Lily Salter's Blog, page 1015

Amazon’s Orwellian “anytime feedback tool” makes defenses of the company’s “bruising” workplace culture hard to swallow

Employees crying at their desks. Repeated all-nighters. Workers pushed out when they had medical problems or family emergencies. Annual firings deemed “purposeful Darwinism.” According to one former employee, it became corporate lore that “Amazon is where overachievers go to feel bad about themselves.” It was only a matter of time before a news organization with serious reporting resources penetrated the workplace culture of the online retailer. By now, critiques of what Amazon has done to bookstores and authors, or the way it treated its warehouse workers (remember that Pennsylvania hothouse with the ambulances on call?), are familiar. Brad Stone’s 2013 book, “The Everything Store,” is full of detail. But in Sunday’s New York Times, “Amazon’s Bruising, Thrilling Workplace” looks at the expectations that white-collar workers in the company’s Seattle flagship office in a way readers haven’t seen before. Reporters Jodi Kantor and David Streitfeld spoke to more than 100 current and former employees, and despite incomplete cooperation from the corporation itself – founder Jeff Bezos and Amazon’s top brass refused to be interviewed – the resulting story is both balanced and damning. In some ways, the story gets at what we’ve suspected about the heartless, workaholic, algorithm-worshipping style of tech corporations, but this goes further. Perhaps the most chilling detail in “Amazon’s Bruising, Thrilling Workplace” came from its description of the “Anytime Feedback Tool, the widget in the company directory that allows employees to send praise or criticism about colleagues to management.” A flack defends it as no big deal, but "many workers called it a river of intrigue and scheming":

They described making quiet pacts with colleagues to bury the same person at once, or to praise one another lavishly. Many others… described feeling sabotaged by negative comments from unidentified colleagues with whom they could not argue. In some cases, the criticism was copied directly into their performance reviews — a move that Amy Michaels, the former Kindle manager, said that colleagues called “the full paste.”

It sounds like something from dystopian literature, whether “1984” or Dave Eggers’ Silicon Valley novel, “The Circle.” And it also makes any denial current employees could offer difficult to take seriously. If everyone is being watched all the time, and employees are regularly “culled,” what are the chances of anyone speaking honestly? Those denials are starting to arrive right on schedule. Bezos – who almost never responds publicly to criticism -- says in a memo to his staff that he doesn’t recognize the corporation the Times described:

The article doesn’t describe the Amazon I know or the caring Amazonians I work with every day. But if you know of any stories like those reported, I want you to escalate to HR. You can also email me directly at jeff@amazon.com. Even if it’s rare or isolated, our tolerance for any such lack of empathy needs to be zero… Hopefully, you’re having fun working with a bunch of brilliant teammates, helping invent the future, and laughing along the way.

The stranger bit of damage control came from Amazon’s head of infrastructure development, Nick Ciubotariu, who wrote a long, impassioned defense on LinkedIn. He repeatedly asserts that he was not asked to defend the company.

But I’m not going to stand idly by as a horribly misinformed piece of “journalism” slanders my company in public without merit. I don't have the data to discuss the past - so I won't. However, so much that is written here is deliberately painted to match current reality, and it does not, even by a stretch of the imagination. That is not responsible journalism - that's a hatchet piece. So let's correct that, starting now.

Despite the cries from Amazon employees, this was not a hit piece. “Thanks in part to its ability to extract the most from employees, Amazon is stronger than ever,” the story says. “Its swelling campus is transforming a swath of this city, a 10-million-square-foot bet that tens of thousands of new workers will be able to sell everything to everyone everywhere.” Current Amazon employees talk about all the “innovation” and “thinking big” they produce and how all the “data is incredibly liberating.” Do Amazon’s defenders think the Times just made all the other stuff up? Maybe Ciubotariu loves working for Amazon and means every word he says. But it’s hard to know how to read his testimonial now that we hear about the weird feedback policy. Luckily, there are people who know how Amazon works who are willing to speak about it. That doesn’t just mean disgruntled former employees, but writers whose wares are peddled online. Especially since Amazon’s dispute with Hachette, numerous authors have been critical of the retailer, calling it a bully that uses its muscle to push publishers around. The latest to complain is John Green – the YA super star behind “The Fault in Our Stars” – who tweeted, after reading the Times story, that he was canceling his Prime membership. “Worst cult ever,” he called the corporation. Will Green’s frustration cause large numbers of people to turn on Amazon and force the company to be more humane? Despite an enormous amount of criticism, the retailer is now bigger than ever – as of this summer, larger than Walmart – so it seems more likely that rather than the rest of changing Amazon, Amazon will change us. The Anytime Feedback Tool, for instance, may crawl out of Seattle like an alien lifeform fallen to earth. As the Times puts it:

Soon the tool, or something close, may be found in many more offices. Workday, a human resources software company, makes a similar product called Collaborative Anytime Feedback that promises to turn the annual performance review into a daily event.

An early investor, it turns out, was a guy named Jeff Bezos.Employees crying at their desks. Repeated all-nighters. Workers pushed out when they had medical problems or family emergencies. Annual firings deemed “purposeful Darwinism.” According to one former employee, it became corporate lore that “Amazon is where overachievers go to feel bad about themselves.” It was only a matter of time before a news organization with serious reporting resources penetrated the workplace culture of the online retailer. By now, critiques of what Amazon has done to bookstores and authors, or the way it treated its warehouse workers (remember that Pennsylvania hothouse with the ambulances on call?), are familiar. Brad Stone’s 2013 book, “The Everything Store,” is full of detail. But in Sunday’s New York Times, “Amazon’s Bruising, Thrilling Workplace” looks at the expectations that white-collar workers in the company’s Seattle flagship office in a way readers haven’t seen before. Reporters Jodi Kantor and David Streitfeld spoke to more than 100 current and former employees, and despite incomplete cooperation from the corporation itself – founder Jeff Bezos and Amazon’s top brass refused to be interviewed – the resulting story is both balanced and damning. In some ways, the story gets at what we’ve suspected about the heartless, workaholic, algorithm-worshipping style of tech corporations, but this goes further. Perhaps the most chilling detail in “Amazon’s Bruising, Thrilling Workplace” came from its description of the “Anytime Feedback Tool, the widget in the company directory that allows employees to send praise or criticism about colleagues to management.” A flack defends it as no big deal, but "many workers called it a river of intrigue and scheming":

They described making quiet pacts with colleagues to bury the same person at once, or to praise one another lavishly. Many others… described feeling sabotaged by negative comments from unidentified colleagues with whom they could not argue. In some cases, the criticism was copied directly into their performance reviews — a move that Amy Michaels, the former Kindle manager, said that colleagues called “the full paste.”

It sounds like something from dystopian literature, whether “1984” or Dave Eggers’ Silicon Valley novel, “The Circle.” And it also makes any denial current employees could offer difficult to take seriously. If everyone is being watched all the time, and employees are regularly “culled,” what are the chances of anyone speaking honestly? Those denials are starting to arrive right on schedule. Bezos – who almost never responds publicly to criticism -- says in a memo to his staff that he doesn’t recognize the corporation the Times described:

The article doesn’t describe the Amazon I know or the caring Amazonians I work with every day. But if you know of any stories like those reported, I want you to escalate to HR. You can also email me directly at jeff@amazon.com. Even if it’s rare or isolated, our tolerance for any such lack of empathy needs to be zero… Hopefully, you’re having fun working with a bunch of brilliant teammates, helping invent the future, and laughing along the way.

The stranger bit of damage control came from Amazon’s head of infrastructure development, Nick Ciubotariu, who wrote a long, impassioned defense on LinkedIn. He repeatedly asserts that he was not asked to defend the company.

But I’m not going to stand idly by as a horribly misinformed piece of “journalism” slanders my company in public without merit. I don't have the data to discuss the past - so I won't. However, so much that is written here is deliberately painted to match current reality, and it does not, even by a stretch of the imagination. That is not responsible journalism - that's a hatchet piece. So let's correct that, starting now.

Despite the cries from Amazon employees, this was not a hit piece. “Thanks in part to its ability to extract the most from employees, Amazon is stronger than ever,” the story says. “Its swelling campus is transforming a swath of this city, a 10-million-square-foot bet that tens of thousands of new workers will be able to sell everything to everyone everywhere.” Current Amazon employees talk about all the “innovation” and “thinking big” they produce and how all the “data is incredibly liberating.” Do Amazon’s defenders think the Times just made all the other stuff up? Maybe Ciubotariu loves working for Amazon and means every word he says. But it’s hard to know how to read his testimonial now that we hear about the weird feedback policy. Luckily, there are people who know how Amazon works who are willing to speak about it. That doesn’t just mean disgruntled former employees, but writers whose wares are peddled online. Especially since Amazon’s dispute with Hachette, numerous authors have been critical of the retailer, calling it a bully that uses its muscle to push publishers around. The latest to complain is John Green – the YA super star behind “The Fault in Our Stars” – who tweeted, after reading the Times story, that he was canceling his Prime membership. “Worst cult ever,” he called the corporation. Will Green’s frustration cause large numbers of people to turn on Amazon and force the company to be more humane? Despite an enormous amount of criticism, the retailer is now bigger than ever – as of this summer, larger than Walmart – so it seems more likely that rather than the rest of changing Amazon, Amazon will change us. The Anytime Feedback Tool, for instance, may crawl out of Seattle like an alien lifeform fallen to earth. As the Times puts it:

Soon the tool, or something close, may be found in many more offices. Workday, a human resources software company, makes a similar product called Collaborative Anytime Feedback that promises to turn the annual performance review into a daily event.

An early investor, it turns out, was a guy named Jeff Bezos.Employees crying at their desks. Repeated all-nighters. Workers pushed out when they had medical problems or family emergencies. Annual firings deemed “purposeful Darwinism.” According to one former employee, it became corporate lore that “Amazon is where overachievers go to feel bad about themselves.” It was only a matter of time before a news organization with serious reporting resources penetrated the workplace culture of the online retailer. By now, critiques of what Amazon has done to bookstores and authors, or the way it treated its warehouse workers (remember that Pennsylvania hothouse with the ambulances on call?), are familiar. Brad Stone’s 2013 book, “The Everything Store,” is full of detail. But in Sunday’s New York Times, “Amazon’s Bruising, Thrilling Workplace” looks at the expectations that white-collar workers in the company’s Seattle flagship office in a way readers haven’t seen before. Reporters Jodi Kantor and David Streitfeld spoke to more than 100 current and former employees, and despite incomplete cooperation from the corporation itself – founder Jeff Bezos and Amazon’s top brass refused to be interviewed – the resulting story is both balanced and damning. In some ways, the story gets at what we’ve suspected about the heartless, workaholic, algorithm-worshipping style of tech corporations, but this goes further. Perhaps the most chilling detail in “Amazon’s Bruising, Thrilling Workplace” came from its description of the “Anytime Feedback Tool, the widget in the company directory that allows employees to send praise or criticism about colleagues to management.” A flack defends it as no big deal, but "many workers called it a river of intrigue and scheming":

They described making quiet pacts with colleagues to bury the same person at once, or to praise one another lavishly. Many others… described feeling sabotaged by negative comments from unidentified colleagues with whom they could not argue. In some cases, the criticism was copied directly into their performance reviews — a move that Amy Michaels, the former Kindle manager, said that colleagues called “the full paste.”

It sounds like something from dystopian literature, whether “1984” or Dave Eggers’ Silicon Valley novel, “The Circle.” And it also makes any denial current employees could offer difficult to take seriously. If everyone is being watched all the time, and employees are regularly “culled,” what are the chances of anyone speaking honestly? Those denials are starting to arrive right on schedule. Bezos – who almost never responds publicly to criticism -- says in a memo to his staff that he doesn’t recognize the corporation the Times described:

The article doesn’t describe the Amazon I know or the caring Amazonians I work with every day. But if you know of any stories like those reported, I want you to escalate to HR. You can also email me directly at jeff@amazon.com. Even if it’s rare or isolated, our tolerance for any such lack of empathy needs to be zero… Hopefully, you’re having fun working with a bunch of brilliant teammates, helping invent the future, and laughing along the way.

The stranger bit of damage control came from Amazon’s head of infrastructure development, Nick Ciubotariu, who wrote a long, impassioned defense on LinkedIn. He repeatedly asserts that he was not asked to defend the company.

But I’m not going to stand idly by as a horribly misinformed piece of “journalism” slanders my company in public without merit. I don't have the data to discuss the past - so I won't. However, so much that is written here is deliberately painted to match current reality, and it does not, even by a stretch of the imagination. That is not responsible journalism - that's a hatchet piece. So let's correct that, starting now.

Despite the cries from Amazon employees, this was not a hit piece. “Thanks in part to its ability to extract the most from employees, Amazon is stronger than ever,” the story says. “Its swelling campus is transforming a swath of this city, a 10-million-square-foot bet that tens of thousands of new workers will be able to sell everything to everyone everywhere.” Current Amazon employees talk about all the “innovation” and “thinking big” they produce and how all the “data is incredibly liberating.” Do Amazon’s defenders think the Times just made all the other stuff up? Maybe Ciubotariu loves working for Amazon and means every word he says. But it’s hard to know how to read his testimonial now that we hear about the weird feedback policy. Luckily, there are people who know how Amazon works who are willing to speak about it. That doesn’t just mean disgruntled former employees, but writers whose wares are peddled online. Especially since Amazon’s dispute with Hachette, numerous authors have been critical of the retailer, calling it a bully that uses its muscle to push publishers around. The latest to complain is John Green – the YA super star behind “The Fault in Our Stars” – who tweeted, after reading the Times story, that he was canceling his Prime membership. “Worst cult ever,” he called the corporation. Will Green’s frustration cause large numbers of people to turn on Amazon and force the company to be more humane? Despite an enormous amount of criticism, the retailer is now bigger than ever – as of this summer, larger than Walmart – so it seems more likely that rather than the rest of changing Amazon, Amazon will change us. The Anytime Feedback Tool, for instance, may crawl out of Seattle like an alien lifeform fallen to earth. As the Times puts it:

Soon the tool, or something close, may be found in many more offices. Workday, a human resources software company, makes a similar product called Collaborative Anytime Feedback that promises to turn the annual performance review into a daily event.

An early investor, it turns out, was a guy named Jeff Bezos.

Continue Reading...

KFC’s love affair with “SNL” continues: Watch Norm Macdonald’s incredible new impression of Colonel Sanders

It’s only been a little over a month since  KFC announced that it had hired “SNL” alum Darrell Hammond to take over as the fast-food chain character Colonel Sanders. In a Monday press release, KFC announced that it had switched out Hammond for another familiar face from “SNL,” Norm Macdonald. Kevin Hochman, KFC’s Chief Marketing Officer, wrote in the press release:

"For the first ads, we rebooted things that made Kentucky Fried Chicken the most favorite chicken brand in the world. We brought back the Colonel’s iconic office, his white stretch limo, and the children’s mandolin band he outfitted with instruments and white Colonel Suits to create authentic Kentucky bluegrass music. And the new set of ads are more of that same homage to the things that made Kentucky Fried Chicken such an important part of American families."

"Howdy, folks. It’s me, the REAL Colonel Sanders,” the YouTube description for the latest KFC commercial reads. “Lately there’s been an imposter Colonel out there pretending to be me. He’s done a real fine job at it, but come on—there’s only one me, and that’s me. So here I am, the REAL Colonel Sanders, back in the saddle to tell you all about my delicious, hand-prepared $20 Family Fill Up Meal.” Watch the clip courtesy of KFC below: It’s only been a little over a month since  KFC announced that it had hired “SNL” alum Darrell Hammond to take over as the fast-food chain character Colonel Sanders. In a Monday press release, KFC announced that it had switched out Hammond for another familiar face from “SNL,” Norm Macdonald. Kevin Hochman, KFC’s Chief Marketing Officer, wrote in the press release:

"For the first ads, we rebooted things that made Kentucky Fried Chicken the most favorite chicken brand in the world. We brought back the Colonel’s iconic office, his white stretch limo, and the children’s mandolin band he outfitted with instruments and white Colonel Suits to create authentic Kentucky bluegrass music. And the new set of ads are more of that same homage to the things that made Kentucky Fried Chicken such an important part of American families."

"Howdy, folks. It’s me, the REAL Colonel Sanders,” the YouTube description for the latest KFC commercial reads. “Lately there’s been an imposter Colonel out there pretending to be me. He’s done a real fine job at it, but come on—there’s only one me, and that’s me. So here I am, the REAL Colonel Sanders, back in the saddle to tell you all about my delicious, hand-prepared $20 Family Fill Up Meal.” Watch the clip courtesy of KFC below: It’s only been a little over a month since  KFC announced that it had hired “SNL” alum Darrell Hammond to take over as the fast-food chain character Colonel Sanders. In a Monday press release, KFC announced that it had switched out Hammond for another familiar face from “SNL,” Norm Macdonald. Kevin Hochman, KFC’s Chief Marketing Officer, wrote in the press release:

"For the first ads, we rebooted things that made Kentucky Fried Chicken the most favorite chicken brand in the world. We brought back the Colonel’s iconic office, his white stretch limo, and the children’s mandolin band he outfitted with instruments and white Colonel Suits to create authentic Kentucky bluegrass music. And the new set of ads are more of that same homage to the things that made Kentucky Fried Chicken such an important part of American families."

"Howdy, folks. It’s me, the REAL Colonel Sanders,” the YouTube description for the latest KFC commercial reads. “Lately there’s been an imposter Colonel out there pretending to be me. He’s done a real fine job at it, but come on—there’s only one me, and that’s me. So here I am, the REAL Colonel Sanders, back in the saddle to tell you all about my delicious, hand-prepared $20 Family Fill Up Meal.” Watch the clip courtesy of KFC below:

Continue Reading...

Terror in Bangkok: 15 reported dead in bomb blast

BANGKOK (AP) -- A bomb exploded at a popular shrine near a key political protest site in central Bangkok on Monday evening, the government said, reportedly killing more than a dozen people and injuring many others.

The bomb exploded inside the Erawan Shrine, and another undetonated bomb was found near the complex, said Maj. Gen. Weerachon Sukhondhapatipak, a spokesman for Thailand's ruling junta. The shrine is a tourist landmark also popular with Thais.

Thai PBS television said at least 15 people were killed. Weerachon said dozens were injured, and that some foreigners were among the hurt.

The shrine is located at Rajprasong intersection, the center of many contentious political demonstrations in recent years.

Security video showed a powerful flash as the bomb exploded.

"We still don't know for sure who did this and why," Deputy Prime Minister Prawit Wongsuwon told reporters. "We are not sure if it is politically motivated, but they aim to harm our economy and we will hunt them down."

Anusit Kunakorn, secretary of the National Security Council, said Prime Minister Prayuth Chan-ocha, the former army chief, was closely monitoring the situation.

Thailand's capital has been relatively peaceful since a military coup ousted a civilian government in May last year after several months of sometimes violent political protests against the previous government. However, there has been some tension in recent months as the junta has made clear it may not hold elections until 2017 and wants a constitution that will allow some type of emergency rule to take the place of an elected government.

Car bombs are almost unknown in Bangkok, but have been used in southern Thailand, where a Muslim separatist insurgency has been flaring for several years.

The last major bombings in Bangkok occurred on New Year's Eve at the end of 2006, when a series of bombs at celebrations around town killed at least three people and wounded dozens. Those bombings occurred just three months after a military coup ousted Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra, and there was speculation that his supporters carried out the attacks in revenge. However, the bombings were never solved.

The 2006 coup set off a battle for power among Thaksin's supporters and opponents, sometimes in the form of violent protests.

Protesters from both sides sometimes faced armed attacks by unknown groups, with more than 90 people killed in 2010 during pro-Thaksin demonstrations that were quashed by the army. The focus of the 2010 protests was the same intersection where Monday's blast took place, a bustling area in the heart of Bangkok's main shopping district. Several five-star hotels are nearby.

In March this year, several arrests were made in connection with a grenade that was tossed at Bangkok's Criminal Court. Those detained were apparently sympathizers of the pro-Thaksin Red Shirt movement. Critics of the current military government say some of the bombings may have been carried out by the junta to justify its continued suppression of basic rights and liberties. The government denied that.

In April, a car bomb exploded at a shopping mall on the resort island of Samui, injuring seven people. The motive was unclear, though the government suggested it was linked to politics.

BANGKOK (AP) -- A bomb exploded at a popular shrine near a key political protest site in central Bangkok on Monday evening, the government said, reportedly killing more than a dozen people and injuring many others.

The bomb exploded inside the Erawan Shrine, and another undetonated bomb was found near the complex, said Maj. Gen. Weerachon Sukhondhapatipak, a spokesman for Thailand's ruling junta. The shrine is a tourist landmark also popular with Thais.

Thai PBS television said at least 15 people were killed. Weerachon said dozens were injured, and that some foreigners were among the hurt.

The shrine is located at Rajprasong intersection, the center of many contentious political demonstrations in recent years.

Security video showed a powerful flash as the bomb exploded.

"We still don't know for sure who did this and why," Deputy Prime Minister Prawit Wongsuwon told reporters. "We are not sure if it is politically motivated, but they aim to harm our economy and we will hunt them down."

Anusit Kunakorn, secretary of the National Security Council, said Prime Minister Prayuth Chan-ocha, the former army chief, was closely monitoring the situation.

Thailand's capital has been relatively peaceful since a military coup ousted a civilian government in May last year after several months of sometimes violent political protests against the previous government. However, there has been some tension in recent months as the junta has made clear it may not hold elections until 2017 and wants a constitution that will allow some type of emergency rule to take the place of an elected government.

Car bombs are almost unknown in Bangkok, but have been used in southern Thailand, where a Muslim separatist insurgency has been flaring for several years.

The last major bombings in Bangkok occurred on New Year's Eve at the end of 2006, when a series of bombs at celebrations around town killed at least three people and wounded dozens. Those bombings occurred just three months after a military coup ousted Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra, and there was speculation that his supporters carried out the attacks in revenge. However, the bombings were never solved.

The 2006 coup set off a battle for power among Thaksin's supporters and opponents, sometimes in the form of violent protests.

Protesters from both sides sometimes faced armed attacks by unknown groups, with more than 90 people killed in 2010 during pro-Thaksin demonstrations that were quashed by the army. The focus of the 2010 protests was the same intersection where Monday's blast took place, a bustling area in the heart of Bangkok's main shopping district. Several five-star hotels are nearby.

In March this year, several arrests were made in connection with a grenade that was tossed at Bangkok's Criminal Court. Those detained were apparently sympathizers of the pro-Thaksin Red Shirt movement. Critics of the current military government say some of the bombings may have been carried out by the junta to justify its continued suppression of basic rights and liberties. The government denied that.

In April, a car bomb exploded at a shopping mall on the resort island of Samui, injuring seven people. The motive was unclear, though the government suggested it was linked to politics.

BANGKOK (AP) -- A bomb exploded at a popular shrine near a key political protest site in central Bangkok on Monday evening, the government said, reportedly killing more than a dozen people and injuring many others.

The bomb exploded inside the Erawan Shrine, and another undetonated bomb was found near the complex, said Maj. Gen. Weerachon Sukhondhapatipak, a spokesman for Thailand's ruling junta. The shrine is a tourist landmark also popular with Thais.

Thai PBS television said at least 15 people were killed. Weerachon said dozens were injured, and that some foreigners were among the hurt.

The shrine is located at Rajprasong intersection, the center of many contentious political demonstrations in recent years.

Security video showed a powerful flash as the bomb exploded.

"We still don't know for sure who did this and why," Deputy Prime Minister Prawit Wongsuwon told reporters. "We are not sure if it is politically motivated, but they aim to harm our economy and we will hunt them down."

Anusit Kunakorn, secretary of the National Security Council, said Prime Minister Prayuth Chan-ocha, the former army chief, was closely monitoring the situation.

Thailand's capital has been relatively peaceful since a military coup ousted a civilian government in May last year after several months of sometimes violent political protests against the previous government. However, there has been some tension in recent months as the junta has made clear it may not hold elections until 2017 and wants a constitution that will allow some type of emergency rule to take the place of an elected government.

Car bombs are almost unknown in Bangkok, but have been used in southern Thailand, where a Muslim separatist insurgency has been flaring for several years.

The last major bombings in Bangkok occurred on New Year's Eve at the end of 2006, when a series of bombs at celebrations around town killed at least three people and wounded dozens. Those bombings occurred just three months after a military coup ousted Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra, and there was speculation that his supporters carried out the attacks in revenge. However, the bombings were never solved.

The 2006 coup set off a battle for power among Thaksin's supporters and opponents, sometimes in the form of violent protests.

Protesters from both sides sometimes faced armed attacks by unknown groups, with more than 90 people killed in 2010 during pro-Thaksin demonstrations that were quashed by the army. The focus of the 2010 protests was the same intersection where Monday's blast took place, a bustling area in the heart of Bangkok's main shopping district. Several five-star hotels are nearby.

In March this year, several arrests were made in connection with a grenade that was tossed at Bangkok's Criminal Court. Those detained were apparently sympathizers of the pro-Thaksin Red Shirt movement. Critics of the current military government say some of the bombings may have been carried out by the junta to justify its continued suppression of basic rights and liberties. The government denied that.

In April, a car bomb exploded at a shopping mall on the resort island of Samui, injuring seven people. The motive was unclear, though the government suggested it was linked to politics.

BANGKOK (AP) -- A bomb exploded at a popular shrine near a key political protest site in central Bangkok on Monday evening, the government said, reportedly killing more than a dozen people and injuring many others.

The bomb exploded inside the Erawan Shrine, and another undetonated bomb was found near the complex, said Maj. Gen. Weerachon Sukhondhapatipak, a spokesman for Thailand's ruling junta. The shrine is a tourist landmark also popular with Thais.

Thai PBS television said at least 15 people were killed. Weerachon said dozens were injured, and that some foreigners were among the hurt.

The shrine is located at Rajprasong intersection, the center of many contentious political demonstrations in recent years.

Security video showed a powerful flash as the bomb exploded.

"We still don't know for sure who did this and why," Deputy Prime Minister Prawit Wongsuwon told reporters. "We are not sure if it is politically motivated, but they aim to harm our economy and we will hunt them down."

Anusit Kunakorn, secretary of the National Security Council, said Prime Minister Prayuth Chan-ocha, the former army chief, was closely monitoring the situation.

Thailand's capital has been relatively peaceful since a military coup ousted a civilian government in May last year after several months of sometimes violent political protests against the previous government. However, there has been some tension in recent months as the junta has made clear it may not hold elections until 2017 and wants a constitution that will allow some type of emergency rule to take the place of an elected government.

Car bombs are almost unknown in Bangkok, but have been used in southern Thailand, where a Muslim separatist insurgency has been flaring for several years.

The last major bombings in Bangkok occurred on New Year's Eve at the end of 2006, when a series of bombs at celebrations around town killed at least three people and wounded dozens. Those bombings occurred just three months after a military coup ousted Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra, and there was speculation that his supporters carried out the attacks in revenge. However, the bombings were never solved.

The 2006 coup set off a battle for power among Thaksin's supporters and opponents, sometimes in the form of violent protests.

Protesters from both sides sometimes faced armed attacks by unknown groups, with more than 90 people killed in 2010 during pro-Thaksin demonstrations that were quashed by the army. The focus of the 2010 protests was the same intersection where Monday's blast took place, a bustling area in the heart of Bangkok's main shopping district. Several five-star hotels are nearby.

In March this year, several arrests were made in connection with a grenade that was tossed at Bangkok's Criminal Court. Those detained were apparently sympathizers of the pro-Thaksin Red Shirt movement. Critics of the current military government say some of the bombings may have been carried out by the junta to justify its continued suppression of basic rights and liberties. The government denied that.

In April, a car bomb exploded at a shopping mall on the resort island of Samui, injuring seven people. The motive was unclear, though the government suggested it was linked to politics.

BANGKOK (AP) -- A bomb exploded at a popular shrine near a key political protest site in central Bangkok on Monday evening, the government said, reportedly killing more than a dozen people and injuring many others.

The bomb exploded inside the Erawan Shrine, and another undetonated bomb was found near the complex, said Maj. Gen. Weerachon Sukhondhapatipak, a spokesman for Thailand's ruling junta. The shrine is a tourist landmark also popular with Thais.

Thai PBS television said at least 15 people were killed. Weerachon said dozens were injured, and that some foreigners were among the hurt.

The shrine is located at Rajprasong intersection, the center of many contentious political demonstrations in recent years.

Security video showed a powerful flash as the bomb exploded.

"We still don't know for sure who did this and why," Deputy Prime Minister Prawit Wongsuwon told reporters. "We are not sure if it is politically motivated, but they aim to harm our economy and we will hunt them down."

Anusit Kunakorn, secretary of the National Security Council, said Prime Minister Prayuth Chan-ocha, the former army chief, was closely monitoring the situation.

Thailand's capital has been relatively peaceful since a military coup ousted a civilian government in May last year after several months of sometimes violent political protests against the previous government. However, there has been some tension in recent months as the junta has made clear it may not hold elections until 2017 and wants a constitution that will allow some type of emergency rule to take the place of an elected government.

Car bombs are almost unknown in Bangkok, but have been used in southern Thailand, where a Muslim separatist insurgency has been flaring for several years.

The last major bombings in Bangkok occurred on New Year's Eve at the end of 2006, when a series of bombs at celebrations around town killed at least three people and wounded dozens. Those bombings occurred just three months after a military coup ousted Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra, and there was speculation that his supporters carried out the attacks in revenge. However, the bombings were never solved.

The 2006 coup set off a battle for power among Thaksin's supporters and opponents, sometimes in the form of violent protests.

Protesters from both sides sometimes faced armed attacks by unknown groups, with more than 90 people killed in 2010 during pro-Thaksin demonstrations that were quashed by the army. The focus of the 2010 protests was the same intersection where Monday's blast took place, a bustling area in the heart of Bangkok's main shopping district. Several five-star hotels are nearby.

In March this year, several arrests were made in connection with a grenade that was tossed at Bangkok's Criminal Court. Those detained were apparently sympathizers of the pro-Thaksin Red Shirt movement. Critics of the current military government say some of the bombings may have been carried out by the junta to justify its continued suppression of basic rights and liberties. The government denied that.

In April, a car bomb exploded at a shopping mall on the resort island of Samui, injuring seven people. The motive was unclear, though the government suggested it was linked to politics.

BANGKOK (AP) -- A bomb exploded at a popular shrine near a key political protest site in central Bangkok on Monday evening, the government said, reportedly killing more than a dozen people and injuring many others.

The bomb exploded inside the Erawan Shrine, and another undetonated bomb was found near the complex, said Maj. Gen. Weerachon Sukhondhapatipak, a spokesman for Thailand's ruling junta. The shrine is a tourist landmark also popular with Thais.

Thai PBS television said at least 15 people were killed. Weerachon said dozens were injured, and that some foreigners were among the hurt.

The shrine is located at Rajprasong intersection, the center of many contentious political demonstrations in recent years.

Security video showed a powerful flash as the bomb exploded.

"We still don't know for sure who did this and why," Deputy Prime Minister Prawit Wongsuwon told reporters. "We are not sure if it is politically motivated, but they aim to harm our economy and we will hunt them down."

Anusit Kunakorn, secretary of the National Security Council, said Prime Minister Prayuth Chan-ocha, the former army chief, was closely monitoring the situation.

Thailand's capital has been relatively peaceful since a military coup ousted a civilian government in May last year after several months of sometimes violent political protests against the previous government. However, there has been some tension in recent months as the junta has made clear it may not hold elections until 2017 and wants a constitution that will allow some type of emergency rule to take the place of an elected government.

Car bombs are almost unknown in Bangkok, but have been used in southern Thailand, where a Muslim separatist insurgency has been flaring for several years.

The last major bombings in Bangkok occurred on New Year's Eve at the end of 2006, when a series of bombs at celebrations around town killed at least three people and wounded dozens. Those bombings occurred just three months after a military coup ousted Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra, and there was speculation that his supporters carried out the attacks in revenge. However, the bombings were never solved.

The 2006 coup set off a battle for power among Thaksin's supporters and opponents, sometimes in the form of violent protests.

Protesters from both sides sometimes faced armed attacks by unknown groups, with more than 90 people killed in 2010 during pro-Thaksin demonstrations that were quashed by the army. The focus of the 2010 protests was the same intersection where Monday's blast took place, a bustling area in the heart of Bangkok's main shopping district. Several five-star hotels are nearby.

In March this year, several arrests were made in connection with a grenade that was tossed at Bangkok's Criminal Court. Those detained were apparently sympathizers of the pro-Thaksin Red Shirt movement. Critics of the current military government say some of the bombings may have been carried out by the junta to justify its continued suppression of basic rights and liberties. The government denied that.

In April, a car bomb exploded at a shopping mall on the resort island of Samui, injuring seven people. The motive was unclear, though the government suggested it was linked to politics.

BANGKOK (AP) -- A bomb exploded at a popular shrine near a key political protest site in central Bangkok on Monday evening, the government said, reportedly killing more than a dozen people and injuring many others.

The bomb exploded inside the Erawan Shrine, and another undetonated bomb was found near the complex, said Maj. Gen. Weerachon Sukhondhapatipak, a spokesman for Thailand's ruling junta. The shrine is a tourist landmark also popular with Thais.

Thai PBS television said at least 15 people were killed. Weerachon said dozens were injured, and that some foreigners were among the hurt.

The shrine is located at Rajprasong intersection, the center of many contentious political demonstrations in recent years.

Security video showed a powerful flash as the bomb exploded.

"We still don't know for sure who did this and why," Deputy Prime Minister Prawit Wongsuwon told reporters. "We are not sure if it is politically motivated, but they aim to harm our economy and we will hunt them down."

Anusit Kunakorn, secretary of the National Security Council, said Prime Minister Prayuth Chan-ocha, the former army chief, was closely monitoring the situation.

Thailand's capital has been relatively peaceful since a military coup ousted a civilian government in May last year after several months of sometimes violent political protests against the previous government. However, there has been some tension in recent months as the junta has made clear it may not hold elections until 2017 and wants a constitution that will allow some type of emergency rule to take the place of an elected government.

Car bombs are almost unknown in Bangkok, but have been used in southern Thailand, where a Muslim separatist insurgency has been flaring for several years.

The last major bombings in Bangkok occurred on New Year's Eve at the end of 2006, when a series of bombs at celebrations around town killed at least three people and wounded dozens. Those bombings occurred just three months after a military coup ousted Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra, and there was speculation that his supporters carried out the attacks in revenge. However, the bombings were never solved.

The 2006 coup set off a battle for power among Thaksin's supporters and opponents, sometimes in the form of violent protests.

Protesters from both sides sometimes faced armed attacks by unknown groups, with more than 90 people killed in 2010 during pro-Thaksin demonstrations that were quashed by the army. The focus of the 2010 protests was the same intersection where Monday's blast took place, a bustling area in the heart of Bangkok's main shopping district. Several five-star hotels are nearby.

In March this year, several arrests were made in connection with a grenade that was tossed at Bangkok's Criminal Court. Those detained were apparently sympathizers of the pro-Thaksin Red Shirt movement. Critics of the current military government say some of the bombings may have been carried out by the junta to justify its continued suppression of basic rights and liberties. The government denied that.

In April, a car bomb exploded at a shopping mall on the resort island of Samui, injuring seven people. The motive was unclear, though the government suggested it was linked to politics.

Continue Reading...

Stephen Colbert opens up about faith, loss and Charleston in heartbreaking GQ profile: “Tragedy is sacred. People’s suffering is sacred”

For a new cover story profile in GQ, Joel Lovell visits Stephen Colbert in the makeshift office of his forthcoming iteration of "Late Show" to find the host sleep-deprived from his secret guest-host stint at the helm of "Only in Monroe," a Michigan cable access show where he, playing it utterly straight, interviewed a local boy made good — Marshall Mathers, who couldn't decide just how serious Colbert was or was not being with him. Colbert tells Lovell he did it not just for the lulz of enacting a "Between Two Ferns" tongue-in-cheek scenario on an actual straight-faced cable access show but for more practical reasons: "First show! First show! Well, fuck the first show. There's going to be 202 this year—how do you do a first one? So I just wanted to go do a show someplace. And now we've done it." The profile is far-ranging, and includes the tactical minutiae of how Colbert and his team assemble a test show, built around the mysterious shuttering of the New York Stock Exchange — which included a cameo by the legendary feral chicken that haunts the grounds of Litchfield Penitentiary on "Orange Is the New Black" — and the supervision of the building of the new "Late Show" set in the Ed Sullivan Theatre. But the tone is more pensive than a celebratory "welcome back!" profile might normally be. Lovell asks Colbert how, given his role as "one of the country's few public moral intellectuals," that might be expressed in "Late Night," and Colbert replied in his thoughtful, understated fashion:

“I have a morality. I don't know if it's the best morality. And I do like thinking. If people perceive that as a moral intellectualism, that's fine. That's up to them to decide. A friend of mine once said, ‘If someone says you're influencing them, then you're influential. It's not up for you to say. You can't take that away from them.’ But it's entirely not my intention. This I promise you. Because that's a short road to being a comedian in all seriousness. ‘As a comedian, in all seriousness, let me not entertain you.’ ”

Comedy ultimately takes a backseat in this profile. Lovell and Colbert talk about the massacre earlier this summer in Charleston, Colbert's hometown, and his visit to the Emanuel AME Church and joining the march across the Arthur Ravenel Jr. Bridge. Lovell asks him if he wishes he could have talked about the tragedy on his show:

“We would have done it, if we had to,” he said when I asked if any part of him had felt a desire to talk about it on the air. “But no,” he said. “It's such an old form of a particular evil. Such a pure form, that it feels very old. It was like a dragon showed up. Like, yeah, there used to be dragons. I didn't know there still were dragons…and I don't necessarily crave facing that dragon with my little sword.” He paused for a moment and looked down at the table. “Tragedy is sacred,” he said. “People's suffering is sacred.”

Lovell also explores Colbert's close relationship to tragedy and how he emerged from the aftermath of the plane crash that claimed the lives of his father and two brothers when he was 10 with his faith intact and without the palpable sense of bitterness that infuses other brands of comedy fueled by personal devastation. Colbert learned to embrace a certain amount of discomfort that he feels naturally around people: “Obviously there's something defensive about it. What you're doing is sipping little bits of arsenic so that you can't be poisoned by the rest of your discomfort. You're Rasputin-ing your way through the rest of your life.”

Read the whole story on GQ.

For a new cover story profile in GQ, Joel Lovell visits Stephen Colbert in the makeshift office of his forthcoming iteration of "Late Show" to find the host sleep-deprived from his secret guest-host stint at the helm of "Only in Monroe," a Michigan cable access show where he, playing it utterly straight, interviewed a local boy made good — Marshall Mathers, who couldn't decide just how serious Colbert was or was not being with him. Colbert tells Lovell he did it not just for the lulz of enacting a "Between Two Ferns" tongue-in-cheek scenario on an actual straight-faced cable access show but for more practical reasons: "First show! First show! Well, fuck the first show. There's going to be 202 this year—how do you do a first one? So I just wanted to go do a show someplace. And now we've done it." The profile is far-ranging, and includes the tactical minutiae of how Colbert and his team assemble a test show, built around the mysterious shuttering of the New York Stock Exchange — which included a cameo by the legendary feral chicken that haunts the grounds of Litchfield Penitentiary on "Orange Is the New Black" — and the supervision of the building of the new "Late Show" set in the Ed Sullivan Theatre. But the tone is more pensive than a celebratory "welcome back!" profile might normally be. Lovell asks Colbert how, given his role as "one of the country's few public moral intellectuals," that might be expressed in "Late Night," and Colbert replied in his thoughtful, understated fashion:

“I have a morality. I don't know if it's the best morality. And I do like thinking. If people perceive that as a moral intellectualism, that's fine. That's up to them to decide. A friend of mine once said, ‘If someone says you're influencing them, then you're influential. It's not up for you to say. You can't take that away from them.’ But it's entirely not my intention. This I promise you. Because that's a short road to being a comedian in all seriousness. ‘As a comedian, in all seriousness, let me not entertain you.’ ”

Comedy ultimately takes a backseat in this profile. Lovell and Colbert talk about the massacre earlier this summer in Charleston, Colbert's hometown, and his visit to the Emanuel AME Church and joining the march across the Arthur Ravenel Jr. Bridge. Lovell asks him if he wishes he could have talked about the tragedy on his show:

“We would have done it, if we had to,” he said when I asked if any part of him had felt a desire to talk about it on the air. “But no,” he said. “It's such an old form of a particular evil. Such a pure form, that it feels very old. It was like a dragon showed up. Like, yeah, there used to be dragons. I didn't know there still were dragons…and I don't necessarily crave facing that dragon with my little sword.” He paused for a moment and looked down at the table. “Tragedy is sacred,” he said. “People's suffering is sacred.”

Lovell also explores Colbert's close relationship to tragedy and how he emerged from the aftermath of the plane crash that claimed the lives of his father and two brothers when he was 10 with his faith intact and without the palpable sense of bitterness that infuses other brands of comedy fueled by personal devastation. Colbert learned to embrace a certain amount of discomfort that he feels naturally around people: “Obviously there's something defensive about it. What you're doing is sipping little bits of arsenic so that you can't be poisoned by the rest of your discomfort. You're Rasputin-ing your way through the rest of your life.”

Read the whole story on GQ.

Continue Reading...

A rare “SNL” sketch featuring Donald Trump has reportedly been scrubbed from the Internet

At times, it may feel like there's nothing Donald Trump won't share with the public -- with his tasteless Rosie O'Donnell burns, menstruation speculation and extreme anti-immigrant comments -- but, in fact, there are plenty of examples. First, there was the trailer for the never-before-seen Trump doc which the GOP candidate demanded be axed after viewing the damming portrait. Today, Mediaite unearths another hidden gem: Trump's 2004 appearance on "Saturday Night Live." The sketch called "Donald Trump's House of Wings" was, for one reason or another, taken down from the archives. Mediaite also noted that the sketch name is listed on an "SNL" DVD -- however, it was mysteriously nowhere to found on the actual disc. Among the sketches that were preserved: "Fathers and Sons," in which Trump plays Seth Meyers' dad (lol) and the co-host on a show designed to strengthen their familial relationship. Watch the clips that weren't preserved via Mediaite here.

Continue Reading...

Bernie Sanders blasts Donald Trump as “an embarrassment for our country”

Democratic presidential candidate Bernie Sanders has had it with Donald Trump and comparisons of his campaign to that of the billionaire mogul and GOP frontrunner. The Vermont senator told the New York Times Magazine that he not only disagreed with Trump's views on immigration but that he found Trump's entire campaign to be an embarrassment. Asked by Ana Marie Cox in a short interview what he thought of "Trump's surge in the polls," Sanders responded, "not much." Sanders went on to slam Trump as an "embarrassment for our country," citing his "slurring of the Latino community":

I think Donald Trump’s views on immigration and his slurring of the Latino community is not something that should be going on in the year 2015, and it’s to me an embarrassment for our country.

Sanders and Trump briefly crossed paths this weekend at the Iowa State Fair, where presidential candidates from both sides of the aisle visited the famed Soapbox and chowed down on a variety of fried delectables. "I apologize, we left the helicopter at home. It's in the garage," Sanders joked, mocking Trump's splashy appearance at the fair via helicopter (the billionaire offered free rides to children and told them he was Batman.) And on NBC's "Meet the Press" this weekend, Sanders explained to host Chuck Todd how his campaign differs from that of Trump's after Todd asked what he thought he "had in common with the Trump voter":

Here’s the difference. I am not a billionaire. My family doesn’t have a whole lot of people. We are raising our campaign contributions from 350,000 people who are contributing on average Chuck, $31.20 apiece. That’s our response to out to working class people, to go out to the middle-class people and gain support. I think that’s a little bit different approach than Donald Trump’s.

Democratic presidential candidate Bernie Sanders has had it with Donald Trump and comparisons of his campaign to that of the billionaire mogul and GOP frontrunner. The Vermont senator told the New York Times Magazine that he not only disagreed with Trump's views on immigration but that he found Trump's entire campaign to be an embarrassment. Asked by Ana Marie Cox in a short interview what he thought of "Trump's surge in the polls," Sanders responded, "not much." Sanders went on to slam Trump as an "embarrassment for our country," citing his "slurring of the Latino community":

I think Donald Trump’s views on immigration and his slurring of the Latino community is not something that should be going on in the year 2015, and it’s to me an embarrassment for our country.

Sanders and Trump briefly crossed paths this weekend at the Iowa State Fair, where presidential candidates from both sides of the aisle visited the famed Soapbox and chowed down on a variety of fried delectables. "I apologize, we left the helicopter at home. It's in the garage," Sanders joked, mocking Trump's splashy appearance at the fair via helicopter (the billionaire offered free rides to children and told them he was Batman.) And on NBC's "Meet the Press" this weekend, Sanders explained to host Chuck Todd how his campaign differs from that of Trump's after Todd asked what he thought he "had in common with the Trump voter":

Here’s the difference. I am not a billionaire. My family doesn’t have a whole lot of people. We are raising our campaign contributions from 350,000 people who are contributing on average Chuck, $31.20 apiece. That’s our response to out to working class people, to go out to the middle-class people and gain support. I think that’s a little bit different approach than Donald Trump’s.

Continue Reading...

Huckabee, Trump and the “life matters” lie: Every “life is precious” — except a woman’s or a girl’s

It's almost a relief when these guys are so transparent. When they just come out and admit they're not even trying to cater to any other demographic but the most extreme and vile. So, kudos to you, Mike Huckabee, and you too, Donald Trump. You're horrendous, but at least when it comes to abortion, you're frank. Speaking with CNN Sunday, flailing Republican presidential candidate Huckabee, currently commanding a mere 6 percent of his party's voter support, stood firm on his unconditional opposition to abortion — even in the case of child rape. Last week in Paraguay, an 11 year-old girl who says she was sexually assaulted by her stepfather at age 10 gave birth to a baby daughter via cesarean. The stepfather is currently awaiting trial. The girl had pleaded for an abortion, but Paraguay, like many nations, has strict laws around the procedure and denied her request. Amnesty International issued a statement Thursday saying that the fact "she did not die does not excuse the human rights violations she suffered at the hands of the Paraguayan authorities." Amnesty also points out that "Experts around the world, including the World Health Organization, agree that pregnancy poses high risks to young girls whose bodies are not fully developed." But when it comes to the welfare of a 10 year-old pregnant rape survivor, are you going to listen to Amnesty and the World Health Organization, or a nearly 60 year-old white man? Huckabee told Dana Bash on "State of the Union," "Let nobody be misled — a 10 year-old being raped is horrible," a reasonable enough statement. He then asked, "But does it solve a problem by taking the life of an innocent child?" It was an echo of Indiana Republican Richard Mourdock's famed 2012 assertion that "Life is that gift from God. And even when life begins in that horrible situation of rape, that it is something that God intended to happen." Huckabee then cited the story of a friend and colleague who had been conceived via rape, and whose mother "went to three doctors in 1943, begged doctors to abort the baby, none of them would do it. They all refused." But see, it's a happy ending because his friend now has an organization that helps people. I've got to say, not everybody could tell a story like that, one that involves a rape victim going from doctor to doctor begging to not have to give birth to her rapist's baby and being repeatedly refused, and not seem to have an iota of empathy for her experience. Not everybody could go on national television and suggest that what America needs right now, women's health-wise, is to be more like Texas in 1943, or Paraguay, right now. Hahahahaha I can't. Huckabee went on to say that "There are two victims. One is the child; the other is that birth mother who often will go through extraordinary guilt years later when she begins to think through what happened -- with the baby, with her…. I just come down on the side that life is precious; every life has worth and value. I don't think we discount the intrinsic worth of any human being, and I don't know where else to go with it than just to be consistent and say, if life matters, and that's a person, then every life matters." Speaking with Chuck Todd on "Meet the Press" this weekend, Donald Trump, meanwhile, took a more merciful view, allowing for abortion "if the mother is close to death." He stressed, "If the mother will die and we’re going to know that. The problem with [saying health] is, what, you have a cold and you’re having an abortion?" I love it when men try to explain how they should be the arbiters of what constitutes a reasonable justification for obtaining an abortion, or how a woman is supposed to feel emotionally afterward. Of course, every situation is different, but it's worth noting that a study out of the University of California San Francisco just last month found that while nearly half of all women seeking abortions consider the choice "difficult or very difficult," a whopping 95 percent report they do not regret their decision. So maybe you don't need to be our feelings nanny after all, Mike Huckabee. And the majority of women who have abortions are already mothers. They understand how pregnancy works. They know what they want, and what's right for them. As Chilean journalist Paola Dragnic explained in a fearless essay for Buzzfeed about her own torturous and life-threatening first pregnancy earlier this summer, no woman deserves to be "tortured by a deaf government that makes us suffer in the name of a false morality." We are still a deeply divided nation on the subject of reproductive choice. But as a May Gallup poll reveals, Americans are increasingly identifying themselves as pro choice. They understand that the notion that women have to be protected from their own independent decision-making is invasive and cruel. Perhaps they're concerned that the US has a maternal death rate that rivals those of Afghanistan and Chad, which suggests we're not exactly bringing it, reproductive health-wise. Maybe they also disagree not only with the idea that a female should be forced to carry her rapist's baby, but that — as in a majority of states — the rapist can then receive visitation and custody rights. There is nothing life affirming or beautiful about forcing females to have babies, regardless of whether they've been raped, regardless of whether their health is in danger, regardless of any reason that tells her that the state knows better than she does. And when guys like Mike Huckabee have the nerve to say, "Every life matters," their callous disregard for the lives of women and girls — and even 11 year-old, sexually abused ones — could not be more blatant or enraging.

Continue Reading...

California drought’s dangerous toll: Millions of dying trees are putting human lives at risk

Four years of drought is continuing to take a punishing toll on California's trees, with implications for habitat, landscapes and even human safety. Aerial surveys conducted by federal officials earlier this year found that already, more than 12.5 million trees have fallen victim to the severe lack of rainfall. The problem is so severe that, in a place where people are cutting down on their water usage and letting their lawns go brown in the name of conserving what's become a very limited resource, some cities are delivering truckloads of water to their endangered pines and fruit trees, San Jose Mercury News reports. The urban struggle is being framed as one of preventing blight: conservationists are attempting to draw attention to how the deaths, which will endure even after the rains return, will mean a loss of shade and, in all likelihood, declining property values. "We need to water these trees somehow, by guess or by golly," was how Palo Alto city arborist Dave Dockter put it. "We cannot let trees -- some growing for 50 to 75 years -- go south. They are an investment in our quality of life." Dying trees, of course, are also flammable, making the state's lengthening wildfire season all the more dangerous. They affect water quality by allowing more runoff to make it into streams, and their loss, as a carbon sink, can in the long term make climate change -- a factor in the current drought -- even worse. They pose an immediate risk, moreover, to those who stroll, or sit, or build beneath them. Two recent incidents, the L.A. Times reports, are "focusing attention" on the plight of trees, including the tragic deaths last week of two children killed by a falling tree branch as they slept in a tent at Yosemite National Park. It's unclear what exactly caused the branch to fall. But thirsty trees, experts note, are more prone to infestation, making them brittle, and long periods of drought followed by sudden bursts of rain can be dangerous, as well -- those factors are believed to be behind the toppling of an 85-foot pine last month in a Pasadena park, injuring eight children. “California is currently in its fourth year of drought, where it is receiving abnormally low rainfall amounts. This probably resulted in the Italian stone pine not receiving adequate amounts of water,” read the official report of the arborist hired to investigate the incident. According to biologist Jeffrey Moore, acting regional aerial survey program manager for the U.S. Forest Service, it's "almost certain" that a million more trees will be counted among the dead before summer's end.Four years of drought is continuing to take a punishing toll on California's trees, with implications for habitat, landscapes and even human safety. Aerial surveys conducted by federal officials earlier this year found that already, more than 12.5 million trees have fallen victim to the severe lack of rainfall. The problem is so severe that, in a place where people are cutting down on their water usage and letting their lawns go brown in the name of conserving what's become a very limited resource, some cities are delivering truckloads of water to their endangered pines and fruit trees, San Jose Mercury News reports. The urban struggle is being framed as one of preventing blight: conservationists are attempting to draw attention to how the deaths, which will endure even after the rains return, will mean a loss of shade and, in all likelihood, declining property values. "We need to water these trees somehow, by guess or by golly," was how Palo Alto city arborist Dave Dockter put it. "We cannot let trees -- some growing for 50 to 75 years -- go south. They are an investment in our quality of life." Dying trees, of course, are also flammable, making the state's lengthening wildfire season all the more dangerous. They affect water quality by allowing more runoff to make it into streams, and their loss, as a carbon sink, can in the long term make climate change -- a factor in the current drought -- even worse. They pose an immediate risk, moreover, to those who stroll, or sit, or build beneath them. Two recent incidents, the L.A. Times reports, are "focusing attention" on the plight of trees, including the tragic deaths last week of two children killed by a falling tree branch as they slept in a tent at Yosemite National Park. It's unclear what exactly caused the branch to fall. But thirsty trees, experts note, are more prone to infestation, making them brittle, and long periods of drought followed by sudden bursts of rain can be dangerous, as well -- those factors are believed to be behind the toppling of an 85-foot pine last month in a Pasadena park, injuring eight children. “California is currently in its fourth year of drought, where it is receiving abnormally low rainfall amounts. This probably resulted in the Italian stone pine not receiving adequate amounts of water,” read the official report of the arborist hired to investigate the incident. According to biologist Jeffrey Moore, acting regional aerial survey program manager for the U.S. Forest Service, it's "almost certain" that a million more trees will be counted among the dead before summer's end.Four years of drought is continuing to take a punishing toll on California's trees, with implications for habitat, landscapes and even human safety. Aerial surveys conducted by federal officials earlier this year found that already, more than 12.5 million trees have fallen victim to the severe lack of rainfall. The problem is so severe that, in a place where people are cutting down on their water usage and letting their lawns go brown in the name of conserving what's become a very limited resource, some cities are delivering truckloads of water to their endangered pines and fruit trees, San Jose Mercury News reports. The urban struggle is being framed as one of preventing blight: conservationists are attempting to draw attention to how the deaths, which will endure even after the rains return, will mean a loss of shade and, in all likelihood, declining property values. "We need to water these trees somehow, by guess or by golly," was how Palo Alto city arborist Dave Dockter put it. "We cannot let trees -- some growing for 50 to 75 years -- go south. They are an investment in our quality of life." Dying trees, of course, are also flammable, making the state's lengthening wildfire season all the more dangerous. They affect water quality by allowing more runoff to make it into streams, and their loss, as a carbon sink, can in the long term make climate change -- a factor in the current drought -- even worse. They pose an immediate risk, moreover, to those who stroll, or sit, or build beneath them. Two recent incidents, the L.A. Times reports, are "focusing attention" on the plight of trees, including the tragic deaths last week of two children killed by a falling tree branch as they slept in a tent at Yosemite National Park. It's unclear what exactly caused the branch to fall. But thirsty trees, experts note, are more prone to infestation, making them brittle, and long periods of drought followed by sudden bursts of rain can be dangerous, as well -- those factors are believed to be behind the toppling of an 85-foot pine last month in a Pasadena park, injuring eight children. “California is currently in its fourth year of drought, where it is receiving abnormally low rainfall amounts. This probably resulted in the Italian stone pine not receiving adequate amounts of water,” read the official report of the arborist hired to investigate the incident. According to biologist Jeffrey Moore, acting regional aerial survey program manager for the U.S. Forest Service, it's "almost certain" that a million more trees will be counted among the dead before summer's end.

Continue Reading...

Conservatives gush over Trump’s draconian immigration plan: “An early Christmas gift to conservatives”

Donald Trump released the highly-anticipated details of his campaign's immigration reform plan this weekend and his extreme anti-immigration platform was met with as much excitement from right-wing conservatives as he received from giddy children awaiting their turn to ride aboard his helicopter at the Iowa State Fair. Trump's "plan" includes many familiar conservative positions, including a nationwide E-Verify program, enhancing penalties for those who overstay their visas, the mandatory deportation of criminal undocumented immigrants, a crackdown on so-called "sanctuary cities," and of course, a giant wall. Trump outlined his three key immigration principles in a six page plan that he promised would "make America great again":

1. A nation without borders is not a nation. There must be a wall across the southern border. 2. A nation without laws is not a nation. Laws passed in accordance with our Constitutional system of government must be enforced. 3. A nation that does not serve its own citizens is not a nation. Any immigration plan must improve jobs, wages and security for all Americans. Make Mexico Pay For The Wall

But it's Trump's suggestion that we amend the Constitution that is by far the most extreme element of his plan. Native-born children of immigrants — even those living illegally in the U.S. — have been automatically considered American citizens since the adoption of the 14th Amendment of the Constitution in 1868. Trump’s plan would deny citizenship to the babies born to undocumented immigrants. Trump told NBC's Chuck Todd this weekend that he thought it was wrong that undocumented immigrants "have a baby, and all of a sudden nobody knows the baby's here." “They’re illegal ... they have to go,” he declared coldly. Perhaps because of its draconian nature, Trump's plan was revealed to much conservative fanfare. Alabama Sen. Jeff Sessions, chair of a Senate subcommittee on immigration, consulted with Trump on the plan and endorsed the finally product as "exactly the plan America needs." Sessions applauded Trump's plan, writing in a statement, "Crucially, this plan includes an emphasis on lifting struggling minority communities, including our immigrant communities, out of poverty, by preventing corporations from bringing in new workers from overseas to replace them and drive down wages.” Ann Coulter called Trump's six page plan the "greatest political document since the Magna Carta": https://twitter.com/AnnCoulter/status... Coulter explained that she found Trump's extreme plan so good that she didn’t care if Trump “wants to perform abortions in the White House after this immigration policy paper”: https://twitter.com/AnnCoulter/status... Conservative columnists Byron York cited a recent academic paper to argue that the majority of Americans' views on immigration are closer to Trump's than to those seeking comprehensive immigration reform:

But are Trump's views on immigration as far out of the mainstream as Graham suggests? Are they out of the mainstream at all? A recent academic paper, by Stanford professor David Broockman and Berkeley Ph.D candidate Douglas Ahler, suggests a majority of the public's views on immigration are closer to Trump's than to the advocates of comprehensive immigration reform. [...] a majority of Americans — not just Republican voters, but all Americans — hold views that are consistent with Trump's position, or are even more restrictive. Opponents like Graham portray Trump's immigration position as far out of the mainstream, but that doesn't appear to be the case.

And on Fox News, "Fox & Friends" co-host Steve Doocy praised Trump's plan as a "remarkable political document" and an "early Christmas gift to conservatives who have looked at the immigration problem in this country and said can't anybody do anything": Donald Trump released the highly-anticipated details of his campaign's immigration reform plan this weekend and his extreme anti-immigration platform was met with as much excitement from right-wing conservatives as he received from giddy children awaiting their turn to ride aboard his helicopter at the Iowa State Fair. Trump's "plan" includes many familiar conservative positions, including a nationwide E-Verify program, enhancing penalties for those who overstay their visas, the mandatory deportation of criminal undocumented immigrants, a crackdown on so-called "sanctuary cities," and of course, a giant wall. Trump outlined his three key immigration principles in a six page plan that he promised would "make America great again":

1. A nation without borders is not a nation. There must be a wall across the southern border. 2. A nation without laws is not a nation. Laws passed in accordance with our Constitutional system of government must be enforced. 3. A nation that does not serve its own citizens is not a nation. Any immigration plan must improve jobs, wages and security for all Americans. Make Mexico Pay For The Wall

But it's Trump's suggestion that we amend the Constitution that is by far the most extreme element of his plan. Native-born children of immigrants — even those living illegally in the U.S. — have been automatically considered American citizens since the adoption of the 14th Amendment of the Constitution in 1868. Trump’s plan would deny citizenship to the babies born to undocumented immigrants. Trump told NBC's Chuck Todd this weekend that he thought it was wrong that undocumented immigrants "have a baby, and all of a sudden nobody knows the baby's here." “They’re illegal ... they have to go,” he declared coldly. Perhaps because of its draconian nature, Trump's plan was revealed to much conservative fanfare. Alabama Sen. Jeff Sessions, chair of a Senate subcommittee on immigration, consulted with Trump on the plan and endorsed the finally product as "exactly the plan America needs." Sessions applauded Trump's plan, writing in a statement, "Crucially, this plan includes an emphasis on lifting struggling minority communities, including our immigrant communities, out of poverty, by preventing corporations from bringing in new workers from overseas to replace them and drive down wages.” Ann Coulter called Trump's six page plan the "greatest political document since the Magna Carta": https://twitter.com/AnnCoulter/status... Coulter explained that she found Trump's extreme plan so good that she didn’t care if Trump “wants to perform abortions in the White House after this immigration policy paper”: https://twitter.com/AnnCoulter/status... Conservative columnists Byron York cited a recent academic paper to argue that the majority of Americans' views on immigration are closer to Trump's than to those seeking comprehensive immigration reform:

But are Trump's views on immigration as far out of the mainstream as Graham suggests? Are they out of the mainstream at all? A recent academic paper, by Stanford professor David Broockman and Berkeley Ph.D candidate Douglas Ahler, suggests a majority of the public's views on immigration are closer to Trump's than to the advocates of comprehensive immigration reform. [...] a majority of Americans — not just Republican voters, but all Americans — hold views that are consistent with Trump's position, or are even more restrictive. Opponents like Graham portray Trump's immigration position as far out of the mainstream, but that doesn't appear to be the case.

And on Fox News, "Fox & Friends" co-host Steve Doocy praised Trump's plan as a "remarkable political document" and an "early Christmas gift to conservatives who have looked at the immigration problem in this country and said can't anybody do anything":

Continue Reading...

Patrick Stewart’s dazzling Fox News parody: Watch the “Star Trek” legend brilliantly lampoon right-wing cable TV

The first episode of "Blunt Talk," a new Starz comedy series featuring Patrick Stewart as a Bill O'Reilly-ish right-wing talk show host, has officially dropped -- and a whole week sooner than expected. Stewart surprised his fans Saturday when he uploaded the video to his Facebook page, accompanying it with the note: "My character Walter Blunt's behavior is a little embarrassing in this episode, but I am proud of the show." Watch that first episode in full below:

Blunt Talk Series Premiere

Waiting is over. Here it is! The premiere episode of Blunt Talk is streaming now! My character Walter Blunt's behavior is a little embarrassing in this episode, but I am proud of the show. And after viewing the first episode, you may visit this link to watch the second episode. My treat. http://starz.tv/MoreBluntTalk

Posted by Patrick Stewart on Saturday, August 15, 2015

The first episode of "Blunt Talk," a new Starz comedy series featuring Patrick Stewart as a Bill O'Reilly-ish right-wing talk show host, has officially dropped -- and a whole week sooner than expected. Stewart surprised his fans Saturday when he uploaded the video to his Facebook page, accompanying it with the note: "My character Walter Blunt's behavior is a little embarrassing in this episode, but I am proud of the show." Watch that first episode in full below:

Blunt Talk Series Premiere

Waiting is over. Here it is! The premiere episode of Blunt Talk is streaming now! My character Walter Blunt's behavior is a little embarrassing in this episode, but I am proud of the show. And after viewing the first episode, you may visit this link to watch the second episode. My treat. http://starz.tv/MoreBluntTalk

Posted by Patrick Stewart on Saturday, August 15, 2015

Continue Reading...