Where’s the Outrage?

The portion of the Earth covered by tropics has expanded since 1979 and will continue to expand as the world warms.

From the BBC article—

While geographers define “The Tropics” rigidly as the region between 23.5 degrees North and 23.5 degrees South, to atmospheric scientists it is a more variable zone marked by features such as the jet stream and the circulation known as Hadley cells.

On these measures, the tropics have expanded since the era of reliable satellite observation began in 1979.

“The edges of the tropical belt are the outer boundaries of the subtropical dry zones, and their poleward shift could lead to fundamental shifts in ecosystems and in human settlements,” the researchers write in the journal Nature Geoscience.

“Shifts in precipitation patterns would have obvious implications for agriculture and water resources, and could present serious hardships in marginal areas.”

As is the case in so many aspects of life, the poor will bear many of the most difficult burdens of this climate change.

[Read more →]

Tags: Environment, Science by Texas Liberal
Comments Off

I’m a surgeon and not a pollster. I do know something about statistics and probabilities. I also know that since the year 2000 whatever election does not go the way someone wants voter fraud is screamed from the highest rafters. It is clear that we’ve seen for a fraud in Florida in 2000 and in Ohio in 2004.

Smart people are still studying the results from New Hampshire. I think it is important for me to state a few things about polls that I know are true. First, exit polls are highly accurate. Discrepancies in exit polls have pointed the United States to claim that elections in the Ukraine and elsewhere around the world have been fraudulent. Secondly, polling isn’t simply walking up to somebody and asking them a few questions. Polling has become a sophisticated science. Over the last 20 years polling researchers have learned how to ask questions. Therefore, it is highly unusual for a poll to be off by 10 to 15 points. To use a surgery analogy, it is like me diagnosing a patient with a head injury when in fact they have a ruptured appendix!

The mainstream press has put out three scenarios to explain what happened in New Hampshire. The scenarios are somewhat based on the exit polls (which I find somewhat ironic). The first scenario that was thrown out for our consumption was the fact that Hillary Clinton showed real emotion and that connected with voters. This may, in fact, be true but most professional women that I know, despise (maybe despise is too harsh a word but you understand where I’m coming from) women that cry in public. The second scenario was that Hillary Clinton’s performance in the debates was so overwhelming that many women change their mind based on the debates. I watched the debate. I thought her performance was good but not great. I thought that all of the candidates who debated had a good performance. Their performance was cautious. No one wanted to make a mistake. Their performance seemed to be the same as the last two or three debates. No surprises, in my book. So I find it interesting that some people would look at that debate and think that Hillary Clinton’s performance was so much better than the other candidates. The third scenario is something called the Tom Bradley effect. Tom Bradley was the mayor of Los Angeles during the 1970s. He ran for governor of California and all the polling had him winning the race. Unfortunately, he ended up losing that race. Post election analysis showed that many of the white voters knew that it was politically correct to say that they would vote for a black man but when they got in the voting booth, they changed their minds. So, to translate this into the New Hampshire primary, many white women (I say women because it’s clear that more women voted for Hillary Clinton then voted for Barack Obama) changed their minds because of Barack Obama’s race and voted for Hillary Clinton. This brings up a couple of questions. Why didn’t we see any of this in Iowa? The exit polling should have reflected this but it didn’t.

No matter what you personally think about Barack Obama, one thing is clear, he has raised money, in huge sums, from every race color or creed in the United States. Once you put your money down, once you go to a rally, once you buy a bumper stick or you’ve become significantly invested in that campaign. Although racism still exists in this country, I’m not sure that the Tom Bradley effect would account for such a large swing in votes.

I would like to remind everybody that we’re talking about a swing of 13 to 15 percentage points. Roughly about 13 to 15,000 people (approximately 210,000 people voted in the Democratic primary). The other scenario, that has popped up in the last day or two is the fact that many of the polls showed a large number of undecided voters and that’s where the difference may lie.

Just for a second, let me throw this out - preliminary reports indicate that there is a discrepancy between the hand counts and the machine counted areas. Here are two websites (Brad Blog and Check the Votes) that have more information. All I’m saying is I don’t know.

Update: Dennis Kucinich as just asked for a recount of the vote. From Kucinich’s press release: Democratic Presidential candidate Dennis Kucinich, the most outspoken advocate in the Presidential field and in Congress for election integrity, paper-ballot elections, and campaign finance reform, has sent a letter to the New Hampshire Secretary of State asking for a recount of Tuesday’s election because of “unexplained disparities between hand-counted ballots and machine-counted ballots.”

Tags: Election 2008 by ecthompson
2 Comments »

Worst person in the world honors for tonight goes to :

3rd place - Bill Cunningham for repeatedly called Barack Obama - Barack Muhamed Hussein Obama.  NOT his name.

2nd place -  Billo (Bill O’Reilly) - tries to link NBC and GE to Osama Bin Laden

1st place -  Rush Limbaugh - suggested that Hillary Clinton won because she bused in out of state residents!!!

 

 countdown - Rush wins [2:06m]: Play Now | Play in Popup | Download

Tags: Countdown by ecthompson
1 Comment »

I’ve taken a little while to ponder what happens with the Democrats following New Hampshire. Let’s start with the badness that is our prolonged campaign season. We were told that we would hear more nuanced discussion. We would have more debates and have a better opportunity to vet and evaluate our candidates. Horse hockey. It has not worked out that way. Instead, candidates have been encouraged to raise huge sums of money in order to flood the airwaves of the early states with their campaign ads. Therefore, the more money you have, the better chance you have of staying in the race.

Tom Vilsack, the governor of Iowa, was the first casualty of not being able to raise enough money. After the Iowa caucuses, we lost Joseph Biden and Christopher Dodd. Just yesterday, Governor Bill Richardson of New Mexico, has dropped out of the race secondary to a lack of funds and a lack of support. A recent article, has stated that experience has been a liability in this campaign. I’m not sure that’s true. Instead, Tom Vilsack has no national name and no name recognition. Joseph Biden and Christopher Dodd come from relatively small states and are about as dynamic as Melba toast. Bill Richardson is clearly the most experience of all the candidates but he failed to gain traction for a number of reasons. He is a policy wonk and has a hard time communicating his thoughts and ideas in a way that is exciting and interesting. Because of this, he did not get a lot of television interviews — television equals exposure. No exposure, no money.

Let’s start with John Edwards. I think he was clearly hurt by not getting the endorsement of Senator John Kerry. John Edwards can use any positive publicity he can get. John Edwards was born in South Carolina. He has been advertising in that state for several months now. He really needs a close second place finish or a win in order to replenish his dwindling warchest. I think he has an excellent message but sometimes he has problems articulating his message in a way that excites people. Hillary Clinton, on the other hand, is fresh off of her victory in New Hampshire. She supposedly has been invigorated. I’m not sure that that’s true but it is clear she has enough money to go the distance. Nevada and South Carolina are the next two states. The latest Rasmussen poll (January 10) reveals that Senator Clinton did not receive any bounce in South Carolina from her victory in New Hampshire. The results show Obama 42%, Clinton 30%, John Edwards 15% and 10% are undecided. Most of the Nevada polls have shown Barack Obama to be trailing Hillary Clinton by 20 or more points. Nevada has a caucus and not a primary. Obama won the Iowa caucus but I’m not sure this translates to Nevada. Obama has gotten some major endorsements of some very large and very influential unions in Nevada. Again, I’m not sure how this will translate. One thing is clear, Hillary Clinton cannot lose both South Carolina and Nevada by large margins. The same is true for Barack Obama.

We live in very interesting times.  To quote Jackie Gleason, “How sweet it is!”

 

 Richardson chats with Olbermann [6:52m]: Play Now | Play in Popup | Download

Tags: Election 2008 by ecthompson
3 Comments »

So, I got raked over the coals by a commenter for “not doing my homework” with regard to a post which stated that Ron Paul’s newsletter had racist writings. First, the facts, there are things that have been written in the Ron Paul Newsletter that are clearly offensive. The newsletter stereotypes Blacks and Homosexuals. Over the years, Ron Paul has had varying explanations about his newsletter. In 1996, the Houston Chronicle asked him about the newsletter. “Paul said allegations about his writings amounted to name-calling by the Democrats and that his opponents should focus instead on how to shrink government spending and reform welfare.” Please note that in that Houston Chronicle article Ron Paul never mentions that he didn’t write the article. He doesn’t mention that some else wrote the article.

Now, fast forward to 2008. The same articles are being called into question. Ron Paul states flatly that he is for the individual no matter what color. He states that he didn’t write the article and, here’s the best part, he doesn’t know who did. The Editor of the New York Times has to take responsibility for everything that 100’s of writers write. Ron Paul, Dr. Personal Responsibility (one of the core believes of libertarians), will not take responsibility for his own newsletter. As a matter of fact, he admits that he doesn’t even read the newsletter that bears his name. Look at least man up and take some responsibility for something that has your name plastered around its front. I would have more respect for the man if he said, “Look, Wolf, it was a long time ago. I was approached by what I thought were like minded individuals to publish a newsletter. I really wasn’t a part of the operation but the newsletter had my name on it. I accept full responsibility. After, these articles were published, it became clear to me that I had to part ways with the guy who actually published the newsletter in my name. I apologize to any one who was hurt by this newsletter. This doesn’t reflect me or my values.” Is this answer a cop out? Sure, but it is better than the Schultz defense - “I know nothing.”

———–

From CNN.com:

A series of newsletters in the name of GOP presidential hopeful Ron Paul contain several racist remarks — including one that says order was restored to Los Angeles after the 1992 riots when blacks went “to pick up their welfare checks.”

CNN recently obtained the newsletters — written in the 1990s and one from the late 1980s — after a report was published about their existence in The New Republic. (more…)

 

 Ron Paul denies being a racist [7:22m]: Play Now | Play in Popup | Download

Tags: Election 2008, Race by ecthompson
5 Comments »