If you try to sweep your problems under the rug, they’ll go away, right? Michael Mann, a Penn State professor and a central figure in the Climategate scandal and best known for his "hockey stick graph" hopes so.

On Fox News Channel’s April 28 broadcast of "Your World with Neil Cavuto," Elmer Beauregard of Minnesotans for Global Warming appeared to explain the reasoning behind a video that drew the ire Mann. The video mocked the Penn State professor’s alleged attempt to cover up data from tree rings that would indicate there was no global warming.

"Well, I don’t know if you remember, but last fall, Obama was pushing the no cap-and-trade to go through the Senate because he wanted to have something to bring to Copenhagen," Beauregard said. "And just then Climategate broke and the mainstream press really wasn’t covering it, so the coalition got together and we tried to think of a way to kind of bring this into the forefront of the American public. And I said I could make a funny YouTube video. And so, I did it to the tune of ‘Draggin’ the Line’ by Tommy James and The Shondells and put it up on YouTube and it went viral. And then Rush [Limbaugh] played it on his show and it went supernova."

Original "Hide the Decline" Video Below Fold

Jeff Davis of the No Cap & Trade Coalition, an organization that partnered Minnesotans for Global Warming, explained they created a second version of the video to appease Mann for the time being.

"We started a coalition, a national coalition to fight cap and trade back last fall," Davis said. "Minnesotans for Global Warming is part of that coalition. In order to kind of comply with Dr. Mann’s letter, what we did is introduced a new version of ‘Hide the Decline,’ ‘Hide the Decline, II,’ which removes his imagine from the Penn State Web site, which he was so concerned about."

Cavuto asked Beauregard if he expected this sort of response, which he didn’t. However, Beauregard explained he thought this was instead part of the cover up to downplay the Climategate scandal.

"No, not really. I just — well, it was — it’s a little YouTube video," Beauregard said. "But I think what it did actually help is bring the Climategate scandal into the forefront and I think that now that Michael Mann has been exonerated they did an internal investigation at Penn State and I think that they’re trying to cleanup the Climategate mess and they’re just scouring the Internet. There’s this little pesky video on YouTube and I think that’s the reason he wanted to get rid of it."

And as Davis explained, although they used Mann’s image in the original video, they also used his own data to mock him.

"I mean the whole video is based upon a — a statement out of one of the e-mails in Climategate, which is hiding decline," Davis said. "You know, I mean we’re using their own data to basically mock their findings. So, I think Neil that the key question that’s at the heart of this controversy is whether this video defines or defames Dr. Mann. And on our Web site at NoCapAndTrade.com, we’ve got a white paper that addresses that question and readers can decide for themselves."

CNN and CNN.com highlighted opposition to Arizona’s new anti-illegal immigration law on Monday and Wednesday by focusing on sob stories from a soldier of Latino decent whose family entered the U.S. illegally when he was two, and from Latino businesses apparently "already feeling the effects" of the law.

Correspondent Thelma Gutierrez’s interview of Private First Class Jose Medina first aired during the 6 am Eastern hour of Monday’s American Morning program. Anchor Kiran Chetry noted that "Thousands of people staged a peaceful protest outside the state capitol in Phoenix….An immigrant soldier [Medina] about to ship out to the war zone was among yesterday’s [April 25] protesters." Gutierrez continued that the soldier "sat down with us to talk about his feelings and fears over this new immigration law in Arizona that could affect his family."

During the interview, PFC Medina recounted that when he first entered the military, people who ask him where he was from: "I was proud to say I’m from the great state of Arizona, because I was raised here, I grew up here. I don’t know if I can say that so proudly. I don’t know if I want to live here any more." The CNN correspondent highlighted how the passage of Arizona’s SB1070 was "personal" for the soldier, and asked him slanted questions about the legislation.

GUTIERREZ (on camera): Why do people feel indignant about being asked to produce an I.D. that they ought to have?

MEDINA: It’s an insult, almost- because the color of your skin, because you’re not white.

GUTIERREZ: Is this that you resent the fact that you could be stopped and asked for your papers while you’re fighting for this country? Is that what angers you?

MEDINA: It’s not so much anger, it’s hurt that- you know, that could happen to me, it could happen to my family, my friends.

Gutierrez also highlighted Medina’s pre-deployment going-away dinner, which she was invited to. At the end of her report, she stated that "Medina says that as a soldier, one of his biggest concerns is that under this law, somewhere in Arizona, a Gold Star mother who lost a child could be racially profiled and detained. He says that would be the ultimate insult."

On Wednesday, CNN.com’s Emmanuella Grinberg zeroed in on the apparent immediate impact of Arizona’s anti-illegal immigration law in an article titled "Latino businesses feel pinch of new immigration law." Grinberg quoted extensively from business owners who were reportedly suffering a downturn in activity during the days leading up to and following the signing of the bill. She only briefly mentioned how "supporters say the law will temper the negative effects of immigration, such as crime and the misuse of taxpayer dollars to fund health care and education needs of illegal immigrants."

Hector Manrique takes a look around his taqueria and sighs. It’s 3:30 in the afternoon, and usually around this time at least five or six tables are occupied by day laborers fresh off work, or schoolchildren and families in search of a torta or taco after school.

But today, Taqueria Guadalajara’s plastic lawn chairs and tables are empty, and so is the tip jar on the counter. Street traffic in this predominantly Hispanic neighborhood of Phoenix, Arizona, is also lighter than usual, says Manrique, who opened the casual Mexican eatery in 2003.

Not even a week has passed since Gov. Jan Brewer signed into law tough measures targeting illegal immigrants, but Manrique and others who own businesses that cater primarily to Phoenix’s large Hispanic community say they are already feeling the effects….

Manrique says customers started to become scarce a few weeks ago, when news surfaced that the bill was likely to pass. Then came Friday, the day Brewer signed the legislation.

"The streets just went empty. Usually on Friday, Saturday and Sunday, we’re packed. But this weekend was empty like I’d never seen it before," Manrique said.

Across town, Jose Rivas’ bodega offers customers a money wiring teller, a butcher counter and a wide variety of Mexican brands of cookies, beverages and household goods. He said his business also is taking a hit, and that the effects could be long-term.

"Ours is a culture that consumes a lot — food, drinks, clothes, you name it," said Rivas, periodically stopping to greet or wave at a customer. "If no one’s out shopping, how can I afford to employ my workers? They’re all here legally. What happens to them?"

Ernesto Tercero, a first-generation Arizonan whose family is from Mexico, owns a meat distribution company that supplies dozens of stores in Phoenix. He says SB 1070 is a slap in the face to the Hispanic community.

"These people came here because they were told that there were jobs. They were brought here under promises of work, the American dream, and for many years we kept the dream alive," he said.

Tercero, a tall, outspoken man whose gregarious manner underscores his deep connection to the community, noted that Hispanics both legal and illegal are considering leaving Arizona to avoid confrontations with law enforcement….Growing up in Phoenix, Tercero recalls a time when Spanish was discouraged from being spoken in schools and Hispanics were limited in the jobs they could pursue and the places they could live.

Is President Obama incapable of dealing with journalists who question his policies? The White House press corps is becoming increasingly agitated with an administration that reacts particularly strongly to criticism, and even skepticism.

The White House has adopted a pugilistic attitude towards the press, lashing out at journalists who criticize the president, shutting others out, and adopting a deferential attitude towards the press corps that has some journalists reminiscing about the openness of — gasp — the George W. Bush presidency.

The Obama administration "came in with every reporter giving them the benefit of the doubt," one journalist told Politico’s Josh Gersten and Patrick Gavin. "They’ve lost all that goodwill." It seems that the press corps’s offense is questioning the administration’s positions.

CNBC’s Dennis Kneale weighed in on the channel’s website today, where he called Obama a "bully." The president "gets pouty whenever anyone dares to disagree with him" Kneale claimed. "He seems to view dissension not as healthy public debate but as a suspicious, pernicious challenge to his omnipotence and popularity."

That is a problem for journalists, whose success can be measured in part by the degree of skepticism they apply to those in power. Though an effective press is one that is not dissuaded by a hostile administration, comity and transparency often go hand in hand — the lack of the former makes the latter tougher.

To the extent Kneale’s critique is accurate, President Obama looks a whole lot like Candidate Obama. He and his administration do their best to control the message by funneling information to select sources and hammering journalists and media outlets that paint the president or his policies in a less than appealing light.

As reported in Politico,

Among White House reporters, tales abound of an offhand criticism or passing claim low in an unremarkable story setting off an avalanche of hostile e-mail and voice mail messages.

“It’s not unusual to have shouting matches, or the email equivalent of that. It’s very, very aggressive behavior, taking issue with a thing you’ve written, an individual word, all sorts of things,” said one White House reporter.

“It’s a natural outgrowth of campaigning where control of the message is everything and where a very tight circle controls the flow of information,” the New Yorker’s Packer said. “I just think it is a mistake to transfer that model to governing. Governing is so much more complicated and is all about implementation—not just message.”

One of the most irritating practices of the Obama White House is when aides ignore inquiries or explicitly refuse to cooperate with an unwelcome story—only to come out with both guns blazing when it takes a skeptical view of their motives or success.

“You will give them ample opportunity on a story. They will then say, ‘We don’t have anything for you on this.’ Then, when you write an analytical graf that could be interpreted as implying a political motive by the White House, or something that makes them look like anything but geniuses, you will get a flurry of off the record angry e-mails after you publish,” one national reporter said. “That does no good. If you want to complain, engage!”

During the campaign, there were plenty of darker elements of the Obama candidacy that the press could have invesitaged. For the most part, journalists chose not to do so. But now that Obama is president, even a fawning press cannot paint his every policy as a resounding success.

So while journalists begin to weigh in on what Obama is doing, the president’s thin skin begins to show. He apparently grew accustomed to a sycophantic journalistic establishment.

For its part, the White House claims that it only lashes out against reports that are objectively untrue.

Gibbs said the White House’s efforts to push back tend to focus on fixing factual mistakes before they take hold in the media.

“The way we live these days, something that’s wrong can whip around and become part of the conventional wisdom in only a matter of moments and it’s hard to take it, put a top on it and put in back into the box,” Gibbs said. “That’s the nature by which the business operates right now.…This isn’t unique in terms of us and it’s likely to be more true for the next administration.”

But if the White House’s hyper-sensitive attitude to criticism were restricted simply to "factual mistakes," it would have no cause to broaden its criticism to include an entire news channel — Fox News, perhaps the White House’s meatiest target — without discriminating between the various reporters there, or even between reporters and opinion commentators.

Rather than single out specific instances of misinformation supposedly aired on Fox News, the White House dispatched David Axelrod and Rahm Emanuel to rhetorically negate the cable network’s credentials as a news organization. Had "factual mistakes" been the extent of the White House’s objections, it could simply have asked for corrections.

No, the White House’s real problem seems to be that members of the press would challenge administration policies at all.

MSNBC’s Dylan Ratigan on Wednesday chuckled over the assertion by Rick Perry that he killed a coyote while jogging, misrepresenting what happened. After explaining that the Texas Governor shot the creature for menacing his dog, Ratigan intoned, "For the record, the Texas Wildlife Commission does not allow laser sited guns to be used in hunting as it is seen as cowardly, too easy, with a laser site, to shoot anything." [Audio available here.]

He then snidely added, "Though, this is said to be self-defense. Perry probably gets off. Although hunting coyotes with a laser sited gun is kind of like shooting a cow on the farm or maybe a moose in Alaska." First off, as Ratigan (sort of) explained, the Governor wasn’t hunting.

Secondly, an AP story by Jim Vertuno clarified:

Texas state law allows people to shoot coyotes that are threatening livestock or domestic animals. The dog was unharmed, Perry said.

Perry’s security detail was not required to file a report about the governor discharging a weapon, said Department of Public Safety spokeswoman Tela Mange.

Perry’s security detail was not required to file a report about the governor discharging a weapon, said Department of Public Safety spokeswoman Tela Mange.

"People shoot coyotes all the time, snakes all the time," Mange said. "We don’t write reports."

But, Ratigan probably knew that. Perhaps he just wanted to somehow work his Sarah Palin joke into the story.

A transcript of the brief segment, which aired at 4:23pm EDT, follows:

DYLAN RATIGAN: Finally, however, the coyotes of Texas beware. Texas Governor Rick Perry telling the Associated Press that he shot and killed one of the animals while jogging in February. He says the coyote threatened his daughter’s puppy, so he put that sucker down. I used the word, sucker. I don’t know if he called it sucker. Perry sometimes jogs, by the way, this is kind of bad ass, with a 380 laser sided Rugar loaded with hollow point bullets. Who does that? For the record, the Texas Wildlife Commission does not allow laser sited guns to be used in hunting as it is seen as cowardly, too easy, with a laser site, to shoot anything. Though, this is said to be self-defense. Perry probably gets off. Although hunting coyotes with a laser sited gun is kind of like shooting a cow on the farm or maybe a moose in Alaska. 

MSNBC host Ed Schultz is still in prairie-populist mode on illegal immigration. Unlike many on the left, he says it’s a serious problem.

But on Tuesday’s edition of The Ed Show, he somehow blamed it on Arizona’s Senators, John McCain and Jon Kyl: “McCain and Kyl have left the border wide open. Once again, it’s up to the president of the United States, Barack Obama, to clean up another Republican mess.”

He repeatedly complained about the last presidential race: “During the 2008 campaign, McCain the warmonger said that he could take care of Iran. Hell, he can’t even take care [of] and protect his own home state!”

Minutes later, he repeated: “I’m just incensed that here’s a guy who ran for president in 2008, vilified the Democrats, said we were weak on security. Yet you look in his own back yard of Arizona, and he’s been there since 1982 in the Congress, and he has the worst state in the union when it comes to illegal immigration and defending the laws. I’m glad this guy didn’t get elected president. He can’t even run his own state.”

He boasted that North Dakota would have dumped its Democratic Senators if they were this ineffectual on immigration issues: “Where I come from, I know that if Sens. Byron Dorgan and Kent Conrad had millions of illegal Canadians steamin’ across the border to North Dakota, well, I think that they’d probably have done something about it, especially if it started back in 1982. I think that McCain and Kyl, they are getting absolutely a free pass when they have caused this country insurmountable problems and damage to our economy.”

Schultz then spread the blame across the entire GOP establishment: “This is another classic example of Republican ineptitude…The conservatives have created this crisis with their absolute lust for cheap labor…Their race-to-the-bottom-line mentality has led us right into another international crisis, but now it’s on our own soil.”

Then, in a bizarre twist, Schultz went from “international crisis” talk to gently asking Rep. Luis Gutierrez, who favors a complete amnesty for illegal aliens, about whether people should boycott Arizona (yes) and whether the new law is racial profiling (yes). He concluded the softball interview by saying “Great to have you on the show tonight. I love your passion on this story.” If Schultz really believes this is an “international crisis” that’s causing "insurmountable problems and damage to our economy," why didn’t he offer one whiff of a challenge to Congressman Gutierrez?

Break out the pom poms . . .

Check out Norah O’Donnell’s reaction to the news that Charlie Crist is poised to enter the Florida senatorial race as an independent.

Appearing on Morning Joe today, the MSNBC correspondent was absolutely giddy with excitement at the prospect that Crist’s independent run could give Democrat Kendrick Meek "a real shot!"

NORAH O’DONNELL: I think this is a huge development, in part because of Charlie Crist’s past and his future, and also because it does give Kendrick Meek a real shot at this Senate seat!  He’s got a lot of money that he’s banked, and he’s just been sitting there pretty, waiting to spend it. Florida is a state about spending money on advertising.  And I think it gives the Democrats a real shot.

Curb your enthusiasm, Norah!

Filed under: Research

Pakistani and American researchers showed in 2003 that adding spices to your diet can help control cholesterol and blood sugar. In the study type 2 diabetics took powdered cinnamon to lower their blood sugar, LDL and triglycerides.

One study, however, isn’t proof. More recent studies showed that 3 grams of powdered cinnamon a day lowered blood sugar by 10 percent, but didn’t affect LDL or triglycerides. Other studies showed that it might depend on the age and sex of the diabetic.

If you want to give cinnamon a try, go ahead – but be advised that no one knows if megadoses have side effects or interact with other medications. And don’t give up your traditional medications.

Check out more diabetes information on AOL Health.

Permalink | Email this | Linking Blogs | Comments

Phil Donahue believes people should learn about Fox News’s Glenn Beck by watching a video that was posted at the perilously liberal website Daily Kos.

In a preview of an interview to be aired on the "Joy Behar Show" Friday, the host asked her guest, "What do you think of this upsurge of the Becks and the Limbaughs and Fox News?"

Donahue curiously responded, "You know this kid Daily Kos?…He’s got a thing called ‘Full Mental Beck.’ And it’s, it’s like seven minutes of, a montage of Beck" 

He amazingly continued, "So, if you’ve just read about Glenn Beck, and you don’t want to watch Glenn Beck, check Daily Kos and watch it, because you better know what’s going on here or you’re going to be culturally illiterate" (video follows with transcript and commentary, h/t Weasel Zippers): 

JOY BEHAR, HOST: Coming from the talk show history that you come from, what do you think of this upsurge of the Becks and the Limbaughs and Fox News and how powerful it is in the country right now, or it seems to be?

PHIL DONAHUE: Yeah, well we’re not sure, it does appear to be that way.

BEHAR: Yeah.

DONAHUE: The question is now, you know, what kind of influence does it have? They’re very, very interesting. You know this kid Daily Kos? K-O-S?

BEHAR: Yeah.

DONAHUE: The website.

BEHAR. Yes. Right.

DONAHUE: He’s got a thing called "Full Mental Beck." And it’s, it’s like seven minutes of, a montage of Beck, with the blackboard…

BEHAR: Yeah.

DONAHUE: I mean, you’ve got to see this.

BEHAR: Is he mocking it? Or is…

DONAHUE: No, he just let’s him go for, it’s Beck.

BEHAR: Yeah.

DONAHUE: And you see some of the talking points of. So, if you’ve just read about Glenn Beck…

BEHAR. Yeah.

DONAHUE: …and you don’t want to watch Glenn Beck, check Daily Kos and watch it, because you better know what’s going on here or you’re going to be culturally illiterate.

BEHAR: That’s right, you have to watch it. But a lot of these Tea Partiers and a lot of that, they, I think they’re interested in watching these Glenn Beck, these Glenn Beck types. I think that’s where they’re coming from.

DONAHUE: I tell you, I watch him.

BEHAR: Yeah.

DONAHUE: I don’t watch him every night.

BEHAR: Oh, you do.

DONAHUE: I do.

BEHAR: Keep your friends close and your enemies on TV?

DONAHUE: Well, I can’t get over that. I can’t get over that. I mean, to me, this is a fascinating story.

BEHAR: Yeah.

DONAHUE: How long are they going to last? Who are the Tea Party people? What do the Republicans think of them? This is, if we didn’t have Glenn Beck, we’d have to invent him.

BEHAR: That’s true.

You got that?

If you haven’t seen Glenn Beck, but want to know what he’s about, you should watch a video created by someone that HATES: Beck; the station he’s on, and; absolutely EVERYTHING he stands for. 

Of course, this is akin to telling someone that wants to know about America to ask Osama bin Laden.

But that’s how liberals like Phil Donahue think.

Of course, Behar didn’t disagree with him, and she still HAS her own television program.

Perish the thought. 

I don’t know about you, but I can’t WAIT to see the full interview on Friday. 

A short Associated Press item tonight notes that the Organization for American States is not happy with the state of Arizona for passing an immigration law-enforcement measure:

I don’t expect AP to expand on OAS’s statement any time soon, because in the process of doing so they might feel compelled to look at how some of the countries criticizing Arizona handle their own illegal immigrants.

One of the most under-reported stories of the past couple of decades is the hypocrisy of Mexico’s and many other OAS countries’ "anger" at any and every attempt by the U.S. government or its states to enforce laws that are nowhere near as harsh as their own.

Michelle Malkin’s most recent syndicated column focuses on Mexico harsh immigration regime. She points out a number of pretty amazing items, given how Mexico would have us treat our illegals (bolds are mine):

The Mexican government will bar foreigners if they upset “the equilibrium of the national demographics.” How’s that for racial and ethnic profiling?

If outsiders do not enhance the country’s “economic or national interests” or are “not found to be physically or mentally healthy,” they are not welcome. Neither are those who show “contempt against national sovereignty or security.” They must not be economic burdens on society and must have clean criminal histories. Those seeking to obtain Mexican citizenship must show a birth certificate, provide a bank statement proving economic independence, pass an exam and prove they can provide their own health care.

Illegal entry into the country is equivalent to a felony punishable by two years’ imprisonment. Document fraud is subject to fine and imprisonment; so is alien marriage fraud. Evading deportation is a serious crime; illegal re-entry after deportation is punishable by ten years’ imprisonment.

… Law enforcement officials at all levels — by national mandate — must cooperate to enforce immigration laws, including illegal alien arrests and deportations. The Mexican military is also required to assist in immigration enforcement operations. Native-born Mexicans are empowered to make citizens’ arrests of illegal aliens and turn them in to authorities.

… Noncitizens cannot “in any way participate in the political affairs of the country.”

… As for abuse, the Mexican government is notorious for its abuse of Central American illegal aliens who attempt to violate Mexico’s southern border. The Red Cross has protested rampant Mexican police corruption, intimidation and bribery schemes targeting illegal aliens there for years.

As is the case with anything Malkin writes, read the whole thing.

As might be expected, there’s a serious inaccuracy in the above AP report, which gives the impression that law enforcement officials can arbitrarily "question people" at random about their citizenship status. As Kris Kobach pointed out in today’s Washington Times (HT Mark Levin’s radio show):

… the Arizona law actually makes racial profiling less likely. But that doesn’t fit the story the left would like to tell.

… The terms of the act make clear that such profiling cannot occur. Section 2 provides that a law enforcement official "may not solely consider race, color, or national origin" in making any stops or determining an alien’s immigration status. In addition, all of the normal Fourth Amendment protections against racial profiling still apply.

… The law only kicks in when a police officer already has made a "lawful contact" with a person, such as stopping him for breaking another law. The most likely contact is during the issuance of a speeding ticket. The law does not require the officer to begin questioning a person about his immigration status or to do anything the officer would not otherwise do.

Only after a stop is made, and subsequently the officer develops reasonable suspicion on his own that an immigration law has been violated, is any obligation imposed.

Many Americans would see things quite differently if they really understood what Mexico does to enforce its immigration laws, while brazenly using its consulate system here in the U.S. to defend its citizens who are breaking the law when they are in this country illegally — which is why the largely pro-illegal, anti-sovereignty establishment press will almost never touch the story.

Cross-posted at BizzyBlog.com.

Jessica Bernstein wants to take “control” out of the diabetes vocabulary. So read the headline when she was featured in the San Francisco Chronicle last week. Jessica is a San Francisco Bay Area psychologist who was diagnosed herself with type 1 diabetes when she was just a year old. She’s spent much of her [...]