The News Thread

[hectorberlioz]

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

I think the catholic church SHOULD declare pollution and crass capitalism at the expense of the poor sins. Would make them more consistent with their doctrine...

Its nice to actually see religious people in THIS country finally diverging from the closed minded inconsistent selective view of Christianity as right wing radicalism. Despite what weve been brain washed to believe for the past 25 years, Christianity is NOT = to the Republican party and Christian values are NOT = to the republican political platform. And I guess we are finally seeing the schism between the so called "religious right" and the religiously conscious in this country. The religious community is finally no longer being defined as a monolithic entity focused on just a few issues.

Yes Christians SHOULD care about the environment. Yes Christians SHOULD take global warming seriously and not write it off from the start simply for purely political reasons. Yes Christians SHOULD care about the fate of the poor and the neglected and the needy and not simply scream about gay marriage and abortion and turn around and support tax breaks for the rich and cut backs in care programs for those in need. Yes Christians SHOULD voice concern about wars and foreign activity that certainly don’t jive with Christian ideology. Lets hope this phenomenon continues to grow…

For someone who doesn't believe in Christianity, you sure have high standards for us.

I can agree with most (certainly not all, or even the way you phrase it) of that...especially the part about religion not being owned by the Republican Party. There's a book by E.J. Dionne on this subject, and he's doing an eight part interview with Hugh Hewitt. Dionne is a religious lefty, and he wrote a book called "Souled Out: Reclaiming Relgion After The Religious Right. You can listen to each installment every Thursday: http://ksky.townhall.com/

[sisterandcousinandaunt]

LOL. So you weren't personally traumatized by the news coverage.

Good. I was worried.

[hectorberlioz]

Absolutely I was traumtized. I just didn't know it at the time. I could make my case in a court of law any day, with a good ACLU lawyer.

[sisterandcousinandaunt]

Originally Posted by hectorberlioz

Absolutely I was traumtized. I just didn't know it at the time. I could make my case in a court of law any day, with a good ACLU lawyer.

Start with a good psychologist, and get back to me.

[hectorberlioz]

How much do your charge per hour, Mrs Lawyer?

[sisterandcousinandaunt]

Originally Posted by hectorberlioz

How much do your charge per hour, Mrs Lawyer?

The ACLU doesn't charge. If you have a good case, I'll take it pro-bono.

[hectorberlioz]

I'll get right on working up my story then

[hectorberlioz]

http://youtube.com/watch?v=vYJqSWLCB60

[Mari]

Hehe *waves back at (to?) Bush*

[Earniel]

Originally Posted by inked

From THE TIMES via

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,336189,00.html

Turns out the Vatican SIN hype is toppered by this expose of the lies and disinformations of the anti-PLASTIC bag Brits.....

Yes, I agree, this Times article happily dispenses some lies and disinformation. Talk about bad science reporting....

For starters, is this still really a so 'widely stated myth'? I admit, it sounds catchier, but I have doubts about its veracity. I did a little google search on that phrase, and insofar google is reliable tool for this, the only places where I find the claim that bags alone kill all those animals, come from articles based on the Times-article, who happily condemn anyone interested in reducing plastic bags as a fearmonger that used bad science. Real cute. The Times ought to be ashamed of such lousy reporting. But you will find many sites that blame plastic, plastic waste, plastic litter, marine debris ect. Those are in essence correct. So where is all this wide-spread saying that it's only the bags? There should be plenty out there, right? If this is so wide-spead? I found but one after 15 minutes of searching, and it was a blog. The statements's a false thing to say, alright. Especially since it seems also false to say this is widely spread.

And you can't even call this bad science, bad research maybe, definitely bad reporting. But if the original 1980s report is sound even if it's about marine debris, then where exactly is the bad science?

The article goes on to ignore other reasons often cited for banning plastic bags. Veeeery balanced reporting here. Other factors come into plays as well: plastic is very durable and remains into the environment (marine, fresh water AND terrestrial) for a very long time. They sometimes also contain dangerous chemicals. Also, if the use of plastic bags is reduced, this leads to a reduction in waste in landfills. So again, bad reporting for using only the marine angle, but hey, since they could then focus on the OMGbadscience nonsense, it makes tastier reading.

Also, I'll be very much surprised if people are basing their policies solely on studies no newer than 1987. Is there also a direct source linking this 'mythical' numbers to the Brown's policy to reduce plastic bags? I haven't seen anything but assumptions it must be so. But as far as I understand English, saying: 'plastic bags are one of the most visible symbols of environmental waste.' doesn't equal 'bags kill so many marine animals'. Besides, show me the first decent scientist too, who thinks that reducing plastic bags ISN'T a good idea.

I'll say this, though: true, plastic bags are often singled out, but they're still a part of the plastic pollution and an iconic member. Personally I would like to see a similar crack-down on other plastic packaging materials. After all, plastic bags can be taken care of relatively easily by either changing to re-usable bags, or biodegradable ones. But other plastic packaging is often ignored. That said, this article goes overboard the other way: plastic bags are by no means harmless, but to 'prove' this point the journalists gloss over a number of things.

Plastic is a problem in the ocean, and while the single contribution of bags can be debated, bags are not as 'misunderstood' as the Times article wants them to be. And even plastic bags can be torn and eroded to pellets and fragments, and still be a hazard for animals even if you can't recoginize it as a bag anymore.

There are some other weaknesses in the article:

[...]the bags kill 100,000 animals and a million seabirds every year are false[...] the bags kill more than 100,000 marine mammals and one million seabirds every year.[...]

So which of the two is it? Would somebody kindly tell the Times there's more life in the ocean than marine mammals. (Shocking, I know.)

They go on to say that there is no scientific evidence to show that the bags pose any direct threat to marine mammals. Note again, that there are far more species in the ocean than marine mammals. Do the journalist conveniently forget about them? The Times is also wrong in saying that there isn't 'any direct threat'. Here I dare think there was some miscommunication with the scientist they quoted (which I traced back to belonging to Marine Mammal Commision, a US government agency, so I take it he knows what he's talking about, when it comes to marine mammals in the US waters). He mentions only entanglement, and here plastic bags don't feature much with marine mammals, but there are other ways in which plastic waste can kill.

He added: “The impact of bags on whales, dolphins, porpoises and seals ranges from nil for most species to very minor for perhaps a few species.For birds, plastic bags are not a problem either.”

I don't know why he would go on to say this, however. I can only assume he is still talking about entanglement. Animals -including marine mammals- have been known to die because of ingesting plastic, including plastic bags and bits thereof. Look at the last annual report on the website of Marine Mammal Commision, I don't think they're still only referencing an old study.

Originally Posted by 2006 annual report

[...]Subsequently it was learned that unknown but potentially significant numbers of sea turtles, seabirds, and fishes, as well as marine mammals, were mistaking floating plastic bags, deflated balloons, bits of styrofoam, and other synthetic materials for food items and were dying because the items were indigestible and either clogged their digestive tracts or poisoned them.

Originally Posted by 2000 annual report

Most ingestion involves small items, particularly plastic pellets, plastic bags, and plastic sheeting, that can injure or kill animals by puncturing or blocking digestive tracks, or perhaps by transferring toxic chemicals adsorbed on debris surfaces into animal tissues. Sea turtles and seabirds, which confuse marine debris for natural items of prey, appear to be particularly susceptible to ingestion-related impacts. In general, entanglement seems more likely than ingestion to cause serious injury or death; however, a thorough examination of possible effects associated with the transfer of toxic chemicals adhering to debris surfaces into animals has not been undertaken.

As shown in Table 13, compiled by the Marine Mammal Commission, entanglement and ingestion incidents have been reported for at least 267 species of marine life, including at least 43 percent of the world‘s marine mammal species, at least 44 percent of the world‘s seabird species, and all but one of the world‘s sea turtle species. Several of these species are listed as endangered or threatened (e.g., Hawaiian monk seals, West Indian manatees, and all species of sea turtles).

The table mentioned gives 136 species for entanglement incidents and 177 species for ingestion incidents. Note that these are the reported incidents, and centered on species, not individuals, this is not a projection as to how many can be affected in total.

Originally Posted by US Commision on ocean policy

Although pollution rarely kills marine creatures directly, it can impair their health, harm their reproductive potential, and eventually lead to their death. Chemicals in fertilizers, pesticides, pharmaceuticals, and other materials can accumulate in the tissues of these animals, especially those with long life spans. As discussed in Chapter 18, ingestion of marine debris and entanglement in plastic trash can be significant additional sources of mortality.

This is also interesting to remember: just because they're not dead doesn't mean pollution isn't harmful. The Times happily ignores this too.


So after this article, and if those new sins come from an interview and no official announcement, I say we ask the vatican to make a new mortal sin out of bad reporting. It darn well should be.

[The Gaffer]

Yay! Big round of applause for Earniel.

The other fact people need to bear in mind when making sense of this story is to remember that The Times and Fox News are both part of the Murdoch empire.

[hectorberlioz]

Originally Posted by The Gaffer

Yay! Big round of applause for Earniel.

The other fact people need to bear in mind when making sense of this story is to remember that The Times and Fox News are both part of the Murdoch empire.

Seriously, the phrase may indeed be coined by Fox/Murdoch/Vader, but in general, both articles are correct...the anti-plastic bag arguments do indeed claim that plastic bags hurt/kill animals.

I'm not trying to argue that plastic bags are good or bad for the environment, I just think that you two are missing the point of the articles, which is not hinged on that phrase.

http://www.slate.com/id/2177490/

I've heard that both paper and plastic shopping bags are pretty dreadful for the environment—the former because they require so many trees, the latter because they suffocate animals and last for centuries.

Just for the record, this is what I endorse: http://environment.about.com/od/recy...usablebags.htm

Cloth bags, made from viciously ripping the members of cotton plants

[hectorberlioz]

DO NOT read if you are squeamish:
http://www.townhall.com/columnists/M...&comments=true

[hectorberlioz]

And just in case you haven't heard, "The Fed promised a $200 billion booster shot for ailing markets -- and Wall Street answered with its biggest bounce in more than five years." 416 point rise by the Dow. I don't understand this stuff very much, but I know enough to ask: this is one heck of a roller coaster time for our economy. Up, down, up, down. We have to level out and get steady sometime, don't we?

[sisterandcousinandaunt]

Originally Posted by hectorberlioz

And just in case you haven't heard, "The Fed promised a $200 billion booster shot for ailing markets -- and Wall Street answered with its biggest bounce in more than five years." 416 point rise by the Dow. I don't understand this stuff very much, but I know enough to ask: this is one heck of a roller coaster time for our economy. Up, down, up, down. We have to level out and get steady sometime, don't we?

I agree, grasshopper. But leveling out might require a radical re-think...like basing our economy on the stuff we make, instead of on credit and puffery.

Naw, too tough. Party on, guys!

[hectorberlioz]

Thanks...FDR, Kennedy?

[Earniel]

Originally Posted by hectorberlioz

but in general, both articles are correct...the anti-plastic bag arguments do indeed claim that plastic bags hurt/kill animals.

Vague as it is, that claim is also correct. Surely you know that too, but that is not what this article was about, the issue is how many and if it is as many as other allegedly said. But could you please elaborate a little more on the point you say I missed? What is the point you think the Times is trying to make? To my knowledge the Times article states specifically that environmentalists (and the british government) are basing their argument to ban plastic bags on a supposedly wide spread, wrong statement that plastic bags alone are responsible for the death of 100 000 animals and 1 millions birds. The numbers concerned in this statement are very specific.

And because of this article, I dare say you seem convinced now, that plastic bags don't harm anything or anyone at all. Which is exactly why this article is IMO bad, you can't base any decision on the plastic bags-debate based on this. It's incomplete, distorted and sometimes even just plainly wrong. And because they pretend the only angle on this debate is the marine mammals, they give the wrong impression that that is the sole basis on which plastic bags are banned, and that this is also wrong. This is not informing people at all.

[hectorberlioz]

Interesting. A nice farmhouse was raffled in Maryland: but you have to pay over $150,000 in taxes. Full story here: http://www.wbaltv.com/news/15572598/detail.html

[hectorberlioz]

Richest man in Britain, Gerald Cavendish, Duke of Westminster is "Client # 6"
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main...spitzer212.xml

You really have to wonder at this point, who are Clients 1-5? Clients 7 and 8?

[hectorberlioz]

Some of you lefties will no doubt want to fantasize about this...
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/liv...n_page_id=1774