John & Ben Mankiewicz. Flint charge. EPA pushes for methane rule delay. Trump admin rolling back civil rights efforts. Trump apprenticeships exec order. Russia sanctions.
What drives me crazy about the “it’s cows” argument is how quickly and easily vegan and vegetarian groups have jumped on it. In fairness, I don’t know how much traction they have but if you are online you will see so-called environmentally aware “liberal” leaning animal rights groups that argue that the first step to stopping global warming isn’t about oil or fixing issues with companies leaking methane, but no it’s closing down mass production of cattle. Look I get that they want people to stop eating meat but that they are willing to risk the entire planet because that goal is so important blows my mind.
If you want everyone to stop eating meat power to you, but maybe we could fix the major issues with global warming then move on to cow farts? And yes I know that factor animal production does add to it but it’s not the cows farting it’s the oil, electricity, and other things of that nature used to maintain these farms. Problems that would be fixed by green energy. That there is something inherent about these farms that makes them ten times worse for the environment is a lie that these groups have lapped up because it fits their narrative.
I honestly don’t understand why anyone acts so outraged about whatever corrupt thing Trump or his sycophants do or act like this is so different than anything ever before. Like Abby Martin said yesterday: there’s nothing new about Trump’s corruption except the blatantness of his actions.
Also, complete dick move of Ben to preempt John at the end. Wish John had done that show by himself, would have been better
There has not been one single morning since Nov 8, 2016 that I have not woken up happy that Hillary lost.
Of course I am not happy that Trump won. But I am happy that Hillary lost. Reading the book SHATTERED has been cathartic and educational — learning even more reasons to be happy we finally have a chance to rid the Democratic Party of the Clinton Cancer.
The silver lining on the Trump Cloud is that he is so OBVIOUSLY corrupt. Hillary and Bill are masters of using the words that lull establishment types and too many voters into sleep.
On the down side… most voters are pretty damn hopeless. As MLK said, the greatest obstacle to progress are moderates. Moderates just want everyone to stop arguing. They have no interest in which side is right or wrong — they just want the arguing to stop.
OK, feeling triggered because an establishment-dem voter accidentally wandered into our Progressives meeting last night. She thought she was coming to a Democratic Club meeting. When she found out we were not the Democratic Club, she proceeded to lecture us that “there are too many factions! we need to unite!” She is clearly the product of years of CNN/MSNBC indoctrination. We politely pointed out that yes, the Dems need to unite behind the real Left, and then there will be unity. She did stay for the entire meeting, and I watched her nod her head in response to many of the things people said. One goddamn voter at a time… we’ll turn this ship around.
> “there are too many factions! we need to unite!”
Not much of a sense of history there, on her part. It’s a big and diverse country that has only ever had two (mainstream) political parties: when have those parties ever not had “too many factions”? It’s normal.
It’s the overall direction that those factions are being led into, which matters. The Clintons and other dominant factions have effectively been leading them towards the Right, until recently.
It is worth remembering that most revolutionaries become establishment, if they win. Revolution is sometimes necessary, but it is always a chaotic and dangerous time for a lot of innocent people. I would prefer to see establishment types being part of the revolution.
> I would prefer to see establishment types being part of the revolution.
That’s like saying you want ice to be part of fire. A popular, genuine revolution is to take out the establishment, period.
If instead it’s one part of the establishment vs. another part of it then that’s not a revolution, and then it can only be detrimental to anyone who’s not already part of the establishment. THAT is the most tragic scenario, because then lots of ordinary people suffer for no other reasons then that one set of upper class assholes can’t stand a separate set of upper class assholes. And the people get nothing out of it.
The people get nothing out of most revolutions. “Meet the new boss, same as the old boss.” The revolutionaries become a new establishment. Yes, I’d rather see the ice as part of the fire. Our government was supposed to allow for change without violent revolution. Money and mass media seem to have corrupted that, but perhaps it can be restored via a newer, more diffuse media.
From Wikipedia article on Methane: “Methane is nontoxic, yet it is extremely flammable and may form explosive mixtures with air.” However, accompanying methane commonly are other gases that may be toxic, such as hydrogen sulfide. When coming direct from an underground source of gas, these other gases would be present, their relative concentrations varying with the specific oilfield or other source . It is possible that commercial natural gas may have some of these other gases removed. This might apply to the Porter Ranch release as that was a storage facility rather than a direct source of the gas so the gas may have been purified to remove some of these other gases. I know they remove water vapor, but I don’t know what else they may remove. For long distance transportation, I do know they remove the higher carbon fraction, like ethane, propane, and butane as there was controversy in Kentucky about re-purposing existing methane transmission lines to instead transmit these higher carbon fractions to refining facilities. My comment concerning the mix of gases at Porter Ranch is speculative, I know nothing about this release other than your own reporting and possibly another article I read on Facebook.
If you choose to loosely refer to released natural gas as “Methane”, with this loose terminology meaning the mix of gases produced by methane recovery wells or other sources, you could make comments about the “methane” being toxic. As an environmental engineer, I prefer to use terminology like “methane and associated gases” when discussing the hazards of the gas releases from transmission lines or other leaks. The Wikipedia article supports my recollection about methane toxicology (and lack thereof). The methane component of the mix is a high percentage of the total. The hazards of the methane itself are based on its explosivity and effects on global warming. Please keep in mind it is the ASSOCIATED gases that would be causing toxic effects on the public, if such are present. As another factor, methane has a molecular weight of 16 (one carbon at 12 and four hydrogens at 1 each). Molecular nitrogen (most of atmosphere) has a molecular weight of twice 14 = 28 . This difference in molecular weights means that methane is lighter than air and would not accumulate near ground level. Thus those at a distance from a methane leak would not have much exposure to methane as this would rise and dissipate unless confined in a building or mine. Some associated gases ARE heavier than air. Hydrogen sulfide has a molecular weight of 34, does hug the ground, and has killed people due to releases from oil wells under certain conditions. I recall reading about a case in Louisiana where oilfield workers or fishermen were killed by hydrogen sulfide releases from oil well vents that did not burn the gas on exit.
You would have to research the associated gases further to determine what associated gases are present, their concentrations and toxicology, and population subject to exposure. I have not directly worked on methane release issues and so have not done detailed reading about this. My limited knowledge comes from OSHA HAZWOPER training and some moderate reading that touches on the issue. I hope this might point you in the right direction for following up on this. As a scientist and engineer, I cringe at sloppy terminology that misidentifies where a problem is coming from. To deal with a problem, it is necessary to correctly understand the components of it and what physically is happening. The methane component of “Methane” releases is problematic for the explosion hazard if in a confined space such as a coal mine or building and as a greenhouse gas, but the associated gases may create additional hazards, including toxicity.
It’s a weird world when Ben is the less rigid & more thoughtful than the Host, John.
This hour pretty much cemented John into the Michael Shure – Establishment camp.
I honestly wonder if John is a Justice Dem.
He was also like this yday, with Ana … as if the US Govt current horrible spiral into the pit of Hell is ONLY because the Trumpster won. Granted the spiral appears to be more of a straight slide, and HRC would be the spiral. But, would Justice Democrats have been created with as much interest if HRC was prez?
Would regular non-political types give a shit about what the Govt was doing if it was Prez.HRC (outside of Fox New’s fake mustard vs.ketchup-type stories)? I think people would still be asleep, instead of slowly waking up.
If not for Trump slapping his tiny meat-puppet in America’s collective face everyday, I argue no one would take much notice. Everything he does is so over-the-top unbelievable, that it is hard to turn-off this train-wreck.
He needs to ditch the moth-eaten Furby on his head, go full-bald and start carrying a cat.
Cuz we don’t have an adorable, family-friendly WH pet yet …
A sphinx cat w/a cute little suit might be just the ratings boost the Trump Show needs.
Maybe with a bow-tie.
Umm… unfinished thought.
Ben consistently reeled back John’s “Things would be great, if only Trump hadn’t won” narrative.
Anyway, I use to love Ben (before the election), and this show just brought me back to liking him again.
John and Michael Shure is UNBEARABLE.
Oddly enough, Ben played the role of Ana today!
I noticed right after the election. It seems that John totally went on board the U.S.S. Democratic Establishment Wisdom, because he couldn’t cope with Trump being president.
because he couldn’t cope with Trump being president.
That’s a good psychological way to explain why some people behave as they do. From the beginning, they couldn’t handle the idea of Trump being president, so now they seek refuge in obsessive or retroactive mental constructs such as “anything but Trump” or “things were awesome before Trump”.
I for one can handle the idea of president Trump just fine. I want to take him down, absolutely, but here’s the thing about that: if you want to affect reality at all, first you have to fully stare reality in its face, unafraid and unblinkingly.
Would Justice Democrats have been created with as much interest if HRC was prez?
It’s extremely obvious indeed that if Hillary had won, JD would never have been created at all. The key element, the key motivator, was things like Cenk’s incandescent rage on election night, at how badly the Democrats had failed. People like Kyle Kulinski and disaffected Bernie staffers were feeling the same thing and it all came together from there, with Cenk’s hand on the steering wheel.
Highly disagree. This is a fatalistic viewpoint that people use to justify thinking that Hillary was somehow worse than Trump. Progressives would have been just as motivated because they wouldn’t have been able to tolerate another 8 years of a president claiming to be progressive while being just barely left of the center. It might have been slightly slower but it would have still happened.
MI attorney general name is pronounced Shoe-stir
Also for the record Sec of Educacation is pronounced
Betsy Div- os. the e makes the short i sound the o is also soft
I think the “host’s” & “hostesses” should be judged by how many of the scheduled stories were covered by the end of the program. It’d be a nice way to judge the effectiveness of each person, and that would aid management as well as the audience judge who should host the main program or who should perhaps only host the more peripheral shows.
Ben and Jon as a tandem are spectacular. Cenk and Ana are quite good but these two together are far, FAR, more cogent and informative. Maybe Jon and Ben for the first (more serious issues) hour and Cenk and Ana for hours two and the Post Game.
“Capitalism needs fettering.” Ben and John had a good hour tonight. I appreciated with the story on Flint’s water crisis. As far as methane is concerned though, the right kind of has a point. I mean everyone knows that Tejon Ranch off of I-5 (exit 215) is a problem.
Tejon Ranch, or Harris Ranch? Harris has the miles of bovines trapped in hellish cow-prison beside the freeway, which you smell 10 miles before you see…
effective but probably too analytical, i loved it- so probably niche; Still think host roulette is not progress, show structure based on what the hosts have been naturally bringing so that they can share good qualities and like, I just feel like, weed out the bad ones, you know?
Agree that some of the host panels have been poor. While new presenters must be tried they should be balanced by at least one and better two with more experience.
Unfortunately some if the younger presenters do not have the depth of knowledge to make any significant contribution and so should host with one or more experienced hosts.
Rand Paul would vote against the bill because the Government has no business being involved in whether anybody participates in any sport. Ted Cruz will filibuster by reading selections from “New World Order” and then vote with the majority cementing his place as the most hated person in DC.
And that’s awesome. We can only take so much of Mankiewicz’s establishment opinions, partisanship, and posturing as an insider/expert, especially if he goes unchallenged on a panel. This is only acceptable in small doses and only mixed with the right pushback. If he’s on more than once per week, it’s far too much.
I can only imagine how you feel about Michael Shure! Ben does irk me at times with his establishment rhetoric but I do find him both witty and insightful which is more than I can say for some of the riff-raff they’ve allowed to host.
Now to be fair to Mank, he’s certainly at his best and most useful when he’s on a panel that only covers Trump and Flint and which hardly ever mentions Corporate Democrats, or indeed any Democrats at all.
I wonder if this is a deliberate avoidance strategy on this part. I’ve looked at his Twitter feed of the past few months and the general impression is that he studiously avoids saying anything about the Democratic party, Hillary, or Bernie.
Comments
Great first hour! Always appreciate your commentary Ben and John.
What drives me crazy about the “it’s cows” argument is how quickly and easily vegan and vegetarian groups have jumped on it. In fairness, I don’t know how much traction they have but if you are online you will see so-called environmentally aware “liberal” leaning animal rights groups that argue that the first step to stopping global warming isn’t about oil or fixing issues with companies leaking methane, but no it’s closing down mass production of cattle. Look I get that they want people to stop eating meat but that they are willing to risk the entire planet because that goal is so important blows my mind.
If you want everyone to stop eating meat power to you, but maybe we could fix the major issues with global warming then move on to cow farts? And yes I know that factor animal production does add to it but it’s not the cows farting it’s the oil, electricity, and other things of that nature used to maintain these farms. Problems that would be fixed by green energy. That there is something inherent about these farms that makes them ten times worse for the environment is a lie that these groups have lapped up because it fits their narrative.
I honestly don’t understand why anyone acts so outraged about whatever corrupt thing Trump or his sycophants do or act like this is so different than anything ever before. Like Abby Martin said yesterday: there’s nothing new about Trump’s corruption except the blatantness of his actions.
Also, complete dick move of Ben to preempt John at the end. Wish John had done that show by himself, would have been better
lol
The best TYT shows include Ben Mankiewicz… He has been missing too much lately… What The Flick is half-as-good without Ben…
My guilty confession:
There has not been one single morning since Nov 8, 2016 that I have not woken up happy that Hillary lost.
Of course I am not happy that Trump won. But I am happy that Hillary lost. Reading the book SHATTERED has been cathartic and educational — learning even more reasons to be happy we finally have a chance to rid the Democratic Party of the Clinton Cancer.
The silver lining on the Trump Cloud is that he is so OBVIOUSLY corrupt. Hillary and Bill are masters of using the words that lull establishment types and too many voters into sleep.
On the down side… most voters are pretty damn hopeless. As MLK said, the greatest obstacle to progress are moderates. Moderates just want everyone to stop arguing. They have no interest in which side is right or wrong — they just want the arguing to stop.
OK, feeling triggered because an establishment-dem voter accidentally wandered into our Progressives meeting last night. She thought she was coming to a Democratic Club meeting. When she found out we were not the Democratic Club, she proceeded to lecture us that “there are too many factions! we need to unite!” She is clearly the product of years of CNN/MSNBC indoctrination. We politely pointed out that yes, the Dems need to unite behind the real Left, and then there will be unity. She did stay for the entire meeting, and I watched her nod her head in response to many of the things people said. One goddamn voter at a time… we’ll turn this ship around.
> “there are too many factions! we need to unite!”
Not much of a sense of history there, on her part. It’s a big and diverse country that has only ever had two (mainstream) political parties: when have those parties ever not had “too many factions”? It’s normal.
It’s the overall direction that those factions are being led into, which matters. The Clintons and other dominant factions have effectively been leading them towards the Right, until recently.
Heck yes John and Ben!! Excellent combo.
Also I laughed and choked on my coffee thanks to that gum thing, Ben, I hope you’re happy.
Classic TYT schtick at its finest, like a blooper gag reel.
180,000 tons of methane is a drop in bathtub.
https://icp.giss.nasa.gov/education/methane/intro/cycle.html
Between people and natural sources contribute about 450 Million tons of methane a year.
That rule would curb 0.04% of methane releases a year.
It’s something, but not much.
It is worth remembering that most revolutionaries become establishment, if they win. Revolution is sometimes necessary, but it is always a chaotic and dangerous time for a lot of innocent people. I would prefer to see establishment types being part of the revolution.
> I would prefer to see establishment types being part of the revolution.
That’s like saying you want ice to be part of fire. A popular, genuine revolution is to take out the establishment, period.
If instead it’s one part of the establishment vs. another part of it then that’s not a revolution, and then it can only be detrimental to anyone who’s not already part of the establishment. THAT is the most tragic scenario, because then lots of ordinary people suffer for no other reasons then that one set of upper class assholes can’t stand a separate set of upper class assholes. And the people get nothing out of it.
The people get nothing out of most revolutions. “Meet the new boss, same as the old boss.” The revolutionaries become a new establishment. Yes, I’d rather see the ice as part of the fire. Our government was supposed to allow for change without violent revolution. Money and mass media seem to have corrupted that, but perhaps it can be restored via a newer, more diffuse media.
From Wikipedia article on Methane: “Methane is nontoxic, yet it is extremely flammable and may form explosive mixtures with air.” However, accompanying methane commonly are other gases that may be toxic, such as hydrogen sulfide. When coming direct from an underground source of gas, these other gases would be present, their relative concentrations varying with the specific oilfield or other source . It is possible that commercial natural gas may have some of these other gases removed. This might apply to the Porter Ranch release as that was a storage facility rather than a direct source of the gas so the gas may have been purified to remove some of these other gases. I know they remove water vapor, but I don’t know what else they may remove. For long distance transportation, I do know they remove the higher carbon fraction, like ethane, propane, and butane as there was controversy in Kentucky about re-purposing existing methane transmission lines to instead transmit these higher carbon fractions to refining facilities. My comment concerning the mix of gases at Porter Ranch is speculative, I know nothing about this release other than your own reporting and possibly another article I read on Facebook.
If you choose to loosely refer to released natural gas as “Methane”, with this loose terminology meaning the mix of gases produced by methane recovery wells or other sources, you could make comments about the “methane” being toxic. As an environmental engineer, I prefer to use terminology like “methane and associated gases” when discussing the hazards of the gas releases from transmission lines or other leaks. The Wikipedia article supports my recollection about methane toxicology (and lack thereof). The methane component of the mix is a high percentage of the total. The hazards of the methane itself are based on its explosivity and effects on global warming. Please keep in mind it is the ASSOCIATED gases that would be causing toxic effects on the public, if such are present. As another factor, methane has a molecular weight of 16 (one carbon at 12 and four hydrogens at 1 each). Molecular nitrogen (most of atmosphere) has a molecular weight of twice 14 = 28 . This difference in molecular weights means that methane is lighter than air and would not accumulate near ground level. Thus those at a distance from a methane leak would not have much exposure to methane as this would rise and dissipate unless confined in a building or mine. Some associated gases ARE heavier than air. Hydrogen sulfide has a molecular weight of 34, does hug the ground, and has killed people due to releases from oil wells under certain conditions. I recall reading about a case in Louisiana where oilfield workers or fishermen were killed by hydrogen sulfide releases from oil well vents that did not burn the gas on exit.
You would have to research the associated gases further to determine what associated gases are present, their concentrations and toxicology, and population subject to exposure. I have not directly worked on methane release issues and so have not done detailed reading about this. My limited knowledge comes from OSHA HAZWOPER training and some moderate reading that touches on the issue. I hope this might point you in the right direction for following up on this. As a scientist and engineer, I cringe at sloppy terminology that misidentifies where a problem is coming from. To deal with a problem, it is necessary to correctly understand the components of it and what physically is happening. The methane component of “Methane” releases is problematic for the explosion hazard if in a confined space such as a coal mine or building and as a greenhouse gas, but the associated gases may create additional hazards, including toxicity.
It’s a weird world when Ben is the less rigid & more thoughtful than the Host, John.
This hour pretty much cemented John into the Michael Shure – Establishment camp.
I honestly wonder if John is a Justice Dem.
He was also like this yday, with Ana … as if the US Govt current horrible spiral into the pit of Hell is ONLY because the Trumpster won. Granted the spiral appears to be more of a straight slide, and HRC would be the spiral. But, would Justice Democrats have been created with as much interest if HRC was prez?
Would regular non-political types give a shit about what the Govt was doing if it was Prez.HRC (outside of Fox New’s fake mustard vs.ketchup-type stories)? I think people would still be asleep, instead of slowly waking up.
If not for Trump slapping his tiny meat-puppet in America’s collective face everyday, I argue no one would take much notice. Everything he does is so over-the-top unbelievable, that it is hard to turn-off this train-wreck.
He needs to ditch the moth-eaten Furby on his head, go full-bald and start carrying a cat.
Cuz we don’t have an adorable, family-friendly WH pet yet …
A sphinx cat w/a cute little suit might be just the ratings boost the Trump Show needs.
Maybe with a bow-tie.
Throughout the hour, Ben would consistently
Umm… unfinished thought.
Ben consistently reeled back John’s “Things would be great, if only Trump hadn’t won” narrative.
Anyway, I use to love Ben (before the election), and this show just brought me back to liking him again.
John and Michael Shure is UNBEARABLE.
Oddly enough, Ben played the role of Ana today!
I noticed right after the election. It seems that John totally went on board the U.S.S. Democratic Establishment Wisdom, because he couldn’t cope with Trump being president.
That’s a good psychological way to explain why some people behave as they do. From the beginning, they couldn’t handle the idea of Trump being president, so now they seek refuge in obsessive or retroactive mental constructs such as “anything but Trump” or “things were awesome before Trump”.
I for one can handle the idea of president Trump just fine. I want to take him down, absolutely, but here’s the thing about that: if you want to affect reality at all, first you have to fully stare reality in its face, unafraid and unblinkingly.
It’s extremely obvious indeed that if Hillary had won, JD would never have been created at all. The key element, the key motivator, was things like Cenk’s incandescent rage on election night, at how badly the Democrats had failed. People like Kyle Kulinski and disaffected Bernie staffers were feeling the same thing and it all came together from there, with Cenk’s hand on the steering wheel.
Highly disagree. This is a fatalistic viewpoint that people use to justify thinking that Hillary was somehow worse than Trump. Progressives would have been just as motivated because they wouldn’t have been able to tolerate another 8 years of a president claiming to be progressive while being just barely left of the center. It might have been slightly slower but it would have still happened.
MI attorney general name is pronounced Shoe-stir
Also for the record Sec of Educacation is pronounced
Betsy Div- os. the e makes the short i sound the o is also soft
I want someone to look at me the way John looks at Ben.
No, you want someone to look at you the way John looks at Michael Shure.
John’s Ben-eyes are just a highschool crush.
John’s Michael-eyes are To-The-Moon, lust-fueled worship!
I think the “host’s” & “hostesses” should be judged by how many of the scheduled stories were covered by the end of the program. It’d be a nice way to judge the effectiveness of each person, and that would aid management as well as the audience judge who should host the main program or who should perhaps only host the more peripheral shows.
Ben and Jon as a tandem are spectacular. Cenk and Ana are quite good but these two together are far, FAR, more cogent and informative. Maybe Jon and Ben for the first (more serious issues) hour and Cenk and Ana for hours two and the Post Game.
Demoting Cenk to the second hour is an interesting idea. Maybe the first hour would then finish on time.
I wonder what the CEO will say?
Oo err maybe that idea has little traction.
This was a great first hour. With ben and John, this was def THE YOUNG TURKS :)
Great coverage and analysis guys
Completely agree. It’s always great having Ben!
“Capitalism needs fettering.” Ben and John had a good hour tonight. I appreciated with the story on Flint’s water crisis. As far as methane is concerned though, the right kind of has a point. I mean everyone knows that Tejon Ranch off of I-5 (exit 215) is a problem.
Tejon Ranch, or Harris Ranch? Harris has the miles of bovines trapped in hellish cow-prison beside the freeway, which you smell 10 miles before you see…
You’re right, I was thinking of Harris Ranch, a.k.a Cowschwitz (exit 334). Thanks for the correction.
effective but probably too analytical, i loved it- so probably niche; Still think host roulette is not progress, show structure based on what the hosts have been naturally bringing so that they can share good qualities and like, I just feel like, weed out the bad ones, you know?
Agree that some of the host panels have been poor. While new presenters must be tried they should be balanced by at least one and better two with more experience.
Unfortunately some if the younger presenters do not have the depth of knowledge to make any significant contribution and so should host with one or more experienced hosts.
Rand Paul would vote against the bill because the Government has no business being involved in whether anybody participates in any sport. Ted Cruz will filibuster by reading selections from “New World Order” and then vote with the majority cementing his place as the most hated person in DC.
Habalababobbaboo!
Ben should be a regular.
Ben co-hosted and started TYT with Cenk but because of his other work obligations on TCM he can’t, unfortunately, be a regular.
And that’s awesome. We can only take so much of Mankiewicz’s establishment opinions, partisanship, and posturing as an insider/expert, especially if he goes unchallenged on a panel. This is only acceptable in small doses and only mixed with the right pushback. If he’s on more than once per week, it’s far too much.
I can only imagine how you feel about Michael Shure! Ben does irk me at times with his establishment rhetoric but I do find him both witty and insightful which is more than I can say for some of the riff-raff they’ve allowed to host.
Now to be fair to Mank, he’s certainly at his best and most useful when he’s on a panel that only covers Trump and Flint and which hardly ever mentions Corporate Democrats, or indeed any Democrats at all.
I wonder if this is a deliberate avoidance strategy on this part. I’ve looked at his Twitter feed of the past few months and the general impression is that he studiously avoids saying anything about the Democratic party, Hillary, or Bernie.
An effective combination of hosts. Can Ben appear more often
More shows, so the effective hosts each have airtime!