Very cool. Seriously, don’t miss this podcast even if you’re not a science geek; it will blow your mind. Doug Emlen, an expert on dung beetles, gives a wonderful introduction to their amazing world. And he has some distressing news to impart about pre-ground canned coffee…
(Also, the segment on Westbound Records is worth a listen. Terrific music.)
Finally, unfortunately, it’s been a pretty bad few weeks for Mexican self-esteem. In addition to swine flu, turns out that the famous Chicxulub impact crater may not be directly implicated in dinosaur extinction at the KT boundary 65 million years ago. Bummer:
[As quoted in Greg’s blog]The newest research … uses evidence from Mexico to suggest that the Chicxulub impact predates the K-T boundary by as many as 300,000 years. “From El Penon and other localities in Mexico we know that between 4 and 9 metres of sediments were deposited at about 2-3 centimetres per thousand years after the impact. The mass extinction level can be seen in the sediments above this interval” says Keller.
Advocates of the Chicxulub impact theory suggest that the impact crater and the mass extinction event only appear far apart in the sedimentary record because of earthquake or tsunami disturbance that resulted from the impact of the asteroid. ‘The problem with the tsunami interpretation’ says Dr Keller, ‘is that this sandstone complex was not deposited over hours or days by a tsunami; deposition occurred over a very long time period’.
The study found that the sediments separating the two events were characteristic of normal sedimentation, with burrows formed by creatures colonising the ocean floor, erosion and transportation of sediments, and no evidence of structural disturbance.
As well as this, they found evidence that the Chicxulub impact had nothing like the dramatic impact on species diversity that has been suggested. At one site at El Peon, the researchers found 52 species present in sediments below the impact spherule layer, and counted all 52 still present in layers above the spherules. In contrast, at a site at La Sierrita which records the K-T boundary, 31 out of 44 species disappeared from the fossil record.
“We found that not a single species went extinct as a result of the Chicxulub impact…these are astonishing results that have been confirmed by more studies in Texas” says Keller.
Greg explains that it may not be as clearcut as Keller says. Then again, it may. Or even more likely, a little bit of both. Or not.
That’s what I like about science: unambiguous answers.
[Special note for the sarcasm-impaired: Of course, I know that’s not what science is about.]
Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) said Republicans would fight back hard if Democrats or liberal groups try to make the Supreme Court confirmation process about Sessions’ record, rather than about Obama’s nominee to replace Justice David Souter.
“If people try to go down that road, it’ll blow up in their face, because Jeff is a good guy,” Graham said. “My hope is that our Democratic colleagues — if you start listening to the bloggers — if we’re going to let the bloggers run the country, then the country’s best days are behind us.”
That’s so true. Everybody knows the country should be run by radio talk show hosts.
Bigot and homophobe Michael Weiner, whose nom de hate is Michael Savage [overcompensating a touch, are we, now?], is threatening to sue England’s Home Secretary because she has banned the sick clown from Britain’s shores. Personally, I don’t think England (or the US, or anywhere) should ban anyone for what they say, not even bottom-feeding slime like Weiner. But, like the infamous Richard Perle, who threatened to sue Seymour Hersh in England and never did, I don’t think Weiner has the guts to do it. He’d lose and he knows it.
Interpreting The Constitution Depends On Your Dating Preferences
by dday
Making Jeff Sessions sound like the founding member of the Center for Constitutional Rights, John Thune lays down a marker – none of them funny people in the Supreme Court, understand?
Gay-rights groups have voiced hope that Obama will select the first openly gay Supreme Court nominee, and the Gay and Lesbian Victory Fund has offered two suggestions: Kathleen Sullivan, a former Stanford Law School dean, and Pam Karlan, another Stanford professor.
But conservative leaders have warned the nomination of a gay or lesbian justice could complicate Obama’s effort to confirm a replacement for Souter, and another Republican senator on Wednesday warned a gay nominee would be too polarizing.
“I know the administration is being pushed, but I think it would be a bridge too far right now,” said GOP Chief Deputy Whip John Thune. “It seems to me this first pick is going to be a kind of important one, and my hope is that he’ll play it a little more down the middle. A lot of people would react very negatively.”
Of course, we’re in a society where discrimination no longer exists and only the white man bears the burden of this politically correct society. Thune’s just concerned about what others would think. Like “the children,” I assume.
Filibustering a Supreme Court justice because of their sexual orientation would really be a brilliant coda for the Republican Party. And despite some of the quotes in that article, they’d do it. They’d have to do it.
CNNs William Schneider says Americans don’t want torture investigations:
Schneider:Did the Bush administration torture suspected terrorists? President Obama says they did.
Obama: Waterboarding violates our ideals and out values. I do believe that it is torture.
Schneider: Do Americans agree? Yes. 60%. So does the public favor or oppose the Bush administration’s decisions to use those procedures? They’re split. That means that some people who believe the methods were torture favor their use against suspected terrorists. Call it the Jack Bauer mentality from the TV show 24.Nearly one in five Americans believe it’s torture and it’s ok.
Some congressional Democrats are calling for an investigation.
Leahy: There’s a lot more to find out and eventually we will. I think the sooner we do, the better for our country.
Schneider: President Obama opposes prosecution of the interrogators.
Obama: For those who carrid out some of these operations within the four corners of legal opinions or guidance that had been provided by the white house, I do not think it’s appropriate for them to be prosecuted.
Schneider: Nearly two thirds of Americans oppose a congressional investigation (57%). What if it were done by an independent panel? Still opposed.
The president is open to an investigation into those who authorized the use of torture.
Obama: With respect to those who formulated the legal decisions, I would say that is going to be more of a decision for the Attorney General within the parameters of various laws and I don’t want to prejudge that.
Schneider: A slightly smaller majority opposes an investigation of those who authorized the procedures, even by an independent panel.
The public seems to agree with President Obama:
Obama: I think that we should be looking forward and not backwards.
It is not surprising in the least that many Democrats agree with Obama and virtually all Republicans agree with President Bush — both of whom say exactly the same thing in exactly the same words: “America doesn’t torture.”
I like to think that Obama really means it, but then (with the exception of the ten percent of open sadists who think water boarding is torture and approve of Bush using it) so did Bush supporters, so it’s kind of hard to know what to think. I doubt they will do any more water boarding, but then it’s not really about water boarding, is it? There’s a whole array of immoral, illegal actions that took place which a majority of American people now believe should be swept under the rug and which our new president is asking him not to use. And like the good Bush supporters who don’t believe he authorized torture, we are supposed to believe the same of Obama. I guess it’s all we’ve got.
When asked if he thought the Bush torture regime was legal, Harry Reid said today, “legal, I guess it’s in the eye of the beholder.” There you have it.
I certainly hope that if Obama is continuing Bush’s non-torture policies, that the Republicans will be as generous with him when they take power. (I’m sure they will be, aren’t you?) At the very least we can be sure they will generously endow him with co-ownership of them.
And we’ll all be so much safer for the world believing that the United States sees torture, at worst, as some sort of misdemeanor, which any president can evoke at will.
So Frank Luntz is out with the approved talking points for the Republicans to tank health care reform. It is the usual Orwellian mishmash in which the insurance company whores (er .. Republicans) will threaten people with rationing and long waits, basically telling them that universal health care is going to kill them all in their beds. It’s kind of like Islamic terrorism, except without the head scarves.
Here are some suggested arguments for Republicans that Luntz calls “clear winners”:
—“It could lead to the government setting standards of care, instead of doctors who really know what’s best.”
—“It could lead to the government rationing care, making people stand in line and denying treatment like they do in other countries with national healthcare.”
-“President Obama wants to put the Washington bureaucrats in charge of healthcare. I want to put the medical professionals in charge, and I want patients as an equal partner.”
The usual.
The more interesting thing to me is the people who will be helping him with his little project:
eHouse Majority Leader Steny H. Hoyer (MD) delivered the keynote address at a Bipartisan Policy Center forum, “Unprecedented Federal Debt: Putting Our Fiscal House in Order,” hosted by former Senator Pete Domenici at the St. Regis Hotel. Below are his remarks as prepared for delivery:
“If I were to guess the single most lasting lesson of our economic crisis, and if I were to spell it out in just five words, I would say: this is what debt does.
“The recklessness we have seen from so many consumers, and from Wall Street, found an echo in the recklessness of the federal government. For years, our government has lived far beyond its means—and we see now that when we over-rely on debt, things can turn very ugly, very quickly. If a fiscal meltdown comes, there will be no one to bail out America.
[…]
“Our third response is, by far, the most important. That is the structural response—the actions we must take to confront the imbalance between our commitments and our revenues that are driving us deeper into debt every year. We will not bring our debt down if we do not reform entitlements and rein in the rapidly rising cost of health care.
“I am glad that we have a President who sees it that way. His talk of a ‘grand bargain’ that encompasses issues from entitlements to health care to taxes shows a clear understanding of the tradeoffs and sacrifices that will be necessary. Given the gravity of our situation, we cannot afford to take any options off of the table, either on the spending or the revenue side.
He reiterates his belief that we have to cut social security and believes that this will be an easy fix because Obama allegedly agrees with him. He says that health care will be hard because people are going to have to make big choices:
“We have pledged that, in the health care reform bill we will debate this session, we will pay for expanded access, so that health care reform does not add to the short-term deficit. But that is not enough. It is imperative that we slow the growth of health care spending over the long term. It’s important to remember that the American health care system is the most expensive per-capita in the world, and, compared to the rest of the developed world, it is not buying us better health.
“The health care debate must be about both controlling costs and expanding access. In fact, a focus on controlling costs is what will help us pass health care reform. But while expanded access will on its own help reduce unnecessary expenses, it isn’t a magic bullet for controlling costs; other options for doing so include electronic medical records and comparative effectiveness research. But reforming health care will also take many more long-term choices. Discussing the problem is important—but what we need from you even more is your willingness to actively support those who are willing to make those tough choices.
Now, it’s certainly true that containing costs is a major part of health care reform. But if Steny thinks that’s what the debate should be about, then he and Frank Luntz are obviously working hand in glove to ensure that it doesn’t pass. Luntz wants to scare people into thinking they’ll lose what meager coverage they have, if they are lucky to have it at all. And Hoyer wants to tell everyone they are going to have to “reduce unnecessary expenses” and make some tough “choices.” It’s hard for me to see how they aren’t on the same page. It’s certainly hard to see how that’s going to sell any kind of universal health care — they’re both saying that the cure is worse than the disease.
If the Democrats follow Hoyer on this, we can only conclude they aren’t serious about reforming health care at all. If the debate focuses on containing costs and reining in unnecessary spending (translation: rationing and long waits) we lose. People aren’t stupid. They figure they’ll end up worse off than they are already and they’d have good reason to think so. From what Hoyer is saying, the government debt is going to be retired by taking it out of the hides of the elderly and the sick, with a good portion of the middle class paying in worse health care than they have now. Why would anyone think that’s a good idea?
That’s why Hoyer and his pals at the Peterson Institute are pushing for a commission. They know that politicians have to answer to actual humans which renders this outrageously stupid plan to cut social security and medicare in the middle of a once in a lifetime economic crisis such a non-starter:
“The political challenges on Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid are extraordinary. So I think it’s very possible that finding a solution will demand an extraordinary process. Some Members of Congress, including Congressmen Cooper and Wolf, have called for a Fiscal Future Commission—composed of Members of Congress and the Administration, experts outside the government, and those who would be directly affected by entitlement reform—which would propose solutions and send them to Congress for a vote. I think they make a strong case. A Fiscal Future Commission would help protect that process from the political attacks that have derailed it in the past. This is also a function that could be handled by the President’s Economic Recovery Advisory Board, chaired by Paul Volcker.
Paul Volcker certainly knows how to stick it to workers, I’ll give him that. Maybe he can take the same meat axe to the sick and old. Sounds like they’ve got it all worked out.
Hoyer closed with this:
“[B]oth parties must work together in good faith. Bipartisan compromise will build public confidence that the solutions we agree on are reasonable, and it will prevent either party from exploiting those solutions for political advantage. Quite simply, we have to understand one another’s fears—Republican fears that Democrats will merely raise revenues and then spend them on new entitlements, and Democratic fears that reform will undermine the security of those in need and weaken support for popular programs. Those fears are understandable—but they should be outweighed by the fear of what will happen if we fail, if our debts overwhelm us, and if the fiscal meltdown comes. Republicans fear that taxes will go through the roof and think that families and small businesses will suffer. Democrats fear that the programs we value will be slashed, and that those we most want to protect—the weakest, the least powerful—will suffer the most. Compromising now is the only way out of that worst-case scenario.
Apparently, the current economic situation is chopped liver.
Hoyer believes the government should be telling people that unless the government starts cutting social security and ensures that the only health care reform that happens is huge slashing cuts in medicare and medicaid, things are really going to get bad. There is no reasonable economic argument that says this is true, certainly not during a bad economic down turn, but Hoyer and his buddies believe that fear mongering about debt in the middle of a major recession is smart politics. And for them it is, since they seek to confuse and scare people into thinking that draconian cuts in retirement and health benefits (just as many of them have lost a huge chunk of their planned retirement income from falling home prices and the stock market crash) is absolutely necessary.
Hoyer and his fiscal scold pals want to use this crisis to ram through “entitlement” reform. And in order to get that done, they need to tank health care, which they clearly plan to do by reinforcing Republican talking points and fearmongering about sacrifice and cost cutting and making “choices.”
Keep your eye on Hoyer’s Blue Dogs. If they have their way, by the time we’re done, health care reform will be seen by the public to mean the choice between giving up the expensive and unreliable health care you have for standing in long lines to sign up for a heart transplant. They are already teaming up with Frank Luntz to make sure nobody sees health reform as something they would actually want unless they currently have no coverage at all.
A liberal political group, the Progressive Change Campaign Committee, went live Wednesday with an online straw poll designed to gauge progressive support for a Democratic primary challenge to Sen. Arlen Specter.
More specifically, the effort is aimed at determining the depth of Netroots support for Rep. Joseph Sestak, the two-term Democrat who hasn’t ruled out running against Specter.
The poll, which will remain open for five days, asks whether a “Draft Sestak” movement should be created to take on Specter. The possibility of a Sestak run has been lighting up left-leaning blogs and provoking debate among Pennsylvania Democrats ever since Specter changed his party affiliation last week.
For his part, Sestak appears to be inching closer toward jumping into the race, and on Tuesday said on Fox News Radio that Specter’s switch was at least part of the reason.
“I think that even before Arlen got in I hadn’t made a final decision yet, and I haven’t,” Sestak said. “But I got to tell you that I’m a little bit more concerned now than I was then.”
One Democrat, Joseph Torsella, the former head of the Constitution Center who entered the race in February, has already vowed to remain in the race.
The Progressive Change Campaign Committee, which is devoted to electing progressive candidates to office, plans to announce the results of the unscientific survey Monday—perhaps providing a signal to Sestak as to how much support he can expect from the online liberal grassroots.
Adam Green, a co-founder of the five-month-old organization, said that his group’s goal was to “call the question on a primary in general and whether Sestak’s the candidate in particular.”
“Our hope is that this will have an impact on the political environment in which Joe Sestak makes his decision and in which the larger political world makes their evaluation,” Green said. “If it turns out that it’s 50-50 that would be very informative, if it’s 90-10 in favor of Sestak that would be very informative too.”
I back this effort. At this point, we don’t know how the netroots feel about Sestak or Arlen and it seems like something we should find out. My personal opinion is that the end run the Party made in getting Specter to sign on was undemocratic and antithetical to the bottom-up democracy Obama ran on.
The party does not get to promise people that they will not be primaried, period. The do not choose our leaders for us. If we had wanted that we would have kept the smoke filled rooms. It is insulting that they would promise such a thing to a Republican apostate (even if it’s just a wink and nod that Obama will campaign for him in the primary) particularly one who promptly goes on TV and declares that he is not a loyal Democrat and never will be.
It was widely believed that Sestak could have beaten Toomey who would have beaten Specter. There’s no reason to think that still wouldn’t happen, except now Sestak will have to bear the cost of a primary against Specter instead of the Republican. There’s every reason to believe he could beat Specter and at the very least show Arlen that Democrats are a bunch of potted plants he can take for granted. The only people in the country who love Arlen’s mushy brand of conservative politics these days is the village. He needs to make some choices.
So, go and register your vote so everyone can see, one way or the other, if there’s an appetite among liberals for a Democratic primary against Arlen Specter in 2010. Party leaders forgot to ask before they promised him things they didn’t have the authority to promise anyone so we’ll have to do it after the fact.
For your reading pleasure, some snapshots of the banks and financial interests controlling our economy and eating up hundreds of billions in public money:
A review of lobbying reports filed indicates that finance, insurance and real estate (FIRE) interests paid over $42 million to lobbyists who worked to defeat mortgage write-down in bankruptcy (cramdown) in the first quarter of 2009, as well as other anti-consumer legislation such as capping credit card interest rates.
The 2008 AIG bonus pool just keeps getting larger and larger.
In a response to detailed questions from Rep. Elijah Cummings (D-Md.), the company has offered a third assessment of exactly how much it paid out in bonuses last year.
AIG now says it paid out more than $454 million in bonuses to its employees for work performed in 2008.
That is nearly four times more than the company revealed in late March when asked by POLITICO to detail its total bonus payments. At that time, AIG spokesman Nick Ashooh said the firm paid about $120 million in 2008 bonuses to a pool of more than 6,000 employees.
New York AG Andrew Cuomo just issued 100 subpoenas to investment firms in his expanding investigation of pay-to-play schemes that defraud public employee retirement funds, and announced the participation of 100 officials in 36 states’ attorney general offices in the probe.
The White House, auto executives and union representatives were all able to come to an agreement last week to keep Chrysler out of bankruptcy. But the car company’s creditors — Wall Street banks and hedge funds — refused repeated compromises and drove the company under.
The refusal doomed a major American auto company to bankruptcy, but it may have been a smart business move for the lenders.
Many of the Wall Street firms holding Chrysler bonds may also own credit default swaps that they bought to hedge their bets. These swaps, which are essentially like an insurance policy on the bonds should Chrysler default, were likely mostly issued by AIG.
AIG, thanks to the government bailout, has paid off swaps in the past at 100 cents on the dollar. Under the deal they would have had to accept with Chrysler, the bondholders would have received as little as 30 cents on the dollar, for example.
Why take 30 or 35 cents on the dollar from Chrysler when you can get the whole buck from the American taxpayer?
Like one of these hedge fund managers recently said, “This is America!” It sure is. The land of the “we’re going to bring down your car company so taxpayers can indirectly bail us out with our credit default swaps from the company paying out millions in bonuses, freeing us up with more money to put into defrauding public pension funds, and our lobbyists will ensure it.”
