ThinkProgress Logo

Climate Progress

Stunning NOAA map of Tennessee’s 1000-year deluge

15 sites had rainfall exceeding maximum associated with Hurricane Katrina landfall

What is a 100 year flood? A 100 year flood is an event that statistically has a 1% chance of occurring in any given year. A 500 year flood has a .2% chance of occurring and a 1000 year flood has a .1% chance of occurring. The map below relates [the] amount of rainfall that fell to the chances of that amount of rain actually occurring.

Nashville1 5-10

Climate Progress has been documenting the woefully underreported Tennessee deluge of 2010 aka Nashville’s ‘Katrina’. It was an off-the-charts extreme weather event that human-caused global warming set the table for and almost certainly made more intense, as a leading climate scientist explained to me (interview to be posted next week).

But I didn’t understand just how unprecedented this superstorm was until I saw the above map from the Office of Hydrological Development at NOAA/NWS.  I have never seen a map like this before, but then that may be because there simply aren’t many events to rival this one.  Look at the red streak, which is the area hit by a greater than 1000-year deluge.  And look at how much of western Tennessee was slammed with a greater than 500 year downpour.  This is the “high water” of Hell and High Water.

The NWS has more maps that put the deluge in perspective, including how it compared to Hurricane Katrina’s rainfall:

Read more

Politics

AFA: Hitler was gay, and he recruited gay soldiers because they had ‘no limits’ on their ‘savagery.’

American Family Association’s (AFA) homophobic Director of Issue Analysis for Government and Public Policy, Bryan Fischer, is constantly pushing an extreme anti-gay agenda, even going after people he just thinks might be gay. This week on AFA Radio, he claimed that not only was Adolf Hitler gay, but all his “Brownshirts” were too:

FISCHER: So Hitler himself was an active homosexual. And some people wonder, didn’t the Germans, didn’t the Nazis, persecute homosexuals? And it is true they did; they persecuted effeminate homosexuals. But Hitler recruited around him homosexuals to make up his Stormtroopers, they were his enforcers, they were his thugs. And Hitler discovered that he could not get straight soldiers to be savage and brutal and vicious enough to carry out his orders, but that homosexual solders basically had no limits and the savagery and brutality they were willing to inflict on whomever Hitler sent them after. So he surrounded himself, virtually all of the Stormtroopers, the Browshirts, were male homosexuals.

As Right Wing Watch points out, Fischer has received the right-wing stamp of approval by being confirmed as a speaker to the Family Research Council’s Values Voter Summit. Watch it:

Politics

Obama Sees Conservatives For Who They Really Are

By Ali Frick

I want to build off of Ryan’s post below a bit. Ryan pointed out that the existing atmosphere is irrevocably partisan, and that Obama seems — finally — to be noticing:

Noting that sometimes conservative activists portray him with a Hitler moustache, Obama seemed to put to rest any notion that there could be broad-based bipartisan cooperation – something he promised to try to bring to Washington during his 2008 campaign.

“There are members of their base who think if somebody even smiles at me, they think, ‘You’re a traitor. You smiled at Obama,’ ” the president said at fundraiser for Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.). “The day has passed when I expected this to be a full partnership.”

There is hardly any “room for cooperation” in the Republican Party, Obama said.

That was a quote from last night. But just hours before, the Obama administration announced it would agree to right-wing demands and send troops to the Mexican border — even though a) the move comes without a full compromise on comprehensive reform and b) troops at the border won’t stop illegal immigration, and c) Obama knows it’s a bad idea (from March: “We’ve got a very big border with Mexico,” the president said. “I’m not interested in militarizing the border.”).

But the larger point is that, if Obama believes what he said last night, then he knows that the move won’t do a thing to bring conservatives to the table on comprehensive immigration reform. (And, as Ryan points out, there seems to be little that could bring conservatives and progressive together right now.)

I guess the strategy is for Obama to constantly reach out to conservatives with compromise, only to have his hand slapped away. Over and over and over again. And then he can go out and say things like he said last night.

The problem with this strategy is two-fold: First, conservatives just make stuff up. They say he is a partisan hack who refuses to compromise — even when this is patently and obviously untrue — and hope enough people are ignorant for them to win. Too often, that strategy works.

Second, when Obama does go to fire up the base as he did last night, those of us there start to wonder whether he actually believes what he’s saying. If he does, we wonder why he keeps reaching out, repeatedly demonstrating his good faith by acceding to central conservative demands (supporting offshore oil drilling, scrapping a public option, ditching an independent CFPA) before negotiations on the larger reform have begun.

On the other hand, it is effective for Obama to point out every time Republicans refuse to work with him — and even more effective when he looks at what conservatives really want to do and points out why it’s so dangerous to America. “You can’t drive!” not only fires up the base, but drives home (excuse the pun) the fundamental point: Conservatives and progressives aren’t working together because these people are maniacs.

Justice

INTERVIEW: Rep. Murphy Responds To Critics, Predicts DADT Will Be Repealed ‘Shortly After’ Study

Responding to criticism that the Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell repeal compromise doesn’t end the policy fast enough or provide enough safeguards to ensure eventual repeal, Rep. Patrick Murphy (D-PA) — the lead sponsor of repeal in the House — said, in an exclusive interview with the Wonk Room, that he expected “Secretary of Defense Gates and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Mullen” to certify the Defense Authority “shortly after” it is completed.

Murphy admitted that the compromise did not replace DADT with a new nondiscrimination policy — as his original repeal legislation would have done — but expressed confidence that Gates would institute one anyway. “The Secretary of Defense and the Chairman could put clearly a policy in place that would not discriminate against men and women because of their sexual orientation. And I have full confidence that they will,” he said:

ON SWIFT REPEAL:

I take both Secretary of Defense Gates and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Mullen at their word and that they both have articulated the need to repeal Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell and that I believe our agreement is a smart agreement and that it truly dismantles Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell. But it pays respect and honors the Pentagon Study Group that they’re formulating.

Q: Can you give any kind of estimate of how long you think it would take after the study is out for it to be certified?

I would think it would be shortly after.

ON INSTITUTING A NONDISCRIMINATION POLICY:

I’m fully confident in the public testimony of both Secretary of Defense Gates of Chairman Mike Mullen and our current Commander in Chief, Barack Obama, that they have been very clear that they want to have a nondiscriminatory policy in place. Having a nondiscriminatory policy in place was impossible because U.S. law for 17 years was that we’ll continue discrimination that we currently do as under Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell. The Secretary of Defense and the Chairman could put clearly a policy in place that would not discriminate against men and women because of their sexual orientation. And I have full confidence that they will.”

Listen to highlights:

Murphy also responded to Chief of Naval Operations’ G. Roughead’s recent claim that adopting legislative changes ahead of the study “may cause confusion on the status of the law in the Fleet and disrupt the review process itself by leading Sailors to question whether their input matters.” “I think that to say that the American troop isn’t as professional as a 26 other countries that allow their troops to serve openly, is, frankly, not appropriate.”

Asked if he thought the administration did all it could to bring about repeal, Murphy joked, ” I think Patrick Murphy could have done more in retrospect. Everyone can work harder and work smarter.”

Alyssa

From Mayhem to Murder

I can see why Casey Affleck, Jessica Alba and Kate Hudson would be attracted to a super-intense, dark Michael Winterbottom movie (for me, the attraction would be hanging out with Ned Beatty, but then, I’m weird):

But I also hope people don’t forget that Affleck is funny. I’d hate to see him disappear and just play twisted dudes all the time.  His and Scott Caan’s subplot organizing Mexican factory workers in Ocean’s 13 could have been weird and awkward and instead was quite well-balanced.

Climate Progress

Obama: BP disaster tells us we must pass a “long-term energy strategy”

Reid: “This is an opportunity for us as a country to move away from fossil fuel, to do a better job of looking at renewable energies that are available to us all over this country.”

“I said to the Republicans, join with me,” Obama said. “There’s been some good work done by John Kerry and Joe Lieberman and Lindsey Graham. Let’s go. Let’s not wait. Let’s show the American people that in the midst of this crisis, all of us are opening our eyes to what’s necessary to fulfill the promise to our children and our grandchildren.”

Greenwire (subs. req’d) reports today on Obama’s remarks at an SF fundraiser for Sen. Boxer (D-CA) and the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee.  Here’s more:

Read more

Climate Progress

Power Poisons: How Utilities Plan To Continue Evading Toxic Air Pollution Controls

Our guest blogger is Frank O’Donnell, president of Clean Air Watch.

mercury skullAs federal authorities struggle to deal with the BP oil disaster in the Gulf of Mexico, it is probably useful to remember that power companies continue poisoning water bodies throughout the nation. The power industry’s successful campaign to sidestep toxic pollution controls has left a legacy of poisoned rivers and lakes. As ugly as this legacy seems, the power industry appears to be maneuvering once again for further delays, trying to use pending Senate climate legislation as an escape hatch.

A draft version of the Kerry-Lieberman American Power Act would create a new task force to examine pending EPA air pollution rules for the power industry, and make recommendations about weakening or eliminating public health safeguards in the name of electricity generation reliability. The American Lung Association has warned that this provision could undermine EPA’s efforts to tackle toxic emissions from power plants. That concern was echoed by NRDC, long a leader in the effort to clean up toxic mercury:

Specifically, the draft bill establishes a highly objectionable task force to examine utility industry calls for exemptions from federal environmental laws and regulations that utilities allege are impeding power plant retirements or transitions to cleaner energy. The provision’s language is suffused with utility industry complaints and rhetoric and pleas for payment, making clear the design for a biased exercise. Polluter lobbyists deliver a deregulatory wish list to Congress and federal agencies. The agencies then are authorized by this bill to propose regulatory changes to carry out those wishes.

A spokesman for the utility industry said it welcomed the provision. Read more

Politics

Muslim Americans Under Attack As Far Right Fights To Deny Them From Building Their Own Places Of Worship

flage In communities across the country, Muslim Americans are under attack as radical conservatives are denying them the right to build their own places of worship. Here are a few examples:

– In Brentwood, Tennessee, Muslims planned to build the first mosque ever in Williamson County. After agreeing to numerous restrictions on how they would build their mosque so as to not offend the surrounding community — like not having outdoor speakers to broadcast the Islamic call to prayer — the Muslim community was finally able to get the Brentwood city commission to approve land to be used to build a mosque. Radical conservatives responded, and “through e-mails, blogs and word of mouth, opponents told friends and neighbors they were suspicious of the mosque and feared its leaders had ties to terrorist organizations.” After intense community pressure, the mosque’s builders decided last week to simply withdraw their plans. “There comes a time when you have to say, ‘We can’t do this anymore,” said Jaweed Ansari, a Brentwood physician involved in the mosque project.

– Two nights ago, the city council of Alpharetta, Georgia, voted unanimously to deny “an application by the Islamic Center of North Fulton to expand” their mosque. Alpharetta Muslim Parwaiz Iqbal protested the decision, saying, “If we are denied a decent place of worship, you might as well hang a banner here in downtown Alpharetta that Muslims are not welcome in this city.”

– In New York City, radical conservatives are attacking plans to build a mosque in a 13-story community center located two blocks from Ground Zero. Rep. Peter King (R-NY) joined the crusade against the mosque by saying it’s “very offensive and wrong” to build it, while regretfully admitting that it can’t legally “be stopped, however, because of the first amendment.” All of the right-wing outrage ignores the fact that innocent Muslim Americans, too, died on 9/11 — like Salman Hamdani, a police cadet and part-time ambulance driver who died “doing everything he could to help those in need” at Ground Zero. Last night, a Manhattan community board backed the proposal to build the Muslim community center there by a 29-1 vote.

In addition to being denied their places of worship, Muslim communities have been the victims of dangerous hate crimes. Last week, the Islamic Center of North Florida was rocked by an explosion, and police suspect that a pipe bomb was responsible. The Islamic Center is located in Jacksonville, Florida, and is attended by Muslim Human Rights Commission member Parvez Ahmed, who recently faced hateful remarks from a city councilman and area residents over his faith. Noting the lack of media coverage of the attack relative to the failed car bombing in Times Square, Matthew Yglesias observed, “Somehow this attack, despite its greater technical sophistication, hasn’t obtained nearly the same level of media attention. And I just can’t figure out why.”

The Washington Post noted Monday that the rise in anti-Muslim tensions has “prompted many Pakistanis who once had deep ties to the United States to look elsewhere for work, education and travel. It has also left some Pakistani Americans feeling uneasy in their adopted homeland.” “My uncle has been living in the United States for years,” said Akmal Abassi, an English language instructor and in Rawalpindi, Pakistan. “He still admires the American values of freedom and equality, but now it is much harder for him to convince people here at home.”

Update

The Wonk Room’s Matt Duss notes that the Wall Street Journal’s Bret Stephens has proposed a religious litmus test that Muslims should have to answer before they open mosques. Reflecting on the test, Duss writes, “Would Stephens, or anyone, dare propose a similar religious test for any other faith? What about asking Jews whether they condemn violence by Jewish settlers in the West Bank before they can build a synagogue somewhere? Or asking Christians planning a new church whether they will invite the input and participation of Christian gay and lesbian groups? You know, just as a ‘confidence-building measure’? Doubtful. It would be considered un-American.”

Justice

EXCLUSIVE: Service Chiefs Write To Congress Expressing Opposition To DADT Compromise

Several Service chiefs who have opposed repealing Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell in the past have written letters to Congress expressing their opposition to the new compromise. In these testimonials, obtained by the Wonk Room, the officials stressed their strong support for completing the Defense Department review and suggested that any change in policy would confuse soldiers:

G. ROUGHEAD, CHIEF OF NAVAL OPERATIONS: “My concern is that legislative changes at this point, regardless of the precise language used, may cause confusion on the status of the law in the Fleet and disrupt the review process itself by leading Sailors to question whether their input matters.”

JAMES T. CONWAY, COMMANDANT OF MARINE CORPS: “I encourage Congress to let the process the Secretary of Defense created to run its course. Collectively, we must use logical and pragmatic decisions about the long-term policies of our Armed Forces.”

NORTON SCHWARTZ, CHIEF OF STAFF (USAF): “I believe it is important, a matter of keeping faith with those currently serving in the Armed Forces, and the Secretary of Defense commissioned review be completed before there is any legislation to repeal the DA/DT law…To do otherwise, in my view, would be presumptive and would reflect an intent to act before all relevant factors are assessed digested and understood.”

GEORGE CASEY, CHIEF OF STAFF (ARMY): “I also believe that repealing the law before the completion of the review will be seen by the men and women of the Army as a reversal of our commitment to hear their views before moving forward.”

Of course, the delayed-implementation compromise addresses all of these concerns by ensuring that nothing actually happens until the Defense Department’s study is completed. The amendment specifically states that “Section 654 of title 10, United States Code, shall remain in effect [the DADT seciont] until such time that all of the requirements and certifications required by subsection (b) are met” — until the review is complete (i.e. the voices of the military are considered) and the President and military officials certify that repeal is “consistent with the military’s standards of readiness, effectiveness, unit cohesion and recruitment and retention.” In 1993, Congress passed DADT before the military had issued final rules on how to implement the policy, and there is no reason it shouldn’t do the same now — particularly when it’s bending over backwards to accommodate the Defense Department.

The more offensive notion — besides Roughead’s belief that our soldiers are so easily confused — is the assumption that openly gay members will undermine the military or that, once the views of American soldiers are considered, policymakers will discover that they’re homophobic.

Update

Former Joints Chief Chairman General John Shalikashvili has sent this letter to Senators Levin and Lieberman responding to these claims:

The legislative compromise fully and affirmatively respects the Working Group process….Furthermore, the proposed implementation and certification requirements contained in the legislative compromise ensure that the views of Service members and their families will be respected and given full weight in determining how best to implement this shift in policy.

Older

Newer

Switch to Mobile
ThinkProgress Signup Overlay Skip and Continue to ThinkProgress Skip and Continue to ThinkProgress

Sign Up