World News Korner

Courtesy of the National Journal:

Democrats aren't taking Nate Silver's latest Senate prediction lying down.

In an unusual step, the executive director of the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee on Monday issued a rebuttal the famed statistician's prediction—made a day earlier—that Republicans were a "slight favorite" to retake the Senate. Silver was wrong in 2012, the political committee's Guy Cecil wrote in a memo, and he'll be wrong again in 2014.

"In fact, in August of 2012 Silver forecast a 61 percent likelihood that Republicans would pick up enough seats to claim the majority," Cecil said. "Three months later, Democrats went on to win 55 seats."

The DSCC memo took pains to compliment Silver, saying his work at newly launched FiveThirtyEight was "groundbreaking." And the group's main critique—that Silver's model relies on a smattering of haphazard early polling in battleground states—is one that he himself acknowledges is a limitation.

But the comprehensive pushback from Cecil, the powerful committee's key staffer, is a testament both to the influence Silver wields and the sensitivity of Senate Democrats to the perception they're losing their grip on the upper chamber. Other outlets have suggested similar odds on the Senate, but none have earned this kind of rebuttal.

You know I have to say I am gratified to see the Democrats getting angry and pushing back against this perception that they are not motivated to turn out in 2014.

That is exactly the kind of defiance that we need to hang onto our seats, and perhaps even gain a few more.

There are some who have suggested that this is just a case of reverse psychology by Silver in order to energize the Democratic base, but I disagree with that.

I don't know if Nate Silver is a religious man or not, but if he is I would bet that he prays to the gods of math, data crunching, and logic.

He is not somebody who would fudge numbers in order to make a point, he has too much respect for them to do that.

So I believe that he believes his calculations are correct.

The only question remaining is are the progressives out there willing to see a replay of 2010, or are they ready to make people like Sarah Palin, Sean Hannity, and now Nate Silver eat crow?

I know my answer.

Source

Courtesy of HuffPo:

More than two-thirds of U.S. women voters oppose allowing corporations to refuse to cover contraception in their health plans because of religious objections, according to a new poll released Monday by Hart Research Associates.

The poll, commissioned by Planned Parenthood, the American Civil Liberties Union and the National Women's Law Center, surveyed women between the ages of 18 and 55 ahead of the Supreme Court case Sebelius v. Hobby Lobby. The Christian-owned craft supply chain will argue before the court on Tuesday that the Affordable Care Act violates its religious freedom rights by requiring it and other for-profit employers to cover the full range of FDA-approved contraceptives in their health plans.

But 68 percent of the female voters who would be affected by the Supreme Court's decision disagree with Hobby Lobby, according to the new poll, and more half say they disagree "strongly." Eighty-four percent of women agreed with the statement that the decision to use birth control "should be a woman’s personal decision, and her boss should not be able to interfere with it."

"Overwhelmingly, the women who are most likely to be affected by the Hobby Lobby decision say that corporations should not be entitled to exempt themselves from the requirement to cover prescription birth control, even on religious grounds," said Geoff Garin, President of Hart Research Associates. "As a matter of principle, these women don’t believe corporations should be able to use religion to pick and choose which laws they will obey."

Once again many of these so-called "religious businesses" have no problem covering men's Viagra prescriptions, nor do they seem to take issue with the fact that their tax dollars allowed Medicare to spend over 172 million on penis pumps in six years.

How can those two expenses NOT be considered for recreational sexual purposes?

But for some reason when it comes to providing medication to help women control their discomfort during menses, or take charge of family planning, or provide a safe method for ensuring that a fertilized egg cannot attach itself to the uterine wall, they suddenly get all righteous and indignant.

You know those of us on the progressive side are always talking about getting out the youth vote, and engaging the minority voters, but to my mind the demographic with the largest stake in this next election cycle might be the women. After all surely they are tired of this crap.

I think they are the key to really starting to bring about a change in this country that will see policies implemented that make sure they are paid adequately, treated equally, and respected as fully functional human beings and not simply breeding stock.

Source

Courtesy of Raw Story:

On Sunday, a pastor in Phoenix, Arizona implored his female congregants not to say “amen” in church.

Pastor Steven Anderson of the Faithful Word Baptist Church garnered national attention in 2009 when he told his followers that he prays for the death of President Barack Obama every night. After being contacted by the Secret Service, he insisted that he “didn’t say he wanted his parishioners to attack the president, he did say the country would benefit from Mr. Obama dying.”

Pastor Anderson first attempted to justify the silencing of women by quoting 1 Timothy 2:11, “[l]et the woman learn in silence with all subjection. But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence.”

He then asked the congregation to flip to 1 Corinthians 14, which says “[l]et your women keep silence in the churches, for it is not permitted unto them to speak, as it is commanded to be under obedience as also sayeth the law. And if they will learn anything, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is shameful for women to speak in the church.”

“Now obviously,” he continued, “before the service begins, there’s chatting and talking going on, that’s perfectly legitimate. When we all sing praises to God, of course the ladies should also lift up their voices.”

“But when it’s learning time,” Pastor Anderson said, hammering his lecturn, “it’s silence time.”

“So what it’s saying is that they,” the women, “are to learn in silence.” He then quoted 1 Corinthians 14 again, saying that “when the learning is going on, they are not permitted to speak. When the preaching of God’s word is taking place — and first of all, it’s not for a woman to be doing the preaching, and second of all, it’s not for women to be speaking.”

This guy might be the only one stupid enough to say this out loud, but you KNOW that a number of these fundamentalist assholes agree with him 100%.

I have said it before, but it bears repeating, that I will NEVER understand why so many women participate in a religion that was essentially established to oppress them and to keep them making babies, raising children, and doing housework.

Little doubt that this is the same mindset behind those much reviled purity balls.

Source

Just paid the Obamacare penalty for not 'getting covered'... I'M CALLING IT A LIBERTY TAX!
— MATT DRUDGE (@DRUDGE) March 21, 2014

Courtesy of Yahoo News:

Conservative Internet pioneer Matt Drudge has built his career on scooping up salacious gossip and breaking news stories.

But Drudge himself has become the focus of attention after announcing he paid a federal tax penalty after refusing to sign up for the Affordable Care Act.

On Friday, Drudge posted a message on Twitter to his 250,000 plus followers.

However, several left-leaning publications jumped on the claim, accusing Drudge of lying (or being misinformed) and arguing that the penalty is not in fact due until 2015.

The White House directly responded to Drudge’s claim on Twitter, with Director of Progressive Media and Online Response Jesse Lee writing:

Flat lie, no fee for previous year. Scary how much influence he once had. RT @DRUDGE: Just paid Obamacare penalty for not 'getting covered'
— Jesse Lee (@jesseclee44) March 21, 2014

Was Drudge lying or misinformed? Or is he being unfairly criticized?

Conservative outlets including Breitbart and the Washington Times jumped to his defense, echoing a later claim from Drudge himself that he was actually paying a small business or self-employed tax as part of his quarterly 2014 estimated tax payments.

The H&R Block Tax Institute told The Wire that Drudge is likely overpaying his tax debt now and that the overpayment will be deducted once the health insurance penalty is assessed early next year. However, H&R Block also said there is no formal payment calculation yet in place by the IRS for the Individual Shared Responsibility Provision. What’s more, when individuals make estimated tax payments, they cannot specify which government program their payments are going to, i.e. building roads, fighting wars or health care. So if H&R Block is right, Drudge’s claim is probably not exactly true. At best, he’s overpaying his taxes and assuming that extra money will go to his eventual penalty for not getting health insurance.

It's sort of convoluted but essentially Drudge is anticipating that he will have to pay the penalty for not having purchased health insurance as part of his estimated 2014, but there is no actual penalty that has been calculated as of yet.

So essentially Drudge is lying.

Of course the scent of lies drifting in the air attract the Right Wing blowhards like flies to a pile of shit.

So Limbaugh weighed in first, closely followed by desperate for attention Sarah Palin, who wrote this on Facebook:

From one Dittohead to all you others, aren't you thankful Rush defends truth, and as importantly, he defends those speaking truth! Rush is consistently loyal to the cause of justice, walking the walk as he does here in defense of Drudge calling out Obamascare. It's not commonplace that someone as high profile as is humanly possible takes valuable time to defend others. Very admirable. Very. Let me know what you think!

"Someone as high profile as is humanly possible?"

Okay that made me throw up in my mouth a little.

And by the way, how is having a radio show that is mostly listened to by rabid right wingers and comedians looking for material, add up to high profile?

High profile would be like Jennifer Lawrence right now, or Jimmy Fallon now that he took over the Tonight Show, or, dare I say it, the President of the United States.

Now THAT is as high profile as is humanly possible.

Let's face it the conservatives are so freaked out about being called out on their lies so consistently by others that they are impulsively circling the wagons whether there is anything defensible in the comments made by their colleague or not.

Palin is probably hoping that if she provides a little cover for Drudge and Limbaugh that they will do the same for her the next time SHE says something ignorant or untrue. Which will likely happen the very next time she opens her mouth.

Source

Courtesy of the National Journal:

American Crossroads is bringing on former Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice to aid an Alaskan Senate candidate who has recently come under fire from Democrats.

Rice appears in a new 30-second TV ad from the Karl Rove-founded super PAC praising Republican Dan Sullivan for his work in the Bush administration, and defends him from attacks on his Alaskan residency from a group supporting Democratic Sen. Mark Begich. "Remember that serving our country required some time in our capital," Rice says in the Crossroads spot, which has $170,000 behind it, according to Federal Election Commission records.

The move comes a week after Put Alaska First PAC, the pro-Begich super PAC, launched a TV ad noting that Sullivan purchased a nonresidential fishing license in 2009. The group also aired an ad in February highlighting that the Republican primary front-runner benefited from a Maryland tax credit while voting in Alaska, and that he was born and raised in Ohio. While serving in the White House from 2002-04 and the State Department from 2006-09, Sullivan lived in Bethesda, Md., but still owned a home in Anchorage.

You know while Alaska is a red state, I don't think that reminding voters that Sullivan once worked for one of the worst President's in American history is going to garner him anymore support.

And if the question is concerning this carpetbagger status then having an out of stater speak on his behalf does him virtually no good.

I actually find it interesting that Sullivan is already having this much trouble. After all his only real competition for the nomination is Joe Miller who is essentially a laughing stock up here, and Mead Treadwell who as Alaska's Lt. Governor has so little charisma that he is actually overshadowed by a Governor whose nickname is Captain Zero.

(H/T to the Daily Kos.)

Source

Courtesy of Raw Story:

Creationist Ray Comfort complained that Neil deGrasse Tyson had misrepresented the Bible.

The astrophysicist and host of Fox’s “Cosmos” said recently that using the Bible as a scientific source was problematic, because no one had ever scientifically proven a theory based on scripture.

Comfort said last week on his online “Comfort Zone” program that Tyson wasn’t qualified to make that determination because he’s not a theologian.

“You know, the word ‘science,’ it’s kind of a magical word,” Comfort said. “‘I believe in science.’ It just means knowledge, that’s all it means. There’s different areas of science, different areas of knowledge. When you say the Bible is not a science book, you’re saying it’s not a knowledge book? It tells us how God created the Earth!”

Knowledge, of course, is not quite all that defines science, which is characterized by systematic methods of observation in pursuit of new understanding.

But Comfort insisted the Bible was a science book because it described the origins of the universe.

“It gives us the basis for all creation, and it passes the scientific method,” he said. “It’s observable – Genesis – and testable. Evolution is not. You can’t observe something 60 million years old, but you can observe what Genesis says.”

So to be clear, this idiot is saying that Astrophysicist Neil deGrasse Tyson, cannot judge the scientific merit of the Bible because he is not a theologian, that science itself is a "magical" word, and that the Bible does indeed describe the origins of the universe.

Here let us examine this incredibly detailed description of the beginning of our universe, as explained in the Bible, shall we?

From the book of Genesis:

1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. 2 Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters.

3 And God said, “Let there be light,” and there was light. 4 God saw that the light was good, and he separated the light from the darkness. 5 God called the light “day,” and the darkness he called “night.” And there was evening, and there was morning—the first day.

6 And God said, “Let there be a vault between the waters to separate water from water.” 7 So God made the vault and separated the water under the vault from the water above it. And it was so. 8 God called the vault “sky.” And there was evening, and there was morning—the second day.

Wow, that really does describe exactly how the universe came to be, how it functions, what it is made up of, it's dimensions, it's age, and everything right? Um, not exactly.

So according to this there was an earth BEFORE there was the light of the sun? But are we not trapped in the orbit of the sun?

And the sky is made up of water? Water?

What about the stars?

14 And God said, “Let there be lights in the vault of the sky to separate the day from the night, and let them serve as signs to mark sacred times, and days and years, 15 and let them be lights in the vault of the sky to give light on the earth.” And it was so. 16 God made two great lights—the greater light to govern the day and the lesser light to govern the night. He also made the stars. 17 God set them in the vault of the sky to give light on the earth, 18 to govern the day and the night, and to separate light from darkness. And God saw that it was good. 19 And there was evening, and there was morning—the fourth day.

So the stars are trapped in the "vault of the sky," which is made up of water, and are there simply to "mark sacred times?"

And the moon is a "lesser light to govern the night," and NOT simply a satellite trapped in earth's orbit which reflects the light of the sun back to earth?

Really?

But what about dark matter, gravity, super novas, black holes, the Big Bang?

The Bible addresses none of that. In fact, and I hate to be a skeptic here, it is as if the people who wrote the Bible only had a fundamental, and perhaps illogical, understanding of the world around them.

Do you know what might help to clear up any questions that might remain, AFTER reading the Bible?

Science.

In fact it does not appear that there are really any actual factual explanations about the world, its people, and the universe in which we live, that cannot be answered WITHOUT the Bible.

I'm just saying.

And I would assume that as science moves forward and continues to answer heretofore unanswerable questions, the Bible, the Torah, and the Koran, will be looked to less and less for answers that can now be factually explained, with evidence provided to back them up.

And that's really the problem that Ray Comfort has with this Cosmos program isn't it?

He knows in his dark little heart that the more people turn to education and science to find answers, the faster charlatans like himself, and Ken Ham, Kent Hovind, and William Lane Craig will be out of a job.

P.S. For those who may wonder why I call Comfort the "Banana Man" take a moment to learn why NOBODY should take this guy seriously about anything.

Source