August 12, 2008

UNC "Jeep Jihadi" Pleads Guilty

Via WRAL:

Mohammed Taheri-azar, the man accused of trying to run over students at UNC-Chapel Hill two years ago, pleaded guilty Tuesday morning to nine counts of attempted first-degree murder.

He will be sentenced later this month.

Taheri-azar was accused of driving a Jeep Cherokee through The Pit, a popular student gathering space on campus, in March 2006.

He was charged with nine counts of attempted murder. At the time of the attack, Taheri-azar told police he wanted to injure people in response to the U.S. government's treatment of Muslims abroad.

This is the Pit, the area where Taheri-azar, a UNC graduate, tried to kill his fellow students. In a March 5, 2007 court appearance he stated he "hates all Americans" and "hates all Jews."

Shockingly, the Iranian-born American citizen didn't hate American enough to leave it.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 10:06 AM | Comments (26) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)

We're All Going to Burn Up or Drown... If We Don't Freeze To Death First

Your latest global warming hysteria, courtesy of one Oliver Tickell:

We need to get prepared for four degrees of global warming, Bob Watson told the Guardian last week. At first sight this looks like wise counsel from the climate science adviser to Defra. But the idea that we could adapt to a 4C rise is absurd and dangerous. Global warming on this scale would be a catastrophe that would mean, in the immortal words that Chief Seattle probably never spoke, "the end of living and the beginning of survival" for humankind. Or perhaps the beginning of our extinction.

The collapse of the polar ice caps would become inevitable, bringing long-term sea level rises of 70-80 metres. All the world's coastal plains would be lost, complete with ports, cities, transport and industrial infrastructure, and much of the world's most productive farmland. The world's geography would be transformed much as it was at the end of the last ice age, when sea levels rose by about 120 metres to create the Channel, the North Sea and Cardigan Bay out of dry land. Weather would become extreme and unpredictable, with more frequent and severe droughts, floods and hurricanes. The Earth's carrying capacity would be hugely reduced. Billions would undoubtedly die.

Why, isn't that just peachy?

Tickell's solution to the problem? He doesn't actually have one, but he won't tell you that because he's busy whoring a book, trying to cash in on the fear to the same easily-fooled people who bought into the end of the world event known as Y2K... and we know how that turned out.

Here's the facts, folks.

The temperature of the Earth rose nearly one whole degree over the past century, but has actually been falling for the past decade (PDF).

As it now stands, the global temperature now is roughly near the median temperature of the last 2,400 years.

The highest temperatures, as recorded via the chemical record of deep-core Greenland glaciers, were during the height of the Roman Empire. Obviously, this was due to Nero's fiddling while Rome burned fossil fuels.

Over a longer-term view, the relative stability of the global temperature during the most recent interglacial period is more pronounced.

Again, current global temperatures are roughly around the median temperature of the past 10,000 years. Thag the caveman must have had a Buick.

Now let us look at the past 100,000 years, so that we understood how good we've had it as humans—there wasn't a bikini season for the previous 90,000 years.

"Ah-hah!" I can hear Global Warming true believers shouting. "See how the rise of human civilization coincides with global warming? Die, Heretic!" Rest assured I will at some point, but it most likely won't be because of global warming, as an even longer view reveals. Let's look back 420,000 years.

I'm pretty sure we weren't burning many fossil fuels way back when, as "we" didn't exist.

Once again, global temperatures seem to be part of a natural, poorly understood cycle, and our current interglacial period seems ominously close to being at an end.

I'll now turn you over to Drs. Richard A. Muller and Gordon J. MacDonald, whose charts I've been so shamelessly borrowing thus far from the introduction of Ice Ages and Astronomical Causes: data, spectral analysis, and mechanisms, for the big let down for the Global Warming Faithful.

From this plot, it is clear that most of the last 420 thousand years (420 kyr) was spent in ice age. The brief periods when the record peaks above the zero line, the interglacials, typically lasted from a few thousand to perhaps twenty thousand years.

These data should frighten you. All of civilization developed during the last interglacial, and the data show that such interglacials are very brief. Our time looks about up. Data such as these are what led us to state, in the Preface, that the next ice age is about to hit us, any millennium now. It does not take a detailed theory to make this prediction. We don't necessarily know why the next ice age is imminent (at least on a geological time scale), but the pattern is unmistakable.

The real reason to be frightened is that we really don't understand what causes the pattern. We don't know why the ice ages are broken by the short interglacials. We do know something – that the driving force is astronomical. We’ll describe how we know that in Chapter 2. We have models that relate the astronomical mechanisms to changes in climate, but we don't know which of our models are right, or if any of them are. We will discuss these models in some detail in this book. Much of the work of understanding lies in the future. It is a great field for a young student to enter.

Muller and MacDonald end their book's introduction noting that we'll probably see gradual rises in temperature through the middle of this century, but the historical record suggests that it is a cooling, nor a warming, that is in the Earth's future, and that the mechanisms are not understood, clearly predate human influence, and that there is absolutely nothing we can do about it.

Feel free to disagree. However, as you run to higher ground, please just leave me the keys to the beach house, will you?

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 09:19 AM | Comments (22) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)

August 11, 2008

Accurate as Ever at the L.A. Times

Richard Serrano published a story in the Los Angeles on Sunday entitled U.S. guns arm Mexican drug cartels.

In a marked improvement in the accuracy of Times stories, Serrano did not utter a factual inaccuracy until the third word of the article's first sentence.

High-powered automatic weapons and ammunition are flowing virtually unchecked from border states into Mexico, fueling a war among drug traffickers, the army and police that has left thousands dead, according to U.S. and Mexican officials.

The rifles being picked up along the border are of course not automatic weapons—machine guns—but are instead semi-automatic weapons which fire one bullet per trigger pull.

Further down in the article Serrano relates without question the claim that the FN Five-seveN pistol is armor-piercing, without bothering to see if armor-piercing ammunition is available for the pistols in the United States... and of course, it isn't, being barred for all but military and police sale by federal law.

Being ever helpful, I sent Mr. Serrano an email explaining where his story was wrong and needed corrections. Serrano has thus far neither responded, nor corrected his article.

In hopes of spurring some sort of interest in correcting the article, I emailed the National section editors of the Times, and made the radical suggestion that for future articles, they may want to consider interviewing actual gun experts instead of Mexican drug dealers when discussing the capabilities of firearms.

I doubt they'll listen to such suggestions, but we can always hope.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 03:36 PM | Comments (26) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)

Hamas! The Musical

Unable to beat the Israeli Defense Forces via conventional tactics, the crack Hamas Line Dancing Battalion prepares for an achy-breaky cross border raid.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 11:37 AM | Comments (31) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)

HuffPo: War in Georgia Engineered To Help McCain

Sadly, he appears to be serious:

In classic "Wag The Dog" scenario there is a neat little war brewing between American and Russian proxies, and real Russian troops, in the Caucacus Mountains on the Russian border.

It couldn't come at a better time for the Republicans.

McCain gets to act and talk tough against the Russians, while Obama is on vacation in Hawaii, issuing "can't we all get along statements."

It perfectly augments Republican campaign points: Obama is not ready. He is not tough, experienced enough to deal with a dangerous world.

Do you appreciate the power and planning that went into this? I don't think you do.

Not only did McCain engineer the build-up of Russian forces along the border of South Ossetia and Abkhazia, he also orchestrated the Georgian offer of a ceasefire last week, the South Ossetia separatist's response of shelling Georgia, and the Georgian counterstrike that triggered the pre-planned Russian invasion— all carefully timed to coincide with Barack Obama's vacation.

As it is obvious to see, thousands of people have been killed and a country invaded and ripped apart, just to give John McCain a chance to sound tough. But the plot is even more insidious than HuffPo author Blake Fleetwood suggests.

Not only did McCain carefully orchestrate three armed forces in two countries in such a way that it looked like they were acting selfishly in their own best interests instead of as agents of a U.S. Presidential campaign, he also managed to convince Barack Obama to give a spineless response that made McCain sound like a far more knowledgeable, experienced, and competent leader that OBama has ever pretended to be.

The kicker?

In the absolutely most fantabulous move of all, McCain then convinced Obama to flip-flop on his previous spineless position to poorly echo McCain's stance, reinforcing it as the correct one, while gutting his own credibility and showing himself to be hopelessly incapable of performing as a President.

John McCain. He bends steel and breaks candidates and countries with his mind.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 10:25 AM | Comments (37) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)

August 10, 2008

Taint Obama

From Russia, With Love.

Or As Barack Obama's childhood mentor "Uncle" Frank would say, Smash On Victory-Eating Red Army.

And as a bona fide imperialist war for oil intensifies, the progressive Left remains strangely muted.

Update: As his meager voting record show, he doesn't have what it takes to be a leader, but Barack Obama makes a great follower.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 07:44 AM | Comments (23) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)

August 09, 2008

Encouraging News: Secret Service Doesn't Know Much About Bullets, May Have Jeopardized Case Against Assassination Suspect

The Secret Service agents that arrested Raymond Hunter Geisel claimed in their affidavit that 40 rounds (two boxes) of Black Talon bullets recovered from Geisel's vehicle are "armor-piercing," a claim that is categorically false.

Armor-piercing bullets have almost no legitimate use outside of shooting people wearing body armor. It is for this reason that it has been illegal to manufacture, import, transfer, or deliver armor-piercing ammunition in the United States since 1986, according to Title 18, U.S. Code Section 922.

The coating on Black Talon ammunition is merely an oxide designed to help minimize barrel fouling—it doesn't give bullets the ability to penetrate armor. The Black Talon cartridge uses industry standard velocities and hollowpoint bullets with an oxide finish. Hollowpoints are actually more likely to be stopped by body armor than most other bullet designs because of their increased surface area of the bullet shape. All ammunition recovered from Geisel's possession were types consistent with use in the shooting portion of the bail-bondsman class in which Geisel made threats.

Falsely claiming that Geisel's bullets are armor-piercing in information released to the media could be argued by an enterprising defense attorney as an intent to prejudice the case against Geisel by suggesting nefarious intent, when none could or should have been inferred by the incorrect description of the bullet type alone.

It's rather sad that one of our nation's most elite law enforcement agencies bought into an ignorant fantasy of magical coatings creating armor-piercing "cop killer" bullets, an illusion manufactured by the media and anti-gun groups more than a decade ago. It's worse that such ignorance might be used in the defense of a man who is accused of threatening political assassinations.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 07:35 PM | Comments (26) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)

August 08, 2008

Barack O'Borrow? Probably Not

There is the claim that Barack Obama took an anecdote in The Audacity of Hope from a story told about G. Gordon Liddy in All the President's Men from 1976, or perhaps 1962's Lawrence of Arabia.

The YouTube video comes courtesy of the G. Gordon Liddy show, so it is rather obvious which source he'd prefer Obama cite, but I'm not willing to to say Obama necessarily borrowed this story. The only reason this claim merits a second look is the fact that Obama used the words of his friend Deval Patrick on several occasions without immediate attribution.

I've seen similar firsthand stupid tricks at parties and bars from high school through college, performed by young men fueled with testosterone and alcohol and a momentarly lapse of common sense. This form of a tough guy routine, followed with some sort of gritty catch phrase, is almost certainly older than Obama or Liddy or Lawrence of Arabia, and I would not be surprised at all to discover similar acts of bravado in ancient Greece or Rome.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 06:56 PM | Comments (34) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)

Hiding the Body

It was bad enough yesterday when CNN and CBS-4 selectively edited the story about the arrest of Raymond Hunter Geisel, a man who had made threats again both Barack Obama and President George W. Bush.

Associated Press journalist Curt Anderson had one of the first accounts, if not the very first account of the arrest, posted online yesterday mid-afternoon, and it clearly noted both Obama and Bush had been threatened (my bold below).

A man is being held in Florida by federal authorities on charges of threatening to assassinate Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama.

Raymond Hunter Geisel was ordered held without bail Thursday at a brief court hearing.

The Secret Service says Geisel made the threat during a training class for bail bondsmen in Miami in late July. Another tipster said Geisel also threatened President Bush.

A search of Geisel's SUV and hotel room uncovered a loaded handgun, knives, dozens of rounds of ammunition, body armor and a machete. The SUV was wired with emergency lights.

Geisel told the Secret Service he was originally from Bangor, Maine. He contended he made no threat against either Obama or the president.

It was this story that CBS-4 doctored in their original report. They rewrote the lede sentence, but otherwise copied Anderson's account word-for-word, with the pointed removal of the key sentence in the middle paragraph, "Another tipster said Geisel also threatened President Bush."

CBS-4 removed that sentence, and moved the following paragraph up to cover the gap. Contacted this morning for comment, CBS-4 has thus far declined to provide a response explaining why they doctored the article.

CNN had the same information as the AP and CBS-4, and like CBS-4, they chose to edit out references to Bush, even though they were far more competent in their doctoring of the story, leaving behind no "tells." Their version of the doctored story stayed online for 2-4 hours before being updated, well after the damage was done.

But even after finally posting the full story after being called out by one of their commenters (and shutting down the comments section 2 minutes later), CNN wasn't quite done with their attempt to generate political and racial tensions. Now, they're now busily trying to cover their tracks.

This morning you can still access the original URL of the CNN story at:
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/08/07/breaking-man-held-for-obama-assassination-threat/

You'll only likely to get there via a direct link from a blogger, however.

If you go to the CNN Political Ticker and scroll down, the exact same story (text and headline are identical, with a link to the SS affidavit now added in the third paragraph of the replacement) now has this URL:

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/08/08/new-details-man-held-for-alleged-obama-assassination-threat/

Perhaps most telling however, is that all the comments associated from the previous story—the racially-tinged, politically motivated anger they helped generate with their selective editing—have not been ported over to the new URL.

CNN altered their original story to gin up outrage against someone they helped to portray as a "typical" racist right-winger, instead of the equal opportunity, anti-authority whackjob the more complete AP story and the very Secret Service affidavits CNN obtained seemed to indicate.

They doctored the story, and by swapping out the URLs and hiding the contents, they're attempting to play a very subtle game of hiding the evidence of the paranoia and anger they helped manufacture by shifting to a new, comment-free URL on the CNN Political Ticker Web site, while still maintaining the old URL with the comments, perhaps in hopes that those bloggers and journalists who have already linked to the primary URL won't catch up with their sleight of hand.

CNN edited out the threats against President Bush to help build on fears in the African American community and among the political left that an intolerant, racist white conservative may attempt to assassinate Barack Obama, and now they've attempted to cover up the fear they helped stoke by moving the comments generated out of public view, while attempting to deceive the bloggers who linked to the original story by leaving online, but hidden.

It didn't work, and CNN has a lot to answer for.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 02:30 PM | Comments (32) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)

August 07, 2008

Unintentially Appropriate

The funny thing about true believers of any religion is how accidentally appropriate their signs and symbols may be seen by others. The L.A.-based ad agency sees—uh—"people coming together" for Obama.

Those of us who aren't as in love with the Freshman Senator would rather not grasp the symbolism.

Update Baldilocks finds a creepy Star Trek parallel.

This is a little closer to the reality he promises:

Next Up: His new campaign song, Don't Fear the Reamer.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 10:21 PM | Comments (54) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)

Selective Editing?

A man has be arrested for making threats against Barack Obama.

Notice any difference in how the story is told, however?

CNN's version:

A man is being held in Florida on charges he threatened to assassinate Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama, according to court documents.

An affidavit filed by a Secret Service agent in U.S. District Court claims that Raymond Hunter Geisel, of Marathon, Florida, threatened to "kill, kidnap and cause bodily harm upon a major candidate for president of the United States, that is, Senator Barack Obama."

The affidavit says Geisel made the threats while attending a bail bondsman training class in Miami.

During an interview with the Secret Service, Geisel denied threatening Obama, but told agents that "if he wanted to kill Senator Obama he would simply shoot him with a sniper rifle."

He later said that comment was a joke, the agent said in the document.

AP's version:

A man who authorities said was keeping weapons and military-style gear in his hotel room and car appeared in court Thursday on charges he threatened to assassinate Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama.

Raymond Hunter Geisel, 22, was arrested by the Secret Service on Saturday in Miami and was ordered held at Miami's downtown detention center without bail Thursday by a federal magistrate.

A Secret Service affidavit charges that Geisel made the threat during a training class for bail bondsmen in Miami in late July. According to someone else in the 48-member class, Geisel allegedly referred to Obama with a racial epithet and continued, "If he gets elected, I'll assassinate him myself."

Obama was most recently in Florida on Aug. 1-2 but did not visit the South Florida area.

Another person in the class quoted Geisel as saying that "he hated George W. Bush and that he wanted to put a bullet in the president's head," according to the Secret Service.

Geisel denied in a written statement to a Secret Service agent that he ever made those threats, and the documents don't indicate that he ever took steps to carry out any assassination. He was charged only with threatening Obama, the presumptive Democratic nominee, but not for any threat against President Bush.

Geisel's court-appointed attorney declined comment.

In the interview with a Secret Service agent, Geisel said "if he wanted to kill Senator Obama he simply would shoot him with a sniper rifle, but then he claimed that he was just joking," according to court documents.

A search of Geisel's 1998 Ford Explorer and hotel room in Miami uncovered a loaded 9mm handgun, knives, dozens of rounds of ammunition including armor-piercing types, body armor, military-style fatigues and a machete. The SUV was wired with flashing red and yellow emergency lights.

Geisel told the Secret Service he was originally from Bangor, Maine, and had been living recently in a houseboat in the Florida Keys town of Marathon, according to court documents. He said he used the handgun for training for the bail bondsman class, had the knives for protection and used the machete to cut brush in Maine.

In the affidavit, the Secret Service said Geisel told agents that he suffered from psychiatric problems including post-traumatic stress disorder, but he couldn't provide the names of any facilities where he sought treatment.

Sorry, AP, I don't want to get sued, but need the whole thing for comparative purposes.

The suspect also hated President Bush and is quoted as wanting to put a bullet in his head, so he's an equal opportunity assassination fantasist.

Why CNN didn't think that detail was newsworthy?

CBS 4's hack editing job was even worse, cutting the Bush reference out of the middle of the story but overlooking the reference in the last line:

Federal authorities in Florida are holding a man accused of threatening to assassinate Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama.

The man, Raymond Hunter Geisel, was ordered held without bail at a Thursday court hearing.

The Secret Service says Geisel made the threat while training to be a bail bondsman in Miami in late July. A search of Geisel's SUV and hotel room uncovered a loaded handgun, knives, dozens of rounds on ammunition, boy armor, and a machete. The SUV was also wired with emergency lights.

Geisel claims he's originally from Bangor, Maine. He said he made no threat against either Obama or the president.

I can only speculate as to why the media would remove the threat against Bush in these accounts. Is it because it is harder to portray Obama as the victim when he isn't the only one threatened, or just harder to sell the meme that the offender is probably a murderous racist when he threatens a white president as well?

Update: Updated to include AP's story. Will remove it if they ask.

Update: Interesting. After two hours of commenters blaming ignorant/racists/morons/Republicans/Hillary Clinton fans/Southerners/rednecks/anti-black/Fox News/Rush Limbaugh and white people in general, CNN shut down comments on their story at 6:45 PM, just two minutes after "hollowpoint" posted:

While he wasn't arrested for it, the racist nutjob also said that he'd like to put a bullet in Bush's head… yet CNN doesn't feel that was relevent enough to include on their blog story? The extra two sentences would've taken up too many bytes?

Or was it that CNN wanted to portray the nutjob in question as a "typical" right wing racist who wanted to kill Obama? Letting your partisan mask slip a bit are you, CNN?

Given the nature of this election, don't even try to make the excuse that it wasn't relevant, or that the story as presented doesn't create a false impression of the man arrested.

Sometime later—perhaps the 8:19PM update now showing—CNN finally posted the entire story, including the threats made by the suspect against President Bush.

After 3-4 hours of letting half-truths percolate to establish the narrative, CNN then they filled in the rest of the story, after the damage was done.

They could have posted the correct story, the entire story, before 4:00 PM. CNN posted only part of the story, allowing paranoia, biases, and dark fantasies to fester. All of these raging emotions would have been muted, if not eliminated, if it was revealed what CNN know for the beginning, which was the fact that Bush was also a target of Geisel's rage.

CNN significantly altered a story to play upon people's fears.

That cannot lightly be excused.

Update: Curiouser and curiouser... you can still access the original URL of the CNN story at:
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/08/07/breaking-man-held-for-obama-assassination-threat/

Interestingly enough, however, if you go to the CNN Political Ticker and scroll down, the exact same story now has this URL:

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/08/08/new-details-man-held-for-alleged-obama-assassination-threat/

Perhaps most telling however, is that all the comments associated from the previous story—the racially-tinged, poltically motivated anger they helped generate with their selective editing"have not been ported over to the new URL.

The whitewash continues... and then gets worse.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 04:00 PM | Comments (63) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)

1 So is it just me, but I'm not worried that he has knives, a loaded gun, a bullet proof vest, or ammo... anyone catch that yeah he was in a bail bondsman class- have you ever watched or heard what they have to deal with in a day? All of that stuff is needed! It's interesting to see that you can be arrested purely on someone elses word. So what if a crazy X-girlfriend makes something like that up? Do you get questioned and tried? I don't know how many leftists I've seen write worse threats on-line and never have any issues... Hope the truth of the matter comes out.

I also hope we find out just why the media was only referencing the threat to Obama, when a threat to a sitting president is worse in my opinion. There is a difference between a candidate and the actual thing when it comes to importance to me.

Posted by: Scott at August 07, 2008 04:47 PM (0snxn)

2 Hmm...could it be that the only reference to President Bush was a quote from someone else in the class? That he was only charged with threatening Sen. Obama, and no charges were brought against him about threatening President Bush?

If the liberal media were trying to make someone out to be a racist monster, wouldn't the news outlets have included "Geisel allegedly referred to Obama with a racial epithet and continued, "If he gets elected, I'll assassinate him myself." Doesn't that make their case stronger?

Posted by: DSB at August 07, 2008 04:53 PM (c2FAa)

3 Riiight DSB. This classmate's account:

According to someone else in the 48-member class, Geisel allegedly referred to Obama with a racial epithet and continued, "If he gets elected, I'll assassinate him myself."

Is altogether more relevant than this one's:

Another person in the class quoted Geisel as saying that "he hated George W. Bush and that he wanted to put a bullet in the president's head," according to the Secret Service.

Posted by: krakatoa at August 07, 2008 05:02 PM (mhdbo)

4 and perhaps saying "if he wanted to kill Senator Obama he simply would shoot him with a sniper rifle, but then he claimed that he was just joking," to the secret service was not the best thing to do.

But of course, I don't really know the facts of the case, only the AP's reporting of it.

And again, if the "Obamamedia" were trying to push the notion that the offender is "probably a murderous racist," why did they leave out "Geisel allegedly referred to Obama with a racial epithet and continued, 'If he gets elected, I'll assassinate him myself.'"? Sure would make their case stronger.

Also, if they actually charged him based on the reporting of someone in his bail-bondsman class (which I'm beginning to doubt more and more,) and he said that about Bush too, you'd think the secret service would have charged him with that as well, unless...

ZOMG, THE SECRET SERVICE IS IN THE TANK FOR OBAMA!

Posted by: DSB at August 07, 2008 05:11 PM (c2FAa)

5 I guess the important question to ask is: why did they feel the need to totally re-write the AP feed and edit out so many details? Were they concerned with bandwidth or storage space? Both? If not, why selectively delete information? Any brilliant insights, DSB?

And what's this "questionable content" chicanery? I had to edit this post multiple times to get it to submit, but there were was no profanity, etc.

Posted by: ECM at August 07, 2008 05:32 PM (q3V+C)

6 ECM, I had the same problem. Once I took out C*N*N I was able to post.

Anyway, neither news outlet re-wrote the AP news feed. They had their own reporters covering the story in each news outlet. If they did quote the AP, they'd have to credit the AP in the beginning, which neither did. And as CY knows all too well, quoting AP stories at length makes the AP mad!

So there's your "brilliant insights." Neither C*N*N nor that other one quoted from the AP. Problem solved, crisis averted.

Posted by: DSB at August 07, 2008 05:42 PM (c2FAa)

7 People talk about assassinating Bush all the time. It isn't news.

Posted by: Grey Fox at August 07, 2008 07:23 PM (XkxN5)

8 It could be that AP has met its match in terms of distorting the news. That is quite an accomplishment.

Posted by: Purple Avenger at August 07, 2008 09:07 PM (SLqkZ)

9 The MSM is approaching the "wag the dog" state of news in this campaign coverage. The main difference is that the public is the dog and the MSM are the waggers, or should I say wankers.

Posted by: sammy small at August 07, 2008 09:46 PM (Va9QN)

10 Read, listen or Watch the Lame Stream Media only for the comedy that is sure to show up.

Posted by: Scrapiron at August 07, 2008 10:42 PM (GAf+S)

11 You're reading WAAAAAAAAY too much into this.

CNN probably just rushed the story with preliminary details, while AP followed with a more complete story as details surfaced afterwards.

You're paranoid about the corporate media. Yes, they're wankers, but that's because they're lazy and incompetent.

Posted by: jasperjava at August 07, 2008 11:52 PM (7FRiM)

12 Oh come on jasperjava, are you really going to sit there and tell me that the MSM isn't in the tank for Obama?

Jim C

Posted by: Jim C at August 08, 2008 12:35 AM (8T9gw)

13 Nice job!

Good thing someone is paying attention.

Little wonder they are referred to as the LameStream Media. They will probably get all frowny-faced because AP slipped up and mentioned the part about GWB. Someone was not marching in lockstep.

Thank You, keep it up!

Posted by: mrpetep at August 08, 2008 06:16 AM (rb5Z4)

14 The most likely candidate to assassinate Obama would be a muslim extremist. We know that being an apostate is punishable by death. How would the media cover that one?

Posted by: Capitalist Infidel at August 08, 2008 07:59 AM (kNqJV)

15 I hope I don't be arrested on the way home today.

Posted by: toyboat at August 08, 2008 08:12 AM (mDGxy)

16 The answer to this conundrum is staring anyone with two brain cells in the face - Threats against Bush aren't news, both because they're relatively common and accepted by the PC crowd, and because of rampant BDS.
Threats against Obama ARE news because he's the darling of the media, and their great hope for the future.
And the reason to exclude the Bush threat is that it couldn't be turned into a racist event if Bush was threatened as well - White guy threatening to assinate Obama = racist. White guy threatening to assinate Obama AND Bush = simple whackjob.

Posted by: Cappmann at August 08, 2008 09:50 AM (vcm80)

17 All assassination threats are relevant. The US has a history of shooting it's presidents and presidential contenders.

Bush is more important at this time than the Messiah Obama because he is the president.

CNN's methods are what is not news.

Posted by: John V at August 08, 2008 10:33 AM (Pg+aq)

18 All assassination threats are relevant. The US has a history of shooting it's presidents and presidential contenders.

Bush is more important at this time than the Messiah Obama because he is the president.

Posted by: John V at August 08, 2008 10:34 AM (Pg+aq)

19 The answer is clear... the C*N*N reporter didn't get any quotes from the students. He or she sent in a short version of the story based on what they were told by the Secret Service. The AP reporter did a more complete story probably because they weren't under time constraints.

Posted by: Tom at August 08, 2008 11:18 AM (Lbkb5)

20 No, Tom. An earlier 5 paragraph AP version of the story was the very first report posted, and it contained this important fact.

Nice try.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at August 08, 2008 11:35 AM (xNV2a)

21 I should have been taking notes all these years. I am sure I have heard Bush threatened with assasination at least a dozen times and that does not count open media. From now on, ANY threat of violence against a Secret Service protectee will get reported promptly by Yours Truly. I hope they will take this stuff seriously but across the board, not on a partisan basis.

Posted by: megapotamus at August 08, 2008 12:37 PM (LF+qW)

22 "No, Tom. An earlier 5 paragraph AP version of the story was the very first report posted, and it contained this important fact."

Go back and read the C-N-N story. None of the student quotes are in the C-N-N story. All it means is that the AP reporter got more information than the C-N-N reporter. All that means is that the AP reporter did a better job, not that the C-N-N reporter hid facts. You might also ask the Secret Service why they didn't charge the guy with threatening Bush. Or do you think the Secret Service secretly supports Obama?

Posted by: Tom at August 08, 2008 02:39 PM (Lbkb5)

23 Tom, did you call with the Secret Service in Miami to find out what infomration they released to who, or did I?

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at August 08, 2008 02:46 PM (xNV2a)

24 Actually that wasn't the first AP story. This was:

MIAMI (AP) - A Miami man appeared in court there today on charges that he threatened to assassinate Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama.

Authorities say the suspect, 22-year-old Raymond Hunter Geisel, was keeping weapons and military-style gear in his hotel room and car.

Geisel was arrested by the Secret Service on Saturday in Miami and was ordered held without bond today.

A Secret Service affidavit charges that Geisel made the threat during a training class for bail bondsmen in Miami in late July.

Obama was most recently in Florida last week, but did not visit the South Florida area.

Copyright 2008 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

Posted by: Tom at August 08, 2008 03:14 PM (Lbkb5)

25 Got a URL and time on that, Tom? Google News shows the version I posted as being the oldest they recorded, and I know when I first caught the story when it was less than an hour-young, this version was live, as were the CNN ad CBS-4 accounts.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at August 08, 2008 03:36 PM (xNV2a)

26 So the guy was a Ron Paul voter.

So what?

Posted by: heat sink at August 08, 2008 11:25 PM (tan/b)

27 CNN posted a link to the SS (sarc) affidavit. You folks should have read that, too. Agree with Scott: Seems like a bail bondsman's class would require most of the items mentioned. Also the SS agent has Black Talon ammo as "armor piercing" when it is an older defensive hollow point easily fragmented by drywall or other construction materials. Something stinks here and I think it's the informant.

Posted by: Caststeel at August 09, 2008 05:53 PM (u5Lqx)

28 Will all the things that have been said and let go about George Bush I find it inexcusable they molested this guy. If it is ok to say what has been said about Bush in regards assassination why is it all of a sudden not ok with Barrack Obama?

In reality my impression is this story was ginned up to say Obama was assassination worthy. Just as the fainting women were ginned up to try and make Obama look desirable this makes him appear important. That is Assassination worthy.

The press. FULL of pinheads. What's worse they think they are smarter than the rest of us.

Posted by: Fred X at August 10, 2008 11:18 AM (WHS9+)

29 Agree with Catsteel. Informant probably is embellishing.

And OJ is off in the corner saying "if I done it" LOL ... excuse the nonseq but the grammatical structure of OJ's "if I done it" just cracks me up.

Posted by: Fred X at August 10, 2008 11:22 AM (WHS9+)

30 hello,

Posted by: renghator at August 12, 2008 01:11 AM (FSRIz)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

Advocacy Journalism Today: WaPo/Mosk Just Keeps Coming

After having Matthew Mosk's attack on John McCain discredited within hours yesterday, the Washington Post was forced into running this embarrassing correction to the A1 story.

Correction to This Article

An earlier version of this story about campaign donations that Florida businessman Harry Sargeant III raised for Sen. John McCain, former New York Mayor Rudolph Giuliani and Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton incorrectly identified three individuals as being among the donors Sargeant solicited on behalf of McCain. Those donors -- Rite Aid manager Ibrahim Marabeh, and lounge owners Nadia and Shawn Abdalla -- wrote checks to Giuliani and Clinton, not McCain. Also, the first name of Faisal Abdullah, a McCain donor, was misspelled in some versions of the story.

In other words, the premise of the entire article was fatally undermined because a Obama-supporting journalist and his editors didn't take the time to do the basic fact-checking Amanda Carpenter did in a matter of minutes.

The same "journalist", Mosk had attempted to smear McCain in a previous manufactured story about a land deal in May.

The Washington Post's editors, perhaps thinking they can save on the cost of paper and ink by adopting the editorial business practices of the New York Times, let Mosk go to print again today with another smear, one that amounted to stating that—gosh darn it!—there was nothing illegal going on with MCCain's fund-raising, but there should be:

Sargeant told The New York Times this morning that he at times left the task of collecting the checks to a longtime business partner, Mustafa Abu Naba'a. The problem with that is that Abu Naba'a is not an American citizen. According to court records, Abu Naba'a is a dual citizen of Jordan and the Dominican Republic.

The law on this question appears to be unclear, said Fred Wertheimer, a campaign finance expert who runs the advocacy group, Democracy 21.

"There's probably very little law on this," Wertheimer said. "If it is not illegal for a foreign national to bundle checks, it ought to be, since it's illegal for a foreign national to make contributions in the first place."

As even as Democracy 21 admits, there is nothing illegal about a legal foreign national collecting the legal contributions of law-abiding Americans for a Presidential candidate.

What is perhaps even more revealing that what they said, however, is Mosk's decision to use them as a source. Democracy 21 is a far left advocacy group, run by a former Democratic Senator Dick Clark, and is funded by both George Soros' Open Society Institute, and the Joyce Foundation—yes, where Barack Obama sat on the Board of Directors for eight years.

Mosk's choice of sources is only slightly more objective than contacting MoveOn.Org for their opinion.

Paul Ryan, a lawyer with the Campaign Legal Center, said the Federal Election Commission has not explicitly addressed the question. Ryan said there appeared to be conflicting thoughts on this in a 2004 advisory opinion. For instance, in one opinion the FEC has advised that it is permissible for a foreign national to solicit a contribution, while in another it prohibits foreign nationals from playing any role in participation in a candidate's election activities, such as decisions concerning the making of contributions.

"There's a little bit of tension between these two different interpretations," Ryan said.

Matthew Mosk hasn't been able to find a way to smear John McCain, despite three abortive attempts. The questions isn't so much why Mosk is against McCain, but why the editors of the Washington Post keep letting themselves be used as a platform for his specious attacks.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 01:28 PM | Comments (19) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)

Obama: America Sucks, and Only I Can Save It

The Obamamessiah has spoken:

"America is …, uh, is no longer, uh … what it could be, what it once was. And I say to myself, I don't want that future for my children."

Hot Air caught the story, and has similar statements from American's favorite pessimist, Eeyore Michelle Obama.

For a couple who wants to lead this nation, the Obamas don't seem to have much faith in it.

Update: Yeah, it does sound like him:

"The Republic is no longer what it once was." - Palpatine/Darth Sidious in Star Wars: The Phantom Menace

Though in defense of Obama/Darth Tedious, Palpatine didn't have 20 years of influence from a kooky religion being drummed into his head telling him how horrible his country was...

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 10:49 AM | Comments (120) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)

1 Bob-

Obama: America Sucks, and Only I Can Save It

Generally, that's the message of most non-incumbents.

Additionally, would you argue that most people are happy with this country's current direction?

Posted by: D.N. Nation at August 07, 2008 01:34 PM (Ze19B)

2 McCain's latest batch of commercials say that Washington sucks and only he can fix it, but this may be too nuanced a difference for some people to pick up on.

Posted by: BohicaTwentyTwo at August 07, 2008 01:51 PM (oC8nQ)

3 I'm sorry. I missed the part where most of America is apparently happy with how things are, thereby invalidating Obama's statement.

So if you and the other dead-enders want to run on that, good luck. Enjoy being backers of a regional party come 2009. The rest of us will be cleaning up the mess you and yours made.

Posted by: Dave at August 07, 2008 02:06 PM (foLN0)

4 "For a couple who wants to lead this nation, the Obamas don't seem to have much faith in it."

Faith in the country? What does thinking that the country has been led in the wrong direction for the last 8 years (which based on Bush's approval ratings is a pretty good running point) have to do with faith that the country can't be better? Yes, the GOP has led this country into the toilet but that doesn't mean we have to sit around with shit on our faces for the next 4 years.

Posted by: Tom at August 07, 2008 02:27 PM (Lbkb5)

5 "The Republic is no longer what it once was."

Isn't that the truth. Even the King Bush the First years were better. At least he was smart enough not to drag us into a 6 year war.

Posted by: Tom at August 07, 2008 02:29 PM (Lbkb5)

6 Thanks for underscoring the fundamental difference between liberals and conservatives, gentlemen.

Conservatives think that Americans thrive despite the government. Liberals think the government is America.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at August 07, 2008 02:35 PM (HcgFD)

7 Yes, the GOP certainly has America thriving these days, don't they?

Posted by: Dave at August 07, 2008 03:09 PM (foLN0)

8 Just wait till Obama takes office - then we'll see droves of conservatives bashing this country and talking of impending doom.

And the howling and wailing and gnashing of teeth about abuses of execute power will be heard from the right wing for the first time in, well.. 8 years. They'll be screaming about domestic wiretapping and the need for Congressional oversight.

Luckily we'll have their hypocrisy about all of these issues well documented, so it should be fun.

Posted by: Ted at August 07, 2008 03:13 PM (gJFD/)

9 "At least [GHWB] was smart enough not to drag us into a 6 year war."

Psst. Don't tell anyone, but I doubt GWB would have "dragged" anyone anywhere if a little thing like four airplanes and their innocent passengers being commendeered as human-piloted bombs to kill thousands of other innocent people hadn't happened. I don't know, call me crazy but maybe a little thing like that coupled with Saddam's history or bloody, brutal action and poor judgement with an added dash of twelve years WMD non-cooperation and deception might have had something to do with deciding that entrusting national security to the word of a murderous dictator wasn't the most prudent course of action.

Of course, don't let a little thing like objectivity ruin the ten-thousanth repetition of a variant to Bush joke #15.

Posted by: submandave at August 07, 2008 03:20 PM (lLS3Y)

10 So the pollsters find 80% think the country is going in the wrong direction. I'll bet they are split 40-40 as to which direction we should be going.

Posted by: Claude Hopper at August 07, 2008 03:23 PM (Z6fQ+)

11 Dave, the country would be doing well without the Democrats. No global warming BS. No energy crisis. Lower taxes, a solution to Social Security. Less government intrusion and a look to the future with foreign policy. One that does not poke ones head in the sand. And lastly, a vital and strong National Defense.

Posted by: Zelsdorf Ragshaft III at August 07, 2008 03:37 PM (J5AYY)

12 Zelsdorf,

Really? Because it's the lack of a reasonable energy plan from the GOP that has us bending over to take it from the Saudis. And more drilling won't solve the problem.

Lower taxes at the cost of ignoring infrastructure and running up the deficit makes lowering taxes pointless. Here's something to remember; there are TWO sides to the Laffer Curve.

And yes, where would we be with the National Defense the GOP has given us, leaving the Army and Marines over-stretched and forced to accept recruits they'd have rejected less than 10 years ago?

Based on your command of the facts, I can only assume you have joined us from an alternate universe where things over the past eight years have turned out differently.

Posted by: Dave at August 07, 2008 03:48 PM (foLN0)

13 Hey Dave - you might want to dial that back a little before it bites your hind end clean off.

Clinton was the one that shrunk the military in the first place.

And if drilling won't solve the problem of our using Saudi oil, what the hell will? I don't know about you, but my car doesn't run on unicorn farts. And the electrical grid over here in Connecticut would fold under the weight of a million plug-in hybrids, so that's kinda out.

And I don't put much faith in "right direction/wrong direction" polls, as they never seem to ask these people what direction they think the country ought to be going.

Posted by: brian at August 07, 2008 04:08 PM (Pe8i3)

14 If you have a job (90% of America) the only thing that sucks for you is $4 gas and your house, if you own one, is worth less this year than 2 years ago. In both cases the policies of the Democrats are to blame. So if you think things suck then McCain is obviously the better choice ...

Posted by: Jeff at August 07, 2008 04:12 PM (zQ0HK)

15 Lol.

Man, poke a hive full of Obamacons and you can get stung, huh?

At least they are getting some accurate information for a change.

Posted by: Darth Tedious at August 07, 2008 04:25 PM (Z/5Pq)

16 I can't believe that people are giving Obama flak for daring to suggest that we should work to improve America. Conservatives are like parents who think that loving their kid means never criticizing him or her, even when they do poorly in school or get in trouble. When the truth is if you really want to show your kid how much you love them, your will criticize their behavior and demand more from them. A truly loving parent is one who gets a report card full of B +'s and says "you can do better."

The opposite of love isn't hate, it's indifference. And if you are indifferent to America, you'll say "that's good enough." But if you really love America, you will hold her to a higher standard. In fact, you will hold her to the HIGHEST of standards. And that is precisely what Obama is doing here.

I don't want a president who is indifferent to America. I want someone who loves America so much that they only demand to utmost of excellence from her in every regard. And the best way you can show your love to your country is much the same you show love to your kid: through criticism and nudges towards improvement.

Posted by: Justfinethanks at August 07, 2008 04:34 PM (iodlf)

17 'Pollsters say Americans feel that the country is headed in the wrong direction . . .'

Well, lets see: We have a Democrat controlled House and Senate, and could very likely elect a Democrat president this fall.

Yep. Sounds like we are headed in the wrong direction.

Posted by: wheatley at August 07, 2008 05:10 PM (g/MKW)

18 Justfinethanks:

You're actually a lot closer to the McCain camp than you think.

I don't think anyone here is criticizing Sen. Obama for wanting to hold America to a high standard. Anyone who loves America and has high hopes for America's future would do that -- and that goes for Democrats and Republicans alike.

Where the two sides differ is in what standards to hold America to -- is universal health care more important than tight border security? -- and how to go about it. Reasonable people can (and should!) differ about such things.

If you're looking for a Presidential candidate who is not "indifferent to America", but rather "loves America so much", then take another look at Sen. McCain. He loved America enough to bleed and suffer for it. I can't think of a single thing that Sen. Obama has done for his country that Sen. McCain hasn't done more of.

Yes, Sen. Obama sure talks purty; that, I think, is what this blog post is making fun of -- his pleasant-sounding platitudes, which, admittedly, we hear plenty of from both sides.

But what has Sen. Obama DONE to show his love for America? Basically, he's told us to take it on faith. McCain doesn't do that; he doesn't need to. His love for America is obvious to anyone who knows even a little bit about him.

respectfully,
Daniel in Brookline

Posted by: Daniel in Brookline at August 07, 2008 05:13 PM (ETuqd)

19 What part of hopey changey aren't you getting, Bob? And why haven't you touched your kool-aid?

Posted by: Bel Aire at August 07, 2008 05:41 PM (ocHBO)

20 I did read about McCain's years in the Hanoi Hilton, and it is doubtlessly inspiring. And I wasn't implying that McCain doesn't love his country. I was more poking fun at our esteemed blogger for stupidly claiming that criticizing America somehow shows a lack of faith in it.

Plus as you pointed out, every one on both sides of the aisle criticizes America. I don't think there has been as congressman in history who has ever said "You know what? America's finally perfect. Let's never pass another piece of legislation ever again."

Posted by: Justfinethanks at August 07, 2008 05:51 PM (iodlf)

21 "So this is how liberty dies... with thunderous applause." - Padme Amidala

Posted by: ignatov at August 07, 2008 06:14 PM (uDJ23)

22 Justfinethanks, you don't actually have any kids, do you???

Posted by: Mary in LA at August 07, 2008 06:41 PM (NGf/6)

23 I have a daughter. I'm not one of those childless people who feels like they have license to criticize parents. In fact, I like to think I have earned my license.

Posted by: Justfinethanks at August 07, 2008 07:08 PM (iodlf)

24 Justfine, if it's okay to criticize America, why is it not okay to criticize Obama?

Just wondering.

Posted by: C-C-G at August 07, 2008 07:28 PM (irkBP)

25 It's fine to criticize Obama. Just as it's fine for me to criticize dimwitted criticisms of Obama. Nowhere did I say that our esteemed blogger shouldn't be allowed to make judgments against anyone. I simply implied he is wrong in his opinion.

Why do you assume that I want someone silenced on the basis that I disagree with them? Where in any of my posts did I ever suggest withholding anyone's freedom of speech? Or that criticism is wrong? I would never suggest that it's "wrong" to criticize anything or anyone. That's the very definition of promoting censorship.

Believe me, I am very, very pro criticism across the board. But I reserve the right exercise my own criticisms as well.

Posted by: Justfinethanks at August 07, 2008 07:52 PM (iodlf)

26 Justfine, you're more open-minded than your preferred candidate is himself. I mean, we're not allowed to mention his middle name, he wants to make his wife off-limits after she makes campaign appearances for him (I am all for laying off wives that don't make public statements; but when you stand up in public, you can't suddenly demand to be immune from having your statements criticized), and many other things are supposedly "racist" to ask the junior Senator from Illinois about.

Of course, McCain isn't a heck of a lot better, after all, his name is on McCain-Feingold, one of the worst infringements on the First Amendment so far, but at least he can take his lumps like a man.

However, as I said, you're more reasonable on this particular issue than Senator Barack Hussein Obama, and for that you are to be commended.

I eagerly await your criticism of Senator Obama's sensitivity to criticism.

Posted by: C-C-G at August 07, 2008 08:18 PM (irkBP)

27 For the first time in my adult life, I'm really proud of America. Just think, Brocko has deigned to swoop in and save your sucky Amerikkka. I get a thrill up my leg just thinking about it.

Posted by: Les Nessman at August 07, 2008 08:38 PM (8yfHZ)

28 Conservatives are like parents who think that loving their kid means never criticizing him or her, even when they do poorly in school or get in trouble. When the truth is if you really want to show your kid how much you love them, your will criticize their behavior and demand more from
them. A truly loving parent is one who gets a report card full of B +'s and says "you can do better."

However, you also don't throw the kid out of the house for errors your brothers and sisters committed under similar circumstances.

Any constructive criticism of Mr. Bush from the political Left, was drowned out by prefaces like "Impeach" ... "Hitler" ... "War Criminal" ... "Chimp", coming from that same political Left.

For y'all, peace has not been your primary concern during these past eight years.

We see right through y'all ... because if you were truly interested in peace, you'd have put Mr. Bush's errors into the perspective of history ... and realized that this Administration is no different than previous leaders who we now revere as heroes when it comes to making errors in a time of war.

You would have offered CONSTRUCTIVE, well-thought-out criticism, instead of bouncing from the Powell Doctrine to precipitous withdrawal
with 'nary a stop in-between.

And prior to that, you'd have pressured Mr. Clinton into dealing decisively with bin Laden and Saddam.

The problem is, such a beneficial corrective influence would have worked against what you consider more important objectives:

>Revenge for having your perceived birthright-to-rule as the Best and Brightest usurped by "a Bible-thumping hick".

>Denigration of the conservative worldview, BY ANY MEANS NECESSARY, fact and reason be damned.

>Both of the above feeding into your ultimate objective: the establishment and maintenance of your ideal world, where "NO ONE TELLS ME WHAT TO DO!" is the watchword ... unless you are a responsible person who has wealth that can be confiscated to subsidize irresponsible behavior, which would then be celebrated as "free-thinking" and even "enlightened".

As a result, your criticism was neither principled, nor constructive ... for you just couldn't let it be known that this President was right on ANY OF IT, let alone right in leading us to finish this war that was started as early as 1991, if not before, by our enemies.

You were more interested in beating the Bushes, than you were in protecting life and liberty in this nation.

Yes we see right through you and your calls for peace
Right through to your core of disdain
For the principles that have made America great
And the freedom you say you proclaim
If you really want peace, then protest the terrorists
who crash planes and slaughter men like lambs ...
Your protests, my friends
Sound much like breaking wind
Your protests sound much like breaking wind

Posted by: Rich Casebolt at August 07, 2008 08:39 PM (sU1X5)

29 As for the New Prince of the Nattering Nabobs ...

I'm witnessing a phenom, who's sweeping all across the land ...
A man so charismatic, I wonder where's the Kool-Aid(R) stand ...
So many swooning at the sight of someone they think is so new ...
But when I listen to him, I'm thinkin' this is deja vu ...

Two Thousand Zero Eight -- Yes We Can -- go back in time.
With the Big 0 we will party like it's Nineteen Seventy-Nine.

He will resurrect like Lazarus, the 70's welfare state ...
Complete with lots of jobless, and double-digit interest rates ...
From so-called greedy businessmen, he'll take tax money in big gobs ...
And starve to death the geese that lay those golden eggs of jobs ...

Two Thousand Zero Eight -- Yes We Can -- go back in time.
With the Big 0 we will party like it's Nineteen Seventy-Nine.

He'll go and take control of your and my health care ...
Including what you eat, exercise, and maybe what you wear ...
Now this might cut the cost, of my Band-Aids(R), I'll agree that's true ...
But I wonder, when I'm older, will they just let me die from the flu ...

Two Thousand Zero Eight -- Yes We Can -- go back in time.
With the Big 0 we will party like it's Nineteen Seventy-Nine.

When it comes to global warming, he'll try and cut us down to size ...
But let the Third World warm it up, and not even bat an eye ...
Will he tell us to air up our tires, and turn down all the thermostats ...
While squashing innovation under the butts of the bureaucrats ...

Two Thousand Zero Eight -- Yes We Can -- go back in time.
With the Big 0 we will party like it's Nineteen Seventy-Nine.

When he's not bombin' them he'll leave our allies in the lurch ...
While the worst thugs and fanatics look on from a lofty perch ...
Goin' for more than hostages, their party will have just begun ...
For they'll crash Big Zero's party, with somethin' like a 911 ...

Two Thousand Zero Eight -- Yes We Can -- go back in time.
With Big Zero we will party like it's Nineteen Seventy-Nine.

Posted by: Rich Casebolt at August 07, 2008 08:50 PM (sU1X5)

30 Rich:

Nail. Head.

Posted by: C-C-G at August 07, 2008 08:51 PM (irkBP)

31 I'll be happily corrected if I'm wrong, but I don't think anyone ever suggested that anyone should be censored from emphasizing his middle name. People simply argued that it's stupid to do so because it's trying to emphasize a connection between the former tyrant and Obama that simply doesn't exist. There's a major distinction between "you shouldn't keep emphasizing his middle name because it's an obvious scare tactic and it's not relavant to anything that's affecting America right now" and "you should be FORCED to stop emphasizing his middle name." I welcome you to go your nearest police station and scream "B. HUSSEIN OBAMA" at the top of your lungs. I'm sure you'll be pleased to find that you won't be arrested.

Look, Democrats did the same thing when they emphasized Quayle's middle name of "Danforth" because it made him sound like an out of touch, country club, private school blueblood. And it is just as childish now as it was then. And saying "it's really, really retarded to emphasize Quayle's middle name" isn't "sensitivity to criticism," it's a valid point.

In regards to his wife, I just don't see how this is relavant. The "lay off my wife" comment was just a jokey bit of macho posturing, he didn't introduce the "Lay Off My Wife" bill into the senate. And frankly, people should lay off wives. People said horrible and unnecessary things about Laura Bush and Hillary Clinton, and it's just not relavant.

Again, let me be clear here that I'm not suggesting people should be forced to lay off wives. I would simply argue that it's not productive, so we would be much better off debating the positions of the candidates.

Saying "This isn't of any real importance, so we should move on to more important issues" isn't dodging criticism. It's, more often than not, a real desire to talk about the issues.

I personally don't think he is sensitive to real, valid criticisms. If you want to dissect his energy plan, his iraq policy, his tax plan, his position on states rights, gun control, abortion, education, budgeting, health care, or any of the countless other real, actual issues that affect us, I'm sure he would welcome the debate.

Hell, even Rich's parody song is closer to real, actual debate than talking about middle names or wives. I disagree with most of the assertations, mind you, but at least it's a step forward.

Posted by: Justfinethanks at August 07, 2008 09:32 PM (iodlf)

32 I'll be happily corrected if I'm wrong, but I don't think anyone ever suggested that anyone should be censored from emphasizing his middle name.

You need to read more, Justfine.

But the taking out after Barack Obama for his middle name is the most heinous attack I've seen against a Democratic candidate since Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. was attacked for his alleged sexual prowess with women not his wife. I guess since we have continued to hold Republican racists' feet to the fire the right-wing wacko machine has to find another tactic by which to attack the rising young Democratic star. The line being forwarded by the likes of Ed Rogers and other Republicans, if only by cowardly inference, is that Senator Obama may call himself a Christian, but he's actually a Muslim out to do the U.S.A. harm through his masquerade of faith.

Posted by: C-C-G at August 07, 2008 09:55 PM (irkBP)

33 Oops, the second set of blockquotes didn't work... that last paragraph above is a quote from the article I linked to.

Posted by: C-C-G at August 07, 2008 09:56 PM (irkBP)

34 submandave ...

Nail. Head.

(HT: C-C-G>

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

I'm sure he would welcome the debate.

I question that, Justfinethanks ... the Big 0 won't emulate Ms. Clinton and pay a visit to Bill O'Reilly, who is not a rock-ribbed conservative.

Now, I do agree the whole middle-name thing is petty ... especially when there is such a target-rich environment for his critics, regarding his positions on the issues of the day.

But the whole above-us-all attitude ... and his apparent concurrence with the American Idol style of marketing ... are still significant issues.

Americans aren't too receptive to leaders who present themselves with condescension and an inflated opinion of their significance ... haven't been receptive of that, at least as early as 4 July 1776.

Posted by: Rich Casebolt at August 07, 2008 10:09 PM (sU1X5)

35 CCG: That's not censorship. That's an assertation that emphasizing his middle name is a "henious attack," "racist," and "cowardly." Your reponse shouldn't be "Stop telling me what I can and can not say." It should be an argument as to why it's not any of those three things.

Unless I'm missing something. Does she actually argue in favor of the censorship of his middle name, or does she merely argue that emphasizing it is "henious," "racist," and "cowardly"? Because there is a big difference between the two.

Posted by: Justfinethanks at August 07, 2008 10:19 PM (iodlf)

36 You need to read more, Justfine.

But the taking out after Barack Obama for his middle name is the most heinous attack I've seen against a Democratic candidate since Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. was attacked for his alleged sexual prowess with women not his wife. I guess since we have continued to hold Republican racists' feet to the fire the right-wing wacko machine has to find another tactic by which to attack the rising young Democratic star. The line being forwarded by the likes of Ed Rogers and other Republicans, if only by cowardly inference, is that Senator Obama may call himself a Christian, but he's actually a Muslim out to do the U.S.A. harm through his masquerade of faith.
Posted by: C-C-G at August 7, 2008 09:55 PM

Maybe you're unfamiliar with the term "censored," C-C-G. However, JfT spelled it out pretty clearly if you look.

So maybe you could show exactly where in that quote Taylor Marsh said "you should be FORCED to stop emphasizing his middle name."

Posted by: skylark at August 08, 2008 12:43 AM (BKwMs)

37 JfT - Your response was better.

Posted by: skylark at August 08, 2008 01:13 AM (BKwMs)

38 Justfine, your knowledge of your preferred candidate's statements is appalling.

Back in May, on ABC's Good Morning America, a national TV show, Obama told people to "lay off my wife."

This was, of course, after she had made campaign appearances for him and faced criticism for her statements.

The logical conclusion is easy to see. Obama doesn't like criticism of what his wife says when she is campaigning for him.

I will now accept a full apology.

Posted by: C-C-G at August 08, 2008 07:23 AM (irkBP)

39 submandave - I know this is hard for you right-wingers to get into your head, but Sadaam had NOTHING to do with 9/11. That was crap made up by our glorious leader Bush the Second. And Sadaam had nothing to do with the anthrax attacks. That was an American citizen who worked for George the Second. And if you really think that GWB believed that Sadaam was involved in either of those things then you must really think he is the stupidest man on the planet. Invading Iraq had nothing to do with the security of the US and have EVERYTHING to do with making George the Second's friends very, very wealthy.

Posted by: Tom at August 08, 2008 08:55 AM (Lbkb5)

40 When was America what it used to be?

Posted by: daleyrocks at August 08, 2008 09:49 AM (i/fLn)

41 Can someone provide a cite for the claim that the quote “The Republic is no longer what it once was” came from Star Wars?

Yesterday, I did a Google search and came up with one hit, the Intapundit item.

Today, there are seven, but all derived from that one hit.

I wrote to Glenn, urging him to check it out, but no response.

It may be true, I’m not Star wars expert, but I’m surprised that it doesn’t show up in a Google search.

Posted by: Phil at August 08, 2008 11:06 AM (39DNf)

42 Simple enough. Find the Phantom Menace script, and do a search for "The Republic is."

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at August 08, 2008 11:32 AM (xNV2a)

43 submandave - I know this is hard for you right-wingers to get into your head, but Sadaam had NOTHING to do with 9/11. That was crap made up by our glorious leader Bush the Second.

He didn't have to, Tom ... I know how hard it is for y'all to believe the simple is true, but it is Just. That. Simple.

Saddam had everything Afghanistan did, including a hatred for America and an abject lack of respect for life and liberty, both demonstrated repeatedly over his entire rule.

Yet you'd ask us to continue to trust thugs like that, after 911?

And Sadaam had nothing to do with the anthrax attacks. That was an American citizen who worked for George the Second.

I don't think that anyone here is definitely saying that the anthrax attacks were Saddam's doing ... OTOH, are you implying a link between the President and the alleged perpetrator? Care to provide some proof?

And if you really think that GWB believed that Sadaam was involved in either of those things then you must really think he is the stupidest man on the planet. Invading Iraq had nothing to do with the security of the US and have EVERYTHING to do with making George the Second's friends very, very wealthy.

Wrong ... for we have seen how the greedy were acting at that time.

They were hip-deep in Crude-for-Food.

If the President was as greedy as you say, he would have avoided a messy war, waded right in ... and enriched his friends while possibly scoring a Nobel like Gore and Carter for his efforts in the name of "peace".

Methinks instead, that your criticism of this Administration is not based in a sincere concern for life and liberty ... but just like almost every other Leftist I've debated, it is based in an obsession with denigrating all aspects of the conservative worldview ... with the objective of fomenting radical change to produce a society where you can freely scream "NO ONE CAN TELL ME WHAT TO DO!", while muzzling others who do as little as suggesting alternatives to objectively-irresponsible behavior ... and confiscating what wealth they have, to use in celebrating and subsidizing such behavior.

Posted by: Rich Casebolt at August 08, 2008 11:37 AM (FL9H9)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

Ker-Thump. Another One Under The Bus

The Obama campaign finds yet another Muslim to squash under the wheels of the bus... or would that be sucked into the engines of his customized airliner?

Whichever mode of transportation you prefer, Obama has one more Muslim supporter sucking bitter exhaust fumes:

Mazen Asbahi, a Chicago lawyer who had been appointed to help Obama reach out to Muslims, stepped down on Monday, the Wall Street Journal reported late last night.

The paper had inquired about his relationship with Jamal Said, who served on a board with Asbahi in 2000 that is a subsidiary of the North American Islamic Trust, which holds titles to mosques, Islamic centers, schools, and other real estate around the country. Said had been named in an investigation of alleged Hamas fund-raisers, which ended in a mistrial last year, the paper reported.

"I am stepping down from the volunteer role I recently agreed to take on with the Obama campaign as Arab-American and Muslim American coordinator in order to avoid distracting from Barack Obama's message of change," Ashabi wrote in a statement Obama's campaign staff released last night.

Unlike some of some of the previous grill-marked victims of the Bus List, Ashabi has ties to groups possibly related to terrorism, and divorcing himself from terrorists is something we should encourage Obama to do more often in the future.

As it stands however, the two domestic terrorists that helped jump-start Barack Obama's political career with a fundraiser he attended at their home are still clinging to the bumper.

Under the Bus

Clinging to the Bumper

NEW!Mazen Asbahi the "fist bump" Move-On.org Wesley Clark(sorta) Grandma Dunham Rev. Jeremiah Wright Fr. Michael Pleger Jim Johnson - Countrywide Michael Klonsky Muslim supporters babies that survive abortion attempts 8,000 Members of Trinity Church of Christ Samatha Power Obama advisor/Hamas friend Rob Malley Austin Goolsbee Tony Rezko a less than week-old pseudo-presidential seal bitter, gun toting, religious white people of rural Pennsylvania Scarlet Johansson

Marilyn Katz (former SDS radical, Obama campaign PR professional) Carl Davidson (former SDS radical, Fidel Castro Fan, webmaster of Progressives for Obama) Michelle Obama half-brother Abongo Obama, a militant Muslim "Uncle Frank" Frank Marshall Davis, role model/mentor and member of the Communist Party USA, poet who authored "Smash-on, victory-eating Red Army" Bill Ayers, domestic terrorist and long-time friend Bernadine Dorhn, Ayer's wife, fellow domestic terrorist, and Manson Family admirer.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 08:58 AM | Comments (56) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)

August 06, 2008

A Curious Attraction

The Democratic National Committee has decided to lash out against the McCain campaign, unwisely stumbling down a path I predicted yesterday with a Mac vs. P.C. on Oil satire.

They've launched a new campaign to link John McCain to "big oil," blithely ignoring the fact that their campaign was prebunked before it saw the light of day. They also chose to ignore the fact that the middle class and working class that makes up their base are the owners of the oil companies, with their pensions tied up in oil company stocks. When Democrats attack, these companies, they're attacking the retirement plans of average Americans.

There is also the pesky little detail of Obama himself taking hundreds of thousands of dollars in contributions for oil-industry related individuals as well. With this their best idea, it has become rather obvious why Howard Dean flamed out as spectacularly as he did during his abortive presidential run.

But that is neither here, not there.

The DNC has new goodies online, from buttons to bumper stickers to yard signs.

Notice a common thread in all of them?

Yes, a no doubt unconscious attraction to that infamous symbol that frames the murderous live's work of Che, Lenin, Mao, and Stalin, the communist red star, first in their blessed revolutionary hearts and coming to a bumper sticker near you!

Being ever helpful, I took their campaign logo to it's logical conclusion.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 11:36 AM | Comments (43) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)

Who's the Stuffy Old Candidate?

While the Paris Hilton response to John McCain's ad mocking Barack Obama as a man simply famous for being famous is something some people have actually spent time analyzing (Ann Althouse's readers have done a great deal), and the response is dismissive of Obama— Hilton wisely only refers to him as "the other guy," though I'm sure Timmy Noah, Max Blumenthal and David Gergen will find racial overtones in that as the well—the lasting effect of the ad will be based on how the two Presidential campaigns reacted.

Obama's campaign reacted with a huffy "Whatever," while McCain's camp quickly embraced it, and used it to execute a bit of political judo, noting that even a vacuous blonde starlet of no special talents has crafted an energy plan more viable than Obama's.

The old man showed an ability to laugh at himself and roll with the punches, while a humorless and stiff Obama campaign showed itself unable handle even a playful needling.

McCain may have the chronological advantage in age, but Obama's stiff old fogey routine turned this bit of unexpected theater into a clear McCain camp win.

Some words of advice for the Obama camp, courtesy of Sgt Hulka.

"Lighten up, Francis."

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 10:14 AM | Comments (30) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)

1 The ability to laugh at oneself is the mark of a true adult and McCain has done it.

Posted by: Shoprat at August 06, 2008 01:03 PM (MgLNf)

2 Geez what do you guys expect? He causes oceans to fall... air to rid itself of CO2... lions and lambs to lie down with one another... tires (made with petroleum BTW) to over-inflate themselves... Germans to march lockstep in synchronization, mesmerized by his charismatic 'leadership' (like thats never happened before)...

all that and you expect a sense of humor too?????

Posted by: GL at August 06, 2008 02:23 PM (vpAFg)

3 "lighten up,Francis" is just such a perfect comment on Obama's whole campaign it really made me laugh.....but, as clueless as they seem to be, I'll bet they won't get that memo........
post racial? not so much.
post humor...absolutely!

Posted by: christmasghost at August 06, 2008 04:07 PM (kIX1b)

4 Have ya seen that Barack Hussein Obama is asking if Republicans "take pride in being ignorant" for having the nerve to make fun of his claim that properly inflated tires would save "just as much" oil as we'd get from drilling.

Of course, this assumes that the majority of Americans are too stupid to realize that tires should be properly inflated, but then in Barack Hussein Obama's mind, everyone that doesn't fall down in a faint at his feet must be "bitter" and is too busy "cling[ing] to guns and religion" to go out and check their tires.

Posted by: C-C-G at August 06, 2008 05:55 PM (irkBP)

5 I'm amused by this, immensely! I've posted, and I've linked. As I've said, that's the plan on the conservative side, I think. The commies just want all but the politburo to tighten their belts and worship their glory. Ptheh.

Posted by: cmblake6 at August 06, 2008 10:47 PM (xRgHx)

6 Really, is McCain saying (like Paris actually says) that drilling is going to be a good short-term solution until new technologies are available? Because it sounds smart and all, but it's not true. Drilling now won't help oil prices for 10-20 years. MAYBE building some more refineries would help, but since that's not possible to do in the short term, it's not an answer either.

Read a book.

Posted by: Doctorb at August 07, 2008 10:09 PM (DGLui)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

August 05, 2008

Global Warming Fauxtography?

Brian Ledbetter of Snapped Shot passed this along, a draft report from a global warming group that was too lazy to find an image of a flooded home that suited their ethos, and instead purchased a stock Photoshop creation to better sell their alarmism to the McMansion set.

If they put such little work in the images, it you wonder how much effort they put into the science of the report, doesn't it?

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 08:36 PM | Comments (69) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)

1 Just wait, someone will come in here and say that Bush made them use a fake picture.

Posted by: Matt at August 05, 2008 09:53 PM (rHW2R)

2 I have a better answer -- just plain laziness and contempt for the reading American public that actually cares about such things.

Posted by: Mescalero at August 05, 2008 10:23 PM (pny1z)

3 I really like the landscaping though...

Posted by: Mark at August 05, 2008 10:49 PM (w/olL)

4 Are people still buying into this global warming hoax?

Posted by: Capitalist Infidel at August 06, 2008 04:04 AM (kNqJV)

5 There is this public law, Data Quality Act(DAQ 2001) or some call it the Information Quality Act, which is supposed to stop false and fake data from being fed to the public from federal agencies and their contractors. Not many know about it, my guess is it's going to get a workout shortly.

Posted by: bill-tb at August 06, 2008 07:56 AM (7evkT)

6 this just proves that there is no global warming. The lefty scientists have no clue what they are talking about.

hey - does that Data Quality Act pertain to the CIA too? was it a law in 2002/2003?

Posted by: wage slave at August 06, 2008 10:16 PM (Y6ZKK)

7 "Are people still buying into this global warming hoax?"

Are people still stupid enough not to believe in global warming?

Posted by: Fred Jones at August 07, 2008 08:58 AM (gYRvk)

8 Yes, Fred.. more than 17,000 scientists. There is zero long-term evidence of climate change outside of normal long-term temperature variables. The global warming truthers--which apparently includes you--are basing their claims on computer models, not actual science, and their models have been proven wrong time and again. Remember the increase in powerful hurricanes they predicted?

Most of your buddies in the global warming truther movement are political appointees, not scientists.

Instead of global warming, we've actually had a slight cooling over the past two decades, again attributed to normal climactic variations, not manmade activity.

We should always try to be stewards of our environment, and I agree we shoudl do a better job of not wasting resources and cleaning up after ourselves, but the global warming/climate change crowd we see now are simply the ignorant fools who predicted in the 1970s that we'd be living under sheets of ice now because of man's actions, or the children of those fools.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at August 07, 2008 09:13 AM (HcgFD)

9 Oops. was citing old figures from 2007 above. The number of scientists disputing global warming has doubled to 32,000 as of May of this year.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at August 07, 2008 09:16 AM (HcgFD)

10 Tell you what, CY, why don't you just quit with the debunked info and then we can have a rational discussion. More than once as a matter of fact, the information you cite has been debunked.

but as to my original comment, what is it about gw you don't believe in? that it doesn't exist, or that humans are responsible?

Posted by: Fred Jones at August 07, 2008 09:28 AM (gYRvk)

11 What "debunked" info Fred? There simply isn't credible, peer-reviewed empiritical evidence of global climate change attribute to CO2 emissions. Can you tell me how global warming is a "rational" position without the cold, hard science to back it up?

As I thought I made clear, there is no scientific proof (local or regional anecdotes of recent variations don't count, Fred, we're talking long-term planetary warming) of long-term global warming. It has actually cooled a bit, though even those numbers are well within normal variations. The earth has been far hotter than it is now, and we weren't around to cause it. It has also been far colder than it is now, and we were around to caose that, either. As a matter of fact, there is no proof that long-term CO2 is anything other than a marker, truthers have only assumed is is a trigger (which is a loopy assumption, at best).

There is no evidence of long term warming, therefore, people could not have caused it.

Just as people once though the world was flat, that the earth as the center of the universe, global warming theory is based on man's ego, thinking he is the cause and center of all things. GW Truthers are gnats on the wildshield, convincing themselves that they are not just driving the car, but that they helped build it.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at August 07, 2008 09:46 AM (HcgFD)

12 Awesome sourcing! 32,000 scientists...

The Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine (OISM) describes itself as "a small research institute" that studies "biochemistry, diagnostic medicine, nutrition, preventive medicine and the molecular biology of aging." It is headed by Arthur B. Robinson, an eccentric scientist who has a long history of controversial entanglements with figures on the fringe of accepted research. OISM also markets a home-schooling kit for "parents concerned about socialism in the public schools" and publishes books on how to survive nuclear war.

The OISM would be equally obscure itself, except for the role it played in 1998 in circulating a deceptive "scientists' petition" on global warming in collaboration with Frederick Seitz.

Dr. Frederick Seitz (born July 4 1911; died March 2, 200[1] was a former head of Rockefeller University, a former head of the National Academy of Sciences and the principal scientific advisor to the R.J. Reynolds medical research program. In 1984 he co-founded the George C. Marshall Institute with Dr. Robert Jastrow and Dr. William Nierenberg. He was later the Chairman Emeritus of the Board of the Institute, an organization that has long denied global warming.

Posted by: otto at August 07, 2008 09:48 AM (lwnZb)

13 Great job Otto... just 31,998 more scientists to try to impeach! Good luck with that.

Or, you could save yourself some time and prove two simple things with scientific facts.

(1). That the temperature of the Earth has warmed in the past 10/50/100/200/500/10,000 years, beyond accepted climatic variations. This is the "showstopper" if there is no proven warming trend outside of normal variations, there simply isn't warming.

(2). That CO2 measured in the atmosphere is the trigger (cause) of global warming, and not just occurring in concert with warming.

That's all I ask, guys, two very simple things.

As tens of thousands of scientists are hotly debating these points and there is not agreement with the truthers, then I'd say that the claims are unproven.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at August 07, 2008 10:12 AM (HcgFD)

14 The Oregon Petition, sponsored by the OISM, was circulated in April 1998 in a bulk mailing to tens of thousands of U.S. scientists. In addition to the petition, the mailing included what appeared to be a reprint of a scientific paper. Authored by OISM's Arthur B. Robinson, Sallie L. Baliunas, Willie Soon, and Zachary W. Robinson, the paper was titled "Environmental Effects of Increased Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide" and was printed in the same typeface and format as the official Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. Also included was a reprint of a December 1997, Wall Street Journal editorial, "Science Has Spoken: Global Warming Is a Myth, by Arthur and Zachary Robinson. A cover note signed "Frederick Seitz/Past President, National Academy of Sciences, U.S.A./President Emeritus, Rockefeller University", may have given some persons the impression that Robinson's paper was an official publication of the academy's peer-reviewed journal. The blatant editorializing in the pseudopaper, however, was uncharacteristic of scientific papers.

None of the coauthors of "Environmental Effects of Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide" had any more standing than Robinson himself as a climate change researcher. They included Robinson's 22-year-old son, Zachary, along with astrophysicists Sallie L. Baliunas and Willie Soon. Both Baliunas and Soon worked with Frederick Seitz at the George C. Marshall Institute, a Washington, D.C., think tank where Seitz served as executive director. Funded by a number of right-wing foundations, including Scaife and Bradley, the George C. Marshall Institute does not conduct any original research.

In addition to the bulk mailing, OISM's website enables people to add their names to the petition over the Internet, and by June 2000 it claimed to have recruited more than 19,000 scientists. The institute is so lax about screening names, however, that virtually anyone can sign.

The names of the signers are available on the OISM's website, but without listing any institutional affiliations or even city of residence, making it very difficult to determine their credentials or even whether they exist at all. When the Oregon Petition first circulated, in fact, environmental activists successfully added the names of several fictional characters and celebrities to the list, including John Grisham, Michael J. Fox, Drs. Frank Burns, B. J. Honeycutt, and Benjamin Pierce (from the TV show M*A*S*H), an individual by the name of "Dr. Red Wine," and Geraldine Halliwell, formerly known as pop singer Ginger Spice of the Spice Girls. Halliwell's field of scientific specialization was listed as "biology." Even in 2003, the list was loaded with misspellings, duplications, name and title fragments, and names of non-persons, such as company names.

Posted by: otto at August 07, 2008 10:26 AM (lwnZb)

15 You didn't answer the questions, Otto.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at August 07, 2008 10:32 AM (HcgFD)

16 CY - please do us all a favor and admit up front that there is no amount of scientific literature or consensus that will convince you of GW, as long as it remains a steadfast liberal belief.

So stop trotting out the cherry-picked scientific points to back your position, and just admit your position is simply anti-everything liberals believe.

Posted by: jesus saves all at August 07, 2008 10:32 AM (xuaxV)

17 I'll take the science, jsl. That's all I ask for.

Bring out your ad homs, your appeals to authority, everything you feel if that convinces you global warming is real.

I just want to see simple evidence that the world is actually hotter than normal variations allow.

Or is asking for even that very minimal scientific proof a conservative position now?

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at August 07, 2008 10:39 AM (HcgFD)

18 "In 1998, Dr. Arthur Robinson, Director of the Oregon Institute for Science and Medicine, posted his first Global Warming skeptic petition, on the Institute's website (oism.org). It quickly attracted the signatures of more than 17,000 Americans who held college degrees in science. Widely known as the Oregon Petition, it became a counter-weight for the "all scientists agree" mantra of the man-man Global Warming crowd."

"...17,000 Americans who held college degrees in science"

I guess that would include Billy Bob with a bachelor's degree in Veterinary Science. My, how authoritative!

R.Mutt

Posted by: R.Mutt at August 07, 2008 11:20 AM (m5XP7)

19 Still unable to answer the simplest questions of all, I see, trying to talk around these common sense, rudimentary questions, instead of addressing them like rational adults.

One more time for you global warming truthers:

(1). Prove that the temperature of the Earth has warmed in the past 10/50/100/200/500/10,000 years, beyond accepted climatic variations.

I'm giving you a wide range of time periods to choose from, just stipulating that we're talking global temperature variations outside the norm.

This is the "showstopper." If there is no proven warming trend outside of normal variations, there simply isn't warming, and the entire global warming truther movement is a fraud.

Any attempts to to dodge this simple truth, redirect the thread, or attack critics, will be deleted.

Simply prove your deeply-held beliefs with credible scientific data proving that the Earth has warmed.

If you get that far, we'll move on to step 2, examining whether or not there is data supporting the theory that man-made CO2 is the trigger.

Unless, of course, asking for proof is too "reality-based" for your liking.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at August 07, 2008 11:40 AM (HcgFD)

20 Kids: Wikipedia isn't scientific proof. Jeez.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at August 07, 2008 12:28 PM (HcgFD)

21 please do us all a favor and admit up front that there is no amount of scientific literature or consensus that will convince you of GW

To heck with scientific evidence, what we really need are digitally altered photos of houses with flooded front yards to convince people that anthropogenic global warming is real!

And if that doesn't work, just advocate show trials of those who disagree with you. Hey, it worked for the medieval Roman Catholic church... no one believes that Copernicus was right when he said the earth orbits the sun instead of the other way around.

Posted by: C-C-G at August 07, 2008 05:52 PM (irkBP)

22 Erm, as far as the Oregon petition ("32000 scientists") you're pretty much making yourself look like a doofus with that. They're not climate or atmospheric scientists; they're people who claim to have at least a BS in a science. And I know that engineers and doctors are often at least fairly intelligent, but the signatories to this petition are less than one tenth of one percent of *that* population. In other words, a TINY MINORITY.

Posted by: Doctorb at August 07, 2008 09:50 PM (DGLui)

23 CY: Wikipedia isn't scientific proof, agreed. However, the references at the bottom of the page, complete with easy-to-click links, are. Wikipedia is a nice shortcut to all that proof you are seeking to deny.

Nice try...

Posted by: Sir Craig at August 08, 2008 10:56 AM (aQKmk)

24 What I would like to know is what is the CY theory on how dumping gigatons of CO2 into the atmosphere does not cause warming? What is the mechanism? Climatologists have their theory on the role of CO2, what's yours?

Posted by: noen at August 08, 2008 03:05 PM (6L+z2)

25 noen, the Earth's atmosphere is 78.08% nitrogen, 20.95% oxygen, 0.93% argon, and just 0.038% carbon dioxide. CO2 makes up a fraction of a fraction of a percent. You know that, right?

There is a far simpler, common sense explanation right outside your window. See that giant burning ball of hydrogen we call the sun?

It has cycles, and puts out varying but always tremendous amounts of energy, as it has since the beginning. When it hits particularly active periods and gives off more energy, Earth tends to warms up. When it enters a "cool" phase with lesser activity, the Earth generally cools down.

That theory hold a lot better over time than your nutty global warming theorists that want to conveniently ignore the entire climatic and geologic record dating back millions of years so that they can merely cling to their theory that the slight rise in a negligible atmospheric gas since WWII will wipe out life as we know it.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at August 08, 2008 03:22 PM (xNV2a)

26 Nova just aired a program entitled “The Megaflood”. It described how glacial activity formed a giant lake called Glacial Lake Missoula in Montana. The glacial walls that contained the water were over 3000 feet high and created a lake over 1000 feet deep. (Think about that scale for a moment.)

When the walls weakened and failed the 500 cubic miles of water (equal to 1/2 the water in the current Lake Michigan) surged out and scoured the earth for 500 miles as the flood coursed to the Pacific Ocean. Stunning.

Did I mention that this has happened TWICE in the last 15,000 years?

How could this have happened? Global climate cycle linked to solar output? Nah! Not possible, says algore and his disciples - these things only happen because mankind is ungoverned and is bespoiling our fair planet.

Posted by: in_awe at August 08, 2008 05:31 PM (qfSMl)

27 Hey, noen, you did realize that there are organisms on this here ball of dirt that actually use CO2 in their metabolic processes, right?

They're called plants.

So what happens to worldwide plant populations if atmospheric CO2 levels rise, noen? Logic suggests that increased CO2 would lead to increased plant population, as nearly any population increases when the food source increases.

Can you find me a scientific paper (not from any global warming zealots, thanks) that shows results of an actual study of this question? I'd really honestly be interested in reading it.

Posted by: C-C-G at August 08, 2008 10:38 PM (MAHZ+)

28 Thanks CY but you didn't actually answer my question. My question was that since we dump tons of CO2 into the atmosphere (one trillion tons so far) and since elementary physics tells us that CO2 absorbs the sun's heat, I was wondering what your counter theory is. Pointing out that CO2 is at 0.038% is a non sequitur. As I am sure you understand, even a light change in the percent of O2 makes quite a difference. And your theory that "It's the sun" has been debunked countless times.

CCG - I am sure that if one could do science from your couch you'd win the Nobel Prize. Unfortunately real science is done by experiment.
Food-crop yields in future greenhouse-gas conditions lower than expected
www(dot)news(dot)uiuc(dot)edu/news/06/0629soyface(dot)html

Posted by: noen at August 09, 2008 03:58 AM (6L+z2)

29 noen, I didn't specify food crops, nor food crop yields. I specified only plant population.

Next time, try answering the question that's asked of you, not the best question to prove your pre-determined opinion.

Posted by: C-C-G at August 09, 2008 12:36 PM (MAHZ+)

30 Food crops and food crop yields are what people are interested in because of the impact it will have on people. No one really cares if poison ivy does well. The question is simplistic and ignores real world issues anyway. Plants are affected by more than just CO2 and as the climate changes they will be unable to adapt to the new climate fast enough. Having more CO2 available won't make a bit of difference if there is flooding, or too little rain, or it's too hot, or too cold.

All Mediterranean climates are becoming desert. Having more CO2 won't help the vegetation cope with that. It will simply burn off as is happening in California. All Arctic climates are being forced off planet. The plants and animals adapted to live in arctic climates are finding less and less area in which to live. Eventually there will be no where for them to go and they will simply die.

I thought conservatives were all about conserving things? Didn't Jesus Christ command us to be stewards of the Earth? This is an important issue, more important than wining petty debating points on some blog.

Posted by: noen at August 09, 2008 01:18 PM (6L+z2)

31 noen, if you can't find the research I requested, or if you found it but don't want to post it because it undercuts your position, just say so.

All the unnecessary fol-de-rol just makes it crystal clear that you're spinning as fast as my SUV's driveshaft on the freeway.

Like I said before, answer the question that's put to you.

Posted by: C-C-G at August 09, 2008 03:06 PM (MAHZ+)

32 noen,

As per 'theories' - I disagree. Theories are proven science. AGW (and the Sun Cycle) are only hypotheses.

Physics (spectroscopy to be exact) shows us ALL atmospheric molecules/elements/atoms 'absorb' solar radiation. Therefore, your idea on CO2 being the culpable element to absorb enough solar radiation to heat the planet is, by and large, negligible. Any molecule (atom) that absorbs energy will also emit energy due to the transitions of the electrons in their outer shells (among other things - thermodynamics anyone?). Furthermore, CO2 is a "planar" molecule. This means the atoms are O=C=O in a 'straight-line' fashion. It is also 'magnetically neutral'. Oxygen has 6 electrons and Carbon 4 in their outer shells. CO2's bonds are 'double bonds' between the atoms.

Now that we are done with CO2, let’s talk about H2O. H2O has a much greater chance to 'absorb' solar energy in sufficient quantities to heat (or cool) the planet. H2O's greater ability comes from its structure: it is a 'bent' molecule due to the bonding of 2 Hydrogens to one Oxygen. The Hydrogen atoms only have 1 electron in their outer shell where Oxygen has 6.

When the Hydrogens bond to an Oxygen to make H2O, the molecule ends up with a greater negative charge in one of the spherical hemispheres. This causes the structure to 'bend' into a fairly wide "V". Put the Hydrogen atoms at the tops of the "V" and the Oxygen at the bottom. This structure causes what is known as a "di-pole moment" and makes the molecule no longer "magnetically neutral". This can be demonstrated by liquid water's ability of 'surface tension'.

Now, H2O in gaseous form still has that structure to the molecule and even though the distance between molecules is increased, the di-pole moment still is in play. This bent structure allows H2O to do some pretty cool things including create clouds.

If you really want to discuss clouds, their creation, and their effects upon the Earth - I'm game.

Posted by: Mark at August 09, 2008 04:35 PM (w/olL)

33 Mark, you have no idea what you're talking about do you? How CO2 contributes to warming is well known and established science. Not even the most ignorant denialists will claim it doesn't. But by all means, publish your paper and collect your Nobel prize.

RealClimate
"Water vapour: feedback or forcing?"

"Long-wave (or thermal) radiation is emitted from the surface of the planet and is largely absorbed in the atmosphere. Water vapour is the principle absorber of this radiation (and acknowledged as such by everybody). But exactly how important is it? In terms of mass, water vapour is much more prevalent (about 0.3% of atmospheric mass, compared to about 0.06% for CO2), and so is ~80% of all greenhouse gases by mass (~90% by volume). However, the radiative importance is less (since all molecules are not created equal). One way to quantify this is to take a radiation model and remove each long-wave absorber (principally the greenhouse gases, but also clouds and aerosols) and see what difference it makes to the amount of long-wave absorbed. This gives the minimum effect from each component. The complementary calculation, using only each particular absorber in turn, gives the maximum effect. Generally these will not be equal because of overlaps in the absorbing spectra (i.e. radiation at a particular frequency can either be absorbed by water vapour or CO2)."

Wikipedia
"Existence of the greenhouse effect as such is not disputed. Naturally occurring greenhouse gases have a mean warming effect of about 33 °C (59 °F), without which Earth would be uninhabitable.[25][26] On Earth, the major greenhouse gases are water vapor, which causes about 36–70 percent of the greenhouse effect (not including clouds); carbon dioxide (CO2), which causes 9–26 percent; methane (CH4), which causes 4–9 percent; and ozone, which causes 3–7 percent.[27][28] The issue is how the strength of the greenhouse effect changes when human activity increases the atmospheric concentrations of some greenhouse gases."

Posted by: noen at August 09, 2008 09:51 PM (6L+z2)

34 noen,

Do you have your degree in a hard science at hand? If so, please destroy it by the most convenient means.

On Earth, the major greenhouse gases are water vapor, which causes about 36–70 percent of the greenhouse effect (not including clouds); carbon dioxide (CO2), which causes 9–26 percent;

You have merely 'proven' my point that water vapor is MUCH greater in effect than CO2. ('Proven' with a rather unreliable source, I might add.)

Furthermore, Long-wave (or thermal) radiation is emitted from the surface of the planet and is largely absorbed in the atmosphere. this statement is not accurate. The variables it ignores include little things like the amount of atmosphere between the radiating point being measured and the end of the atmosphere including what is between that point...such as clouds. Clouds = 99.99999% (or so) water vapor (of course there are different kinds of clouds but I am speaking of that which is 'normal'). They have the ability to insulate the radiating point when that point is behind the terminus (aka, the "dark side"). When clouds are ahead of the terminus (aka, illuminated by the sun) they reflect more energy - both long and short wave - than they insulate and/or absorb.

Posted by: Mark at August 10, 2008 11:08 AM (w/olL)

35 Go easy on noen, Mark... he didn't realize that water vapor is merely H2O in its gaseous state, because AlGore hasn't included that in his talking points.

Posted by: C-C-G at August 10, 2008 11:37 AM (MAHZ+)

36 One question, CCG - why? He fails to use basic scientific methodology. His quotes are from Wikipedia which is heavily moderated by "pro-AGW" truthers. He fails to use logic when he does quote this highly suspect 'source' on the subject. He fails completely to be 'skeptical', as all good scientists are, on ‘new hypotheses’. If he does hold a degree in a hard science, I would be willing to bet he got it from a Cracker Jack(TM) box.

Alas, that rant aside, how about we do a simple thought experiment? You game, noen?

Posted by: Mark at August 10, 2008 07:15 PM (w/olL)

37 By the way, noen, I am still waiting for that research I asked for.

Posted by: C-C-G at August 11, 2008 07:16 AM (MAHZ+)

38 "You have merely 'proven' my point that water vapor is MUCH greater in effect than CO2. ('Proven' with a rather unreliable source, I might add.)"

In addition to this. Humans at most contribute only about .02% of the water vapor. Can you please explain to me how .02% can cause these catastrophic effects that the AGW idiots claim will happen?

Posted by: Matt at August 11, 2008 03:58 PM (rHW2R)

39 Basically, Matt, you've got it already. The human added portion is also negligible. However your question does lead into my proposed thought experiment.

I'll keep this as brief as possible. As the water vapor % increases in the atmosphere, the probability of cloud formation increases in a 'Gaussian' or statistcally 'normal' distribution. This means more cloud cover of the earth's surface on average per day/year/etc. Since this will happen on a global scale, illuminated/non-illuminated portions really don't matter much except for this: when cloud formation ocurs in the 'current' illuminated portion of the earth it will reflect more solar radiation than the energy insulated on the corresponding non-illumitated portion.

Since cloud cover over time will be increased in a normal statistical manner, this will result in a cooler planet.

The thought experiment goes as follows:
Melt the ice-caps and increase sea levels by 10-100 meters. Short term global warming will cause this and the increases water vapor will add to the process until the tipping point is reached. However, more of the planet's surface area will be covered with 'fee' water. This will allow the higher temps of a 'warmed' planet to evaporate more of that water, due to the water cycle, into the atmosphere leading to more clouds.

In the short term, the planet will indeed be 'hotter' but the increased clouds, again over time, will cause the planet to cool dramaticly. This will lead to an Ice Age. Won't happen in our life-times but will happen in relatively short geologic time.

Posted by: Mark at August 11, 2008 11:14 PM (w/olL)

40 Sorry for the mispellings and failure to proof-read. I was tired and just put it up

Posted by: Mark at August 11, 2008 11:18 PM (w/olL)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

False Post-tenses?

According to author Ron Suskind (who shockingly, is trying to sell a book to the "Bushitler" base) the Bush Administration ordered the CIA to forge and backdate a document that would be used as false pretenses to help justify the Iraq War.

According to Suskind, the forged letter written to justify the invasion was released in December, 2003.

But the war began 9 months prior to the release of the document in the media, meaning they would have forged a document they didn't use for its intended purpose.

His "false pretenses" motive is obviously wrong.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 03:39 PM | Comments (61) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)

"Jeremiah Wright In a Skirt"

Barack Obama's radical allies just keep cropping up:

While the media hounded Wright for his anti-American rants and while presidential hopeful Senator Barack Hussein Obama divorced him as his personal pastor, Obama’s head will be crowned by Leah Daughtry, who ardently believes in the same Marxist "Black Liberation Theology" preached by Wright.

As noted in more detail in a New York Times profile, Daughtry is Howard Dean's Chief of Staff and is running the Democratic National Convention in Denver.

The part-time pastor preaches in a church with a call for slave reparations posted in the sanctuary, on a banner reading, "They Owe Us" (but perhaps not as much as she owes D.C.).

As for her theological roots:

...Leah, who was raised according to a strict religious code that forbid females to wear pants, lipstick or makeup, took part in the protests at the age of 13. Her eyes brightened when she recalled those demonstrations and the assorted groups that joined together to give them strength, just as her voice took on extra passion when she discussed black liberation theology and the writing of James Cone.

It was this writing that Jeremiah Wright, Obama's longtime pastor, cited to support the sermons that led Obama to cut ties with Wright in April. Daughtry didn’t want to comment on the sudden distance Obama put between himself and his pastor, except to say that it pained her to see such a meaningful and private relationship come to such a public and distorted end. But she didn't put any distance between herself and Cone's book "A Black Theology of Liberation, " which she suggested I read and which relies on the words of Malcolm X to make its religious arguments. "Some may find it disconcerting, " she replied, when I asked if she feared driving away voters by standing behind ideas that could be deemed radical. "But they are far outnumbered by Americans who are concerned about the disparities. At the basis of black liberation theology is the understanding that God has a special place in His heart for those at the bottom of the ladder. " All colors are clinging there, she said, and went on to talk about the hegemony of corporations, the oppression of the people. " The right of self-determination is the concern. If I do all the right things, I will live a full and abundant life — this should be true. But it's not. Something's wrong with the equation. Americans may not call this liberation theology, but they have the sense that things aren't fair."

That's one way of spinning it.

Cone is known for radical views, arguing in the preface of A Black Theology of Liberation, "There will be no peace in America until whites begin to hate their whiteness, asking from the depths of their being: 'How can we become black?'"

Cone formed the core of Black Liberation Theology in the vitriol of Malcolm X and the militant Black Power movement, justifying the righteousness of a one-sided hate.

As Stanley Kurtz documented:

While Cone asserts that blacks hate whites, he denies that this hatred is racism. Black racism, says Cone, is "a myth created by whites to ease their guilt feelings." Black hatred of whites is simply a legitimate reaction to "oppression, insult, and terror." Cone derides accusations of black racism as a mere "device of white liberals."

Indeed, one of the most striking features of Black Theology and Black Power is its strident attack on white liberals. According to Cone, "when white do-gooders are confronted with the style of Black Power, realizing that black people really place them in the same category with the George Wallaces, they react defensively, saying, 'It's not my fault' or 'I am not responsible.'" But Cone insists that white, liberal do-gooders are every bit as responsible as the most dyed-in-the-wool segregationists. Well before it became a cliche, Cone boldly set forth the argument for institutional racism--the notion that "racism is so embedded in the heart of American society that few, if any, whites can free themselves from it."

The liberal's favorite question, says Cone, is "What can I do?" He replies that, short of turning radical and putting their lives on the line behind a potentially violent revolution, liberals can do nothing.

Presumably, Cone would view Obama's domestic terrorist friends Bill Ayers and Bernadine Dohrn as "good" liberals.

The real liberal question to blacks, says Cone, is "What can I do and still receive the same privileges as other whites and--this is the key--be liked by Negroes?" Again, he answers, "Nothing." To prove it, he pointedly dismisses the original bogus white liberal, Abraham Lincoln, who after all was more concerned with holding the Union together than with ending slavery.

For Cone, the deeply racist structure of American society leaves blacks with no alternative but radical transformation or social withdrawal. So-called Christianity, as commonly practiced in the United States, is actually the racist Antichrist. "Theologically," Cone affirms, "Malcolm X was not far wrong when he called the white man 'the devil.'"

James Cone informs us that the white man is the Devil... or close enough to it. What's more, he does not believe we can atone for the apparent sin of being born white. Barack and Michelle Obama found a comfortable church home for 20 years in a congregation devoted to this man's toxic home-brewed theology, as so demonstrated in bombastic, often racial terms by their pastor and mentor, Reverend Jeremiah Wright.

We're now approaching Obama's presumed coronation in Denver, and find that this convention is being anchored by not just an adherent, but a pastor of the same warped theology. Obama, Wright, Cone, and Daughtry share a values system that holds capitalism to be oppressive, and socialism as the way beyond racism.

Democrats proudly boast that they are the "big tent" party. Perhaps it's time they start consider being a bit more selective.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 12:15 PM | Comments (23) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)

Mac & P.C. On Oil

"Hi. I'm P.C."

"And I'm Mac."

"Uh, aren't you a television host? Didn't I see you on QVC?"

"Yes. And no."

"Racist."

"Excuse me?"

"Sorry. It's reflexive at this point."

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 09:14 AM | Comments (24) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)

Processing 0.05, elapsed 0.5533 seconds.
37 queries taking 0.5162 seconds, 339 records returned.
Page size 265 kb.
Powered by Minx 0.8 beta.