At a townhall meeting in Amery, Wisconsin last week, the “Real World’s” Rep. Sean Duffy (R-WI) exposed just how out of touch with ordinary Americans he is. According to progressive blog Rightguardia, one constituent — an underemployed construction worker — explained that his wife, a teacher, may have to take a cut in wages if Wisconsin’s draconian budget bill goes through. “I’m just wondering what your wage is and if you guys would be willing to take a cut,” he asked Duffy.
Displaying that delicate sense of empathy characteristic of conservatives, Duffy whined about his $174,000 congressional salary and his “used minivan.” When the man pointed out his salary was “three times what I make,” Duffy reassured him that “I have more debt than you.” “I’m not living high off the hog,” he added:
Constituent: But a hundred and seventy-four thousand, that?s three times ? that?s three of my family?s ? three times what I make.
Duffy: Well our budget?I moved to cut by 5 percent. I did. You know what, I have no problem..let?s have a movement afoot. I walked into this job 6 weeks ago..um that I worked incredibly hard for. And I can guarantee you or most of you, I guarantee that I have more debt than all of you.
With 6 kids, I still pay off my student loans. I still pay my mortgage. I drive a used minivan. If you think I?m living high off the hog, I?ve got one paycheck. So I..I struggle to meet my bills right now. Would it be easier for me if I get more paychecks? Maybe, but at this point I?m not living high off the hog.
Duffy is certainly no Rep. Darrell Issa (R-CA), a multimillionaire car alarm mogul. Like many Wisconsinites, he has several kids and, according to his financial disclosure statement, student loans and a mortgage to pay off. But Duffy’s salary is indeed about three times Wisconsin’s (and the national) median income. What’s more, Wisconsin’s unemployment rate is 7.4 percent statewide, and 8.2 percent in Wausau, a city Duffy represents.
During the 2008 presidential campaign one Fox News executive repeatedly tried to smear Barack Obama with charges of "socialism."
Liberal watchdog group Media Matters has uncovered audio that indicates Fox News Washington managing editor Bill Sammon was just engaging in what he called "mischievous speculation."
In 2009, Sammon told an audience aboard Mediterranean cruise sponsored by a right-wing college that his 2008 attempt to link Obama to socialism was "a premise that privately I found rather far-fetched."
"Last year, candidate Barack Obama stood on a sidewalk in Toledo, Ohio, and first let it slip to Joe the Plumber that he wanted to quote, 'spread the wealth around,'" Sammon said. "At that time, I have to admit, that I went on TV on Fox News and publicly engaged in what I guess was some rather mischievous speculation about whether Barack Obama really advocated socialism, a premise that privately I found rather far-fetched."
During the 2008 campaign, the then-Washington deputy managing editor repeatedly suggested that Obama had socialist tendencies.
On Oct. 14, 2008, Sammon said that Obama's comment to Joe Wurzelbacher "is red meat when you're talking to conservatives and you start talking about 'spread the wealth around.' That is tantamount to socialism."
In early February, Media Matters obtained an email where Sammon offered talking points to Fox News staff, linking Obama to socialism and Marxism during the 2008 campaign.
"If Fox News really cares about its 'reporting,' they will fire DC exec Bill Sammon over this," former MSNBC anchor David Shuster tweeted Tuesday.
"These remarks, unearthed by the liberal advocacy group Media Matters, raise the question of whether Sammon, who oversees Washington news coverage for Fox News, was deliberately trying to sabotage the Democratic presidential candidate," The Daily Beast's Howard Kurtz noted.
In another e-mail obtained by Media Matters, Sammon told his staff to downplay the importance of climate science that showed the world was getting warmer.
Additional emails showed that Sammon asked his news department to refer to the public option as the "government run option" because polls showed the phrase "government option" was opposed by the public.
Our regular featured content-Six In The Morning by mishimaOn This Day In History by TheMomCatPunting the Pundits by TheMomCatAnd these articles-Federal Medical Marijuana Policy Needs Clarity by TheMomCatAccountability? by ek hornbeckEvening Edition by[...]
Read The Full Article:
In an Op-ed at Truthout, William Rivers Pitt nails it so accurately and in a manner so eloquently simple, that I'm just gonna post the link and shut up for a change.
As the Washington, DC, Board of Education announces it will be looking into news that schools former Chancellor Michelle Rhee rewarded as high performers showed suspiciously high levels of wrong-to-right erasure patterns on test sheets, Rhee is lashing out:
"It isn't surprising," Rhee said in a statement Monday, "that the enemies of school reform once again are trying to argue that the Earth is flat and that there is no way test scores could have improved ... unless someone cheated."
No, Michelle. Flat-earthers follow faith, not evidence. Just as you are doing by trying to cast this as your reform or no reform, good guys and bad guys, evidence be damned. Let's review: Noted enemy of school reform McGraw-Hill, which scores the test sheets, flagged the pattern. Fringe left publication USA Today investigated it?unlike your administration, which conducted only the most cursory investigation and that belatedly. And academics at Arizona State University, Georgetown University, and Western Michigan University agreed that the pattern called for thorough examination.
Dana Goldstein explains why things like this are exactly what we can expect from high-stakes testing:
Campbell?s Law states that incentives corrupt. In other words, the more punishments and rewards?such as merit pay?are associated with the results of any given test, the more likely it is that the test?s results will be rendered meaningless, either through outright cheating or through teaching to the test in a way that narrows the curriculum and renders real learning obsolete.
In the era of No Child Left Behind, Campbell?s Law has been proved true again and again. When the federal government began threatening to cut off schools? funding if they did not achieve across-the-board student ?proficiency? on state reading and math exams, states responded by creating standardized tests that were easier and easier to pass. Alabama, for example, reported that 85 percent of its fourth-graders were proficient in reading in 2005, even though only 22 percent of the state?s students demonstrated proficiency on the National Assessment of Educational Progress, the gold standard, no-stakes exam administered by the federal government.
Simultaneously, instances of outright cheating were rising nationwide.
The idea of improving education is a good one. It's just that today's "education reform" movement is variously educationally bankrupt, corrupted by Wall Street money and privatization fever, and defined by Michelle Rhee's fame-seeking flat-earth approach. Before we can effectively improve education, we have to reform the "reform" movement.
This week’s Outside the Box is a little different. It’s a stroll down history lane and thoughts on confidence, from Grant Williams, in the form of an introduction to his letter Things that Make You Go Hmmm. Grant currently resides in Singapore, and I find him a very thoughtful read and a wonderful resource. . . . → Read More: The Confidence Game
Read The Full Article:
We learn that the South Carolina legislature has postponed debate on new tax cuts. One of the measures being debated "...encourage wealthy people to invest in start-up South Carolina companies, and to encourage companies to locate or expand headquarters[...]
Read The Full Article:
At the beginning of his conference call today, deputy national security advisor Ben Rhodes mentioned the London conference attended by Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. She met with coalition partners and members of the Libyan opposition, and he said[...]
Read The Full Article:
A Washington Times editorial falsely claims that a recent sea level study "shows oceans are not rising." In fact, the study does not dispute that sea levels are rising, and the study's author calls the Washington Times' claim "a mischaracterization of our work."
Wash.Times:"Latest Report Shows Oceans Are Not Rising." A Washington Times editorialthat was posted online on March 28 and appeared in the print version of thenewspaper on March 29 claimed that a recent study "shows oceans are notrising":
Wash.Times Claims Study ShowedIncrease In Sea Level In Western Pacific "Was Offset" Elsewhere. The editorialhighlighted a recent analysis of U.S. tide gauges by James R. Houston and Robert G. Dean published inthe Journal of Coastal Research and claimed that the researchers foundthat "the sea level was increasing in the western Pacific, but this was offsetby a drop in the level near the Alaskan coast":
TheUnited Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), co-recipientwith Mr. Gore of the Nobel Peace Prize, quantified the sea-level rise as beingbetween 7 and 23 inches by the year 2100. They argued that man's emissions ofcarbon dioxide have been heating up the globe. While man's CO2 is identical tothat emitted by polar bears and other animals favored by environmentalists, theleft insists "too much" of it is melting polar ice caps. This, the theory goes,makes the oceans swell.
Aformer research director with the Army Corps of Engineers and a formercivil-engineering professor at the University of Florida decided to put thesea-rise claims to the test. They gathered U.S. tide-gauge readings from 57stations where water levels had been continuously recorded for as long as 156years. The result did suggest the sea level was increasing in the westernPacific, but this was offset by a drop in the level near the Alaskan coast."Our analyses do not indicate acceleration in sea level in U.S. tide gaugerecords during the 20th century," the study's authors concluded. "Instead, foreach time period we consider, the records show small decelerations that areconsistent with a number of earlier studies of worldwide-gauge records." [WashingtonTimes, 3/28/11]
StudyAuthor James R. Houston: Wash. Times' Claim "Is A Mischaracterization OfOur Work." JamesHouston, Director Emeritus of the Corps of Engineers' Engineer Research andDevelopment Center and an author of the study cited by the Washington Times statedin an email:
Saying, "Latest report shows oceans are notrising" is a mischaracterization of our work. Sea levels arerising. Our study showed that the rise is not accelerating - it isactually slightly decelerating over at least the last 80 years.
An analogy would be driving a car. Ifyou are driving at a constant speed of 60 miles per hour, the car is notaccelerating, but obviously moving. Sea level has been rising at a rateof about 1.7 millimeters per year for the past 100 years. We consideredwhether the 60 mile per hour speed of the car was accelerating (you are pushingon the gas pedal) or decelerating (you are pushing on the brake). Wefound a slight deceleration - sea level over the past 100 years, inparticularly the past 80 years, has decelerated slightly, but it is rising.[Email to Media Matters, 3/29/11]
Thestudy included the following chart of global mean sea level:
Houston:Wash. Times "Implies That The Net Effect Has Been No Rise. This Is NotThe Case." MediaMatters askedHouston about the Wash. Times' statement that "The result did suggestthe sea level was increasing in the western Pacific, but this was offset by adrop in the level near the Alaskan coast." Houston replied that this was areference to satellite measurements, not the tide gauge measurements that hisstudy analyzed. Houston also stated:
Basically, from 1993 to 2010, sea level risemeasured by satellite altimeters has been remarkably spatially variable overthe planet. But if you add up all the ups and downs, the net effect has been arise measured by the altimeters of about 3.1 millimeters per year from 1993 to2010. The newspaper article implies that the net effect has been no rise. Thisis not the case. [Email to Media Matters, 3/29/11]
Study Author Robert Dean: "Sea Level In The 20thCentury Was (And Is) Rising." Responding to the WashingtonTimes' claim that his study "shows oceans are not rising," Robert Dean, Professor Emeritus at the Department of Civil and Coastal Engineering ofthe University of Florida, stated via email:
There is adifference between "rising" and "accelerating". Accelerating means thatthe rate of rise is increasing. Sea level in the 20th Century was(and is) rising, it wasn't accelerating taking the entire century as a whole.
Because thesatellite altimetry has concluded that since 1992, the rate of rise has beenmore rapid than in the 20th Century (which would imply a recentacceleration), we are now examining more than 400 gauge records over the last20 years or so. [Emailto Media Matters, 3/29/11]
WashTimes: TheStudy"Put The Sea-Rise Claims To The Test." After stating that theIntergovernmental Panel on Climate Change "quantified the sea-level rise asbeing between 7 and 23 inches by the year 2100," the editorial claimed thatHouston and Dean "decided to put the sea-rise claims to the test." [Washington Times, 3/28/11]
Houston:IPCC Figures Are "A Reasonable Prediction For The Range Of Scenarios TheyConsider." Houstonstated via email:
I personally think that IPCC (2007)'s rangeof 7-23 in by 2100 is a reasonable prediction for the range of scenarios theyconsider. Our results would indicate that if the conditions of the pastcentury persist (so a similar temperature rise of the past century), the riseby 2100 would approach the lower limit of the range - so about 7 inches. However, most of the scenarios involve greater temperature rises and we alsowould expect there might be greater melting of ice sheets in Greenland andAntarctica.
Therefore, a range of 7-23 inches seemsreasonable to me given we don't know which scenario of greenhouse gasemissions, temperature rises, and sea level response to temperature rises willoccur. [Email to Media Matters, 3/29/11]
JoshWillis Of Jet Propulsion Laboratory: "Past Rise Is Not An Indicator Of FutureRise." Commentingon the Journal of Coastal Research study via email, Josh Willis, anocean expert at the Jet Propulsion Laboratory,stated: "I think that most people who study global sealevel rise accept that there has been an increase, or acceleration, in the rateof global sea level rise during that last 100 or more years. However, scientists do disagree on howobvious this is in some of the tide gauge data." He also said that "it is very difficult to estimate the rate of globally averaged sea level rise from tide gauges alone, much less to do so with something a subtle as acceleration." Willis added:
But more importantly, past rise is not an indicator of future rise. When we lookclosely at the things that cause sea level rise, like ice loss from glaciersand ice sheets, we find that they can dump huge amounts of ice into the oceanin a very short time. So this paper has little or no bearing on sea levelrise during the next century. Most people who study these things agreethat future rise will be something like 2 to 5 feet by 2100 and this paperdoesn't change that." [Email to Media Matters, 3/29/11]
NCAR's Kevin Trenberth: "Since 1993 Sea LevelIs Rising At Rates Unprecedented In The Past 150 Years." Kevin Trenberth, headof the Climate Analysis Section at the National Center for Atmospheric Researchsimilarly stated that the Journal of Coastal Research study "saysnothing about the future," adding that "future sea level rise is much debated"with some estimating that "it could be much greater than 23 inches by 2100 (theIPCC estimates are known to be low because they did not include all factors,and they say so.)" Trenberth further stated:
Factsare that since 1993 sea level is rising at rates unprecedented in the past 150years and it is well accounted for by expansion of the ocean and melting ofland ice. Prospects for the future are even larger increases dependingcritically on what happens to the major ice sheets of Greenland andAntarctica. Both have shown acceleration of melting since 2003. [Email toMedia Matters, 3/29/11]
GOP presidential candidate Herman Cain had told Think Progress that he would not appoint any Muslims to federal jobs. But it seems even this stalwart may be going soft. Cain now says he'd consider appointing Muslims who made a special pledge not to try[...]
Read The Full Article: