Dam Monday! Today's news for February 13th

CNN:

Evacuations ordered over concerns at California dam system

At least 188,000 people have been evacuated from several Northern California counties after damage to a spillway at the Oroville Dam.

The dam, which is the nation's highest, remains intact. But the emergency spillway, which helps to ensure that the water does not rush over the top of the dam when levels are high, was eroding Sunday. 

The erosion prompted concerns that it could endanger the communities living downstream and evacuation orders were made for cities and counties near Lake Oroville, which remain in effect.

Let's get this straight: Mankind is responsible for global warming, yet cannot control one lake of water?

Then again, global warming might not even be occurring. Considering the track record of confirmation bias within the climate science community, it is difficult to say what is happening.

In other news...

CNN:

Flynn on thin ice but still in at the White House after turbulent few days

Michael Flynn has no plans to resign and no expectations that he will be fired, a senior administration official told CNN Sunday.

That's despite a turbulent 72 hours caused by the national security adviser's inability to deny that he spoke about sanctions against Russia with the Russian ambassador before President Donald Trump took office.

While Flynn may have no plans to leave the White House, many inside the Trump administration are concerned with the fact that the national security adviser could have misled senior members of the White House, including Vice President Mike Pence, who went on national television and denied that Flynn spoke about sanctions with Sergey Kislyak, Russian ambassador to Washington.

Since we don't know exactly what was said between Flynn and Kislyak, it is difficult to gauge whether anything illegal or improper was done. Although there is some evidence to suggest he might have done it:

On Friday, an aide close to the national security adviser told CNN that Flynn could not rule out that he spoke about sanctions on the call.

As the old saying goes, "silence is consent".

The mainstream media loves to push the meme that Trump is somehow in Russia's pocket. If so, explain this:

Christian Science Monitor:

Russia contemplates returning Snowden as 'gift' to Trump

A senior United States intelligence official recently analyzed a series of sensitive reports that show Russian officials contemplating extraditing Edward Snowden to the United States, according to NBC.

Mr. Snowden has been living in Russia since 2013 when he left his job as a subcontractor for the National Security Agency in Hawaii, taking with him files and documents demonstrating the full extent of United States surveillance programs being conducted in the name of national security.

According the intelligence official, Russia’s deliberations on the subject revolve around the concept of returning Snowden to the United States as a sort of “gift” to President Trump, who publicly called Snowden a traitor and expressed his belief that Snowden should be executed.

If true, this story also kills the theory that Snowden was working for Russia all along. They wouldn't hand over one of their own spies. In fact, it is doubtful they would hand over a dupe like Snowden, since it would discourage future dupes.

But back on the topic of Trump, why would Russia need to give him a "gift" if they already have him in their back pocket?

This is the problem with the mainstream media tossing out far too many unconfirmed stories that narratively conflict with each other. Throwing mud on the wall to see what sticks is tabloid journalism, at best.

In other news of Republican foibles...

Associated Press:

GOP MUST DECIDE WHAT TO DO WITH HEALTH LAW TAXES

Republicans love cutting taxes, especially if they were authored by a president named Barack Obama. But as they push their wobbly effort to erase his health care overhaul, they're divided over whether to repeal the levies the law imposed to finance its expanded coverage for millions of Americans.

It's a trillion-dollar dilemma - actually closer to $1.1 trillion. That's the 10-year price tag the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office puts on revenue the government would lose if the law's taxes on wealthy people, the insurance and pharmaceutical industries and others were eliminated.

...Yet voiding those levies erases a mammoth war chest Republicans would love to have - and may well need - as they try replacing Obama's law. It's a major rift GOP leaders face as they try crafting a health care package that can pass Congress.

Nowhere in this whole debate is the question asked whether we should remove this money from the economy to pay for a government health care program?

And before you come back with the classic bleeding heart line, "But we need to care for the sick people!", remember that death is inevitable. No matter how much money you pour into health care, everyone dies. It is as inevitable as, dare I say, taxes?