Whitehouse knocks it out of the park rebutting Infhofe’s claim that government agencies are “colluding” with the president in warning that there is climate change:
If you want to ignore the federal government, if you live in a world in which you think the federal government colludes with itself to make up things that aren’t true, okay. But look at the property casualty insurance and reinsurance industry. They’re the people with the biggest bet on this. They have billions of dollars riding on getting it right, and they say climate change is real, carbon pollution is causing it, we’ve got to do something about it. So does the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, because they care about the poor and the effect this will have on the people who have the least. So does every major U.S. scientific society. Every single one.
Update, 4:50 p.m. The Mediaite post referenced below has been taken down. But it’s already out there on YouTube. This is what the original article said: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XSMgqifFIxM
Earlier today, Mediaiteposted a story on the 50th anniversary of the 1963 March on Washington claiming that Chris Matthews called an Obama inaugural speech “the second greatest” in U.S. history. Snarky comments followed on the site, calling Matthews a sycophant, egotist, etc, mocking Obama. But listen to what Matthews actually said. Granted, he is a fast-talker, but it’s clear that he was talking about Martin Luther King, Jr. and not President Obama:
Here is what he said to MLK III:
The president has a tough act to follow, to put it lightly. He’s got to stand on those steps where your dad stood and gave, I think, after the second inaugural of Lincoln, the second greatest American speech ever given.”
I left a comment on the site a few minutes ago pointing this out. It was moderated and published briefly, but now I can’t find it. And the article is still up in its original, incorrect form. I’ve listened to the clip several times, and I can understand how a first listen could confuse people, especially if they are eager to take down Matthews or Obama or both, but in this case they are just plain wrong.
Delegate Heather Mizeur talks about being an out lesbian and champion for marriage equality in the Maryland General Assembly, reconciling her sexual orientation and politics with her Catholic faith, and eyeing a run for governor.
Delegate Heather Mizeur could become the nation’s first openly gay governor
Melissa Kessler discusses her master’s program and residency in organization development
Podcast Episode #6 – Melissa Kessler talks about Organization Development
Have you ever had a job that felt like a dysfunctional family?
Have ever you wondered what you could accomplish at work if all of the smart and talented people around you could communicate and get along with one another?
There is a discipline within the broad field of workplace consulting called organization development (OD) that has been around since the postwar era with roots that go back even further. OD consultants look at the organization from many different angles – interpersonal, structural, intercultural and even unconscious – in order to help the organization get out of its own way.
My guest, Melissa George Kessler, is a student in American University’s master’s program in OD, and she is preparing to graduate in just a few weeks. She sat down with me to discuss the program a trip to South Africa during which she and fellow students got to practice their OD chops on an actual client.
“Republican congressional offices shopped a false dossier as if it was White House emails.”
Rachel Maddow, pointing her finger and looking directly into the camera, challenged her peers at ABC News to say who in Congress peddled fake emails with false information on the White House role in the Benghazi “talking points” controversy.
“Someone in Congress or a staffer concocted a big lie to try to make the White House look very desperately bad on this Benghazi scandal that they otherwise have not been able to get traction with. Who told the lie?”… If your source lied to you they are not actually a source. They are a con artist and you are their victim. It means you don’t have to protect them anymore….Their lie to you is itself news and you can report that news.”
“Republican congressional offices shopped a false dossier as if it was White House emails. That is a story. The office and the staffers and the members of Congress who did that? That is news. And if you know who it is, you can say so.”
I am disappointed in Rachel Maddow and her guest tonight, Alice Hoagland, the mother of Mark Bingham, who was killed on Flight 93 on 9-11-2001, for using the term “conspiracy theorist” and for labeling people who hold to such theories as “kooks.”
I assume the 9-11 Truth activists they referred to in this dismissive manner know who the current president is, know what day it is and can probably hold down a job. However misguided, stubborn or misinformed Maddow and Hoagland consider these people to be, chances are they are no more or less mentally ill than any other sample of society.
The term “conspiracy theorist” bothers me because the way in which people use it is dangerously circular: If you believe in a “conspiracy theory,” you are crazy. Therefore, any explanation of a world event other than the official story espoused by elected officials is to be dismissed because only conspiracy theorists believe in such nonsense, and they are crazy.
How much actual wrongdoing goes uninvestigated and unreported by those who fear being shunned by society by being labeled “conspiracy theorists?”
What bothers me almost as much as people who label government skeptics conspiracy theorists are those at the other end of the conspiracy spectrum; that is, people who are never going to believe the official story simply because it is the official story, who believe that The Governnment is a monolithic Superpower that is always lying to us and is motivated only by the desire to deceive and enslave us, steal our money, harvest our organs, and poison whatever remains of our dessicated husks.
The Government is just people. It’s us. People who work in government, including elected officials, are motivated by the same forces that propel all behavior: ambition, compassion, duty, pity, lust, competitiveness, territoriality, fear, laziness, generosity, honor, spitefulness, love, resignation, compulsiveness, perfectionism, and habit. People in government commit noble, selfless acts at work. They also engage in petty, sometimes unscrupulous behavior. Sometimes the same person behaves both appallingly and heroically during the course of a government career.
Some of the biggest sins committed in government are sins of omission, such as the failure to blow the whistle on incompetent, illegal and immoral behavior. What is the primary cause of such failure to act? Fear. Fear of being fired, ostracized, labeled a crank, a cook, a Conspiracy Theorist.
Here is a web site with several conspiracies that really took place, including the Gunpowder Plot, the Tuskegee Experiments and, my favorite, the CIA’s horrifying MK-ULTRA project.
Why can’t more talk radio and talk television be like this? Like Jian Ghomeshi of CBC, David Pakman pushes the conversation to a new level by being polite and persistent. It doesn’t hurt to have an articulate guest who’s equally devoted to truth and fairness. For a longer interview with Nica Noelle, check out the interview I did with her a few years ago right here on this podcast. Whoopi Goldberg and Elisabeth Hasselbeck, take note.
One of the aims of this website is to improve the conversation by focusing on the way in which we discuss the issues, and nothing makes me happier than watching a conversation like this. In this video two conservatives on Fox News discuss same-sex marriage based on its merits and on procedural and legal matters pertinent to the Supreme Court. The results may surprise you.
Rather than the scream-a-thon that unfolded, rife with straw man arguments, false choices, interruptions on the part of all of the participants “statistics” cited without being backed up, I wanted to hear what all of the women had to say, including the ones on the tape that Hannity played to introduce the segment.
What would it have been like if they had conducted a true dialogue that touched upon subjects like the role of statistics in the debate? For example, even if statistics really do show that more people have their guns used against them, should that be the end of the story? I don’t know the answer to the question, which is why I would have preferred to hear more of what everyone had to say on the subject. I would have liked them to ponder the question of whether we can both teach men and boys not to rape and still protect ourselves from the disturbed, “unteachable” offenders who are still going to attack.
No, seriously, if you want to “win” an argument, accuse the other person of being racist, sexist, homophobic, a “one-percenter,” a socialist, un-American, anti-religious, etc.
An attack on someone’s motives grabs headlines, is something you never have to back up with evidence, and completely relieves you of the responsibility of backing up your claim with facts and logic: who knows what evil lurks in the heart of the other person? One can only imagine.
Once accused, there is no way to be proven innocent. The accusation is the sentence. Nothing will make you look more racist, sexist, anti-Semitic, homophobic or unpatriotic than trying to prove that you are not.
Remember when Glenn Beck accused President Obama of having a “deep-seated hatred toward white people”? Like a dirty bomb spewing radiation into the atmosphere, that baseless “specusation” has lingered in the body politic for years, contaminating the public perception of Obama’s every statement and policy initiative.
The president himself, wisely and regularly refuses to dignify such remarks with a response. His top priority is getting his agenda passed, and his weapon of choice is reasoned debate. Engaging in a fruitless argument over whether or not he is racist or un-American or a Real Christian would distort his message and decrease the ratio of signal to noise in the overall debate.
Noting the rightward shift of the Democratic Party and his position as its standard bearer, some have called Obama an “Eisenhower Republican.” Policy matters aside, his leadership style does resemble that of Eisenhower, who, according to historian Fred I. Greenstein, avoided “engaging in personalities” at all costs, and who advised others to “never question a man’s motives.”
Engaging in personalities is a cheap way to win a fight. Making it into a habit causes the muscles of the heart to weaken and the brain to turn to mush. Specusation is seductive, precisely because it is so effective, and we as a society are forgetting how to debate in good faith using reason and logic. If we should lose that ability altogether, then our democracy really will be nothing more than legalized mob rule.