Lily Salter's Blog, page 960

November 7, 2015

The renewable energy source that’s more dangerous than coal

DESCHUTES COUNTY, ORE. - More than 100 feet beneath the crowns of arrow-straight pines, the forest floor around Peter Caligiuri was overgrown. He pointed at clumps of trees taller than him, but so thin he could have wrapped his hands around their trunks. Before the era of modern firefighting, regular brush fires thinned out woodlands like these. Now, with smaller wildfires kept at bay, small trees can flourish, fueling fiercer blazes when forest fires inevitably arrive. “The understory would have been occupied by a lot more native vegetation; diverse vegetation,” said Caligiuri, a Nature Conservancy forest ecologist working with other groups and the federal government to restore forests around Bend — mostly by thinning them out. “What we’re seeing here in central Oregon is emblematic of a lot of the problems we’re seeing across the Intermountain West.” Instead of leaving them to burn in forest fires, Oregon officials want these skinny pines and other trees cut down and burned in power plants. Wood is an increasingly popular source of energy in Europe, where it’s richly subsidized. But wood energy can accelerate climate change. Living trees absorb carbon dioxide from the atmosphere, and burning dead ones releases more carbon dioxide than coal. Oregon officials say burning waste wood and forest thinnings from its large logging industry and forestlands would protect the climate, while improving the natural environment. But their ambitions go beyond that. The governor’s office wants to know whether the last coal plant in the state could be converted to run on wood — a substantially riskier proposition for the atmosphere. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency is about to make critical decisions about this kind of energy as it cracks down on power plant pollution. Its decisions will affect how a fuel known as biomass — wood and other organic material burned for energy — can be used by the states to meet new pollution rules. In doing so, the agency will walk a fine line between promoting the use of wood energy that could accelerate deforestation and global warming, and defining the limited sources of wood fuel that could help ease those problems. The European Union makes no such distinction. Through a loophole in its clean energy regulations, all wood energy is treated as if it releases no carbon dioxide. That accounting trick is allowing European national governments and their energy sectors to pump tens of millions of tons of greenhouse gases into the air every year — without accounting for it. That helps them keep that pollution off their books, but not out of the atmosphere. Burning wood only helps the climate in special circumstances, like when waste is used for energy instead of being burned off in a field, or when trees are planted on barren land to eventually produce fuel. The EPA will decide which types of wood energy can count as clean energy on a state-by-state basis. By letting states propose their own rules, the federal government risks allowing Oregon, Virginia and other states with large forestry industries to downplay the climate impacts of wood energy as they devise their plans to reduce climate-warming pollution. The Clean Power Plan — 1,560 pages of electricity rules finalized in August by the EPA — represents an unprecedented effort by the U.S. government to start forcing states to control climate pollution from their power industries. Most states already allow wood burning to count as renewable energy generation. The EPA will allow states to propose increasing their use of wood energy to help meet the new greenhouse gas reduction rules. Wood energy is considered renewable because trees can regrow. But it’s not a clean energy source like wind turbines or solar panels, which convert energy from the environment to electricity. Wood is a fuel, meaning it must be burned to produce electricity, which releases pollution. Analysis of European data suggests that converting a modern coal plant to run on wood pellets increases carbon dioxide pollution by 15 to 20 percent. And for power plants in Europe and parts of Asia that are burning wood pellets (many of which are being produced in the U.S. — all for export) for electricity, carbon pollution can be even greater, because fuels are needed to produce and transport the pellets. If the EPA is too lenient when it rules on plans submitted by Oregon and the other states, that could threaten not only the climate, but America’s forests. Many of the wood pellets being burned for electricity in Europe were made from trees chopped down in the U.S., including from sensitive wetlands in the Southeast. Allowing this practice to grow could compound the threat that it poses to some of the world’s most heavily logged areas. The EPA has already hinted that Oregon’s hopes for burning waste wood and forest thinnings could count toward pollution reductions under the Clean Power Plan. That’s based on advice from a panel of scientists it has convened. But it could be more than a year before states learn whether industrial levels of wood burning are deemed acceptable — and, if so, how. “We would like to see bioenergy play a significant role in our efforts to reduce carbon emissions,” said Margi Hoffman, Oregon Gov. Kate Brown’s energy advisor. “We would like to see smaller-scale projects listed as carbon neutral,” she said — while acknowledging that biomass energy projects “of a certain size and scale” don’t meet that definition. Fears ahead of the upcoming EPA ruling are rooted in more than 20 years of climate research that warns wood energy can’t be used at large industrial scales without harming the climate. Seas have risen more than a half a foot since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution. Climate change is making heat waves hotter and causing heavier downpours. Pollution from wood energy compounds those problems. “Biomass energy is going to be part of a mix of new forms of energy that gets us off of fossil fuels,” said William Schlesinger, president emeritus at the Cary Institute of Ecosystem Studies whose research frequently deals with climate change. Logging debris can safely be used for energy, he said, and fast-growing grass and some plantation trees will sometimes be “OK.” But Schlesinger said cutting down old trees to fuel power plants — a scenario that’s already playing out in the Southeast, where many of Europe’s wood pellets are being produced — will exacerbate climate change, the very problem for which wood energy is often pitched as a solution. “There need to be some rules and regulations put into place that trace the origin of biomass, so you can’t go out and cut an old-growth forest and pelletize it and say, ‘That’s carbon neutral,’” he said. Wood Pellets Emit More Carbon Than Coal DOWNLOAD While forest-rich Oregon sees environmental wonder in burning waste wood to provide electricity, Massachusetts sees the dangers of it. In 2012, following the commissioning of a study into the potential climate and forestry impacts of wood energy, Massachusetts adopted rules to limit its use. The different rules in Oregon and Massachusetts reflect their economic, physical and political landscapes. The EPA is comfortable with that diversity. It will allow states to set their own rules under the Clean Power Plan. But it will wield a veto. “It’s complicated,” said Robert Sussman, an energy industry consultant and Yale Law School lecturer who was a senior advisor in the EPA from 2009 to 2013. “On the one hand, the EPA is saying that combustion of biomass could be carbon neutral under certain circumstances. But then it’s turning around and making the path for industry and the states complex.” Under the Clean Power Plan, states that want to use wood energy to meet pollution targets must “adequately demonstrate” that the fuel they use — be it wood chips, wood pellets, mill waste, almond shells or trees killed by beetles, for example — will “appropriately control” increases of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. Only wood-burning power plants built after 2012 will be considered eligible.
The EPA hasn’t said how it will decide whether a proposal to burn wood for electricity would “appropriately control” rises in greenhouse gas pollution.
The EPA’s panel of science advisors has agreed that some kinds of waste wood can be burned to produce electricity — and benefit the climate at the same time, said Joe Goffman, an EPA air official who helped draft the new rules. “We’ve opened up the door for states to submit plans that include some kind of biomass component,” Goffman said. “If states include biomass as a component in their plans, they can essentially present the case as to why their approach is appropriate.” Most states have standards in place that require utilities to include renewable energy in their electricity supplies. The standards tend to focus on promoting renewable energy — rather than reducing climate pollution — and wood energy is a renewable alternative under these rules. Under the EPA’s new power plant rules, states will also need to start considering the climate effects of wood burning. Massachusetts already does that out of concern for the climate and its forests, limiting the types of wood that can count as renewable fuel under its standards. Since 2012, its efficiency standards have been so high that a wood-burning power plant would also have to heat buildings to qualify. In Virginia, which is home to a large forestry industry, the rules are looser. Dominion Resources used investment tax credits, available from the federal government, to help it switch three of its small coal plants in Virginia to run on wood chips. It’s allowed to count that energy toward its state renewables requirements. Each of the converted plants produces about 50 megawatts of electricity — a typical size for a U.S. biomass plant, capable of powering thousands of homes. Virginia’s power regulators allowed the company to pass on more than $160 million in costs to its bill-paying customers. The EPA will decide how states like Oregon can burn trees to comply with new pollution rules. If its rulings are too lax, they could add to warming and threaten forests. Photos by Rod Parmenter. Dominion Resources doesn’t expect to convert its larger power plants to run on wood to help meet Clean Power Plan requirements. Without access to the hundreds of millions of dollars in subsidies that European governments provide for renewable energy — virtually guaranteeing profits for even the most expensive projects — large-scale wood burning might not be feasible for American power plants. “The cost of converting large pulverized coal units to biomass would be too high to consider,” company spokesman Dan Genest said. The EPA hasn’t said how it will decide whether a proposal to burn wood for electricity would “appropriately control” rises in greenhouse gas pollution. Its rulings will be crucial — both in reducing real-world pollution and in setting an example to counter the destructive one being set by Europe. The agency has so far made two broad statements: it won’t treat all wood burning as carbon neutral, but waste as fuel may be treated as such. In a memo signed last year by senior EPA official Janet McCabe, the agency indicated that it “expects to recognize” the climate benefits of “waste-derived and certain forest-derived industrial byproduct feedstocks.” It also said it may approve state plans that include the burning of what it vaguely described as “sustainably derived agricultural and forest-derived feedstocks.” Those ambiguous statements have triggered consternation among scientists and environmental groups. They wonder what “sustainably derived” will mean. Sustainability can refer to environmental practices that have “little-to-no bearing on the carbon implications of biomass use,” the Cary Institute’s Schlesinger and dozens of other scientists wrote in a letter to McCabe. For some wood fuels, the agency may require states follow a new system for measuring climate impacts. “The EPA needs to set up a factor that they multiply by the smokestack emissions,” said Oregon State University forest ecology professor Mark Harmon, a member of the science panel that’s advising the agency on wood energy’s climate effects. “What really counts? What really is being added to the atmosphere — or maybe taken out of the atmosphere, in some cases?” Even when it helps the climate, wood energy isn’t all forest restoration and atmospheric rainbows. Like fossil fuels, wood energy is dirty energy. Burning wood releases pollution that creates haze and ozone, triggering emphysema and asthma attacks. That’s why some local air quality districts ban residents from using fireplaces on the smoggiest days. Waste wood may also have been treated with pesticides, paint and other poisons, which can be released as air pollution when burned. Wood energy’s pollution, combined with its climate impacts and its potential to contribute to deforestation, has seeded deep opposition to it in the U.S. When Oregon lawmakers were debating a bill that would eventually declare wood energy to be carbon neutral, the Sierra Club’s state chapter testified in opposition. Scientifically, the legislation was “deeply flawed,” the group pointed out, warning it could accelerate climate change and sully the air. Power plant owners can take costly steps to reduce air pollution, but those that burn wood have fewer regulatory requirements than those burning fossil fuels. Among other differences, wood-burning power plants can release more than twice as much pollution as coal or gas plants before they’re affected by federal clean air rules. “There are real public health impacts if you live next to one of these facilities, and the facility isn’t run really well,” said Nathanael Greene, director of renewable energy policy at the Natural Resources Defense Council. The influential American nonprofit campaigns against the overuse of wood energy, such as in Europe. The potential role wood energy could play under the Clean Power Plan won’t become clear until the EPA begins assessing state plans, which are due next year. States could receive extensions for two years beyond that. Meanwhile, the agency is consulting with its panel of scientists and calling for public comment as it tries to hone its approach to regulating pollution from wood energy. The NRDC says the EPA is correct to conclude that wood energy is not always carbon neutral. It says it will pressure the agency to be highly critical of state proposals to count electricity from waste wood as zero carbon under the Clean Power Plan. “If you’re going to say that it’s zero carbon, it doesn’t just have to control carbon a little bit — it’s got to control it all the way down to being equal to wind power or solar power,” Greene said. “It’s unclear from the final regulations how the EPA will determine if that standard has been met.” By potentially deferring to the judgment of Oregon, Virginia and other states, the federal government risks allowing harmful types of wood energy to be counted as clean. Momentum toward tackling global warming is growing stronger around the world, led in part by the U.S., which is striving to be a leader on climate action. Any mistakes now by the EPA threaten to entrench the European approach and entice other countries to follow, undermining global efforts to tackle climate change.

Continue Reading...










 •  0 comments  •  flag
Share on Twitter
Published on November 07, 2015 10:00

This Rachel Maddow interview is Bernie Sanders’ best moment in weeks

It has been a rough couple weeks for Bernie Sanders as Hillary Clinton found her footing and re-established herself as the Democratic front-runner after impressive performances in the first Democratic debate and before a House panel investigating Benghazi. But at an MSNBC forum in South Carolina last night, answering a speed round of quick questions from Rachel Maddow, Sanders might have had his best moment in some time -- he's charming, funny, self-aware, and gets in some great digs at the mainstream media. Watch below, as Maddow -- as she jokes -- tries to get Sanders to hate her as much as he does the rest pf the press. It has been a rough couple weeks for Bernie Sanders as Hillary Clinton found her footing and re-established herself as the Democratic front-runner after impressive performances in the first Democratic debate and before a House panel investigating Benghazi. But at an MSNBC forum in South Carolina last night, answering a speed round of quick questions from Rachel Maddow, Sanders might have had his best moment in some time -- he's charming, funny, self-aware, and gets in some great digs at the mainstream media. Watch below, as Maddow -- as she jokes -- tries to get Sanders to hate her as much as he does the rest pf the press. It has been a rough couple weeks for Bernie Sanders as Hillary Clinton found her footing and re-established herself as the Democratic front-runner after impressive performances in the first Democratic debate and before a House panel investigating Benghazi. But at an MSNBC forum in South Carolina last night, answering a speed round of quick questions from Rachel Maddow, Sanders might have had his best moment in some time -- he's charming, funny, self-aware, and gets in some great digs at the mainstream media. Watch below, as Maddow -- as she jokes -- tries to get Sanders to hate her as much as he does the rest pf the press. It has been a rough couple weeks for Bernie Sanders as Hillary Clinton found her footing and re-established herself as the Democratic front-runner after impressive performances in the first Democratic debate and before a House panel investigating Benghazi. But at an MSNBC forum in South Carolina last night, answering a speed round of quick questions from Rachel Maddow, Sanders might have had his best moment in some time -- he's charming, funny, self-aware, and gets in some great digs at the mainstream media. Watch below, as Maddow -- as she jokes -- tries to get Sanders to hate her as much as he does the rest pf the press.

Continue Reading...










 •  0 comments  •  flag
Share on Twitter
Published on November 07, 2015 09:18

Slavery, the Nazis and the KKK: We can’t face the past, and it’s poisoning our future

No quotation from American literature, with the possible exception of F. Scott Fitzgerald’s “boats against the current” passage, is repeated as often or carries as much resonance as William Faulkner’s most famous line: “The past is never dead. It isn’t even past.” Startlingly enough, both quotations make virtually the same point; Fitzgerald’s boats, a flotilla of isolated human souls riding the current of time, are “borne back ceaselessly into the past.” (Faulkner’s “Requiem for a Nun” was published 26 years after “The Great Gatsby,” and it’s entirely possible the echo is deliberate.) Even as we move forward from generation to generation and from birth to death, we cannot escape history, whether on the personal and emotional level or the larger cultural and social level. Both of those eminent American writers understood, in their different ways, that their country was at war with its own past. Both men were shaped to a large degree by the bigotry and prejudice of their times – both held views we would today consider frankly racist – while on the page they struggled as hard as they could to transcend those limitations, and write themselves into the future. They wrote about a nation profoundly shaped by history -- by a 200-year pattern of immigration, migration and resettlement; by successive waves of religious revival; by slavery and the extermination or forcible removal of the native peoples; by the causes and effects of a bloody internecine war that ended 150 years ago and to which most 21st-century Americans have no ancestral connection. They also wrote about a nation that is endlessly eager to erase its own past and start over, like John Wayne’s Ringo Kid at the end of “Stagecoach” or Fitzgerald’s James Gatz, the dirt-poor North Dakota farm boy who dreams of better things. We shouldn’t kid ourselves about this: Much of the entrepreneurial zeal, endless inventiveness and “Yankee ingenuity” that transformed America from a backward agrarian society into the world’s leading industrial power over the first few decades of the 19th century stemmed from that impulse, unleashed upon a continent rich in natural resources. If half our cultural birthright is a troubling history whose consequences we feel everywhere around us and whose big questions remain unresolved, the other half is Henry Ford assuring us that history is bunk and we are free to reinvent ourselves however we like. So much of America’s intractable political insanity and intense cultural division, circa 2015, is rooted in a dispute over the nature and meaning of the past that I’m tempted to pronounce that all of it is. That isn't entirely fair, of course, but even the most urgent political issues of the day -- including the mass incarceration of men of color and the right's long war to defund all aspects of the federal government except the military, the intelligence agencies and the secret police -- represent old conflicts decanted into new containers. As the latest Anonymous hack has revealed, the Ku Klux Klan, a remnant of the same terrorist organization that undermined Southern Reconstruction and subjugated supposedly free African-Americans to white hegemony for a full century, still has 5,000 members in 41 states. But even the Anonymous hackers agree that today's Klan is something of a historical relic, like Civil War nostalgia on the dark side. Power in America today no longer relies on guys in white hoods. Robert E. Lee surrendered at Appomattox Court House one spring day in 1865, bringing an end to the noble Southern cause that his great adversary, Ulysses S. Grant, described as "one of the worst for which a people ever fought, and one for which there was the least excuse." But despite appearances the Confederacy had not been defeated, and today's Republican Party represents its values almost perfectly. For reasons that are both obvious and deeply perverse, people in small Northeastern towns celebrate the Rebel flag their own ancestors shed blood to defeat. Eight hundred thousand died in that war and slavery came to an end, at least as a legal institution under that name. But with the defeat of Reconstruction it was transformed into a long-term system of white supremacy whose persistent effects, and whose very existence, must be repeatedly denied or minimized or greeted with a puzzled shrug. Why are black people still overwhelmingly poor and poorly educated? Why are they far more likely to live in substandard housing in poorly served neighborhoods, far more likely to be victims of crime and to be shot by police? One of our two political parties, the one that has been increasingly dominated over the last three decades by the great-great-grandchildren of the Confederacy, is pretty much built on the premise that those problems can only be black people’s fault -- or, in the more beneficent view, can be blamed on diabolical white liberals who led the innocent black folk astray with “free stuff.” They certainly can’t have anything to do with the fact that African-Americans were enslaved until 150 years ago, had few or no political rights until 50 years ago, and throughout their history on this continent have been redlined and ghettoized and marginalized and covenant-excluded and financially exploited by an endless array of swindlers and usurers and predatory lenders. Those things, we are constantly and nervously assured by red-faced men on television as they project their own fears and anxieties onto Black Lives Matter protesters or Quentin Tarantino or whomever else, are in the past. In the discourse of the American right, the past can only be one of two things: A) a story of glorious patriotism and heroism, or B) something that did not happen or does not matter. We don’t need to summon Faulkner in order to observe that police brutality and the shootings of unarmed black men are not in the past, and neither is our society’s worsening economic inequality, which includes a shocking racial disparity. According to a U.S. Census Bureau survey, the median white household in 2011 held just over $111,000 in total wealth. For the median black household, that number was barely $7,000 – 16 times less, or 8 cents in black wealth for every white dollar. (For Latino families it was nearly as bad, about $8,400.) If that difference is attributable to some deficiency in black people or African-American culture, rather than the undead hand of the past squeezing the life out of our society, then whatever is wrong with them must be really, really bad. I wanted to speak to Philippe Sands about all this, because the question of historical responsibility is precisely his area of expertise. Sands is an international human-rights lawyer who has investigated and prosecuted crimes against humanity at the World Court, and is also a principal subject of the fascinating new documentary “What Our Fathers Did: A Nazi Legacy.” He is the child of Jewish refugees who fled Hitler before the Holocaust, and the film is about his increasingly personal relationship with two men whose fathers were prominent Nazi officials. I suspected he might have something to say about the past not being past, and about how it shapes us and how we should try to understand it. If we agree, as Sands emphatically does agree, that his friends Niklas Frank and Horst von Wächter are not responsible for the crimes committed by their fathers, or that I (just for instance) am not responsible for my direct ancestors who owned slave plantations in the Caribbean and owned slave ships in France, then why aren’t we free to lock the closet door of history, wash our hands and walk away? Mistakes were made! At some distant point! Not my fault! Niklas Frank represents one approach to this problem: His father was the notorious Hans Frank, "the Butcher of Poland," a close adviser and friend of Adolf Hitler's who served as the governor-general of occupied Poland, where he supervised the mass murder of roughly 4 million people. Niklas despises his father for what he did, which is reasonable enough, but also seems consumed by that loathing to an exaggerated and extreme extent. He always carries with him a photograph of his father's corpse, taken after he was hanged in Nuremberg as a war criminal. At the other end of the spectrum is Horst von Wächter, a genial and sweet-tempered man who is interested in art and mysticism, and does not hate his father at all. Sands clearly feels great affection for Horst (who was named after Horst Wessel, an early martyr of the Nazi movement) and spends much of the film trying to convince him to face the truth about his father. Otto von Wächter was not a mass murderer on Hans Frank's scale, but that's a difficult standard to match. Still, he was in charge of the infamous Krakow Ghetto, and served as the governor of Galicia (then a Polish province) when several massacres of Jews were carried out -- including the one, it turns out, when many of Philippe Sands' relatives were marched into a field near their village and shot. Horst makes regretful noises about all this, but continues to dodge and evade the evidence of where his beloved father was and what he did. It finally becomes clear that nothing will dissuade him from the delusion that Otto was a benevolent man compelled to follow orders, who did his best in difficult circumstances. Why, I wondered, did Sands keep pushing? What did he hope to accomplish? “That's a really, really core question, isn't it?" Sands responds. "What was I looking for from Horst, and what did I want? I make very clear, and it is absolutely my position, that Horst himself bears no responsibility for the actions of his father, for the sins of his father. He was his own person. He was a child. What I was looking for was an acknowledgment of the facts. And I think the reason that I was looking for an acknowledgment of the facts is that I understand the failure to acknowledge the facts as, in some way, an apology for what happened. And from there it’s a thin line between apology and acceptance, between acceptance and complicity, between complicity and active engagement. I suppose it’s that sense that if we don’t recognize the facts for what they are, we make it possible, or more likely, that those kinds of facts may repeat themselves. “I think that’s the unstated driving force that is at work behind me. And this question is universal. This story reaches beyond, say, the Jewish community or the Germans and the Austrians. A Cambodian student of mine watched this film and was incredibly affected by it, thinking about his own country under the Khmer Rouge. I had an Argentine student who lives in Buenos Aires today, with parents and grandparents who had different roles and responsibilities under the dictatorship, some acknowledging it and some not. I think it’s a universal theme, and the answer to your question is a very complex assessment and reflection. For me, it goes back to the need to acknowledge that the community of which we are a part, for reasons of blood and history, has engaged in difficult or problematic things. We need to have an honesty about that.” When I shift the topic to the Confederacy and American history, Sands seizes on it instantly. While he was raised in England, his wife and children are Americans. “When that issue comes up around the breakfast table, about the Confederate flag, it’s a matter of incredibly active debate,” he says. “Our kids will say to us, ‘How can it be that 150 years on, there’s still a dispute about all of this and some people want to show that flag while other people don’t want them to?’ For me, I wonder what the difference is, in general terms, between that and what we see in the Ukraine [in the film] with a group of characters gathering, you know, in Nazi uniforms for a re-enactment, or a burial of Ukrainian and German war heroes? What is the difference between that and a re-enactment of the Civil War? It’s a desire for a particular community to find connection and legitimacy with the past. And in finding connection and legitimacy, the danger is that you reinforce the conditions that continue to work their unhappy consequences. “And we have to understand, equally, that this is not just historical material. I’ve been very involved in the last years on the issue of torture, for example. And I think that the amnesia in the United States about engaging with the fact that the country turned to torture once again after September the 11th -- I think it’s going to have enormous consequences going forward. Even though it may not be perceived as having consequences within the United States, outside of the United States it was a huge moment for those who hold the United States to a higher standard because it is the world leader on human rights. It becomes too bloody easy to wheel it out and say, ‘Look, if they can do torture, then I can do torture.’” If the past is not really past – the past of “extraordinary rendition” and “enhanced interrogation,” the past of Auschwitz and the Krakow ghetto, the past of American slavery and its endless repercussions – then it is still with us, and still shaping our behavior. As Sands makes clear, willful historical amnesia can be found in all parts of the world, but America has developed it into a poisonous and intoxicating high art. Our powerful national identity is rooted in the mythological notion that we are different and exceptional, free of the depressing chains of the past that hold other nations back from greatness. At this point in our history that belief is literally driving us insane. Sands talks sadly about his friend Horst, the child of Nazis who does not want to know what really happened, and who drifts ever closer to denying that it happened at all. “Things unsaid have long-term consequences," says Sands. "You think by pushing things under the carpet that you sort them out and they go away. But you’re doing the opposite, and they only get worse.” "What Our Fathers Did: A Nazi Legacy" is now playing at the Lincoln Plaza Cinema in New York and the Laemmle Royal in Los Angeles. It opens Nov. 13 in Chicago, Miami, Philadelphia, Portland, Ore., San Francisco and Washington; and Nov. 20 in Denver and Columbus, Ohio, with more cities and home video to follow.

Continue Reading...










 •  0 comments  •  flag
Share on Twitter
Published on November 07, 2015 09:00

Bill Gates gives Exxon cover: The Gates Foundation is deadly wrong on climate change, fossil fuels

The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, the world’s wealthiest charitable foundation, has been under an unprecedented amount of scrutiny regarding their investments in the fossil fuel industry lately. Alongside a persistent and growing local Seattle-based campaign, about a quarter of a million people joined the Guardian in calling on the Foundation to join the $2.6 trillion worth of investors who have committed to divest from fossil fuels. In response, Bill Gates has proffered two public rejections of fossil fuel divestment, the most recent in a lengthy interview on climate change in this month’s edition of the Atlantic. Both rejections were based on misleading accounts of divestment which created straw men of the divestment movement, and downplayed the remarkable prospects for a clean energy revolution. Activists (and kayaktivists alike) were quick to point out the flaws in Gates’ argument and to highlight that by not divesting Gates is supporting the very industries that are lobbying against climate progress and whose business models are deeply out of line with averting the climate crisis. A disconcerting example of this came when Exxon Mobil endorsed Bill Gates’ view. They did so, furthermore, as part of an article attempting to deny their culpability for intentionally misleading the public about the reality of human-caused climate change, and by extension the risks of its product. Like Big Tobacco before them, Exxon are facing calls for federal investigation under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act by no less than Bernie Sanders, Hillary Clinton and more. In order to try and vindicate themselves and justify their deeply problematic position on climate change, Exxon turned to Gates’ views as support. Gates’ problematic statements remain the only response a representative of the foundation has given, and for a foundation dedicated to a better world, sharing worldviews on climate change with a corporation implicated in one of the more egregious corporate scandals arguably in human history seems like a poor position to be in. Thus, while the Gates Foundation has, of course, done much good work, such a response to divestment and framing of the climate change issue should lead us to question the intentions and motivations behind Bill Gates, the Foundation and its leaders. For instance, Warren Buffett, who owns much fossil fuel infrastructure, is the largest donor to the Gates Foundation, with donations of over $31 billion. What role does this play in the Foundation’s unwillingness to divest? Also, does Bill Gates’ chairman role on TerraPower, a nuclear power company, make him more willing to knock down clean energy in order to position TerraPower and their nuclear reactors favorably in the market? After all, the Atlantic interview in which Gates rejected divestment read almost like an advert for TerraPower. Divest-Invest: Two Sides of the Same Coin To Bill Gates’ credit he got the equation partly right, when he said that “the solution is investment” in clean energy – a statement he backed up by committing to invest $2 billion in clean energy. However, clean energy investments are only part of the equation; if we are to solve climate change, we also need to wind down investments in the fossil fuel industry and related infrastructure, while breaking the fossil fuel industry’s corrupting stranglehold on politics so that we can unlock the sorts of policies, societal changes and investments needed to tackle the climate crisis. While Gates claims that divestment is a “false solution” that “won’t emit less carbon” and that there is no “direct path between divesting and solving climate change,” the 2° Investing Initiative (and the International Energy Agency) point out that “divesting from fossil fuels is an integral piece to aligning the financial sector with a 2°C climate scenario,” with reductions in fossil fuel investments of $4.9 trillion and additional divestment away from fossil-fueled power transmission and distribution of $1.2 trillion needed by 2035 if we are to achieve the internationally agreed upon 2°C target. It seems that even Peabody, the largest private-sector coal company in the world, has a more enlightened view on divestment than Bill Gates. Peabody have recognized that by shifting perceptions around fossil fuels and spurring on legislation, divestment efforts “could significantly affect demand for [their] products and securities.” Peabody’s conclusion aligns closely with that of the researchers at Oxford University’s Stranded Assets Program, whose influential report on divestment illustrates that the political and social power that divestment builds through stigmatizing the fossil fuel industry could also “indirectly influence all investors… to go underweight on fossil fuel stocks and debt in their portfolios." Contradicting Bill Gates’ claim that divestment “won’t emit less carbon,” the "radical" environmentalists over at HSBC bank recently issued a research report showing that divestment could lead to less fossil fuel production and less carbon emissions. According to HSBC, divestment could help “extend the carbon budget” by creating “less demand for shares and bonds, [which] ultimately increases the cost of capital to companies and limits the ability to finance expensive projects, which is particularly damaging in a sector where projects are inherently long term.” The "Miracle" of Clean Energy Gates also provided a misleading assessment of the economics of the clean energy transition (seemingly out of the pages of a fossil fuel industry misinformation handbook or his favored climate contrarian adviser Bjorn Lomborg). Gates claimed that the only way current technology could reduce global emissions is at “beyond astronomical cost,” such that a “miracle” on the level of the invention of the automobile was necessary to avoid a climate catastrophe. While innovation and invention is certainly part of the future ahead, numerous studies from the likes of Stanford University, the Chinese National Energy Research Institute, the IPCC and many others, show that we have many of the technologies needed to transition to a clean-energy future. Indeed, as the IEA points out, what we need is not a miracle, but to speed up the energy revolution that is already underway. Wind power is already one of our cheapest forms of energy, and solar is set to be one of the cheapest energy sources across 80 percent of the world by 2017 according to Deutsche Bank. With clean energy making such great headway, the IEA has estimated that transitioning to clean energy in line with the 2-degree target is not only possible, but that it would result in net savings on fuel and energy costs of $71 trillion by 2050 – no miracle needed or astronomical costs incurred. Not only would transitioning in line with the 2-degree target save us from high fuel costs, but it would also create millions of jobs, grow the economy, prevent major negative impacts on global health and development, and avert the truly astronomical costs of climate change – estimated to be as high as $3,290 trillion by 2200. While those numbers point overwhelmingly in favor of climate action, they still cannot do real justice to the devastating nature of climate change. As the UN Human Development Report estimates, climate change and other environmental disasters could push more than 3 billion people into extreme poverty by 2050 if we do not act to stem the climate crisis. Even if, contrary to all these sources, Bill Gates is right and we need a “miracle” in innovation to get to the 2-degree target, that's somewhat irrelevant to the point of divestment. After all Gates also claims to believe we can get to the 2-degree target, he just believes we need a lot more innovation to get there. The question that the divestment movement is asking is this: If you believe we can hit the 2-degree target, why would you be investing in companies like Shell, Peabody, or (their seeming allies) Exxon, whose business models entail four or five degrees of warming and who are preventing us from getting to the 2-degree target? That’s really the point. Gates’ rejection of divestment continues to ignore the argument at the heart of the divestment movement, that 60 to 80 percent of coal, oil and gas reserves of listed fossil fuel firms are unburnable if we are to stand a reasonable chance of staying below the 2°C target. Despite that fossil fuel companies are spending approximately 1 percent of global GDP on developing even more new potentially unburnable reserves – ironically about the same amount that the IEA concluded is required to invest in the clean economy in order to stay below the 2°C target. Why, if Gates is committed to the 2°C target and a safe and livable climate, would he want to invest in companies whose business models are out of line with it and who are using the tools of misinformation, corruption and lobbying to ensure that their profits are protected rather than the climate? The Problematic Narrative of Elites It is important that we consider the role that Gates’ rhetoric on clean energy plays and how it affects progress on climate change, especially when it is echoed by companies like Exxon. By problematizing the transition to clean energy, Gates and Exxon are helping keep us stuck in a fossil-fueled past which locks us on a path to climate chaos. To see this more clearly, consider this quote from a recent report from the Wuppertal Institute for Climate, Environment & Energy:
“Only rarely are there immutable facts or technical conflicts that impede or even prevent the expansion of renewable energy. Instead, long-established structures and elites problematize the challenges of an energy transformation and sustain the existing system and their own (market) power with corresponding narratives. The success of an energy transformation will depend on whether a broad alliance of civil society, politics, science, and industry develops a convincing alternative and positive narratives – and implements them against resistances”
Recognizing this, the question we need to ask is whether Gates and the Gates Foundation are part of the “long-established structures and elites” holding us back from a successful energy transformation. After all, in problematizing the transition to clean energy, Bill Gates is spinning a narrative favored by the fossil fuel industry, one which protects their corrupted stranglehold on energy and the climate, and which undermines the prospects of undergoing the needed energy transformation which can truly help to create a better world for all. The Gates Foundation still has the opportunity to align their investments with the noble goals that they were founded upon: “to help every person get the chance to live a healthy, productive life." However, as things stand they are currently investing in companies that are actively and often corruptly pursuing business models that could erase the prospects of a healthy, productive life for billions of people across the globe, especially for future generations and the poor and vulnerable the world over.The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, the world’s wealthiest charitable foundation, has been under an unprecedented amount of scrutiny regarding their investments in the fossil fuel industry lately. Alongside a persistent and growing local Seattle-based campaign, about a quarter of a million people joined the Guardian in calling on the Foundation to join the $2.6 trillion worth of investors who have committed to divest from fossil fuels. In response, Bill Gates has proffered two public rejections of fossil fuel divestment, the most recent in a lengthy interview on climate change in this month’s edition of the Atlantic. Both rejections were based on misleading accounts of divestment which created straw men of the divestment movement, and downplayed the remarkable prospects for a clean energy revolution. Activists (and kayaktivists alike) were quick to point out the flaws in Gates’ argument and to highlight that by not divesting Gates is supporting the very industries that are lobbying against climate progress and whose business models are deeply out of line with averting the climate crisis. A disconcerting example of this came when Exxon Mobil endorsed Bill Gates’ view. They did so, furthermore, as part of an article attempting to deny their culpability for intentionally misleading the public about the reality of human-caused climate change, and by extension the risks of its product. Like Big Tobacco before them, Exxon are facing calls for federal investigation under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act by no less than Bernie Sanders, Hillary Clinton and more. In order to try and vindicate themselves and justify their deeply problematic position on climate change, Exxon turned to Gates’ views as support. Gates’ problematic statements remain the only response a representative of the foundation has given, and for a foundation dedicated to a better world, sharing worldviews on climate change with a corporation implicated in one of the more egregious corporate scandals arguably in human history seems like a poor position to be in. Thus, while the Gates Foundation has, of course, done much good work, such a response to divestment and framing of the climate change issue should lead us to question the intentions and motivations behind Bill Gates, the Foundation and its leaders. For instance, Warren Buffett, who owns much fossil fuel infrastructure, is the largest donor to the Gates Foundation, with donations of over $31 billion. What role does this play in the Foundation’s unwillingness to divest? Also, does Bill Gates’ chairman role on TerraPower, a nuclear power company, make him more willing to knock down clean energy in order to position TerraPower and their nuclear reactors favorably in the market? After all, the Atlantic interview in which Gates rejected divestment read almost like an advert for TerraPower. Divest-Invest: Two Sides of the Same Coin To Bill Gates’ credit he got the equation partly right, when he said that “the solution is investment” in clean energy – a statement he backed up by committing to invest $2 billion in clean energy. However, clean energy investments are only part of the equation; if we are to solve climate change, we also need to wind down investments in the fossil fuel industry and related infrastructure, while breaking the fossil fuel industry’s corrupting stranglehold on politics so that we can unlock the sorts of policies, societal changes and investments needed to tackle the climate crisis. While Gates claims that divestment is a “false solution” that “won’t emit less carbon” and that there is no “direct path between divesting and solving climate change,” the 2° Investing Initiative (and the International Energy Agency) point out that “divesting from fossil fuels is an integral piece to aligning the financial sector with a 2°C climate scenario,” with reductions in fossil fuel investments of $4.9 trillion and additional divestment away from fossil-fueled power transmission and distribution of $1.2 trillion needed by 2035 if we are to achieve the internationally agreed upon 2°C target. It seems that even Peabody, the largest private-sector coal company in the world, has a more enlightened view on divestment than Bill Gates. Peabody have recognized that by shifting perceptions around fossil fuels and spurring on legislation, divestment efforts “could significantly affect demand for [their] products and securities.” Peabody’s conclusion aligns closely with that of the researchers at Oxford University’s Stranded Assets Program, whose influential report on divestment illustrates that the political and social power that divestment builds through stigmatizing the fossil fuel industry could also “indirectly influence all investors… to go underweight on fossil fuel stocks and debt in their portfolios." Contradicting Bill Gates’ claim that divestment “won’t emit less carbon,” the "radical" environmentalists over at HSBC bank recently issued a research report showing that divestment could lead to less fossil fuel production and less carbon emissions. According to HSBC, divestment could help “extend the carbon budget” by creating “less demand for shares and bonds, [which] ultimately increases the cost of capital to companies and limits the ability to finance expensive projects, which is particularly damaging in a sector where projects are inherently long term.” The "Miracle" of Clean Energy Gates also provided a misleading assessment of the economics of the clean energy transition (seemingly out of the pages of a fossil fuel industry misinformation handbook or his favored climate contrarian adviser Bjorn Lomborg). Gates claimed that the only way current technology could reduce global emissions is at “beyond astronomical cost,” such that a “miracle” on the level of the invention of the automobile was necessary to avoid a climate catastrophe. While innovation and invention is certainly part of the future ahead, numerous studies from the likes of Stanford University, the Chinese National Energy Research Institute, the IPCC and many others, show that we have many of the technologies needed to transition to a clean-energy future. Indeed, as the IEA points out, what we need is not a miracle, but to speed up the energy revolution that is already underway. Wind power is already one of our cheapest forms of energy, and solar is set to be one of the cheapest energy sources across 80 percent of the world by 2017 according to Deutsche Bank. With clean energy making such great headway, the IEA has estimated that transitioning to clean energy in line with the 2-degree target is not only possible, but that it would result in net savings on fuel and energy costs of $71 trillion by 2050 – no miracle needed or astronomical costs incurred. Not only would transitioning in line with the 2-degree target save us from high fuel costs, but it would also create millions of jobs, grow the economy, prevent major negative impacts on global health and development, and avert the truly astronomical costs of climate change – estimated to be as high as $3,290 trillion by 2200. While those numbers point overwhelmingly in favor of climate action, they still cannot do real justice to the devastating nature of climate change. As the UN Human Development Report estimates, climate change and other environmental disasters could push more than 3 billion people into extreme poverty by 2050 if we do not act to stem the climate crisis. Even if, contrary to all these sources, Bill Gates is right and we need a “miracle” in innovation to get to the 2-degree target, that's somewhat irrelevant to the point of divestment. After all Gates also claims to believe we can get to the 2-degree target, he just believes we need a lot more innovation to get there. The question that the divestment movement is asking is this: If you believe we can hit the 2-degree target, why would you be investing in companies like Shell, Peabody, or (their seeming allies) Exxon, whose business models entail four or five degrees of warming and who are preventing us from getting to the 2-degree target? That’s really the point. Gates’ rejection of divestment continues to ignore the argument at the heart of the divestment movement, that 60 to 80 percent of coal, oil and gas reserves of listed fossil fuel firms are unburnable if we are to stand a reasonable chance of staying below the 2°C target. Despite that fossil fuel companies are spending approximately 1 percent of global GDP on developing even more new potentially unburnable reserves – ironically about the same amount that the IEA concluded is required to invest in the clean economy in order to stay below the 2°C target. Why, if Gates is committed to the 2°C target and a safe and livable climate, would he want to invest in companies whose business models are out of line with it and who are using the tools of misinformation, corruption and lobbying to ensure that their profits are protected rather than the climate? The Problematic Narrative of Elites It is important that we consider the role that Gates’ rhetoric on clean energy plays and how it affects progress on climate change, especially when it is echoed by companies like Exxon. By problematizing the transition to clean energy, Gates and Exxon are helping keep us stuck in a fossil-fueled past which locks us on a path to climate chaos. To see this more clearly, consider this quote from a recent report from the Wuppertal Institute for Climate, Environment & Energy:
“Only rarely are there immutable facts or technical conflicts that impede or even prevent the expansion of renewable energy. Instead, long-established structures and elites problematize the challenges of an energy transformation and sustain the existing system and their own (market) power with corresponding narratives. The success of an energy transformation will depend on whether a broad alliance of civil society, politics, science, and industry develops a convincing alternative and positive narratives – and implements them against resistances”
Recognizing this, the question we need to ask is whether Gates and the Gates Foundation are part of the “long-established structures and elites” holding us back from a successful energy transformation. After all, in problematizing the transition to clean energy, Bill Gates is spinning a narrative favored by the fossil fuel industry, one which protects their corrupted stranglehold on energy and the climate, and which undermines the prospects of undergoing the needed energy transformation which can truly help to create a better world for all. The Gates Foundation still has the opportunity to align their investments with the noble goals that they were founded upon: “to help every person get the chance to live a healthy, productive life." However, as things stand they are currently investing in companies that are actively and often corruptly pursuing business models that could erase the prospects of a healthy, productive life for billions of people across the globe, especially for future generations and the poor and vulnerable the world over.

Continue Reading...










 •  0 comments  •  flag
Share on Twitter
Published on November 07, 2015 08:59

November 5, 2015

Gwen Stefani and Blake Shelton are people, not playlists: Relax and embrace the new poptimist crossover power couple

Jaws -- mine included -- dropped at the announcement that Blake Shelton and Gwen Stefani are now an item, officially. Both Shelton and Stefani announced divorces from their partners — former Bush frontman Gavin Rossdale and country superstar Miranda Lambert — this summer, partners who also happen to be successful music artists whose aesthetics seemed like natural fits for Shelton and Stefani. Both marriages had been heralded as made in heaven, and with the news of their demise, referred to as the end of love, marriage, yada yada yada. Outwardly, the marriages made sense. Two cherub-cheeked country music darlings gazing lovingly at each other at awards shows. On the other end, two edgy rockers with so much style that seeing them being outwardly affectionate towards one another somehow how seemed more endearing than other examples of PDA. Their professional genres fit, and it’s easy to see why we might root for the marriages because of it. Compartmentalizing the relationship with the same ease we search their music on Spotify is more convenient than considering that, you know, the parties in these relationships are a lot more than chart-topping performers. They’re actual people (yes, I know) in relationships, and with that comes the associated complexities of dating someone outside your professional industry. We don’t pause when a writer dates a musician, or an engineer gets with a journalist. We assume they have interests outside of their respective occupations. But when celebrity couples date outside of their craft or genre, it’s treated like a mismatched outfit. A similar sort of freak out occurred when Mandy Moore was married to Ryan Adams before dating current beau Taylor Goldsmith of Dawes. Because their genres didn’t match up, the public was apprehensive to accept the relationship. “Their music just doesn’t mix,” was the ringing statement in the public’s mind. Ditto when Vanessa Carlton married John McCauley from Deer Tick. It’s as if our partner preferences in relationships must somehow be determined based on our music preferences, the same sort of myopic compatibility pseudo-knowledge that goes into dating in high school. I can sort of understand the logic. In many ways, our tastes in music are foundational to our identities. There were times in the past I was appalled when a would-be suitor hadn’t heard of whatever indie band I was currently obsessed by. Other times, I was surprised to discover a boyfriend’s interest in bands like Titus Andronicus. “Really? I never would’ve guessed. You don’t seem the type… do I know you at all?” That’s the problem right there, I’m as guilty as anyone else. By presuming a specific type and categorizing a person or a relationship into a certain box, we effectively limit our experience and box ourselves out of something that could be wonderful -- or exciting, at the very least. I remember the collective eye rolls when Britney Spears and Justin Timberlake were dating — the forerunners to Selena Gomez and Justin Bieber. Those pairings were like successful pop songs, bubbly, balanced, not too complicated or in your face. Because they were beloved figures in the same genres, it seemed fated they’d get together at some point. Like chocolate and peanut butter. But such outwardly seamless pairings can be cloying. With Blake Shelton and Gwen Stefani, as well as other relationships, I think it’s refreshing that they don’t meet our conventional expectations of what a celebrity couple should look like. Maybe they’ll redefine what we think is appropriate in terms of like dating like, a twist in what we’ve accepted as a scripted narrative. It’s exciting, like meeting a stranger’s lingering eye at a bar or bumping into someone at just the right moment. You’re not sure what, but you know something is going to happen. Maybe they’ll work out and give us a new perspective on reducing the categorization we’re so quick to jump to. For now, one can only hope they enjoy dancing to the beat of this new drum. [image error]Jaws -- mine included -- dropped at the announcement that Blake Shelton and Gwen Stefani are now an item, officially. Both Shelton and Stefani announced divorces from their partners — former Bush frontman Gavin Rossdale and country superstar Miranda Lambert — this summer, partners who also happen to be successful music artists whose aesthetics seemed like natural fits for Shelton and Stefani. Both marriages had been heralded as made in heaven, and with the news of their demise, referred to as the end of love, marriage, yada yada yada. Outwardly, the marriages made sense. Two cherub-cheeked country music darlings gazing lovingly at each other at awards shows. On the other end, two edgy rockers with so much style that seeing them being outwardly affectionate towards one another somehow how seemed more endearing than other examples of PDA. Their professional genres fit, and it’s easy to see why we might root for the marriages because of it. Compartmentalizing the relationship with the same ease we search their music on Spotify is more convenient than considering that, you know, the parties in these relationships are a lot more than chart-topping performers. They’re actual people (yes, I know) in relationships, and with that comes the associated complexities of dating someone outside your professional industry. We don’t pause when a writer dates a musician, or an engineer gets with a journalist. We assume they have interests outside of their respective occupations. But when celebrity couples date outside of their craft or genre, it’s treated like a mismatched outfit. A similar sort of freak out occurred when Mandy Moore was married to Ryan Adams before dating current beau Taylor Goldsmith of Dawes. Because their genres didn’t match up, the public was apprehensive to accept the relationship. “Their music just doesn’t mix,” was the ringing statement in the public’s mind. Ditto when Vanessa Carlton married John McCauley from Deer Tick. It’s as if our partner preferences in relationships must somehow be determined based on our music preferences, the same sort of myopic compatibility pseudo-knowledge that goes into dating in high school. I can sort of understand the logic. In many ways, our tastes in music are foundational to our identities. There were times in the past I was appalled when a would-be suitor hadn’t heard of whatever indie band I was currently obsessed by. Other times, I was surprised to discover a boyfriend’s interest in bands like Titus Andronicus. “Really? I never would’ve guessed. You don’t seem the type… do I know you at all?” That’s the problem right there, I’m as guilty as anyone else. By presuming a specific type and categorizing a person or a relationship into a certain box, we effectively limit our experience and box ourselves out of something that could be wonderful -- or exciting, at the very least. I remember the collective eye rolls when Britney Spears and Justin Timberlake were dating — the forerunners to Selena Gomez and Justin Bieber. Those pairings were like successful pop songs, bubbly, balanced, not too complicated or in your face. Because they were beloved figures in the same genres, it seemed fated they’d get together at some point. Like chocolate and peanut butter. But such outwardly seamless pairings can be cloying. With Blake Shelton and Gwen Stefani, as well as other relationships, I think it’s refreshing that they don’t meet our conventional expectations of what a celebrity couple should look like. Maybe they’ll redefine what we think is appropriate in terms of like dating like, a twist in what we’ve accepted as a scripted narrative. It’s exciting, like meeting a stranger’s lingering eye at a bar or bumping into someone at just the right moment. You’re not sure what, but you know something is going to happen. Maybe they’ll work out and give us a new perspective on reducing the categorization we’re so quick to jump to. For now, one can only hope they enjoy dancing to the beat of this new drum. [image error]

Continue Reading...










 •  0 comments  •  flag
Share on Twitter
Published on November 05, 2015 12:45

The Bush dynasty is tearing itself apart: What George H.W. Bush vs. Dick Cheney is really about

This is not another obituary of Ahmad Chalabi, the Iraqi politician who provided much of the dubious intelligence that the Bush Administration used to justify the Iraq War. Chalabi died earlier this week of a presumed heart attack. (Though his family had a British and an American doctor perform an autopsy to be sure.) Chalabi had been largely forgotten in American press and policy circles since he fell out of favor some years back, even among most of the Neocons responsible for the war. Yet one after another outlet has done a colorfuleven warm obituary of the man who played a key role in getting thousands of Americans and far more Iraqis killed. Some of the obituaries come with remarkable gaps, such as the NYT's silence about its own role in magnifying Chalabi's dubious claims that Saddam Hussein had WMD. Others trace how Chalabi's actions led to the current morass in Iraq and Syria. Perhaps the most astute obituaries note that Chalabi, now silenced in death, serves as a convenient scapegoat for those who wanted the war in Iraq long before Chalabi provided convenient excuses for that war but now would like to evade responsibility for it. The press, it seems, wants badly to recognize the closure of this man's life, in all its charisma, though that life perhaps best represents the lies we want to continue telling ourselves, all as a way to dodge responsibility for the actions those lies justify. As it happens, Chalabi's death coincides nicely with two other events. First, early coverage of a new biography of George Herbert Walker Bush describes the first President Bush harshly criticizing Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld. "Just iron-ass," Bush described Cheney to biographer Jon Meachem. The elder President Bush apparently blamed Cheney's wife and daughter for the change in behavior from when Cheney served as Defense Secretary in his own Administration. He also blamed "the real hard-charging guys who want to fight about everything" surrounding the Vice President. And Bush implied that Cheney bypassing the State Department, which was done in part in an effort to prop up Chalabi as head of Iraq after the invasion, was part of the problem: "The big mistake that was made was letting Cheney bring in kind of his own State Department." While Poppy Bush did admit his own son was in charge -- "it’s not Cheney’s fault. It’s the president’s fault" -- ultimately Bush laid out a system by which the most powerful Vice President in history took over because his wife pushed him to do so. We followed the "hard-charging guys who want to fight about everything," according to the former diplomat and CIA head George H. W. Bush, because Cheney's "iron-ass, tough as nails, driving" wife pushed him to do so. Or something like that. Meanwhile, the Huffington Post reported that, with little fanfare, the Senate was preparing to display a bust of Dick Cheney in the Capitol starting on December 3. As HuffPo notes, this is customary. The Vice President is technically the President of the Senate, and therefore the Senate "from time to time" rolls out busts of past Vice Presidents to display in the lobby. Still, at a time when no one seems to want to take responsibility for the events that led to the Iraq War and its disastrous aftermath, it's fitting that a representation of Vice President Cheney will grace the Capitol. After all, his singular ability to master both the politics of Congress and the bureaucracy of the Executive Branch were key to his extraordinary power, regardless of whose "iron-ass" lay behind that genius. His top aide, David Addington, presented a theory explaining how Cheney spanned both branches in a torture hearing in 2008. "Sir, perhaps the best that can be said is that the Vice President belongs neither to the Executive nor to the Legislative Branch, but is attached by the Constitution to the latter," Addington, then serving as Cheney's Chief of Staff, but a long time legal counsel floating such justifications for Cheney's expansive power. When presented with that theory, Congressman Steve Cohen suggested the Vice President was "kind of a barnacle." A rock version of Cheney will watch over Congress next month as it continues to dodge responsibility for declaring a newly expanding war in Syria and Iraq. Inanimate Cheney will remain on display as people read Charlie Savage's new book, which depicts how President Obama, like his predecessor, has made key decisions without consulting the Department of Justice. Stone-faced Cheney will watch as Congress once again uses the Defense Authorization to prevent President Obama from closing Gitmo. Chalabi, the most convenient scapegoat for the con that got us into the Iraq War is dead. "Iron-ass" Cheney will be -- symbolically, at least -- stuck right in the middle of power, though, as he was for so many years. [image error]This is not another obituary of Ahmad Chalabi, the Iraqi politician who provided much of the dubious intelligence that the Bush Administration used to justify the Iraq War. Chalabi died earlier this week of a presumed heart attack. (Though his family had a British and an American doctor perform an autopsy to be sure.) Chalabi had been largely forgotten in American press and policy circles since he fell out of favor some years back, even among most of the Neocons responsible for the war. Yet one after another outlet has done a colorfuleven warm obituary of the man who played a key role in getting thousands of Americans and far more Iraqis killed. Some of the obituaries come with remarkable gaps, such as the NYT's silence about its own role in magnifying Chalabi's dubious claims that Saddam Hussein had WMD. Others trace how Chalabi's actions led to the current morass in Iraq and Syria. Perhaps the most astute obituaries note that Chalabi, now silenced in death, serves as a convenient scapegoat for those who wanted the war in Iraq long before Chalabi provided convenient excuses for that war but now would like to evade responsibility for it. The press, it seems, wants badly to recognize the closure of this man's life, in all its charisma, though that life perhaps best represents the lies we want to continue telling ourselves, all as a way to dodge responsibility for the actions those lies justify. As it happens, Chalabi's death coincides nicely with two other events. First, early coverage of a new biography of George Herbert Walker Bush describes the first President Bush harshly criticizing Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld. "Just iron-ass," Bush described Cheney to biographer Jon Meachem. The elder President Bush apparently blamed Cheney's wife and daughter for the change in behavior from when Cheney served as Defense Secretary in his own Administration. He also blamed "the real hard-charging guys who want to fight about everything" surrounding the Vice President. And Bush implied that Cheney bypassing the State Department, which was done in part in an effort to prop up Chalabi as head of Iraq after the invasion, was part of the problem: "The big mistake that was made was letting Cheney bring in kind of his own State Department." While Poppy Bush did admit his own son was in charge -- "it’s not Cheney’s fault. It’s the president’s fault" -- ultimately Bush laid out a system by which the most powerful Vice President in history took over because his wife pushed him to do so. We followed the "hard-charging guys who want to fight about everything," according to the former diplomat and CIA head George H. W. Bush, because Cheney's "iron-ass, tough as nails, driving" wife pushed him to do so. Or something like that. Meanwhile, the Huffington Post reported that, with little fanfare, the Senate was preparing to display a bust of Dick Cheney in the Capitol starting on December 3. As HuffPo notes, this is customary. The Vice President is technically the President of the Senate, and therefore the Senate "from time to time" rolls out busts of past Vice Presidents to display in the lobby. Still, at a time when no one seems to want to take responsibility for the events that led to the Iraq War and its disastrous aftermath, it's fitting that a representation of Vice President Cheney will grace the Capitol. After all, his singular ability to master both the politics of Congress and the bureaucracy of the Executive Branch were key to his extraordinary power, regardless of whose "iron-ass" lay behind that genius. His top aide, David Addington, presented a theory explaining how Cheney spanned both branches in a torture hearing in 2008. "Sir, perhaps the best that can be said is that the Vice President belongs neither to the Executive nor to the Legislative Branch, but is attached by the Constitution to the latter," Addington, then serving as Cheney's Chief of Staff, but a long time legal counsel floating such justifications for Cheney's expansive power. When presented with that theory, Congressman Steve Cohen suggested the Vice President was "kind of a barnacle." A rock version of Cheney will watch over Congress next month as it continues to dodge responsibility for declaring a newly expanding war in Syria and Iraq. Inanimate Cheney will remain on display as people read Charlie Savage's new book, which depicts how President Obama, like his predecessor, has made key decisions without consulting the Department of Justice. Stone-faced Cheney will watch as Congress once again uses the Defense Authorization to prevent President Obama from closing Gitmo. Chalabi, the most convenient scapegoat for the con that got us into the Iraq War is dead. "Iron-ass" Cheney will be -- symbolically, at least -- stuck right in the middle of power, though, as he was for so many years. [image error]

Continue Reading...










 •  0 comments  •  flag
Share on Twitter
Published on November 05, 2015 12:24

Slipping away in the polls, Carly Fiorina rehashes her tired attacks on feminism: “The progressive view of feminism is not about women”

Seeing a steady decline in her second-tier standing among a crowded Republican presidential field, Carly Fiorina decided to rehash her attacks on feminism ahead of a sure-to-be contentious face-off with the ladies of ABC's "The View" on Friday. “Over the years, feminism has devolved into a left-leaning political ideology where women are pitted against men and used a political weapon to win elections,” Fiorina wrote on her Facebook page today. “The View” hosts caused a bit of controversy when they mocked Fiorina's appearance during last week's CNBC debate. “She looked demented,” co-host and comedian Michelle Collins said of Fiorina. "Her mouth did not downturn one time.” “I wish it was a Halloween mask,” co-host Joy Behar said, remarking on Fiorina's face. “I’d love that.” The comedians have since defended their remarks by pointing out that they've been equally as harsh on Donald Trump's appearance. “As a comic, she means ‘demented’," co-host Whoppi Goldberg said in defense of Collins. "I think as a comic we have to stand up for the words we use.” Fiorina has since been invited back on "The View" to confront the hosts and will appear Friday morning. “None of these liberal women scare me,” Fiorina told Fox News on Monday. “My message to the ladies of "The View" is ‘Man up.’” Now, in a new Facebook rant, Fiorina has decided to once again take aim at feminism, in an effort to prime her supporters ahead of her appearance. "Feminism began as a rallying cry to empower women — to vote, to get an education, to enter the workplace," Fiorina explained. "But over the years, feminism has devolved into a left-leaning political ideology where women are pitted against men and used as a political weapon to win elections." "Ideological feminism shuts down conversation — on college campuses and in the media," Fiorina argued, doubling down on her longstanding attacks on feminsim, and noting that "only 23 percent of women identify with the term feminist" to discredit it:
Feminism began as a rallying cry to empower women — to vote, to get an education, to enter the workplace. But over the... Posted by Carly Fiorina on Thursday, November 5, 2015
Elsewhere on Facebook, however, two other prominent women shared much more positive thoughts on feminism today. 18-year-old Nobel Prize laureate Malala Yousafzai sat down for an interview with Emma Watson during which she credited the young "Harry Potter" star with giving her the courage to proudly embrace the term feminism. "After hearing your speech I decided there’s no way and there’s nothing wrong by calling yourself a feminist," Yousafzai told Watson. Conceding that “it has been a tricky word," Yousafzai admitted that she was at first hesitant to identify with the term. "I’m a feminist and we all should be a feminist because feminism is another word for equality," the young peace activist said.
Into Film Festival opening Q&AToday I met Malala. She was giving, utterly graceful, compelling and intelligent. That might sound obvious but I was struck by this even more in person. There are lots of NGOs out there in the world doing great things... But if there were one I would put my money on to succeed and make change on this planet, it would be hers. (The Malala Fund). Malala isn't messing around or mincing her words (one of the many reasons I love her). She has the strength of her convictions coupled with the kind of determination I rarely encounter... And it doesn't seem to have been diminished by the success she has already had. And lastly…She has a sense of peace around her. I leave this for last because it is perhaps the most important. Maybe as a result of what she has been through? I personally think it is just who she is…Perhaps the most moving moment of today for me was when Malala addressed the issue of feminism. To give you some background, I had initially planned to ask Malala whether or not she was a feminist but then researched to see whether she had used this word to describe herself. Having seen that she hadn't, I decided to take the question out before the day of our interview. To my utter shock Malala put the question back into one of her own answers and identified herself. Maybe feminist isn't the easiest word to use... But she did it ANYWAY. You can probably see in the interview how I felt about this. She also gave me time at the end of the Q&A to speak about some of my own work, which she most certainly didn't need to do, I was there to interview her. I think this gesture is so emblematic of what Malala and I went on to discuss. I've spoken before on what a controversial word feminism is currently. More recently, I am learning what a factionalized movement it is too. We are all moving towards the same goal. Let's not make it scary to say you're a feminist. I want to make it a welcoming and inclusive movement. Let's join our hands and move together so we can make real change. Malala and I are pretty serious about it but we need you. With love, Emma x#HeNamedMeMalala #notjustamovieamovement Malala Fund Into Film Posted by Emma Watson on Wednesday, November 4, 2015
Seeing a steady decline in her second-tier standing among a crowded Republican presidential field, Carly Fiorina decided to rehash her attacks on feminism ahead of a sure-to-be contentious face-off with the ladies of ABC's "The View" on Friday. “Over the years, feminism has devolved into a left-leaning political ideology where women are pitted against men and used a political weapon to win elections,” Fiorina wrote on her Facebook page today. “The View” hosts caused a bit of controversy when they mocked Fiorina's appearance during last week's CNBC debate. “She looked demented,” co-host and comedian Michelle Collins said of Fiorina. "Her mouth did not downturn one time.” “I wish it was a Halloween mask,” co-host Joy Behar said, remarking on Fiorina's face. “I’d love that.” The comedians have since defended their remarks by pointing out that they've been equally as harsh on Donald Trump's appearance. “As a comic, she means ‘demented’," co-host Whoppi Goldberg said in defense of Collins. "I think as a comic we have to stand up for the words we use.” Fiorina has since been invited back on "The View" to confront the hosts and will appear Friday morning. “None of these liberal women scare me,” Fiorina told Fox News on Monday. “My message to the ladies of "The View" is ‘Man up.’” Now, in a new Facebook rant, Fiorina has decided to once again take aim at feminism, in an effort to prime her supporters ahead of her appearance. "Feminism began as a rallying cry to empower women — to vote, to get an education, to enter the workplace," Fiorina explained. "But over the years, feminism has devolved into a left-leaning political ideology where women are pitted against men and used as a political weapon to win elections." "Ideological feminism shuts down conversation — on college campuses and in the media," Fiorina argued, doubling down on her longstanding attacks on feminsim, and noting that "only 23 percent of women identify with the term feminist" to discredit it:
Feminism began as a rallying cry to empower women — to vote, to get an education, to enter the workplace. But over the... Posted by Carly Fiorina on Thursday, November 5, 2015
Elsewhere on Facebook, however, two other prominent women shared much more positive thoughts on feminism today. 18-year-old Nobel Prize laureate Malala Yousafzai sat down for an interview with Emma Watson during which she credited the young "Harry Potter" star with giving her the courage to proudly embrace the term feminism. "After hearing your speech I decided there’s no way and there’s nothing wrong by calling yourself a feminist," Yousafzai told Watson. Conceding that “it has been a tricky word," Yousafzai admitted that she was at first hesitant to identify with the term. "I’m a feminist and we all should be a feminist because feminism is another word for equality," the young peace activist said.
Into Film Festival opening Q&AToday I met Malala. She was giving, utterly graceful, compelling and intelligent. That might sound obvious but I was struck by this even more in person. There are lots of NGOs out there in the world doing great things... But if there were one I would put my money on to succeed and make change on this planet, it would be hers. (The Malala Fund). Malala isn't messing around or mincing her words (one of the many reasons I love her). She has the strength of her convictions coupled with the kind of determination I rarely encounter... And it doesn't seem to have been diminished by the success she has already had. And lastly…She has a sense of peace around her. I leave this for last because it is perhaps the most important. Maybe as a result of what she has been through? I personally think it is just who she is…Perhaps the most moving moment of today for me was when Malala addressed the issue of feminism. To give you some background, I had initially planned to ask Malala whether or not she was a feminist but then researched to see whether she had used this word to describe herself. Having seen that she hadn't, I decided to take the question out before the day of our interview. To my utter shock Malala put the question back into one of her own answers and identified herself. Maybe feminist isn't the easiest word to use... But she did it ANYWAY. You can probably see in the interview how I felt about this. She also gave me time at the end of the Q&A to speak about some of my own work, which she most certainly didn't need to do, I was there to interview her. I think this gesture is so emblematic of what Malala and I went on to discuss. I've spoken before on what a controversial word feminism is currently. More recently, I am learning what a factionalized movement it is too. We are all moving towards the same goal. Let's not make it scary to say you're a feminist. I want to make it a welcoming and inclusive movement. Let's join our hands and move together so we can make real change. Malala and I are pretty serious about it but we need you. With love, Emma x#HeNamedMeMalala #notjustamovieamovement Malala Fund Into Film Posted by Emma Watson on Wednesday, November 4, 2015
Seeing a steady decline in her second-tier standing among a crowded Republican presidential field, Carly Fiorina decided to rehash her attacks on feminism ahead of a sure-to-be contentious face-off with the ladies of ABC's "The View" on Friday. “Over the years, feminism has devolved into a left-leaning political ideology where women are pitted against men and used a political weapon to win elections,” Fiorina wrote on her Facebook page today. “The View” hosts caused a bit of controversy when they mocked Fiorina's appearance during last week's CNBC debate. “She looked demented,” co-host and comedian Michelle Collins said of Fiorina. "Her mouth did not downturn one time.” “I wish it was a Halloween mask,” co-host Joy Behar said, remarking on Fiorina's face. “I’d love that.” The comedians have since defended their remarks by pointing out that they've been equally as harsh on Donald Trump's appearance. “As a comic, she means ‘demented’," co-host Whoppi Goldberg said in defense of Collins. "I think as a comic we have to stand up for the words we use.” Fiorina has since been invited back on "The View" to confront the hosts and will appear Friday morning. “None of these liberal women scare me,” Fiorina told Fox News on Monday. “My message to the ladies of "The View" is ‘Man up.’” Now, in a new Facebook rant, Fiorina has decided to once again take aim at feminism, in an effort to prime her supporters ahead of her appearance. "Feminism began as a rallying cry to empower women — to vote, to get an education, to enter the workplace," Fiorina explained. "But over the years, feminism has devolved into a left-leaning political ideology where women are pitted against men and used as a political weapon to win elections." "Ideological feminism shuts down conversation — on college campuses and in the media," Fiorina argued, doubling down on her longstanding attacks on feminsim, and noting that "only 23 percent of women identify with the term feminist" to discredit it:
Feminism began as a rallying cry to empower women — to vote, to get an education, to enter the workplace. But over the... Posted by Carly Fiorina on Thursday, November 5, 2015
Elsewhere on Facebook, however, two other prominent women shared much more positive thoughts on feminism today. 18-year-old Nobel Prize laureate Malala Yousafzai sat down for an interview with Emma Watson during which she credited the young "Harry Potter" star with giving her the courage to proudly embrace the term feminism. "After hearing your speech I decided there’s no way and there’s nothing wrong by calling yourself a feminist," Yousafzai told Watson. Conceding that “it has been a tricky word," Yousafzai admitted that she was at first hesitant to identify with the term. "I’m a feminist and we all should be a feminist because feminism is another word for equality," the young peace activist said.
Into Film Festival opening Q&AToday I met Malala. She was giving, utterly graceful, compelling and intelligent. That might sound obvious but I was struck by this even more in person. There are lots of NGOs out there in the world doing great things... But if there were one I would put my money on to succeed and make change on this planet, it would be hers. (The Malala Fund). Malala isn't messing around or mincing her words (one of the many reasons I love her). She has the strength of her convictions coupled with the kind of determination I rarely encounter... And it doesn't seem to have been diminished by the success she has already had. And lastly…She has a sense of peace around her. I leave this for last because it is perhaps the most important. Maybe as a result of what she has been through? I personally think it is just who she is…Perhaps the most moving moment of today for me was when Malala addressed the issue of feminism. To give you some background, I had initially planned to ask Malala whether or not she was a feminist but then researched to see whether she had used this word to describe herself. Having seen that she hadn't, I decided to take the question out before the day of our interview. To my utter shock Malala put the question back into one of her own answers and identified herself. Maybe feminist isn't the easiest word to use... But she did it ANYWAY. You can probably see in the interview how I felt about this. She also gave me time at the end of the Q&A to speak about some of my own work, which she most certainly didn't need to do, I was there to interview her. I think this gesture is so emblematic of what Malala and I went on to discuss. I've spoken before on what a controversial word feminism is currently. More recently, I am learning what a factionalized movement it is too. We are all moving towards the same goal. Let's not make it scary to say you're a feminist. I want to make it a welcoming and inclusive movement. Let's join our hands and move together so we can make real change. Malala and I are pretty serious about it but we need you. With love, Emma x#HeNamedMeMalala #notjustamovieamovement Malala Fund Into Film Posted by Emma Watson on Wednesday, November 4, 2015
Seeing a steady decline in her second-tier standing among a crowded Republican presidential field, Carly Fiorina decided to rehash her attacks on feminism ahead of a sure-to-be contentious face-off with the ladies of ABC's "The View" on Friday. “Over the years, feminism has devolved into a left-leaning political ideology where women are pitted against men and used a political weapon to win elections,” Fiorina wrote on her Facebook page today. “The View” hosts caused a bit of controversy when they mocked Fiorina's appearance during last week's CNBC debate. “She looked demented,” co-host and comedian Michelle Collins said of Fiorina. "Her mouth did not downturn one time.” “I wish it was a Halloween mask,” co-host Joy Behar said, remarking on Fiorina's face. “I’d love that.” The comedians have since defended their remarks by pointing out that they've been equally as harsh on Donald Trump's appearance. “As a comic, she means ‘demented’," co-host Whoppi Goldberg said in defense of Collins. "I think as a comic we have to stand up for the words we use.” Fiorina has since been invited back on "The View" to confront the hosts and will appear Friday morning. “None of these liberal women scare me,” Fiorina told Fox News on Monday. “My message to the ladies of "The View" is ‘Man up.’” Now, in a new Facebook rant, Fiorina has decided to once again take aim at feminism, in an effort to prime her supporters ahead of her appearance. "Feminism began as a rallying cry to empower women — to vote, to get an education, to enter the workplace," Fiorina explained. "But over the years, feminism has devolved into a left-leaning political ideology where women are pitted against men and used as a political weapon to win elections." "Ideological feminism shuts down conversation — on college campuses and in the media," Fiorina argued, doubling down on her longstanding attacks on feminsim, and noting that "only 23 percent of women identify with the term feminist" to discredit it:
Feminism began as a rallying cry to empower women — to vote, to get an education, to enter the workplace. But over the... Posted by Carly Fiorina on Thursday, November 5, 2015
Elsewhere on Facebook, however, two other prominent women shared much more positive thoughts on feminism today. 18-year-old Nobel Prize laureate Malala Yousafzai sat down for an interview with Emma Watson during which she credited the young "Harry Potter" star with giving her the courage to proudly embrace the term feminism. "After hearing your speech I decided there’s no way and there’s nothing wrong by calling yourself a feminist," Yousafzai told Watson. Conceding that “it has been a tricky word," Yousafzai admitted that she was at first hesitant to identify with the term. "I’m a feminist and we all should be a feminist because feminism is another word for equality," the young peace activist said.
Into Film Festival opening Q&AToday I met Malala. She was giving, utterly graceful, compelling and intelligent. That might sound obvious but I was struck by this even more in person. There are lots of NGOs out there in the world doing great things... But if there were one I would put my money on to succeed and make change on this planet, it would be hers. (The Malala Fund). Malala isn't messing around or mincing her words (one of the many reasons I love her). She has the strength of her convictions coupled with the kind of determination I rarely encounter... And it doesn't seem to have been diminished by the success she has already had. And lastly…She has a sense of peace around her. I leave this for last because it is perhaps the most important. Maybe as a result of what she has been through? I personally think it is just who she is…Perhaps the most moving moment of today for me was when Malala addressed the issue of feminism. To give you some background, I had initially planned to ask Malala whether or not she was a feminist but then researched to see whether she had used this word to describe herself. Having seen that she hadn't, I decided to take the question out before the day of our interview. To my utter shock Malala put the question back into one of her own answers and identified herself. Maybe feminist isn't the easiest word to use... But she did it ANYWAY. You can probably see in the interview how I felt about this. She also gave me time at the end of the Q&A to speak about some of my own work, which she most certainly didn't need to do, I was there to interview her. I think this gesture is so emblematic of what Malala and I went on to discuss. I've spoken before on what a controversial word feminism is currently. More recently, I am learning what a factionalized movement it is too. We are all moving towards the same goal. Let's not make it scary to say you're a feminist. I want to make it a welcoming and inclusive movement. Let's join our hands and move together so we can make real change. Malala and I are pretty serious about it but we need you. With love, Emma x#HeNamedMeMalala #notjustamovieamovement Malala Fund Into Film Posted by Emma Watson on Wednesday, November 4, 2015
Seeing a steady decline in her second-tier standing among a crowded Republican presidential field, Carly Fiorina decided to rehash her attacks on feminism ahead of a sure-to-be contentious face-off with the ladies of ABC's "The View" on Friday. “Over the years, feminism has devolved into a left-leaning political ideology where women are pitted against men and used a political weapon to win elections,” Fiorina wrote on her Facebook page today. “The View” hosts caused a bit of controversy when they mocked Fiorina's appearance during last week's CNBC debate. “She looked demented,” co-host and comedian Michelle Collins said of Fiorina. "Her mouth did not downturn one time.” “I wish it was a Halloween mask,” co-host Joy Behar said, remarking on Fiorina's face. “I’d love that.” The comedians have since defended their remarks by pointing out that they've been equally as harsh on Donald Trump's appearance. “As a comic, she means ‘demented’," co-host Whoppi Goldberg said in defense of Collins. "I think as a comic we have to stand up for the words we use.” Fiorina has since been invited back on "The View" to confront the hosts and will appear Friday morning. “None of these liberal women scare me,” Fiorina told Fox News on Monday. “My message to the ladies of "The View" is ‘Man up.’” Now, in a new Facebook rant, Fiorina has decided to once again take aim at feminism, in an effort to prime her supporters ahead of her appearance. "Feminism began as a rallying cry to empower women — to vote, to get an education, to enter the workplace," Fiorina explained. "But over the years, feminism has devolved into a left-leaning political ideology where women are pitted against men and used as a political weapon to win elections." "Ideological feminism shuts down conversation — on college campuses and in the media," Fiorina argued, doubling down on her longstanding attacks on feminsim, and noting that "only 23 percent of women identify with the term feminist" to discredit it:
Feminism began as a rallying cry to empower women — to vote, to get an education, to enter the workplace. But over the... Posted by Carly Fiorina on Thursday, November 5, 2015
Elsewhere on Facebook, however, two other prominent women shared much more positive thoughts on feminism today. 18-year-old Nobel Prize laureate Malala Yousafzai sat down for an interview with Emma Watson during which she credited the young "Harry Potter" star with giving her the courage to proudly embrace the term feminism. "After hearing your speech I decided there’s no way and there’s nothing wrong by calling yourself a feminist," Yousafzai told Watson. Conceding that “it has been a tricky word," Yousafzai admitted that she was at first hesitant to identify with the term. "I’m a feminist and we all should be a feminist because feminism is another word for equality," the young peace activist said.
Into Film Festival opening Q&AToday I met Malala. She was giving, utterly graceful, compelling and intelligent. That might sound obvious but I was struck by this even more in person. There are lots of NGOs out there in the world doing great things... But if there were one I would put my money on to succeed and make change on this planet, it would be hers. (The Malala Fund). Malala isn't messing around or mincing her words (one of the many reasons I love her). She has the strength of her convictions coupled with the kind of determination I rarely encounter... And it doesn't seem to have been diminished by the success she has already had. And lastly…She has a sense of peace around her. I leave this for last because it is perhaps the most important. Maybe as a result of what she has been through? I personally think it is just who she is…Perhaps the most moving moment of today for me was when Malala addressed the issue of feminism. To give you some background, I had initially planned to ask Malala whether or not she was a feminist but then researched to see whether she had used this word to describe herself. Having seen that she hadn't, I decided to take the question out before the day of our interview. To my utter shock Malala put the question back into one of her own answers and identified herself. Maybe feminist isn't the easiest word to use... But she did it ANYWAY. You can probably see in the interview how I felt about this. She also gave me time at the end of the Q&A to speak about some of my own work, which she most certainly didn't need to do, I was there to interview her. I think this gesture is so emblematic of what Malala and I went on to discuss. I've spoken before on what a controversial word feminism is currently. More recently, I am learning what a factionalized movement it is too. We are all moving towards the same goal. Let's not make it scary to say you're a feminist. I want to make it a welcoming and inclusive movement. Let's join our hands and move together so we can make real change. Malala and I are pretty serious about it but we need you. With love, Emma x#HeNamedMeMalala #notjustamovieamovement Malala Fund Into Film Posted by Emma Watson on Wednesday, November 4, 2015

Continue Reading...










 •  0 comments  •  flag
Share on Twitter
Published on November 05, 2015 12:16

Who is Ben Carson trying to fool with his bizarre, insincere rap ad?: “He’s a more refined version of Sarah Palin”

Who knew that “Ben Carson” rhymed with “awesome”? That’s one of the things we learn in a new radio advertisement, complete with rap song, aimed at getting young black voters behind the surgeon’s presidential run. In the words of the Christian rapper Aspiring Mogul: "Heal... (vote, vote) ... inspire ... (vote, vote) ... revive ... (vote, vote) ... Ben Carson 2016, vote and support Ben Carson, for our next president, it'd be awesome." The ad, which will broadcast primarily in Southern cities starting Friday, also offers Carson ringing traditional Republican ideas. “I’m very hopeful that I'm not the only one that’s willing to pick up the baton to freedom. Because freedom is not free and we must fight for it every day. Every one of us must fight for us because we are fighting for our children and the next generation." It's a confusing move. So Salon spoke to Marsha Barrett, a historian at Mississippi State University who specializes in political and African-American history. The interview has been lightly edited for clarity. Let’s start with the ad the Carson campaign has put together. It seems to me some blend of inevitable and bizarre – how does it strike you? I think it’s bizarre. To me, this idea that you can create a rap ad and then connect with the black community is short-sighted and confused. It’s not much different than if John Kasich or Jeb Bush said, “Let’s put out a rap ad and see what happens?” Is there anything different because of the fact that Carson is black? I guess the problem is that Carson isn’t someone we think of as going home and firing up Public Enemy after work – he doesn’t seem to be a natural rap listener. Right – that’s part of the problem, and part of the reason this seems insincere. But I did look to see who this rapper – by the name of Aspiring Mogul – is. He describes himself as “the first and only Christian Republican rapper, with a message far different from anything else in music.” There are Christian rappers; maybe he’s the only Christian Republican rapper. So Ben Carson doesn’t need to listen to Public Enemy or Kendrick Lamar to be a rap listener; he could be listening to Christian rap, though I doubt it. But if he wants to reach the average voter, [enlisting] “the only Christian Republican rapper” is not the best way. You’re kind of admitting that you’re chasing a niche audience. Aspiring Mogul has a song on SoundCloud called “The Black Republican.” He says, “I don’t watch the tube, CNN or Fox News. I’m too busy trying to get Rolls Royce red coupe.” And then, “Ain’t got no time to picket march cuz it don’t make no money. I’m trying to get my son and daughter up in Harvard, honey.” Now, I can criticize this because I do listen to rap music, and part of me is offended by what are supposed to be rhymes. But more important: Ben Carson has chosen a young black man to get his message out, [who’s] talking about not being socially aware because he’s only focused on economic advancement? In a moment when young black people are talking about social activism, and the Black Lives Matter movement, he’s put himself on the outside of the conversations young black people are having today. Let’s talk more broadly about Carson’s appeal to black voters. The point of this ad is to reach young black rap fans who will presumably vote for Carson if they like what they hear. What kind of following does he have among the black electorate? I know I’m asking you to generalize wildly.  In terms of his appeal to black people. Among my own friends and family, people I went to college with and are now lawyers and doctors, et cetera — the socially aware black people I know, when they talk about Ben Carson, they really only express horror over his comparison of Obamacare to slavery, or the Holocaust, or Noah’s Ark. My black circle debates why a certain group of white people, or Republicans, gravitate toward Ben Carson. There’s some confusion. There’s a sense that he may seem like the anti-Barack Obama. There’s an element that’s anti-politician… Maybe he’s a more refined version of Sarah Palin. He may seem safer than some of the other candidates who are outside the establishment. Some of Carson’s support is with black conservatives. How does this group – which again, ranges a lot – tend to view rap? Two decades ago, rap was politically dangerous for conservatives of all kinds. Rap holds a central place in American culture among a variety of people in their 20s and 30s. So you can find black conservatives who listen to rap. The Carson campaign spent a lot of money on this. Does it seem likely to persuade the kind of young voters the campaign is after? My first inclination would be to say this is going to fail spectacularly. But what if Black Twitter hears this ad; I could imagine commentary going in a lot of different directions. Maybe the attention will cause people to take another look at Ben Carson. I can’t say they’ll find his message appealing at all. But you have the quip from Carson’s speech as well: “American became a great nation not because it was flooded with politicians, but because it was flooded with people who understood the value of personal responsibility,” et cetera, et cetera. I immediately thought, It was also flooded with slaves! Maybe some people will want to take another look – but I’m skeptical. Well, I’m baffled -- the continued dominance of Trump and Carson seem to defy every known political law from the past. A candidate [used to] say one offensive thing, and the campaign is tanked. Now it doesn’t matter anymore. Are we in another universe? It’s very strange. [image error]Who knew that “Ben Carson” rhymed with “awesome”? That’s one of the things we learn in a new radio advertisement, complete with rap song, aimed at getting young black voters behind the surgeon’s presidential run. In the words of the Christian rapper Aspiring Mogul: "Heal... (vote, vote) ... inspire ... (vote, vote) ... revive ... (vote, vote) ... Ben Carson 2016, vote and support Ben Carson, for our next president, it'd be awesome." The ad, which will broadcast primarily in Southern cities starting Friday, also offers Carson ringing traditional Republican ideas. “I’m very hopeful that I'm not the only one that’s willing to pick up the baton to freedom. Because freedom is not free and we must fight for it every day. Every one of us must fight for us because we are fighting for our children and the next generation." It's a confusing move. So Salon spoke to Marsha Barrett, a historian at Mississippi State University who specializes in political and African-American history. The interview has been lightly edited for clarity. Let’s start with the ad the Carson campaign has put together. It seems to me some blend of inevitable and bizarre – how does it strike you? I think it’s bizarre. To me, this idea that you can create a rap ad and then connect with the black community is short-sighted and confused. It’s not much different than if John Kasich or Jeb Bush said, “Let’s put out a rap ad and see what happens?” Is there anything different because of the fact that Carson is black? I guess the problem is that Carson isn’t someone we think of as going home and firing up Public Enemy after work – he doesn’t seem to be a natural rap listener. Right – that’s part of the problem, and part of the reason this seems insincere. But I did look to see who this rapper – by the name of Aspiring Mogul – is. He describes himself as “the first and only Christian Republican rapper, with a message far different from anything else in music.” There are Christian rappers; maybe he’s the only Christian Republican rapper. So Ben Carson doesn’t need to listen to Public Enemy or Kendrick Lamar to be a rap listener; he could be listening to Christian rap, though I doubt it. But if he wants to reach the average voter, [enlisting] “the only Christian Republican rapper” is not the best way. You’re kind of admitting that you’re chasing a niche audience. Aspiring Mogul has a song on SoundCloud called “The Black Republican.” He says, “I don’t watch the tube, CNN or Fox News. I’m too busy trying to get Rolls Royce red coupe.” And then, “Ain’t got no time to picket march cuz it don’t make no money. I’m trying to get my son and daughter up in Harvard, honey.” Now, I can criticize this because I do listen to rap music, and part of me is offended by what are supposed to be rhymes. But more important: Ben Carson has chosen a young black man to get his message out, [who’s] talking about not being socially aware because he’s only focused on economic advancement? In a moment when young black people are talking about social activism, and the Black Lives Matter movement, he’s put himself on the outside of the conversations young black people are having today. Let’s talk more broadly about Carson’s appeal to black voters. The point of this ad is to reach young black rap fans who will presumably vote for Carson if they like what they hear. What kind of following does he have among the black electorate? I know I’m asking you to generalize wildly.  In terms of his appeal to black people. Among my own friends and family, people I went to college with and are now lawyers and doctors, et cetera — the socially aware black people I know, when they talk about Ben Carson, they really only express horror over his comparison of Obamacare to slavery, or the Holocaust, or Noah’s Ark. My black circle debates why a certain group of white people, or Republicans, gravitate toward Ben Carson. There’s some confusion. There’s a sense that he may seem like the anti-Barack Obama. There’s an element that’s anti-politician… Maybe he’s a more refined version of Sarah Palin. He may seem safer than some of the other candidates who are outside the establishment. Some of Carson’s support is with black conservatives. How does this group – which again, ranges a lot – tend to view rap? Two decades ago, rap was politically dangerous for conservatives of all kinds. Rap holds a central place in American culture among a variety of people in their 20s and 30s. So you can find black conservatives who listen to rap. The Carson campaign spent a lot of money on this. Does it seem likely to persuade the kind of young voters the campaign is after? My first inclination would be to say this is going to fail spectacularly. But what if Black Twitter hears this ad; I could imagine commentary going in a lot of different directions. Maybe the attention will cause people to take another look at Ben Carson. I can’t say they’ll find his message appealing at all. But you have the quip from Carson’s speech as well: “American became a great nation not because it was flooded with politicians, but because it was flooded with people who understood the value of personal responsibility,” et cetera, et cetera. I immediately thought, It was also flooded with slaves! Maybe some people will want to take another look – but I’m skeptical. Well, I’m baffled -- the continued dominance of Trump and Carson seem to defy every known political law from the past. A candidate [used to] say one offensive thing, and the campaign is tanked. Now it doesn’t matter anymore. Are we in another universe? It’s very strange. [image error]Who knew that “Ben Carson” rhymed with “awesome”? That’s one of the things we learn in a new radio advertisement, complete with rap song, aimed at getting young black voters behind the surgeon’s presidential run. In the words of the Christian rapper Aspiring Mogul: "Heal... (vote, vote) ... inspire ... (vote, vote) ... revive ... (vote, vote) ... Ben Carson 2016, vote and support Ben Carson, for our next president, it'd be awesome." The ad, which will broadcast primarily in Southern cities starting Friday, also offers Carson ringing traditional Republican ideas. “I’m very hopeful that I'm not the only one that’s willing to pick up the baton to freedom. Because freedom is not free and we must fight for it every day. Every one of us must fight for us because we are fighting for our children and the next generation." It's a confusing move. So Salon spoke to Marsha Barrett, a historian at Mississippi State University who specializes in political and African-American history. The interview has been lightly edited for clarity. Let’s start with the ad the Carson campaign has put together. It seems to me some blend of inevitable and bizarre – how does it strike you? I think it’s bizarre. To me, this idea that you can create a rap ad and then connect with the black community is short-sighted and confused. It’s not much different than if John Kasich or Jeb Bush said, “Let’s put out a rap ad and see what happens?” Is there anything different because of the fact that Carson is black? I guess the problem is that Carson isn’t someone we think of as going home and firing up Public Enemy after work – he doesn’t seem to be a natural rap listener. Right – that’s part of the problem, and part of the reason this seems insincere. But I did look to see who this rapper – by the name of Aspiring Mogul – is. He describes himself as “the first and only Christian Republican rapper, with a message far different from anything else in music.” There are Christian rappers; maybe he’s the only Christian Republican rapper. So Ben Carson doesn’t need to listen to Public Enemy or Kendrick Lamar to be a rap listener; he could be listening to Christian rap, though I doubt it. But if he wants to reach the average voter, [enlisting] “the only Christian Republican rapper” is not the best way. You’re kind of admitting that you’re chasing a niche audience. Aspiring Mogul has a song on SoundCloud called “The Black Republican.” He says, “I don’t watch the tube, CNN or Fox News. I’m too busy trying to get Rolls Royce red coupe.” And then, “Ain’t got no time to picket march cuz it don’t make no money. I’m trying to get my son and daughter up in Harvard, honey.” Now, I can criticize this because I do listen to rap music, and part of me is offended by what are supposed to be rhymes. But more important: Ben Carson has chosen a young black man to get his message out, [who’s] talking about not being socially aware because he’s only focused on economic advancement? In a moment when young black people are talking about social activism, and the Black Lives Matter movement, he’s put himself on the outside of the conversations young black people are having today. Let’s talk more broadly about Carson’s appeal to black voters. The point of this ad is to reach young black rap fans who will presumably vote for Carson if they like what they hear. What kind of following does he have among the black electorate? I know I’m asking you to generalize wildly.  In terms of his appeal to black people. Among my own friends and family, people I went to college with and are now lawyers and doctors, et cetera — the socially aware black people I know, when they talk about Ben Carson, they really only express horror over his comparison of Obamacare to slavery, or the Holocaust, or Noah’s Ark. My black circle debates why a certain group of white people, or Republicans, gravitate toward Ben Carson. There’s some confusion. There’s a sense that he may seem like the anti-Barack Obama. There’s an element that’s anti-politician… Maybe he’s a more refined version of Sarah Palin. He may seem safer than some of the other candidates who are outside the establishment. Some of Carson’s support is with black conservatives. How does this group – which again, ranges a lot – tend to view rap? Two decades ago, rap was politically dangerous for conservatives of all kinds. Rap holds a central place in American culture among a variety of people in their 20s and 30s. So you can find black conservatives who listen to rap. The Carson campaign spent a lot of money on this. Does it seem likely to persuade the kind of young voters the campaign is after? My first inclination would be to say this is going to fail spectacularly. But what if Black Twitter hears this ad; I could imagine commentary going in a lot of different directions. Maybe the attention will cause people to take another look at Ben Carson. I can’t say they’ll find his message appealing at all. But you have the quip from Carson’s speech as well: “American became a great nation not because it was flooded with politicians, but because it was flooded with people who understood the value of personal responsibility,” et cetera, et cetera. I immediately thought, It was also flooded with slaves! Maybe some people will want to take another look – but I’m skeptical. Well, I’m baffled -- the continued dominance of Trump and Carson seem to defy every known political law from the past. A candidate [used to] say one offensive thing, and the campaign is tanked. Now it doesn’t matter anymore. Are we in another universe? It’s very strange. [image error]Who knew that “Ben Carson” rhymed with “awesome”? That’s one of the things we learn in a new radio advertisement, complete with rap song, aimed at getting young black voters behind the surgeon’s presidential run. In the words of the Christian rapper Aspiring Mogul: "Heal... (vote, vote) ... inspire ... (vote, vote) ... revive ... (vote, vote) ... Ben Carson 2016, vote and support Ben Carson, for our next president, it'd be awesome." The ad, which will broadcast primarily in Southern cities starting Friday, also offers Carson ringing traditional Republican ideas. “I’m very hopeful that I'm not the only one that’s willing to pick up the baton to freedom. Because freedom is not free and we must fight for it every day. Every one of us must fight for us because we are fighting for our children and the next generation." It's a confusing move. So Salon spoke to Marsha Barrett, a historian at Mississippi State University who specializes in political and African-American history. The interview has been lightly edited for clarity. Let’s start with the ad the Carson campaign has put together. It seems to me some blend of inevitable and bizarre – how does it strike you? I think it’s bizarre. To me, this idea that you can create a rap ad and then connect with the black community is short-sighted and confused. It’s not much different than if John Kasich or Jeb Bush said, “Let’s put out a rap ad and see what happens?” Is there anything different because of the fact that Carson is black? I guess the problem is that Carson isn’t someone we think of as going home and firing up Public Enemy after work – he doesn’t seem to be a natural rap listener. Right – that’s part of the problem, and part of the reason this seems insincere. But I did look to see who this rapper – by the name of Aspiring Mogul – is. He describes himself as “the first and only Christian Republican rapper, with a message far different from anything else in music.” There are Christian rappers; maybe he’s the only Christian Republican rapper. So Ben Carson doesn’t need to listen to Public Enemy or Kendrick Lamar to be a rap listener; he could be listening to Christian rap, though I doubt it. But if he wants to reach the average voter, [enlisting] “the only Christian Republican rapper” is not the best way. You’re kind of admitting that you’re chasing a niche audience. Aspiring Mogul has a song on SoundCloud called “The Black Republican.” He says, “I don’t watch the tube, CNN or Fox News. I’m too busy trying to get Rolls Royce red coupe.” And then, “Ain’t got no time to picket march cuz it don’t make no money. I’m trying to get my son and daughter up in Harvard, honey.” Now, I can criticize this because I do listen to rap music, and part of me is offended by what are supposed to be rhymes. But more important: Ben Carson has chosen a young black man to get his message out, [who’s] talking about not being socially aware because he’s only focused on economic advancement? In a moment when young black people are talking about social activism, and the Black Lives Matter movement, he’s put himself on the outside of the conversations young black people are having today. Let’s talk more broadly about Carson’s appeal to black voters. The point of this ad is to reach young black rap fans who will presumably vote for Carson if they like what they hear. What kind of following does he have among the black electorate? I know I’m asking you to generalize wildly.  In terms of his appeal to black people. Among my own friends and family, people I went to college with and are now lawyers and doctors, et cetera — the socially aware black people I know, when they talk about Ben Carson, they really only express horror over his comparison of Obamacare to slavery, or the Holocaust, or Noah’s Ark. My black circle debates why a certain group of white people, or Republicans, gravitate toward Ben Carson. There’s some confusion. There’s a sense that he may seem like the anti-Barack Obama. There’s an element that’s anti-politician… Maybe he’s a more refined version of Sarah Palin. He may seem safer than some of the other candidates who are outside the establishment. Some of Carson’s support is with black conservatives. How does this group – which again, ranges a lot – tend to view rap? Two decades ago, rap was politically dangerous for conservatives of all kinds. Rap holds a central place in American culture among a variety of people in their 20s and 30s. So you can find black conservatives who listen to rap. The Carson campaign spent a lot of money on this. Does it seem likely to persuade the kind of young voters the campaign is after? My first inclination would be to say this is going to fail spectacularly. But what if Black Twitter hears this ad; I could imagine commentary going in a lot of different directions. Maybe the attention will cause people to take another look at Ben Carson. I can’t say they’ll find his message appealing at all. But you have the quip from Carson’s speech as well: “American became a great nation not because it was flooded with politicians, but because it was flooded with people who understood the value of personal responsibility,” et cetera, et cetera. I immediately thought, It was also flooded with slaves! Maybe some people will want to take another look – but I’m skeptical. Well, I’m baffled -- the continued dominance of Trump and Carson seem to defy every known political law from the past. A candidate [used to] say one offensive thing, and the campaign is tanked. Now it doesn’t matter anymore. Are we in another universe? It’s very strange. [image error]

Continue Reading...










 •  0 comments  •  flag
Share on Twitter
Published on November 05, 2015 11:37

Here is a list of celebrities that are banned from SNL — will Donald Trump be next?

There is a not so secret list of celebrities who have been banned from future appearances on Saturday Night Live. Laziness, improvising, and ripping up a photo of the Pope have been a few of the reasons celebs have made the list. Donald Trump is slated to host the November 7th episode of SNL and with mounting public backlash it is safe to say that he will be closely watched. Could Trump become the latest member of the infamous SNL Banned Celeb List? There is a not so secret list of celebrities who have been banned from future appearances on Saturday Night Live. Laziness, improvising, and ripping up a photo of the Pope have been a few of the reasons celebs have made the list. Donald Trump is slated to host the November 7th episode of SNL and with mounting public backlash it is safe to say that he will be closely watched. Could Trump become the latest member of the infamous SNL Banned Celeb List?

Continue Reading...










 •  0 comments  •  flag
Share on Twitter
Published on November 05, 2015 11:22