Media Matters for America - Latest Items

Wall Street Journal Hosts More Wind Myths

Tue, 18 Jun 2013 06:57:08 EDT

A Wall Street Journal op-ed authored by a staffer of the industry-funded Heartland Institute claimed that "[p]hysical limitations" will not allow wind to become a major source of our power. However, he ignored recent positive developments for the wind industry and areas where further innovation can help wind capacity further grow.

WSJ Obscures Wind's Growth

WSJ Op-Ed Claimed Wind Cannot Be A Viable Large-Scale Energy Source. In an op-ed titled "The Rationale for Wind Power Won't Fly," Jay Lehr of The Heartland Institute claimed that "[p]hysical limitations will keep this energy source a niche provider of U.S. electricity needs." [Wall Street Journal, 6/17/13]

Wind Was No. 1 Source Of New U.S. Power In 2012. In 2012, wind became the number one source of new generating capacity in the U.S. for the first time, according to the American Wind Energy Association (AWEA):

The fourth quarter of 2012 saw 8,385 megawatts (MW) of wind power capacity installed, bringing total 2012 installations to 13,131 MW. The U.S. wind industry now totals 60,007 MW of cumulative wind capacity (and more than 45,100 turbines) through the end of December 2012. During 2012, wind energy became the number one source of new U.S. electricity generating capacity for the first time, providing some 42% of all new generating capacity. [AWEA, accessed 6/18/13]

EIA: Wind Has Grown Significantly In Recent Years. This graph from the U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) shows that U.S. wind capacity, displayed in yellow, has grown significantly since 2005 and is expected to increase even more in the next few years:

The EIA has further noted that "Wind plants have a much shorter planning horizon and are built more quickly than fossil fuel-fired plants," and projected in its most recent Annual Energy Outlook that "wind continues to be the leading source of nonhydropower renewable capacity in 2040." [EIA, June 2013] [EIA, accessed 6/18/13] [EIA, 4/15/13]

Study: Wind Power Has Potential To Be A Primary Source Of Energy. According to a study published in the journal Nature Climate Change, "There is enough power in Earth's winds to be a primary source of near-zero-emission electric power as the global economy continues to grow," given development of high-altitude wind turbine technology:

There is enough power in Earth's winds to be a primary source of near-zero-emission electric power as the global economy continues to grow through the twenty-first century. Historically, wind turbines are placed on Earth's surface, but high-altitude winds are usually steadier and faster than near-surface winds, resulting in higher average power densities¹. Here, we use a climate model to estimate the amount of power that can be extracted from both surface and high-altitude winds, considering only geophysical limits. We find wind turbines placed on Earth's surface could extract kinetic energy at a rate of at least 400 TW, whereas high-altitude wind power could extract more than 1,800 TW. [Nature Climate Change, 9/9/12]

Scientific American: Wind Has Potential Far Beyond Demand. An analysis and future energy plan published in Scientific American similarly indicated that global energy potential from wind and solar is far greater than projected global demand:

Today the maximum power consumed worldwide at any given moment is about 12.5 trillion watts (terawatts, or TW), according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration. The agency projects that in 2030 the world will require 16.9 TW of power as global population and living standards rise, with about 2.8 TW in the U.S.

[...]

Even if demand did rise to 16.9 TW, WWS [wind, water or sunlight] sources could provide far more power. Detailed studies by us and others indicate that energy from the wind, worldwide, is about 1,700 TW. Solar, alone, offers 6,500 TW. Of course, wind and sun out in the open seas, over high mountains and across protected regions would not be available. If we subtract these and low-wind areas not likely to be developed, we are still left with 40 to 85 TW for wind and 580 TW for solar, each far beyond future human demand. Yet currently we generate only 0.02 TW of wind power and 0.008 TW of solar. These sources hold an incredible amount of untapped potential.

[...]

[In this energy scenario] Wind supplies 51 percent of the demand, provided by 3.8 million large wind turbines (each rated at five megawatts) worldwide. Although that quantity may sound enormous, it is interesting to note that the world manufactures 73 million cars and light trucks every year.

[...]

Only about 0.8 percent of the wind base is installed today. The worldwide footprint of the 3.8 million turbines would be less than 50 square kilometers (smaller than Manhattan). When the needed spacing between them is figured, they would occupy about 1 percent of the earth's land, but the empty space among turbines could be used for agriculture or ranching or as open land or ocean. [Scientific American, 10/26/09, emphasis added]

WSJ Downplays Fossil Fuel Land Use

WSJ Op-Ed Complains Wind Farms "Do Take Up Space." The op-ed unfavorably compared the land use of a wind power plant to a coal, nuclear or natural gas power plant without considering that land needed to mine and extract the resources that these plants run on:

But wind farms do take up space. The available data from wind-power companies, with which the Environmental Protection Agency agrees, show that the most effective of them can generate about five kilowatts per acre. This means 300 square miles of land--192,000 acres--are necessary to generate the 1,000 megawatts (a billion watts) of electricity that a conventional power plant using coal, nuclear energy or natural gas can generate on a few hundred acres. A billion watts fulfills the average annual power demand of a city of 700,000.

[...]

Importantly, the amount of electricity the wind can generate per acre of land is unrelated to the size of the turbines. Yes, by doubling the turbine's blade length you quadruple the turbine's power output. The problem? If the turbines are big and tall you need fewer of them, but they must be more widely separated. If they're smaller you need more of them, closer together. [Wall Street Journal, 6/17/13]

DOE: Majority Of Wind Farm Land Can Be Used For Other Purposes. According to a Department of Energy report from the Bush administration, the actual space occupied by turbines is nowhere near that encompassing the wider boundaries of each wind farm. If wind power were ramped up to provide 20 percent of U.S. electricity, the vast majority of the land used to house the turbines would remain available for other purposes and result in a land use footprint that compares favorably to that of fossil fuel sources:

Wind development also requires large areas of land, but the land is used very differently. The 20% Wind Scenario (305 GW) estimates that in the United States, about 50,000 square kilometers (km²) would be required for land-based projects and more than 11,000 km²would be needed for offshore projects. However, the footprint of land that will actually be disturbed for wind development projects under the 20% Wind Scenario ranges from 2% to 5% of the total amount (representing land needed for the turbines and related infrastructure). Thus the amount of land to be disturbed by wind development under the 20% Wind Scenario is only 1,000 to 2,500 km²(100,000 to 250,000 hectares)--an amount of dedicated land that is slightly smaller than Rhode Island. For scale comparisons, available data for existing coal mining activities indicate that about 1,700,000 hectares of land is permitted or covered and about 425,000 hectares of land are disturbed (DOI 2004). An important factor to note is that wind energy projects use the same land area each year; coal and uranium must be mined from successive areas, with the total disturbed area increasing each year. In agricultural areas, land used for wind generation projects has the potential to be compatible with some land uses because only a few hectares are taken out of production, and no mining or drilling is needed to extract the fuel. [Department of Energy, October 2008, emphasis added]

Scientific American: Wind Turbines Providing Half The World's Energy Would Occupy Less Space Than Manhattan. As noted in Scientific American's 2009 renewable energy scenario, 3.8 million wind turbines, enough to supply more than half of the world's energy, would take up less than 50 square kilometers (31 square miles):

The worldwide footprint of the 3.8 million turbines would be less than 50 square kilometers (smaller than Manhattan). When the needed spacing between them is figured, they would occupy about 1 percent of the earth's land, but the empty space among turbines could be used for agriculture or ranching or as open land or ocean. [Scientific American, 10/26/09]

Research Is Going Into Different Turbine Options. As a National Geographic News article pointed out, nontraditional wind turbine forms, such as "kite-lofted" or counter-rotating turbines, may enable greater energy production from tight spaces, and some have suggested a system of alternating large and small turbines. Further technological advances may be in the offing:

Companies continue to work to improve turbine technology. Future turbines could be lighter, contain fewer parts, have better controls, or work together to optimize energy. [National Renewable Energy Laboratory Wind Technology Director Fort] Felker predicts both onshore and offshore turbines will get bigger. Engineers will continue to learn from present models, and work to find a variety of ways to make turbines better.

Research is also ongoing in the development of wind turbines without traditional "blades" or moving parts. [National Geographic, 7/20/12] [Gizmag, 4/3/13] [Smithsonian, 4/5/13]

WSJ Ignores Solutions For Intermittency

WSJ: Large-Scale Use Of Wind "Never Really Made Sense" Due To Intermittency. The op-ed claimed that it "never really made sense" that wind and solar could replace conventional energy because they are intermittent sources of power -- the wind does not always blow and the sun does not always shine:

The promise that wind and solar power could replace conventional electricity production never really made sense. It's known to everybody in the industry that a wind turbine will generate electricity 30% of the time--but it's impossible to predict when that time will be. A true believer might be willing to do without electricity when the wind is not blowing, but most people will not. And so, during the 30% of the time the blades are spinning, conventional power plants are also spinning on low, waiting to operate during the other 70% of the time. [Wall Street Journal, 6/17/13]

New Scientist: Industry Is Increasingly Able To Predict Varying Output Of Wind Power. According to an article by an Institute for Public Policy Research fellow published in New Scientist, predictions of when changes in wind power will happen, a key factor in ensuring reliability, are increasingly accurate:

This seems like common sense. However, the reliability of wind power does not depend on the variability of wind. Instead, it depends on how well changes in wind power output can be anticipated. Forecasts of wind farm output are increasingly accurate, and drops in output can be predicted and compensated for using conventional power stations. [New Scientist, 1/21/13]

Research Institute: Combining Renewable Sources Can Lead To Reliable Grid. A German research firm recently found that combining renewable energy sources (solar, wind and bio-gas) can yield a stable 24-hour-a-day grid:

By skillfully combining the output of a number of solar, wind and biogas plants the grid can be provided with stable energy 24 hours a day without fear of blackouts, according to the Fraunhofer Institute for Wind Energy and Energy System Technology (IWES) in Kassel.

[...]

Kurt Rohrig, deputy director of IWES, said: "Each source of energy - be it wind, sun or biogas - has its strengths and weaknesses. If we manage to skillfully combine the different characteristics of the regenerative energies, we can ensure the power supply for Germany."

The idea is that many small power plant operators can feed their electricity into the grid but act as a single power plant using computers to control the level of power.

The International Energy Agency has noted similarly that electric systems can meet variability by using a variety of technologies. [Scientific American, 4/5/13] [International Energy Agency, 2011]

UK Study: Wind Turbines Need Very Little Power Back-Up. The UK's National Grid determined that very little fossil-fuel generation was needed as a back-up to wind turbine output, as The Telegraph reported:

Now the National Grid has studied what actually happens in practice, with explosive, if surprising, results. Between April 2011 and September 2012 - its head of energy strategy, Richard Smith, told the Hay Festival - wind produced some 23,700 gigawatt hours (GWh) of power. Only 22GWh of power from fossil fuels was needed to fill the gaps when the wind didn't blow. That's less than a thousandth of the turbines' output - and, as it happens, less than a tenth of what was needed to back up conventional power stations.

It proved to be much the same with emissions. Wind saved nearly 11 million tonnes of carbon dioxide over that 18 months; standby burning of fossil fuels only reduced this by 8,800 tonnes, or 0.081 per cent.

Not surprisingly, given these figures, no new fossil fuel power station has been built to provide back up for wind farms, and none is in prospect. [The Telegraph, 5/31/13, emphasis added]

Winds Sufficient To "Shut Down" Turbines Are "Storm Force" Winds. According to the European Wind Energy Association, wind turbines do typically shut down in winds going about 25 meters per second (56 miles per hour), but those speeds constitute "storm" to "violent storm" force winds, which can cause "considerable structural damage." Physical vulnerability and failure to operate under such conditions is not a phenomenon endemic to wind turbines. [EWEA, accessed 6/18/13] [NOAA, accessed 6/18/13]

WSJ Fails To Disclose Heartland's Fossil Fuel Ties

Heartland Is Funded By Oil Interests. The Wall Street Journal noted that the op-ed writer, Lehr, is "science director of the Heartland Institute" but failed to disclose the Heartland Institute's funding from oil interests. ExxonMobil contributed over $600,000 to Heartland between 1998 and 2006, but has since pledged to stop funding groups that cast doubt on climate change. Heartland does not disclose its current donors, but internal documents obtained in 2012 revealed that Heartland received funding from the Charles Koch Foundation, whose founder is the CEO of a corporation with significant oil operations. [Wall Street Journal, 6/17/13] [The New York Times, 3/9/09] [Media Matters, 11/28/12]

Heartland Compared Those Who Accept Climate Science To Murderers. In 2012, Heartland used a billboard featuring Ted Kaczynski to launch its campaign comparing those who accept climate science with "murders, tyrants, and madmen." After drawing strong criticism, including from some of its own staff, Heartland quickly removed the billboard, but refused to apologize. [Media Matters, 11/28/12]

Heartland Institute: Policymakers Should Do "Nothing" About Climate Change. From "About Global Warming Facts" by The Heartland Institute:

If global warming is not a crisis, what should policymakers do about it? The answer, obviously, is "nothing." This is not a problem that needs to be solved. The case should be marked "closed" and policymakers should move on to other, more important, issues. [Heartland Institute, accessed 6/19/11]

Shauna Theel contributed to this report.

Rush Limbaugh: Conservatives Don't Suppress The Black Vote, Restrict Women's Choice, Or Lie

Tue, 18 Jun 2013 05:15:09 EDT

Displaying a remarkable lack of self-awareness, Rush Limbaugh tried to convince a caller that "it's a pretty safe bet" that liberals always lie and conservatives never do -- an assertion he backed up with a series of his own lies on everything from abortion to minority vote suppression and the IRS.

On the June 18 edition of his radio show, Limbaugh addressed a caller who expressed interest in hearing both sides -- liberal and conservative -- of any given debate before coming to his own conclusion on the issue. Limbaugh chastised the caller for informing himself in this manner, telling him, "The liberals lie. I do not form my opinions on what both sides say. I form my opinions on what I know to be right." Limbaugh concluded that it's a "pretty safe bet" that liberals are always lying, while conservatives don't lie. In his attempts to prove his theory, Limbaugh turned to some misinformation of his own on the subject of abortion and the Internal Revenue Service (IRS).

WSJ Uses Fair Housing Case To Further Attack On Labor Nominee Perez, Civil Rights

Tue, 18 Jun 2013 04:15:15 EDT

The Wall Street Journal is using the Supreme Court's decision to hear a Fair Housing Act case as a springboard to resume its attacks on Assistant Attorney General for Civil Rights Thomas Perez, who has been nominated to be Secretary of Labor.

On June 17, the Supreme Court agreed to hear Mt. Holly v. Mt. Holly Gardens Citizens in Action, Inc., a Fair Housing Act (FHA) challenge to a town's redevelopment plan, which would eliminate houses occupied by low-income, predominantly African-American residents. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 3^rd Circuit ruled, consistently with every federal court of appeal that has considered the issue, "The FHA can be violated by either intentional discrimination or if a practice has a disparate impact on a protected class."

Nonetheless, in a June 18 editorial, the WSJ used the Court's accepting the case to revive an unfounded and oft-repeated right-wing attack on Perez--that he acted unethically in handling a prior Fair Housing disparate impact case--and resume its campaign to undermine effective enforcement of civil rights laws through disparate impact litigation.

Specifically, WSJ repeated the unfounded right-wing accusation that Perez struck an unethical "quid pro quo" deal with the plaintiff in Magner v. Gallagher, another FHA disparate impact case. From the editorial:

On Monday, the Justices agreed to hear a case that bears directly on the legal theory that the Justice Department's civil-rights chief has used to allege discrimination in housing. This is good news for businesses that need the law clarified, though perhaps not for Mr. Perez, who has stretched the ethical boundaries of his office to prevent such a ruling.

[...]

But Mr. Perez maneuvered to have the case withdrawn by striking a quid pro quo with the plaintiff in the case, the city of St. Paul, Minnesota.

[...]

The Administration may now also lean on Mt. Holly officials to drop the case the way Mr. Perez leaned on St. Paul. But at least the Justices are signalling that they'll make up their own mind rather than let an Administration official mess with their docket for his own political purposes.

This accusation of unethical conduct, which the WSJ has repeatedly brought, has been roundly debunked. As the Twin Cities Pioneer Press reported:

On its opinion pages, the Wall Street Journal has been hammering St. Paul's decision to withdraw Magner vs. Gallagher from the Supreme Court as a costly way to extend a lawsuit at taxpayer expense. It has pointed to phone calls reportedly made by Assistant Attorney General Thomas Perez, who works in the Justice Department's civil rights division, to Coleman and Grewing.

The Justice Department wasn't acting alone. Many groups that typically advocate for minorities and the poor argued in written briefs that St. Paul was going down a path that could inadvertently gut the Fair Housing Act. Among them were more than a dozen state attorneys general. The Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights, a coalition of 200 civil rights groups, has applauded St. Paul's decision.

The WSJ also renewed its attack on disparate impact litigation, an effective tool for enforcing civil rights laws.

The case will focus on so-called disparate-impact theory, which uses statistics to allege discrimination. Mr. Perez has used the theory to shake down banks for not lending enough to minorities, despite having no evidence of discriminatory purpose.

In a video interview posted on June 17, WSJ editorial page editor Paul Gigot referred to disparate impact as "his [Perez's] theory," and asserted that the drafters of the civil rights laws "didn't want quotas, which is where we lead with this kind of things, you say, 'a-ha, we must have x percent of people get a loan. That's not the way the civil rights statutes were written." The WSJ has associated disparate impact litigation with quotas before:

Magner was the Supreme Court's first chance to rule on whether "disparate-impact analysis," which uses statistics to prove discrimination and sometimes impose racial quotas, can be used under the 1968 Fair Housing Act.

This is patently false. Disparate impact litigation enables plaintiffs to challenge apparently neutral policies that disproportionately affect one group: "For example, an employer's policy requiring all employees have the ability to lift 50 pounds could disproportionately affect women."

Both the editorial and Gigot's interview ignore the fact that disparate impact litigation is a well-established tool for enforcing civil rights laws.

Nonetheless, right-wing media have been attacking its use in the fair housing context and have shown particular hostility to disparate impact cases brought against banks engaging in discriminatory lending practices.

The June 18 editorial claims that "Perez has used the theory to shake down banks for not lending enough to minorities." In fact, the Department Of Justice secured settlements against lenders, including Wells Fargo and Countrywide, who had charged minority borrowers higher fees and rates.

Finally, the WSJ alleges that "[t] he Department of Housing and Urban Development then rubber-stamped Mr. Perez's power play by issuing a regulation sanctioning disparate impact in housing enforcement."

In fact, as the Solicitor General explained in its brief opposing Supreme Court review in Mt. Holly,

HUD's recent rule reaffirmed its longstanding interpretation of the FHA, as embodies in formal adjudications of FHA complaints. See 42 U.S.C. 3610 and 3612 (Granting HUD broad authority to conduct formal adjudication of FHA complaints.

HUD...has interpreted the FHA--including section 804(a)--to encompass disparate-impact claims in every adjudication to address the issue.

How Will Fox Report On Full Transcript Undermining IRS Conspiracy?

Tue, 18 Jun 2013 04:00:01 EDT

For weeks, Fox News has promoted selective clips of interview transcripts leaked by House Republicans to promote their baseless claim that the White House engineered the Internal Revenue Service's improper screening of conservative groups seeking non-profit status.

Such claims were always speculative. The IRS' inspector general has said that while employees used "improper criteria" to scrutinize conservative groups applying for tax-exempt status, that behavior was "not politically biased" and was not driven by the White House. Subsequent testimony leaked by House Republicans has suggested that high-ranking IRS officials in Washington were at first unaware of the improper behavior and stopped it when they learned of it.

The House Oversight Committee's Democrats have now released the full transcript of an interview with another IRS witness which further undermines claims that the White House was at the center of the process. According to the interview subject, a self-described conservative Republican who worked in the IRS' Cincinnati office, an agent he supervised flagged the first Tea Party application that came under scrutiny, asking for guidance on the case.The interview subject denied having had contact with senior IRS officials or the White House about the targeting. According to The Washington Post's Greg Sargent:

In the testimony, the screening manager says that he first became aware of the initial Tea Party application when an "agent who worked for me" asked for "guidance concerning a case for him." The manager testified that in this case he agreed with the agent that "there was not enough information" to figure out whether to grant the group tax exempt status.

"I told him at that point in time I agreed with his thinking," the manager testified, adding that he informed the agent that he would "elevate that issue to my area manager."

"This was the first case that came in that was brought to my attention," the manager continued.

The manager further testified that the Tea Party groups were deliberately grouped together so that they would receive consistent treatment. "There was a lot of concerns about making sure that any cases that had, you know, similar-type activities or items included, that they would be worked by the same agent or same group," the manager testified.

In the testimony, the screening manager also flatly stated he had no reason to believe there was White House involvement.

[...]

The screening manager also testifies that he never had any conversation with Lois Lerner, the former director of the Exempt Organizations Division, or former IRS commissioner Douglas Schulmanm about the "screening of Tea Party cases."

It remains to be seen how Fox News will react to statements that so strongly undermine their conclusion. But we have some precedent - on June 9, Rep. Elijah Cummings of Maryland, the ranking Democrat on the House Oversight Committee, released excerpts from this interview, and said that it showed that "the case is solved" and that the White House had not been involved in the improper behavior. Fox responded by airing his conclusion that "the case is solved" and hosting conservatives to criticize that claim, without laying out Cummings' evidence.

Right-Wing Media Already Falling For O'Keefe's Latest Smear Campaign

Tue, 18 Jun 2013 03:56:32 EDT

Conservative activist James O'Keefe released a new highly edited video that he's using to suggest there are widespread problems with a government program that provides phones and phone service to low-income Americans.

The Lifeline phone program, which according to the Federal Communications Commission "provides discounts on monthly telephone service for eligible low-income consumers to help ensure they have the opportunities and security that telephone service affords, including being able to connect to jobs, family, and 911 services," has existed for decades and was expanded to include cell phones during the Bush administration. Conservatives have criticized the program repeatedly, which they have called the "Obama phone" for years.

O'Keefe's video, which coincides with the launch of his self-congratulatory book, purports to show O'Keefe's actors receiving free cell phones after telling employees of a wireless phone company that they plan to sell the phones to pay for drugs, other purchases, or bills. The edited video includes a narration by O'Keefe asking if the employees would tell his actors "to sell the phones and break the law."

The raw footage that O'Keefe also released doesn't show any of the featured employees telling the actors to sell their free phones, despite the actors repeatedly saying that they intend to do so and asking about their resale value. As New York magazine's Jonathan Chait explained, the employees only acknowledged that personal property, in the form of these cell phones, can be sold by their owners to buy other things. The raw footage also shows that none of the actors actually received a free phone -- only information about how they could apply for a free phone and the eligibility requirements to receive one, with the actors walking away saying they'd bring their documentation later.

But O'Keefe's edited video is fulfilling its intended effect and is fooling right-wing media. The Daily Mail Online's David Martosko, who wrote the exclusive article about O'Keefe's video, falsely wrote in his headline that the video "catches wireless employees passing out 'Obama phones' to people who say they'll sell them for drugs, shoes, handbags and spending cash." Martosko again wrote that the video:

[S]hows two corporate distributors of free cell phones handing out the mobile devices to people who have promised to sell them for drug money, to buy shoes and handbags, to pay off their bills, or just for extra spending cash.

Again, the raw footage shows that the actors who stated their intention to sell free phones for these reasons never actually received phones.

Fox News has teased a segment on the O'Keefe video for Tuesday's edition of The O'Reilly Factor. Will Fox fall for O'Keefe's misleading framing?

WSJ's Taranto: "Female Sexual Freedom" Has Led To A "War On Men"

Tue, 18 Jun 2013 03:30:29 EDT

From the June 18 edition of WSJ Live's Opinion Journal Live:

Previously:

WSJ's Taranto Dismisses Military Sexual Assault Epidemic, Cries "War On Men"

WSJ's Taranto Ignores Real Hate Crimes To Pretend Oppression Doesn't Exist

MARY KISSEL (host): President Obama is fond of talking about the war on women, but what about the war on men? We've got Best of the Web Today columnist James Taranto here to talk about an especially perverse example of this war. James, who is Lieutenant General Susan Helms and how is she a victim of a war on men?

JAMES TARANTO: Well Susan Helms was a female pioneer, she was the first American military servicewoman in space. She graduated from the Air Force Academy in 1980, became an astronaut in 1990, flew on the space shuttle six times, four times as a crewman and twice as a passenger en route to the international space station, where by the way she set, along with a male astronaut, the record for longest space walk. She was working on a docking device known as a pressurized mating adaptor. And they were out in space for 8 hours and 56 minutes.

KISSEL: I see. But your op-ed in the paper today says that she's somehow a victim in a war on men? How is that?

TARANTO: That's right. Well, this goes back to the effort to combat, the political campaign against sexual assault in the military. And this seems to be turning into an effort to criminalize male sexuality, much as we see with sexual conduct codes on campus. And so what happened was, the general exercised her authority to grant clemency to an officer under her command, a man named Captain Matthew Herrera, who had been convicted of aggravated sexual assault, in a case in which the factual underpinnings were quite thin. The general wrote a long memo explaining why she made this decision and it's very convincing, and Senator Claire McCaskill has put a permanent hold on the general's nomination. She was nominated by President Obama to serve as vice commander of the Air Force Space Command. Claire McCaskill says she's not going to let her through, because she wants to callattention to this problem of sexual assault in the military.

KISSEL: So the women are always victims, regardless of the facts?

TARANTO: Well here's what happened in this case. It was a drunken sexual advance in the backseat of a moving vehicle, involving Captain Herrera and a female officer who was a lieutenant. They differed on whether it was, on who initiated it and whether she consented. She claimed that she fell asleep, woke up to find her pants undone and his hands on her genitals, he claimed that she undid her own pants, he touched her and she responded to the touch by putting her head on his shoulder. Now the officers in the front seat didn't even hear this going on. But the officer who was driving, the designated driver, who was also a woman and by the way the only one who was sober, on several other disputed points corroborated his testimony and contradicted hers. In addition, there were text messages exchanged between the accuser and the defendant, after the incident. She claimed only a couple of times, then she changed her testimony when they looked at the logs of the text messages. And it turned out there were 116 of them, of which 51 were sent by her. So, it was pretty clear that this guy was overcharged, he would have ended up on a sex offender registry for the rest of his life if this had stood, he was still discharged from the military.

KISSEL: What a perverse outcome here. So you have this really accomplished woman, in this lieutenant general who's up for promotion, and getting held up by another woman because of the war on men. James, when did this war on men begin? Can you pinpoint a starting point?

TARANTO: Well, it all goes back to the beginning of contemporary feminism in the early '60s. You know, women wanted to be equal to men, they wanted to be able to do all the sort of professional things including the military that men could do, and --

KISSEL: Was there anything wrong with that, though, James? I mean, that sounds --

TARANTO: Well, that's too long to go into now, the question of what's wrong with that, but in addition they wanted sexual freedom. Well what is female sexual freedom? It means, for this woman, that she had the freedom to get drunk, and to get in the backseat of the car with this guy. There was another woman who accused him, he was acquitted in this case, of sexual assault. This so-called assault happened in his bedroom, to which she voluntarily accompanied him, even the jury said that was consensual.

KISSEL: James, 30 seconds left. Is there any chance that Senator McCaskill's going to reconsider this hold?

TARANTO: Well I certainly hope so, I mean that's why I wrote the article. But I hope that her constituents will turn up the heat. Because Lieutenant General Helms lived up to her oath to support and defend the Constitution of the United States. She really gave this guy the protection that anyone accused of a serious crime deserves. And McCaskill took the same oath, and she ought to uphold it.

Fox News Deceptively Quotes Immigration Expert To Attack Immigration Bill

Tue, 18 Jun 2013 03:29:00 EDT

Fox News ran a prepackaged segment that took an immigration expert's comments out of context to stoke fears about the Senate immigration bill and the Obama administration's prosecutorial discretion policy.

In the segment, which appeared three times on Fox News on one day, correspondent William La Jeunesse discussed the cases of two undocumented immigrants who are accused of drunken driving accidents which resulted in the deaths of two police officers. La Jeunesse used these cases to baselessly claim that the Senate immigration bill would allow some immigrants who are criminals and felons to stay if they have family connections in the U.S. The segment included quotes from a pre-recorded interview with immigration expert Crystal Williams, executive director of the American Immigration Lawyers Association (AILA):

Huckabee Praises James O'Keefe: "You've Really Changed the Face Of Journalism"

Tue, 18 Jun 2013 02:51:48 EDT

From the June 18 edition of Cumulus Media Network's The Mike Huckabee Show:

Previously:

Breakthrough: James O'Keefe Saves The World

James O'Keefe's Latest Failure To Demonstrate "Widespread Voter Fraud"

James O'Keefe: The Fraudulent Face Of The Voter ID Movement

Fox News Amplifies Fabricated Link Between Immigrants And Crime

Tue, 18 Jun 2013 02:15:06 EDT

Fox News is reviving the pernicious smear that undocumented immigrants are criminals in order to attack the comprehensive immigration reform proposal being debated in the Senate. In fact, the legislation toughens provisions against those immigrants who have been convicted of crimes and bars them from gaining legal status; moreover, studies show that immigrants commit crimes at a lower rate than native-born Americans.

Fox News Claimed Hardened Criminals Could Be Granted Legal Status Under Senate Bill

William La Jeunesse: "Immigrants With Lengthy Criminal Records" Could Stay If They Have U.S. Dependents. On Fox News' America's Newsroom, correspondent William La Jeunesse pointed to two cases involving undocumented immigrants who were accused of killing police officers while driving drunk and claimed that "immigrants with lengthy criminal records may be allowed to stay if they have a spouse or child already in the U.S." [Fox News, America's Newsroom, 6/17/13]

Megyn Kelly: Immigrants Who Have Been Convicted Of A Felony Could "Receive Special Consideration" To Stay In U.S. Under Senate Proposal. Fox News host Megyn Kelly claimed that under the bill being debated in the Senate, immigrants who have been convicted of felonies and are deportable could "receive special consideration" to stay in the country legally if they have dependents in the United States. [Fox News, America Live, 6/17/13]

In Fact, Senate Immigration Bill Toughens Provisions For Those Seeking Legal Status

Immigration Expert David Leopold: Senate Bill Bars Convicted Felons From Applying For Legal Status. In an email to Media Matters, immigration expert David Leopold, general counsel and past president of the American Immigration Lawyers Association, wrote that the Senate immigration bill has a provision which bars certain criminals from obtaining Registered Provisional Immigrant (RPI) status:

§245B(b)(3)(A)(i) includes the following criminal bars.

Any felony (other than state or local status-based immigration offenses);

Aggravated felony under INA §101(a)(43);

Three or more misdemeanors (other than minor traffic offenses or state/local status based or immigration offenses) where conviction occurred on different dates. May be waived for humanitarian purposes to ensure family unity, or if otherwise in the public interest.

Foreign offenses (except purely political offenses) that would render the person inadmissible or deportable if committed in the U.S., with certain exceptions.

Unlawful voting. [Statement to Media Matters, 6/17/13]

Leopold: "There Are No Waivers For Felons To Apply For RPI Status." In an email to Media Matters, Leopold wrote that "[t]here are no waivers for felons to apply for RPI status." He went on to explain that the Senate bill grants waivers for deportees and those who have been convicted of three or more misdemeanors only for "humanitarian purposes to ensure family unity, or if otherwise in the public interest," but that condition does not apply to those who have been convicted of felonies. [Statement to Media Matters, 6/17/13]

Human Rights Watch: Many Immigrants Deported For "Criminal Convictions, Including Minor Ones, Will Not Be Eligible To Return To The US, Regardless Of Their Family Ties." In a fact sheet about the Senate immigration reform bill, Human Rights Watch explained that many undocumented immigrants who have been deported would not be eligible to apply for a waiver to return to the United States, even with families ties:

Currently, unauthorized immigrants who have been deported face bars to their reentry into the United States. The Senate bill would loosen this restriction in some cases, so that deportees may reunite with family in the US.

In general, RPI status is available only to unauthorized immigrants currently in the United States, if they did not enter after December 31, 2011. However, an individual ordered deported (or who left via voluntary departure) not currently present in the United States may apply for a waiver of the bar to RPI status if that person:

is a spouse, parent, or child of a US citizen or lawful permanent resident; or

would meet the requirements of legalization for DREAMers[5]--that is, they came to the US before the age of 16 and received a high school degree or its equivalent (or entered before the age of 16 and were physically present in the US for three of the six years before enactment of the Senate bill.)

Such applicants, however, must continue to meet the other eligibility requirements for RPI status, as noted previously. As a result, many of those deported for criminal convictions, including minor ones, will not be eligible to return to the US, regardless of their family ties. [Human Rights Watch, 6/3/13]

The Immigration Bill Precludes The Admissibility Of Immigrants Who Have Been "Convicted Of Serious Criminal Offenses." According to the Senate bill, immigrants "convicted of serious criminal offenses and domestic violence, stalking, child abuse and violation of protection orders" would be precluded from admissibility under this law. [Senate.gov, accessed 6/17/13]

Colorlines: Immigration Bill "Expands The Consequences Of Drunken Driving." According to Colorlines, immigrants can already be deported for drunken driving convictions, however the bill would expand current policy to "automatically remove any immigrant with three or more DUI convictions," as well as remove any immigrant who is convicted of a single DUI after the legislation is passed. [Colorlines, 4/17/13]

Fox Contributor Laura Ingraham Reinforced Myth About Immigration And Crime On Her Radio Show

Laura Ingraham Hosted Maria Espinoza To Claim Immigrants Commit A "Tremendous" Amount Of Crime. Laura Ingraham's guest Maria Espinoza, founder of the Remembrance Project, claimed undocumented immigrants commit a "tremendous amount of killings of Americans by ... driving drunk" and other crimes including "child molestation and rapes":

INGRAHAM: So specifically what crimes are they [undocumented immigrants] committing supposedly?

ESPINOZA: Well Laura, in our research, we've found there's a tremendous amount of killings of Americans by illegal aliens driving drunk and that is kept secret. It takes -- it really stays local in different areas, in different states. And also, what we've found, high occurrences of child molestation and rapes. [Courtside Entertainment Group, The Laura Ingraham Show, 6/17/13]

Maria Espinoza's Remembrance Project Linked To Nativist NumbersUSA. According to Right Wing Watch, Maria Espinoza is the director of the Remembrance Project which is "linked to the nativist NumbersUSA intended "to honor and remember Americans who have been killed by illegal aliens." [Right Wing Watch, 5/22/13]

Immigrants Commit Crimes At Lower Rates Than Native-Born Population

Study: Incarceration Rates For Young Men Lowest For Immigrants. According to a study by the Immigration Policy Center, a division of the American Immigration Law Foundation, the incarceration rate of men aged 18 to 39 was five times higher for the native-born population than for immigrants:

Among men age 18-39 (who comprise the vast majority of the prison population), the 3.5 percent incarceration rate of the native-born in 2000 was 5 times higher than the 0.7 percent incarceration rate of the foreign-born. [American Immigration Law Foundation, Spring 2007]

Violent Crime Rate And Property Crime Rate Fell Despite Doubling Of Undocumented Population. According to a fact sheet from the Immigration Policy Center, despite the immigration population doubling between 1994 and 2005, violent crime decreased by 34.2 percent and property crime fell by 26.4 percent. [Immigration Policy Center, 10/25/08]

Immigrants From Countries That Account For Most Of The Undocumented Population Have Lower Incarceration Rates Than Native-Born Americans. According to a fact sheet from the Immigration Policy Center, incarceration rates for undocumented immigrants from Mexico, El Salvador, and Guatemala who account for the majority of undocumented immigrants in the United States were lower than the native-born population. [Immigration Policy Center, 10/25/08]

VIDEO: Meet The CNBC Figures Dismissing Climate Science

Tue, 18 Jun 2013 01:54:33 EDT

Climate change is "just kind of a scam analysis" by "high priests," according to some at CNBC. Rhetoric such as this is not uncommon at the cable business channel, as a new Media Matters

Joe Kernen, the co-anchor of Squawk Box, was the most vocal CNBC figure on climate change in 2013, frequently pointing to cold weather to suggest that global warming is not occurring. Kernen has long pushed climate science misinformation. In a 2007 segment, he cited the "The Great Global Warming Swindle," a movie that promoted discredited claims, to criticize singer Sheryl Crow and "An Inconvenient Truth" producer Laurie David for speaking to college students about climate change. In 2011, Kernen co-authored a book titled Your Teacher Said What?!: Trying To Raise a Fifth Grade Capitalist in Obama's America that compared climate scientists to "high priests" whose work should not be trusted.

Mark Levin: Every Time Karl Rove Is On Fox News "I Have To Shut It Off"

Tue, 18 Jun 2013 01:49:56 EDT

From the June 17 edition of Cumulus Media Networks' The Mark Levin Show:

Previously:

Mark Levin Calls Karl Rove "Absolutely Useless"

Mark Levin: "The RNC Needs To Be Fumigated" To Get Rid Of Non-Conservative "Cockroaches"

Fox Vs. Fox: Frequent Fox Guest Mark Levin Denounces Karl Rove

Media Misunderstanding Of IRS Story Triggering Baseless Links To Washington Office

Tue, 18 Jun 2013 12:42:31 EDT

Major media outlets are misinterpreting testimony from a former high-ranking Internal Revenue Service official to baselessly suggest that Washington, D.C.-based officials were involved in the improper targeting of conservative groups seeking non-profit status.

Those misinterpretations are based on an apparent confusion on the part of journalists over what made the actions of the Cincinnati-based IRS officials who engaged in that scrutiny improper.

On June 16, several journalists were apparently granted access to review the transcript of an interview the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee conducted with Holly Paz, a former Washington-based manager in the IRS tax-exempt unit. The access was likely granted under the auspices of committee chairman Darrell Issa (R-CA), who has been accused of selectively leaking misleading, out-of-context portions of committee interviews in order to damage the Obama administration.

Reporting on the Paz interview, several outlets seized on Paz's statement that she had, in the words of the Associated Press, "reviewed 20 to 30 applications," and falsely claimed this contradicted administration statements that the improper IRS activity had been conducted by IRS officials in Cincinnati.

The Associated Press wrote that Paz's assertion "contradicts initial claims by the agency that a small group of agents working in an office in Cincinnati were solely responsible for mishandling the applications"; ABC's Good Morning America reported (via Nexis) that her "testimony contradicts IRS claims that agents in the Cincinnati field office were solely responsible for targeting those groups"; and the CBS Morning News reported (via Nexis) that Paz said "she was involved in targeting Tea Party groups."

But it is not improper for IRS officials to review the applications of groups seeking non-profit status - in fact, that is their job. The reason the IRS has been criticized is because they used politically slanted criteria to select conservative, but not progressive, groups to receive additional scrutiny. Specifically, the IRS gave additional scrutiny to groups with "tea party," "patriot," and "9/12" in their names. And that criteria was developed by a screening agent from the Cincinnati office, according to excerpts from a congressional interview included in a memo from the Democratic staff of the Oversight Committee.

Paz said she was unaware of these improper procedures, according to the AP:

Paz, however, provided no evidence that senior IRS officials ordered agents to target conservative groups or that anyone in the Obama administration outside the IRS was involved.

Instead, Paz described an agency in which IRS supervisors in Washington worked closely with agents in the field but didn't fully understand what those agents were doing. Paz said agents in Cincinnati openly talked about handling "tea party" cases, but she thought the term was merely shorthand for all applications from groups that were politically active - conservative and liberal.

Paz further testified that when her superior, Lois Lerner, the Washington, D.C.-based director of exempt organizations, became aware that the Cincinnati office was using an improper set of key words to select groups for additional review, Lerner ordered the process stopped.

Not only is this testimony inconsistent with media claims that Paz acknowledged participating in the wrongdoing for which the IRS has been criticized, it actually directly contradicts those claims. This sort of sloppy reporting has surely played a role in misleading the American people into thinking that the White House ordered the targeting of Tea Party groups.

Experts: Fox News' Coverage Contributes To Violence, Discrimination Against Transgender Community

Tue, 18 Jun 2013 12:32:49 EDT

Fox News' inaccurate, defamatory, and dehumanizing coverage of the transgender community contributes to transphobic violence and discrimination according to several groups working toward transgender equality.

Experts: Fox News' Coverage Contributes To Transphobic Violence, Discrimination

Fox News Routinely Promotes Inaccurate And Defamatory Depictions Of The Transgender Community. Fox News' transgender coverage consistently includes derogatory and harmful misinformation - including name-calling and transphobic pseudoscience - including:

Joking About "The One Part Of Chaz [Bono] That Hasn't Been Operated On [Fox & Friends, 9/27/11]
Referring To A Transgender Woman As A "Burly Man In A Dress" [Fox News Radio Reporter Todd Starnes, 6/3/13]
Asking If Trans-Supportive Parents Are Guilty Of "Child Abuse" [O'Reilly Factor, 5/23/12]

National Center For Transgender Equality: Fox's Coverage "Permits Disrespectful And Sometimes Violent Treatment Of Trans People." Mara Keisling, executive director of the National Center for Transgender Equality, wrote in a statement to Equality Matters:

Media misinformation about trans people dangerously permits disrespectful and sometimes violent treatment of trans people. Perhaps worse, though, is that Fox News intentionally misinforms people on issues like trans health care and employment, playing to prejudices they know are outdated. Fox News cements transphobia among the public and, in turn, stalls progress for a community struggling for basic acceptance. [Email exchange, 6/13/13, emphasis added]

National Gay And Lesbian Task Force: Fox's Transphobic Depictions "Feed Into A Culture Of Discrimination. Jack Harris-Quintana, Policy Institute manager at the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force and author of Injustice at Every Turn: A Report of the National Transgender Discrimination Survey, wrote in a statement to Equality Matters:

These depictions perpetuate stereotypes about trans people and feed into a culture of discrimination. They do nothing to enhance perceptions of trans people but rather, reinforce a system where the trans unemployment rate is twice that of the general population, where 1 in 5 trans people have experienced homelessness, and 19% have been refused basic medical care. What Fox News should be doing is striving for coverage that really is fair and balanced. Trans women are women and should be treated and depicted like any other women; trans men are men and should be treated and depicted like any other men; and those who fall in between should always be respected for the person that they are. [Email exchange, 6/18/13, emphasis added]

GLAAD: Fox's Coverage "Gives License For Continued Violence And Discrimination" Against Transgender People. Aaron McQuade, director of news and field media at the Gay & Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation, wrote in a statement to Equality Matters:

At a time when the trans community faces such high rates of violence, unemployment and inequality, Fox News' pattern of dehumanizing and spreading misinformation about trans people goes against the standards of good journalism and instead gives license for continued violence and discrimination against a community that instead deserves support and respect. [Email exchange, 6/14/13, emphasis added]

New York City Anti-Violence Project: Fox's "Vitriolic Hate Speech" Contributes To Violence Against Transgender People. Sharon Stapel, executive director of the New York City Anti-Violence Project, wrote in a statement to Equality Matters:

Hate violence is reinforced by vitriolic hate speech, where public figures accuse transgender people of being degenerates or freaks and mock and dehumanize them by calling them names such as "tranny" or "man in a dress" and suggest that sexual assault against transgender people is anything other than violence. It is no surprise, then, that this culture of hate spawns acts of violence. And as we make progress across this country toward LGBTQ equality, we are seeing a backlash of anti-LGBTQ hatred such as the hatred spewed by Fox News. And so this tells us: we must hold Fox News accountable because they are complicit in this culture of hate. [Email exchange, 6/13/13, emphasis added]

People For The American Way: Fox's Coverage Does "Real Harm To Real People." Michael B. Keegan, president of People for the American Way Foundation, wrote in a statement to Equality Matters:

From joking about 'the one part of Chaz [Bono] that hasn't been operated on' to questioning whether parents who support their transgender children are guilty of child abuse, Fox hosts and contributors push damaging myths about transgender Americans that do real harm to real people. Millions of people watch Fox News. When it gives a platform to transphobic bigotry, it legitimizes these damaging views. Transgender Americans deserve dignity and respect in our country's media, not trivialization, mockery, and attacks. [Email exchange, 6/12/13, emphasis added]

Human Rights Campaign Foundation: Fox's Coverage Is "Propaganda That Further Stigmatizes" Transgender People. Jeff Krehely, Vice President Of The Human Rights Campaign Foundation, wrote in a statement to Equality Matters:

Coverage that portrays transgender people in a negative light is not news, but propaganda that further stigmatizes a community which faces horrific violence and discrimination at alarming rates. Negative and inaccurate depictions of transgender people in the media are not only unethical, they are dangerous. [Email exchange, 6/12/13, emphasis added]

Transgender Community Faces High Levels Of Violence, Discrimination

Report: Transgender Americans Face High Levels Of Violence, Discrimination, And Rejection. According to a 2011 report released by the National Center for Transgender Equality (NCTE) and National Gay and Lesbian Task Force (NGLTF), transgender people experience significant levels of discrimination, violence, and rejection in multiple settings:

[NCTE/NGLTF Report, 2011]

Report: Almost A Quarter Of Transgender People Experience "A Catastrophic Level Of Discrimination." According to the 2011 NCTE and NGLTF report, a majority of transgender people who participated in the study reported at least one serious act of discrimination:

Sixty-three percent (63%) of our participants had experienced a serious act of discrimination - events that would have a major impact on a person's quality of life and ability to sustain themselves financially or emotionally. These events include the following:

Lost job due to bias

Eviction due to bias

School bullying/harassment so severe the respondent had to drop out

Teacher bullying

Physical assault due to bias

Sexual assault due to bias

Homelessness because of gender identity/expression

Denial of medical service due to bias

Incarceration due to gender identity/expression

Almost a quarter (23%) of our respondents experienced a catastrophic level of discrimination - having been impacted by at least three of the above major life-disrupting events due to bias. These compounding acts of discrimination - due to the prejudice of others or lack of protective laws- exponentially increased the difficulty of bouncing back and establishing a stable economic and home life. [NCTE/NGLTF Report, 2011, emphasis added]

Report: Transgender Women Made Up Half Of The Anti-LGBTQ Homicides In 2012. According to the annual Hate Violence Report by the National Coalition of Anti-Violence Programs (NCAVP), fifty-three percent of anti-LGBTQ homicides were transgender women, a thirteen percent increase from the previous year:

[NCAVP, 2013]

Fox Suggests Obama's Overseas Trips Are Ploy To Help Poll Numbers

Tue, 18 Jun 2013 11:44:24 EDT

Fox News host Martha MacCallum and contributor Byron York suggested that the President Obama may have scheduled his current trips to Europe and Africa to help his poll numbers even though both trips were scheduled as early as November 2012.

Obama is currently in Northern Ireland attending a G8 summit before embarking on a tour of Africa -- an effort to strengthen economic ties to the continent. On the June 18 edition of America's Newsroom, MacCallum and York were discussing the president's current job approval rating when MacCallum wondered aloud whether Obama was trying to "get overseas and do some traveling and draw the attention somewhere else" in an attempt to "turn the tide." York responded, "Well, he's trying that."

Both the G8 summit and the Africa trip were being planned as early as November 2012, according to the BBC and Politico respectively. At that time, President Obama had just won re-election and had a job approval rating of over fifty percent.

UPDATED: WSJ's Taranto Dismisses Military Sexual Assault Epidemic, Cries "War On Men"

Tue, 18 Jun 2013 11:14:24 EDT

The Wall Street Journal's James Taranto dismissed the epidemic of sexual assault in the military, claiming that efforts to address the growing problem contributed to a "war on men" and an "effort to criminalize male sexuality."

In May, the Department of Defense released its "Annual Report on Sexual Assault in the Military," which found that up to 26,000 service members may have been the victim of some form of sexual assault last year, up from an estimated 19,000 in 2010. The report also found that 62 percent of victims who reported their assault faced retaliation as a result. Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel responded to the report by calling the assaults "a despicable crime" that is "a threat to the safety and the welfare of our people," and General Martin Dempsey affirmed that sexual assaults constitute a "crisis" in the military.

In an effort to address this longstanding problem, Sen. Claire McCaskill (D-MO) has blocked the promotion of Lt. Gen. Susan J. Helms, who granted clemency to an officer found guilty of sexual assault, in an effort to obtain more information about why the officer was effectively pardoned. As The Washington Post reported, an Air Force jury found the officer guilty of sexually assaulting a female lieutenant in the back seat of a car, and sentenced him to 60 days behind bars, a loss of pay, and dismissal from the Air Force.

Helms' decision to effectively pardon the officer "ignored the recommendations of [her] legal advisers and overruled a jury's findings -- without publicly revealing why." The Post explained that McCaskill has not placed a permanent hold on the promotion, but is "blocking Helms's nomination until she receives more information about the general's decision."*

Taranto, a member of the Journal's editorial board, dismissed these facts to claim that McCaskill's effort to address the growing problem of sexual assault in the military was a "war on men" and a "political campaign" that showed "signs of becoming an effort to criminalize male sexuality." He also claimed that the female lieutenant who reported that she had been assaulted acted just as "recklessly" as the accused attacker, apparently by doing nothing more than getting into the same vehicle as him.

But McCaskill is not trying to re-litigate the case; she is trying to determine why Helms ignored her legal advisers and overturned a jury of five Air Force officers. As the Post explained, advocacy groups charge that "any decision to overrule a jury's verdict for no apparent reason has a powerful dampening effect," contributing to a culture in which the majority of sexual assaults in the military remain unreported.

The Department of Defense report on sexual assault found that while 26,000 service members said they were assaulted last year, only about 11 percent of those cases were reported. The findings listed several reasons why individuals did not report the assault to a military authority, including that they "did not want anyone to know," "felt uncomfortable making a report," and "thought they would not be believed." The report also noted that concerns about "negative scrutiny by others" keeps many victims from reporting their assaults.

Taranto's dismissal of the victim's accounts and his insistence that they were equally responsible for the reported assault is a form of victim-blaming -- the very type of stigmatization that the Department identified as encouraging victims to remain silent about their assault.

While speaking out against the growing epidemic of sexual assaults, Defense Secretary Hagel noted that the Department of Defense should "establish an environment of dignity and respect, where sexual assault is not tolerated, condoned or ignored." But Taranto's victim-blaming approach -- and insistence that efforts to address this growing problem are attacks on men and male sexuality -- is a perfect example of the rhetoric that contributes to the very culture and environment the DOD seeks to eliminate.

UPDATE: Taranto doubled down on his claim that the effort to reduce sexual assaults in the military is leading to a "war on men" on The Wall Street Journal's webshow Opinion Journal Live.

*Taranto also responded to Media Matters by noting Sen. McCaskill stated that she made her hold on Gen. Helms' promotion permanent on June 6. Media Matters regrets the error.