MISSING: Dozens and dozens of articulate, well-informed women, capable of affording the US news media a broader set of knowledge, experiences, and opinions than the usual set of groaning gray men.
What happened to them? Why aren’t they ever on TV? What, pray tell, can be done?
Where, O where can they ever be?
Try looking here, for starters.
Not sure this is something you can expect Nancy Grace to get interested in however.
Hard to make this any more marvelous — the judge in a big L.A. porn case turns out to have his own unusual peccadillos:
Kozinski is one of the nation’s highest-ranking judges and has been mentioned as a possible candidate for the U.S. Supreme Court. He was named chief judge of the 9th Circuit last year and is considered a judicial conservative on most issues. He was appointed to the federal bench by President Reagan in 1985.
Mentioned for the Supreme Court? By whom — the United Dairy Farmers?
UPDATE: Then again, dude might be getting treated unfairly. Or not.
Seems to swing on whether he was responsible for material on his own publicly accessible server. Which may be a bit like the online equivalent of being responsible for what people can see through your window if they look in from the street. The argument now seems to be over whether the weirdness was deep inside, and you had to squint, or pressed up close enough to the window that anyone would assume it to be visible. So even a judge caught with cow porn while doing an obscenity case is still in an ethical gray area. Holy crap. That’s almost more fun to get your head around about than the story itself.
Go read this.
Keep in mind that most "conservative"* think tanks receive major funding from oil companies, defense contractors, and the world’s biggest polluters (along with stock brokers, drug companies, and other folks who stand to make even more money by getting rid of safety, health, and environmental regulations).
Go find the nearest dumbass who repeats their reassuring nonsense without understanding where it comes from.
Explain to them the global-warming-is-a-myth crap they spew is no more honest or respectable than tobacco-funded "science" claiming that cigarettes aren’t proven to cause cancer.
It’s the same thing.
It’s even promoted by the exact same people — the Competitive Enterprise Institute, for example, has often been home to the anti-science talking heads on Fox News, most notably Steven Milloy, whose career reads like a case study of the flip side of reality — disputing the banning of DDT, the effects of passive smoking, the effects of CFCs on the ozone layer, and (lately) the role of human activity in climate change.
Not surprisingly, Milloy and his own non-profits have received funding from Phiiip Morris and ExxonMobil, something Fox somehow has never gotten around to mentioning much.
Fifteen years ago, when the EPA linked passive smoking to lung cancer, CEI whipped up newspaper op-eds across America confusing the issue so badly that some people are still unclear on the overwhelming scientific consensus. Same people, same goals, same M.O.
CEI has received major funding from Amoco, Coca-Cola, CSX, ExxonMobil, Ford, Pfizer, Texaco, and Philip Morris, among others.
Dig into any of the big "conservative" think tanks, and you find pretty much the same thing.
Rule of thumb: if there’s an emerging scientific consensus which means some powerful business is in direct conflict with the public welfare, and some suit on the teevee claims the scientists don’t know what they’re talking about — basically, the suit works for the business.
Or at least there’s a 92% chance.
*I put the word "conservative" in quotes here because there’s nothing conservative about abusing the planet to protect the edges of a profit margin while paying people to repeat carefully engineered falsehoods. Creating that false association is one of the more successful propaganda coups of the last fifty years.
