This really makes me furious. Yeah, we all know the corporate media censors content, but this one’s pretty crucial, and I resent the fact that political interests have so intimidated the media, they feel compelled to eradicate the truth:
An episode of the BBC’s Frozen Planet documentary series that looks at climate change has been scrapped in the U.S., where many are hostile to the idea of global warming.
British viewers will see all seven episodes of the multi-million-pound nature series throughout the Autumn. But U.S. audiences will not be shown the last episode, which looks at the threat posed by man to the natural world. It is feared a show that preaches global warming could upset viewers in the U.S., where around half of people do not believe in climate change.
The series of six episodes has been sold to 30 countries, including China, one of the world’s biggest polluters.
[…] In the U.S., Frozen Planet is being aired by Discovery. They were involved in the joint-production of the series. Yet they are still refusing to accommodate Frozen Planet in its entirety.
The timing of a one-sided global warming programme could be particularly sensitive in the U.S., where climate change is an issue in the presidential race.
GOP presidential candidate Rick Perry accuses climate scientists of lying for money.
A poll earlier this year found that the majority of Americans believe that if climate change does exist, it is not caused by humans.
With Thanksgiving so near and the Christmas holidays close behind, I thought it would be useful to give readers a heads up on just how overbearing these gun-hating liberals have become. Witness this recent letter to Dear Amy :
Dear Amy: When our family gets together for any holiday, my niece’s husband has to bring a gun with him. He has a permit. He thinks his permit gives him permission to carry a loaded gun wherever he goes. He even takes it to church.
I have requested that he leave the gun at home when coming to my house. He says that if he cannot bring his gun then his family won’t come to our home. There will be small children at the house, but he says it’s OK because his kids are fine with it.
Should I let him bring the gun or tell them they need to stay home? — Gun Battle
Well! It turns out Dear Amy is just another bleeding heart, biased liberal “journalist”. Does she ask an NRA spokesperson for proper gun etiquette, where she would have learned that an armed Christmas party is a polite Christmas party? No, she does not. Instead, she turns to the gun-hating Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, who responded with this most likely phony statistic: “A gun in any home is four times more likely to be used to kill or injure a loved one in an unintentional or accidental shooting than it is to be used for self-defense (bradycampaign.org).” Oh yeah, right!
Then this silly woman goes on to cite the (probably liberal) Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, who claim that more than 4,000 children and teens are wounded or killed in unintentional shootings every year, and concludes, “Your niece’s husband may have a legal right to carry his gun, but you also have a right to maintain a weapons-free household.”
Excuse me? See, this is what’s wrong with America today. Your comfort zone ends at my right to keep everyone else in the room on high alert. If you’re going to behave, you have no reason to worry about me discharging my firearm in your direction! (Okay, there was that one time when I dropped my Glock and it shot Cousin Earl’s ear off, but that was a simple accident and was just as likely if I were slicing a loaf of bread with a Bowie knife.)
And then there was last year’s party, when my ex showed up with the new spouse to drop off the kids and we got into that fight. I admit, I was drunk and I did brandish my weapon, but it was only to make a point: “Don’t mess with Texas!” (Even though I’m not from anywhere near Texas, I just wanted to make that point.)
Anyway, someone who sees carrying a gun at a holiday party as anything but a plus must have a screw loose. Look at the benefits: No home invasions! No Grinch popping down the chimney to steal your presents! No Uncle Jack, mouthing off about how if they’d had DNA tests back then, I’d be calling him Daddy. Why, you son of a…
Happy open carry, everyone!
This post is written as part of the Media Matters Gun Facts fellowship. The purpose of the fellowship is to further Media Matters’ mission to comprehensively monitor, analyze, and correct conservative misinformation in the U.S. media. Some of the worst misinformation occurs around the issue of guns, gun violence, and extremism, the fellowship program is designed to fight this misinformation with facts.
If it’s true, I’m glad someone did something to stop this. This is going to be one of those stories that just keeps unfolding:
A new email from Mike McQueary, obtained by The Patriot-News, describes in greater detail what he saw when he allegedly witnessed a boy being assaulted by Jerry Sandusky in 2002.
In an NBC interview Monday night, Sandusky said McQueary, the Penn State assistant football coach, got it wrong when he testified to a grand jury about witnessing a sexual assault. Sandusky told Bob Costas it was only horsing around in the shower.
The email obtained by The Patriot-News goes into greater detail. In the new email, McQueary writes that he made sure to stop the attack before leaving the locker room, telling his father and going to bed. The next day McQueary told Joe Paterno, according to testimony, and then explained what he’d seen to two Penn State officials.
In the email, McQueary said:
“I did stop it, not physically … but made sure it was stopped when I left that locker room … I did have discussions with police and with the official at the university in charge of police …. no one can imagine my thoughts or wants to be in my shoes for those 30-45 seconds … trust me.
“I am getting hammered for handling this the right way … or what I thought at the time was right … I had to make tough, impacting quick decisions.”
In the email, McQueary states that he also told Penn State University police about what he saw that night.
STATE COLLEGE, Pa. — Joe Paterno transferred full ownership of his house to his wife, Sue, for $1 in July, less than four months before a sexual abuse scandal engulfed his Penn State football program and the university.
Documents filed in Centre County, Pa., show that on July 21, Paterno’s house near campus was turned over to “Suzanne P. Paterno, trustee” for a dollar plus “love and affection.” The couple had previously held joint ownership of the house, which they bought in 1969 for $58,000.
According to documents filed with the county, the house’s fair-market value was listed at $594,484.40. Wick Sollers, a lawyer for Paterno, said in an e-mail that the Paternos had been engaged in a “multiyear estate planning program,” and the transfer “was simply one element of that plan.” He said it had nothing to do with the scandal.
Oh, come on, Harry! The best thing that could happen would be a stalemate that causes the automatic cuts to kick in — because the Republicans can only screw the Democrats if they refuse to raise taxes, but you allow them to cut Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid anyway. Whatever you hand them, it’s on you, dude.
And of course, you and the president swallowed the whole deficit “crisis” fairy tale to begin with (and were cynical enough to use the safety net as a bargaining chip). So on the whole, we’d be pretty happy with gridlock:
WASHINGTON — A new wave of pessimism colored super committee talks on Tuesday as Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) blasted anti-tax crusader Grover Norquist for meddling with the panel’s progress and suggested that the American public “impeach” him.
During a stakeout with reporters, Reid read aloud part of an interview Norquist did with The Hill on Monday in which Norquist said Republican leaders in both chambers promised him they wouldn’t accept a debt reduction deal that included tax hikes.
“It won’t pass the House or the Senate,” Norquist, who is the president of the advocacy group Americans for Tax Reform, said in the interview. “I’ve talked to the House leadership and the Senate leadership. They’re not going to be passing any tax increases.”
Reid also cited recent comments he said Norquist made to the Washington Post, including what Reid called “a stark warning” to super committee co-chair Rep. Jeb Hensarling (R-Texas): “I would say to Mr. Hensarling that he might want to call George Herbert Walker Bush and see how his second term went.” Norquist was referring to the former president’s “no new taxes” pledge in 1998, during his first campaign. Bush went back on his pledge once in the White House and went on to lose his second election.
“You’ll have to admit it is a little disheartening to read the stuff to you I read from Grover Norquist,” Reid told reporters.
Newt Gingrich made between $1.6 million and $1.8 million in consulting fees from two contracts with mortgage company Freddie Mac, according to two people familiar with the arrangement.
The total amount is significantly larger than the $300,000 payment from Freddie Mac that Gingrich was asked about during a Republican presidential debate on Nov. 9 sponsored by CNBC, and more than was disclosed in the middle of congressional investigations into the housing industry collapse.
Gingrich’s business relationship with Freddie Mac spanned a period of eight years. When asked at the debate what he did to earn a $300,000 payment in 2006, the former speaker said he “offered them advice on precisely what they didn’t do,” and warned the company that its lending practices were “insane.” Former Freddie Mac executives who worked with Gingrich dispute that account.
Irene-like storms of the future would put a third of New York City streets under water and flood many of the tunnels leading into Manhattan in under an hour because of climate change, a new state government report warns Wednesday.
Sea level rise due to climate change would leave lower Manhattan dangerously exposed to flood surges during major storms, the report, which looks at the impact of climate change across the entire state of New York, warns.
“The risks and the impacts are huge,” said Art deGaetano, a climate scientist at Cornell University and lead author of the ClimAID study. “Clearly areas of the city that are currently inhabited will be uninhabitable with the rising of the sea.”
Factor in storm surges, and the scenario becomes even more frightening, he said. “Subway tunnels get affected, airports – both LaGuardia and Kennedy sit right at sea level – and when you are talking about the lowest areas of the city you are talking about the business districts.”
The report, commisioned by the New York State Energy Research and Development Authority, said the effects of sea level rise and changing weather patterns would be felt as early as the next decade.
By the mid-2020s, sea level rise around Manhattan and Long Island could be up to 10 inches, assuming the rapid melting of polar sea ice continues. By 2050, sea-rise could reach 2.5ft and more than 4.5ft by 2080 under the same conditions.
In such a scenario, many of the tunnels – subway, highway, and rail – crossing into the Bronx beneath the Harlem River, and under the East River would be flooded within the hour, the report said. Some transport systems could be out of operation for up to a month.
The report, which was two years in the making, was intended to help the New York state government take steps now to get people out of harm’s way – and factor climate change into long-term planning to protect transport, water and sewage systems.
New York mayor Michael Bloomberg was so concerned that he went on to commission an even more detailed study of the city after receiving early briefings on the report.