Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
markpkessinger
markpkessinger's Journal
markpkessinger's Journal
February 13, 2013
Seems to me he's attempting to conflate two issues that may be working at cross purposes: real action on climate change, and the desire to keep energy prices low.
Did anybody else find the President's remarks on climate change/energy policy contradictory?
After making such a bold statement about doing something about climate change, he then turned around and talked about speeding up new oil and gas permits. It struck me when I heard him say it, then I kind of forgot about until reading this article on Alternet, which put into words what had struck me initially:
[font=5]Obama's Contradictory Energy Policy: Combat Climate Change and Speed Up Drilling[/font]
Obama’s call that we “must do more to combat climate change,” received a standing ovation. But what did he propose we do? His ideas are a mixed bag. He called for “market-based solutions” but didn’t elaborate on what that would mean. Certainly leveling the playing field for renewables by getting rid of mammoth subsidies for Big Oil would be a start. The president urged Congress to take action and said he would use executive actions to get the job done if Congress won’t. Of course the president doesn't have to wait for a Congress that has failed to take any meaningful action on climate change, writing for Grist today, David Roberts wrote about what actions the president could take right now.
Even though Obama gave some lip service to renewable energy, he also kept up his support for natural gas and said that he would cut red tape to speed up new oil and gas permits, an idea that seems to run counter to doing “more to combat climate change.” The president continues to cling to tired notion of "all of the above" energy policy, which won't cut it in the climate change age in which we've now embarked.
He did however say he wanted to create an Energy and Security Trust to “shift cars and trucks off oil for good.” We'll see how that works out. The president stopped short of mentioning the contentious issue of tar sands and the Keystone XL pipeline.
Obama’s call that we “must do more to combat climate change,” received a standing ovation. But what did he propose we do? His ideas are a mixed bag. He called for “market-based solutions” but didn’t elaborate on what that would mean. Certainly leveling the playing field for renewables by getting rid of mammoth subsidies for Big Oil would be a start. The president urged Congress to take action and said he would use executive actions to get the job done if Congress won’t. Of course the president doesn't have to wait for a Congress that has failed to take any meaningful action on climate change, writing for Grist today, David Roberts wrote about what actions the president could take right now.
Even though Obama gave some lip service to renewable energy, he also kept up his support for natural gas and said that he would cut red tape to speed up new oil and gas permits, an idea that seems to run counter to doing “more to combat climate change.” The president continues to cling to tired notion of "all of the above" energy policy, which won't cut it in the climate change age in which we've now embarked.
He did however say he wanted to create an Energy and Security Trust to “shift cars and trucks off oil for good.” We'll see how that works out. The president stopped short of mentioning the contentious issue of tar sands and the Keystone XL pipeline.
Seems to me he's attempting to conflate two issues that may be working at cross purposes: real action on climate change, and the desire to keep energy prices low.
February 12, 2013
Read full article.
Here is the first comment I left in response:
And here is my second comment:
NYT/Nocera says gun advocates have a point regarding violent movies
I responded with two comments that were posted to the site, which appear below the excerpt
[font size=5]The ‘Die Hard’ Quandary[/font]
[font color = gray]By JOE NOCERA
Published: February 11, 2013 [/font]
< . . . . >
What got me thinking about “Die Hard” — and guns in the movies more generally — is, of course, the furious gun debate since the killings in Newtown, Conn. On one side are those who believe we can cut down on gun violence by, among other things, banning the assault weapons that always seem to be used in mass shootings.
On the other side are the Second Amendment absolutists, who argue that the real problem is the culture, soaked in so much violent imagery that it is virtually impossible to avoid. They add that a ban on assault weapons would be the beginning of a slippery slope that would ultimately lead to a ban on weapons of every kind.
It’s not that I don’t want to see a ban on assault weapons. I sincerely do. But after poking around the world of gun-crazed movies and other media, I have to say, the Second Amendment absolutists have a point. For instance, when you ask a spokesman for the M.P.A.A. about the real-world effect of gun imagery in the movies, he actually pushes back by claiming that “there is a predominance of findings that show there is no consistent or convincing evidence that exposure causes people to be more violent.”
This is, quite simply, untrue. “There is tons of research on this,” says Joanne Cantor, professor emerita of communications at the University of Wisconsin, and an expert on the effect of violent movies and video games. “Watching violence makes kids feel they can use violence to solve a problem. It brings increased feelings of hostility. It increases desensitization.” Every parent understands this instinctively, of course, but those instincts are backed by decades of solid research.
< . . . . >
[font color = gray]By JOE NOCERA
Published: February 11, 2013 [/font]
< . . . . >
What got me thinking about “Die Hard” — and guns in the movies more generally — is, of course, the furious gun debate since the killings in Newtown, Conn. On one side are those who believe we can cut down on gun violence by, among other things, banning the assault weapons that always seem to be used in mass shootings.
On the other side are the Second Amendment absolutists, who argue that the real problem is the culture, soaked in so much violent imagery that it is virtually impossible to avoid. They add that a ban on assault weapons would be the beginning of a slippery slope that would ultimately lead to a ban on weapons of every kind.
It’s not that I don’t want to see a ban on assault weapons. I sincerely do. But after poking around the world of gun-crazed movies and other media, I have to say, the Second Amendment absolutists have a point. For instance, when you ask a spokesman for the M.P.A.A. about the real-world effect of gun imagery in the movies, he actually pushes back by claiming that “there is a predominance of findings that show there is no consistent or convincing evidence that exposure causes people to be more violent.”
This is, quite simply, untrue. “There is tons of research on this,” says Joanne Cantor, professor emerita of communications at the University of Wisconsin, and an expert on the effect of violent movies and video games. “Watching violence makes kids feel they can use violence to solve a problem. It brings increased feelings of hostility. It increases desensitization.” Every parent understands this instinctively, of course, but those instincts are backed by decades of solid research.
< . . . . >
Read full article.
Here is the first comment I left in response:
Mark Kessinger New York, NY
Other countries have violent movies and video games, too, but don't have the problem of gun violence. Perhaps we need more research, more hard data, to establish what, if any, link there might be between playing violent video games or watching violent movies and a tendency to resort to the use of firearms to solve a problem.
As for the "tons of research" that the article suggests exists establishing a link between violent movies and a tendency towards believing violence is a real option in solving problems, how about pointing us to some specific studies, so we can evaluate the methodology, and make a determination as to whether such studies do indeed support such a claim. Off the top of my head, several questions immediately come to mind about these alleged studies: (1) how is "violence" defined; (2) are such studies merely correlative, or have their data sets been subject to far more rigorous statistical analysis that would help eliminate the possibility of some third factor the study has not considered; and (3) can the studies explain why such films and video games seem to have such a significantly larger impact upon Americans than upon other Western cultures.
Until such questions are answered, using specifically cited studies the methodology of which is available for scrutiny, this discussion is little more than a distraction designed to steer the public away from taking meaningful and needed action in the area of stronger regulation of gun sales and purchases.
And here is my second comment:
Violent movies and video games are not unique to American culture, yet American culture has a unique problem with gun violence. In trying to determine the root of that problem, does it not make infinitely more sense, is it not a far better use of resources, to focus our scrutiny on those aspects of our culture that are unique -- such as our lax gun laws and the availability of weapons designed to kill large numbers of people quickly -- rather than those that are not unique to us?
February 11, 2013
Full article and video at: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/02/10/lindsey-graham-chuck-hagel_n_2657802.html
Another thing to "thank" Harry Reid for . . .
. . . asshole.
[font size = 5]Lindsey Graham Plans To Block Chuck Hagel, John Brennan To Get Answers On Benghazi[/font]
WASHINGTON -- Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) plans to block two of President Barack Obama's top national security nominees until he gets answers from the White House on the terrorist attack in Benghazi, Libya.
Speaking on CBS's "Face the Nation" on Sunday, Graham said he was not going to let Chuck Hagel go forward as Secretary of Defense nor let John Brennan move ahead as CIA director unless he gets more information on the president's involvement in the response to the consulate attack that resulted in the killing of Ambassador Chris Stevens and three others.
"I don’t think we should allow Brennan to go forward for the CIA directorship, Hagel to be confirmed to Secretary of Defense until the White House gives us an accounting," said Graham. "Did the president ever pick up the phone and call anyone in the Libyan government to help these folks? What did the president do?"
"We know he talked to the Israeli Prime Minister from 8 to 9 on September the 11th [2012], about a dust-up of the Democratic platform, and the fact that he didn’t meet the Prime Minister of Israel when he came to New York to visit the U.N., but that’s not related to Libya," Graham added. "What did he do that night? That’s not unfair. The families need to know, the American people need to know."
< . . . . >
WASHINGTON -- Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) plans to block two of President Barack Obama's top national security nominees until he gets answers from the White House on the terrorist attack in Benghazi, Libya.
Speaking on CBS's "Face the Nation" on Sunday, Graham said he was not going to let Chuck Hagel go forward as Secretary of Defense nor let John Brennan move ahead as CIA director unless he gets more information on the president's involvement in the response to the consulate attack that resulted in the killing of Ambassador Chris Stevens and three others.
"I don’t think we should allow Brennan to go forward for the CIA directorship, Hagel to be confirmed to Secretary of Defense until the White House gives us an accounting," said Graham. "Did the president ever pick up the phone and call anyone in the Libyan government to help these folks? What did the president do?"
"We know he talked to the Israeli Prime Minister from 8 to 9 on September the 11th [2012], about a dust-up of the Democratic platform, and the fact that he didn’t meet the Prime Minister of Israel when he came to New York to visit the U.N., but that’s not related to Libya," Graham added. "What did he do that night? That’s not unfair. The families need to know, the American people need to know."
< . . . . >
Full article and video at: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/02/10/lindsey-graham-chuck-hagel_n_2657802.html
February 11, 2013
Are we really thinking about where all this drone business leads?
Look, it's only a matter of time before other countries, some of them who are not necessarily friendly to the U.S., develop the same capability. In using drones ourselves, are we not, as a friend of mine pointed out, effectively legitimizing a non-human, completely impersonal and completely efficient method of warfare? And in so legitimizing it, are we not guaranteeing that the practice will spread?
The argument that it "saves the live of American soldiers" is a seductive one. But it occurs to me that we may be allowing ourselves to become so seduced by that argument -- much as Truman was seduced by the use of the atomic bomb, on exactly the same grounds -- that we may fail to appreciate fully what we are unleashing upon the word and upon ourselves, just as Truman failed to fully appreciate the path he was putting the world on.
February 11, 2013
Full article at http://truth-out.org/opinion/item/14428-wrong-on-drone-hits
Truthout/Eugene Robinson: Wrong on Drone Hits
[font size= 5]Wrong on Drone Hits[/font]
[font color=gray][font size=2]Friday, 08 February 2013 09:40[/font][/font]
[font color=red]By Eugene Robinson, Washington Post Writers Group | Op-Ed[/font]
Washington, DC - If George W. Bush had told us that the "war on terror" gave him the right to execute an American citizen overseas with a missile fired from a drone aircraft, without due process or judicial review, I'd have gone ballistic. It makes no difference that the president making this chilling claim is Barack Obama. What's wrong is wrong.
< . . . >
But one of the few bright lines we can and should recognize is that in the exceedingly rare instances when a U.S. citizen may be targeted, our government bears a special burden.
The Obama administration acknowledged as much in a secret Justice Department "white paper" obtained this week by NBC News. The document laid out a legal argument that the president, without oversight, may order a "lethal operation" against a citizen who is known to be a "senior operational leader" of al-Qaeda or an affiliated group.
< . . . >
. . . I accept that Awlaki was a legitimate target. What I don't accept is that the president or a "high-level official" gets to make the call about without judicial oversight. When the government wants to violate a citizen's right to privacy with wiretaps and other forms of electronic surveillance, a judge from a special panel -- the Federal Intelligence Surveillance Court -- has to give approval. Surely there should be at least as much judicial review when the government wants to violate a citizen's right not to be blown to smithereens.
< . . . .>
[font color=gray][font size=2]Friday, 08 February 2013 09:40[/font][/font]
[font color=red]By Eugene Robinson, Washington Post Writers Group | Op-Ed[/font]
Washington, DC - If George W. Bush had told us that the "war on terror" gave him the right to execute an American citizen overseas with a missile fired from a drone aircraft, without due process or judicial review, I'd have gone ballistic. It makes no difference that the president making this chilling claim is Barack Obama. What's wrong is wrong.
< . . . >
But one of the few bright lines we can and should recognize is that in the exceedingly rare instances when a U.S. citizen may be targeted, our government bears a special burden.
The Obama administration acknowledged as much in a secret Justice Department "white paper" obtained this week by NBC News. The document laid out a legal argument that the president, without oversight, may order a "lethal operation" against a citizen who is known to be a "senior operational leader" of al-Qaeda or an affiliated group.
< . . . >
. . . I accept that Awlaki was a legitimate target. What I don't accept is that the president or a "high-level official" gets to make the call about without judicial oversight. When the government wants to violate a citizen's right to privacy with wiretaps and other forms of electronic surveillance, a judge from a special panel -- the Federal Intelligence Surveillance Court -- has to give approval. Surely there should be at least as much judicial review when the government wants to violate a citizen's right not to be blown to smithereens.
< . . . .>
Full article at http://truth-out.org/opinion/item/14428-wrong-on-drone-hits
February 6, 2013
Read full article at: http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/06/opinion/to-kill-an-american.html?ref=opinion
NYT Editorial: "To Kill an American"
[font size=2]EDITORIAL[/font]
[font size=5]To Kill an American[/font]
[font size=2]Published: February 5, 2013[/font]
On one level, there were not too many surprises in the newly disclosed “white paper” offering a legal reasoning behind the claim that President Obama has the power to order the killing of American citizens who are believed to be part of Al Qaeda. We knew Mr. Obama and his lawyers believed he has that power under the Constitution and federal law. We also knew that he utterly rejects the idea that Congress or the courts have any right to review such a decision in advance, or even after the fact.
Still, it was disturbing to see the twisted logic of the administration’s lawyers laid out in black and white. It had the air of a legal justification written after the fact for a policy decision that had already been made, and it brought back unwelcome memories of memos written for President George W. Bush to justify illegal wiretapping, indefinite detention, kidnapping, abuse and torture.
< . . . . >
According to the white paper, the Constitution and the Congressional authorization for the use of force after the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, gave Mr. Obama the right to kill any American citizen that an “informed, high-level official” decides is a “senior operational leader of Al Qaeda or an associated force” and presents an “imminent threat of violent attack.”
< . . . . >
But it takes the position that the only “oversight” needed for such a decision resides within the executive branch, and there is no need to explain the judgment to Congress, the courts or the public — or, indeed, to even acknowledge that the killing took place.
< , , , , >
[font size=5]To Kill an American[/font]
[font size=2]Published: February 5, 2013[/font]
On one level, there were not too many surprises in the newly disclosed “white paper” offering a legal reasoning behind the claim that President Obama has the power to order the killing of American citizens who are believed to be part of Al Qaeda. We knew Mr. Obama and his lawyers believed he has that power under the Constitution and federal law. We also knew that he utterly rejects the idea that Congress or the courts have any right to review such a decision in advance, or even after the fact.
Still, it was disturbing to see the twisted logic of the administration’s lawyers laid out in black and white. It had the air of a legal justification written after the fact for a policy decision that had already been made, and it brought back unwelcome memories of memos written for President George W. Bush to justify illegal wiretapping, indefinite detention, kidnapping, abuse and torture.
< . . . . >
According to the white paper, the Constitution and the Congressional authorization for the use of force after the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, gave Mr. Obama the right to kill any American citizen that an “informed, high-level official” decides is a “senior operational leader of Al Qaeda or an associated force” and presents an “imminent threat of violent attack.”
< . . . . >
But it takes the position that the only “oversight” needed for such a decision resides within the executive branch, and there is no need to explain the judgment to Congress, the courts or the public — or, indeed, to even acknowledge that the killing took place.
< , , , , >
Read full article at: http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/06/opinion/to-kill-an-american.html?ref=opinion
February 3, 2013
http://soc.li/Ew1OuWR
http://tv.msnbc.com/2013/01/31/er-doc-to-sandy-hook-families-we-tried-our-best/
Just as with filibuster reform, we are being had by our very own. Shameful!
Senator Leahy's hearing on guns, lilke Reid's "support" for filibuster reform, was a SHAM...
...a fraud, a bone to throw to those who are demanding action in order to distract them while NO meaningful action is taken! If you want to see how a real hearing on the matter is conducted, have a look at some of the testimony before the Connecticut legislature's hearings this past week held in Newtown High School. The Connecticut legislature has put the Senate Judiciary Committee to shame!
I would like to know how Leahy sleeps at night after inviting that shitbag Wayne LaPierre to testify, while not including the testimony of a SINGLE parent or other witness from Newtown. Here are just a few examples of testimony which, as Lawrence O'Donnell pointed out, should have been heard by the Senate Judiciary Committee, but were not:
http://soc.li/Ew1OuWR
http://tv.msnbc.com/2013/01/31/er-doc-to-sandy-hook-families-we-tried-our-best/
Just as with filibuster reform, we are being had by our very own. Shameful!
January 26, 2013
If it's any consolation...
... earlier this week, I alerted on unjustly being called a troll, and it was permitted to stand, even though a quick look at my nearly 2600 posts should have quickly dispelled the notion.
January 18, 2013
After seeing an onslaught of gun-not postings on Facebook today . . .
. . . I posted the following status update:
Profile Information
Member since: Sat May 15, 2010, 04:48 PMNumber of posts: 8,401
