ARTICLES - HOT OFF THE FAGGOT

Mass extinction may be underway

Amplify’d from news.yahoo.com

World's sixth mass extinction may be underway: study

World's sixth mass extinction may be underway: study

AFP/File – This file photo shows a colobus monkey kissing his newly born sibling. In the last five centuries, at …

PARIS (AFP) – Mankind may have unleashed the sixth known mass extinction in Earth's history, according to a paper released by the science journal Nature.

Over the past 540 million years, five mega-wipeouts of species have occurred through naturally-induced events.



But the new threat is man-made, inflicted by habitation loss, over-hunting, over-fishing, the spread of germs and viruses and introduced species, and by climate change caused by fossil-fuel greenhouse gases, says the study.



Evidence from fossils suggests that in the "Big Five" extinctions, at least 75 percent of all animal species were destroyed.



Palaeobiologists at the University of California at Berkeley looked at the state of biodiversity today, using the world's mammal species as a barometer.




Until mankind's big expansion some 500 years ago, mammal extinctions were very rare: on average, just two species died out every million years.



But in the last five centuries, at least 80 out of 5,570 mammal species have bitten the dust, providing a clear warning of the peril to biodiversity.



"It looks like modern extinction rates resemble mass extinction rates, even after setting a high bar for defining 'mass extinction," said researcher Anthony Barnosky.



This picture is supported by the outlook for mammals in the "critically endangered" and "currently threatened" categories of the Red List of biodiversity compiled by the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN).



On the assumption that these species are wiped out and biodiversity loss continues unchecked, "the sixth mass extinction could arrive within as little as three to 22 centuries," said Barnosky.




Compared with nearly all the previous extinctions this would be fast-track.



Four of the "Big Five" events unfolded on scales estimated at hundreds of thousands to millions of years, inflicted in the main by naturally-caused global warming or cooling.



The most abrupt extinction came at the end of the Cretaceous, some 65 million years ago when a comet or asteroid slammed into the Yucatan peninsula, in modern-day Mexico, causing firestorms whose dust cooled the planet.



An estimated 76 percent of species were killed, including the dinosaurs.



The authors admitted to weaknesses in the study. They acknowledged that the fossil record is far from complete, that mammals provide an imperfect benchmark of Earth's biodiversity and further work is needed to confirm their suspicions.




But they described their estimates as conservative and warned a large-scale extinction would have an impact on a timescale beyond human imagining.



"Recovery of biodiversity will not occur on any timeframe meaningful to people," said the study.



"Evolution of new species typically takes at least hundreds of thousands of years, and recovery from mass extinction episodes probably occurs on timescales encompassing millions of years."



Even so, they stressed, there is room for hope.



"So far, only one to two percent of all species have gone gone extinct in the groups we can look at clearly, so by those numbers, it looks like we are not far down the road to extinction. We still have a lot of Earth's biota to save," Barnosky said.



Even so, "it's very important to devote resources and legislation toward species conservation if we don't want to be the species whose activity caused a mass extinction."



Asked for an independent comment, French biologist Gilles Boeuf, president of the Museum of Natural History in Paris, said the question of a new extinction was first raised in 2002.



So far, scientists have identified 1.9 million species, and between 16,000 and 18,000 new ones, essentially microscopic, are documented each year.



"At this rate, it will take us a thousand years to record all of Earth's biodiversity, which is probably between 15 and 30 million species" said Boeuf.



"But at the rate things are going, by the end of this century, we may well have wiped out half of them, especially in tropical forests and coral reefs."

Read more at news.yahoo.com
 

US Internet freedom hypocrisy

Amplify’d from www.prophesyagain.com

US Internet freedom hypocrisy

US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton calls on a world which respects Internet freedom as the US Justice Department targets WikiLeaks and Julian Assange.

The Justice Department is pressing the court to require Twitter to turn over private information about the use of its services by three WikiLeaks supporters.

The US champions a free flow of information, free speech and a free Internet, until it is no longer in their favor.

America calls for a respect for the rights of others, their privacy and free expression, but goes after US citizen’s cell phones, computer activity and other personal data.

Our commitment to Internet freedom is a commitment ot the rights of people, and we are matching that with our actions,” Clinton stated in a her speech.

Former Reagan administration official Paul Craig Roberts said the US government is a blatant public hypocrite and has been for a long time.

It’s [US government] always lecturing everybody else, but it never follows its own advice,” Roberts said.

He argued the US has actively trampled on the civil liberties of its own people under the auspice of the War on Terror, yet at the same time the government lectures others on responsibilities to protect freedoms.

We are really the worst offender,” he added. “This should show the world what a hypocrite the United States is!”

Roberts said, as an American, he is embarrassed by the blatant hypocrisy his government represents.

On one had the US has worked to support Twitter and Facebook use in Egypt, and now Iran having lunched Twitter sites in local languages.

America likes to use technology to undermine others. But as soon as the tables turn they flip their stance, such as the case of WikiLeaks, Julian Assange and Pfc. Bradley Manning.

He argued the US wants to terrify the rising new breed of Internet journalism, using fear to shut them up.

http://rt.com/usa/news/usa-internet-freedom-hypocrisy/

Read more at www.prophesyagain.com
 

Globe Editor Discusses Clergy Sex Abuse

Amplify’d from www.americamagazine.org
Author: Kerry Weber

At Poynter.org Martin Baron, editor of the Boston Globe, talks about the journalistic process behind breaking the story of sexual abuse by priests. He says he "lit the match" starting the investigation on his first day on the job, nearly ten years ago:

Baron was determined to avoid “he said, she said” accounts. He saw that unsealing court documents would be the key to opening the fuller story about what Father John Geoghan, the subject of scores of lawsuits, along with other priests and the church itself, had done to victims over the years.

When a Globe lawyer declared the chances of getting those documents unsealed to be 50-50, Baron declared those to be good odds. He persuaded then-publisher Richard Gilman. (Baron believes in “a no-surprise rule: Don’t surprise the publisher.”) He also determined that the paper’s success was more likely because the church was handicapped by “inept legal counsel.” And he calculated that the paper would benefit from the assignment of state Judge Constance Sweeney — a Catholic woman from Springfield, not Boston — to rule on the sealed documents.

Baron also tried to set a restrained tone for the Globe’s stories. “I wanted to be careful with the language, avoiding words like ‘explosive,’ ‘stunning,’ ‘shocking’,” he said. The words applied to priests raping children, of course, but “adjectives like that are the kinds of things people seize on,” Baron told the students. “You don’t need to do that, because the story speaks for itself.” Instead, he imposed an “almost dispassionate” standard. (On the day the Globe’s public-service Pulitzer was announced in 2003, then-Spotlight team leader Walter Robinson had joked about Baron to his fellow staffers that “somewhere within sight of this newsroom there has to be a closet full of adjectives he excised from these stories.”)

Read the rest here.

Read more at www.americamagazine.org
 

Monk Jailed for Possessing Tobacco

Amplify’d from gawker.com






Jeff Neumann







Monk Jailed in Bhutan for Possessing TobaccoRemember the 23-year-old monk in Bhutan who was arrested for carrying chewing tobacco into the country from India under Bhutan's tough new anti-tobacco law? According to the Independent, Sonam Tshering was sentenced yesterday to three years in prison. A little harsh, no? After the verdict he cried, and told reporters, "I should be punished, but the penalty could have been lighter. I wasn't aware about the act." The court ruled that he should be jailed for not paying duties on the tobacco, and that the country's new law "represents the popular will of the people."

[Image via Getty]

Read more at gawker.com
 

Huckabee Not Done With Natalie Portman

Amplify’d from gawker.com






Jim Newell







Mike Huckabee Isn't Through With Natalie Portman YetFilter-free nutter Mike Huckabee, presidential politics' best unknowing imitation of Charlie Sheen, has concluded his hilarious week of incoherent babbling about Barack Obama's Kenyan childhood, scary Mau Maus, Tony Blair's loaned Winston Churchill bust, Rotary Club vs. madrassa membership statistics, and Natalie Portman's vagina with a snippy press release about that last one.

He unnecessarily summoned the critics again yesterday with his concerns, aired on a Monday radio show, about how Natalie Portman's out-of-wedlock devil pregnancy is "glamorized" by the liberal media, which distorts the harsh realities of single parenthood.

We did not understand this argument when Bill O'Reilly used it on Jennifer Aniston, and we don't understand it now. The media really doesn't go out of its way to tell all young women that if they just hop aboard the nearest member, they will all transform into the lovely, talented, and wealthy Natalie Portman. It's not what Natalie Portman advocates at the top of her lungs either. And it's not something that young women would believe even if this powerful PR offensive existed, because it's a cartoonish concept on its face. Also: Engaged Natalie Portman is allowed to be happy about her pregnancy, and the media is allowed to be happy that she's happy. Was it maybe Ellen Degeneres or someone back in the day who got a lot of glowing magazine covers for being a single lesbian mother? Is that the antecedent that Huckabee and O'Reilly are working with? It's gotta have something to do with lesbians.

So anyway, here's the clarification/reiteration that appeared on the HuckPAC website today:


In a recent media interview about my new book, A Simple Government, I discussed the first chapter, "The Most Important Form of Government Is a Father, Mother, and Children." I was asked about Oscar-winner Natalie Portman's out-of-wedlock pregnancy. Natalie is an extraordinary actor, very deserving of her recent Oscar and I am glad she will marry her baby's father. However, contrary to what the Hollywood media reported, I did not "slam" or "attack" Natalie Portman, nor did I criticize the hardworking single mothers in our country. My comments were about the statistical reality that most single moms are very poor, under-educated, can't get a job, and if it weren't for government assistance, their kids would be starving to death. That's the story that we're not seeing, and it's unfortunate that society often glorifies and glamorizes the idea of having children out of wedlock.


A few things... no, nevermind, we're done breaking down Mike Huckabee paragraphs for the week. But you will probably find much to discuss here, if you're willing. What was that about "...and if it weren't for government assistance, their kids would be starving to death"? Interesting work-in of big government sneering, or not? Five to seven page reports, double spaced, Times New Roman size 11, on our desks by Monday morning.

[Image via AP]

Read more at gawker.com
 

Oprah Tape Her Show In Egypt?

Amplify’d from gawker.com






Adrian Chen







Why Won't Oprah Tape Her Show In Egypt?Egyptians, still flush with victory in their street protests, were thrilled by an announcement even more exciting than the news that Mubarak was stepping down: According to Egypt's new tourism minister, Egypt had invited Oprah to broadcast a show from Cairo's Tahrir square and had accepted, "without hesitation."

"The plan is for her to broadcast a live show from Tahrir Square on a Friday in March, but the date has not been finalised," said one report quoted by the AFP.

But nobody told Oprah! (Her tweet is at right.)

It's funny to imagine Oprah rising from her featherbed, logging onto her iPad and learning that she was going to Cairo, then ordering her manservant to tweet that. Come on Oprah. These people just got their freedoms. Do a show there!

[Image via Getty]

Read more at gawker.com
 

Charlie Sheen’s New Goddess Palace

Amplify’d from gawker.com


Richard Lawson







Celebrated actor and humble spirit Charlie Sheen already owns a large spread in Beverly Hills, but hey, what's one more mansion? So he's now in escrow on a $7.5 million pad in the same neighborhood. He's purchasing the home from Black Swan producer Mike Medavoy, but I'd imagine the psychological terror that Sheen brings to the place won't be quite as elegant as that of Natalie Portman's ballerina angst. No, it'll likely just be the regular old porn star coke freakouts and elevators full of tiger blood. Photos of Sheen's new home are above.
Read more at gawker.com
 

Congress Considers Murdering Big Bird

Congress Considers Murdering Homosexual Muppet's Bert & Ernie

Amplify’d from gawker.com






Jim Newell







Congress Considers Murdering Big Bird and SnuffleupagusRepublican Sens. Tom Coburn and Jim DeMint have introduced a bill to cut that program that they always want to cut: subsidies for the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, overlord of PBS and NPR. We already know why Republicans want to cut NPR funding so badly, because the liberal snob station fired a reporter last fall over his patriotic belief that Muslims are terrifying. And PBS! They're downright socialist, and Jim Lehrer is a Muslim spy.

Coburn and DeMint's argument is that NPR, which gets 2% of its funding from the government, and PBS, which gets 15%, are popular enough to stand on their own, and it's time to end these dated protections in a media market with so many disparate options. Here's Democratic Sen. Tom Udall's response to that:


Supporters of continued funding for CPB, such as Sen. Tom Udall (D-N.M.), argue that cuts would impede valuable reporting and programming that commercial stations do not provide because it is not profitable.


"I also think cuts to public broadcasting are harmful to all broadcasting. We won't just lose ‘All Things Considered' or ‘Sesame Street.' We would also lose a consistent source of innovation for the broadcast industry," said Udall in a speech earlier this week to the National Association of Broadcasters.


In other words, thrusting CPB fully into the private arena would negate the whole point of public broadcasting, which is to insulate at least one TV channel and one radio station from the commercial pressures that make all other programming 100% retarded in the long run. Just imagine the look on poor Charlie Rose's face if his producer, desperately needing to juice up ratings, asked him to start wearing sexy American flag patterned short-shorts every night and to plaster his haunting pitch black backdrop with Bieber Tigerbeat covers, a mosaic of empty Miller Lite cans, and countless plus-size pornographic stills. Eventually they'd have to fire Rose himself to make way for Will Smith's latest seven-month-old pop star child to assume hosting duties and jazz up the tween demo. This is when you'll know that the race to the bottom is complete.

[Image of an unsubsidized Big Bird contemplating suicide via AP]

Read more at gawker.com
 

Wisconsin Police Tackle State Lawmaker

Amplify’d from gawker.com






Jim Newell







Wisconsin Police Tackle State Lawmaker Entering the Capitol Pity the overworked police officers of Madison, Wisconsin, who must be completely exhausted after monitoring around-the-clock protests for weeks while getting different orders every three seconds — clear the Capitol, reopen the Capitol, take senators into custody if they ever step foot in the state they represent, clear the Capitol, and so on — depending on Gov. Scott Walker's mood. So maybe it was this constant state of confusion that led some officers to tackle a Democratic lawmaker as he was trying to reach his Capitol office last night.

The Capitol's interior was closed off to the public last night, with officers guarding the entrances. Since liberal Wisconsin legislators don't ever seem to wear professional work attire, the police must have confused Democratic Rep. Nick Milroy with the average hobo sleeping on the lawn in the middle of winter. They tackled him to the ground before he was able to show his ID.

Milroy was headed to his office to pick up more of his hobo clothes and personal items, in fact. It's not that he forgot them when he left the office earlier in the day. It's because Milroy was "one of four Democratic Assembly members who moved their desks outside the Capitol Tuesday after public access was restricted." Madison, Wisconsin doesn't really make sense anymore; there's a tenuous sense of order now, but it will soon convert entirely to the surreal. This is why it's the best political story of the year by a mile.

Read more at gawker.com
 

Helping a Man Kill Himself Murder?

Amplify’d from gawker.com






Hamilton Nolan







Is Helping a Man Kill Himself the Same as Murder?Jeffrey Locker (pictured) was a motivational speaker. He was good enough to motivate a random guy that he met on the street, Kenneth Minor, to take his ATM card in exchange for holding a knife as Locker repeatedly impaled himself on it, and died.

The basic facts of the case are not in dispute. And yesterday, based upon those facts, Minor was convicted of second degree murder. Because he used the victim's ATM card to take out money— something Minor says Locker agreed to—the prosecutor charged him with murdering Locker, for money. But is it murder if the victim begs you to do it? The judge in the case said that "The consent of the victim is not a defense to murder." Minor's lawyer disagreed:


Mr. Gotlin said the New York law on assisted suicide made no distinction between passive or active participation; it only states that a person "causes or aides" in another person's death. (In that case, he said the charge would be manslaughter in the second degree and not murder.)


It's a philosophical question. Clearly, society does not want to encourage suicidal people to hire strangers off the street to help them die violently. But if you believe in the right of a person to decide to end his own life, then failing to distinguish those who assist them with suicide from common, cold-blooded murderers is lunacy, not justice.

[NYT]

Read more at gawker.com