False equivalence in the media—giving equal weight to unsupported or even discredited claims for the sake of appearing impartial—is not unusual. But a major media organization taking meaningful steps to do something about it is.
Earlier this month, the BBC’s governing body issued a report assessing the BBC’s impartiality in covering scientific topics. When it comes to an issue like climate change, the report concluded, not all viewpoints share the same amount of scientific substance. Giving equal time and weight to a wide range of arguments without regard to their credibility risks creating a “false balance” in the public debate.
This is a lesson for all media on both sides of the Atlantic—and not just when it comes to science coverage. There are many sides to almost every story, but that doesn’t mean they are automatically equal.
Unfortunately, too much of the media has become increasingly fixated on finding “balance,” even if it means presenting fiction on par with fact. If media outlets wanted to present an accurate account of the climate change “debate,” for instance, they would have to follow comedian John Oliver’s lead and host a “statistically representative” face-off with three climate change deniers up against ninety-seven scientists armed with proof. Instead, they contort themselves to find “balance,” and we’re left with segments like “Is the climate change threat exaggerated?”—presented on the always reliable Fox News—which promised to “weigh the evidence on both sides of the divisive topic.” It’s no wonder that only 60 percent of Americans know that most scientists agree that global warming is occurring—and almost 30 percent aren’t sure if there is any scientific consensus.
Read the full text of Katrina’s column here.
Read Next: No water for Motown—why Detroit is denying its citizens this basic human right.
One message from the current crisis over Gaza is clear: the Palestinians have to get rid of Hamas. No one else can do it: the Israelis, vastly superior in military terms, only strengthen Hamas politically by wantonly raining death and destruction on Gaza. But the fanatics of Hamas, who seem to believe that they can resist Israel militarily—along with the even more radical Islamist groups that run around in Gaza—do incalculable damage to the Palestinian cause.
In this case, I agree with Bret Stephens, who wrote today in The Wall Street Journal, concerning Israel and Hamas, “If you must have a nemesis, better it be a stupid one.” Stephens, a neoconservative hawk who is a blind supporter of Israel, certainly doesn’t qualify as sympathetic to the Palestinian plight. But he’s right here: Israel has no stupider enemy than Hamas. And the people of Gaza, entrapped in a hellish, prison-like entity—where conditions of despair give rise to the nihilist, Islamist radicalism of Hamas—have once again to endure the pain of Israel’s bombardment. And for what? Already in Gaza Israel has struck nearly 1,500 separate targets and killed more than 200 people, including civilians and children.
As I’ve written repeatedly over the years, in the 1970s and 1980s Israel’s intelligence service—especially after the rise of the Likud government of Prime Minister Menachem Begin in 1977—helped Hamas organize and gain power. The Israelis aided Islamists on the West Bank and in Gaza, including the Muslim Brotherhood (of which Hamas is a branch), in the belief (correct, as it turned out) that Hamas would be a bitter enemy of the Palestinian nationalist movement. Indeed, back then the early supporters of Hamas clashed with moderate and left-wing Palestinian groups throughout the occupied territories. Decades later, Hamas has emerged as the perfect foil for Israeli rightists and advocates of Greater Israel, such as Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.
In the latest round, Hamas’s idiotic decision to fight Israel by firing useless missiles against unseen Israeli targets not only gave Netanyahu a pretext for his brutal war but managed to erase the controversy over the premeditated killing of a Palestinian youth by a gang of ultra-nationalist, right-wing Israelis. Just a week or so ago, that killing transfixed Israel and generated horror among Israelis with a conscience. Now, while the story goes on, it’s figuratively buried under the rubble of Gaza.
Making matters worse, and perhaps leading to a full-scale assault on Gaza, Hamas arrogantly rejected a workable cease-fire plan that was proposed yesterday by Egypt and apparently accepted by Israel’s government—though not without criticism of Netanyahu’s agreement to the cease-fire from even more militant Israeli factions. The Egyptian proposal also had the support of Secretary of State John Kerry, although the United States could do a lot more, including issuing strong condemnations of Israel’s indiscriminate bombing of civilian homes in Gaza. (Apparently, the White House believes that Israel’s use of force is not disproportionate.) But it boggles the mind to think what Hamas believes it is accomplishing by continuing a suicidal campaign against Israel’s overwhelming might.
In Gaza, supporters of Hamas are chanting, “Ya Qassam, ya habib. Strike, strike Tel Aviv!” Do they live on another planet?
Kerry, whose life has been difficult lately—dealing with the Iran nuclear talks, the crisis in Afghanistan, the Iraq-Syria civil war and Russia’s continuing destabilization of Ukraine—is at least right when he said: “I cannot condemn strongly enough the actions of Hamas in so brazenly firing rockets in the face of a goodwill effort to offer a ceasefire.”
Not that a cease-fire would solve any problems, other than ending the current round of violence. It would still leave Gaza in its abysmal state, and it certainly wouldn’t restart the collapsed Israel-Palestinian peace talks on a two-state solution. But Hamas seems determined to be Israel’s useful bogeyman.
Last spring, The Nation launched its biweekly student movement dispatch. As part of the StudentNation blog, each dispatch hosts first-person updates on student and youth organizing. For recent dispatches, check out June 15 and July 1. For an archive of earlier editions, see the New Year’s dispatch. Contact firstname.lastname@example.org with tips. Edited by James Cersonsky (@cersonsky).
1. As Migrant Children Wait, LA Kicks Out ICE
With an influx of children showing up at the border seeking refuge from violence, cities like Murrieta, California, and League City, Texas, have put up the barricades. In Los Angeles, which has the largest undocumented immigrant population in the country, youth and community organizers have assembled in support of the children—and, with little recourse on the federal level, taken migrant justice into our own hands. On July 7, building on the TRUST Act, the ICE Out of LA coalition pushed the LAPD to stop turning over inmates to ICE without a judicial warrant. Still, ICE remains in our county jails and collaborates with the LA Sheriff’s Department, the root force of deportations. Moving forward, we will put the pressure on LA County police departments and county jails to cut ties with ICE.
2. As Gaza Blows, Thousands Mass for Palestinian Justice
On Saturday, July 5, a network of Students for Justice in Palestine members in Chicago, alongside a coalition of human rights activists, organized an emergency demonstration of more than 1,000 protesters—among thousands more across the country. In response to the murder of three Israeli youth, Israel has engaged in collective punishment, heavily bombing the Gaza strip and raiding West Bank. More than nineteen people have been killed in the attacks on Gaza; 17-year-old Mohammad Abu Khdair was abducted, tortured and killed by settlers overnight. On July 9, protesters flooded downtown Chicago for yet another emergency demonstration.
3. The “Utah Man” Gets Fixed
Since the early 1900s, the University of Utah has sung the “Utah Man” fight song at its sporting events. The lyrics of the song, along with the title, have been felt by many to be exclusionary and sexist. On April 22, following discussions with student leaders and broad campus outreach, the Utah student government passed a resolution asking the university to change the words to reflect the school and student body’s values of inclusion and diversity. In response, the administration assembled a committee to look into the issue and receive public comments. On July 2, after alumni and community members angrily demanded retention of the song, the university settled on a compromise, endorsing two different versions: the traditional version and a more inclusive version. Many view this as a step forward, but still feel that the decision reflects the administration’s inability to identify and effectively address issues of diversity and inclusion on campus.
4. The Confederate Flag Falls
The Committee is a group of primarily black law students at Washington and Lee University. In the fall, we drafted a list of grievances with the university over the experiences of black students. One of our goals was to get Confederate flags removed from Lee Chapel on campus, where they have flown for nearly eighty years. Members of the Committee believed the removal of the flags would improve the experiences of black students who sit in the chapel for campus events. We pledged to engage in acts of civil disobedience if our demands were not met. Fortunately, university officials responded by seriously considering our concerns. On July 8, the president announced that the Confederate flags located on the campus would be removed. The efforts of the Committee have reignited a dialogue about diversity and inclusion on campus and encouraged the administration to continue working to make it a more welcoming place for all students, particularly black students.
5. In Arizona, the Courts Overrule Jan Brewer
August 15, 2012, was the first day that DREAMers, a class of undocumented youth who arrived as children, were able to submit their application to receive a work authorization permit under DACA. That same day, Arizona Governor Jan Brewer used her executive power to halt driver’s licenses for DACA beneficiaries. In response, members of the Arizona DREAM Act Coalition marched to the capitol to request a meeting with the governor, who refused. That November, ADAC, alongside NILC, MALDEF and the ACLU, filed a lawsuit against the governor on constitutional grounds. On July 7, after two years of meetings, actions and canvasses, the Ninth Circuit issued a preliminary injunction against the ban. Moving forward, we will host a series of actions to ensure we win the lawsuit.
6. In North Carolina, Students Put Voting Rights on Trial
In 2012, the Koch brothers and right-wing millionaire Art Pope achieved an extremist takeover of North Carolina, resulting in devastating legislation from healthcare to education to voting rights. Fifty years after the original Freedom Summer in Mississippi, youth are organizing to reverse the onslaught. July 7 marked the first day of hearings for a preliminary injunction on the most draconian voter suppression law in the country, which eliminates same-day registration and pre-registration for 16- and 17-year-olds, guts campaign finance laws and requires a photo ID but prohibits the usage of student IDs. In response to this law, we’ve mobilized at Moral Monday’s with the state NAACP, and more than 350 people with NC Vote Defenders and Democracy NC have monitored polls in thirty-four counties. This month, while youth pack the court room and county board of elections, the Youth Organizing Institute Freedom School is training high school students on community organizing to build on the legacy of youth struggle in North Carolina.
7. The Harris v. Quinn Generation
On July 8, one week after the Harris v. Quinn ruling, home care workers in Minnesota filed for what will be the largest union election in Minnesota history, covering more than 26,000 workers, with SEIU Healthcare Minnesota. I have been a home care worker now for almost four years and care for my mother who started receiving these services after having a few minor strokes. When I first found this campaign, I heard stories of others’ struggles, from younger people like me to others who are older than my grandparents, and realized that I was not alone. In our winning battle to gain the right to vote for our union last year, there were nights I even slept on the floor at the state capitol. A win in our election later this summer would bring us one step closer to our goal of making our work Invisible No More.
8. The FCC’s Communication Gap
On June 30, Federal Communications Commission Chairman Tom Wheeler arrived at the South Broadway Cultural Center in Albuquerque, New Mexico, for a discussion with local youth. The event, hosted by Media Literacy Project and Digital Justice Coalition of New Mexico, was organized to promote youth knowledge and representation in discussions surrounding media policy and the FCC—which has no youth involvement at any level. In New Mexico, which ranks last in internet connectivity, lack of access keeps youth from connecting with loved ones and friends, fulfilling homework requirements, gaining health information and finding jobs and educational opportunities. Young people ranging in age from 12 to 20 took the mic to ask about net neutrality, the security of the Lifeline program and broadband in rural areas. Following the event, the chairman agreed to work toward preserving the Lifeline program and improving broadband connections in tribal and rural New Mexico—and, alongside New Mexico State Senator Jacob Candelaria, committed to consulting youth voices on issues of media justice.
9. Can Dyett High School Be Saved?
In 2012, Chicago Public Schools announced that Walter H. Dyett High School, where I graduated this spring, would be phased out and closed in 2015. If Dyett closes, we won’t have any neighborhood high schools in the Bronzeville area. This spring, we delivered 1,000 signatures and 500 postcards of support for the Dyett Global Leadership and Green Technology plan; met with Mayor Rahm Emanuel’s office; assembled in front of Alderman Will Burns’s ward office for three days and nights; and took over a city council meeting chanting, “Burns, do your job!” Since early June, students and community members have been pressuring Burns to hold a public hearing about Dyett’s future; with no response by our stated deadline of July 9, we will hold one of our own.
10. What Will Hillary Do With $225,000?
This October, former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton will be cashing in $225,000 to speak to the non-profit arm of the University of Nevada–Las Vegas. In opposition to outrageous expenditures like these, and near-constant tuition hikes, UNLV students have organized to request that she donate her speaking fee to the 23,000 students of UNLV. While Clinton’s fee is coming from private donors and funds from her appearance are set to go to the university, the money from the fee could help us directly. Just a few weeks earlier, thousands of UNLV students voiced our opposition to a 17 percent tuition hike, with hundreds signing a Statement of Solidarity and dozens standing up at the Board of Regents meeting about being priced out of a quality higher education. As we await Secretary Clinton’s response, UNLV students will continue pressuring administrators and legislators on their spending and tuition decisions—and show that we will not be silent.
—Daniel Waqar and Elias Benjelloun
I am often asked, given my love of soccer and my criticisms of how the World Cup is organized, whether it is possible in the twenty-first century to have the spectacle of top-notch organized sports and have it done ethically? Or, can it at least be done more ethically than the neoliberal carnival of debt, displacement and militarization we normally see?
Well yesterday, I witnessed a better, more humane version of the mass spectacle of soccer, and feel remarkably rejuvenated for the experience. No, I’m not talking about the World Cup final between Argentina and Germany. I’m not talking about an event that is supposed to be the apex of “the people’s game” that the people cannot afford to attend. I’m not talking about an event surrounded by a one-kilometer exclusion zone and guarded by a small army for the pleasure of a den of thieves including Vladamir Putin, Angela Merkel, Dilma Rousseff and their pied piper of graft, FIFA chief Sepp Blatter.
I’m not talking about a final game that took place while protesters who had been promised by their government that they could assemble peaceably were tear gassed and shot with rubber bullets at the supposed fan-fest put on by FIFA for tourist consumption.
I’m not talking about an event that displaced thousands of people for the almighty purpose of producing billions in profits for Brazil’s construction, real estate and surveillance industries. I’m not talking about an event that put a fortune in the hands of Israeli armament companies and counterinsurgency “advisers” who market themselves as bringing the hands-on experience they have had turning Gaza into an open air prison, and then sell that experience to countries hosting the Olympics in the World Cup. I’m talking about another game entirely.
I’m talking about the game yesterday between the Seattle Sounders and the Portland Timbers here in the Emerald City. It was just me and 65,000 of my closest friends chanting, screaming, yelling and of course standing for the full ninety minutes as the Sounders beat the Timbers 2-0, led by the inimitable Clint Dempsey, scoring Seattle’s opening goal and then hitting the cross bar at the end on a shot that would’ve been highlight material for the next year. Having recently returned from Brazil where I attended World Cup matches, it was not difficult to count off the ways that this experience was not only different but also “ethical” in the way a FIFA-run tournament could never be.
Let’s start with the ticket prices. We were right there just a few rows up from the field for $24 bucks a pop. Twenty-four dollars would pay for about two minutes of World Cup action, especially if you bought your tickets through FIFA’s don’t ask, don’t tell network of ticket brokers.
Speaking of the stadium, there was also not a one-kilometer exclusion zone surrounding it and people could actually—even without tickets!—get near the facility that their tax dollars purchased. It is also worth adding that the Sounders play in the home of the Seattle Seahawks. As of now, anyway, there are no demands to build a new publicly funded stadium just for them.
I loved everything about the Sounders-Timbers game. I loved the singing of Woody Guthrie songs. I loved the signs. I loved the colors. I loved the group-cussing (to each their own). I loved the chants and cheers that made it seem like everyone in the crowd had been rehearsing for hours before the start of game time. I loved that it seemed to be a combination of sports and Queen at Live-Aid.
I loved the fact that the 6-year-old I was with had the time of his life and didn’t sit down for ninety minutes. And I loved the play. Maybe it wasn’t World Cup semifinals quality but it was passionate and powerful. Its very existence stands as a threat to FIFA: a living embodiment of the idea that there is an alternative to their wretched stench.
The Sounders-Timbers game, coming just hours after a desultory World Cup Final, entirety convinced me like little else that sports truly is like a fire and you can use a fire to cook a meal or burn down your house. In the hands of FIFA, the house of international soccer is burning down while they play a chorus of discordant violins. But this doesn’t have to be the case. If we want ethical soccer on a local, national or global scale, then along with the out-of-control flames of greed, corruption displacement and match fixing, FIFA itself will need to be extinguished.
It’s been nearly two months since the Federal Communications Commission announced new rules that could destroy net neutrality, and the fight to preserve the open Internet is heating up. Earlier this month, Color of Change (COC), an organization devoted to strengthening the political voice of black Americans, took aim at ten members of the Congressional Black Caucus (CBC) for being on the wrong side of the fight. The representatives—who COC points out have taken large amounts of money from the telecom industry—signed a letter attacking one of the key steps needed to protect net neutrality: reclassifying Internet service as a public utility. In a petition directed at the ten representatives, Color of Change stressed the high stakes of the campaign:
By signing a letter attacking the FCC’s proposal to protect net neutrality by reclassifying Internet service as a public utility, you are assisting big phone and cable companies in threatening the Internet as we know it. You have taken thousands of dollars in campaign contributions from the telecom industry, and now you are putting the telecom lobby’s agenda above the interests of your constituents and of Black America. Your actions threaten both the Black voice in national and international discourse, and the moral authority of the Congressional Black Caucus as an advocate for Black America.
Sign Color of Change’s petition to members of the Congressional Black Caucus calling on them to fight to protect the open Internet.
The need to reclassify Internet service as a public utility became all the more apparent after an appeals court ruled early this year that, under the current classification, the FCC could not enforce its Open Internet Order to preserve net neutrality. At The Root, Color of Change Executive Director Rashad Robinson broke down the implications of that decision for communities of color.
In a bit that famously sent so many viewers to the FCC’s website that it crashed, John Oliver hilariously explains the debate over net neutrality.
The Supreme Court’s decision in Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Storesrevealed just how far the law now allows corporations to reach into women’s private lives. Now, another case against the same craft store chain is reaching into the ladies’ room as well.
Meggan Sommerville, a Hobby Lobby frameshop manager in Aurora, Illinois, has for years been shut out of the store’s bathroom because her boss insists that, as a trans woman, she cannot use the facilities. She is pressing a discrimination case with the Illinois Human Rights Commission, contending that the ban is both insulting and illegal under state laws barring discrimination in both employment and in public accommodations. The lockout has become a full-fledged civil rights battle—and perhaps the next legal showdown in the debate around corporate personhood, religion and civil rights at work.
A sixteen-year Hobby Lobby employee, Sommerville underwent her transition in 2010, and after informing her manager and having her legal identity changed, she says that her coworkers and customers have been supportive throughout the process. But for management, the bathroom door remains a bridge too far. The company’s persistent rejection of her demand for equal access seems to reflect the ideology that drove its Supreme Court crusade against contraceptive insurance mandates under the federal healthcare law. Hobby Lobby’s willingness to flout public mandates to impose conservative values suggests that bias against transgender workers may be another way the company tries to “live out our faith in the way we do business.”
As reported by Newsweek, Sommerville’s pending case, which was first brought in 2011 (and reinstated by the state Human Rights Commission after initially being dismissed by the Human Rights Department for lack of evidence), is arguably an even more explicit example of a culture war being waged in the workplace. According to the complaint, Hobby Lobby’s management states that unless she would “undergo genital reconstructive surgery” she would not receive equal treatment as a female employee.
When Sommerville showed up for work just after having her name officially changed, she recalls, “I was told I would not be allowed to use the women’s restroom even though I had legally changed my name… I was devastated. It was a knife-to-the-gut insult to me.”
(Many transgender people do not have surgery, out of choice or due to economic or medical barriers, and it is generally not necessary for official recognition.)
The policy has affected her body and mind, as well as her ability to do her job. To relieve herself she must find another bathroom at an outside business or public facility. The complaint states that she was diagnosed in 2012 with thyroid problems and Fibromyalgia, which affect the bladder, and has suffered dehydration from “limiting her intake of fluids.”
In addition to the alienation imposed by her employers’ assumptions about her genitalia, the complaint states that, forced to use the men’s room, she has had to wait around or hide to avoid encounters with male users.
The experience that pushed Sommerville to take legal action was the humiliation of being “caught” using the gender-appropriate bathroom and then receiving “a written warning of insubordination”—a reprimand for acting like the woman she was.
“I felt like someone had just basically eviscerated me. My whole world turned upside down,” she says.
The complaint charges that due to Hobby Lobby’s actions, she “has experienced over-anxiousness, embarrassment, shame, depression, anxiety, emotional distress, feelings of helplessness and has had trouble sleeping.”
Hobby Lobby’s exact rationale, however, is still unclear. In contrast to the amped-up Christian rhetoric surrounding the company’s Supreme Court litigation, it has declined to comment publicly on Sommerville’s case (requests from The Nation have so far received no response). According to the complaint, Hobby Lobby has not directly cited religious reasons for its denial of bathroom access.
But Sommerville’s attorneys say the bathroom ban—a rule that was communicated to Sommerville by the Human Resources Department—stems from the corporate leadership’s ideology. “This is not just an issue of a manager” acting independently, says her lawyer, Jacob Meister. “This is a matter that’s risen through the corporate level, all the way…. They’ve [dug] in their heels on this one.”
As further evidence of ideological motives behind its anti-trans discrimination, advocates point to the massive funds (revealed earlier this year by Salon.com) that Hobby Lobby’s corporate empire has pumped into Christian-right and anti-LGBT lobbying groups.
Perhaps the company’s quieter stance on Sommerville’s case reflects its own contradictory policies. It has, after all, recognized Sommerville’s gender identity on various legal grounds, but refuses to let her use a public accommodation that is appropriate for that very same identity. (Not to mention the more fundamental paradox that the company is imposing its will, based on an irrational and unhealthy concept of gender, in a way that asserts corporate personhood over the worker’s own sense of personhood.)
Though Sommerville, a practicing Christian, is comfortable with the company’s general faith orientation, she sees the contraceptives dispute as a similar case of overreach.
“I’m not in favor of any corporation dictating what is best for my medical treatment. I think that is best decided between my doctor and myself,” she tells The Nation. “This case, with the Supreme Court, I see as potentially a slippery slope where corporations can continue to deny access to appropriate medical care based on any number of circumstances.”
Sommerville’s case folds into a wave of activism on transgender rights at work, school and other public spaces. In recent months, a Maine lawsuit led to legal recognition of transgender students’ right to equal access to bathrooms at school. California has passed a law to ensure gender-appropriate bathroom accommodations for trans students.
Following a landmark ruling by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, the Department of Labor recently announced it would update its policies on transgender rights, by enforcing sex discrimination policies in accordance with individuals’ current gender identity.
But such reforms barely dent the problem of institutionalized discrimination in public space. One study of transgender people in Washington, DC, found that, on top of general social stigma and discrimination, “Seventy percent…reported being denied access, verbally harassed, or physically assaulted in public restrooms.”
Although Sommerville brought her case under Illinois state law, advocates hope a ruling in her favor could set a precedent for other states’ treatment of transgender people under the rubric of civil rights and labor law.
But whatever Hobby Lobby does in the political arena, Sommerville is primarily anxious about how she’s treated when she shows up at work each day—to do a job that she still loves. She’s just waiting for her employer to recognize what her coworkers and her community have already accepted.
Read Next: “Did Child Labor Build Your Smart Phone? ”
Bridgegate, Schmidgegate. That seems to be the view of an increasing number of Republican voters, and more and more GOP establishment types, as New Jersey Governor Chris Christie tries to put the Bridgegate scandal behind him. In New Hampshire—which is critical to Christie’s political future if he decides to run in 2016 because the Granite State has lots of moderate and centrist, non–Tea Party voters and allows independents to vote in the GOP primary—Christie is surging ahead of other challengers, according to a just-released WMUR poll, conducted by the University of New Hampshire:
National media pundits and major Republican donors may still be wary of the Bridgegate controversy dogging New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie, but potential Republican primary voters, it seems, have forgiven him. The latest WMUR Granite State Poll put Christie on top of all other potential Republican presidential candidates for 2016, but with a higher percentage of support than he had prior to Bridgegate. Christie’s 19 percent lead is up 10 percentage points from where he was in January when Bridgegate was leading the national news. In October, prior to the attention, he was at 16 percent. There appears to also be room to grow. When asked who their second choice was, Christie lead that group with 10 percent.
But the vast majority of Republicans in New Hampshire are undecided, and in any case none of this means that Christie is out of the Bridgegate woods. On Thursday, yet another top Christie aide will appear before the New Jersey legislative committee investigating Bridgegate, and the ongoing inquiries by the US Attorney and the Manhattan district attorney continue apace. But Christie, who apparently believes that he can’t wait for all of that to conclude, is stepping up his Hillary Clinton–like unannounced 2016 bid.
In his capacity as head of the Republican Governors Association, Christie is accelerating his travel schedule. (Since February, Christie Watch has closely followed Christie’s persistence in various polls and his recent travels, to Sheldon Adelson’s dog-and-pony show, to the Conservative Political Action Conference, to Ralph Reed’s Faith and Freedom event, to various establishment gatherings such as Mitt Romney’s get-together, and his record-setting fundraising pace.) Indeed, Christie’s RGA fundraising has reached more than $60 million since January.
According to The Record, the newspaper in Bergen, Christie’s travels are becoming more frenetic, especially to early 2016 primary states:
The media-savvy Christie, who won 61 percent of the vote in Democratic New Jersey, has already been to 20 states and the District of Columbia since becoming chairman of the governors group in November. By the end of the summer, he’ll have covered the four key early voting states—Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada and South Carolina—with more than two dozen trips this year.… Since becoming chairman of the Republican Governors Association, Christie has also been to Utah, Nevada, Arizona, Florida, Massachusetts, Tennessee, Texas, Vermont and Illinois—all of which have their primaries or caucuses by mid-March.
And during July and August, reports The Record, Christie will visit fourteen more states. This week he’ll spend three days touring Iowa, according to the Des Moines Register, where the first caucus in the 2016 campaign will be held:
Potential 2016 presidential candidate Chris Christie’s trip to Iowa later this month will be a three-city swing, with three fundraisers. On Thursday, July 17, the outspoken New Jersey governor will be the star guest at a fundraiser for the Republican Governors Association at Kyle and Sharon Krause’s River House in Waukee from 9 a.m. to 10:30 a.m. Entrance requires a $25,000 minimum donation. Christie will do an afternoon fundraiser for Iowa House Speaker Kraig Paulsen in Cedar Rapids. And at 6:15 p.m., he’ll speak at a fundraising dinner for Gov. Terry Branstad at the Mississippi Valley Fairgrounds in Davenport. This event will be open to the public with the purchase of a $25 ticket.
Needless to add, in each state he visits while campaigning for various GOP gubernatorial candidates, Christie can pocket contacts with big Republican donors and key activists and politicians that he’ll need when and if he runs.
Other Christie trips this past week included a stop in Idaho for a meeting with tech billionaires and financiers, including Facebook’s Mark Zuckerberg, and to Nashville, Tennessee, for a meeting of the National Governors Association and the RGA.
In Idaho, where Christie attended a meeting sponsored by Allen & Co., those present included Brian Rogers of T. Rowe Price, Yahoo’s Marissa Mayer, AOL’s Tim Armstrong, Amazon’s Jeff Bezos, Twitter’s Dick Costolo, Microsoft’s Bill Gates, Netflix’s Reed Hastings and Google’s Eric Schmidt. Others invited included Time Warner CEO Jeffrey Bewkes, filmmaker Harvey Weinstein, DreamWorks CEO Jeffrey Katzenberg and Walt Disney Chairman Robert Iger, along with Michael Bloomberg. These people are otherwise known as Christie’s “base.” And, according to Bloomberg News, many in the GOP establishment are scrambling to get behind an establishment candidate in order to blunt Rand Paul’s rise.
The Star-Ledger, covering Christie’s Nashville stop, reports that America’s Democratic governors singled out Christie for sharp criticism, signaling perhaps their concern that Christie might be in the process of reviving his 2016 ambitions:
Unlike their Democratic counterparts, the RGA didn’t hold a news conference during the session and Christie was largely expected to stay out of the limelight. Political observers said ahead of the meeting that Christie’s performance and attention to detail beyond the purview of reporters and cameras is what would really matter for a governor working to rebuild his image after taking a hit with the bridge scandal. And if evidence was needed to show Christie may be successfully moving away from controversy, conference-goers needed to look no further than the statements of leading Democratic governors. Members of the Democratic Governors Association, during a news conference held a day before Christie arrived, all but targeted Christie as the poster child for what they described as the Republicans’ failed policies in statehouses across the country. It seemed as if the Democrats had set their sights on Christie even before he arrived in Nashville for the conference.
Rupert Murdoch has a solution for global warming: “Stop building vast houses on seashores.”
That was probably the most sensible thing the media mogul had to say in a Sunday interview with Australia’s Sky News, during which he demonstrated astonishing ignorance about climate science. “We should approach climate change with great skepticism,” Murdoch said. Considering that his media empire is the animating force behind climate denial, this isn’t a shocker. Still, his comments illustrate how the right has hardened its position on global warming—or, as in Murdoch’s case, simply reversed it. This is the same Rupert Murdoch who, seven years ago, warned that global warming “poses clear, catastrophic threats,” and argued, “We certainly can’t afford the risk of inaction. We must transform the way we use energy.”
His comments also reveal how deeply into the bucket of shoddy science skeptics are willing to reach in order to support their claims. Here are the three most egregiously inaccurate statements Murdoch made:
1. “Climate change has been going on as long as the planet is here, and there will always be a little bit of it. At the moment the North Pole is melting, but the South Pole is getting bigger.”
Though it’s true that the earth has previously experienced changes in average temperature, never before has such a large shift happened so quickly. A 2013 study by scientists at Stanford found that climate change is occurring ten times faster than any time in the past 65 million years. It took thousands of years for the earth to emerge from the last ice age; now, the time scale is in decades.
A study finding a 7.5 percent increase in the volume of sea ice in Antarctica is the skeptics’ weapon du jour, promoted recently by the Murdoch-owned Daily Mail as a blow to climate science. But that’s compared to a 75 percent decline in Arctic sea ice. Currently the Arctic is losing ten times as much ice every year as the Antarctic is gaining, so modest gains in Antarctica won’t do much to counter sea level rise. Meanwhile, two separate studies published in May concluded that the Antarctic ice sheet has in fact “gone into a state of irreversible retreat,” suggesting that the accumulation in Antarctica is a temporary phenomenon that will yield to melting ice and sea level rise on a scale even greater than predicted by the IPCC.
2. “In terms of the world’s temperature going up, the worst, the most alarmist things have said…3 degrees Centigrade in one-hundred years. At the very most one of those will come from man-made, be man-made.”
It’s not clear where Murdoch got his numbers, but they don’t match up with serious scientific assessments of climate trends. The most recent IPCC report predicted a temperature increase of about 4 degrees Celsius by the end of the century, and accounts virtually all of that warming to human activity. At that threshold, the IPCC warned, the risks are “high to very high,” meaning “severe and widespread impacts on unique and threatened systems, substantial species extinction, large risks to global and regional food security, and the combination of high temperature and humidity compromising normal human activities.”
One degree of warming attributable to human activity is actually the best-case outcome predicted by the IPCC. Achieving it is only possible with significant reductions in carbon emissions worldwide.
3. “If the sea level rises six inches, that’s a big deal…but we can’t mitigate that, we can’t stop it. We’ve just got to stop building vast houses on seashores and go back a little bit.”
Again, it’s not clear where Murdoch’s figures come from. Oceans have already risen by eight inches since 1870, according to the IPCC, and they’re on track to rise another one to four feet by the end of the century. That should certainly discourage people from purchasing luxury coastal estates like the $9 million beach house in Oyster Bay that Murdoch sold in 2011. But what about the vast cities on seashores—like Miami, which is already under pressure as seawater seeps up from below through the porous limestone that underlies the city? How should they go about getting “back a little bit”?
Most people in the world can’t afford the luxury of thinking about climate change as a simple real estate challenge. And rising sea levels are only one facet of the looming global crisis. Shrinking glaciers threaten water supplies. Crop yields have already begun to decline, and the global food supply is in jeopardy. Scientists predict intensified heat waves and heavy rains, and the spread of infectious disease as mosquitos and other hosts move into new territory.
Read Next: John Nichols reports on Detroit’s denying citizens of basic human right
Patrick Cockburn, a veteran journalist experienced in the complexities of the Middle East, usually makes sense. But his latest piece, for something called The Unz Review (“A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media”) is way, way off base. Its title is: “How Saudi Arabia Helped Isis Take Over the North of Iraq,” and it’s a conspiratorial mishmash of truths, half-truths and outright misinformation—much of it derived, weirdly enough, from a speech by Sir Richard Dearlove, the former chief of Britain’s intelligence service, MI-6. In it, Cockburn suggests that Saudi Arabia, in its fanatical zeal to oppose Shiites worldwide, “has played a central role in the ISIS surge into Sunni areas of Iraq.” (ISIS, of course, is the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria, now pretentiously calling itself a “caliphate” and changing its name to “the Islamic state,” presumably signaling that it intends to rule the entire Muslim world.)
In this case, despite The Unz Review’s belief that it brings forward information “excluded from the American mainstream media,” perhaps the reason that Cockburn’s thesis has been excluded is because it is flat wrong.
The ISIS crisis in Iraq, parallel to the ISIS crisis in Syria, is indeed an ugly and serious challenge to the Middle East status quo. But there’s far too much alarmism in response, including Eric Holder’s statement yesterday that the threat from ISIS is “more frightening than anything I think I’ve seen as attorney general.” There’s no doubt that ISIS is a bad actor, but the chance that ISIS will seize or even seriously threaten either Baghdad or Damascus is zero, and eventually the Sunni tribes, Baathists and the former Awakening movement in Iraq will crush ISIS, while President Bashar al-Assad’s forces squash it in Syria. And despite Cockburn’s view, most analysts believe that Saudi Arabia is alarmed by, and doesn’t support, ISIS.
The easiest way to resolve the Iraq-Syria civil war is through an accord between Saudi Arabia and Iran. Although Saudi Arabia supports the Sunni side in a broad, regional proxy war throughout Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, the Persian Gulf and into South Asia, and Iran supports the Shiite side, neither side tolerates either Al Qaeda or ISIS. Both Riyadh and Tehran are worried about the rise of ISIS, and the common ground is there for both countries to establish a détente and try to resolve the civil war.
If Saudi Arabia were committed to an all-out conflict with the Shiites, as Cockburn and Dearlove suggest, then Saudi Arabia would have supported the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt, since the Brotherhood was a bitter enemy of the Shia and a supporter of the revolt in Syria. Instead, the Saudis opted to work with Egypt’s military to crush the Muslim Brotherhood. And while the Saudis have close ties to Iraq’s Sunni tribal militia, and beginning in 2006 Saudi Arabia supported the Sunni Awakening, it certainly doesn’t support ISIS in either Iraq or in Syria, where the Saudis back less-radical forces battling Assad’s government. If fighting ISIS takes priority now, Saudi Arabia will have to ease off its support for the anti-Assad forces, freeing up the Syrian army to go into Syria’s north and east, where ISIS is strong. (The United States, rather than bolstering Syria’s “moderate” rebels, ought to do the same.)
Cockburn bases a big part of his analysis on Dearlove’s comment that the spy boss once heard Prince Bandar of Saudi Arabia once say: “The time is not far off in the Middle East, Richard, when it will be literally ‘God help the Shia’. More than a billion Sunnis have simply had enough of them.” But that statement was made many years ago, before 9/11, and Cockburn manages to add, “Dearlove says that he has no inside knowledge obtained since he retired as head of MI6 10 years ago to become Master of Pembroke College in Cambridge.” Well.
In Washington, and despite Holder’s comments, a more reasoned approach to the ISIS crisis may be dawning. President Obama’s initial response, which included hints that the United States might conduct air strikes in Iraq, seems to have cooled. And while I’ve written about the potential for a “slippery slope” in Iraq, with the United States first sending advisers to Baghdad, then troops to protect the airport, and then more troops to protect the airport road, the White House seems to be listening the US military and the intelligence community. According to a classified report leaked to The New York Times, the military argues that Iraq’s armed forces and security apparatus are so badly run, so infiltrated with Iranian-backed Shiite militiamen and informers from ISIS, that there isn’t much of an opening for greater US involvement. And Iraq’s political deadlock doesn’t look like it’s going to broken anytime soon, meaning that the United States can’t take Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki’s egregiously Shiite-sectarian side in a war against Iraq’s Sunnis.
So far, many of Iraq’s Sunnis—badly alienated by Maliki’s one-sect rule—have supported the ISIS offensive while viewing their Taliban-like extremism with, well, extreme distaste. In some parts of Iraq, the entire Sunni community—tribes, Baathists, Sunni Islamists of various kinds—sit on soviet-like councils alongside ISIS, but that doesn’t mean that the non-ISIS groups want anything to do with ISIS’ obscurantist beliefs and harsh imposition of its version of sharia law. If a deal is struck to get rid of Maliki, or if Maliki decides to open up his government, the Sunni hammer will fall on ISIS. That, however, might depend on an accord between Saudi Arabia and Iran.
Read Next: Obama fiddles while Gaza burns.