Bernie Sanders' Big Announcement

Will he or won't he? We know that's what some are asking right now, especially since another likely 2016 Presidential Candidate flew into Southern Nevada for a UNLV Foundation fundraiser. And yes, he directly addressed that matter.





But first, Senator Bernie Sanders (I-Vermont) wanted to discuss the reason why he came to the Culinary Academy this week. First, he wanted to talk about the issues.



Senator Sanders covered everything from workers' rights to Social Security to Medicare and Obamacare. He talked about everything from the ongoing G-O-TEA campaign against Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D) to the corporate media's obsession with "scandals". It was the kind of very frank discussion that one typically doesn't expect to have with a Member of Congress.

And speaking of frank, Senator Sanders cut to the chase when he was asked about 2016. Will he or won't he? Well, that depends on whether he can count on the kind of campaign machine that will be necessary for a Presidential campaign.

Senator Sanders then spoke a truth that is hardly ever uttered in political pundit circles. How does change truly happen? How can one make our system work?



Short answer: One can't. Longer answer: It truly takes a village. It takes a large village. It takes a village that becomes a large and enduring grassroots movement. One person alone can't change the system, but one person can help put together a critical mass who can...

If they stick together. If anything, that's the big takeaway of Senator Sanders' visit to Southern Nevada. But shhh, don't tell the media pundits. They're still obsessing over Hillary Clinton's shoes.

Radical Change

It's still dry out here. Sure, we've occasionally had storms drop some rain on us. However, we're still operating on a serious precipitation deficit.

And it's not over yet. Far from it, Nevada will likely endure another year of drought. This drought has caused a world of trouble for Nevada and the entire West. And it now looks like we must prepare for another year of Lake Mead & Lake Tahoe shrinking while wildfires burn across the state.

It's become increasingly undeniable that climate change is taking its toll on Nevada along with the rest of the world. So why aren't more people making noise?

But wait, there actually were about 400,000 people making noise in New York City on Sunday. And that was just one of the People's Climate March events happening in over 150 nations this week. And yet, you may not have even heard about it until now.



So why did the Sunday talk shows only barely mention this? After all, it was happening in their own back yard.

Even though many media pundits continue to ignore the perils of climate change, a number of captains of industry are now speaking up and making change happen. This isn't some "fringe movement". This is a very real statement on a very real threat to all of us.



As they always do, the usual G-O-TEA suspects were trashing last weekend's march while decrying "the radical left" for demanding "radical change". But you know what? If we want to survive, we must embrace radical change and do so soon. Hell, most American voters are now realizing this. So why shouldn't we start implementing the radical changes we need to save ourselves and our children's future on this planet?



This week, the United Nations is holding another climate summit. This time, it's in New York. And this is why we're seeing so much direct action in New York this week.



It's amazing that roughly 400,000 people took to the streets of Manhattan on Sunday demanding climate action. And it's amazing to think a number of those people are staying for further actions. However, this is not enough. They can't be the only ones to act.

Ultimately, we must all act. And yes, we must all begin making radical changes soon. We can't afford to delay any longer. If we need any further reason to act, all we must do is open the door.

Who's Policing the Police?

A funeral is happening today. It's certain to attract a large crowd. In fact, Rep. Steven Horsford (D-North Las Vegas) is in Ferguson, Missouri, today.

Michael Brown's funeral is today. The Brown family has asked for calm in the St. Louis region today. And it remains to be seen how long the calm will last, especially since Ferguson Police still refuse to answer questions on Officer Darren Wilson's slaying of Michael Brown. There was never even an incident report filed.



And not only that, but Ferguson Police still refuse to admit they have a serious problem on their hands. Sure, they're finally dialing back the violence now. However, they're still refusing to take any accountability for their actions against local civilians.



Before Darren Wilson joined the Ferguson Police Department, he worked at the Jennings Police Department. He was let go in 2011... Along with the entire rest of the police force. Jennings Police had developed such a horrifying record of police brutality that the city council decided to dissolve the whole police department and start anew.

Apparently, this didn't faze Ferguson Police at all. Sure, it's never good to simply assume the worse and presume guilt before proving innocence. However, it's always a good idea to perform background checks on prospective enployees and investigate Wilson's role in the Jennings debacle.

Why didn't Ferguson Police seriously investigate Darren Wilson's record in Jennings? Why has Ferguson Police instead taken to Fox "News" to villify the victim? And why are the usual G-O-TEA suspects once again trying to stifle serious discussion on the serious issues surrounding Ferguson?



Once again, the actions of a mostly white police force against a minority-majority community has become a media circus full of heat yet lacking light. Once again, we're hearing outrageous accusations to go along with nonsensical conspiracy theories. What we have yet to hear are answers from Ferguson Police. So many in the media are rushing to put Michael Brown on trial, even as Michael Brown's funeral is underway. Yet who's policing the police?

The Real Issue

It was supposed to be the ultimate battle royale. It was supposed to be a war between Nevada royal families. It was supposed to be one of the "hot ticket races" of the 2014 election cycle.

Early this year, G-O-TEA operatives were salivating over the opportunity to knock out Ross Miller (D). The outgoing Secretary of State has built up quite the list of accomplishments during his tenure there. And even though he's running for Attorney General this fall, media pundits can't help but speculate about his political future. Obviously, Republican campaign consultants were shaking in their boots.

Then came Adam Laxalt (R). He seemed to be the answer to G-O-TEA prayers. He has a pretty face, a famous last name, and a seemingly impeccable resume. What more could Nevada Republicans ask for?

But when Adam Laxalt began revealing his "most flawed" "political issues", we could sense something was off. How could a well trained lawyer not understand the basics of Constitutional law? We understand he has his "political issues", but those should not become "legal issues" as well.

And speaking of "legal issues", Adam Laxalt has plenty. When his law firm did a performance review, Laxalt's self-assessment strayed quite far from the assessment of his seniors and peers. And now that this performance review is becoming public knowledge, his campaign has been in complete "damage control" mode.

Ever since Jon Ralston revealed the skeletons in Adam Laxalt's closet, his campaign has tried just about everything to change the subject. They've tried blaming whoever leaked the documents. They've tried questioning the authenticity of the documents. They've tried leaking some of Laxalt's military documents. And of course, they will probably try reviving "Gift-gate" yet again... Even as Laxalt jumps to accept all sorts of gifts from one Sheldon Adelson.

Herein lies the crux of Adam Laxalt's real issue. Forget the bombast over the "gifts". Forget the howls of protest over the "document leaks". And forget the whining over "political hits".

Here's the real issue: Adam Laxalt has yet to prove his qualifications to serve as Nevada's Attorney General. He and his biggest Republican boosters can throw temper tantrums on as many "newspaper" pages as they want, but this won't change the issue of Laxalt struggling to make his own case. They can cry as much as they want about Ross Miller being on top of his game, but it's not his fault that Nevada Republicans have so many issues with their handpicked opponent for him.

Where's the Scandal?

Must we do this again? Apparently, yes. While one local media pundit continues to beat this dead horse, national G-O-TEA media spinners have begun beating the "ZOMG!!! Hillary Clinton is a rich b---h!!!!" dead horse of a "scandal".



What Fox "News" talking heads call "rock star diva outrageous demands" are actually considered standard operating procedure for high profile politicians. If Hillary Clinton is a "rock star diva" making "outrageous demands", then so are George W. Bush, Rudy Giuliani, Sarah Palin, and Newt Gingrich.

But of course, Hillary Clinton is different... Because she's "stealing money from UNLV students"! Except she's not.

No really, the UNLV Foundation relies on private donations to fund its efforts to raise private money for UNLV (since the public college doesn't receive enough public funding). Since Hillary Clinton's speech will be for the UNLV Foundation, her speaking fee came from private donations. Already, there have been more than enough private donations to cover the fee. She has already donated that fee to charity. And the October event will likely raise a hefty sum... For the benefit of UNLV and its students.

So where's the "scandal"? Where were all these media pundits when politicians like Rudy Giuliani cashed in on big speaking fees? And where were they when Governor Brian Sandoval (R) pushed for more UNLV budget cuts in 2011?

Ironically, one of the most vocal critics of Clinton's UNLV Foundation gig accepted a for-pay speech at UNLV herself. And she's not alone on the list of high profile individuals UNLV and/or the UNLV Foundation paid to give a speech. So why are we still wasting so many characters arguing over this Hillary Clinton speech?

Whenever a Clinton runs for President, strange things happen. Extramarital affairs become "impeachable offenses". A money losing land deal becomes some horrifically sophisticated money laundering scheme. A tragic attack on a US consulate becomes some bizarre mass murder conspiracy. And a speaking fee becomes some heinous crime against higher education.

Perhaps if Republican political operatives and their media enablers were to spend less time hyperventilating over fictitious "scandals" and more time preparing better policies for their preferred Presidential candidates to espouse (along with decent candidates for them to prefer), they'd actually have a viable 2016 alternative to Hillary Clinton.

Is #BundyRanch Just #TeaPartyWoodstock?

They had traveled from various corners of the nation. They brought plenty of colorful signs, along with big guns. They came in buses, cars, and even a few motorcycles. And the national media showered them with the attention they so craved.

Of course, we're reminiscing about the "Showdown in Searchlight" that happened just over 4 years ago. G-O-TEA Culture Warriors from across the nation wanted to send Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D) a "message", so they descended upon Senator Reid's hometown. Michele Fiore made her bug debut. Sue Lowden tried so hard to buy the baggers' love. But ultimately, their hearts belonged to Sharron Angle. And most of the people there couldn't vote for any of them.

Sound familiar yet? We're seeing the same dynamics, and even some of the same characters, reemerge at #BundyRanch. Sharron Angle's "Second Amendment Remedies" have taken center stage. Assembly Member Michele Fiore (R-Las Vegas) shocked the entire nation with her bizarre defense of Cliven Bundy's brazen lawlessness. And a number of other Republican politicians have jumped in to grandstand while the Koch funded astroturf outfits have tried to use this "SCANDAL!!!" to further their ideological agenda.

Oh, and let's not forget the TV "infotainment" channel that's been trying to turn Cliven Bundy's temper tantrum into a ratings bonanza.



To be fair, there is one key difference. In 2010, the G-O-TEA Culture Warriors left Searchlight after their day long "Teabag-a-palooza". But now, the G-O-TEA Culture Warriors are still running wild around Mesquite. And they're still packing heat.

In a way, this has been an opportunity for some to relive their "counterculture days" in a whole new way. This has been their long fantasized chance to "Stick it to the man!" and celebrate "FREEDOM!" Perhaps this is just #TeaPartyWoodstock? (Or at least #TeaPartyAltamont?)

Think about it. Envision the colorful signs. Listen to the blaring music. Picture the crowd of rebels with (?) a cause. And notice their zeal in challenging authority. Are the throngs of 'baggers who've been rushing to #BundyRanch just "hippies gone right wing"?

If only we were just talking about a rowdy rock concert. Instead, we're talking about people rallying behind people advocating armed rebellion against the United States. And we're left wondering this: Whatever happened to peace, love, and understanding... And paying one's bills?

Harsh Language & Misplaced Outrage

It must be that time of the year again. The weather is not as cold outside. The days are starting to feel longer. And Jon Ralston goes off on bizarre tangents.

This time, Ralston is excoriating US Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D) for daring to speak the truth on the Senate floor.



Indeed, the Koch front groups' attack ads against Obamacare (aka the Affordable Care Act, or ACA) have been proven false. Their scare tactics are nothing more than air brushed lies. And the Kochs have spent millions of dollars airing these misleading ads in states where they hope to elect Republican US Senators.

So why is Ralston fuming over what Senator Reid said? Oh, that's right. Senator Reid dared to call "un-American" the use of shadowy front groups to pump millions of dollars worth of misleading ads into states where one hopes to buy (additional) seats in Congress.

Of course, we can see why the Kochs are dumping so much money into all these misleading ads. Most Americans still oppose the Koch approved agenda of manufacturing crises in order to find the "sweet spot" for their extreme ideological agenda. And since the Kochs' agenda of "license to discriminate", climate crisis, "Stand Your Ground" (to shoot to kill), privatization of public education, and voter suppression.



So why again are we supposed to be raging against Senator Reid for calling "un-American" the Kochs' underhanded plan to buy more power in government? How was Senator Reid wrong?

If anything, Jon Ralston's outrage seems awfully misplaced. Did Senator Reid use some harsh language in criticizing the latest Koch gambit? Perhaps... But then again, the Kochs ideological agenda is even harsher.

Denial & Distractions

Last month, we witnessed a rather gruesome death. It was the death of the sterling reputation of "60 Minutes", CBS News' flagship Sunday "news" program. When it aired a segment on "The Cleantech Crash", actual renewable energy experts were left wondering how such a (once) lauded institution of journalism could get the story so damned wrong.

Perhaps we now have the answer. Was "60 Minutes" just trying to compete for the "Fox News" audience? Last weekend, we saw Fox's trademark idiocy "journalism" on display when it brought up climate change.



Oh, yes. That's right. "Fox News" went there... Yet again.

And that's not all. While "Fox News Sunday" was trying to spin away climate change, NBC News' "Meet the Press" hosted a debate between "Science Guy" Bill Nye and (anti-science) Rep. Marsha Blackburn (R-Tennessee). And when host David Gregory pressed Blackburn on climate policy, she unleashed this "pearl of wisdom".

"David, one of the things we have to remember is cost/benefit analysis has to take place. … And it is unfortunate that some of the federal agencies are not conducting that cost/benefit analysis. They’re focused on the outcome. … Now, you know, when you look at the social cost of carbon, and there is a lot of ambiguity around that, what you also need to be doing is looking at the benefits of carbon and what that has on increased agricultural production."

Really, Rep. Blackburn? Clearly, she doesn't know how it's affected agriculture here in Nevada. Hint: It hasn't helped. And now that the Southern Nevada Water Authority is doubling down on its quest for the Snake Valley Pipeline to quench Southern Nevada's thirst, Rural Nevada's farmers & ranchers have even more to worry about as water supplies dwindle throughout the state.

And then, there's the ever worsening California Drought. There's perhaps no more frightening sign of what unchecked climate change will unleash on us than the ongoing drought that risks turning "The Golden State" into "The Barren State". And Marsha Blackburn wants us to believe there are "benefits of carbon" pollution?

The "Dust-Bowlification" we're witnessing throughout The West is very real... And very dangerous. And it serves as another reminder of the severe consequences we face if we don't properly address the real challenge of climate change.

This is the time for solutions. This is not the time for distractions. And we're long past the time of denial. It's just horrifying to see how so many media pundits and "TEA" flavored politicians continue feeding their delusions with more denial & distractions.

No Means No

It isn't new, far from it. We've seen it happen time and time again. And we're seeing even more of it now.

We saw it happen to Assembly Member Lucy Flores (D-North Las Vegas) last year. We saw it happen to Sandra Fluke two years ago. Former Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee (R) went there last month. And Wall Street Journal columnist James Toranto is going there today.

Working off a piece in the New York Times, Taranto highlighted an incident last year at the University of Massachusetts, Amherst, where a young man named Matt Martel prevented his intoxicated male friend from sleeping with a drunk female student. The young woman thanked Martel the next day, which apparently left Taranto baffled.

Taranto just doesn't think men and women — physical disparities, be damned — should be treated differently in such cases if both parties are drunk.

Taranto is a reliable soldier in what he's called the "war on men." He wrote last June that Democrats such as Sen. Claire McCaskill (D-MO) were trying to "criminalize male sexuality" in their efforts to eliminate sexual assault from the military. McCaskill promptly shot back at Taranto's "bizarre and deeply out of touch understanding of sexual assault."

Except that James Toranto does believe men should be treated differently. He obviously doesn't support efforts to "criminalize male sexuality". And as long as a woman is also drunk, a drunk man has free reign to "do what he wants" with those "blurred lines".

Once again, we're seeing how slut shaming is used to silence those who criticize Rape Culture and its pernicious infiltration into mainstream culture. "Oh, but she wanted it! She was drunk. And she was probably scantily clad as well. And she likely has sex with lots of men all the time. She wanted it, so how dare she complain!"

Here's an easy rule of thumb when it comes to determining rape: No means no. If someone has not provided consent, then forcing oneself onto that person is rape. It's really that simple.

This is why it's incredibly difficult to take seriously those G-O-TEA politicians when they claim there's no War on Women. Senator Rand Paul (R-Kentucky) has even gone as far as claim Democrats have a "woman problem". And why's that? Oh, he's rehashing then President Bill Clinton's affair with Monica Lewinsky. No, we're not even kidding.

Never mind the G-O-TEA's obsession with "legitimate rape". Never mind their campaign to kill the Violence Against Women Act. And never mind the ongoing G-O-TEA attacks on women's reproductive health care. No, the real threat to American women is Hillary Clinton, her husband, and the affair she drove him into committing nearly two decades ago. (Obviously, we're kidding here. #snark)

Today, James Toranto and Rand Paul reminded us that the War on Women still rages on. According to their army of G-O-TEA Culture Warriors, consensual extramarital sex threatens to destroy the world... But rape "isn't really rape" if both parties are drunk. They've yet to understand that at the end of the day, no means no.

The Spin Trap

Less than 24 hours ago, many media pundits (including that one) were salivating. And G-O-TEA politicians everywhere were licking their chops. Why?

"We wuz rite!!! OBAMACARE KILZ JOBZZZ!!!!"

And they were... As usual, wrong. And fortunately for us, the Los Angeles Times' Michael Hiltzik explains why.

The CBO [Congressional Budget Office] projects that the act will reduce the supply of labor, not the availability of jobs. There's a big difference. In fact, it suggests that aggregate demand for labor (that is, the number of jobs) will increase, not decrease; but that many workers or would-be workers will be prompted by the ACA [Affordable Care Act, aka Obamacare] to leave the labor force, many of them voluntarily.

As economist Dean Baker points out, this is, in fact, a beneficial effect of the law, and a sign that it will achieve an important goal. It helps "older workers with serious health conditions who are working now because this is the only way to get health insurance. And (one for the family-values crowd) many young mothers who return to work earlier than they would like because they need health insurance. This is a huge plus."

The ACA will reduce the total hours worked by about 1.5% to 2% in 2017 to 2024, the CBO forecasts, "almost entirely because workers will choose to supply less labor — given the new taxes and other incentives they will face and the financial benefits some will receive."  That translates into about 2.5 million full-time equivalents by 2024 — not the number of workers, because some will reduce their number of hours worked rather than leaving the workforce entirely.

So those who'd rather not work as many hours won't have to any more. And those who'd like to break away to start their own business now can. And those who felt trapped because of the need for health insurance no longer have to feel that way. What's the problem here?

The problem here doesn't lie with Obamacare. Rather, it lies with misleading G-O-TEA spin... And the willingness of far too many media pundits to go along for the ride.

Republican "leaders" on Capitol Hill have become increasingly desperate in their efforts to placate their base of G-O-TEA Culture Warriors hell bent on provoking Armageddon. That's why they're latching onto whatever they can spin as "OBAMA FAIL!!!!" Clearly, they were hoping that the new CBO report would provide just that. And once they started realizing it actually didn't, they proceeded to attack the CBO.

Apparently this morning, all the misleading spin finally proved to be too much for The New York Times Editorial Page.

Some workers may have had a pre-existing condition and will now be able to leave work because insurers must accept all applicants without regard to health status and charge premiums unrelated to health status. Some may have felt they needed to keep working to pay for health insurance, but now new government subsidies will help pay premiums, making it more possible for them to leave their jobs.

The report clearly stated that health reform would not produce an increase in unemployment (workers unable to find jobs) or underemployment (part-time workers who would prefer to work more hours per week). It also found “no compelling evidence” that, as of now, part-time employment has increased as a result of the reform law, a frequent claim of critics. [...]

The new law will free people, young and old, to pursue careers or retirement without having to worry about health coverage. Workers can seek positions they are most qualified for and will no longer need to feel locked into a job they don’t like because they need insurance for themselves or their families. It is hard to view this as any kind of disaster.

It's just too bad that even The Times' own front page initially got caught in the spin trap. And it's too bad that certain media pundits are rewarding the spin rather than reporting the news. Oh, and this just serves as another reminder of why we need more independent media who are actually committed to reporting real news.

RIP, CityLife??!!

When we started the conversation on this little blog of ours nearly five years ago, we did occasionally wonder whether this site was actually necessary. After all, this damned thing is on Blogger! And it's a site slapped together by someone who came here because he didn't always like writing by certain other people's rules.

Oops, did I really just air some of my (quite old) dirty laundry?

Enough of that. Today, we have more important things to talk about. Believe it or not, another one is close to biting the dust. And what might that "another one" be?

Here's a hint: Go back to September and remember what we said about a little law suit involving the viability of the Las Vegas Sun?

[... W]ith the rise of TV newsrooms and online news sites, there are at least theoretically alternatives to the one "newspaper" left standing...

Except that's in theory. What about reality? Just how invested are the local TV stations in supporting real journalism? And can a few scrappy web sites truly make up for losing what was once a great paper?

For now, Southern Nevada still has two newspapers in circulation. We just don't know how much longer this will last. In so many ways, the slow and ugly decline of The Sun reflects the brutal reality of print journalism's dilemma in The Digital Age. And both the recent tabloid-ization of The Sun & the decimated reputation of the other "newspaper" remind us of what happens when corporate profit seeking gets in the way of reporting the news. We may be nearing the end of an era for Southern Nevada, but this is only the continuation of a disturbing trend in journalism.

Last fall, we received a rude awakening. The Sun was already becoming a shell of its former self, but it still had value as a newspaper reporting on real news. What would happen if it were to fully decease?

Even before it started becoming obvious that The Sun's days are numbered, we were concerned about the lack of independent voices in our local media. All too often, both major papers seemed to advocate a certain point of view that looked to be all too convenient for the powers-that-be in this state. Where could we find the news and views that the powers-that-be try to prevent us from seeing?

This is typically where Las Vegas CityLife steps in. For over two decades, CityLife has been more than willing to go places the "traditional media" in this town have refused to go. And even though CityLife has shared the same owner as the "newspaper" for some time, it's somehow avoided to catch the same disease the "newspaper" has refused to cure itself of.

But very soon, this will be no more. Why? Stephens Media recently decided to discontinue its publishing of Las Vegas CityLife. Next week's issue is supposed to be the last.

And this brings us back to where we started this discussion. I honestly never thought I'd be placed in such an awkward position. I've been accustomed to being a tiny electronic cog in much bigger alternative media machine. I never imagined the day when I'd be among the few alternative, independent voices left.

As we've mentioned before, this scrappy little site that was slapped together by some punky little online rabble-rouser just can't replace an entire newspaper. And I know we're not the only ones who realize this. As we speak, a MoveOn petition (calling for Stephens Media to let CityLife live on) is collecting signatures. Who knows, maybe Stephens corporate bosses aren't fully immune from public outrage?

But if that isn't the case, someone will need to fill the void left by a dead CityLife. Paging Vegas Seven?

In the mean time, we'll still be here. We just didn't want to become necessary this way. And we just don't have an entire office to publish an entire newspaper. That's supposed to be where actual newspapers step in. When did it become acceptable for shortsighted corporate greed to kill all this journalism?

Crash (Goes CBS "News")

Did you know "Cleantech" has crashed? We didn't. But apparently, it did... Because CBS "News'" "60 Minutes" told us so.

As of late, it seems like the once revered flagship "TV news magazine" has been receiving a "fair & balanced" makeover. CBS News is still under fire for the now infamous "60 Minutes" Benghazi report that turned out to be nothing but an error filled attempt to sell a book. And now, CBS is also in the hot seat over a recent "60 Minutes" report on Amazon's new drone program that turned out to be nothing but an Amazon infomercial. Yet despite these major league embarrassments, "60 Minutes" producers don't seem to be all that worried about the free-falling reputation of their show.

Case in point: This past Sunday's "Cleantech Crash" report. The San Jose Mercury News' clean energy reporter has already debunked the "60 Minutes" piece. So has Cleantechnica. And Think Progress has posted an interview with the clean energy expert featured on "60 Minutes" (whose words were twisted when featured on that show).

Here's what "60 Minutes" oh so quickly glossed over when bashing federal clean energy investment: The very Department of Energy Loan Guarantee Program that "60 Minutes" attacked for rewarding failure actually has a 97% success rate! Do you know how many Wall Street investors would sacrifice their parents and/or children on the altar of Mammon to obtain that kind of success rate? Actually, you probably don't want to know. However, we should all remember the rule of thumb for private sector venture capitalists, which is that 3 out of 4 startups fail on average. So it was oh so easy for "60 Minutes" to find examples of "Cleantech Crash", even though it would have also been easy for "60 Minutes" to find many examples of "Cleantech Success".

There's a reason why such "wild eyed lib'rulzzz" as Governor Brian Sandoval (R) and the entire State Senate Republican Caucus have been rushing to encourage more clean energy investment in Nevada. There's a reason why California has been seeing a lot of green lately. And there's a reason why much of the rest of the world is cashing in on the green evolution. Here's a hint: #GreenMeansGreen.

Oh, and let's not forget the reason why much of the world is looking to clean energy for a brighter future. Here's a hint: climate change. Not once did "60 Minutes" mention climate change in its "Cleantech Crash" hit piece story. Regardless of the near term profitability of renewable energy, we must wean ourselves off fossil fuels for the sake of our longer term survival. Yet on Sunday, nary a word was peeped on climate during the once revered flagship "TV news magazine". Oh, how the mighty have fallen.

Frankly, the only "crash" revealed this past Sunday was the reputation of CBS "News". And since it's bringing back the very reporter who botched the Benghazi story, we probably shouldn't expect any better any time soon. Oh, how the mighty have fallen.

The Real Scandal

ZOMG!!! It's the biggest scandal ever! It's THE SCANDAL of 2013!!!! And ZOMG... It's working?!

Much has been said in recent weeks about Obamacare (aka the Affordable Care Act, or ACA) and its many (alleged) blunders. Here's what hasn't been bludgeoned to death in the media: The federal ACA Web site has improved dramatically since its initial glitchy debut on October 1. Oh, and 100,000 Americans were able to sign up for health insurance last month on that federal ACA web site. And we now know that the ACA's costs going forward will be even less than originally projected.

So how did a law that only became a law less than 4 years ago and was largely based on conservative health care policy proposals become the hallmark of "failed liberalism" and "Obama's failed presidency"? Think about it. As Desert Beacon noted yesterday, the bulk of the ACA's features have rolled out smoothly and are now much appreciated. Even the features (cough- the federal web site- cough) that didn't initially roll out smoothly are working better now. And the vast majority of Americans are still using private health insurance. So it's preposterous to call the ACA "failed" today, and it's quite a stretch to declare it "BIG GUV'MINT SOE'SHUL'IZM!!!"

While the usual G-O-TEA politicians and their favorite media pundits have been screaming about the latest and greatest haute faux scandal of the past month, they've been skillfully avoiding what's perhaps the real scandal of today. While Republican "leaders" have been complaining about a law that was passed during the 111th Congress, they've tried to avoid their own record of failure. The 112th Congress is now on record as the least productive session of Congress ever, and so far the 113th Congress is on track to match that record of FAIL. They even tried to (mis)use Obamacare as an excuse to shut down the government and threaten national default!

And now we're supposed to believe G-O-TEA politicians when they say they just want to "clean house"? They can't even agree on an alternative to a law that's based on what was originally their own alternative to "Hillarycare"! This makes absolutely no sense. They keep grinding government to a screeching halt, they fail to accomplish even the most basic tasks of governing, and they can't even come up with their own health care ideas (beyond empty platitudes that led us into trouble in the first place)... But now we're supposed to acknowledge they're "right about Obamacare"?

No, they're not. And really, all this "much ado about nothing" that's defined the 112th & 113th Sessions of Congress is the real scandal that we need to address.

Take This Seriously.

Just when we thought we could enjoy the Thanksgiving Holiday last week, the Nevada G-O-TEA Circus of Batsh*t Crazy had to interrupt our plans. Oh, yes. That's right. They went there... Again!

So what happened this time? Oh, Assembly Member Michelle Fiore (R-Las Vegas) just decided to "spice up" a local "talk radio" show with veiled threats of violence. After all, she just loves her weapons... And her NRA Seal of Approval.

So what exactly happened? Assembly Member Fiore was a guest on a KNXT show on Tuesday. So were Culinary 226's Yvanna Cancela and ProgressNow's Annette Magnus. When Fiore confronted Cancela over Culinary's aggressive organizing, she dropped this verbal bomb.

"The behavior that you did in front of the Cosmo would get you a bullet in your head in Brooklyn, because that is not the behavior that we want here in Nevada."

While many (even some on the left) have disagreed with Culinary's more controversial battle plans in its ongoing war against anti-union casinos, no one can say Culinary organizers aren't protected by the First Amendment. And no one can say they deserve "Second Amendment Remedies" for exercising their First Amendment rights.

Of course, the usual G-O-TEA spin doctors tried to change the subject as soon as this news hit Twitter. AFP Nevada even tried to start a flame war over Assembly Member Fiore's Twitter handle! But of course, it didn't work.

Instead, we were reminded of what happens when such violent rhetoric is injected into our political dialogue. When does this ever demonstrate "responsible behavior"? (Hint: Never.) And really, elected officials should know better.

Haven't we experienced more than enough bloodshed this year? Hell, we've even seen gun violence hit awfully close to home here in Nevada. Seriously, this isn't something to blithely dismiss and/or ignore.

So why aren't we taking this seriously? Why are some of our elected "leaders" threatening bullets in others' heads? What will it take for us to finally learn? Gun violence needs to be taken seriously.

Don't Tell Us. Show Us.

He wants it. He really wants it! Or at least, that's what Rep. Joe Heck (R-Henderson) wants us to believe regarding comprehensive immigration reform (CIR).

In an interview with the Las Vegas Sun, Rep. Heck cried about how the "Big, Bad, Meanie Democrats & Unions!!!" have been attacking him for not supporting something he already supports! Why are all the "Big, Bad, Meanie LIB'RULZZZ!!!" being so big and bad and mean?

Maybe this is due to the whole premise of this story being false? Seriously, when did telling the truth become "big, bad, & mean"?

When Rep. Joe Heck whines to local media about "LIB'RUL ATACKZZZ!!!", he fails to mention everything he can do to move CIR forward... Yet for some reason still refuses to do. While he lambasts HR 15 due to its "elements that he can not support", he fails to mention that HR 15 was modeled after S 744, the bipartisan Senate CIR bill that Nevada’s own Dean Heller (R) supported. So if S 744 was ultimately good enough for Dean Heller (& 13 other Senate Republicans) and HR 15 is good enough for 3 House Republicans to cross over to cosponsor, why isn't HR 15 good enough for Rep. Heck?

Rep. Heck also made the excuse that if he were to cosponsor HR 15, it wouldn't change anything. Actually, it would. It would bring HR 15 another step closer to officially garnering majority support. And if House G-O-TEA "leaders" were to refuse to bring HR 15 for a floor vote, Rep. Heck and other CIR supporters could then start a discharge petition.

So why isn't Rep. Heck doing any of this? Why is he instead only offering empty words? And did he really implicitly admit he's just a powerless backbencher who only does what House G-O-TEA "leaders" tell him to do?

Funny enough, the only "solution" Rep. Heck offered was the "piecemeal approach" that "leadership" approves of. Of course, this is the very approach to immigration reform that has failed to produce any actual legislation... Except for that one amendment calling to deport DREAMers. Rep. Heck voted for that amendment. Is that what he means when he says he "supports reform"?

Rep. Heck likes to tell us how much he "supports reform". Yet when it comes time to match his words with concrete action, he fails to do so. If he truly supports CIR and wants to convince Nevadans of it, he needs to stop telling us... And start showing us.

End of an Era?

Moments ago, a local judge denied a preliminary injunction to a very possible deal (between Stephens Media and some Greenspun family members) to end the joint operating agreement (JOA) that officially allows for the printing and physical distribution of two newspapers in Southern Nevada. This may not seem like a big deal at first glance, but take a closer look. There's more to this.

Sure, overall newspaper circulation has been in decline for years. And specifically here, the Las Vegas Sun has struggled to stay in business for nearly a decade. The JOA is likely the only reason why there's any Sun print edition at all. Most folks (moiself included) now get their news by other means, such as the great wide world of the internet. (Hey, that's what's allowed me to report, comment, on bloviate on the news here!)

Speaking as an internet person myself, the rise of blogs, online news clearinghouse sites, web-izines, and other news sites has very much changed the way we see news. A century ago, we had to wait until the newspaper was delivered to see the headlines. But now, one can click on a variety of sites from a variety of internet enabled devices to see what's happening in the world.

But you know what? Even though I'm very much an internet person, I still appreciate newspapers. They invest in newsrooms, dedicated reporters, and respected space for the community to discuss the important issues of the day. Hell, newspapers often help me and other bloggers catch onto stories we might otherwise miss!

This is why the possible death of the Las Vegas Sun concerns me. I know there are folks at that paper who still want to deliver quality content. While recent cost-cutting moves have resulted in more "fluff", there are still reporters there hunting for the truth. And while the editorial pages often seem to reflect the views of certain "friends in high places", they at least offer different points of view that one can't always find in the other "newspaper" in this town.

And that's what makes today's news at least somewhat alarming. The "newspaper's" management long ago quit caring about their reputation and allowed the state’s largest paper to become the state's largest laughingstock. Can we afford to allow the "newspaper" to become the only paper in the state’s most populous county?

Or does it even matter any more? As I alluded to above, recent budget cuts and "editorial makeovers" at The Sun have resulted in that paper losing a whole lot of serious journalistic talent as it's become more focused on repeating celebrity gossip than highlighting the real reporting from the journalists who are still there. And with the rise of TV newsrooms and online news sites, there are at least theoretically alternatives to the one "newspaper" left standing...

Except that's in theory. What about reality? Just how invested are the local TV stations in supporting real journalism? And can a few scrappy web sites truly make up for losing what was once a great paper?

For now, Southern Nevada still has two newspapers in circulation. We just don't know how much longer this will last. In so many ways, the slow and ugly decline of The Sun reflects the brutal reality of print journalism's dilemma in The Digital Age. And both the recent tabloid-ization of The Sun & the decimated reputation of the other "newspaper" remind us of what happens when corporate profit seeking gets in the way of reporting the news. We may be nearing the end of an era for Southern Nevada, but this is only the continuation of a disturbing trend in journalism.

Behind the Babble, Beyond the Batsh*t

He had it. He apparently had enough of the insane scandaliciousness and insanely naughty behavior as of late. So MSNBC's Thomas Roberts finally blurted out his frustration.



Since we're in the midst of summer and Congress is about to go to recess, the media have to talk about something (else). So of course, we're enduring another round of Scandal-mania. And this time, it's all about sex, sex, SEX!!!

As you all know, I do my best to keep away from salacious tabloid worthy stories... Except when they also involve more serious issues. This may finally be that occasion.

We've been enduring debates over who's responsible, who's to blame, who needs help, and who should "feel guilty" for such "bad behavior". And in some of these cases, truly egregious acts were committed. San Diego Mayor Bob Filner (D) apparently has a long history of sexually harrassing women, while Former Governor and current Rep. Mark Sanford (R) shirked his duties as Governor to pursue an affair in Argentina... And tried to lie about it.

And of course, there is the ongoing obsession over one very wild and incredibly stupid weiner. Yet while we're focusing on the banality that Carlos Danger embodies quite well, are we missing the more important aspect of these sex stories?

While we go on and on blathering over men who get off on women in sickening ways, we sometimes forget about the ongoing attacks on women's health care. Why is it OK to sexting, but not reproductive rights? Women can be sex objects, but they can't object to losing the right to make their own health care decisions?

And then, there's the matter of the women themselves. Are they victims? Are they villains? Are they human? Keep in mind the latter, especially as we rush to glamorize the scandalous men and castigate the women involved (until they're simply forgotten).

Frankly, we've seen a whole lot of batshit crazy on TV and online lately. But really, what's beyond the babble? What are we missing here?

Here's some food for thought. We have all these men engaged in all this inappropriate conduct. How have they been able to attain higher office? And why are some of them still running for office?

Visit NBCNews.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Think about it.

Idiocy on Full Display

Today is supposed to be a joyous one for Nevada's LGBTQ communities. SJR 13 finally passed, and Nevada is one step closer to enacting marriage equality. But of course, leave it to the 21st Century Know Nothings to rain on our parade. But be warned, Heidi Harris just used this very graphic and offensive language on Twitter.

Does #transgender mean you can't locate your "parts"? That explains the GOP males in the #nvleg who have caved on #sjr13.

Of course, we all know what this means. Congratulations, Heidi Harris. You just earned this award.



Oh, where do I begin? Let's start with the real definition of transgender.

'Transgender' is an umbrella term often used to refer to people whose gender identity differs from their assigned sex at birth. However, people whose gender identity differs from their assigned sex at birth may not self-identify as transgender; some may identify as transsexual, trans, genderqueer, a person of transgender experience, etc. Transgender people may or may not use a different name or pronoun than the one they were assigned at birth, and they may or may not pursue hormone therapy or surgery. When in doubt, always defer to the way a person self-identifies.

And let's talk about the real discrimination that transgender Nevadans have endured. What the fuck is wrong with Heidi Harris?! Is she really that oblivious to the pain and suffering of real people who have faced intense bigotry and historic oppression?

And then, there's this. She actually suggested that legislators who voted for SJR 13 are "less manly". Oh. My. Gawd! Has she ever met Senator Ben Kieckhefer (R-Reno)?





While I've disagreed with Senator Ben Kieckhefer quite a few times this session, I can't deny the real courage he showed in bucking Republican leadership and standing for what he believes in. And Heidi Harris says this means Senator Kieckhefer is less of a man? What the hell is she smoking?

Well, I should remember that we are talking about Heidi Harris, local princess of the 21st Century Know Nothings.

Has anyone in the #nvleg calcluated the cost of #gaymarriage and family court? Extra judges? Nah, that would require brains #sjr13

Has anyone tried explaining to Heidi Harris the many economic benefits of marriage equality? Nevada is a top wedding destination. And Nevada has increasingly been engaging in marketing to LGBTQ tourists. Nevada stands to gain far more revenue in enacting marriage equality than incur additional costs.

Apparently, Heidi Harris is blissfully unaware of any of this. Perhaps she's angling for a job at the local "newspaper"? I can't think of another explanation for all this idiocy on full display today.

Shame

Back in January, we decided to stop providing the local Southern Nevada "newspaper" the attention it clearly does not deserve. When was the last time the "newspaper" had a good reputation for actually reporting the news? So why treat it as such?

We've been doing our part here to actually pay attention to the real news. Yet yesterday, the "newspaper" published an editorial so heinous and disgusting that we can't let it get away with this. And fortunately for us, Sin City Siren managed to catch the racism and sexism on display yesterday.

I’m also irritated that in both of these op-eds, Sherm gives what he thinks is a clever indictment on Assemblywoman Lucy Flores’ testimony about having an abortion. He wonders allowed at whether or not Sen. Ruben Kihuen’s characterization of Flores’ testimony as courageous is actually courageous. You know why Lucy is courageous? She didn’t retract the truth about her life after she faced threats of violence just for sharing it. That is the culture we live in. You don’t like abortion —then you can just threaten and bully a person into silence. But I guess you wouldn’t know anything about that, would you Sherm?

And, Sherm, for all your back-handed compliments to teen moms, do you support any programs or services that actually help teen mothers, who face a higher rate of poverty and less opportunities in the work force due to a higher rate of dropping out of school? (Only about 50 percent of teen mothers graduate from high, according to the CDC.) Where is your support for those brave teen moms, Sherm? Where’s your op-ed extolling their courageous decision to have their babies? And furthermore, where’s your reality check that growing up the child of teen mom isn’t all its cracked up to be? I should know. But I guess there’s no room in your world-view for the reality that, yes, white teens have babies, too. [...]

And by the way, comprehensive sex education has been proven more effective than abstinence-only programs and is endorsed by a large number of agencies that work to better the lives of children including the American Psychological Association, the American Medical Association, the National Association of School Psychologists, the American Academy of Pediatrics, the American Public Health Association, the Society for Adolescent Medicine and the American College Health Association.

So the "newspaper" struck (out) yet again. Is anyone truly surprised? Here's the short response to this latest "newspaper" turdblossom.



And here's the longer answer: Clearly, the "newspaper" publisher/former editor doesn't know what's in AB 230, why comprehensive sex education matters, and who's ultimately hurt by the status quo (hint: everyone). And on top of that, he decided to engage in the time (dis)honored tradition of "slut-shaming". He must have learned nothing from Rush Limbaugh's EPIC FAIL in this department.



It's a shame that we've become accustomed to seeing this kind of garbage in the state's largest "newspaper". It's a shame that Nevada women continue to suffer this kind of degradation. And it's truly a shame that many in the media implicitly and/or explicitly condone what should be shameful behavior.

Oh, and it's not as if "slut-shaming" works in reducing teen pregancies and/or preventing the spread of sexually transmitted infections. If anything, the opposite may actually be true. Threatening young women won't stop the above from happening. Knowledge, on the other hand, will. After all, knowledge is power.

So we should know better. And the powers that be at the "newspaper" should have known better. What a shame.

(What About) The Real Issues Behind the Steven Brooks Scandal?

Surprise, surprise... Or not.

As expected, tensions rose in Carson City as scandal plagued Assembly Member Steven Brooks (D-North Las Vegas) returned to the Legislature. Interestingly, it didn't last long. Nonetheless, he made a grand exit!



All of a sudden, this serious case of a potentially dangerous situation erupting in the Nevada Legislature seems to be turning into Nevada Government's own sordid "reality TV" affair. No really, this happened.

Brooks, carrying a cane, wearing dark sunglasses and covering his head with a beige hood, was whisked by police into the Legislative Building and ushered into a closed conference room on the first floor of the building. As legislative staff attempted to divert reporters, Brooks was escorted out of the building after his meeting with police.

Brooks uttered a muffled "No comment," before flashing the peace sign to pursuing reporters.

At least he and Assembly Speaker Marilyn Kirkpatrick (D-North Las Vegas) were not in the same room today. He ultimately declined to participate in the Assembly Ways & Means hearing that he had originally planned to attend. Instead, he found another way to snub Kirkpatrick.

In another twist to the emerging story, the Clark County Constable's Office sent a deputy with Brooks to provide him personal protection while in Carson City. Constable John Bonaventura has a political rivalry with Kirkpatrick, who is sponsoring legislation to change how the constable's office governed. Bonaventura has been a controversial figure who proposed a reality television show based on his office.

Brooks' lawyer Mitchell Posin confirmed the constable's office offered Brooks personal protection.

"I haven't heard of it either, but this is apparently something they do," Posin said. "It was offered."

Brooks had earlier sought protection from legislative police, worried that a fugitive gang member was after him. Posin said the constable was there to protect him from both gang members and Kirkpatrick.

"Very likely both," Posin said when asked from whom Brooks needed protection.

Now this is really starting to resemble a circus... Albeit a fairly scary circus. I'll become even more frightened if Bravo, TLC, and/or VH1 camera crews are soon seen in Carson City. No wonder why some legislators have become increasingly irritated by the media fixation on the Steven Brooks scandal.

So what are we to do? And what should the "mainstream media" do? There's a reason why I've been trying to focus more on the real public policy problems revealed in this scandal.

But the extent of that anger wasn’t clear until Saturday afternoon, when Atkinson answered his phone and received a warning from “a person close to Brooks” that the assemblyman was looking to hurt Kirkpatrick.

The call so alarmed Atkinson that he called Kirkpatrick, who immediately dialed the police.

According to the police report, Kirkpatrick said Atkinson sent her a text message indicating that "no one else should feel safe around Brooks" and that if Brooks were to show up to the first legislative session, he "would find a way to keep him out of the building." [...]

Brooks’ wife, Ada Brooks, told police the handgun belonged to “one of Steven’s friends who owned a security company.”

Ada Brooks also said that during the past few months, her husband's mental health “has been getting worse and she is worried about him.” Kirkpatrick told police Brooks had been released from Seven Hills Behavioral Center the night before.

As I've been saying here since yesterday, this should make both our legislators and our members of Congress think more about the state of mental health care and the many cracks in current gun laws. (Desert Beacon reported earlier today on some G-O-TEA legislators' latest proposal to crack Nevada's already flimsy gun laws even more.) Again, there are real public policy issues that should come to the forefront now.

But will they? Or will it all be overshadowed by bizarre theatrics and media speculation over personal rivalries?