Modern Conservative reading and research

In which Conservative higher education blatherer Naomi Schaefer Riley entitles a post:

The Most Persuasive Case for Eliminating Black Studies? Just Read the Dissertations. 

Gets fired for it. 

Then appears in the Wall Street Journal whining that she was being held to far too high a standard in being expected to do herself that which she ordered us to do in the title of her offending post. (Emphasis mine).

Scores of critics on the site complained that I had not read the dissertations in full before daring to write about them—an absurd standard for a 500-word blog post.

Cough.

TBogg evisceration follows. 

I wield my scimitar through the fields of dragon dung

And Preston Manning, because Latin doesn't seem to be his strong suit, makes up words to go with his gut-gripping fiction.

We Canadians have many virtues, but we also have our faults. One of the most worrisome is our growing tendency to substitute discussion for action on key public issues such as health-care reform, productivity improvement and energy policy. 

We increasingly seem to think that a major issue is being “dealt with” when someone writes a paper, article, report or book about it. Further “progress” is then measured by the extent to which the paper, article, report or book has been peer-reviewed, conferenced, editorialized, blogged and tweeted, with the original discussants linked in and befriended by an ever-growing number of fellow discussants via the Internet.

Which Manning finds objectionable. Better to employ the Conservative modus operandi by not bothering to gather facts, study anything or read statistics before rushing headlong into the ideological abyss.

But who’s going to do something about what’s being discussed or proposed? Where’s the acceptance of responsibility to act on what has been proposed and discussed? Where’s the implementation plan and to-do list that translates interest, concern and discussion into actions that achieve results?

Good point. Clearly we're not getting it out of Harper. He and his herd of hillbillies ignore all of that in search of their conservative utopia.

Take health-care reform.

(If you didn't know this was coming you haven't been keeping much of an eye on the Manning conservative puppy-mill).

The federal government’s willingness to provide “no strings attached” health-care transfers to the provinces ought to open the door to systemic innovation. But, as yet, no province has produced an action plan equivalent to what Saskatchewan developed in the 1960s to lay the foundations of the current system, nor has any coalition of health-care reformers emerged in any province to move public opinion onto health-care reform ground such that the politicians will follow. On health-care reform, it’s still talk, talk, talk and no action.  

Now there's a different way of viewing events. Flaherty, a refugee from the Mike Harris disaster, shows up in Victoria on the pretext of entering negotiations (that would be action by the way) and blindsides provincial premiers with a no-discussion dictum and you wonder why they're still reeling.

I’m amazed when even some of my private-enterprise friends and acquaintances take the Leave It to Beaver approach. We give ringing speeches on the virtues of private enterprise and letting the markets solve problems, free of heavy-handed government intervention. Yet, when a challenge such as improving productivity or devising a Canadian energy strategy arises, far too often the reports we present to governments consist primarily of pleas for the government to do this or that. 

That's because your free-enterprise friends, or more correctly your corporate donors, are little more than welfare queens. But maybe you're right. Clearly cutting their corporate income tax didn't get them off their collective asses.

Don’t get me wrong. There’s a place for discussing the great issues of the day.

You just said there wasn't. But I'm getting an idea.

Canada itself was born out of a conference of colonial politicians held in Charlottetown in 1864. But when it ended, the Fathers of Confederation went out and did something. They drafted a constitution, united the colonial economies, bought Rupert’s Land from the Hudson’s Bay Co. and built the longest railway in the world. They translated discussion into action on a magnificent scale. 

Wow! Just like that! One day a bunch of politicians just got out of bed, realized there was no snow on the ground and created a country. That would be amazing if it was even the slightest bit true.

Blow away the Manning vacuum and you see that it took the better part of several decades of turmoil and discussion before the Charlottetown conference ever happened. It may be different where you went to school, but I seem to recall from high-school that most of this idea of establishing a Dominion started with the 1837 - 1838 Rebellions. And let's not forget the fact that William Lyon Mackenzie proclaimed a republic in Upper Canada a short time before Robert Nelson did the same thing in Lower Canada. Britain didn't even grant the combined colonies of Canada responsible government until 1848 because a corrupt minority of conservative leaders refused to acquiesce to the will of the people.

In short, Preston, it took a series of evolutionary reforms for Canada to be born. Unlike your chia pet version of national creation the actual road to nationhood took well over 40 years of debate, discussion and insurrection to reach what happened in Charlottetown.

I mentioned that I was getting an idea that could easily be put into action. Let's re-categorize one-sided political boot camps like yours and remove the not-for-profit tax status. Let's see what happens when you've got to pay full freight and your donors don't get a tax receipt.

Excrementum.Verveces tui similes pro ientaculo mihi appositi sunt.

Who wrote this?

We don’t want to return to the bad old days of the back alley, when a poor vulnerable person who made the mistake of stepping out of line had to be forced into the shadows and have the realities explained to them with a tire iron.

If I told you, Mark Steyn, you probably wouldn't believe me.

But I would be the one who's right.

Steyn, however, is just fine if we return to the bad old days of the back alley, as long as it's occupied by a poor vulnerable pregnant woman forced into the shadows and facing the realities of a coat hanger.

This is a drill...

If this were a real emergency, it would look more like a nail gun.

Basically, the US Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), under the US Department of Homeland Security, will be carrying out a top level national exercise (now known as a tier 1 exercise) to test intelligence and information sharing among various federal, state, county and other agencies, presumably right down to publicly employed dog-catchers.

As big a deal as this may appear, these things are paper exercises with an operational function added. In short, local command centres will be activated to see if they... you know... work. Once it's over, all the stuff goes back into the container until the batteries die in the portable radios and the emergency water bottles go dry.

NLE 09 will be an operations-based exercise to include: activities taking place at command posts, emergency operation centers, intelligence centers and potential field locations to include federal headquarters facilities in the Washington D.C. area, and in federal, regional, state, tribal, local and private sector facilities in FEMA Region VI, which includes the states of Arkansas, Louisiana, New Mexico, Oklahoma and Texas.

Note: Of the areas included, neither Arizona nor Alaska are involved. Those states are in FEMA regions IX and X respectively. This exercise is taking place in region IV.

That little fact, however, didn't stop the wingnuts from crawling out of their sandholes. The Arizona Citizens Militia gives this exercise in paper shuffling and "can you hear me now" production the Michelle Malkin treatment - along with a suprising connection.

Alaska Governor Sarah Palin has announced that she will leave office on 26 July 2009, one day before the start of the FEMA National Level Exercise 2009

Because, according to this group of "concerned" citizens, she knows what is going to happen. According to the group, which offers Alphie Omega training (no shit!), Palin knows that she was going to be rounded up and put into a concentration camp with all the other wingnuts on 27 July.

It gets better.

Canada, having an obvious surfeit of combat troops laying around doing nothing except dreaming about their next rotation to sunny Afghanistan, is apparently involved.

The Obamunist White House has directed that armed Canadian, Australian, British, and mexican troops will be on our streets.

Do we need passports, or will an enhanced driver's licence do the trick? And really... Mexico is capitalized; so is Mexican.

Apparently the Arizona Citizens Militia will upgrade to "ribbon" status right after work this coming Friday. That should give them enough time to down a half-dozen chili beers before the spouses start lighting up the cell-phone system with advice that "Dinner is now being kept warm in the oven. And dinner was a green salad."

The wealth of fun at the ACM site is almost too much to handle. The Yosemite Sam quote did me in. And I've got a busy week ahead.

You may have read it here first, but I read it at Jesus' General.

The Reform Party long-knives seem to be out

It seems the Reform wing of the Harper Party (which is the most heavily feathered segment) has emerged to toss some raw meat at their constituency of intolerant fundamentalists. Not happy with Goebbels-inspired propaganda smears of legitimate political opponents, they appear now to be deciding what constitutes "tourism" and events which would promote it.

Not that I have much use for Diane Ablonczy, but it seems that she's now getting the Röhm treatment from her own kind.

Why, Harper's inners are even using the same obfuscating tactics: Duck, dodge, weave, never-answer-the-question. At some point I'm pretty sure you'll hear the word "disloyal" or maybe even "treason".

And for a detailed description of who benefits, we'll make a stop right here.

Interesting treatment of a long-time Reform/Alliance/Harper Conservative loyalist. But then, loyalty to a bunch of hard right-wing ideologues comes with certain risks*.

-----------------

* For those who are itching to know.

More from Aaron Wherry who points out that Harper's own little oberführer, Minister für Kirchenfragen, the highly intolerant and unsavory Charles McVety, was passing judgment on Toronto's Gay Pride Parade and the Marquee Event funding as much as two weeks ago. Keep in mind, McVety, (who at some point was saluting himself as (cough!) Dr. McVety), has far too much influence with the Harper caucus and is quite likely the instigator behind what's happening now.

And, yes, we still need the matter of that "degree" of his cleared up.

And now, Ablonczy is referring questions about herself to the Industry minister's mouthpiece. I guess she hasn't figured out what the gun left on the table in her office represents.

Much ado about mustard

Does nobody actually get it?

Sean Hannity was testing for a job with The Onion.

Hannity floated his mustard fest in an attempt to get noticed by America's Finest News Source. Of course The Onion has standards. The ability to manufacture something witty while tackling the truly bizarre is a basic requirement. If you can do a story which others actually believe... well, here's your new desk.

The Onion has some other stipulating requirements for employment. One of the most stringent being that when you make a story out of nothing, the nothing can't really be a real-life nothing event. It has to be a big thing which can be turned on its head or absolutely impossible and turned into a story - which stupid people believe, gets blogged all over the place and goes viral. (Fox News fans are most accustomed to this... for some reason. Suspicion is that they are unable to differentiate between the veracity of a Fox News broadcast and an Onion headline. Go figure.)

I digress.

The Onion has rejected Hannity's test. It seems he suffers from inconsistency. While the mustard story looked like a good first step for a budding Onionista, it turns out he was unable to explain how he missed the fact that his White House hero also consumed stuff that was, ahem, fancy... and definitely not home-grown American.

Yup, George Bush liked his offshore delicacies too.

The Onion has suggested that Hannity keep trying. Perhaps we'll get something really bizarre, like a drunken vice-president mistaking his hunting partner for a duck and shooting him in the face. Wouldn't that be a hoot?!

How about those Bushco warrantless wiretaps, wingnuts?!!

For tis the sport to have the enginer Hoist with his owne petar

William Shakespeare
1603
Hamlet

This post by Boris stirred a mild recollection.

Let's see, Barack Obama was sworn in as president of the United States on January 20th, 2009.

The 4th Amendment to the US Constitution was shredded by somebody else.

You broke it; You own it.

Grade 5 composition; Grade 10 social studies

Over at Creekside, Alison provides information most people had received via the public education system by the time they were 15. If they had stayed in school.

I have one more item to add.

No matter how one views the George Galloway controversy, if one is going to frame a petition, or in this case, a counter petition, one should be certain that the opening does not contain a heinous error in the salutation. (For those who were absent that day in grade 5, that would be the person or persons directly addressed.)

Jason Kenney is not The Right Honourable. Officially, as a Canadian minister of the Crown (and not the prime minister), the correct honorific is "The Honourable". Kenney is not entitled to the socially superior reference. That's basic secondary school stuff.

Notwithstanding, there are many other things we could call Jason Kenney with complete accuracy.

There's dead right and then there are the wingnuts

Over here Canadian Cynic is expending valuable energy addressing the entirely flawed hypothesis of a Blogging Tory in which the BT repeats the fallacious arguments of CNBC mouthpiece Rick Santelli and the emperor of the mouth-breathing US right-wing, Rush Limbaugh.

The argument? That people who are unable to make mortgage payments on the houses they purchased during the US housing bubble are the sole cause of the global economic meltdown. In short, (and directly quoting Santelli and Limbaugh), losers. (Why do I get this niggling feeling that they left something out of the extreme ignorance of their rants?)

All this brings to mind something that happened two and a half years ago.

On Sept. 7, 2006, Nouriel Roubini, an economics professor at New York University, stood before an audience of economists at the International Monetary Fund and announced that a crisis was brewing. In the coming months and years, he warned, the United States was likely to face a once-in-a-lifetime housing bust, an oil shock, sharply declining consumer confidence and, ultimately, a deep recession. He laid out a bleak sequence of events: homeowners defaulting on mortgages, trillions of dollars of mortgage-backed securities unraveling worldwide and the global financial system shuddering to a halt. These developments, he went on, could cripple or destroy hedge funds, investment banks and other major financial institutions like Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. The audience seemed skeptical, even dismissive. As Roubini stepped down from the lectern after his talk, the moderator of the event quipped, “I think perhaps we will need a stiff drink after that.” People laughed — and not without reason. At the time, unemployment and inflation remained low, and the economy, while weak, was still growing, despite rising oil prices and a softening housing market. And then there was the espouser of doom himself: Roubini was known to be a perpetual pessimist, what economists call a “permabear.” When the economist Anirvan Banerji delivered his response to Roubini’s talk, he noted that Roubini’s predictions did not make use of mathematical models and dismissed his hunches as those of a career naysayer.

Except that Banerji was completely wrong and Nouriel Roubini was completely right. In fact, when a majority of economists were calling Roubini "Dr. Doom", Roubini was continuing to look outside the computer models for more information. What he found was terrifying. The picture he saw forming was that of a simultaneous pair of train wrecks: one brought on by sub-prime mortgage lending coupled with under-capitalized banks and the other being an enormous US federal current account deficit.

[W]henever optimists have declared the worst of the economic crisis behind us, Roubini has countered with steadfast pessimism. In February, when the conventional wisdom held that the venerable investment firms of Wall Street would weather the crisis, Roubini warned that one or more of them would go “belly up” — and six weeks later, Bear Stearns collapsed. Following the Fed’s further extraordinary actions in the spring — including making lines of credit available to selected investment banks and brokerage houses — many economists made note of the ensuing economic rally and proclaimed the credit crisis over and a recession averted. Roubini, who dismissed the rally as nothing more than a “delusional complacency” encouraged by a “bunch of self-serving spinmasters,” stuck to his script of “nightmare” events.

And Roubini was making it clear where the fault lay: With predatory mortgage lending, securitization of debt and rating agencies which were clearly in conflict-of-interest. In short, a lack of regulation, a "wild west" mentality and derivative financial instruments which were so complicated and being sold back and forth in so many different forms that almost no one could make any real sense of them. In fact they were so toxic that they were less than worthless.

Now, thanks to Ron Beasley, we find Roubini on the pages of Forbes magazine issuing an analysis of the problem and providing another dire warning. If the regulations aren't tightened up considerably, this whole thing will just keep getting worse. And, far from the "loser" hypothesis of Santelli and Limbaugh, Roubini makes it clear that the US government has to step in:

... two elements, both key to avoiding a near-depression, which are still missing: a cleanup of the banking system that may require a proper triage between solvent and insolvent banks and the nationalization of many banks, even some of the largest ones; and a more aggressive, across-the-board reduction of the unsustainable debt burden of millions of insolvent households (i.e., a principal reduction of the face value of the mortgages, not just mortgage payments relief).

Note, the lack of "loser" connotation when referring to insolvent households. That's because Roubini knows the fault doesn't lay with those households - it lays with the system which got them there: The Reagan/Thatcher Laissez-Faire capitalism.

Make no mistake, Roubini believes in capitalism; just not the unregulated form that is responsible for the worst financial mess since the Great Depression. In other words, you can have a free-market but not a free ride. And if you are a bank, you're going to learn to play by the rules or be booted off the field.

[T]he self-regulation approach created rating agencies that had massive conflicts of interest and a supervisory system dependent on principles rather than rules. In effect, this light-touch regulation became regulation of the softest touch.

Thus, all the pillars of the 2004 Basel II banking accord have already failed even before being implemented. Since the pendulum had swung too much in the direction of self-regulation and the principles-based approach, we now need more binding rules on liquidity, capital, leverage, transparency, compensation and so on.

He's been right too many times to ignore.

The wingnuts, on the other hand, will continue to whine and cry like a bunch of gut-shot coyotes and try to blame anyone who isn't them. And they will continue to be wrong on orders of magnitude we can only imagine.

No doughnuts, just holes

What is it with wingnuts and doughnuts?
Admit it, you didn't think they could top the weirdness of the boycott of Dunkin Donuts over a scarf worn in an advertisement, did you? Sadly, you were wrong. This tops CC's discussion with a conservative for the funniest thing I have seen all year. And it isn't even intended as a joke.

KRISPY KREME CELEBRATES OBAMA WITH PRO-ABORTION DOUGHNUTS

Washington, DC (15 January 2009) – The following is a statement from American Life League president, Judie Brown.
"The next time you stare down a conveyor belt of slow-moving, hot, sugary glazed donuts at your local Krispy Kreme you just might be supporting President-elect Barack Obama's radical support for abortion on demand – including his sweeping promise to sign the Freedom of Choice Act as soon as he steps in the Oval Office, Jan. 20.

The doughnut giant released the following statement yesterday:
Krispy Kreme Doughnuts, Inc. (NYSE: KKD) is honoring American's sense of pride and freedom of choice on Inauguration Day, by offering a free doughnut of choice to every customer on this historic day, Jan. 20. By doing so, participating Krispy Kreme stores nationwide are making an oath to tasty goodies -- just another reminder of how oh-so-sweet "free" can be.

Just an unfortunate choice of words? For the sake of our Wednesday morning doughnut runs, we hope so. The unfortunate reality of a post Roe v. Wade America is that "choice" is synonymous with abortion access and celebration of 'freedom of choice' is a tacit endorsement of abortion rights on demand.
President-elect Barack Obama promises to be the most virulently pro-abortion president in history. Millions more children will be endangered by his radical abortion agenda.
Celebrating his inauguration with "Freedom of Choice" doughnuts – only two days before the anniversary of the Supreme Court decision to decriminalize abortion – is not only extremely tacky, it's disrespectful and insensitive and makes a mockery of a national tragedy.
A misconstrued concept of "choice" has killed over 50 million preborn children since Jan. 22, 1973. Does Krispy Kreme really want their free
doughnuts to celebrate this "freedom.""

I know, I know, you read it and you think "Wow, the Onion is really pushing its luck." I wanted to invoke Poe's Law , but I checked it out and it seems to be a actual organization that is run by and caters to people who really need some professional psychiatric help. Seriously, the reeducation camps cannot open soon enough.
The somewhat popular diabolical conservative ridicule machine has more

If you can't read the science properly, the science can't help you.

Wall Street Journal columnist and former Jerusalem Post editor-in-chief, Bret Stephens, gets all religious in his attempt to dismiss global warming as a problem.

Last week marked the 20th anniversary of the mass hysteria phenomenon known as global warming. Much of the science has since been discredited. Now it's time for political scientists, theologians and psychiatrists to weigh in.

Well, at least we can see where he's going. Much of the science has been discredited. His proof?

NASA now begrudgingly confirms that the hottest year on record in the continental 48 was not 1998, as previously believed, but 1934, and that six of the 10 hottest years since 1880 antedate 1954.

Nice bit of cherry picking. NASA is quite clear on the adjustments they made. Begrudgingly? I suppose if pointing out that the straw Stephens is clutching represents 1.6% of the Earth's surface area (the contiguous 48 US states) is viewed as a reluctant fact. They also pointed out that globally 1998 was warmer than any other year in the 20th Century. Stephens also omits another fact - 2005 was the hottest year globally ever recorded. And 2007 is tied with 1998 as the second warmest years globally.

One would think that using the title Global Warming as Mass Neurosis, Stephens might want to take a more global view.

Data from 3,000 scientific robots in the world's oceans show there has been slight cooling in the past five years, never mind that "80% to 90% of global warming involves heating up ocean waters," according to a report by NPR's Richard Harris.

Another cherry. The data collected from project ARGO measures the upper layer of the water column. And the upper layer has indeed cooled since 2003 in the top 20% of the global average depth. In fact, I recently read a study which corrected the temperature rise data in the rest of the water column to reflect a short period of cooling at even greater depths. But Stephens either didn't read everything pertinent or is being intentionally dishonest. He totally bypassed two salient points.

1. The average temperature rise in the upper 800 meters of the ocean has been 0.16 degrees F in the ten year period between 1993 and 2003. The cooling between 2003 and 2005 has been 0.055 degrees F. That is about one-third of the overall heat gain over ten years and one-fifth of the heat rise recorded since 1955.

2. Sudden decadal decreases in ocean temperatures are not unusual. In fact, there was a period of sudden cooling of ocean surfaces between 1980 and 1983. By 1984 the cooling had ended and warming started again. The overall trend is warming.

Stephens also ignores another fact. Despite the short period of ocean surface cooling, sea levels are still rising. That suggests that ice melt and run-off are having a more significant effect on sea levels than expansion due to warming.

The Arctic ice cap may be thinning, but the extent of Antarctic sea ice has been expanding for years.

That is, I'll admit to one thing and then blow your doors off with a revelation. Well, not so much. Stephens left out another set of facts. In the same place Stephens says the ice-sheet is expanding, the Bellinghausen and Amundsen Seas are experiencing massive losses of ice as the glaciers of the western Antarctic ice sheet melt. The loss of glacier ice, and the resultant destruction of the sea ice in the region is of considerably greater significance than the expansion of other areas.

Stephens' generalization is to suggest that the two polar ice caps are the same. Nothing could be further from the truth. The Arctic is a landlocked ocean; The Antarctic is an island surrounded by ocean. While the Arctic has thick multi-year ice, the Antarctic has much thinner ice which constantly changes its area. In the Antarctic summer the sea ice recedes to one-sixth of the area it occupies in winter. There is also the fact that Arctic ice melted from below before we were aware of it. Research has only just started to measure the Antarctic sea ice mass.

At least as of February, last winter was the Northern Hemisphere's coldest in decades.

How many decades? The truth is it was the coldest global winter since 2001. In the US 2008 February average temperatures were 0.2 degrees F higher than the 20th Century average of 34.7 degrees F and a full 2 degrees F warmer than February 2007. The global average was 0.68 degrees F higher than the 20th Century mean of 53.8 degrees F.

In May, German climate modelers reported in the journal Nature that global warming is due for a decade-long vacation. But be not not-afraid, added the modelers: The inexorable march to apocalypse resumes in 2020.

It figures that Stephens would suck that one up. However, the confidence in their experimental forecast seems to have waned. Other climate scientists see the forecast as seriously flawed. In fact, they've challenged the German climate modelers to a wager. The Germans have yet to accept.

Let's not forget that this kind of prediction has happened once before and, as we now know, was completely wrong. Worse though, is that people like Stephens use the 1970s The Ice Age Is Coming! hype as an argument not to believe climate scientists about anything. However, as John Fleck and William Connolley point out, during the time period that everyone was hyperventilating at the thought of Earth becoming a giant ice cube, they discovered that, out of 71 climatology articles published between 1965 and 1979 the dominant prediction was that of warming with only 7 of those articles predicting an impending ice age. 20 articles were neutral and 44 predicted warming as a result of increased greenhouse gas emissions.

It is at this point that Stephens really falls off his donkey.

The real place where discussions of global warming belong is in the realm of belief, and particularly the motives for belief. I see three mutually compatible explanations. The first is as a vehicle of ideological convenience. Socialism may have failed as an economic theory, but global warming alarmism, with its dire warnings about the consequences of industry and consumerism, is equally a rebuke to capitalism. Take just about any other discredited leftist nostrum of yore – population control, higher taxes, a vast new regulatory regime, global economic redistribution, an enhanced role for the United Nations – and global warming provides a justification.

Finally. A characterization. Never mind that. Stephens' big bitch is that somehow capitalism is being blamed. That he chooses to label all those concerned with the future of the global climate as "leftists" he ignores the fact that some of the greatest contributions to increased GHG emissions in the last century came from the Soviet Union and Red China. In short, Stephens is whining that his ideology is under assault and that it's political. What he doesn't comprehend is that a majority of those who sit among the scientific data aren't suggesting that industry and enterprise stop; just that it change how it does things.

A second explanation is theological. Surely it is no accident that the principal catastrophe predicted by global warming alarmists is diluvian in nature. [...] And surely it is in keeping with this essentially religious outlook that the "solutions" chiefly offered to global warming involve radical changes to personal behavior, all of them with an ascetic, virtue-centric bent: drive less, buy less, walk lightly upon the earth and so on. A light carbon footprint has become the 21st-century equivalent of sexual abstinence.

Who's fear-mongering now? The truth is, most people want real solutions. By Stephens' reckoning all who view global warming as a problem want everyone to turn into 60s Earth-Children. He then punctuates it with a genuinely disconnected hyperbole. What he doesn't examine, because it doesn't suit his narrative, is whether those concerned with global warming would prefer to change their lifestyles or whether they would be happier to employ technology and industry to engage solutions and maintain their comfort - without the exhaust. If it was not for the short-sightedness of the likes of Stephens we might have advanced technology decades ago which rendered the internal combustion engine obsolete.

Finally, there is a psychological explanation. Listen carefully to the global warming alarmists, and the main theme that emerges is that what the developed world needs is a large dose of penance. What's remarkable is the extent to which penance sells among a mostly secular audience. What is there to be penitent about?

As it turns out, a lot, at least if you're inclined to believe that our successes are undeserved and that prosperity is morally suspect. In this view, global warming is nature's great comeuppance, affirming as nothing else our guilty conscience for our worldly success.

What a load of horse shit. No one is suggesting that - except Stephens. Simply put, from the start of the Industrial Revolution until the 1970s we really didn't have much knowledge of global warming or the effects of industrial pollution. Save from regional effects such as smog and chemical dumping, most people were absolutely clueless as to any long-term damage being done.

What Stephens is describing as some kind of guilt over industrial accomplishments is actually more of an Oops! We'd better fix that. In fact, most who view global warming as a problem would like to see changes made to emissions while remaining prosperous. That means actually working towards meaningful solutions and harnessing human innovation and ingenuity.

But in Stephens' imaginary world those things are clearly dead.

The delusional 23 percent (Plus One)

George Bush's latest popularity rating (as of last week) is 23%. Bush himself, however, is having none of it. History will judge him a "great president" and anyway, the polls are wrong.

The president's popularity rating is at an all-time low -- 23% of all registered voters, according to the latest Los Angeles Times/Bloomberg Poll, discussed here last week. Those numbers are down from February, when he had an approval rating of 35%, and contrast with November 2001, just after the 9/11 terror attacks, when his popularity rating among registered voters was at 85%.

But Bush, without the benefit of anything but his ability to look into peoples' eyes and read them suggests that the pollsters have it all wrong.

But President Bush senses less hostility out on the road lately, according to U.S. News & World Report, and has told aides he senses an uptick in popularity that is not yet reflected in the polls. One senior advisor, saying the president feels less "antipathy" from crowds along motorcade routes, put it this way: "He feels there has been a shift in attitudes out there that's not reflected in polling data."

Less hostility? Are they saluting him more often? Less antipathy? Wow. What a testament to a great man. The crowds don't seem to hate him quite as much as they did a little while ago.

Smaller crowds?

No matter, Bush is experiencing positive waves. Well... perhaps just not as many negative waves.
Now, I know you're asking, "Who represents that 23 percent?!"

Well... here's a sample.

Yes, we can vote for George W. Bush in 2008. We have the right to write in the name of our chosen candidate, regardless of whether or not he is officially on the ballot.

We know that George Bush was God's Candidate in 2000. We know that George Bush was God's candidate again in 2004. And George Bush has been God's president for the last 8 years.

Trust in God and vote your faith. Keep America safe. Write-in George W. Bush for President in 2008.

Because the God these people are talking about didn't write the US constitution and their God certainly hasn't read the 22nd Amendment.

Bob Altemeyer does an excellent job of explaining why Bush doesn't believe the polls and why 23 percent of registered voters in the US can't stand the idea of not having a shallow-thinking idiot giving them orders.

Thanks to Coeruleus for the writeinbush2008 link, who, by the way, waded through that site to extract how Bush supporters actually view their own constitution.

the other "orange revolution"

Cheetos has finally realized who their customers really are and is reaching out to the wingnut-o-sphere. Sadly, No has been there and done that and wiped its orange fingers on conservative shirttails, where one more cheesy stain will scarce be noticed. No word yet on whether Doughy Pantload will actually do a formal endorsement on camera, but obviously we are all hoping.

crossposted from the Woodshed

Pointing and laughing

Drop what you're doing for the next ten minutes and go visit our friend RossK over at the Gazetter to lend a little moral support and get a good glimpse of the wingnutty hilarity that got splashed on RossK's shoes. It seems that in writing about what a waste of protein Bill O'Reilly and his various now unemployed sidekicks are, he stepped in a bit of a bee hive. A hive of really, really stupid wingnut bees, but bees nonetheless. It isn't so much that he needs help, it's more in the line of a field trip to comments from obnoxiousdumbassville 

Did they learn book covers from Jonah Goldberg?

OK... some things just catch your attention, and that is exactly what the cover of this book is intended to do.

As Pam says, this is from the I shit you not department.

This is a production of the U.K. conservative Anglican community which contains, among other entertaining chapters,

>* Pastoral Considerations for Homosexuality

* Post-Gay: The Transforming Power of God

* Post-Lesbian: My Testimony

* Same Sex Attraction. Is it innate and immutable?

* A Faithful Church: The Bible and Same-Sex Sex

* Civil Partnerships: Advice to UK Parishes and Clergy

* Unexpected Consequences: The Sexualisation of Youth

The book is published by the Latimer Trust... a registered *cough* charity.

I'm pretty sure Charles Darwin would approve

Today is Darwin Day, an international celebration of science and humanity. It is a time to recognize all human science. And that will undoubtedly result in a problem for all those who frame their superstitious beliefs in some argument opposing science because it doesn't fit their close-minded religious dogma.

Evolutionary biology describes a science. Darwinism doesn't.

The latter is a broader word which, until the wingnut community high-jacked it and converted it into a pejorative to advance their ridiculous beliefs, actually had a meaning.

So, the answer is to just stop using the word Darwinism, and reject any discussion during which it arises as a focus of an argument. If the wingnuts want to oppose science, force them to discuss science - not dogma.

In a nutshell, the job is to make it impossible for the wingnuts to keep using that word -- every time they do, they should get smacked upside the head and told what the correct terminology is or the conversation is over. Because, if you think about it, it's not really that unfair a demand, but I'm guessing it will drive the wingnuts to absolute distraction.

Yup! That would be worth the effort.

The part of Super Tuesday I like best.

The most entertaining part of the Super Tuesday bonanza is watching the aftermath, particularly where the Reagan Republicans are concerned.

To wit, Mark R. Levin looks at the trap and decides to chew his own arm off before the jaws snap shut.

The problem is that McCain has a number of factors working against him, including his own long career of hostility toward the people he needs to win the general election. If you can't consolidate and motivate your base, you will not win the presidency. It has been his strategy to distance himself in numerous and provocative ways from his own party.

That would be because they are wingnuts and freaks. Even McCain can't stand them.

He has used the tactic of alienation to pander to constituencies outside the party.

Interesting. To Levin, ignoring the wingnut faction and actually talking to, you know, average Americans is "pandering". If he sucked up to the goofball faction, it would just be good politics. Good Republican politics.

To say, from one's computer keyboard, that the Reagan coalition should unify behind McCain to prevent the specter of a Clinton or Obama presidency is, I believe, wishful thinking.

Get that? This is how the Bushies went to war in Iraq, how the economy tanked and how they managed the US into a state the rest of the world despises. If they can't have it their way, and that means exactly their way with no deviations from their plan, they would rather sit on the curb and wish for ponies.

And we'll just keep watching as the Reagan Republicans turn the guns on themselves.

How about those 40 aircraft carriers Steyn?

Mark Steyn, who likes to dress in colour combinations most people wouldn't have in a kitchen, is making shit up again.

America spends more on its military than the next 35-40 biggest military spenders on the planet combined

Ahem! NOT!

Sadly, No! took two seconds, did Teh Google and came up with a slightly different answer.

Perhaps Steyn can go back to reviewing movies and music. Giving things a rating between one and five is something much more apropos for someone so challenged with numbers.

In which a virulent wingnut ....

Holds himself out as an example by proving this to be true while referring to this post.

Marginalized Action Dinosaur (MAD for short) seems to have a comprehension problem. In the post he refers to, the issue was whether the Harper minority government has the authority to change the operation of the Canadian Wheat Board by cabinet order. There was, as any intelligent reader can see, nothing indicating a position "for" or "against" the existence of the CWB. The point was that Harper and his minister of agriculture are required to conduct this democracy in a democratic fashion. Thus, if they wish to change a Canadian statute, in this case the Canadian Wheat Board Act, it requires legislation passed by Parliament.

Clearly, MAD doesn't get that. In his post under the category "commies" he wrote:

So you can create the wheat board by an order in council. But when all the farmers vote to get rid of their temporary war measure and another order in council is passed thats unlawful.

Umm... no. The Canadian Wheat Board was actually created in 1935 by an act of Parliament.

The temporary war measure MAD refers to was actually The Board of Grain Supervisors established by the Canadian government during The Great War for the 1917-18 and 1918-19 crop years. After the war, the government created the first Canadian Wheat Board to market the 1919-20 crop.

In 1920 the Canadian Wheat Board was disbanded by the government. Period. Except that western farmers actually liked the concept.

The CWB of 1919-20, like the BGS before it, was seen as an extraordinary measure by both the federal government and its political supporters in the Canadian grain trade, one that it was felt could not be justified as a permanent marketing arrangement under peacetime conditions, so it was disbanded in 1920 after one year's operation. However, in this one year the concept had gained widespread support among farmers and farm organizations throughout Western Canada. These organizations opposed the abandonment of the CWB in 1920 and began immediately to press the government to re-establish it. When the government refused to do this, farmers took action of their own and created "Wheat Pools" in each of the three Prairie provinces in 1923. The Pools also set up their own jointly owned Central Selling Agency for wheat and their system of payments for wheat deliveries was similar to that established under the 1919-20 Wheat Board.

Uh oh. Farmers doing their own "pool" marketing. And the government refused to participate.

The Pools operated well for several years, but the federal government was once again forced to intervene in grain marketing after the collapse of international wheat prices in 1929 and the onset of the Great Depression. Wheat market prices fell to such low levels that the Wheat Pools could no longer hope to recover from the market what they had paid out in initial payments for the harvest of 1929, and were facing bankruptcy. From 1930 onward, the federal government had to step in and provide the bankers of the Wheat Pools with a federal guarantee on their loans to the Wheat Pools, and had to guarantee the Pools' initial payments to farmers. In this situation, it decided to put its own representative in place as the general manager of the Central Selling Agency.

In MAD's world, this simply would not happen. He's a Reformer. The farmers would have been allowed to go bankrupt... causing a ripple effect that would have left Canadians eating tree bark.

Still, the federal government wanted to avoid being involved.

In the early 1930s the federal government still hoped that its involvement in grain marketing would be temporary and that it would be able to extricate itself from this in time and return all grain marketing activities to the private sector.

But the Depression was still strong and the farmers actually wanted a single-desk marketing agency.

When it became clear by 1935, however, that its involvement was going to be longer-term than originally envisaged, it decided to formalize that involvement and enact the Canadian Wheat Board Act, which was signed into law on July 5, 1935. As with the 1919 Wheat Board, any losses incurred by the new CWB on its operations were to be absorbed by the federal government and any profits were to be returned to producers who delivered wheat to the CWB.

So, MAD's assertion that the CWB is a temporary wartime measure is a blatant falsehood. That or he's lazy and doesn't bother looking things up.

Take your pick.

And if you're wondering about the title of his blog, this should explain it.

I know. It puts self-pity on a whole new level.

Kudlow has a long way to go to beat Powerline

Lawrence Kudlow really should find another use for his banana peels. We can only assume he's smoking them after his latest offering at Townhall.

Against all odds, and despite the usual drumbeat of criticism, President George W. Bush has had a very good year.

Stop laughing. Stop laughing. There's more. It gets even better.

The troop surge in Iraq is succeeding.

Oh really?! Until they leave and then what happens? But don't worry, as opposed to the concept of peace breaking out all over Iraq, some new and interesting twists are being added. I don't think Bush has the mental capacity to gather in this little episode and the impact it's going to have on Iraq's future.

America remains safe from terrorist attacks.

I could get into a long harangue about how Bush and his "policies" had absolutely nothing to do with that, but suffice to say that those same policies have also managed to prevent an infestation of Unicorns in Nebraska. That's right - Nebraska. If you go there you will not find a single Unicorn. All thanks to George.

And the Goldilocks economy is outperforming all expectations.

Oh yeah... it's doing swell! And Kudlow doesn't just leave us hanging. He actually provides some figures.

... nearly 3 percent growth in consumer spending

That's because consumer spending in the United States is all done on credit cards. They don't actually have the money. Given that 70 percent of the US economy is based on consumer spending, if Americans start to default on the enormous credit card debt, that "Goldilocks" economy is going to crash... and it's going to leave something a lot bigger than a smoking hole in the ground.

... and over 3 percent growth in after-tax inflation-adjusted incomes.

Hmmm. Let's see now. Over the past 25 years the median US income has risen 18 percent. But for the top 1 percent of earners (say corporate CEO really, really fast) income has increased 0ver 200 percent. In California incomes for lower class families have fallen by four percent since 1969. For upper class families they have risen 41 percent. Any questions?

Jobs are rising over 100,000 per month ...

Ahem! No. They're not. There is a difference in statistical representation here. Wherever Kudlow got his figure it matches nothing available anywhere. In fact, ADP Inc. maintains one of the most accurate statistics on job growth in the US and they tell a whole different story. Further, the type of job makes a considerable difference to the overall picture.

Service-sector firms added about 106,000 jobs, while the goods-producing industries cut 42,000, including 20,000 in manufacturing. Goods-producing industries include manufacturing, mining and construction.

The 22,000 jobs lost in goods-producing industries excluding manufacturing (mostly construction) are the largest since November 2001.Not to mention 45,000 construction jobs lost in a three month period which the Labor Department didn't report until much, much later. In short, the jobs Kudlow is gushing over are McJobs - low pay and bad hours. Oh look! Wal-Mart opened 35 new stores in the first quarter of 2007.

And while President Bush has been doing the Lord’s work with his newfound veto pen ...

OK. That explains it.

We're done here. Just another conservative lie from the christofascist brigade.

Dedicated to the bleeding eyes over at CCHQ