Helen H. Moore's Blog, page 959

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...

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...

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 colorful, even 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 colorful, even 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...

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...

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...

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...

Brooklyn bar staff fired for victim-blaming beaten woman and refusing to help

We’re missing the real Marco Rubio scandal: The problem isn’t his financial trouble, it’s that he’s a corruptible sneak

Now that Marco Rubio has vaulted himself into a front-running distant third place in the poll for the 2016 Republican nomination, he’s starting to come under harsher scrutiny from the press and his opponents in the GOP field. For the moment, the focal point of that criticism is Rubio’s personal finances, as the New York Times reported this morning:

A decade after he began using a Republican Party credit card for personal purchases like paving stones at his home, Senator Marco Rubio on Wednesday pledged to disclose new spending records from that account as he sought to inoculate himself against what could be his biggest liability as a presidential candidate: how he manages his finances.

The paper goes on to note that Rubio’s fellow aspirants for the Republican nomination “are rushing to resurrect the matter in an attempt to portray him as a careless money manager.” Donald Trump is “suggesting that the senator struggled to live within his means,” the Times writes, adding that the “risk” for Rubio is that this credit card issue “may become a symbol of a larger pattern of financial challenges in his recent past.” Come on. The problem revealed by Rubio’s shady history with state party credit cards isn’t that Rubio is bad at “managing his finances” – it’s that he’s a weasel who cashed in on his position of (limited) authority. The image of Rubio as a poor money manager with massive debt isn’t as damaging as his opponents and the press might think. Pretty much everyone in the country has trouble handling debt, and far too many people are carrying way too high a balance on their credit cards. Framing it in these terms just allows Rubio to make the point that he’s not wealthy and he copes with the same financial difficulties as everyone else. The damning part of all this is that he abused resources made available to him as Speaker. I’m not especially bothered that Rubio can’t balance his checkbook, but I do care that he’s a corruptible sneak. (However, if reporters and Rubio’s opponents are looking for a way to make his personal financial troubles relevant, try bringing them up the next time Rubio justifies a balanced budget amendment by saying the government must balance its books just like American families do.) But that’s still not Rubio’s “biggest liability as a presidential candidate.” I tend to think it’s a little more significant that much of Rubio’s policy platform is based on lies and discredited economic theories. Just today he released his plan for exploding the military budget well beyond its current levels as part of his neoconservative foreign policy vision to pick fights and spread freedom at gunpoint. He’s going to provoke international conflicts and preside over a vast expansion of defense spending while also blowing a hole in the budget by slashing tax rates, eliminating taxes on investments, and creating new tax credits for the middle class. The last Republican president implemented a more modest version of this policy agenda, and the results – intractable military quagmires, exploding inequality, huge deficits – left him so widely reviled that he put himself in political exile, where he remains to this day. And, of course, Rubio is still moving to the right on immigration in an attempt to mollify conservatives who disowned him for his past heresies on “amnesty.” He’s running to be the nominee of a party in desperate need of support from minority voters, and to secure that nomination he’s inching closer and closer to the immigration position of the party’s nativist wing. Seems like a pretty serious problem! So if you want to focus on Rubio’s credit card shenanigans and his past life as a small-time charlatan, go right ahead. Just don’t do him the favor of believing that’s his biggest weakness as a would-be president. [image error]

Continue Reading...

Neil deGrasse Tyson destroys argument for intelligent design: “I cannot look at the universe and say that yes, there’s a God, and this God cares about my life — at all”

On the “Nightly Show” Wednesday evening, Neil deGrasse Tyson went toe-to-toe with celebrity pastor Carl Lentz and comedian Tom Papa on a panel debating science and religion, saying that he rejected the notion of kindness and benevolence that goes hand in hand with peoples’ belief in God. “Any time someone describes their understanding of God, typically it involves some statement of benevolence or some kind of kindness,” Tyson explained. “I look out to the universe and yes, it is filled with mysteries, but it’s also filled with all manner of things that would just as soon have you dead. Like asteroid strikes, and hurricanes, and tornadoes, and tsunamis, and volcanoes, and disease, and pestilence,” he continued. “There are things that exist in the natural world that do not have your health or longevity as a priority. And so I cannot look at the universe and say that yes, there’s a God, and this God cares about my life — at all. The evidence does not support this.” "But in all fairness, you just described the Old Testament," Wilmore joked. Watch the full debate below:

Get More: Comedy Central,Funny Videos,Funny TV Shows

On the “Nightly Show” Wednesday evening, Neil deGrasse Tyson went toe-to-toe with celebrity pastor Carl Lentz and comedian Tom Papa on a panel debating science and religion, saying that he rejected the notion of kindness and benevolence that goes hand in hand with peoples’ belief in God. “Any time someone describes their understanding of God, typically it involves some statement of benevolence or some kind of kindness,” Tyson explained. “I look out to the universe and yes, it is filled with mysteries, but it’s also filled with all manner of things that would just as soon have you dead. Like asteroid strikes, and hurricanes, and tornadoes, and tsunamis, and volcanoes, and disease, and pestilence,” he continued. “There are things that exist in the natural world that do not have your health or longevity as a priority. And so I cannot look at the universe and say that yes, there’s a God, and this God cares about my life — at all. The evidence does not support this.” "But in all fairness, you just described the Old Testament," Wilmore joked. Watch the full debate below:

Get More: Comedy Central,Funny Videos,Funny TV Shows

On the “Nightly Show” Wednesday evening, Neil deGrasse Tyson went toe-to-toe with celebrity pastor Carl Lentz and comedian Tom Papa on a panel debating science and religion, saying that he rejected the notion of kindness and benevolence that goes hand in hand with peoples’ belief in God. “Any time someone describes their understanding of God, typically it involves some statement of benevolence or some kind of kindness,” Tyson explained. “I look out to the universe and yes, it is filled with mysteries, but it’s also filled with all manner of things that would just as soon have you dead. Like asteroid strikes, and hurricanes, and tornadoes, and tsunamis, and volcanoes, and disease, and pestilence,” he continued. “There are things that exist in the natural world that do not have your health or longevity as a priority. And so I cannot look at the universe and say that yes, there’s a God, and this God cares about my life — at all. The evidence does not support this.” "But in all fairness, you just described the Old Testament," Wilmore joked. Watch the full debate below:

Get More: Comedy Central,Funny Videos,Funny TV Shows

On the “Nightly Show” Wednesday evening, Neil deGrasse Tyson went toe-to-toe with celebrity pastor Carl Lentz and comedian Tom Papa on a panel debating science and religion, saying that he rejected the notion of kindness and benevolence that goes hand in hand with peoples’ belief in God. “Any time someone describes their understanding of God, typically it involves some statement of benevolence or some kind of kindness,” Tyson explained. “I look out to the universe and yes, it is filled with mysteries, but it’s also filled with all manner of things that would just as soon have you dead. Like asteroid strikes, and hurricanes, and tornadoes, and tsunamis, and volcanoes, and disease, and pestilence,” he continued. “There are things that exist in the natural world that do not have your health or longevity as a priority. And so I cannot look at the universe and say that yes, there’s a God, and this God cares about my life — at all. The evidence does not support this.” "But in all fairness, you just described the Old Testament," Wilmore joked. Watch the full debate below:

Get More: Comedy Central,Funny Videos,Funny TV Shows

Continue Reading...

Meet the Republican Mitch McConnell called a “pathological liar”: How Gov.-elect Matt Bevin decimated Kentucky Democrats

After delivering a cannon blast to Democratic rivals for the Kentucky governorship, Matt Bevin and Jenean Hampton have captured the keys to the Governor’s Mansion, becoming the second duo to do so in 44 years. Among U.S. off-year races Kentucky’s was the most closely watched on Nov. 3, and the Republican victory signals a local shift toward an almost wholly-Red state. A 30 percent turnout rate left Democrats in the state House of Representatives (the last Democrat-controlled chamber in the Solid South) reeling with confusion, and last night’s only two Democratic statewide winners in a frenzy to rebuild the party brand. While they’re blowing up the phone lines of donors and local party chairs, it’s my pleasure to introduce you to the smooth-talking Tea Party conservative -- frequently compared to Donald Trump, called a “pathological liar” by Kentucky’s own Sen. Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, and winner of the Republican primary by 83 votes -- the man who swung the state Red, Matt Bevin: Goodbye healthcare, hello Right to Work Bevin campaigned on promises that his first act as governor would be to repeal the state's wildly successful health insurance exchange, Kynect, created with $253 million in federal funds, and its Medicaid expansion under the Affordable Care Act, which has since covered more than 420,000 previously uninsured Kentuckians -- contributing to a drop in the state's uninsured rate from 20 percent to 9 percent over the past two years, according to Gallup. A core tenet of his rowdy, radical appeal to voters Bevin derided "the welfare state" throughout his campaign in speeches, where he pushed himself as “the only candidate who has promised to dismantle Obamacare.” This played well even among the benefactors of the state’s Kynect program, where the name Obama has become as politically toxic as coal ash. His positions stand in stark contrast to his own history, however. Bevin accepted $100,000 in state money from New Hampshire via a matching grant when his family bell factory burned down. When asked why he didn't have the insurance which would have covered the factory's reconstruction, Bevin told reporters that the price of the insurance was too high.   Bevin has claimed the price of Medicaid expansion is too high for the state as well. The program is currently running purely on federal dollars, but is slated to incrementally pick up costs starting in 2017 and ending with a cap of 10 percent on state costs in 2021. State estimates show that by that time, the expansion should be able to both pay for itself and create new jobs, findings that Bevin spent much of his campaign dodging. Bevin has shifted positions on the issue, though, alternating between his strict promise to dismantle Kynect and a desire to use 1,115 waivers. The waivers are federal requests to use Medicaid block grants in creating a customizable state healthcare exchange, but which still don’t exempt the state from having to carry 10 percent of the costs by 2021. A potential healthcare re-structure could also loom large for those Kentuckians who receive services from Planned Parenthood, which Bevin has promised to defund. In an earlier press release, the Bevin campaign said “As Governor, I will direct my Secretary of the Cabinet for Health and Family Services not to distribute federal taxpayer dollars from that department to Planned Parenthood clinics.” A likely front-running for the Secretary position is former Republican state Sen. Julie Denton, of Louisville, a former chair of the Senate Committee on Health and Welfare with a short history of courting the Bevin campaign and a long history of advancing anti-choice legislation. But any cabinet’s compliance with Bevin’s order could endanger other federal Medicaid provision, as the Obama administration hinted recently. Kentucky’s coal-powered energy policy would likely see less of a shake-up under Bevin, who told public radio audiences in September that he isn't interested in cutting pollution via the federal Clean Power Plan, arguing that climate change isn't man-made but that there is "absolutely unequivocal evidence" that it is caused by natural forces. In the throes of his victory speech, Bevin was quick to praise the state's lieutenant governor-elect, his running mate Jenean Hampton. Hampton is a Tea Party activist and now the state's first Black constitutional officer. Aside from dismantling Kynect, passing Right to Work legislation -- which would prevent union workplaces from requiring union dues of all employees--has been a central priority of the duo’s platform. “The reason that Right to Work is at the top of our list is that we are surrounded by states. Tennessee's just 30 minutes from Bowling Green and they have no state tax. They have a better business climate, so who knows what business we're losing,” Hampton said in an April interview. “I think going county by county is the wrong approach.” Hampton brushed off questions about the rise in worker injuries in states with Right to Work laws, questioning the quality of the data. When asked about the hard numbers showing wage decline in Right to Work states, she only said “I've heard that too and I don’t know that I agree with that either. When there are a lot of businesses and they're all competing for workers the wages rise.” From early on, Bevin put Hampton’s race at the forefront of his campaign speeches, reminding local Republican voters that it could play a crucial role by attracting conservative-leaning black voters and undercutting Conway's much-neglected base. In Oldham County, for example, a suburban Louisville-adjoined Republican stronghold, Bevin told voters, “The fact that she is a black woman in Kentucky as a Republican puts her in fairly select company. It’s going to matter in the general election. If there’s a ticket being sold out of the Republican side that doesn’t have a woman on it, fairly or otherwise, you’re going to hear that narrative.” But Hampton says that the discussion of race in this context makes her uncomfortable. She prefers to see herself as “just Jenean.” Hampton takes a Tea Party approach to the economic and judicial disparities between races in Kentucky and across the country, eschewing the context of imbalanced incarceration rates and job opportunities for a classically libertarian approach. “I don’t accept that society is inherently racist,” she said. “Are there racists out there? Sure there are, but the question is: what do you do with it? I always carried myself as ‘I'm just Jenean’ and there things to see and do, and there are people to meet, and I treat people as people. I don't see color.” But she does. In the same interview, Hampton openly acknowledges a historical inequality between races and the role it played in her own life. “I knew I was blessed to be born in the U.S.A., in this country, in this time, because in an earlier era I couldn’t vote. I couldn’t own property. I couldn’t even be in control of the fruits of my own labor,” she said. The acknowledgment seems to stop there, though. Hampton sees the Black Lives Matter movement as disingenuous and chides protesters from Baltimore and Ferguson for stirring anti-police sentiment. “The concern rings hollow to me when they say ‘black lives matter’ because what they're telling me is that a black life matters only if a white person takes it. And I know that’s not what they mean but I’m looking at the level of excitement, the level of concern, over blacks being killed and I just think it could be misplaced. There’s hundreds who were killed, thousands who were killed, but it’s black on black crime,” she said. “You know I’ve heard more excuses from people rioting in Baltimore, that they're just disenfranchised. Well, I don’t understand,” said Hampton, adding that her upbringing in a poverty-stricken area of Detroit didn’t prevent her from achieving personal success. “Do you know anybody who was born a slave? I know there are people out there, and that's a thing. But here's the thing, I was born in 1958. My parents were not slaves. Nobody around me was a slave. I knew about it because in the 1960's they decided to teach black American history,” she said. “When I hear people say our economy is based on slaves, maybe it was. But we're not there. We are where we are.” Hampton volunteered that she isn’t concerned with police brutality. “The times that I go back to Detroit, I have less to fear from the cops than I do from other black people in Detroit,” she said. “If I walk down the street, I’m not worried about the cops. I know cops are my friend. I know that maybe they might profile me.” If the position of Lt. Gov. is an ambassador's role, Hampton’s sentiments may work against her in some of Kentucky’s racially divided regions. Goodbye, blue skies: Kentucky’s Dems face the boot So what happened to the Democrats on the state level? Which of the local party leaders let this coup happen? The search for answers begins and ends with the old guard among the state’s Democrats. The answer itself could be seen on the resigned face of Patrick Hughes, the chair of the Kentucky Democratic Party who appeared on stage at the Democrats’ campaign headquarters last night in awkward form, mc’ing the parade of concession speeches. Hughes was a temporary pick for the KDP chair, according to Democratic insiders. A former deputy chief attorney general to Conway, Hughes was brought on with the understanding that his tenure as chair would only be through the duration of the campaign, and would serve as Conway’s Chief of Staff after the big win. Hughes was appointed in Feb. of this year, replacing Dan Logsdon, of the state's heavy-hitting Logsdon Oil and Gas company. Tax and property records show that the Logsdon and Conway families have been swapping oil and gas leases in eastern Kentucky for years. Logsdon held the chair since 2010. After overseeing a rise of Republican seats in legislature and the brutal defeat of Alison Lundergan Grimes in her 2014 U.S. Senate race against Mitch McConnell, Hughes’ appointment was a sure signal to the state that Grimes’ defeat sent waves across the party, and Conway would be the next nominated. Naturally, Conway announced in May. Conway’s loss has Hughes on the chopping block. This means the de facto party chair is now Grimes, but her father Jerry Lundergan is rumored to be calling the shots. He's a former state representative, two-time former KDP chair, and personal friend to the Clintons. Democrats aren’t likely to fall in line behind him, however. His longtime political consultant, Jonathan Hurst, was picked to manage the Grimes campaign against powerhouse McConnell, a choice many in the party are still sore about. Some Democrats still attribute the election loss to Lundergan’s alleged interference and campaign control. Why on earth is all this state-level inside baseball important? What does it mean for the future of Democrats in Kentucky and other southern Red states? Because these people are old guard Democrats with legacy names -- Lundergan, Conway, Andy Beshear (the sitting governor’s son and only other Democrat to win statewide office on Nov. 3) -- and are playing by an outdated rulebook. Democratic strategy, in Kentucky and elsewhere in the south, has largely failed to evolve in concert with the radicalism of the more-conservative right. Democrats have failed to cultivate the kind of fresh-faced candidates that Kentucky Republicans have  -- young zealots who court the base with unapologetic fervor. Instead of developing diverse campaign strategies and funding new  Democrats, the old guard repacks the same eggs in the same fraying basket. To be a successful Kentucky Democrat, the conventional wisdom until now has been to court pro-union social conservatives in rural regions by declaring a love of guns, coal and teachers. Then, a Democrat must rouse the last vestiges of western Kentucky unionism. They must make limited overtures to urban areas, hoping the base shows up on Election Day. And the strategy worked for a long time. But the campaign strategy ignores consistent rural-to-urban population shifts in Kentucky altogether, attempts to court aging rural voters who have been going Red since the late aughts. Democrats have had plenty of warning. They knew the state was going Red in 2010, when the famously Blue 6th Congressional District kept their Democrat, Ben Chandler, in the U.S. House by less than 1 percent of the vote, only to be defeated in 2012 by 4 percent. He lost to the same opponent, Andy Barr, who still holds the seat and won his last election by a full 20 percent. Coal unions are going extinct and the only population growth in some of these counties comes with the construction of new prisons. By playing a Republican-lite tune to the more deeply partisan Republican regions, Democrats are hitting all the wrong chords for an urban progressive base which feels more ignored than ever. Star players like Grimes, Conway and Beshear the Lesser have tiptoed around rural anti-Obama sentiment and failed to rally around the state's healthcare successes--a Democratic victory that could have been an enormous harvest of party PR in the state's "Golden Triangle" of metropolitan growth.   But the old guard knows the jig is up. Lundergan’s Clinton connection can only hold so much value for the party's go-to strategist when election losses become this brutal. Candidates willing to kiss the ring would be well-advised to proceed with caution: his connection couldn't secure Democrats a U.S. Senate seat in 2014, nor the Governor's Mansion in 2015. To play by the old rules in 2016 could mean losing the House, the last Blue chamber in the Solid South, and declaring political bankruptcy in the state overall. If election night was any hint, one could look at Bevin’s televised victory dance, where the writhing Republican throng shouted in unison, “Flip the House! Flip the House!" Bevin, from the podium, was leading their chant. [image error] After delivering a cannon blast to Democratic rivals for the Kentucky governorship, Matt Bevin and Jenean Hampton have captured the keys to the Governor’s Mansion, becoming the second duo to do so in 44 years. Among U.S. off-year races Kentucky’s was the most closely watched on Nov. 3, and the Republican victory signals a local shift toward an almost wholly-Red state. A 30 percent turnout rate left Democrats in the state House of Representatives (the last Democrat-controlled chamber in the Solid South) reeling with confusion, and last night’s only two Democratic statewide winners in a frenzy to rebuild the party brand. While they’re blowing up the phone lines of donors and local party chairs, it’s my pleasure to introduce you to the smooth-talking Tea Party conservative -- frequently compared to Donald Trump, called a “pathological liar” by Kentucky’s own Sen. Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, and winner of the Republican primary by 83 votes -- the man who swung the state Red, Matt Bevin: Goodbye healthcare, hello Right to Work Bevin campaigned on promises that his first act as governor would be to repeal the state's wildly successful health insurance exchange, Kynect, created with $253 million in federal funds, and its Medicaid expansion under the Affordable Care Act, which has since covered more than 420,000 previously uninsured Kentuckians -- contributing to a drop in the state's uninsured rate from 20 percent to 9 percent over the past two years, according to Gallup. A core tenet of his rowdy, radical appeal to voters Bevin derided "the welfare state" throughout his campaign in speeches, where he pushed himself as “the only candidate who has promised to dismantle Obamacare.” This played well even among the benefactors of the state’s Kynect program, where the name Obama has become as politically toxic as coal ash. His positions stand in stark contrast to his own history, however. Bevin accepted $100,000 in state money from New Hampshire via a matching grant when his family bell factory burned down. When asked why he didn't have the insurance which would have covered the factory's reconstruction, Bevin told reporters that the price of the insurance was too high.   Bevin has claimed the price of Medicaid expansion is too high for the state as well. The program is currently running purely on federal dollars, but is slated to incrementally pick up costs starting in 2017 and ending with a cap of 10 percent on state costs in 2021. State estimates show that by that time, the expansion should be able to both pay for itself and create new jobs, findings that Bevin spent much of his campaign dodging. Bevin has shifted positions on the issue, though, alternating between his strict promise to dismantle Kynect and a desire to use 1,115 waivers. The waivers are federal requests to use Medicaid block grants in creating a customizable state healthcare exchange, but which still don’t exempt the state from having to carry 10 percent of the costs by 2021. A potential healthcare re-structure could also loom large for those Kentuckians who receive services from Planned Parenthood, which Bevin has promised to defund. In an earlier press release, the Bevin campaign said “As Governor, I will direct my Secretary of the Cabinet for Health and Family Services not to distribute federal taxpayer dollars from that department to Planned Parenthood clinics.” A likely front-running for the Secretary position is former Republican state Sen. Julie Denton, of Louisville, a former chair of the Senate Committee on Health and Welfare with a short history of courting the Bevin campaign and a long history of advancing anti-choice legislation. But any cabinet’s compliance with Bevin’s order could endanger other federal Medicaid provision, as the Obama administration hinted recently. Kentucky’s coal-powered energy policy would likely see less of a shake-up under Bevin, who told public radio audiences in September that he isn't interested in cutting pollution via the federal Clean Power Plan, arguing that climate change isn't man-made but that there is "absolutely unequivocal evidence" that it is caused by natural forces. In the throes of his victory speech, Bevin was quick to praise the state's lieutenant governor-elect, his running mate Jenean Hampton. Hampton is a Tea Party activist and now the state's first Black constitutional officer. Aside from dismantling Kynect, passing Right to Work legislation -- which would prevent union workplaces from requiring union dues of all employees--has been a central priority of the duo’s platform. “The reason that Right to Work is at the top of our list is that we are surrounded by states. Tennessee's just 30 minutes from Bowling Green and they have no state tax. They have a better business climate, so who knows what business we're losing,” Hampton said in an April interview. “I think going county by county is the wrong approach.” Hampton brushed off questions about the rise in worker injuries in states with Right to Work laws, questioning the quality of the data. When asked about the hard numbers showing wage decline in Right to Work states, she only said “I've heard that too and I don’t know that I agree with that either. When there are a lot of businesses and they're all competing for workers the wages rise.” From early on, Bevin put Hampton’s race at the forefront of his campaign speeches, reminding local Republican voters that it could play a crucial role by attracting conservative-leaning black voters and undercutting Conway's much-neglected base. In Oldham County, for example, a suburban Louisville-adjoined Republican stronghold, Bevin told voters, “The fact that she is a black woman in Kentucky as a Republican puts her in fairly select company. It’s going to matter in the general election. If there’s a ticket being sold out of the Republican side that doesn’t have a woman on it, fairly or otherwise, you’re going to hear that narrative.” But Hampton says that the discussion of race in this context makes her uncomfortable. She prefers to see herself as “just Jenean.” Hampton takes a Tea Party approach to the economic and judicial disparities between races in Kentucky and across the country, eschewing the context of imbalanced incarceration rates and job opportunities for a classically libertarian approach. “I don’t accept that society is inherently racist,” she said. “Are there racists out there? Sure there are, but the question is: what do you do with it? I always carried myself as ‘I'm just Jenean’ and there things to see and do, and there are people to meet, and I treat people as people. I don't see color.” But she does. In the same interview, Hampton openly acknowledges a historical inequality between races and the role it played in her own life. “I knew I was blessed to be born in the U.S.A., in this country, in this time, because in an earlier era I couldn’t vote. I couldn’t own property. I couldn’t even be in control of the fruits of my own labor,” she said. The acknowledgment seems to stop there, though. Hampton sees the Black Lives Matter movement as disingenuous and chides protesters from Baltimore and Ferguson for stirring anti-police sentiment. “The concern rings hollow to me when they say ‘black lives matter’ because what they're telling me is that a black life matters only if a white person takes it. And I know that’s not what they mean but I’m looking at the level of excitement, the level of concern, over blacks being killed and I just think it could be misplaced. There’s hundreds who were killed, thousands who were killed, but it’s black on black crime,” she said. “You know I’ve heard more excuses from people rioting in Baltimore, that they're just disenfranchised. Well, I don’t understand,” said Hampton, adding that her upbringing in a poverty-stricken area of Detroit didn’t prevent her from achieving personal success. “Do you know anybody who was born a slave? I know there are people out there, and that's a thing. But here's the thing, I was born in 1958. My parents were not slaves. Nobody around me was a slave. I knew about it because in the 1960's they decided to teach black American history,” she said. “When I hear people say our economy is based on slaves, maybe it was. But we're not there. We are where we are.” Hampton volunteered that she isn’t concerned with police brutality. “The times that I go back to Detroit, I have less to fear from the cops than I do from other black people in Detroit,” she said. “If I walk down the street, I’m not worried about the cops. I know cops are my friend. I know that maybe they might profile me.” If the position of Lt. Gov. is an ambassador's role, Hampton’s sentiments may work against her in some of Kentucky’s racially divided regions. Goodbye, blue skies: Kentucky’s Dems face the boot So what happened to the Democrats on the state level? Which of the local party leaders let this coup happen? The search for answers begins and ends with the old guard among the state’s Democrats. The answer itself could be seen on the resigned face of Patrick Hughes, the chair of the Kentucky Democratic Party who appeared on stage at the Democrats’ campaign headquarters last night in awkward form, mc’ing the parade of concession speeches. Hughes was a temporary pick for the KDP chair, according to Democratic insiders. A former deputy chief attorney general to Conway, Hughes was brought on with the understanding that his tenure as chair would only be through the duration of the campaign, and would serve as Conway’s Chief of Staff after the big win. Hughes was appointed in Feb. of this year, replacing Dan Logsdon, of the state's heavy-hitting Logsdon Oil and Gas company. Tax and property records show that the Logsdon and Conway families have been swapping oil and gas leases in eastern Kentucky for years. Logsdon held the chair since 2010. After overseeing a rise of Republican seats in legislature and the brutal defeat of Alison Lundergan Grimes in her 2014 U.S. Senate race against Mitch McConnell, Hughes’ appointment was a sure signal to the state that Grimes’ defeat sent waves across the party, and Conway would be the next nominated. Naturally, Conway announced in May. Conway’s loss has Hughes on the chopping block. This means the de facto party chair is now Grimes, but her father Jerry Lundergan is rumored to be calling the shots. He's a former state representative, two-time former KDP chair, and personal friend to the Clintons. Democrats aren’t likely to fall in line behind him, however. His longtime political consultant, Jonathan Hurst, was picked to manage the Grimes campaign against powerhouse McConnell, a choice many in the party are still sore about. Some Democrats still attribute the election loss to Lundergan’s alleged interference and campaign control. Why on earth is all this state-level inside baseball important? What does it mean for the future of Democrats in Kentucky and other southern Red states? Because these people are old guard Democrats with legacy names -- Lundergan, Conway, Andy Beshear (the sitting governor’s son and only other Democrat to win statewide office on Nov. 3) -- and are playing by an outdated rulebook. Democratic strategy, in Kentucky and elsewhere in the south, has largely failed to evolve in concert with the radicalism of the more-conservative right. Democrats have failed to cultivate the kind of fresh-faced candidates that Kentucky Republicans have  -- young zealots who court the base with unapologetic fervor. Instead of developing diverse campaign strategies and funding new  Democrats, the old guard repacks the same eggs in the same fraying basket. To be a successful Kentucky Democrat, the conventional wisdom until now has been to court pro-union social conservatives in rural regions by declaring a love of guns, coal and teachers. Then, a Democrat must rouse the last vestiges of western Kentucky unionism. They must make limited overtures to urban areas, hoping the base shows up on Election Day. And the strategy worked for a long time. But the campaign strategy ignores consistent rural-to-urban population shifts in Kentucky altogether, attempts to court aging rural voters who have been going Red since the late aughts. Democrats have had plenty of warning. They knew the state was going Red in 2010, when the famously Blue 6th Congressional District kept their Democrat, Ben Chandler, in the U.S. House by less than 1 percent of the vote, only to be defeated in 2012 by 4 percent. He lost to the same opponent, Andy Barr, who still holds the seat and won his last election by a full 20 percent. Coal unions are going extinct and the only population growth in some of these counties comes with the construction of new prisons. By playing a Republican-lite tune to the more deeply partisan Republican regions, Democrats are hitting all the wrong chords for an urban progressive base which feels more ignored than ever. Star players like Grimes, Conway and Beshear the Lesser have tiptoed around rural anti-Obama sentiment and failed to rally around the state's healthcare successes--a Democratic victory that could have been an enormous harvest of party PR in the state's "Golden Triangle" of metropolitan growth.   But the old guard knows the jig is up. Lundergan’s Clinton connection can only hold so much value for the party's go-to strategist when election losses become this brutal. Candidates willing to kiss the ring would be well-advised to proceed with caution: his connection couldn't secure Democrats a U.S. Senate seat in 2014, nor the Governor's Mansion in 2015. To play by the old rules in 2016 could mean losing the House, the last Blue chamber in the Solid South, and declaring political bankruptcy in the state overall. If election night was any hint, one could look at Bevin’s televised victory dance, where the writhing Republican throng shouted in unison, “Flip the House! Flip the House!" Bevin, from the podium, was leading their chant. [image error] After delivering a cannon blast to Democratic rivals for the Kentucky governorship, Matt Bevin and Jenean Hampton have captured the keys to the Governor’s Mansion, becoming the second duo to do so in 44 years. Among U.S. off-year races Kentucky’s was the most closely watched on Nov. 3, and the Republican victory signals a local shift toward an almost wholly-Red state. A 30 percent turnout rate left Democrats in the state House of Representatives (the last Democrat-controlled chamber in the Solid South) reeling with confusion, and last night’s only two Democratic statewide winners in a frenzy to rebuild the party brand. While they’re blowing up the phone lines of donors and local party chairs, it’s my pleasure to introduce you to the smooth-talking Tea Party conservative -- frequently compared to Donald Trump, called a “pathological liar” by Kentucky’s own Sen. Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, and winner of the Republican primary by 83 votes -- the man who swung the state Red, Matt Bevin: Goodbye healthcare, hello Right to Work Bevin campaigned on promises that his first act as governor would be to repeal the state's wildly successful health insurance exchange, Kynect, created with $253 million in federal funds, and its Medicaid expansion under the Affordable Care Act, which has since covered more than 420,000 previously uninsured Kentuckians -- contributing to a drop in the state's uninsured rate from 20 percent to 9 percent over the past two years, according to Gallup. A core tenet of his rowdy, radical appeal to voters Bevin derided "the welfare state" throughout his campaign in speeches, where he pushed himself as “the only candidate who has promised to dismantle Obamacare.” This played well even among the benefactors of the state’s Kynect program, where the name Obama has become as politically toxic as coal ash. His positions stand in stark contrast to his own history, however. Bevin accepted $100,000 in state money from New Hampshire via a matching grant when his family bell factory burned down. When asked why he didn't have the insurance which would have covered the factory's reconstruction, Bevin told reporters that the price of the insurance was too high.   Bevin has claimed the price of Medicaid expansion is too high for the state as well. The program is currently running purely on federal dollars, but is slated to incrementally pick up costs starting in 2017 and ending with a cap of 10 percent on state costs in 2021. State estimates show that by that time, the expansion should be able to both pay for itself and create new jobs, findings that Bevin spent much of his campaign dodging. Bevin has shifted positions on the issue, though, alternating between his strict promise to dismantle Kynect and a desire to use 1,115 waivers. The waivers are federal requests to use Medicaid block grants in creating a customizable state healthcare exchange, but which still don’t exempt the state from having to carry 10 percent of the costs by 2021. A potential healthcare re-structure could also loom large for those Kentuckians who receive services from Planned Parenthood, which Bevin has promised to defund. In an earlier press release, the Bevin campaign said “As Governor, I will direct my Secretary of the Cabinet for Health and Family Services not to distribute federal taxpayer dollars from that department to Planned Parenthood clinics.” A likely front-running for the Secretary position is former Republican state Sen. Julie Denton, of Louisville, a former chair of the Senate Committee on Health and Welfare with a short history of courting the Bevin campaign and a long history of advancing anti-choice legislation. But any cabinet’s compliance with Bevin’s order could endanger other federal Medicaid provision, as the Obama administration hinted recently. Kentucky’s coal-powered energy policy would likely see less of a shake-up under Bevin, who told public radio audiences in September that he isn't interested in cutting pollution via the federal Clean Power Plan, arguing that climate change isn't man-made but that there is "absolutely unequivocal evidence" that it is caused by natural forces. In the throes of his victory speech, Bevin was quick to praise the state's lieutenant governor-elect, his running mate Jenean Hampton. Hampton is a Tea Party activist and now the state's first Black constitutional officer. Aside from dismantling Kynect, passing Right to Work legislation -- which would prevent union workplaces from requiring union dues of all employees--has been a central priority of the duo’s platform. “The reason that Right to Work is at the top of our list is that we are surrounded by states. Tennessee's just 30 minutes from Bowling Green and they have no state tax. They have a better business climate, so who knows what business we're losing,” Hampton said in an April interview. “I think going county by county is the wrong approach.” Hampton brushed off questions about the rise in worker injuries in states with Right to Work laws, questioning the quality of the data. When asked about the hard numbers showing wage decline in Right to Work states, she only said “I've heard that too and I don’t know that I agree with that either. When there are a lot of businesses and they're all competing for workers the wages rise.” From early on, Bevin put Hampton’s race at the forefront of his campaign speeches, reminding local Republican voters that it could play a crucial role by attracting conservative-leaning black voters and undercutting Conway's much-neglected base. In Oldham County, for example, a suburban Louisville-adjoined Republican stronghold, Bevin told voters, “The fact that she is a black woman in Kentucky as a Republican puts her in fairly select company. It’s going to matter in the general election. If there’s a ticket being sold out of the Republican side that doesn’t have a woman on it, fairly or otherwise, you’re going to hear that narrative.” But Hampton says that the discussion of race in this context makes her uncomfortable. She prefers to see herself as “just Jenean.” Hampton takes a Tea Party approach to the economic and judicial disparities between races in Kentucky and across the country, eschewing the context of imbalanced incarceration rates and job opportunities for a classically libertarian approach. “I don’t accept that society is inherently racist,” she said. “Are there racists out there? Sure there are, but the question is: what do you do with it? I always carried myself as ‘I'm just Jenean’ and there things to see and do, and there are people to meet, and I treat people as people. I don't see color.” But she does. In the same interview, Hampton openly acknowledges a historical inequality between races and the role it played in her own life. “I knew I was blessed to be born in the U.S.A., in this country, in this time, because in an earlier era I couldn’t vote. I couldn’t own property. I couldn’t even be in control of the fruits of my own labor,” she said. The acknowledgment seems to stop there, though. Hampton sees the Black Lives Matter movement as disingenuous and chides protesters from Baltimore and Ferguson for stirring anti-police sentiment. “The concern rings hollow to me when they say ‘black lives matter’ because what they're telling me is that a black life matters only if a white person takes it. And I know that’s not what they mean but I’m looking at the level of excitement, the level of concern, over blacks being killed and I just think it could be misplaced. There’s hundreds who were killed, thousands who were killed, but it’s black on black crime,” she said. “You know I’ve heard more excuses from people rioting in Baltimore, that they're just disenfranchised. Well, I don’t understand,” said Hampton, adding that her upbringing in a poverty-stricken area of Detroit didn’t prevent her from achieving personal success. “Do you know anybody who was born a slave? I know there are people out there, and that's a thing. But here's the thing, I was born in 1958. My parents were not slaves. Nobody around me was a slave. I knew about it because in the 1960's they decided to teach black American history,” she said. “When I hear people say our economy is based on slaves, maybe it was. But we're not there. We are where we are.” Hampton volunteered that she isn’t concerned with police brutality. “The times that I go back to Detroit, I have less to fear from the cops than I do from other black people in Detroit,” she said. “If I walk down the street, I’m not worried about the cops. I know cops are my friend. I know that maybe they might profile me.” If the position of Lt. Gov. is an ambassador's role, Hampton’s sentiments may work against her in some of Kentucky’s racially divided regions. Goodbye, blue skies: Kentucky’s Dems face the boot So what happened to the Democrats on the state level? Which of the local party leaders let this coup happen? The search for answers begins and ends with the old guard among the state’s Democrats. The answer itself could be seen on the resigned face of Patrick Hughes, the chair of the Kentucky Democratic Party who appeared on stage at the Democrats’ campaign headquarters last night in awkward form, mc’ing the parade of concession speeches. Hughes was a temporary pick for the KDP chair, according to Democratic insiders. A former deputy chief attorney general to Conway, Hughes was brought on with the understanding that his tenure as chair would only be through the duration of the campaign, and would serve as Conway’s Chief of Staff after the big win. Hughes was appointed in Feb. of this year, replacing Dan Logsdon, of the state's heavy-hitting Logsdon Oil and Gas company. Tax and property records show that the Logsdon and Conway families have been swapping oil and gas leases in eastern Kentucky for years. Logsdon held the chair since 2010. After overseeing a rise of Republican seats in legislature and the brutal defeat of Alison Lundergan Grimes in her 2014 U.S. Senate race against Mitch McConnell, Hughes’ appointment was a sure signal to the state that Grimes’ defeat sent waves across the party, and Conway would be the next nominated. Naturally, Conway announced in May. Conway’s loss has Hughes on the chopping block. This means the de facto party chair is now Grimes, but her father Jerry Lundergan is rumored to be calling the shots. He's a former state representative, two-time former KDP chair, and personal friend to the Clintons. Democrats aren’t likely to fall in line behind him, however. His longtime political consultant, Jonathan Hurst, was picked to manage the Grimes campaign against powerhouse McConnell, a choice many in the party are still sore about. Some Democrats still attribute the election loss to Lundergan’s alleged interference and campaign control. Why on earth is all this state-level inside baseball important? What does it mean for the future of Democrats in Kentucky and other southern Red states? Because these people are old guard Democrats with legacy names -- Lundergan, Conway, Andy Beshear (the sitting governor’s son and only other Democrat to win statewide office on Nov. 3) -- and are playing by an outdated rulebook. Democratic strategy, in Kentucky and elsewhere in the south, has largely failed to evolve in concert with the radicalism of the more-conservative right. Democrats have failed to cultivate the kind of fresh-faced candidates that Kentucky Republicans have  -- young zealots who court the base with unapologetic fervor. Instead of developing diverse campaign strategies and funding new  Democrats, the old guard repacks the same eggs in the same fraying basket. To be a successful Kentucky Democrat, the conventional wisdom until now has been to court pro-union social conservatives in rural regions by declaring a love of guns, coal and teachers. Then, a Democrat must rouse the last vestiges of western Kentucky unionism. They must make limited overtures to urban areas, hoping the base shows up on Election Day. And the strategy worked for a long time. But the campaign strategy ignores consistent rural-to-urban population shifts in Kentucky altogether, attempts to court aging rural voters who have been going Red since the late aughts. Democrats have had plenty of warning. They knew the state was going Red in 2010, when the famously Blue 6th Congressional District kept their Democrat, Ben Chandler, in the U.S. House by less than 1 percent of the vote, only to be defeated in 2012 by 4 percent. He lost to the same opponent, Andy Barr, who still holds the seat and won his last election by a full 20 percent. Coal unions are going extinct and the only population growth in some of these counties comes with the construction of new prisons. By playing a Republican-lite tune to the more deeply partisan Republican regions, Democrats are hitting all the wrong chords for an urban progressive base which feels more ignored than ever. Star players like Grimes, Conway and Beshear the Lesser have tiptoed around rural anti-Obama sentiment and failed to rally around the state's healthcare successes--a Democratic victory that could have been an enormous harvest of party PR in the state's "Golden Triangle" of metropolitan growth.   But the old guard knows the jig is up. Lundergan’s Clinton connection can only hold so much value for the party's go-to strategist when election losses become this brutal. Candidates willing to kiss the ring would be well-advised to proceed with caution: his connection couldn't secure Democrats a U.S. Senate seat in 2014, nor the Governor's Mansion in 2015. To play by the old rules in 2016 could mean losing the House, the last Blue chamber in the Solid South, and declaring political bankruptcy in the state overall. If election night was any hint, one could look at Bevin’s televised victory dance, where the writhing Republican throng shouted in unison, “Flip the House! Flip the House!" Bevin, from the podium, was leading their chant. [image error]

Continue Reading...