One last little rant...
Greetings, fellow Dot Calm Readers, Truth Crusaders, and Freedom Fighters!
I can see from the page view counts that everyone found the ransomware coverage here to be very helpful--I'm really truly glad. If I can save just one other person from the hell that my life has been for the past few weeks (speaking of which, I am STILL mopping up), I will be VERY grateful.
Other than that, I'm thinking it's time to switch up the format so it's easier for me to put together and more useful for you.
I felt obligated to put in all the content I've been putting in because elections are coming, and I desperately want everyone to have the information they need to vote wisely and well. But it's a lot of work for me to put those posts together, and I'm guessing they're too long to be practical for you to read.
I'll be opening up comments briefly--like for a day or three or a week or two, depending--to find out what YOU think I should keep and what I should nix. Not sure yet whether I'll publish your comments to the blog or just use them to shape it going forward. Moderating comments is a job in and of itself, not to mention wielding the almighty troll-ban hammer....
So...
For todaze post, let's just see what shakes out, shall we?
I do have one last itsy bitsy teensy weensy little rant to get off my chest before I get to asking for your inputs: Republicans and global warming.
(I promise to get back to doing more infotainment, especially the funneh, if you promise to put up with me this one last serious time, m'kay? I miss making myself laugh. Obviously, I'm easily amused.)
Regarding Republicans and global warming, there's a saying I've been using for I dunno how many years or decades now: "even animals are smart enough not to foul their own nests."
So why aren't Republicans--by which I mean the corporations, the rich, corporate media, evangelicals, and teabags--as smart as "dumb" animals?
Is a lousy dollar today really worth more to them than safeguarding life as we know it? Don't they have children and grandchildren they'd like to leave a habitable planet to? Or are they so phuquen greedy that they'd rather hoard that dollar now and let their progeny deal with the mess they are creating...assuming that said progeny survive long enough to realize just how badly they've been skrooed?
It mystifies me...
...all except for the evangelicals. They're banking on two idiotic notions to save everyone's bacon. One idiotic notion is that, since their God told them in Genesis to subdue the earth and everything in it, they conclude that "God put it all here for us, so it's ours to do with as we please--we have no responsibility to it." The other idiotic notion is that Jesus is going to swoop down from the clouds on His white horse (hm, can I get satellite footage of that?) to "rapture" them all out tomorrow, so what does it matter if they trash the planet today? (Harold Camping, anyone? Bueller? BUELLER?)
Speaking of evangelicals, I rather fiendishly decided to pull the climate change version of Pascal's wager on my Tea Party Christian friend, who's pulled the Christianity version on me: "What if global warming is real--wouldn't it be safer to believe and address it than not? What would you possibly lose by cleaning up the environment a little?"
He nearly split his sides laughing.
How nice that FUX Noise was able to give him such a hearty belly laugh. I wasn't laughing.
Below is a message from the Union of Concerned Scientists, to whom I donate when I can, outlining just how complicit the media are in the Republican drive to destroy the planet as quickly as possible (pardon the wonky formatting--Blogger has its panties in a twist today, as usual).
--------------------------------------------------------------
Science or Spin?: Assessing the Accuracy of Cable News Coverage of Climate Science (2014)
Accuracy varies significantly across major cable news outlets
April 2014
CNN,
Fox News, and MSNBC are the most widely watched cable news networks in
the U.S. Their coverage of climate change is an influential source of
information for the public and policy makers alike.
To
gauge how accurately these networks inform their audiences about
climate change, UCS analyzed the networks' climate science coverage in
2013 and found that each network treated climate science very
differently.Fox News was the least accurate; 72 percent of its 2013 climate science-related segments contained misleading statements. CNN was in the middle, with about a third of segments featuring misleading statements. MSNBC was the most accurate, with only eight percent of segments containing misleading statements.
The
public deserves climate coverage that gets the science right. Media
outlets can do more to foster a fact-based conversation about climate
change and policies designed to address it, rather than contributing to a
broken and inaccurate debate about the established facts of climate
science.CNN: Two-Thirds Accurate, One-Third Misleading
CNN
covered climate science 43 times in 2013. Of these segments, 70 percent
were entirely accurate, while 30 percent included misleading portrayals
of the science.- Most of CNN's misleading coverage stemmed from debates between guests who accepted established climate science and other guests who disputed it. This format suggests that established climate science is still widely debated among scientists, which it is not, and also allows opponents of climate policy to convey inaccurate statements about climate science.
- The biggest step that CNN could take to increase accuracy is to stop hosting debates about established climate science and instead focus debates on whether and how to respond to climate change through climate policy.
Fox News: Misleading Most of the Time
Fox
News covered climate science 50 times in 2013. Of these segments, 28
percent were entirely accurate, while 72 percent included misleading
portrayals of the science.- More than half of Fox's misleading coverage (53%) was from one program, The Five, where the hosts often instigated misleading debates about established climate science. In general, Fox hosts and guests were more likely than those of other networks to disparage the study of climate science and criticize scientists.
- Fox News did show an improvement from a UCS snapshot analysis of Fox News coverage in 2012, in which the network's coverage was entirely accurate in only 7 percent of segments, while 93 percent contained misleading statements. To further improve accuracy, the most productive step Fox News could take would be for hosts and guests to better differentiate between scientific facts about climate change and political opinions about climate policy.
MSNBC: Mostly Accurate, with Some Overstatements
MSNBC
covered climate science 132 times in 2013. Of these segments, 92
percent were entirely accurate, while 8 percent included misleading
portrayals of the science.- The handful of misleading statements were inaccurate in the same manner: all overstated the effects of climate change, particularly the link between climate change and specific types of extreme weather, such as tornadoes.
- MSNBC generally accurately represented nuanced findings around climate change and extreme weather, but they could do so more often to achieve even higher levels of accuracy.
Accurate climate science coverage can better inform public discussions about climate change across the political spectrum
-
Mutual acceptance of the facts is a prerequisite to having a reasoned debate about how to respond to the risks scientists have uncovered related to climate change.
Accuracy of climate science coverage by network. View full-size chart with caption. - Established climate science should always be portrayed accurately in the media and every cable news network has the opportunity to empower its viewers with accurate scientific information, even as its hosts, guests, and audiences express varying attitudes, beliefs, and values around questions of climate policy.
- Climate science can be complex and difficult to cover. Yet each of the major cable news networks, regardless of its overall performance, has shown that it can get the science right. Each can — and should — do more to achieve higher levels of accuracy.
Take Action
Rights and permissions: You are free to use the graphics above without alterations online, in written materials, and in presentations. Any online use must include proper citation and a link to this web page.
--------------------------------------------------------------
It's not like the science isn't there. It is...and it's been rubbing our noses in the fact of global warming for some time now. You can read the science for yourself at the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's website, including the full 10 MB report they compiled for the UN. The graphs are terrifying, but what I've been hearing lately regarding 2015 and 2016 so far is even scarier: we haven't just been breaking records, we've been smashing them by wider margins than ever before.
Even teh Dumbald Drumpf, who calls global warming a hoax, admits that he's going to have to convert his golf course in Ireland into a water polo court due to global warming if he can't get Ireland to pay for and build a big, beautiful wall.
According to the Union of Concerned Scientists, expected effects of global warming include
- Accelerating sea level rise and increased coastal flooding
- Longer and more damaging wildfire seasons
- More frequent and intense heat waves
- National landmarks at risk
- Widespread forest death in the Rocky Mountains
- Costly and growing health impacts
- An increase in extreme weather events
- Heavier precipitation and flooding
- More severe droughts in some areas
- Increased pressure on groundwater supplies
- Growing risks to our electricity supply
- Changing seasons
- Melting ice
- Disruption to food supplies
- Destruction of coral reefs
- Plant and animal range shifts
- The potential for abrupt climate change
So, what's it going to take for these doomsday dumbasses to wake up and smell the coffee? I can understand that they don't want to help the Democrats start solving the problem. They don't have to help. All they have to do is get the phuque outta the way!
It amazes me how stubbornly the Christo-fascists resist science. It also amazes me how stubbornly they resist compassion. I grew up in a devoutly Christian home. Our church taught us to take care of those who were less powerful or less fortunate than we were. They taught us to take care of the poor. They taught us to value people more than money and material possessions.
Isn't it amazing how Jesus' teachings have changed over the last 50 years?
Jesus' top priority in 2016 is to make sure that neither women nor gay men have sex...which leaves the straight men to phuque, what, children...?! - Because the Bible is clearly against bestiality and men masturbating. And DEFEATed "Dildo" Cruz will make sure those evil women don't masturbate because Jesus wants moar moar moar unwanted teen and poor pregnancies because no birth control or abortion for you, and we godly holy rollers might just throw you in jail if you have a miscarriage! Jesus' second priority in 2016 is for you to make as much money as you can, especially at the expense of those less powerful and fortunate. Jesus' third priority in 2016 is to demonize the less powerful and the less fortunate and to blame all victims for their plights.
Trashing the planet is just a fun perk--a hobby that comes along with trashing the people and enriching yourself as you impoverish others.
Jesus used to be such a nice guy.
Shame He turned into such a dick...
Click here to see moar funnies.
Let's let Darkmatter2525 wrap up the discussion on Jesus as a conservative...
Before I solicit your inputs on the blog, I just have one current event that I can't resist noting--via Democracy Now!--and it's the ouster of Dilma Rousseff in Brazil. Tapes have revealed that the fascists needed her out so they could stop the investigation into their corruption--which is why they replaced her with someone demonstrably corrupt. The sad part is that, so far, Obama is going along with it. Like I said--he and the Clintons are center right. Not liberals or progressives by any stretch. Even so, they are far, far better for the country and the planet than anything the other party has on offer. Especially the orange assclown and the RETARDad and DEFEATed blunder twins (Blunder Twins--deactivate! NOW. PLEASE!!!!).
-------------------------------------------------------------
Democracy Now!
|
|
-------------------------------------------------------------
Ok, friends...this is your chance! Let me know what you'd like to see in the blog to make it easier for me and more useful for you.
Here's a summary of its current features you can pick and choose from--or add your own!
- Dot Calm's shadow's original material, including essays, commentary, and star banners
- Links to news and infotainment you can use
- Mailbag (details on current issues via petitions and articles, including public service announcements like articles on the ransomware tech support scam--let me know if you'd rather have a public service announcement section that comes or goes as events dictate)
- Democracy Now! highlights
- Daily Kos highlights
- AlterNet highlights
- Movie time
- Memes
- Satire, like Crime Shows for Creationists
- Monday-Wednesday-Friday format
- what, what, what, McHale...what?!
Here's how to vote: since Blogger refuses to enable comments on this blog, we'll have to do it the old fashioned, brute force way...by e-mail. Get out your secret decoder pins, boys 'n' girls; decode the super secret e-mail address coming right up, and send your comments to dotcalmspageNOSPAM AT gmailNOSPAM dot com. SPAM SPAM SPAM SPAM...lovely spam, wonderful spam!
I look forward to hearing from you.
(Oh, and vote for BERNIE! Please send him a buck o' five if you can--I just did. His job isn't done yet. Let's help him as much as possible, m'kay?)
Thanks for reading, thanks for helping, and thanks for being you--you make my day!
- Dot Calm's shadow
In case you can't read the caption,
it's "Hairbrained"
posted by Dot Calm @ 5:59 PM
<< Home