The New York City hotel maid who accused Dominique Strauss-Kahn of sexual assault is thanking her supporters. Nafissatou Diallo says she wants to let people know that a lot of the things being said about her are not true. (July 28)
Continue reading …Tina Dupuy has an excellent piece in The Atlantic examining how this Republican Congress is on pace to set a modern record for non-accomplishment — while expending endless energy passing bills that have no chance of passing the Senate: One quarter into the 112th Congress’s two-year term, only 14 pieces of legislation originating in the House have become laws (12 bills and two house joint resolutions). Fourteen. Compare that with the House in the 111th, which claimed 254 laws (plus 11 house joint resolutions) over two years. The 110th had 308 (plus 10 house joint resolutions). Even the often-derided do-nothing 109th Congress’s House controlled by the GOP passed 316 (with 16 house joint resolutions). If the current House continues with this trend it will have produced a mere 48 laws by the end of the chamber’s full term. Quick math: The last three Houses have by this time in their tenure produced an average of 76 laws each. But when House Republicans are actually in session, it’s not exactly like they’re doing nothing. They’ve made a point of passing bills that “send a message.” Over and over, they’ve brought legislation to the floor that was doomed to die in the Democrat-controlled Senate. Why? To put taxpayer money where Republican congresspersons’ mouths (and votes) are. Yes, the House Republicans of 112th Congress are having a love affair with the symbolic vote. Dupuy compiled a list of the many bills that have passed the House with no chance of passage in the Senate, including the health-care repealers, defunding Planned Parenthood and NPR, ending the oil-drilling moratorium in the Gulf, and gutting the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. Of course, these are the same people demanding that President Obama devise a debt-ceiling plan … even though that’s a responsibility clearly in Congress’ hands. By the way, look for more of Dupuy’s work here at Crooks and Liars. She’s joining the C&L team beginning Monday. (You can also check out her work at her own site .) Welcome Tina!
Continue reading …Two “alert” emails hit my inbox this morning concerning the Department of Labor's just-released unemployment claims report . The one I expected came from CNNMoney.com, which read: “Initial unemployment claims fall below 400,000 for the first time in more than 3 months, dropping 24,000 to 398,000 in latest week.” The other one came from USAToday.com, which does not ordinarily issue alerts when this report appears, took the opportunity to relay the same message, followed by an assertion that today's report is “a sign the job market may be healing after a recent slump.” Over at the Associated Press, Christopher Rugaber joined in the celebration (possibly more permanent link here ): The number of people seeking unemployment benefits dropped last week to the lowest level since early April, a sign the job market may be healing after a recent slump. The Labor Department said Thursday that weekly applications fell 24,000 to a seasonally adjusted 398,000. That's the first time applications have fallen below 400,000 in 16 weeks. The four-week average, a less volatile measure, dropped to 413,750, the lowest since the week of April 23. Stocks rose after the report was released. Economists cautioned that the lower level only reflects one week of data and that doesn't necessarily signal a trend. The two emails, Rugaber's dispatch, and Annalyn Censky's CNNMoney's report (USAT carried Rugaber's work) all failed to inform readers about the report's history of subsequent-week revisions. In 18 of the past 20 weeks, upward revisions have been 2,000 or more. An increase of that magnitude or greater would of course restore the supposedly broken streak if it takes place next week. The average upward revision for the past 20 weeks from initial announcement to final result has been 4,500: The folks at Zero Hedge, who have been looking at this trend much longer than yours truly and observing similar results, today found it all “quite amusing as next week's upward revision will mean the 400k+ streak will continue.” Well, not for certain. But just as it would be irresponsible for a sports reporter to report a halftime score as final, it's just as irresponsible to claim that a streak has ended without identifying its clearly tentative nature — especially given what's happened during the rest of the game for the past several months. Cross-posted at BizzyBlog.com .
Continue reading …Because dirigibles were such a great idea the first, completely non-disastrous time around, Lockheed Martin and the US Army have teamed up to bring the quaint technology back into our hyper-modern era. The lighter-than-air vehicle got a new lease on unmanned flight life when it launched yesterday from its base in Akron, Ohio. The High Altitude Long Endurance-Demonstrator (HALE-D for short) reached 32,000 ft during its maiden voyage before technical difficulties cut the test short, forcing an emergency landing in the deep woods of southwestern Pennsylvania. Despite the flight-aborting hiccup, the global security company is all smiles, citing the successful demonstration of “communications links, [the] unique propulsion system, solar array electricity generation [and] remote piloting communications.” Future real-world versions of HALE-D could serve as a military “telecommunications relay system” over foreign terrain — like Afghanistan — where radio signals can’t penetrate. The Defense Department contractor is currently retrieving the airship from its foresty crash pad, but you can bet some locals already called this close encounter in to the local papers. Skip past the break for Archer’s take on our government’s latest airborne effort. Continue reading Lockheed Martin’s HALE-D airship learns to fly, makes a crash landing Lockheed Martin’s HALE-D airship learns to fly, makes a crash landing originally appeared on Engadget on Thu, 28 Jul 2011 15:43:00 EDT. Please see our terms for use of feeds . Permalink
Continue reading …Dan Savage knows Rick Santorum is pretty unhappy with him for turning the word “Santorum” into a less-than-pleasant sexual term —but Savage actually “displayed remarkable restraint,” he says, by only redefining Santorum’s last name. He’ll do the exact same thing to Santorum’s first name, Savage warns on Funny or Die…
Continue reading …US government conducts ‘integrity inquiry’ on federal biologist amid lobbying by oil firms for Arctic permits It is seen as one of the most distressing effects of climate change ever recorded: a polar bear dying of exhaustion after being stranded between melting patches of Arctic sea ice. But now the government scientist who first warned of the threat to polar bears in a warming Arctic has been suspended and his work put under official investigation for possible scientific misconduct. Charles Monnett, a wildlife biologist, oversaw much of the scientific work for the government agency that has been examining drilling in the Arctic. He managed about $50m in research projects. Some question why Monnett, employed by the US Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Regulation and Enforcement, has been suspended at this moment. The Obama administration has been accused of hounding the scientist so it can open up the fragile region to drilling by Shell and other big oil companies. “You have to wonder: this is the guy in charge of all the science in the Arctic and he is being suspended just now as an arm of the interior department is getting ready to make its decision on offshore drilling in the Arctic seas,” said Jeff Ruch, president of the group Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility. “This is a cautionary tale with a deeply chilling message for any federal scientist who dares to publish groundbreaking research on conditions in the Arctic.” The group filed an official complaint on Monnett’s behalf on Thursday, accusing the government of persecuting the (PDF) scientist and interfering with his work. It seeks his reinstatement and a public apology. Monnett was on a research flight tracking bowhead whales, in 2004, when he and his colleagues spotted four dead polar bears floating in the water after a storm. The scientists concluded the bears, though typically strong swimmers, had grown exhausted and drowned due to the long distances between patches of solid sea ice. It was the first time scientists had drawn a link between melting Arctic sea ice and a threat to the bears’ survival. Two years later, Monnett and a colleague published an article in the science journal Polar Biology, writing: “Drowning-related deaths of polar bears may increase in the future if the observed trend of regression of pack ice and/or longer open water periods continues.” The paper quickly heightened public concern for the polar bear. Al Gore, citing the paper, used polar bear footage in his film Inconvenient Truth. Campaigners focused on the bears to push George Bush to act on climate change, and in 2008, the government designated the animal a threatened species. It was the first animal to be classed as a victim of climate change. In 2010 the Obama administration began an investigation into his work. The scientist was suspended with pay on 18 July. He is said to be under a gagging order and forbidden from communicating with his colleagues. The employee group’s complaint alleges that the investigation is a thinly veiled attempt to disrupt scientific work on the Arctic. Oil firms, which want to drill in the pristine environment of the Chukchi and Beaufort seas, have been complaining of delays caused by environmental reviews. This month Obama issued an order to speed up Arctic drilling permits. A spokeswoman for the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management Regulation and Enforcement (Boemre) said the government would continue to carry out research on the potential impacts of Arctic drilling, despite Monnett’s suspension. “All of the scientific contracts previously managed by Mr Monnett are being managed by the highly qualified scientists at Boemre,” Melissa Schwartz said in an email. She noted that the investigation was being overseen by the inspector general, which is independent, and that it was being conducted according to the Obama administration’s new guidelines on scientific integrity. However, Peer argues the exercise is intended to discredit Monnett’s brief paper on the polar bear. Other organisations also accused the government agency of a long record of meddling in science. A 2009 report by the Government Accountability Office found huge gaps in Boemre’s research on the impacts of drilling in the Arctic. And the Alaska Wilderness League stated: “Alaska Boemre has continued to ignore science and traditional knowledge in its decision-making about oil and gas development.” Documents posted on the League’s website include a transcript of a conversation between investigators and Jeffrey Gleason, another government scientist on the 2004 trip. Gleason, who works for the government, in the Gulf of Mexico, said he did not necessarily share Monnett’s conclusions that the polar bears were killed as a consequence of climate change. “It’s something along the lines of the changing environment in the Arctic,” he was quoted as saying. United States Arctic Polar regions Obama administration US politics Oil Royal Dutch Shell Oil Suzanne Goldenberg guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …Heavy fighting erupted Thursday in Somalia’s capital Mogadishu as African Union peacekeepers launched an offensive aimed at protecting famine relief efforts from attacks by al-Qaida-linked militants, officials said. (July 28)
Continue reading …Shortly after noon today, MSNBC's Contessa Brewer followed her colleague Chuck Todd in using the anniversary of the 14th Amendment becoming law to cite the liberal fantasy of a clause in the amendment empowering President Obama to end-run Congress on raising the debt ceiling. Like Todd she got her history and the text of the relevant clause wrong. This occurred during a satellite interview with Rep. Elliot Engel (D-N.Y.) on the debt ceiling debate: BREWER: Let me ask you about another angle this could take. On this date in 1868 the 14th Amendment was adopted into the Constitution. [Rep.] James Clyburn [D-S.C.] is raising the prospect once again of the president using that amendment to raise the debt ceiling on his own without congressional approval. The amendment says in part “the validity of public debt shall not be questioned.” The White House has essentially said look, it's not applicable to this problem. Is there a bigger role for the president in breaking this impasse? Of course, Engel is a huge proponent of such an unconstitutional end-run, so he took the opportunity to then plug his press conference to be held later in the day with other liberal Democrats calling on President Obama to attempt such a maneuver. But Brewer misquoted Section 4 of the 14th Amendment , which reads in full (emphasis mine): The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law , including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any State shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void. Article I, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution reserves to Congress the power to loan money on the credit of the United States and no amendment changes that. The president cannot unilaterally raise the debt ceiling and thereby loan more money on credit of the United States than Congress has assented to. Indeed, even liberal constitutional scholars like Laurence Tribe have dismissed the idea as unconstitutional and as setting a dangerous precedent if pursued. As to the history of the 14th Amendment's adoption, while it's true that on July 28, 1868 U.S. Secretary of State William Seward issued a proclamation recognizing that the 14th Amendment had been officially ratified , it was 19 days earlier on July 9 that the amendment was actually adopted, when South Carolina's legislature voted for ratification. Article V of the U.S. Constitution makes perfectly clear that proposed amendments “shall be valid to all intents and purposes …when ratified by the legislatures of three fourths” of the states. For a network that repeatedly slams Tea Party conservatives for an alleged sloppy command of history and/or ignorance of the Constitution, it sure could use some brushing up on those subjects. # # #
Continue reading …Go ahead and get the family plan, because cell phones don’t increase the risk of brain tumors in kids or adolescents—the groups that should theoretically be most vulnerable—according to a new study. The European study, which involved nearly 1,000 participants, was prompted by fears that kids’ developing…
Continue reading …A woman says she was was asked to turn her T-shirt inside-out at a Tennessee theme park because its text, “Marriage Is So Gay,” was considered potentially offensive to other patrons. Olivier Odom, who visited the water park complex on July 9 with friends and their children, said she was denied entry by a front
Continue reading …