Tag Archives: barton

Hillary Clinton Is No Donald Trump

Mother Jones

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC “-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN” “http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/loose.dtd”>

In the LA Times today, Barton Swaim argues that in this year’s presidential election “we are faced with a choice between two pathologically dishonest candidates.” He runs through a few of Donald Trump’s seemingly bottomless supply of obvious lies, and then turns his attention to Hillary Clinton:

Clinton’s career offers a similarly dizzying array of bogus claims—(1) that she had known nothing about the firing of White House travel office employees in 1993, though she had orchestrated it; (2) that she deplaned in Bosnia under sniper fire; (3) that she was named for Sir Edmund Hillary, who climbed Everest when she was 5; (4) that she was a fierce critic of NAFTA “from the very beginning” when in fact she worked to get it passed; (5) that she “did not email any classified material to anyone,” though of course she did, many times.

This is the sign of a pathologically dishonest candidate? Swaim rather easily found five clear and consequential lies from Trump’s campaign this year, but not a single one from Hillary’s. He had to go back more than 20 years to put together this list, and even so he couldn’t manage to find five clear examples. #3 was a trivial recounting of a family story that apparently wasn’t true. #4 is modestly misleading, but not much more. (Hillary was privately skeptical of NAFTA from the beginning, and became more public about it after she was no longer part of her husband’s administration.) #5 is not a lie at all. It’s true—unless you count a bunch of emails that were retroactively classified only years after she sent them.

So that leaves #1 and #2. I’ll give Swaim both of them. That’s two lies between 1993 and 2008—about as many as Trump tells each day before lunch. If Hillary is really pathologically dishonest, surely Swaim could have pretty easily found more examples more recently? Frankly, if Hillary really does average one lie per decade, it might very well place her among the most honest politicians on the planet.

Read this article:

Hillary Clinton Is No Donald Trump

Posted in FF, GE, LAI, LG, ONA, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Hillary Clinton Is No Donald Trump

What’s the Difference Between Barton Gellman and Glenn Greenwald?

Mother Jones

Glenn Greenwald makes a point worth repeating today about the steady publication of stories based on the documents Edward Snowden provided to several media outlets last year:

(1) Edward Snowden has not leaked a single document to any journalist since he left Hong Kong in June: 9 months ago. Back then, he provided a set of documents to several journalists and asked that we make careful judgments about what should and should not be published based on several criteria. He has played no role since then in deciding which documents are or are not reported.

….(2) Publication of an NSA story constitutes an editorial judgment by the media outlet that the information should be public. By publishing yesterday’s Huawei story, the NYT obviously made the editorial judgment that these revelations are both newsworthy and in the public interest, should be disclosed, and will not unduly harm “American national security.” For reasons I explain below, I agree with that choice. But if you disagree — if you want to argue that this (or any other) NSA story is reckless, dangerous, treasonous or whatever — then have the courage to take it up with the people who reached the opposite conclusion: in this case, the editors and reporters of the NYT.

There’s more at the link, but it’s worth noting that although Greenwald himself is the subject of routine suggestions of treason-esque behavior, very rarely is the Washington Post’s Barton Gellman given the same treatment. But Gellman has been responsible for some of the biggest stories to date based on the Snowden documents.

Why the difference? Obviously Greenwald has placed himself in the public eye more than Gellman has, but that’s hardly sufficient explanation. What matters is what gets published. And the truth is that, as near as I can tell, nearly every single document that Greenwald has published so far would also have been published by the Post or the New York Times if they had gotten to it first. He hasn’t done anything that these pillars of American journalism haven’t done too.

Visit source: 

What’s the Difference Between Barton Gellman and Glenn Greenwald?

Posted in FF, GE, LAI, LG, ONA, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on What’s the Difference Between Barton Gellman and Glenn Greenwald?

Biblical flood means climate change isn’t caused by humans, says Texas Rep. Joe Barton

Biblical flood means climate change isn’t caused by humans, says Texas Rep. Joe Barton

Shutterstock

The Great Flood happened, therefore climate science is a fraud.

Most people realize that the seas are rising, hurricanes are becoming more ferocious, and oceans are turning to acid because we keep digging up fossil fuels, burning them, and poisoning the atmosphere.

But Rep. Joe Barton (R-Texas) is not most people. He’s a die-hard climate denier, and a particularly clueless one at that.

During a hearing yesterday on a GOP bill that would fast-track the Keystone XL pipeline without the blessing of President Barack Obama, Barton muttered some batshit crazy stuff.

From BuzzFeed:

“I would point out that people like me who support hydrocarbon development don’t deny that climate is changing,” he added. “I think you can have an honest difference of opinion of what’s causing that change without automatically being either all in that’s all because of mankind or it’s all just natural. I think there’s a divergence of evidence.”

Barton then cited the biblical Great Flood as an example of climate change not caused by man.

“I would point out that if you’re a believer in the Bible, one would have to say the Great Flood is an example of climate change and that certainly wasn’t because mankind had overdeveloped hydrocarbon energy.”

Is this batshit crazier than when he apologized to BP for the way the company was treated after the Deepwater Horizon oil spill? You decide.

John Upton is a science aficionado and green news junkie who

tweets

, posts articles to

Facebook

, and

blogs about ecology

. He welcomes reader questions, tips, and incoherent rants:

johnupton@gmail.com

.

Find this article interesting? Donate now to support our work.Read more: Climate & Energy

,

Politics

Also in Grist

Please enable JavaScript to see recommended stories

View article: 

Biblical flood means climate change isn’t caused by humans, says Texas Rep. Joe Barton

Posted in alo, Anchor, FF, G & F, GE, ONA, Pines, solar, solar panels, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Biblical flood means climate change isn’t caused by humans, says Texas Rep. Joe Barton

Congressmember Joe Barton either is stupid or doesn’t care if you die

Congressmember Joe Barton either is stupid or doesn’t care if you die

Rep. Joe Barton (R-Texas) sits on the House Energy and Commerce Committee as well as its subcommittee on energy and power. In these roles he has repeatedly demonstrated that he is an idiot.

Well, that’s not really fair. I’m sure he’s a perfectly capable person in some capacities. In every photo I’ve seen of Barton, for example, he is wearing pants — and putting on pants is a tricky procedure that even small children have trouble with. He has also mastered the English language. The problem is just that he leverages the English language in an effort to consistently downplay the need for tighter pollution standards. (This is perhaps because he is also smart enough to have raked in $1.7 million in campaign contributions from Big Oil over the course of his career.)

He used the English language when, in 2011, he said “I’m not a medical doctor but my hypothesis is that’s not gonna happen” — where “that” is that people could die from mercury emitted by coal plants. Those who are medical doctors say it is gonna — and does — happen.

And he used it today, in speaking at an event held by the National Journal. I’d like to walk through some of those statements now. Included, for your convenience, is a rating of how stupid each statement is using our unique rating system.

This argument is a favorite of those who want to delay or obstruct legislation that seeks to limit carbon dioxide pollution. It comes in two forms: We exhale carbon dioxide, so how could it be bad? And: Plants need carbon dioxide to live, so how could it be bad? Barton seems to be going for the latter. (If you meet someone who employs the former, ask them how they’d feel about living in a world overflowing with their own feces.)

Plants also need water. Water is a life necessity. And if you get too much of it, Joe, you get scenes like this. Should we therefore regulate water? No, but we should sure as hell take precautions to make sure we’re not getting flooded out by it.

How stupid is this? Three Trumps out of five.

This is a nifty bit of footwork. (Joe Barton is also smart enough to tap-dance!) Barton escapes criticism for being a flat-out climate change denier but also avoids having to do a single thing to prevent it. The obvious follow-up question, then: Should the government invest in infrastructure that can prevent the worst effects of climate change? We’ll see how he votes on any package for Sandy relief and upgrading New York City’s defenses. But if his past votes on infrastructure are any guide, his acceptance that climate change is happening doesn’t actually extend to spending federal money.

How stupid is this? Two Trumps out of five. Politically, it’s kind of clever, if deeply immoral and hugely destructive over the long term.

In other words, Barton is saying that, yeah, yeah, the Clean Air Act did some good stuff, but it has maxed out on how much good stuff it can do.

Here, as we noted this morning, the “good stuff” is saving people’s lives. What Barton is saying in a flippant, dismissive way is that preventing thousands of early deaths and cases of lung disease is not worth the cost of asking polluters to turn down the amount they pollute — which is far short of stemming pollution entirely! This is because Joe Barton, while not a medical doctor, has done the math, tallying up a column in which he’s listed the cost of his friends and donors at Conoco and Exxon and power companies reducing their pollutants and has compared that to the various people — Joe Smith of Houston and Jane Jones of Cincinnati — and the bills they’re having to pay for chronic lung disease. And, however close it is, the cost to the companies is greater. So Joe Barton, always one who hews closely to his rigorous mathematical calculations, has no choice but to let Joe and Jane be sick. It’s only fair.

How stupid is this? Five full Donald Trumps.

In summary: These are the views of a powerful elected official, holding office in the year 2012. If you would like more information on Joe Barton and his views on the issues, see his website’s “Congressman Barton on the Issues” page, which is completely and understandably empty.

Philip Bump writes about the news for Gristmill. He also uses Twitter a whole lot.

Read more:

Business & Technology

,

Climate & Energy

,

Politics

Also in Grist

Please enable JavaScript to see recommended stories

Taken from:

Congressmember Joe Barton either is stupid or doesn’t care if you die

Posted in GE, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Congressmember Joe Barton either is stupid or doesn’t care if you die