The chairman of the House Science Committee sharply criticized NASA yesterday after the agency's top climate scientist and several public affairs officers complained of political pressure intended to prevent public discussions of global warming.
"Good science cannot long persist in an atmosphere of intimidation," the chairman, Representative Sherwood Boehlert, Republican of New York, said in a letter to NASA's administrator, Michael D. Griffin.
"Political figures ought to be reviewing their public statements to make sure they are consistent with the best available science," Mr. Boehlert said. "Scientists should not be reviewing their statements to make sure they are consistent with the current political orthodoxy."
The New York Times first reported the complaints on Saturday.
The above is from Andrew C. Revkin's "Lawmaker Condemns NASA Over Scientist's Accusations of Censorship" in this morning's New York Times. For anyone confused, the original article (by Revkin) ran in Sunday's paper, it apparently appeared online Saturday.
For PJ, here's Somini Sengupta's latest tome poem entitled "Nepal, in a Climate of Contradictions, Prepares to Vote:"
King Gyanendra,
the man who sacked
the government a year ago,
calls for elections
but jails political party leaders.
The main
political parties demand
the restoration of democratic rights,
but call
on voters to boycott
the polls.
At least one
mayoral candidate has been assassinated
by suspected
Maoist
guerrillas.
And in anti-election protests
nationwide,
dogs have been paraded
along the streets
with signs
dangling
from
their
necks
that read,
"Vote for me."
PJ wrote about "shadow puppetry" being in the article, but I'm not seeing it. (I can only take so much Sengupta in one sitting.) What I do see are brackets:
[By Sunday, nearly 600 people had withdrawn, leaving a quarter of the municipal races uncontested or without candidates.]
and:
[On Monday, a mayoral candidate from the capital was wounded in a shooting.]
Excuse me, but if you've got to update your Tuesday piece with Sunday information, you need to rewrite the article, not toss in a bracket. Now I'm sure it's difficult to figure out where to include "she spat" (as opposed to "said" which lacks the 'poetic' flavor Sengupta is infamous for) and also get your non-metered poem in on time, but it's still a newspaper. Creative writing should find another outlet and the Times should have put their foot down a long time ago with regards to Sengupta's efforts. If Sengupta's a reporter, then brackets to provide days old updates aren't cutting it.
We'll do only one highlight this entry to be sure to emphasize it. Jenny notes Eleanor Smeal's "What Does the Failed Vote on Alito Mean?" (The Smeal Report From Inside Washington, Ms. Magazine):
Feminists and progressives lost the cloture vote on Samuel Alito today, but will be stronger because of this fight.
Women's groups, African-American groups, Latina groups, labor, and environmental groups have been fighting shoulder to shoulder against the Alito nomination.
Millions of Americans called and emailed their Senators, urging them to save the Supreme Court for women's rights, civil rights, environment protections, civil liberties, separation of church and state, disability rights, and to stop a Bush power grab. Today's vote showed that this demand for Senators to stand on principle and vote for cloture was heard by a significant bloc of 25 Senators. This is more than the 22 Senators who voted against the confirmation of Chief Justice John Roberts in September. Moreover, the number of Senators who will vote against Samuel Alito tomorrow on the Senate floor will be nearly double the 'no' on Roberts number of 22.
The Alito fight lays the groundwork for a future filibuster of a right-wing Supreme Court nominee. Decisions by Justice Alito and Chief Justice Roberts will make the progressive coalition grow. And the Alito cloture vote helps to break the filibuster taboo. The threat of a filibuster will grow because these Senators were willing to step forward on the Alito nomination.
Now for the question of the day: Does the Bully Boy wear lifts?
We know he likely wears a wire when he's speaking. But does he wear lifts?
You may think I'm talking about his height. I'm not.
Yesterday, Bully Boy wore a strange hair style, the sides were combed/brushed forward. What was the reason for that?
You may have also noted (go to Yahoo and search photos but note this one) that his eyes appeared a little larger than usual. (His eyes can be squinty even when he's not scowling. And warning, if, like me, you avoid looking at him whenever possible, you might want to skip this excercise until your breakfast has settled.)
Here's the rumor, he's wearing lifts. He's got the skin secured to provide the tension to the face. The comb foward's hiding them. Bette Davis (the real Bette Davis, not the online one) used the technique as have hundreds of actors (male and female). Is the Bully Boy?
Go to the photos and check it out for yourself. A friend who secures them on many famous faces called and swore Bully Boy must be using mini-lifts. I have enough trouble keeping up with his ever changing hair color, so I'll leave it to others to decide.
Remember to listen, watch or read Democracy Now! today.
The e-mail address for this site is common_ills@yahoo.com.
the new york times
andrew c. revkin
eleanor smeal
somini sengupta
