I think that the "hoaxers" consist of two subsets of the population: scientifically illiterate folks who couldn't understand the for/against arguments if they tried (which they wouldn't), and another group that is tired of the liberals being so sanctimonious on this issue regardless of countervailing facts that they go to the opposite end of the spectrum in reaction, and use "hoax" as shorthand for "Gore's film was filled with factual misstatements and holes yet it is touted as proof of global warming (or is it now "climate change")and as I shovel my driveway in New Orleans or Las Vegas I think WTF! Gore is making millions of dollars on this thing and the usual liberal suspects (Pelosi, Reid, Kennedy, et al) are all over it. Is this just another in a long string of issues pushed as agenda items by the left because it gives them leverage and power?"
When AGW advocates ignore prior climate cycles, or exclude solar radiation and cloud effects from computer models, or global warming on Mars, or faulty data (NASA is regularly restating data found to be questionable by amateur investigators) and shout down anyone holding an opposing opinion isn't there room to be skeptical?
Look, twenty-five years ago it was all about global cooling and the new ice age (Time and Newsweek cover stories), for the past 5 years it had been about AGW, now it is about a 15 year cooling period brought on by global warming. While I believe that climate change happens and is happening I get a little worried when it becomes an article of faith by AGW advocates and more so when it becomes an article faith by our government. Why are scientists who raise reasonable questions about the models, correlations, data, changes in temperature recording sites and theories being essentially blacklisted and their careers being threatened if the case for man made climate change is air tight?
To your point about the issue being the role of man on the climate, shouldn't the government be interested in hearing all sides before launching into an economy changing series of edicts that risk our economic status and personal lifestyles and might be effectively irrelevant to what happens with the climate?
I reject the claim that there is a wave of anti-intellectualism among conservatives based upon this issue. In fact, I would argue that liberals are now more faith-based on this issue than conservatives.Comment Posted By in_awe On 26.12.2008 @ 14:02
What galls me about this issue is that the Obama machine once again is rewriting history and getting away with it - without as much as a second glance by the MSM.
There were contemporaneous media reports starting before the election about conversation between Obama/Obama staffers and Blagojuvich and his staff. Then a day or two after the election there were more reports. Then Axelrod late in November makes an unconditional statement that Obama had talked with the governor about the Senate appointment.
Now Axelrod has retracted his statement to conform with Obama's stated position as of early December. Some of the media reports have disappeared from the internet in the past two weeks. Haven't we seen this before during the Obama campaign - inconvenient facts just "disappearing"? Reminds me of the Soviet tactics of airbrushing history to suit current "truths".
Will anyone pursue this issue and hold the PE's feet to the fire now and into the future on this less than admirable trait of intimidating others to only report the "world according to Obama"?Comment Posted By in_awe On 24.12.2008 @ 18:04
still liberal said:
"You fear what Obama may do. I look forward to a respite from the heavy, dysfunctional hand of conservatism."
Does Obama's relentless attack on his critics' freedom of speech concern you? How about when coupled with the Pelosi/Reid promise to reinstate the "Fairness Doctrine"? Threats against media outlets that provide air time to his critics? Written threats to sic the IRS or DOJ on conservative campaign contributors? Hiring county prosecutors in MO to threaten criminal charges against anyone "misrepresenting" Obama or his views?
How do you feel about his use of revisionism in the press and on the web. Don't want any more images of his fake birth certificate on the web? Overnight Google makes 700 links disappear. Evidence of his radical associations bothersome? Snap! Off they go as the offending web sites are sanitized.
His urging of his supporters to get more aggressive and get into the face of his critics and the undecideds? His plan to create a mandatory indoctrination of the youth of this country through his national service corps? What about his National Security Corps?
He conditions his acquiesence to the Supreme Court ruling about gun ownership by saying that he wouldn't impose a gun ban because he just doesn't have the votes in Congress. So, here is a self-proclaimed Constitutional law authority that says that the explicitly stated right granted by the 2nd Amendment is subject to garnering of a opposing majority in Congress. Guess what he'll have under his Presidency? A liberal super-majority in both houses. Getting the drift of his vision of America?
Create new rights out of thin air? Stack the Supreme Court with liberals to assure that we'll face 40 years of liberal rulings. Deny the rights explicitly guaranteed by the 1st and 2nd amenedments to the Constitution.
And the mainstream media is in lockstep complicency with this march toward socialist authoritarianism.
Yeah, I am really looking forward to my life in the Brave New World of Obama.
God save us all.Comment Posted By in_awe On 12.10.2008 @ 14:22
If only the MSM would decide that "saving the country from a bad seed" would be better for them in the long run than assuring Obama's election, we would see an avalanche of stories about Obama's shady background. But we know that will never happen. Sigh...Comment Posted By in_awe On 11.10.2008 @ 11:32
I guess I have two issues with Obama aside form Ayers/Wright/Most Liberal Voting record: his affiliation with ACORN and his support and funding for this organization that is a driving force behind the whole sub-prime mortgage debacle.
And more importantly, Obama's aggressive attacks on political free speech throughout this campaign - now reaching a fever pitch of intimidating practices. With the MSM in the tank for Obama, what is left than talk radio (Pelosi and Reid have promised a reinstatement of the "Fairness Doctrine" early in the new Congress), internet blogs, and 527 groups to investigate and publicize Obama's background, voting records, political philosophy, etc.?
Here is a sitting US Senator who tries to use threats of DOJ investigations, IRS audits, county prosecutors filing charges, etc. to silence his critics. He bans signs at rallies on campuses of public universities, encourages his followers to aggressively confront critics and shudown radio and TV stations that broadcast interviews of people researching his background. Public records held by a library are suddenly made unavailable for weeks to stall an review of them by researchers.
His comfort in using lies, evasive commentary, threats, intimidation doesn't make me confident that his Presidency will be one dedicated to transparency and seeking advice and input from all sides. His idea of mandatory national service and training would provide an indoctrination rich environment to shape the thoughts of this country's youth. The aside that anyone not volunteering would be drafted into the military and sent where bullets are flying is nothing less than using life threatening intimidation against any principled person rejecting his forced culturalization of Americans.
Obama's comments about gun control should rise an alarm about his dedication to free speech rights as well. He doesn't affirm the Constutionally granted right of gun ownership, nor the Supreme Court finding. He says that he wouldn't impose widespread gun ownership restrictions "because he doesn't have the votes in Congress to get it". When one's commitment to Constitutionally enumerated rights is conditioned only on whether you feel you have enough votes in Congress to by-pass them, I get scared. With the distinct possibility of a Democrat super-majority in both houses of Congress, I can see rights being trampled with regularity as new imperatives of fairness and diversity and humanitarianism trump the Constitution. Once Obama's choices for Supreme Court justices is known and cnfirmed we are in for 3-4 decades of liberal/socialist supporting rulings from the bench.Comment Posted By in_awe On 7.10.2008 @ 14:28
"some so-called “conservatives” complaining about someone opting out of a “public [...]"
The public financing comes from individual taxpayers voluntarily checking the box on their tax return to assign $1 or $2 to the pool, no tax dollars are forceably shunted to the fund.
Interestingly enough, the GOP average donation size historically been far smaller that those received by the Democrats. Much more a populist funding than all the received wisdom touted by the MSM would lead you to believe.Comment Posted By in_awe On 20.06.2008 @ 17:36
"Protesters will be restricted to "areas set up for First Amendment rights issues,"
Wow! Remember a numer of years ago when the RNC did something similar at the Republican Convention? Liberals went ballistic - the MSM told us that it presaged the downfall of the nation and were Gestapo tactics being visited upon our citizens.
This time? Oh, its being done by a liberal, so it is perfectly fine...move alongComment Posted By in_awe On 7.04.2008 @ 11:59
From the OC Register March 27th interview with the director:
"Peirce said she included four real soldiers in the boot camp so that her actors could ask questions and listen to their stories. She also encouraged the actors to watch videos made my soldiers in Iraq, and to speak with soldiers whenever they could.
One of the actors, Victor Rasuk, met a disabled veteran who suffered the same injuries as his character. The actor said he was stunned by the absence of bitterness.
"I was nervous about meeting him because I thought he would be angry and bitter, but he was totally optimistic," Rasuk recalled. "The only thing he was angry about was that he had left his friends behind and desperately wanted to rejoin them. Man, that gave me a whole new perspective on life."
Perhaps if people in Hollywood would actually read some milblogs for a change or talk with veterans of Iraq they all would gain some much needed perspective BEFORE they undertake their "artistic vision".
I am always amazed by how little Hollywood knows or cares about the real world of the military. The idea of stop-loss isn't new, but it conveniently fits the liberal view of the Bush administration being "liars". Ask WWII vets who were recalled to duty in Korea or specialists (doctors, nurses, etc.) who have been activated numerous times since the 1950's. Aren't former Marines always suseptible to being recalled to active duty (hence the once a Marine, always a Marine)? Etc. Well, at least this movie had a retired Marine sergeant as an advisor to keep the actors from saluting with the wrong hand...Comment Posted By in_awe On 29.03.2008 @ 19:03
The vitriol serves what purpose? How does preaching that racist anger make anyone better and more hopeful and more likely to act in a positive way? What is the net affect of listening to that week after week, year after year? And repeating lies (e.g.AIDS being used by America's white rulers to weaken the black community, etc.) and anti-Semitism certainly doesn't condition one to join the larger society, does it?
No, Pastor Wright is a racist bigot who riffs off that foundation to undercut any possibility of a sense of attachment to this country for his parishoners. It is divisive and hateful and has no place in this country.
Obama has shown incredibly poor judgment in remaining associated with this man for the past 20 years and financially supporting the church that provides him the pulpit from which to spew his hatred.Comment Posted By in_awe On 18.03.2008 @ 21:12
Let's not overlook the teachings of the church that Obama attends as a congregant. As far as I know, the only reaction to the "outing" of that church's pastor is toning down the inflammatory rhetoric on the church's web site.
Rejecting or denouncing the endorsement of bigots and haters should be expected of political candidates. I'm not sure how Obama gets a pass on his long term membership in a bigoted church. It seems that people think it is OK for him to be able to "parse" the teachings of church and only be associated with the more socially acceptable ones. How does that work?
Like our Presidential candidates embracing proponents of La Raza or Mecha in order to gain favor in the Hispanic community while ignoring the racist and anti-American foundation of those organizations. It is a deal with the devil that will have repurcussions for decades.Comment Posted By in_awe On 1.03.2008 @ 12:07
Pages (1) :