Tag Archives: rachel-maddow

Scientists stunned as bee populations continue to decline

Scientists remain stymied as honeybees in the United States and across the world continue to die in large numbers. Lately there seems to be a lot of talk about bees, honey bees in particular. In recent years, there has been a drastic and mysterious die-off of honey bee colonies. Although not unusual in the bee business, this latest decline in populations has many people talking. Although there is an increasing demand for pollination services, the number of honey bee colonies has dropped to about 2.5 million from more than 4 million in the 1970′s. There are several reasons as to why this may be happening: loss of habitat, pesticide use, unspecified fungal diseases or mite infestations. Scientists now believe that much of the decline is due to Colony Collapse Disorder, or CCD, which refers to the unexplained disappearance and dying off of honey bee colonies. Little is known about CCD, and that has many beekeepers, farmers and the general public worried. “There are a lot of beekeepers who are in trouble” said David Mendes, president of the American Beekeeping Federation. “Under normal condition you have 10 percent winter losses … this year there are 30, 40 to 50 percent losses.” For many years, beekeepers have been plagued by colony collapse disorder, in which formerly healthy bees abruptly vanish from their hives. The number of beehives in the United States dropped 32 percent in 2007, another 36 percent in 2008 and still another 29 percent in 2009. A number of explanations for the phenomenon have been suggested, including diseases, parasites, malnutrition, but toxic chemicals are emerging as a major concern among beekeepers. READ MORE: http://morichesdaily.com/2010/08/scientists-stunned-bee-populations-continue-dec… added by: MorichesDaily

As we speak Richard Engel is embedded with U.S. combat troops leaving Iraq!

Rachel Maddow has missed her last two shows supposedly on vacation, but apparently she was in route to IRAQ were she is currently covering this breaking news. added by: kennymotown

Reinforcements Ordered in the War on Brains [video]

Rachel Maddow talks about her former show, The War on Brains — she mentions that even though the program no longer exists, America’s war on brains continues. Perhaps the most ridiculous example is the woman who claims that “the separation of church and state” is not mentioned in the US Constitution — a fact that can be easily confirmed by anyone who can read by checking the original document. added by: GrrlScientist

Maddow Tells Letterman ‘Scaring White People Is Good Politics’ For Conservatives

Rachel Maddow on Tuesday told David Letterman that scaring white people is good politics for conservatives. After the host of CBS’s “Late Show” asked his perilously biased guest about the Andrew Breitbart-Shirley Sherrod affair, the MSNBCer predictably pointed her accusatory finger at Fox News and everybody on the right.  “The idea is you sort of rile up the white base to be afraid of an other, to be afraid of the scary immigrants or scary black people,” Maddow said. “Somebody coming to take what is white people’s rightful property,” she continued. “And you get them riled up so they feel like they need to vote in self-defense, and they vote for conservative candidates because of that fear” (video follows with partial transcript and commentary, h/t TVNewser ): RACHEL MADDOW: They I think bear a lot of responsibility, and I think that with Fox in particular it’s part of a pattern. They keep running these stories about for lack of a better phrase scary black people, about scary black people at the USDA discriminating against white farmers and scary black people stopping white people from voting and scary black people getting like stealing the election the whole ACORN scandal. There’s this theme… DAVID LETTERMAN: Oh, that’s right. This guy has done it before. MADDOW: It was the ACORN like guy supposedly dressed up as a pimp who wasn’t dressed up as a pimp. LETTERMAN: So, in, in, in the collective ideology of Fox and others, to what end? What is the objective of this sort of nonsense? MADDOW: Scaring white people is good politics on the conservative side of the spectrum, and it always has been. The idea is you sort of rile up the white base to be afraid of an other, to be afraid of the scary immigrants or scary black people. Somebody coming to take what is white people’s rightful property. Or rights. And you get them riled up so they feel like they need to vote in self-defense, and they vote for conservative candidates because of that fear. I mean we’ve been doing it for decades. LETTERMAN: Right, decades. I keep thinking that okay it started 100 years ago and maybe a thousand years ago when each ensuing decade, it should be a little less, a little less, a little less. We should be smarter. Our kids should be smarter. Their kids should be smarter. But yet, these people are continuing to fan this flame and excuse me for mixing metaphors here that is cancer. I mean leave it alone. Let it go away. It’s not right. Why, there are other problems now that need to be addressed. ( Applause ) MADDOW: I think that, I mean, I think you’re totally right. It should get better. And the way it’s going to get better is not by slime balls being less slimy. There’s always going to be Breitbarts and Fox Newses. That’s going to happen. What’s different now is actually CNN, CNN spent the whole day the day that day broke debunking it. They got Shirley Sherrod on the air. They talked about what she was really saying. They showed how it was edited together wrongly. MSNBC did the same thing. But it was one of these things where actually I think Breitbart and Fox came off worse for having done that. And so maybe that’s the best, that’s the best antidote is just by sheer mockery of the people who do it. LETTERMAN: And then in response, Bill O’Reilly, who has been on this show many times and I have a theory about Bill O’Reilly, smart guy. And I think he knows better than what he’s doing, but he’s just found a place to, you know, make a living. And if, if you needed a, he’d be a weatherman if the money was right or he’d do sports if the money was right. He’s just doing this because that’s where the money is. I don’t think you can be as smart as he is and actually believe what he believes. Isn’t it wonderful that America has people like Maddow and Letterman around to propagandize the public?  What would we do without them? 

Read this article:
Maddow Tells Letterman ‘Scaring White People Is Good Politics’ For Conservatives

Sen. David Vitter Jokes That Rachel Maddow Doesn’t Look Like a Woman, Apologizes [Bad Jokes]

Sen. David Vitter ‘s unforced lady-related issues continue! The Louisianan, who had affairs with prostitutes and employed a “women’s issues” aide who knifed women, joked on the radio today about how Rachel Maddow looks like a dude. Yes, he’s apologizing. More

MarketWatch Writer Praises Maddow as … Wait for It … ‘Voice of Reason’

I’m fairly confident but not certain this didn’t initially come from The Onion — a fawning profile of MSNBC’s Rachel Maddow written by MarketWatch’s Jon Friedman. “This is the rare 21st-century TV news star,” Friedman writes, “an un-self-absorbed celebrity.” “Maddow, 37, is the voice of reason at MSNBC,” Friedman elaborates. “Notable for their verbal brawn, the hosts of cable news shows often behave on air as if they’re competing for a gold medal in preening. Maddow gets her point across in a restrained but emphatic way. She doesn’t feel a need to outshout her guests.” Here is my favorite paragraph in Friedman’s soliloquy, which ought to have been subtitled, “Not incidentally, I agree with her politics” — The tone is unique. Maddow says she presents ‘essays, which have a thesis, facts, analysis and conclusions. That way, I think, I don’t invite pounding on the table or yelling at people.’ Allow me to provide an example, from Maddow’s trip to Afghanistan last week. During an interview with Brigadier General Ben Hodges on the costs of reconstruction and how they’ll be covered, Maddow said this (first part of embedded video) — MADDOW: People needed to provide policing, basic services, the kind of government jobs that you’re talking about, obviously you need good, committed Afghan nationalists essentially to do that. You need people who want to do it for their country, people who are brave and willing to see that transition through. Who’s going to pay their salaries in the long run? HODGES: Well, that’s a great point. I think, you know, Afghanistan does not have oil but they certainly have incredible mineral wealth, potential … MADDOW (after interview, raising finger for emphasis): Afghan mineral wealth. It’s not quite in the category of the mythical Caribbean walrus from BP’s oil spill response plan, but maybe it’s close. Followed by Maddow contradicting herself less than two minutes later in her July 7 broadcast while being led through a Kabul marketplace by NBC foreign correspondent Richard Engel (second part of embedded video) — ENGEL: They have turquoise, rubies, emeralds. Obviously, recently the country’s been famous, in the news recently because they discovered all these minerals in the mountains, a trillion dollars or more … MADDOW: Well, they discovered, discovered … ENGEL: …. They’re still in the rocks … MADDOW: We’re talking about them again. We’ve sort of always known that Afghanistan had incredible mineral wealth. ENGEL: Yes. MADDOW: I mean, everything from lapis to lithium. Hmm, would these be examples of Maddow’s “voices” of reason? Or how about when she suggested to Hodges — on the July 4th weekend, no less — that America’s presence in Afghanistan was “inherently corrupting” ? As any devout left-winger will tell you, this describes America’s presence anywhere — including America. Or when Maddow claimed this past Sunday on “Meet the Press” that shelling out more unemployment benefits is “the most stimulative thing you can do” for the economy. That being the case, imagine the phantasmagorically stimulative effect of laying off most federal workers and paying them unemployment benefits instead. In fairness to Friedman, he does couch his description of Maddow — she is “the voice of reason at MSNBC .” That she is — at least compared to the bellicose buffoonery of Ed Schultz, the pompous self-importance of Keith Olbermann, and the manic meanderings of Chris Matthews. 

Read the original post:
MarketWatch Writer Praises Maddow as … Wait for It … ‘Voice of Reason’

MSNBC’s Rachel Maddow’s blonde yearbook photo surfaces, America cares

Rachel Maddow holds a doctorate in poltical science. She graduated from Stanford, was the first openly gay American to win the Rhodes scholarship, and became the first openly gay anchor to host a United States prime-time news program in 2008 with MSNBC’s The Rachel Maddow Show. The show is described by Maddow’s website as “[featuring] the top headlines from the worlds of politics, current events, sports, science, health, crime, and the absurd – and interviews with newsmakers like Al Gore, Robert Redford, Edie Falco, John Kerry, Pat Buchanan, Jane Fonda, Seymour Hersh, Tucker Carlson, Roseanne Cash, Lili Taylor, Ben Harper, and Michael Isikoff.” She also likes DC’s lesbian Batwoman. But it isn’t Maddow’s career, her affinity for comic writer Greg Rucka or coverage of and from Afghanistan that’s making waves on the Internet today. No, it’s an old yearbook photo. Maddow, known for her short, brown haircut, used to be blonde. SEE THE PHOTO, READ THE REST at http://blogs.creativeloafing.com/dailyloaf/2010/07/11/msnbcs-rachel-maddows-blon… added by: Ryan_Jent

Guess Which Liberal TV News Host This Is

This is a high school picture of a perilously liberal television news host:   Can you guess who it is? (answer follows, h/t TVNewser): Tough to believe that’s Rachel Maddow:  The “before” picture apparently comes from her high school yearbook. For those interested, Maddow grew up in Castro Valley, California, which is a town a few miles away from Oakland across the Bay from San Francisco. Exit question: would Maddow’s program be more popular if she was still a blond, or would her liberal views still interfere with her success? 

See the rest here:
Guess Which Liberal TV News Host This Is

MSNBC’s Maddow: U.S. Presence in Afghanistan ‘Inherently Corrupting’

Happy belated birthday, America, your presence in Afghanistan is “inherently corrupting.” That’s the message Rachel Maddow gave on her July 6 program. During the Bush administration, the Left often argued that the president had distracted America by engaging in hostilities in Iraq, bleeding resources and attention away from the real war on terror in Afghanistan, which had harbored al Qaeda pre-9/11. Now with Iraq all but won following the success of the Bush-approved, Petraeus-executed “surge,” the Left is becoming vocal in its opposition to the war in Afghanistan and finding a platform on MSNBC. Daytime network anchor Dylan Ratigan has been calling for withdrawal from Afghanistan for weeks, arguing that the war in Afghanistan has lasted longer than Vietnam and been a needless waste of money. Now Ratigan’s colleague has joined in the chorus. On the Tuesday, July 6 edition of her eponymous show, Maddow made this argument: If they’re still offering that (referring to Taliban) and we’re trying to make an Afghan government that is not corrupt, to be a viable alternative to that, but our very presence by virtue of the fact that we’ve got to spend a ton of money and we’re foreigners and we’ve got to protect ourselves and all this stuff, our influence here, our presence here, is inherently corrupting just because a lot of money flows everywhere we go. 

Here is the original post:
MSNBC’s Maddow: U.S. Presence in Afghanistan ‘Inherently Corrupting’

Weigel Goes Even Further Left, Signs as MSNBC Contributor

Since I’ve been accused of leading “something of a crusade” against former Post blogger Dave Weigel, how could I resist this announcement? Weigel, who left the Post amidst a controversy where he bashed tons of conservatives, has joined the leftwing convention at MSNBC. According to a Tweet from “Countdown” host Keith Olbermann, Weigel has come on board as a contributor. “And confirming, @DaveWeigel is now MSNBC contributor @DaveWeigel Welcome aboard and my condolences, uh, congratulations!” wrote Olbermann. Now Weigel has joined the team of Rachel Maddow and Ed Schultz. This from the guy who just today told the world of his wonderful career saga that started out as editor of a campus conservative paper at Northwestern University’s Medill School of Journalism. “Was I really that conservative? Yes,” he wrote, somehow expecting readers to believe him. While he admitted some of his troubles came from “hubris,” much of what he wrote most already knew, that he was no friend to the right. “At Reason , I’d become a little less favorable to Republicans, and I’d never been shy about the fact that I was pro-gay marriage and pro-open borders.” Throw in Weigel’s parade of assault on conservatives, prominent figures on the right from Rush Limbaugh to Matt Drudge and Newt Gingrich and the bigger question becomes, does he agree with the right on anything? The answer is: it doesn’t matter anymore. He’s gone from an organization fighting to keep its credibility to one fighting to lose what little it has. Weigel, who had blocked me on Twitter, responded to my comments about the move with this: “Folks of every ideology are ‘contributors.’ Pat Buchanan and Ezra Klein, for example.” Weigel, who had been rumored to be heading to Huffington Post, managed to land even more in left field. This is a good place to remind everyone this issue has never been about Weigel. This was about the Post which claimed to be a neutral and respectable news organization and then filled its website with lefties like Ezra Klein and Weigel. That’s fine if they balance that out and they didn’t. They revel in the left and bash the right, making themselves more blatantly liberal and tossing out the window their claims of objectivity. There isn’t a news outlet around that has figured out the web effectively. They shouldn’t let that confusion turn into a cheap excuse to rationalize filling their staff with open lefties and those who bash the right. Hopefully, the Post learned its lesson here.

See the article here:
Weigel Goes Even Further Left, Signs as MSNBC Contributor