RSN Fundraising Banner
FB Share
Email This Page
add comment
Politics
FOCUS: On the Importance of Respecting Women Print
Friday, 14 August 2015 11:50

Colbert writes: "First off, it's an honor to be writing for Glamour, a magazine so sophisticated it has an extra u in the title. All the finest publications do, like The New Yourker and Rolling Stoune."

Stephen Colbert. (photo: Getty Images)
Stephen Colbert. (photo: Getty Images)


On the Importance of Respecting Women

By Stephen Colbert, Glamour

14 August 15

 

irst off, it's an honor to be writing for Glamour, a magazine so sophisticated it has an extra u in the title. All the finest publications do, like The New Yourker and Rolling Stoune.

I want to thank the staff of Glamour for asking me to contribute. It's a nice consolation prize for being passed over for their Woman of the Year Award. Not that I wanted it anyway. I believe that honor should go to a woman. I'm a bit of a feminist that way.

And make no mistake: I love women. I'm married to one, I was birthed by one, and I played one in my high school production of Romeo and Juliet. No one else could fit into the bodice.

Women today have so many smart, resourceful, and intuitive role models. Look no further than Marissa Mayer, Michelle Obama, Sacajawea, and the green M&M.

And according to the U.S. Census Bureau, women outnumber men. Fellas, technically this does make you a minority, but it's probably best not to say so on your college financial aid application.

It has been pointed out to me that I, like other late-night TV hosts, am a man. And while I'm happy to have a job, I am surprised that the world of late-night TV lacks a female presence, unlike sitcoms, which are packed with smoking-hot wives who teach their doughy husband a valuable lesson when he slips on a pizza and falls headfirst into a porta-potty full of beer. Check your local listings.

While there are many talented female comedians out there, right now the world of late-night is a bit of a sausagefest. Perhaps one day it will be just the opposite—which I believe is called a Georgia O'Keeffe retrospective.

And mine is not the only field that lacks enough women. Where are all the lady blacksmiths? What about the bait-and-tackle shopkeepers, pool maintenance professionals, building superintendents, or CEOs of Fortune 500 companies? Why are all those minions shaped like tiny phalluses? Why did Mad Max get top billing in Fury Road when he was essentially just a grunting tripod for Charlize Theron's rifle? Of course, historically, our thriving U.S. president industry definitely skews male—but that could change in 2016. Carly Fiorina, all eyes are on you.

Even when women do succeed, their stories often aren't told. Did you know that the first computer, ENIAC, was programmed by six female mathematicians? If it weren't for those pioneering women, we might not have computers at all. And then how would people read empowering listicles like "20 Hot Actresses Without Makeup! (#5 Will Make You Question God!)"?

My point is this: Why does this gender inequality still persist, and how can we stop it? I don't have all the answers. And frankly, it's sexist of you to think I do just because I'm a man. C'mon!

Besides, it's not my place to mansplain to you about the manstitutionalized manvantages built into Americman manciety. That would make me look like a real manhole.

To be honest, sometimes I wonder whether the world would be a better place if women were in charge. It would be pretty easy to make that happen. Simply tell the men of the world that you're trying to start a campfire. While we're all arguing with one another about proper kindling placement and whether using lighter fluid is cheating,* women can just quietly start getting stuff done.

But until that revolution I will continue to fight for women, because I'm a man who is deeply in touch with my femininity. I believe gender is a spectrum, and I fall somewhere between Channing Tatum and Winnie the Pooh. Pooh and I definitely agree on the no-pants thing. As soon as I'm home, off they go—and I'm knuckle-deep in a pot of honey.

I love all the things women love: exfoliating microbeads, period costume dramas, Joe Manganiello's second row of abs, pay commensurate with my skill set, York peppermint patties, Legolas, the respect of my colleagues, and being warm.

And physically women can relate to me. I have womanly hips—soft and grabbable, and they really fill out my low-rise Levi's. I've got muffin top for days. Sure, the other hosts bring the eye candy. Jimmy Fallon has a boyish charm, and for the ladies who are into ladies, if you squint, Jimmy Kimmel kind of looks like a rugged Mila Kunis. But female viewers need more than a pretty face. They need someone who will represent their voice. And I think this essay has proved that I have an authentic female perspective, because most of it was written by two female writers on my staff.

Point is, I'm here for you, and that means I'm going to do my best to create a Late Show that not only appeals to women but also celebrates their voices. These days TV would have you believe that being a woman means sensually eating yogurt, looking for ways to feel confident on heavy days, and hunting for houses. But I'm going to make a show that truly respects women, because I know that there's more than one way to be one. Maybe you're a woman who likes women. Maybe you like women and men. Maybe you're a woman who's recently transitioned. Maybe you're a guy who's reading this magazine because your girlfriend bought a copy and it looked interesting.

Whoever you are, I promise: I'm going to lean in on this. It really accentuates my muffin top.

Stephen Colbert is the host of The Late Show With Stephen Colbert, which starts September 8 on CBS.

*It is!

e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 
FOCUS | Roger Goodell vs. Tom Brady: The Ultimate Revenge-of-Mediocrity Story Print
Friday, 14 August 2015 10:22

Taibbi writes: "The NFL Commissioner and the league's most marketable player meet in a New York courtroom Wednesday, to decide ... something?"

Roger Goodell and Tom Brady. (photo: Jonathan Daniel/Tom Pennington/Getty Images)
Roger Goodell and Tom Brady. (photo: Jonathan Daniel/Tom Pennington/Getty Images)


Roger Goodell vs. Tom Brady: The Ultimate Revenge-of-Mediocrity Story

By Matt Taibbi, Rolling Stone

14 August 15

 

The NFL Commissioner and the league's most marketable player meet in a New York courtroom Wednesday, to decide…something?

here are countless ways to become famous in America. You can be born beautiful, run really fast in a straight line, revolutionize morning radio or break backboards with monster dunks. You can land a plane in the Hudson River. You can star in True Detective and spend the next year making whacked-out Lincoln commercials. There's no magic formula for celebrity. You just have to do something.

Then there's Roger Goodell.

The Commissioner of the NFL, who goes to court today in a historic battle against Patriots quarterback and alleged ball-deflation conspirator Tom Brady, might be the most famous person in America who's never actually done anything.

When Goodell assumed the job of NFL Commissioner in 2006, the league was exploding in popularity. It was the ultimate golden-goose business; a wildly popular sport that tens of millions would follow even if you told them watching the games caused bowel cancer. All the owners needed a new frontman to do to keep the cash flowing was absolutely nothing. So to do nothing, they picked just the right man.  

Everything about Roger Goodell is average. His face doesn't have a single distinguishing feature. Even other nondescript white guys would have trouble picking him out in a police lineup. He's been on TV as much as anyone in sports in recent years, but not even the most dedicated football fan can remember anything he's actually said.

His speech is nasal and slow. His intellect rates a consistent C/C-minus. He went to Washington & Jefferson College, a school near Pittsburgh whose fight song is sung to the tune of "99 Bottles of Beer on the Wall" and makes fun of a Presbyterian seminary for women. To paraphrase the Russian novelist Nikolai Gogol: everybody has something, but Roger Goodell has nothing.

Goodell has a job that causes him to be surrounded by genetic lottery winners, players whose extraordinary talents Americans pay $10 billion a year to watch. For most human beings this would be humbling. But Goodell decided fairly quickly after taking the job that what the league needed was not more dazzling on-field play, but more Roger Goodell. He started looking for ways to inject himself into the game. He was like the bozo producer on a movie shoot who keeps asking the director to write cameos for him into the script.

He started small, dropping suspensions on not-quite-stars with arrest issues like "Pacman" Jones and the late Chris Henry. The sports media mostly cheered. Many had long begged for the kind of iron-hand discipline that former Commissioner Paul Tagliabue, a lawyer and probable secret believer in civil rights, had refused to wield.

"Tagliabue is a good man," wrote ESPN's Len Pasquarelli in 2007, "but he also is an attorney and often fretted more over due process than enunciating a can-do policy of punishment."

Goodell was different, "a veritable hanging judge," Pasquarelli wrote. "Good for him."

The hangman must have loved all of these bons mots (reporters also called him "sheriff" and the "ginger hammer"), because he quickly transformed the humdrum process of handing down player suspensions. Like the draft and the combine, he took an obscure league ritual and turned it into destination television.

If and when democracy collapses under the upcoming Trump administration, Goodell's discipline process is what the criminal justice system will look like: secret evidence, double-jeopardy prosecutions, judges serving as prosecutors and vice versa, no right against self-incrimination, no right to face accusers, ex post facto lawmaking, conviction by inference, etc.

Of course it's hard to get worked up about any of this, because the "crimes" Goodell punishes involve things like leaking air out of footballs. But that's what makes all this so absurd. It's like a Poconos-comedy version of Stalinism.

The arc of the "sheriff's" discipline cases is almost always the same. A prominent player, coach or team gets in the soup. Goodell steps in and promises justice. Salacious details are leaked to the media; the player is handed a maximum or beyond-maximum punishment; moralizing sportswriters rush to applaud the "tough" decision.

When the accused pursues his appeal, he discovers he's not entitled to find out what the charges actually are, what evidence the league has or who's testifying against him. Moreover, as the appeal date gets closer, the charges may change. The player might be told that he is accused of non-cooperation and/or lying. He and his lawyers soon discover that they're being asked to prove a negative. Can you demonstrate you've cooperated fully? If the commissioner finds you "not credible," what's the defense against that?

The moving-target prosecution works. Look at the New Orleans Saints. In June of 2012, Goodell's office leaked a document to Jason Cole of Yahoo! that purported to show a "ledger" of payments made to Saints team members for hits that injured opposing players.

The story was amazingly specific, citing a game against the Buffalo Bills in 2009 in which three players were paid $1,000 apiece for hits that led to players being "carted off" the field.

But it later came out that of the four Bills players injured in that game, three played defense, making it impossible for Saints defensive players to have been guilty. So Cole's league source "corrected" the leak, saying that the game in question was actually a November 2009 contest against the Panthers.

But in that game, only one Panthers player was injured, a linebacker who fell down untouched while backpedaling. The story has never been retracted.

The league leaked all sorts of bits and pieces of evidence against the Saints. Much of it turned out to be not true, or not exactly true. The league, for instance, said that linebacker Jonathan Vilma put $10,000 on a table before a game, offering it to any teammate who would knock out Brett Favre. But it's not clear that actually happened.

The league said another player, Anthony Hargrove, was caught on video asking for money for hitting Favre. Goodell's office even issued the video. But it wasn't clear in the end that Hargrove actually said anything incriminating, or why the NFL was so sure he had.

By the time all of this got sorted out in the media, the players' suspensions were being upheld in a ruling that didn't mention the ledger and only said "a Saints player" was heard saying stuff on video, and mostly just slammed them all for refusing to admit guilt.

Goodell pulled the same Whac-A-Mole tactic with Ray Rice. In that case, Goodell first imposed a two-game ban on the Ravens star for domestic abuse. But after a horrifying video of Rice's conduct hit the news, the commissioner re-thought his decision. He decided to impose an indefinite ban under a new domestic violence policy that he would apply retroactively, claiming that Rice had lied to him about the extent of his conduct, constituting a new offense.

A federal judge disagreed, ruling that Goodell himself had lied about being misled. The icy judicial ruling expressly prohibited the league from ever again retroactively applying new conduct policies.

But just two weeks later, Goodell whipped out his cojones and repeated the same trick with Vikings star Adrian Peterson. He claimed Peterson's failure to show remorse for striking his child constituted a new violation, even though he committed the actual abuse under the old policy.

A weary court system eventually overturned Goodell again, but by then the league had leapfrogged from Rice to Peterson to the next target: Brady.

"Deflategate" is like a greatest hits collects of all of Goodell's best gags. There's the prominent leak of false info, this time to Chris Mortensen at ESPN (who said 11 of 12 Patriots footballs were underinflated by 2 PSI) instead of Jason Cole. There's the goalpost-moving decision to hammer Brady for non-cooperation once the furor over the original deflation charges waned. And there was the refusal to let Brady see the evidence against him, in this case hiding it behind the attorney-client privilege Goodell claimed he enjoyed with his "independent" investigator, Ted Wells.

Now it's the first week of the 2015 preseason, and instead of talking about football, the entire country is about to tune in to a WWE-style reputational death-match that pits Brady, the game's biggest star, against Roger Goodell, the most uninteresting man in America.

If Goodell wins this cage fight against the glamor-boy quarterback, it will be the ultimate revenge-of-mediocrity story. Antonio Salieri is probably history's most famous mediocrity, but Salieri at least wrote music. In fact, you couldn't have F. Murray Abraham play Goodell, because F. Murray Abraham is too interesting.

If Goodell wins this court battle, sports pundits will line up to talk about what a "brilliant" PR strategist Goodell is, how he's "masterfully" scored a public relations "knockout" of the once-iconic Brady.

Except this Iago-esque campaign of diabolical leaks, secret indictments and double punishments has been conducted against his most marketable player for…why exactly? What other business would spend such an awesome amount of time, money, and most of all cunning undermining its key employees?

Can you imagine Adam Silver poring through the fine print of the NBA's collective bargaining agreement in search of a way to leak Kevin Durant's family emails? Or pursuing a scorched-earth prosecution of LeBron James over a shoelace violation?

It's like concocting a brilliant plan to break into a supermax prison. Hey, you made it, congratulations, that's a hell of a tunnel you built there. Now what was the point again?

Whether you think Tom Brady is guilty or not (and as a Patriots fan I have my own obvious, and probably laughable, opinion) is sort of irrelevant by now. If it hadn't been Brady, it would have been someone else.

The drama that's kicking off in New York this week is really all about Roger Goodell, who's been moving toward this moment for years. The commissioner is very close to a great career triumph. It'll be a stupid, self-defeating, pointless triumph, but a triumph nonetheless. And then we'll all go back to wondering what the hell this was about.

e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 
Reality and Dreams Print
Friday, 14 August 2015 08:48

Castro writes: "As has been expressed with clarity by Cuba's Party and government, to advance good will and peace among all the countries of this hemisphere and the many peoples who are part of the human family, and thus contribute to the survival of our species in the modest place the universe has conceded us, we will never stop struggling for peace and the well-being of all human beings, for every inhabitant on the planet regardless of skin color or national origin,

Fidel Castro. (photo: Reuters)
Fidel Castro. (photo: Reuters)


Reality and Dreams

By Fidel Castro, Granma

14 August 15

 

ALSO SEE: On Eve Of Embassy Reopening, Fidel Castro Says US Owes Cuba 'Millions'

The leader of the Cuban Revolution insists that we will never stop struggling for peace and the well-being of all human beings, for every inhabitant on the planet regardless of skin color or national origin.

riting is a way to be useful if you believe that our long-suffering humanity must be better, and more fully educated, given the incredible ignorance in which we are all enveloped, with the exception of researchers who in the sciences seek satisfactory answers. This is a word which implies in a few letters its immense content.

All of us in our youth heard talk at some point about Einstein, in particular after the explosion of the atomic bombs which pulverized Hiroshima and Nagasaki, putting an end to the cruel war between the United States and Japan.

When those bombs were dropped, after the war unleashed by the attack on the U.S. base at Pearl Harbor, the Japanese Empire had already been defeated. The United States, whose territory and industries remained removed from the war, became the country with the greatest wealth and the best weaponry on Earth, in a world torn apart, full of death, the wounded and hungry.

The Soviet Union and China together lost more than 50 million lives, along with enormous material damage. Almost all of the gold in the world landed in the vaults of the United States. Today it is estimated that the entirety of this country’s gold reserves reached 8,133.5 tons of this metal. Despite that, tearing up the Bretton Woods accords they signed, the United States unilaterally declared that it would not fulfill its duty to back the Troy ounce with the value in gold of its paper money.

The measure ordered by Nixon violated the commitments made by President Franklin Delano Roosevelt. According to a large number of experts on the subject, the foundation of a crisis was created, which among other disasters threatens to powerfully batter the economy of this model of a country. Meanwhile, Cuba is owed compensation equivalent to damages, which have reached many millions of dollars, as our country has denounced throughout our interventions in the United Nations, with irrefutable arguments and facts.

As has been expressed with clarity by Cuba’s Party and government, to advance good will and peace among all the countries of this hemisphere and the many peoples who are part of the human family, and thus contribute to the survival of our species in the modest place the universe has conceded us, we will never stop struggling for peace and the well-being of all human beings, for every inhabitant on the planet regardless of skin color or national origin, and for the full right of all to hold a religious belief or not.

The equal right of all citizens to health, education, work, food, security, culture, science, and wellbeing, that is, the same rights we proclaimed when we began our struggle, in addition to those which emerge from our dreams of justice and equality for all inhabitants of our world, is what I wish for all. To those who share all or part of these same ideas, or superior ones along the same lines, I thank you, dear compatriots.

Fidel Castro Ruz

August 13, 2015

e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 
Sanders Shamelessly Pandering to Voters Who Want to Hear Truth Print
Written by <a href="index.php?option=com_comprofiler&task=userProfile&user=9160"><span class="small">Andy Borowitz, The New Yorker</span></a>   
Thursday, 13 August 2015 13:33

Borowitz writes: "Presidential candidate Bernie Sanders is gaining legions of new admirers by shamelessly pandering to voters who want to hear the truth, critics of the Vermont senator say."

Sen. Bernie Sanders. (photo: Patrick T. Fallon/Getty)
Sen. Bernie Sanders. (photo: Patrick T. Fallon/Getty)


Sanders Shamelessly Pandering to Voters Who Want to Hear Truth

By Andy Borowitz, The New Yorker

13 August 15

 

The article below is satire. Andy Borowitz is an American comedian and New York Times-bestselling author who satirizes the news for his column, "The Borowitz Report."


residential candidate Bernie Sanders is gaining legions of new admirers by shamelessly pandering to voters who want to hear the truth, critics of the Vermont senator say.

According to those critics, Sanders has cynically targeted so-called “truth-based voters” to build support for his Presidential bid.

“People come to Sanders’s rallies expecting to hear the truth, and he serves it up to them on a silver platter,” the political strategist Harland Dorrinson said. “It’s a very calculated gimmick.”

But while Sanders’s practice of relentlessly telling the truth might play well in states that are rich in truth-based voters, like the early primary states of Iowa and New Hampshire, critics say that his campaign could stall in states where the truth has historically been less important, like Florida.

“At some point in this campaign, voters are going to get truth fatigue,” Dorrinson said. “Right now, the novelty of a politician who doesn’t constantly spew lies is grabbing headlines. But after months of Bernie Sanders telling the truth, voters are going to start wondering, Is that all he’s got?”

Dorrinson is just one of many critics who are eagerly waiting for the Sanders phenomenon to come down to Earth. “Telling the truth may be working for Bernie Sanders, but it shows a serious lack of respect for the American political system,” he said.

e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 
Shell Is Just One Little Step Away From Drilling in the Arctic Print
Written by <a href="index.php?option=com_comprofiler&task=userProfile&user=36376"><span class="small">Katie Herzog, Grist</span></a>   
Thursday, 13 August 2015 13:14

Herzog writes: "Shell's Arctic drilling is a big deal. In addition to concerns about oil spills, a study from researchers at University College London contends that all oil in the Arctic needs to stay in the ground if we are to keep global temperatures below a 2 degree C increase."

Shell drilling platform. (photo: Mark Meyer/Greenpeace)
Shell drilling platform. (photo: Mark Meyer/Greenpeace)


Shell Is Just One Little Step Away From Drilling in the Arctic

By Katie Herzog, Grist

13 August 15

 

ALSO SEE: Arctic Oil Drilling Is a Climate Disaster, Says New Report

he world is now one step closer to ending.

After Portland climate activists temporarily blocked its passage north, the Shell ice-breaking vessel the Fennica has finally met up with the Arctic drilling rig the Polar Pioneer. Both vessels were needed before Shell could start deep drilling in the Chukchi Sea. Shell has now requested the last permits it needs from the Interior Department, and the oil giant speculates that it will be able to salvage the end of the summer drilling season before the Arctic freezes over.

The Guardian reports:

The company’s Arctic programme resumes after a three-year hiatus caused by a disastrous year in 2012, which ended with one of its rigs washed ashore on a beach in Alaska. Critics question Shell’s assertions that it is capable of operating safely in the treacherous conditions in the Arctic.

Charlie Kronick, senior climate advisor to Greenpeace UK, said: “Shell’s catastrophic record since 2012, as well as their mishap-plagued progress to Alaska this year, show just how unprepared they are for the harsh conditions of the Arctic. The company is patently unwilling to call time on this wasteful and potentially catastrophic project. It’s now up to the regulators and investors to do so.”

Concerns have also been raised over Shell’s ability to clean up a spill in an area covered by sea ice for much of the year.

Pat Pourchot, who worked closely on Shell’s programme as the US Department of Interior’s special assistant for Alaska affairs from 2009 until February this year, told the Guardian that if a large spill did occur: “It’s really tough to talk about effective clean up. I don’t think anybody should have illusions. Clean up will be extremely modest.”

Shell’s Arctic drilling is a big deal. In addition to concerns about oil spills, a study from researchers at University College London contends that all oil in the Arctic needs to stay in the ground if we are to keep global temperatures below a 2 degree C increase — the internationally agreed-upon point at which it’s too late to prevent catastrophic climate change. In short: This is happening, and we’re probably fucked. Please direct your complaints to the Obama administration.

e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 
<< Start < Prev 2371 2372 2373 2374 2375 2376 2377 2378 2379 2380 Next > End >>

Page 2373 of 3432

THE NEW STREAMLINED RSN LOGIN PROCESS: Register once, then login and you are ready to comment. All you need is a Username and a Password of your choosing and you are free to comment whenever you like! Welcome to the Reader Supported News community.

RSNRSN