On Sunday's show, we'll have new details about the record temperatures this week. and we'll discuss what they mean for the politics of global warming. We'll also examine the political fallout from the Supreme Court's ruling on the Affordable Care Act, and the electoral impact of reports that Mitt Romney's former firm, Bain Capital, invested in companies that moved jobs overseas.
Joining Chris at 8 AM ET on MSNBC will be:
Bill McKibben (@billmckibben), author of "Eaarth: Making a Life on a Tough New Planet" and founder of 350.org, a global grassroots environmental movement to solve the climate crisis.
Eric Klinenberg (@EricKlinenberg), professor of sociology at New York University and author of “Heat Wave: A Social Autopsy of Disaster in Chicago.”
Thomas Mann and Norman Ornstein, authors of "It's Even Worse Than It Looks: How the American Constitutional System Collided with the New Politics of Extremism." Mann is senior fellow for governance studies and the W. Averell Harriman Chair at the Brookings Institution. Ornstein is a resident scholar at the American Enterprise Institute.
Joan Walsh (@joanwalsh), MSNBC political analyst and Salon's editor-at-large.
Esther Armah (@estherarmah), playwright and author, host of "Wake Up Call" on WBAI-FM.
Stephen Moore, Wall Street Journal editorial board senior economics writer, and the former president of the Club for Growth.
Leave a Comment:
I'm looking forward to seeing Esther again. She's great. But prepare yourselves for the global warming denialist trolls. If you talk about it, they will come.
Karl Smith appears to be a sociopath.
The idea of social norms being disposable items that individualists discard when convenient is a very old one. It is described by Plato when he has a protagonist for such disposability pose a thought experiment to Socrates. What if a "virtuous" man were given the "Ring of Gyges" that allowed them to become invisible. The could take what they want from whomever they wanted, and have sex with whomever they wanted, violating whatever norm they pleased without being seen.
Modern pluralistic individualistic societies have justifiable reasons for declaring their independence from provincial norms that seek to control individual behavior in cases where there is no harm to others. The flip side of this is that any society is in severe danger when all that binds us to behave morally is the question of whether our actions are seen, or whether we can do something with the tacit approval of our peers.
If the only reason we behave morally is to put on appearances for others, then such norms will fall away very rapidly.
Modern day bankers can hide behind utterly opaque debt instruments and in an environment of dark money. With this ring of Gyges on, the bankers indeed behave in an utterly sociopathic way.
Hayes understands some of the research that shows skills of empathy are more highly associated with those from lower social status. The point is that it is not just a robotic drone like following of arbitrary norms due to lack of education. What has happened when the elite learn how to make themselves invisible is that their hearts are corrupted, and they succumb to a bankruptcy of their emotional and intuitive facilities.
And that's pretty much the definition of sociopathy: the inability to empathize with another.
Something interesting Klinenberg found in his research for Heat Wave was that the principle of empathy is not equal for al groups ofl lower social status. For example, deaths among elderly latinos were very low due to their "It takes a village to raise a child" attitude about pulling together when the going gets rough. Many elderly blacks and whites had gone solo- and just like in the wild, the individualists die off when the species in an eco system is facing a substantial group threat.
THAT is why global threats like Climate Change or Occupy Wall Street revolts to the 1% are so threatening to the right wing. Becuase in times of war, individualists draw together and adopt sociocentric values and put in place sociocentric institutions (like sane health care).
When the GOP wises up, they will be able to resonate well with traditional group values of latinos. If progressives are smart, we will have welded to the party tightly so that is a very difficult task.
The problem is that the sociocentric attitudes are antithetical to the rationalist individualist formulations that progressives habitually frame ethical issues within. It is a point I raised on Hayes' proposed norm from last week, but this is already overlong.
I love the show. I do. It's like the 8am physics college course I had, really interesting if I could wake up early enough to attend it. Problem is most people who need to hear what the brilliant guests and Chris say are sleeping literally and figuratively. We need more of a Trade School type class teaching viewers where they can become part of the solutions and less of a College level approach debating the source of the problems but both are necessary.
I would like to suggest that there's a direct correlation with fuzzy thinking on public policy, lack of civil discourse and higher temperatures, giving new meaning to the term "Hot Spots". Look at all the areas of the world where there's severe political dysfunction and violent conflict and compare their average temperatures to places like the Netherlands, Canada etc. There are exceptions of course but still someone please create a "heat map" showing the correlation of rapid climate change and political dysfunction and violence.
Thanks!
@Joe: I understand what you are saying about having a more trade school approach, but when will we in this country "grow up". For so long, we have been dumbing down discussions on topics that affect us daily, and we make the excuse that we can't talk "intelligently" to a larger audience because they may not be on that particular level. Even many of our tv shows have dumbed down where its pitiful. So when you are saying that we need a more trade school approach instead of the so called "college level" approach, you are assuming that we as Americans are too stupid to think. What we have to do is to make it known that if you want to do well in this hyper-tech driven and knowledge driven economy..you need to be able to understand some of that advanced discussion that is going on with shows such as Chris Hayes..whether one agrees with him or not. Just like what Thomas Friedman says...the days of just being average are over...you need to now be able to think on a higher level..or get left behind. As long as we accept dumbing down everything, we won't get to where we need to be as a nation who is now competing with a strengthening Asia continent.
@Chrsti Thanks! Well lol, there's a difference between stupid and ignorant right?
If half of us don't believe in evolution or climate change or science as a source of facts then we have a problem when we try to influence those people with fact based intelligent discussions.
Wishing that people would just take the time to research issues and listen to the experts more is an admirable goal that I share Christi. However, I'm trying to be one of my least favorite words... a pragmatist. There are already millions of Americans who are being and have been left behind because of their lack of critical thinking skills and the daily misinformation from FOX and Right Wing Radio only make things worse.
I want to make this very clear, when I wrote "trade school approach" I did not mean "dumbing things down" as you put it. So thanks for pointing out that is one way I came across to people. By "Trade School Approach" I mean having discussions about the groups and people who are working on implementing solutions to fix our big problems. Having guests on (and Chris does this) who are making and using tools to increase civic engagement like helping the unemployed register to vote for example.
So who are some of the people working on solutions? Like I said Chris has had some of them on his show already and I'd love to see more.
Like the following:
Thanks!
You guys know that there is a "reply" button don't you?
Our current hot weather is due to melting polar ice. This is going to trigger a new ice age when the Arctic heats up.
Melting polar ice is a normal phenomenon that happens every 110,000 years, but carbon dioxide pollution has been speeding this up (we are ahead of schedule by several centuries).
hold accountable those suppressing the vital info from mann and
ornstein - these truths must not be suppressed. it is unforgiveable to deprive the electorate of such info that keeps them informed so they can best vote their own interest.
Hi Chris!
I appreciate your intellectual honesty and the ability to admit both sides to an issue. I won't get into the scientific merits of Climate Change other than noting the dialectic between the female PhD climatologist on the Weather Channel who felt anyone not believing in Global Warming should be disbarred or excommunicated from the American Meteorological Society and the co-founder of the Weather Channel who felt man-caused Global Warming is a hoax.
The radicalization of the Right? Really? Hmmm... Ever read a little book by Saul Alinsky, Rules for Radicals [New York: Random House, 1971]?? Mockery and Outrage as the two modes of expression of the Right? Let's see, Alinsky's Rules 3,4 and 5:
3. Whenever possible, go outside of the experience of the enemy.
4. Make the enemy live up to their own book of rules.
5. Ridicule is man's most potent weapon.
I'm sure you know, a copy of Alinsky's Rules for Radicals sits on Rush Limbaugh's desk next to his microphone. I guess the Right learns from the best...
I appreciate your intellect, and your ability to frame the issues clearly. I also appreciate this quality in Rachel Maddow, PhD. I do listen and try to learn. You guys are at your best when you teach, and not merely mock the Right for the same tactics they learned from your side.
All the Best,
Dave Jones,
Detroit, MI
Global warming is a scientific, not a political question. It is something you are either right or wrong about, unlike politics. Global warming is a fact. You cannot be considered an intelligent educated person today and be a climate denialist.
Google "The Great Global Warming Swindle." In it, the co-founder of Greenpeace stated flatly that Environmentalism, and more recently "man-caused Global Warming" is the last POLITICAL refuge of Leftists and Marxists who have no where else to turn after the collapse of the Soviet Union. Heidi Cullen, the PhD climatologist who is no longer with the Weather Channel, felt the same as you. One of the earliest pro-warming scientists (James Lovelock) has now stated that he has "over-stated the case" and has retracted most of his opinions on it. According to Al Gore, a politician, "The Debate is Over." The essence of science is questioning the status quo, and looking for new answers. "The Debate is Over" only in totalitarian states that would make Hitler (or Stalin) proud.
'I made a mistake': Gaia theory scientist James Lovelock admits he was
'alarmist' about the impact of climate change
Read more: #ixzz2059ynLzZ
"The Great Global Warming Swindle" has been thoroughly debunked. They falsified some of their data. James Lovelock has always been an alarmist and has never represented the mainstream in climatology. Michael Mann and other climatologists have long said he overstated the threat of global warming. If some on the far Left use global warming to advance their political views that says NOTHING about whether or not it is true.
FACT - The Earth is warming due to increased levels of CO2.
FACT - Human activity is responsible for that increase which can be DIRECTLY linked to the burning of fossil fuels.
The debate is also over regarding whether or not the Earth is round and revolves around the Sun. Stating such facts as facts is not totalitarian or fascist. Teaching the FACT that the Earth revolves around the sun is not liberal fascism. It is just the truth.
Storm, look, I appreciate your taking time to read my post. In your reply, if you replace the word "FACT" with "DOGMA" you will be a little closer to the Truth. Global temperature has been more closely linked to SOLAR CYCLES than any CO2 levels. The graphs in Inconvenient Truth produced by Al Gore, politician, shows that the temperature rises occur just BEFORE CO2 levels rise. Post hoc ergo prompter hoc in reverse? Cause usually preceeds effect, at least in this time-space continuum. Speaking of debunked, the "hockey stick" graph inconveniently ignores the global warming that occurred during the Middle Ages, well before the Industrial Age. Anyone remember the Global Cooling crisis of the 1970s? Time and Newsweek were trumpeting the eco-paranoia that our industrial output would usher in a new Ice Age killing us off with a frozen wimper. Your argument is akin to "The sun rises every day, so therefore Marxism will save mankind." Science is very rarely ever settled definitively. Newton gave way to Einstein whose Cosmological Constant he finally admitted was "the greatest blunder of my career." Einstein didn't want to countenance quantum mechanics and chaos theory, but they have come into fashion. Truth is, we are always learning, and the latest "facts" will likely be shown to be only partially correct. Your side is composed of "the open-minded and the intelligent," right? Nice try, Storm. Keep learning...
"In your reply, if you replace the word "FACT" with "DOGMA" you will be a little closer to the Truth."
FALSE - It is a FACT that the Earth revolves around the sun. It is NOT dogma. "Dogma is the established belief or doctrine held by a religion, or a particular group or organization." Scientific FACTS are not dogma because science is not religion. A dogma is a BELIEF that may or may not be true but is held regardless of whether or not it is actually true or false. So there could be a group or organization with a belief that the Earth revolves around the sun but if they have that belief not because it is TRUE but because it is an article of faith then that belief is DOGMA and not science.
What makes something true? Is a belief true because someone in authority says it is true? NO. Global warming is true because it is in fact the case that global warming is happening. NOTHING any person, scientist or group says makes it true. It is true because REALITY makes it true.
"Global temperature has been more closely linked to SOLAR CYCLES than any CO2 levels. The graphs in Inconvenient Truth produced by Al Gore, politician, shows that the temperature rises occur just BEFORE CO2 levels rise. Post hoc ergo prompter hoc in reverse?"
NO. The Milankovich cycles did cause the ice sheets to retreat, which changed the Earth's albedo, which led to further warming and centuries later CO2 rose and amplified the warming that was already caused by the Milankovich cycles. That does not refute CO2 is a greenhouse gas, IT CONFIRMS IT.
"Speaking of debunked, the "hockey stick" graph inconveniently ignores the global warming that occurred during the Middle Ages"
FALSE. The Medieval warm period was NOT a global warming event. It was local to Europe.
The NOAA:
"Anyone remember the Global Cooling crisis of the 1970s? Time and Newsweek were trumpeting the eco-paranoia that our industrial output would usher in a new Ice Age"
Time and Newsweek are not scientific journals and their writers are not scientists.
Science is very rarely ever settled definitively ... and the latest "facts" will likely be shown to be only partially correct.
Do you believe that at some time in the future we will suddenly discover that the Earth has never revolved around the sun after all? No, that is not EVER going to happen. From the fact that science is always advancing our knowledge it does not follow that your pseudo science is true.
My mind is open but I don't fill it with any stray thought that comes along. I am critical and skeptical too. It is not a virtue to believe any nonsense that someone is peddling. The truly informed and intelligent person discriminates and separates out the falsehoods and propaganda from what is true or likely to be true.
Which is why there's hope for you. Keep learning...
And that my friends, is how you shut up a denialist.
Hmmm... Storm, I love you, man! Your attempt at an airtight case sounds more like an attorney trying to win a case rather than a scientist accepting the universe as complex and largely unknown. Your insecurities drive your need to shout down any opposition. If you are wise, you will choose, with Ben Franklin's Constitutional Convention, to allow yourself to "doubt your own infallibility." As long as winning, rather than truth, is your goal, you will continue to blindly amputate any part of the universe that doesn't fit your worldview, or your politics. What is, IS. Our understanding of it is a secondary phenomenon. I'm willing to admit the possibility that I'm wrong, and that there are others out there who know more than me on a given topic. The debate is only over at the point of a gun. Science, and reality, rarely lend themselves to "final solutions" although Hitler tried. You'll have a tough time in life merely defending your own ego against "inconvenient truths." There's a lot of truth out there, and only about 5 % fits into the worldview of "the conventional wisdom." In your particular case, switching to decaf might help. So might a little humility that comes with maturity. Will continue to pray for you, and that Someone will help calm your Storm. Blessings, Dave
Speaking of settled science: "The Higgs boson may not have been found after all, warn particle physicists"
"Of course, no one can really say for sure who's right — CERN or Low and his
fellow researchers — without more data. Though it's worth noting that the
non-existence of the Higgs boson is not exactly a radical idea: After all, noted
physicist Stephen Hawking made a $100 bet claiming that the Higgs boson was fiction."
I would recommend Stewart Brand's "Ecopragmatist Manifesto" and his conversation at Edge.org: "We are as gods and better get good at it." Brand is one of America's best and most influential thinkers; a rarified polymath. I trust his mind to sort through the leftist conspiracies and right-wing agendas which get asserted in the name of the world-view tribalism that dominates the discussion. Dave, you seem to be an exemplary practitioner of motivated reasoning bordering on mysticism. Asserting the fallibility of science is one thing, but suggesting faith and mysticism as a substitute is medievalism. Are you choosing the authority of Peerless review over peer review? My guess is that the modest authority of science isn't authoritative enough for you; Isn't this characteristic of a conservative mindset? Craig Venter was speaking about climate science or genetically engineered food (I can't recall; hardly matters) and the idea of man-made solutions for man-made problems that threaten huge swaths of humanity and civilization, when someone in the audience asked whether he was worried about playing god. Venter's reply: "We're not playing." He might've replied with the question: If we don't play god, who will? Anyway, this seems to be the culture clash that stymies climate-change debate: The scientific method v. medievalism, or more specifically, a frightening brand of fundamentalist dominionism. This is why I'm suggesting Stewart Brand as a scientific intermediary, rather than say, Michelle Bachmann and her camp.
Phew, DonCoyotes! Thanks for a breath of fresh air. Wasn't Ventner the Human Genome guy? I think he challenged the government scientist position that the human genome wouldn't be known for 20 or 30 years. He said [B.S.], I'll have it figured out in one year! This spawned an "arms race" for the genome, the government wanting to have it public domain on the Internet, and Venter's for-profit company wanting to copyright it. They both got there at about the same time. Ventner challenged the "conventional wisdom" and forced the NIH to get off its keister and get the technology and expertise to get it done. As a medical doctor board certified in both Family Medicine and Aerospace Medicine, I've been a user and booster of science my entire adult life. My biostatistics and epidemiology courses during my MPH showed me the math behind the peer-reviewed science. Peer reviewed science is the gold standard, as far as it goes. My point is that there's never an end to the acquisition of knowledge and its analysis. Newton was considered settled science until Einstein came along. Einstein was eventually supplanted by quantum mechanics and chaos theory. The best science is an EXTRAPOLATION from the information we have. As a resident of Florida (I was born in Detroit and grew up in Michigan), my property is on the line during hurricane season. My wife and I watch with interested amusement at the various models predicting the path and speed of hurricanes. The most recent system was supposed to make landfall over Texas. It came ashore near Apalachicola, Florida, over 600 miles away. Only one of the several models came close. If we can't predict the path of a tropical system based on mathematical computer models, I'm a tad skeptical we can accurately model our entire climate system. I love science, I make my living from making use of peer-reviewed science, but I've learned that settled science doesn't stay settled for long. The human body is complex, and the universe is infinitely more complex. We learn new things every day at an exponentially increasing rate. That's why I've had fun listening to our young friend Storm huffing and puffing about FACT when our best facts are often proven wrong. Science is never settled, and political arguments based on "inconvenient truths" are on shaky ground at best. The New Science of Politics was a term used by the Founders to describe their efforts to learn from the mistakes of the past. That requires humility to correct course when we are proven wrong. The brilliant young have the "science" they obtain from "scienceblog.whatever" and must prove their dominance by out-shouting anyone who disagrees. Hopefully, Storm and his generation will gain perspective by learning from others, as well as their self-referential and often circular arguments. A quote attributed to Marx was "If you can cut the people off from their history, they can be more easily persuaded." [Google "libertarian quotes" and find www_lpboulder_com.] If all one has heard is education driven by a certain political viewpoint, then another generation whose ideas seem "old fashioned" are therefore suspect. Marx's genius was denying his system was ideological, merely the scientific FACT. I remain skeptical of many things, especially political arguments driven by someone's supposed FACTS, which oddly are beyond question--only DOGMA is beyond question. DonCoyote, thanks for a voice of maturity and perspective.
Oh, is this still going on?
"If you are wise, you will choose, with Ben Franklin's Constitutional Convention, to allow yourself to "doubt your own infallibility." As long as winning, rather than truth, is your goal, you will continue to blindly amputate any part of the universe that doesn't fit your worldview, or your politics."
You are setting up a false dilemma. The fact that science is always incomplete does not mean that we cannot know anything for sure. The Earth revolves around the sun. That is an ABSOLUTE fact. No future science will refute it.
"What is, IS. Our understanding of it is a secondary phenomenon. I'm willing to admit the possibility that I'm wrong, and that there are others out there who know more than me on a given topic. The debate is only over at the point of a gun."
No it isn't. That you think the only way to resolve scientific disputes is through violence only shows that you really don't get how science works.
"Science, and reality, rarely lend themselves to "final solutions" although Hitler tried. You'll have a tough time in life merely defending your own ego against "inconvenient truths." There's a lot of truth out there, and only about 5 % fits into the worldview of "the conventional wisdom." In your particular case, switching to decaf might help. So might a little humility that comes with maturity. Will continue to pray for you, and that Someone will help calm your Storm. Blessings, Dave"
My insistence that global warming is real or that evolution is true or any other fact of science is not a final solution JUST LIKE HITLER. But I see that you have nothing. You have no response to the FACT of global warming.
Why?
Because YOU ARE WRONG.
Hi Storm. It's me again. Y'know, my point is it is ALWAYS still going on. Oh, and I'm pleased you can spell the word DOGMA, oops, I mean FACT. Sagan stated "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence." Climate changes every day. The sun varies its intensity every day. Very cold winters are followed by very warm summers. We may be warming up. I don't know, but I don't think you do either. I'm pleased by the FACT that you are so invested in proving me WRONG. What is, IS. Our flailing around about it doesn't change the reality of it one bit. What does change is using an ongoing debate in science ("Hide the decline" East Anglia, anyone?) to push a POLITICAL and ECONOMIC agenda. Al Gore, the aforementioned politician, (and lawyer, and billionaire) has INVESTED MONEY, LOTS OF MONEY, in various shell organizations and companies that stand to make LOTS MORE MONEY from "carbon credits." So, exactly like the ROBBER BARONS of decades past, Gore would use the force of government to shepherd us into his corner on the market to make a killing. I'm a bit skeptical of the "proven science" and FACT of global warming--does skepticism have any place in science? I'm also not willing to be ROBBED by wealthy Leftists who are working on even more ways of using the government to force us to give them OUR MONEY. If the earth is warming, hot-diggity-dog. Is our CO2 output, including our own breath, a taxable entity? Not while I have any life and breath. Aren't water vapor and methane heat trapping gasses? Don't volcanoes put more carbon and other elements into the atmosphere than our vehicles and industry. I don't know, and please educate me on these things. "I'm a Doctor, Jim, not a bricklayer..." And, OBTW, are you in any way a scientist? Do you have any formal (like university or graduate level) training in the sciences? Climatology? Meteorology? Physics? Or do you just have access to scienceblog.whatever websites and know how to spell the word FACT? Philosophy major? Marxist Dialectics major? Videogame programming major? Show me some love here Storm.
"Oh, and I'm pleased you can spell the word DOGMA, oops, I mean FACT."
Dogma and fact are not the same things. A fact is something that has been scientifically determined to be true and is true regardless of what people say. It is a fact that the Earth revolves around the sun and it remains true no matter what people believe. A dogma is something that is decreed to be true by a political authority and which is asserted as true whether or not it is in fact true.
"Climate changes every day."
No it doesn't. That's weather, not climate. The weather changes every day, the climate does not. You don't understand even the very basics.
"We may be warming up. I don't know, but I don't think you do either."
Actually we do know. We can measure the temperature of the Earth. The Earth is warming. The last 16 of 17 years have been the warmest ever on record.
""Hide the decline" East Anglia, anyone?"
The so called Climategate e-mails have been investigated and the claims of professional misbehavior proved to be unfounded and your wing-nut conspiracy theory is bunk.
"I'm a bit skeptical of the "proven science" and FACT of global warming--does skepticism have any place in science?"
You are not a skeptic. Skepticism is the process of applying reason and critical thinking to determine validity. It's the process of finding a supported conclusion, not the justification of a preconceived conclusion.
"Aren't water vapor and methane heat trapping gasses? Don't volcanoes put more carbon and other elements into the atmosphere than our vehicles and industry. I don't know, and please educate me on these things"
Yes they are but CO2 is more important because water vapor is removed from the air very rapidly but CO2 stays there for centuries. The water vapor from smokestacks in the 19th century precipitated out within months but the CO2 they emitted is still there. And no, volcanoes do not put more CO2 inot the air than humans do. You have been misinformed. You can check these things easily for yourself by using teh Google.
"And, OBTW, are you in any way a scientist?"
No, I have a public school education from before when they dumbed things down. I can even make change without having to use a calculator. ;) But I have the time and inclination to educate myself and I have. So I can debate global warming or evolution or philosophy or politics because I have an interest in these things.
That is why I like UP. I don't always agree with Chris Hayes though mostly I do, but he has people on his show who can intelligently debate the issues instead of simply regurgitating their latest talking points. I really liked his exchange with Stephen Moore. Even though they were very far apart politically they were able to really get into the issues without devolving into a shouting match or simply spouting canned responses. I like that.
Hi Chris!
I appreciate your intellectual honesty and the ability to admit both sides to an issue. I won't get into the scientific merits of Climate Change other than noting the dialectic between the female PhD climatologist on the Weather Channel who felt anyone not believing in Global Warming should be disbarred or excommunicated from the American Meteorological Society and the co-founder of the Weather Channel who felt man-caused Global Warming is a hoax.
The radicalization of the Right? Really? Hmmm... Ever read a little book by Saul Alinsky, Rules for Radicals [New York: Random House, 1971]?? Mockery and Outrage as the two modes of expression of the Right? Let's see, Alinsky's Rules 3,4 and 5:
3. Whenever possible, go outside of the experience of the enemy.
4. Make the enemy live up to their own book of rules.
5. Ridicule is man's most potent weapon.
I'm sure you know, a copy of Alinsky's Rules for Radicals sits on Rush Limbaugh's desk next to his microphone. I guess the Right learns from the best...
I know you offer more than "selective outrage" and censorship. I appreciate your intellect, and your ability to frame the issues clearly. I also appreciate this quality in Rachel Maddow, PhD. I do listen and try to learn. You guys are at your best when you teach, and not merely mock the Right for the same tactics they learned from your side.
All the Best,
Dave Jones,
Detroit, MI
the 99% have to wise up and vote out as many repubs as possible
Stephen Moore argued that corporations should not pay income tax.
But the Supreme Court has ruled that Corporations are People. Mitt Romney has voiced his agreement with the court's ruling.
Does Moore think that corporations are people -- a special class of people who are exempt from paying taxes?
There's an old saying that the only certainties in life are death and taxes.
The right seems to think that a special class of "people" -- immortal corporations -- should be allowed to avoid both.
I was disappointed that Stephen Moore took over Chirs' show today. He was allowed to state every and all right wing views on anything to do with TAX. I wish Chris had a left wing tax expert on to counter the many half-truths and mistruths of Mr Moore. Moore won the entire debate.
Did I hear Stephen Moore correctly? Does he want a 20% flat tax on everyone? If so, that would be a giant tax increase on this middle-class working family. I assume that it would be a tax break for him.
Did I hear Stephen Moore correctly? Does he actually want a 20% flat tax? I have calculated that as a large tax increase to my middle class family, but I am sure that it will be a decrease for his. Nothing will send Independents running to the Democratic side of the argument faster than listening to the Republican "Talking Points" handbook. I feel as if I can recite it from memory.
Loved the show, again. You showed the "map", which as a liberal and visual person, I appreciate. Why is climate change always represented by maps of the US? Isn't this affecting the entire globe? Obviously the average American response is Neanderthal like, but what about the rest of the world. What is there view on climate change? What are they doing to slow the beast? I would like to hear more about that. It just seems as though climate change is always presented as an uniquely American problem.
I wish media would spend more of their time actually talking about issues instead of talking about talking about issues. Discussion of the need to discuss an issue instead of actually discussing an issue seems to be the norm. At the end very little wheat is gleaned. The chaff is absolutely predominant. Also, corporate media doesn't want to dance too close to the fuel sources for their corporate fires, for fear of being burned. .
Chris
We need to get the corporations out of our politics NOW
Can you help us to get the word about this petition please
Chris
We need to get the corporations out of our politics
Can you help us to get the word about this petition please
Chris Hayes works for corporate America.
Bill McKibben spent a lot of time talking about the need to inform Americans about global warming while simultaneously offering almost no actual information or discussion about actual global warming. Joan Walsh chimed in "I'm from San Francisco and we're looking forward to it" in relation to global warming. "It's getting warmer every year," she said. We did however learn about a big protest where folks got arrested and other important information. Corporate media is expert in just talking around issues without actually talking about issues. It's a corporate media specialty, especially if big advertising revenue and big corporate advertisers are involved. . It's also referred to as the big fakeout.
"while simultaneously offering almost no actual information or discussion about actual global warming."
There is plenty of information available to you. There are many science blogs and podcasts dedicated to discussing it from a scientific perspective. It is your responsibility to educate yourself and all you need is at your fingertips and free.
So, you agree the discussion was mostly uninformative.............Science blogs sound way cool. I've been gettin' schooled up on global warming for over 30 years, so, your posts supposition lacks coherence. I mistakenly favored your comment.
UP assumes that you come to the table with at least modicum of self directed learning and that you are already informed on the basics of the topics they discuss. It is your responsibility to inform yourself on the basics. UP will not hold your hand. You're a big girl and you can do it for yourself.
Science blogs on all many scientific disciplines are here:
scienceblogs (dot) com
Those that focus on global warming are easily found. The wikipedia page on global warming is also clear and easy to understand. You should probably start there and then follow their links for greater depth. You should avoid the propaganda of oil corporations put out by those who seek to profit from your ignorance.
Thank you for the fav.
In the May 10th edition of The New York Review, Steven Weinberg writes about "The crisis in big science;" specifically, America's ambivalence towards funding and the fact that the CERN LHC is poised to detect the Higgs while the SSC in Texas is poised to detect gophers using it as a deluxe burrow.
The July 4th announcement that Europe's LHC has indeed generated a Sigma-5 discovery of the almighty Higgs' particle would have been a good framework to discuss our own hayseed, @!$%#-kicker attitudes towards big science like climate change.
Without Mr. Ornstein there would have been an almost complete vacuum of relevant info in regard to the actual Healthcare Reform legislation. Sorry but Chris Hayes is becoming a perfectly vacu formed, animated corporate mannequin. The transformation has been almost instantaneous. Corporate America knows real "talent" when it sees it. Such a fuss, such bravado, such exagerration ... so little info. This show is becoming corporate chaff masquerading as cutting edge journalism. It's newsy soap opera in a sense and Mr. Hayes landed the starring role. Ain't he lucky? That's show bizness!
Hmmm... So, it's only legitimate if it agrees with your "Party Line"? Sounds like Jonah Goldberg's "Liberal Fascism" [New York: Doubleday, 2007] it the correct analysis. He also just published "The Tyranny of Cliches: How Liberals Cheat in the War of Ideas" [New York: Sentinel, 2012]. Maybe you need to broaden your reading...
Hi Chris, Just wondering how long it will be before the rest of the world is over allowing us to mess up their climate and decides we are too dangerous to be allowed to continue. They could form a coalition and attack a country that endangers them. After all, it is what we would do. We have been using a preponderance of the the world's resources for over a hundred year, sometimes by an enormous percentage and we, unlike the others (even China) refuse to admit a problem, much less address it. Could get messy, I think.
Um, China builds two MASSIVE coal-fired power plants EACH WEEK.
Stephen Moore's job, in part, this am, was to obfuscate, evade and divert. That is what the GOP does. It's sop for the GOP. Hayes actually caught on to the charade. Point! Anybody who thinks that fair play wins the day are naive. The GOP doesn't care about fair play. People that play fair need to understand that scoundrels abound, who daily take advantage of folks who play fair. Psychopaths don't care about other folks. Psychopaths feed on folks who play fair. Psychopaths are predatorial. They hunt and they feed and they are voracious and insatiable. They're primordial, like Mitt Romney. Romney's a shark in Mormon camouflage clothing. Psychopahs are leaders in corporate America and in the GOP, on Wall Street, on talk radio, and at Fox. The GOP doesn't care about fair play. Romney is a shark leader.
This comment is not related to the content of the show but to this site. The playback is a little messed up. With this morning's show and with yesterday's, some of the segments didn't show up in the player the way they are supposed to. The only way to watch the 2nd, 3rd, and 4th clips above, for example, is to come back to this page and click each of them. Only four segments (of twelve) from Saturday's show appear in the player.
People are listening about health care and the tax that these idiot re-thug-nicans keep screaming about...it's a tax on those who do not already have health care, not for those who have it...so it is around 2% of the populations that will be given a tax...I wish people who interview the right had the decency to correct them...people are listening, no doubt about it...
Chris, to your question re political impacts of states denying their citizens health care by opting out of the Medicaid Expansion: Republican states are quickly disenfranchising voters who would support democratic tickets and ACA through vote suppression. See? No votes against; no problem!
I don't know what they'll do about the hospital and medical corporations, though. Guaranteed payment vs reduced (or no payment?) is a tough one.