Pimps, Lies, and Videotapes

This is interesting. Several years ago I worked on the siting and planning for a solar field in California.

It was stopped by one single issue. Desert Tortoise habitat.

Where's algore? turtles are more important that other sorses of energry, Say it ain't so>>>>

Not one word about this in mother jones, (unless I missed it which is possible, am only human and do have a tolerance towards Bullsh*t!), and this is a lot more important to the health of Earth, kill off the bottom of the food chain, and it moves up fast…

http://dailybayonet.com/?p=4388
Solar Death Panels
Another green technology is revealed to be deadly to nature. Solar panels are deadly to bugs:
Solar panels might be a cornerstone of green energy, but new research shows that they may have a dark side: the panels are a mesmerizing, lethal attraction to certain aquatic insects, drawing them to the panels’ surface and trapping them there until they die.
“It’s like these organisms become dazzled to death,” said Bruce Robertson of Michigan State University’s W.K. Kellogg Biological Station in Hickory Corners who led the study.
I think this dead bug phenomenon should be known as the ‘Justin Bieber Effect’, wherein a shiny but mostly useless object attracts swarms of unthinking organisms and dazzles them to death. I think it works, no?


http://news.discovery.com/animals/solar-panels-insects.html
Solar Panels Lure, Kill Insects
Why should we care if a green energy spells doom for certain insects? It matters since the bugs are a key part of an important food chain, say scientists.
THE GIST
• Solar panels can lure aquatic insects to their doom by mimicking the appearance of water.
• Large solar arrays in the desert could have particularly far-reaching effects on insects and the animals that feed on them.
• Applying white strips to the panel to reduce the size of the polarizing patches reduces the effect.

(NOTE: Maybe that’s where the bees met their demise?)
I would except this dude to be in mother jones….
Solar Panels — A Win-Win Situation in Death Valley
http://gildartphoto.com/weblog/2009/01/28/solar-panels-a-win-win-situation-in-death-valley

And shouldn't we move this to Science thread?

TPP wrote: O I thought this was going to be vl bio.






BTW, mother jones come-on, you're smarter than that....

Not really TPP. Just part of the

Science Chic wrote: OmniScience - that's what happens when money and policy take over instead of critical, thoughtful thinking. There has to be a balance found. No energy source will be without its negative consequences, but if we start this endeavour right, maybe they can be minimalized. If we can vastly improve our energy efficiency, then we don't need to implement so much energy production, which is ideal.

Actually, Chicky it had nothing to do with money. It had everything to do with the NEPA permitting process as it relates to the ESA (and some other State requirements in Cal.)

Not trying to hijack this thread, but If you're at all interested you might take a look at this-->

http://solar.gwu.edu/Research/ESAandIvanpah_DonohueGWLLM.pdf

Just FYI - This was NOT the project I was involved in, but the objections, requirements, and constraints were quite similar.

These questions??????

TPP wrote:

Science Chic wrote:

TPP wrote: O I thought this was going to be vl bio.
BTW, mother jones come-on, you're smarter than that....

Science Chic wrote: Explain to me what's wrong with Mother Jones, please TPP. I use them for a lot of my environmental stuff,

You just explained it your self!

Science Chic wrote: but did you know that just a couple of days ago, they posted a story about Solar Death Panels? http://motherjones.com/environment/2011 ... ise-mojave

Did they do one on Death Panels, I think Not!(Btw Turtle soup is really good).
Anyway, Shouldn't we relocate the turtles to a better area? So that all turtles can be equal and have the same chance as all other turtles?

Science Chic wrote: So what about The Blaze's story? Glenn Beck's own site admits that this video grossly misrepresents Schiller - are they liberally biased now too? lol

NO, As I've said it's the TRUTH, no matter where it lands Right/left or those that just don't care..

While Wikipedia is not the final authority on anything, here is how they describe Mother Jones Magazine...

Mother Jones (abbreviated MoJo) is an independent, nonprofit magazine, rooted in liberal and progressive political values. It is widely known for its investigative reporting.

From my understanding of them, I do think they tend to lean to the left, but they do so in their own free manner, and are not tied to the Democratic party like I think most Fox News commentators (not the news itself) are closely tied to the Republican party.

With that being said, both of the links that SC posted from Mother Jones about O'Keefe are highly biased to the left, IMO. Had these articles been posted in a mainstream magazine or newspaper, they would of been called editorials. But Mother Jones calles them "Top Stories" (the first is under Media, The Right, Top Stories and the second under Culture, Media, Top Stories).

You can see the slant of the first link right in the title ("Pimps, Lies, and Videotapes") and even in the first sentence. The author says O'Keefe's work has been exposed as "disengenuously edited hit jobs" and when you click on that for his source you find it's none other than MediaMatters. Come on, no true reporter would make a statement like that right at the beginning, and then sight a clearly biased source (I'm pretty sure I've read that MediaMatters article before and we could discuss it at another time).

Next he shows a table of O'Keefe's "hit jobs" (nice term) even though two of them don't involve O'Keefe. And what's this "Scary Black People MEME" column about? The author doesn't explain it, but it's clearly intended to suggest O'Keefe is a racist too. Here is a hit job "journalist" complaining about a hit job "investigator".

The second Mother Jones article also has a "smear" right in the title (... O'Keefe's Smear Jobs). Again, the first sentence attacks by calling O'Keefe one of "journalism's greatest disgraces". The article says O'Keefe "was notorious for creating deceptive video smear jobs (ACORN? Hello?)" but offers no documentation. The article implies that since a 2 hour conversation is edited down to a 12 minute video that the whole 12 minute video must be invalid. Doesn't 60 Minutes do this all the time? And how often does 60 Minutes release the full raw videos, like O'Keefe did? As I recall, 60 Minutes used to use similar deceptive practices for their investigative reports as well (though I haven't seen it in a long time). I could go on and on.

Now, it may seem I'm defending O'Keefe's "investigative" reporting. I'm not. I don't care for his style nor the editing of his videos at all. In the future I'll pay much less attention to his edited videos unless he also releases the full uncut versions (as he did with NPR). But to consider the Mother Jones stories about him as unbiased baffles me. They are smear jobs too.

And just because there are faults in O'Keefe's methods (and in Mother Jones' two articles as well) does not mean everything he presents is a lie. Much of what is in the videos speaks for itself. And the fact that NPR threw those two to the curb and the fact that they have not spoken out (as Shirley Sherrod did) is further evidence to me that the tapes were incriminating, and I also suspect that NPR was worried that O'Keefe had additional videos to release as well. And BTW, NPR must of certainly known about O'Keefe's previous work with ACORN. If they were convinced his ACORN work was all a lie due to edited videos, wouldn't they of waited and investigated before they took action when it happened to them?

If anyone had some good journalism out of all of this, it's the Blaze article. It seems well researched to me, and does not call people names. But the one thing it's missing, and what the Mother Jones articles also misses, is what Schliller supposedly said about Jews controlling the news media. I thought that was the main reason he was sent to the curb (well, he'd already quit)?

And speaking of Schiller, I kind of feel sorry for him because he was a pawn in O'Keefe's game/war against NPR. And he was a sacrificed pawn. I hear the people hiring him for his new job dropped their offer. If so, I don't think it's right. Schiller was kissing up to two potential $5 million doners just like I think most people in his position would. He had no idea it was all on tape. The poor guy got nailed for something that happens all the time.

And since Mother Jones is a great investigative magazine, why don't they do a real investigation of O'Keefe's group where they do their own research instead of using MediaMatters? Maybe they can catch him on video sometime? Or even better, hopefully someone can get video of the inner workings of Fox News?

Mother Jones, NY Times, La Times, Chicago Tribune, Denver Post, PMSNBC, CNN, CBS,ABC, PBS, NPR, Media Matters, Huffington Puffington Post, Politico, AOL-Time, Daily Kos .....................................

Put all your eggs in one basket?
Or did you mean Birds of a feather.....