9/11 attacks that killed over 3000 Americans in 2001.
I want to start by saying the case of Baby Joseph is heartbreaking.
This little boy, only fifteen months old, is suffering from a terminal illness. He’s going to die. His Canadian doctors said if the boy was taken off a ventilator at at his most recent hospitalization, he would die. Those doctors refused to perform a tracheotomy on him. So the parents started asking doctors in the US for help. The Children’s Hospital in Detroit was among those that said no. SSM Cardinal Glennon Children’s Medical Center in Saint Louis said yes.
Continue reading
Gurrls, Kay Martina here to lay it out for you with value and style. My sisters and I are ready to pour the “T” for you. Let’s start with Miss Marsha Dimes.
Marsha Dimes here, sweetie, to tell you all about the big mess in the skies. Did you think about flying on a plane any time soon? Well, be sure to send a coffee up to the air traffic controller’s office before you board the plane, miss girl, because they are gonna need it. The FAA’s decision a while ago to cut staff has laid some eggs which hatched in the form of air traffic controllers sleeping on the job. Girl, I know how it is. There I was, working my corner for my usual afternoon shift and then along comes Big Daddy to tell me I need to work the Republican Party headquarters on the overnight shift. Shoot. A girl needs her beauty sleeps before she’s going to party with those freaks. But no, Big Daddy says they want a ladyboy and pronto, so off I go to the hotel, and there they are, slavering away like they do. Oh lord, they move so slow! By the time any of them were ready to do anything, I had fallen asleep in the corner. Just like those air traffic controllers! And don’t you know not one of those selfish Republican bastards would share a bump of coke with me? Hmph. Serves ’em right they had to pleasure themselves on my while I napped. Well, enough about me, I’m gonna throw it to Miss Selma Babiesforcrack.
Selma in the house! I heard over in the UK that more than 80,000 people are on the dole (that’s what they call the unemplerments over there) and the reasons they give for not being able to work are hitting the bottle too hard, being addicted to drugs, or being overweight. Hey now, Amy Winehouse has the first two and she’s got a job, mmmkay? She needs to go on the TV and tell these lazy mofo’s it is time to get off the couch and into the streets. About being overweight, honey, you know there’s always phone sex work. Lots of lonely menz need a friendly voice to talk to and you don’t even have to leave your house. You don’t even have to be able to read for that job, just gots to have a filthy mouth. Stay away from the Orbit gum and you’ll do fine. Now here comes Natalie Attired, and she knows a little something about an oral oopsie.
Yes! Miss Natalie is ready to tell you about Maria Topp, who visited her boyfriend at his house and tried to bite off his balls, honey. Lorena Bobbitt called and said hey, I already worked this corner, miss thing. I’m not sure if this is a statement, her trying to tell him he’s got no balls, but maybe that’s where she was trying to go with this. Then again, it’s hard to tell someone they’ve got not balls when your mouth is full of their balls, so maybe her plan needed a lil more thought before she just went for it.
Miss Frieda Fondle with some loser news for you people — failed actor and right wing nut job Dwight Schultz, former host of a podcast called “Howling Mad Radio,” reports that our President is going to force him to change his gender. Hmm. Let’s see. This child had a very minor part on Star Trek: The Next Generation in the 90’s. And after that? Um, he’s off the radar. So then he does his podcast and lord knows what that is but it sounds like something that Big Daddy charges a lot of money for. So mister freaky deaky says this: “Sometimes when I listen to this administration and I look carefully at the people who have been appointed, I don’t wonder whether or not someday they’re going to be knocking on the door saying, ‘You know, it’s time for your sex change. You got it. It’s in your health care bill. It’s going to make things a lot easier. I promise.’” I don’t know why he thinks that the health care reform bill, which the Republicans totally stripped down and made useless, is going to pay for anything. For reals, okayy? Shoot. You know I can’t get assistance for a pair of heels or a wig hat, I don’t see how this no-talent whiny chile thinks he’s going to get anything out of the feds.
Last up is Miss Sheesa Beehatch, talking about The Donald and his roadkill toupee. Lord, what’s under his wighat? He thinks he can make a run for President as a Republican. A few short years ago, he was all about paying off the deficit, raising taxes, taking care of people. Now, he’s a teabagger, a birther, and he says no more government hand outs, and seriously, no raising taxes on people who have money, mmmkay? I, Sheesa Beehatch, am here to call shenanigans on this. The Donald is just drumming up ratings for his loony fake celebrity show on TV. Carpetbagger. Shooz. He’s a Johnny-Come-Lately, and by that I mean I doubt he has come lately because look at him!
Okay, that’s all the “T” we’ve got for you today. Be sure to pay attention next time when we talk about crazy drunk Russian President Dmitry Medvedev and his shexsay dance moves. Oh shoot, hon, here they are right now.
Sources: BBC News, Yahoo News, OnTop Magazine
Why do you hate me?
I mean, you’re lucky I saw you. Happily cruising in the bike lane in along 34th Avenue in Queens, watching warily, as I usually do, for cars that don’t bother to signal before pulling out from parking, or people who open doors without looking, or drivers who think the bike lane is a passing or turning lane—you stepped out from between two parked SUVs, in the middle of block, not looking at oncoming traffic, holding the hand of a little girl who was clutching a wrapped birthday present.
Thank God I’d just gotten my bike tuned up for spring, complete with new brake pads. I can stop on a dime. You stepped forward. You stepped back. That made it difficult to ride around you.
So I said, “Excuse me.”
This uncorked a fury inside you. You screamed at me, throwing F-bombs like Mellissa Leo at the Oscars, yelling about how you had more right to be here than me, how I don’t own the street, how I need to leave him alone, how I should go and lose some weight (you lost five points for creativity there, buddy).
New Yorkers are angry at people who ride bikes. Let’s explore why.
First off, bike lanes take away room for cars. There’s no getting around that. Bike lanes take away driving lanes in some cases, and parking spaces in others. It’s interesting that everyone agrees we need to encourage less driving in the city, but no one wants to give up their cars.
That’s the least of the problem. Biking’s problem is that the major cycling advocacy groups have no clue how to win over the public.
Some suggestions:
Cycling advocates need to back cops when they hand out tickets for cyclists committing traffic violations. You want to be treated with respect, helmet-people? Well, start earning it. You’ve got to stop at red lights. You’ve got to yield to pedestrians. You’ve got to stop wearing headphones while biking. Make sure your bike is equipped with the reflectors and bells and lights required by law. Don’t argue with the police officer who stops you for not stopping at a light. She’s only doing her job. When a police officer is directing traffic, his directives also apply to you—not just the cars behind you. Don’t ride on the sidewalk. When the street is too dangerous, dismount and walk. When Central Park is crowded, slow down. This ain’t the Tour de France. In other words, act like adults.
Next: Use that record of law-abiding good behavior to demand from your city representatives that police go after drivers who make conditions unsafe for everyone—other cars, pedestrians, and cyclists. When was the last time you saw someone make a full stop at a stop sign? Stop for a pedestrian in a crosswalk? Use signals on a regular basis? That this driving behavior is allowed to continue unfettered in this city is outrageous.
Can we just get rid of Time’s Up and its ilk? There is a difference between persistence and aggression. Groups like Time’s Up push aggression, hoping to shove bike lanes and bike infrastructure into place. No one likes change to be shoved at them. Present. Sympathize with the opposition. And be willing to compromise. More can be done with talking than with fighting.
Don’t respond to fire with a container of gasoline. When the conservative population in Willamsburg got upset about a bike lane there—largely, it was alleged, because women rode bikes in “immodest clothing” (I wonder how my bike tights would be taken there) the hipsters organized a protest which involved them riding their bikes naked. Turns out it was too cold to ride naked, so the group largely backed out, but that’s not helping. Cyclists came off as a group of entitled brats with a complete lack of respect for everyone around them. That’s not to say the conservatives were right. But it would have been very easy ride onto high road, rather than the low.
Lastly, play nice. Let a car go past you. They’re faster. And heavier. Let an old lady cross the street. Remember this isn’t a race. Realize you’re not the only person on the road. And don’t yell back at peckerheads.
First things first: Nuclear Power is a tricky issue. I don’t expect to solve it in a short article and some snarky comments. Nonetheless, it’s one of the key issues confronting countries around the world as their existing power stations age and (in many cases) as their demands for energy grow, especially in developing countries like China and India.
Second things second: It’s important to look at this issue (like any issue) logically and not with emotional knee-jerk reactions.
What I mean is this. If I show you this picture:
and ask whether cats are cuddly and cute or vicious killers who must be controlled, you’ll at least be conflicted.
If I show you THIS picture:
and ask whether cats are cuddly and cute or vicious killers who must be controlled, I know your answer.
If I ask you what you think of nuclear power after you’ve just seen this:
well…..
But what if I showed you
and asked you whether you want a few hundred more of these going up around the world in the next decade, or whether you would prefer some power stations which don’t use coal or oil or gas and which don’t emit greenhouse gases?
For further amusing and scary information on the way this kind of emotional manipulation can be used in surveys, I highly recommend this classic Yes Minister clip:
Moving on:
What are the advantages of nuclear power? Well, that’s easy, we’ve cited some of them above:
1. No greenhouse gas emissions, or other noxious substances which contribute to acid rain, smog and other air pollutant.
2. Doesn’t use traditional fossil fuels and we don’t seem to be in danger of running out of uranium any time soon.
3. Already commercially viable and practical, and indeed very efficient, for use on the scale of providing power to millions of homes and businesses.
1 & 2 are the advantages over traditional fossil fuel power stations. 3 is the advantage over renewable energy sources apart from hydro power. Naturally, if we could just rely on solar power and wind power for all our energy needs, we would do it. It can’t be done yet. For now, it’s a 2 horse race. Perhaps we’re talking a stop-gap measure for only 5-10 years, maybe we won’t have renewal energy on a practical scale until vicious war halves the population. But every year, more power stations must go up around the world to meet demand, and we’ve got to decide what we want them to be NOW, not in 10 years (or after Thunderdome).
What then are the disadvantages?
1. If a nuclear plant goes bad, it will contaminate the surrounding land beyond habitability forever (until cleaned up, if it can be cleaned up, which will take decades).
2. If a nuclear plant goes bad, it may release radioactive particles into the wind and water which spread far beyond the immediate area, making the health damage more than just a localized issue.
3. Nuclear energy may not produce air pollutants, but it does create noxious waste of another kind which must be stuck somewhere. The more nuclear energy used, the more waste produced and the more secure faraway places we must find to stash the radioactive waste.
4. Risk of uranium fuel sales being diverted into weapons manufacture, or at “best” a “dirty bomb”.
To counter this, one could say: these are all manageable risks. If you don’t mess up running your nuclear plant (and hundreds of such plants around the world, for decades, have run without melting down), 1 & 2 don’t matter. if you can successfully store and partially recycle your radioactive waste (which, so far, has been managed by all nuclear countries), 3 doesn’t matter. If you keep proper security, 4 doesn’t matter. The problems with fossil fuels, on the other hand, cannot be stopped. Fossil fuels will run out, and when you burn them they release tons of air pollutants.
The trouble with that argument is of course, that ignoring Chernobyl, partial meltdowns and major leaks have occurred in the United States, the United Kingdom and now Japan. Few countries are not subject to major earthquakes or floods or other disasters which can affect the safe operation of plants despite all the safety precautions. And now we’re talking about rolling more of the things out in an era of lowest-price-wins construction tendering, in developing countries who haven’t had 30 years of experience to iron out the teething problems, in countries where a $10,000 bribe to divert some uranium isn’t chickenfeed but instead enough money to set a family up for life.
My personal belief is that most if not all nuclear power accidents have occurred with old technology (even the Fukushima reactor at the center of the present crisis is a very old one built to lower safety precautions than are now in use, and which was already overdue to be decommissioned). Countries can safely use nuclear power as a stopgap for renewable energy, and must do so to buy time to get greenhouse gas emissions down, but they should heed the lessons of Fukushima about doing anything on the cheap or taking anything for granted, and if wealthier countries need to chip in a bit to ensure others do it properly and don’t leave nuclear power plants to be built by the President’s brother-in-law and staffed by men paid $1 a day, then they should realise it’s in their own collective self-interest, less a fallout cloud sweep across their borders.
But on the other side, I can see how this will only create a permanent and huge hoard of nuclear waste, to be stored effectively forever, a long-term problem to be managed long after greenhouse gases have been brought under control, and that my idealistic dream of countries acting responsibly in this day and age is overly optimistic, and that fossil fuel power plants are a necessary way of playing it safe, the lesser evil to avoid the catastrophe of nuclear meltdowns.
Or maybe we should just accept global warming is inevitable and plan for how to survive that, not how to shuffle deckchairs on the beach while the tide is rising?
Your thoughts, upon reaching the end of this lengthy post, would be appreciated.
Last month the California Public Utilities Commission issued a ruling that limited the powers of Pacific Gas and Electric in dictating the kinds of technology customers were required to have in their home. At issue were Smart Meters, a digital monitoring technology that allows the PG&E to more accurately monitor gas and electricity usage and reduce the need for manual meter readings. The utility company has already installed thousands of the meters in Northern California, and plans to roll out thousands more over the next few years. PG&E claims that the meters will be more efficient than traditional meters and will allow for more sensitive pricing which will increase efficiency in energy use. Now because of the ruling, PG&E must offer different metering alternatives for customers who do not want smart meters.
However, critics argue that the meters are a health hazard and violate customer privacy. Opponents of the meters assert that the meters cause headaches, heart problems, insomnia, and nausea because of the communication technology used to transmit data from the home to the power company. Smart meters are wireless devices that emit small amounts of electromagnetic radiation when they transmit. This raises protests from people who consider themselves “electrosensitive.” According to advocacy groups for the electrosensitive, radio and microwaves, even in trace amounts, cause certain people to become ill when exposed to technology like smart meters.
However, the problem with these arguments is that smart meters have been found to be well with in guidelines for safe usage in homes and businesses. While there are legitimate concerns about wireless technology (particularly cell phones), there has been no conclusive evidence that wireless technology is unsafe in any way. The issues found with cell phones are only when the phones are within centimeters of the brain and smart meters are installed on the exterior of buildings, well away from where people keep their brains. Furthermore, there is simply no evidence that electrosensitivity exists at all. While opponents of smart meters provide anecdotal evidence, there is simply no science to back up the claim that radio waves make you sick.
The conflict over smart meters is nothing new. It is the same fear advanced by opponents to radio and cell phone towers, as well as electric power lines. There is no evidence that any of those things make you sick either, but that has not stopped opposition from the public to these forms of technology. The reality is that the concerns of a few misinformed but well-meaning people are stopping the universal adoption of smarter energy policy. These efforts may be crucial in our struggle to make efficient energy policies and reduce the impacts of global climate change, which could kill lots of people through increased skin cancer rates, decreased food production, or geographic displacement. In a desire to stay personally healthy these individuals may not be able to see the technology forests for the trees, and may be missing the long term risks of bad energy practices. While PG&E has no choice to accommodate its customers, this issue underscores the need for a wider public discussion about emerging technologies and about what constitutes good public science and policy.
Another week, another dollar. I’m left jowl.
And I’m right jowl.
And this is World Roundup with Mark Shields’ Jowls. I’d like to apologize right off the bat for being a bit late with this post. Mark switched up his denture cream, and the smell in here, sweet living Christ the smell… Anyway, his doctor says it’s for the best or whatever but the fact remains: Fixodent finds a way to make an 81-year-old man’s mouth smell worse than it does in its normal state. And that’s gotta count as some kind of accomplishment, probably. Right jowl, I need a breather… Continue reading
Bravo, Harry Reid!
Sure, the Senate Majority Leader was obviously enjoying milking the Shutdown Showdown for all it was worth. But he did such a good job. He denounced the Republican leadership, saying this wasn’t about spending. Such a dry, boring issue, unfortunately, for the American voter.
This was about cancer! This was about women! This was about his granddaughters, for Chrissake, and he was angry, personally offended, and appalled that Speaker John Boehner wanted all the women in his life to die of breast and cervical cancers, even though we can all be certain the women in Harry Reid’s life don’t have to rely on free clinics for medical care.
Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy
Reid was not attempting to persuade the conservative voters he was right. Reid was attempting to lure the swing moderates for 2012 into his corner. At the same time, he appeased hardcore Democrats by — finally — showing some fight.
By the way, did you notice Boenher’s pink tie choices? He loves women! Pink ties!
–Newsbunny has been an alleged journalist for twenty years, largely focusing on political news
Hello Crasstalk, I’m Mark Shields’ left jowl.
And I’m Mark Shields’ right jowl.
And this is World Roundup with Mark Shields’ Jowls.
As jowls go, we’ve seen a lot. We’ve been there and back again. We’ve forgotten more stories than most of today’s firm-cheeked young “journalists” have followed on Twitter. We’ve jowled with jowliest of the jowls from the limpest Liebermans to the meatiest McCains—we’ve literally gone jowl-to-jowl with every established, occasionally centrist, and often infuriatingly inconsistent politician in this town, and we know you and David Brooks wouldn’t have it any other way. With our bona fides established, Left Jowl begins our Roundup in North Africa. Continue reading