Thanks and Humility

This week is the week for giving thanks and probably a time for a bit of introspection and humility. Of course, one of the things I’m thankful for are the folks who read my blog, the modest set of folks who follow me on Twitter and the handful of folks who listen to my Internet radio show. As I was finishing off a slice of pumpkin pie last night it occurred to me that eating a couple of slices of humble pie might be appropriate for today’s post.

The first slice involves a topic that I have never written about in the main body of the blog but I have mildly debated it within the comments section. I am one of those who champions the notion of climate change and calls climate change skeptics ignorant neanderthals. So, man did I have egg on my face earlier this week when some emails unearthed by a hacker revealed some shenanigans going on with the data supporting global warming. Apparently the following damning sentence was found in email exchanged among scientists at the University of East Anglia’s Climate Research Unit:

I’ve just completed Mike’s Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) amd [sic] from 1961 for Keith’s to hide the decline.

When scientists use the words “trick” and “hide” it’s natural for us ordinary folks to become a bit concerned. Climate change advocates say the sentence was taken out of context. Climate change skeptics are ready to throw the baby out with the bath water. While I am not ready to throw the baby out with the bath water, this incident does make me reevaluate what government’s role should be in science. I am almost ready to say that our founding principle of separation of church and state should be extended to separation of science and state. I think it ‘s worth investigating whether science becomes contaminated when politicized. I haven’t figured out when is the proper juncture for government to act on the findings of science but I think in the case of climate change it has become uncertain who is the cart and who is the horse. Scientists have always had a problem with pride of  ownership that can interfere with their objectivity, but this is doubly compounded when politicians get involved and the stakes for being wrong get too high. If you think a scientist has a problem being wrong, you haven’t seen anything until you look at politicians.  Clearly the “climate change movement” has taken a bad credibility hit. We need to restore objectivity and get the politicians out of this for a while (do you hear me, Al Gore?).

The second slice of humble pie involves some intellectual dishonesty on my part. Such dishonesty usually comes back to kick one in the ass and this week I did indeed get my ass kicked. Back in September, I published an article about a census taker in Kentucky who was found hanged under mysterious circumstances. I used the event to prove that the evil right-wing was on the march. The worst offense was the following claim:

Much of the media is approaching this story with caution. Clearly, the investigation is just beginning and this could be either a very bizarre suicide or a “prank” homicide completely unrelated to any political agenda. If either case proves to be true, we should still stop and contemplate this moment. Regardless of what really happened, what are many of  us thinking right now and why?

Well, I should have approached the story with much more caution, like not have written about it in the first place. It turns out that the terminally ill census taker staged his own murder so his son could get the insurance.  The best part is when I say that regardless of the facts we should still contemplate what happened. This kind of reminds me of when my buddy Rush Limbaugh found out that an Obama thesis story he had covered was a hoax and then said the fiction was consistent with fact and therefore didn’t deserve a retraction.

Well friends, sometimes emotional fervor interferes with clear thinking. When the facts of the case dictate that some right-wing looney tune has gone off the deep end, then and only then is it appropriate to get one’s bowels in an uproar about it. You probably won’t see Keith Olbermann or Rachel Maddow say “my bad” about this one, but you will see me say it.

MY BAD and I hope you all had a happy and healthy Thanksgiving!

Respectfully,
Rutherford

WordPress.com Political Blogger Alliance

Advertisements

73 thoughts on “Thanks and Humility

  1. I second that R, kudos. It always take a bigger man to admit when they’re wrong.

    Naturally, I’ll look forward to your similar pst on healthcare and the 2010 elections! 😉

  2. Damn,

    I come in here to gig Rutherford about his silence concerning that global fraud called anthropogenic global warming, and I see this. What a bummer as I have to cross this off my ass ripper list. He even condemns the second biggest lib hypocrite Al “Bulbous” Gore. 👿

    Well Rutherford, hard to knock a man for admitting he is wrong – in this case, two wrongs. Now why don’t you go for the triple crown and we can talk about the fraud called ACORN and how Obama and the thugs are hiding these criminals, and the fact you now recognize the error of your ways.

    You call Obama a huge failure somewhere in the discussion will be a major added bonus! If you can give me Densico’s address so I can turn her over to the idiot farm, hell I’ll probably be making a donation. 😉

  3. With Rutherford’s self confession of guilt, I too feel obligated to offer my humble apologies to Sensico. For some time, that avatar has bothered me who it was that it reminded me because it didn’t really fit the HO look.

    So tonight, joining Wally Curator in the fitting Hall of Shame so appropriately named, from this day forward when you see me address Worf, you’ll know of whom I speak.

    Why Worf you ask? The mangled attempt to straighten the doo hair without success, the enlarged slap head, the inability to converse in a clear and concise manner generally reading like guttural instinct, and my observation last night of her gestation through the Klingon method.

    So Warf, I want to offer you my sincerest condolences about the undue burden you have had to carry on with your entire life. For a talking turd, you do a pretty damn good job!!!

  4. The thing that is such a bummer about the environmental movement is that the Rabbit actually cares about nature.

    As an avid fisherman (and a pathetic hunter), I love disappearing into the backwoods of the Mitten for a couple days. I pretty much HAVE to hear the sounds of the forest at least once a month.

    I don’t liter. I don’t poach.

    There is nothing like sitting in a deer blind, hyper alert, and watching the “rush hour” of early morning breaking in the woods. I actually drive to work in the morning thinking about spending those mornings with my son when he is old enough.

    Unfortunately, somehow environmentalism has been hijacked by the left (and for that matter made a disgusting word for the right).

    I refuse to believe capitalism and environmentalism can’t coexist.

    Unfortunately, the science has been so bastardized by Marxist, America hating whack jobs, that we will as of now never really know where we need to make a sound, science backed sacrifice. Let it be known, I do concede that sometimes a sacrifice is in order. I just never have and still do not trust the people who tell me what that sacrifice is.

    Instead we get Al Gore’s backyard business and nonsensical pork servings smothered in job killing Cap and Trade sauce served by assholes on the West Coast who hate America.

  5. Hey Rutherford,

    I actually do have a real comment concerning the post and one that is not so flattering. And it one that you will not only disagree, but will fail to understand. You say this charge is the worst you made:

    If either case proves to be true, we should still stop and contemplate this moment. Regardless of what really happened, what are many of us thinking right now and why?

    But I consider the paragraph I provided below not only more frivolous and lame, but completely slanted to an adopted view without any reasonable judgment. Your double standards are horrid and you market in leftist propaganda.

    I have said this before but I will say it again. The time has come for the political rhetoric to be tamped down. While conservatives are quick to point to Nancy Pelosi as a pot stirrer, the truth is that the activities Pelosi labeled “unamerican” were the rude, uncivil activities demonstrated by a minority of protesters. On the other hand, we have Glenn Beck surmising that Barack Obama has a deep seated hatred for white people. We have Rush Limbaugh blaming black on white school violence on “Obama’s America”. Our public discourse has gone off the rails in a way that truly eclipses the negative press of the Bush administration. With Bush there were very specific gripes, mostly centered around the war in Iraq. No one was saying “I want my country back.” There was not an overriding sense that government could do no right.

    Eclipses the “negative press” of what the Bush Administration received? If there is one person who has been savaged worse than Sarah Palin by your side, it was George Bush. From the very beginning, we heard of stolen elections, BushMcChimpyHitler, stupid fool, warmonger, neocon, lies about National Guard, lies about the economy, charges of conspiracy about Halliburton, 9/11, Iraq, Mission Accomplished, etc…the only time you were supportive and only then until you knew you were safe, was for maybe three weeks after the attacks of 9/11.

    This is the same reason you adopted your neanderthal analogy about global warming, even though you admit you know little of the science; you just assume because it is pushed by your side, therefore it must be true. You are part of a large allegiance of group think and it is your standard every time. It is your own biggest weakness and the reason most people in America do not like liberals. You don’t seek the truth – you have a preconceived notion of what you want to be true, then attempt to make it truth.

    I appreciate the admission. Heaven knows I’ve made a few too. But you don’t recognize the real fault and I guarantee in 2010, you will keep the pattern of sounding like Rachel Maddow and Keith Olbermann. It is your nature and you can not change it. The damage the last eight years, and I’ll admit now nine, is done. It can’t be undone. It is why this time, liberalism must be destroyed, because it is destroying the country.

  6. Completely off the subject, and not meaning to market in gossip myself, but I can’t help but find the Tiger Woods fiasco pretty amusing. And by the way, let me add I like Tiger.

    But sounds like Tiger is playing the divot with the six iron someplace besides the golf course. Crazed blond wife goes nuts and chases him out of the house, beating the SUV with a golf club. He’s so startled, he runs into a fire hydrant.

    Sounds pretty probable to me. Hell hath no fury like a crazed blond scorned.

  7. LOL I never pictured Tiger having much personal drama going on but I guess we all have personal lives. Shame his seems to have gone sufficiently out of control to land him on the front page. If I had to play armchair psychologist, I’d have to guess he still hasn’t quite gotten over the death of his father. All sorts of crazy sh*t can go down when you have a major personal loss.

    Tex, as for your earlier comment, you’ll just have to take my word for it but if Conservatives championed a scientific cause and warned us of our imminent demise if ignored, I’d pay just as much attention as if liberals had championed it. The funny thing is, and I cannot figure this out, conservatives just don’t seem to want to pay much attention to science. The only topic on which they flex their science muscles is in their championing the rights of the unborn, claiming (understandably) that life begins at conception. It’s about the only scientific statement you’ll ever hear a conservative make.

    As for the rest of your comment, you ignored one key item. Yes, the “liberal media” gave Bush hell after they gave him a free pass on the Iraq war in its first year or two. But as I stated, no one EVER said “I want my country back”. Was Bush’s legitimacy as Pres challenged? Damn straight. Hell, the election had to be decided on a Supreme Court decision. Clearly a close election that sourpuss liberals could gripe about. But did the libs then go off on some coo-coo rant that Bush had a secret Russian communist mother and that he was secretly born in the Ukraine? His legitimacy was challenged on the facts, combined, as I said, with some sore loser attitude.

    I also think, if you bother to actually read the liberal media right now (I don’t mean primetime MSNBC) you’ll see the love affair with Obama is pretty much over, I just read a piece in Time magazine today calling out what little concrete progress Obama made on his recent tour of Asia. I’d go so far as to say the honeymoon for Obama has ended way earlier in his term then it did for Bush 43.

  8. Hey Rabbit, seriously, from a legal perspective I’m not surprised we have to honor payments to ACORN that were contracted before we cut them off. I honestly don’t see anything wrong with that.

  9. Unfortunately, the science has been so bastardized by Marxist, America hating whack jobs, politics that we will as of now never really know where we need to make a sound, science backed sacrifice. Let it be known, I do concede that sometimes a sacrifice is in order. I just never have and still do not trust the people who tell me what that sacrifice is.

    With the one alteration, Rabbit has stated where my mind is right now.

  10. the inability to converse in a clear and concise manner generally reading like guttural instinct

    Having been a big fan of TNG, I have to challenge your assessment of Worf. I found him quite articulate.

  11. Well there is no sense in my letting this thread become too much of a love fest so here is a hypothesis to piss you all off.

    You know that couple that snuck their way into the Obama State Dinner the other night? Middle aged white guy and his blond wife? How many folks would like to wager whether that same scene would have gone down if the couple had been black, or “Muslim looking”. 😉

  12. Oh by the way, I do hope there is a Secret Service agent with the adjective “former” in front of his title today. This bad a scene hasn’t happened since Lincoln’s body guards were passed out drunk at Ford’s Theater. 👿

  13. What do you mean that Conservatives don’t champion any science. What you should have said is Conservatives don’t champion junk science.

    I don’t know who you think is making all the medical process in the world at those evil pharmaceuticals you are always criticizing, but it should be obvious it isn’t liberals.

    I don’t know who is championing all the research and development at those evil corporations you so despise, but it should be obvious it isn’t liberals.

    That statement from above is almost as big a lie as that Republicans don’t offer political alternatives – health care being the most recent. What you meant is that they don’t offer alternatives that contain your pet projects like public options.

  14. As far as the couple being Muslim or black, fair enough point. But an equally valid point is why are Muslims and blacks suspect to begin with? Could the suspicions and threats be justified?

    Perhaps it is because they represent the largest demographic of terrorists and gang bangers/thugs/murder respectively? 😉

  15. Tex, by any chance are you the dude who coined the word “profiling”? 🙂

    P.S. Can you point me to a larger version of your new avatar? I can’t quite make out what Obama is wearing in the tiny version.

  16. Bro. R,

    By profiling, if you mean reporting simple fact, no still can not claim the “coin” profiling – I think J. Edgar Hoover beat me to it.

    I can not remember where I got that avatar – matter of fact, I can’t remember the character’s name either. It’s hell getting old. 😆

    Back to a character I can remember – Welcome Back Jimmy Obama.

  17. I just read a few posts up. 😆 I can see why there is confusion when I submit.

    process/progress; oh what the hell is the difference? Or something like that.

  18. “Well there is no sense in my letting this thread become too much of a love fest so here is a hypothesis to piss you all off.
    How many folks would like to wager whether that same scene would have gone down if the couple had been black, or “Muslim looking”.-Rutherford

    Why would that piss us off?

    Rutherford, I think you and the Rabbit should team up. We could get into any black tie/red carpet affair together.

    Wipe the dust off that wheel chair and start drooling like a mad man. I will be your over sized, goon attendant. Who is going to turn us away????

    Lets start off with the Golden Globe awards.

  19. Rutherford,

    I did have a legitimate question. Are you now willing to admit that Obama and Co. were incredibly naive about his charm and more dialogue being enough to overcome the burgeoning problems with Iran, the trade issues with China, and the ongoing barbs from Fidel and Hugo?

    I know that libs have great talent concerning selective memory and the uncanny ability to lie with exaggeration, but don’t you now have to admit that Obama has been an abject failure in matching up to his campaign promises pertaining to the above?

    I still am having a difficult time determining if Obama has accomplished much of anything good. Frankly, if he were white or Hispanic, his poll numbers would be at about 10% favorable IMHO.

    It makes me feel a little guilty about using Jimmy Obama as my gravatar. Even Jimmah was not this enormous a success at failure so quickly. But since Obama can not make the claim of traitor and worst ex-President yet, I will stick. 🙂

  20. Tex, as for your earlier comment, you’ll just have to take my word for it but if Conservatives championed a scientific cause and warned us of our imminent demise if ignored, I’d pay just as much attention as if liberals had championed it. The funny thing is, and I cannot figure this out, conservatives just don’t seem to want to pay much attention to science. The only topic on which they flex their science muscles is in their championing the rights of the unborn, claiming (understandably) that life begins at conception. It’s about the only scientific statement you’ll ever hear a conservative make.

    Rutherford, I think you fail to understand a significant difference between Conservatives and Liberals when it comes to science.

    Conservatives see science as a tool. The more that is learned, the more that we learn about the world around us. It is a means to learn more about the world and wonders that God created. Liberals view science as a religion, and they have to attack any previously legitimate inquiry, despite the fact that the consistent truth of science is change…a fact examined by scientists, such as Thomas Kuhn, in his book “The Structure of Scientific Revolutions”, or John Casti’s “Paradigms Lost”.

    As for conservatives “only flexing their scientific muscles championing the rights of the unborn”, I have to call “Bullshit.”

    The tortured reasoning that says it is ok to kill your baby when it is still only in the first trimester of development but not later when it, you know, actually might be born and stuff, is not the product of conservative thinking, because conservatives understand that that such murder is wrong no matter the stage of development. This convenient rationale is one of the many ways liberals have used science to deny basis truth.

  21. Hey Rabbit, seriously, from a legal perspective I’m not surprised we have to honor payments to ACORN that were contracted before we cut them off. I honestly don’t see anything wrong with that.

    Then I suggest that you re-read the Constitution until you fully understand that its Congress, and Congress alone, specfically the House of Representatives who control the public purse-strings.

    Not the Courts. Not the Executive Branch. The Congress. Period.
    When you finish grokking that concept, then perhaps you will see the affront to the dignity of the American people inherent in such an act by the Executive.

  22. Oh, here we go with that nasty Constitution again. BiW, I was making the simple point that if I refuse to pay you for services not yet rendered as a result of basically canceling my contract with you, that does not let me off the hook for paying for services prior to cancellation of the contract, unless the entire contract itself is in dispute. Therefore at face value, I don’t see the problem with paying ACORN whatever was promised them prior to the cutoff of funding.

  23. It is a means to learn more about the world and wonders that God created.

    Yup, I think you’ve accurately represented the conservative view, hence the reason why many of them dismiss evolution as pure bunk. If they had no stake in this “God created the heavens and the Earth” theory, they’d be a lot more amenable to evolution and probably a good number of other scientific matters.

    Now, I don’t know if former Muppeteer Jim Henson was a conservative but sadly he was sufficiently religious that he refused medical treatment that might have saved his life. When religion interferes with your acceptance that science can HELP you, we’ve got a major problem.

  24. Speaking of religion, Reverend Rick Warren appeared on “Meet the Press” today and said something I wish more pro-life people would say. He said, “I’m not pro-life. I’m whole-life.” In other words, he cares not only about protecting the rights of the unborn but also making sure that once they ARE born, they get a decent chance at an education and a nurturing environment.

    Man would I like to hear more pro-life people talk that way.

  25. don’t you now have to admit that Obama has been an abject failure in matching up to his campaign promises pertaining to the above?

    ROTFLMAO! I give an inch and Tex wants a mile. I have said before and I shall repeat here, I view Obama’s administration as a work in progress. You will get no admission of abject failure until this time next year, at the earliest.

    Now will I try to be honest and point out the occasional screw up now and then? Sure. I’m waiting until this Tuesday to decide if I’m gonna blast Obama for the new Afghanistan strategy.

  26. Regarding comment 23, Rabbit, you’re very very bad. 👿

    Hey Rabbit, I finally figured out why you know so many Muslims. From what I recently read in Time magazine, you can’t throw a stick in Michigan without hitting one. In fact, I think I read that Dearborn is the Muslim capital of the country. I may be mistaken but I thought I read many Muslim immigrants gathered there to take advantage of the auto industry.

  27. Oh, here we go with that nasty Constitution again. BiW, I was making the simple point that if I refuse to pay you for services not yet rendered as a result of basically canceling my contract with you, that does not let me off the hook for paying for services prior to cancellation of the contract, unless the entire contract itself is in dispute. Therefore at face value, I don’t see the problem with paying ACORN whatever was promised them prior to the cutoff of funding.

    Now you’re pretending at knowledge and ignorance at the same time, R. Whether you pick one or the either or both, there are some inconvenient facts that you have to ignore to conclude as you have.

    1. ALL government spending is the the purview of the House alone. That means that it, not the executive, is ultimately liable for every dollar government spends.

    2. All agencies, including the executive, have to submit a budget to the House for approval. While these budgets may include certain amounts for discretionary spending, it is NOT carte blanche for these agencies to simply “do as they will” with those funds. That is why there are such things as Congressional oversight committees.

    3. These commttees can and have cut off spending, including contractual spending, when they have discovered that the purposes are not exactly what was billed, or have involved criminal enterprises, such as fraud.

    4. On the basis of the ever-coming ACORN videos, revealing employees at its various offices around the country to be perfectly willing to aid and abet criminal enterprises with taxpayer monies, it was both appropriate and legal for Congress to suspend the transfer of any more tax money to what has continually been revealed, all protests from Scott Levinson and Bertha Lewis aside, to be a criminal enterprise.

    5. I don’t remember you being this concerned when about fulfilling promises and making sure that the parties had the benefit of the bargain when ACORN members were video taped breaking into foreclosed homes in the Baltimore area, and proclaiming into the camera “This is our home.”.

    6. I find your propensity to dismiss “that nasty Constitution” symptomatic of the greater affliction that this country and its leaders seem to be afflicted wth these days. It should not surprise me when a jurist nominated for the Supreme Court is on record discussing the judiciary’s “role” in making policy and openly advocating the belief that the gender and racial identity of one jurist will allow one to arrive at a “better” decision than another.
    In the world of your hero, BHO, the Constitution is an impediment, because enough people have read it to understand that it’s limitations on government power prevent precisely the agenda that he has time and again described for his vision of America. What his lust for that type of control has blinded him to is the fact that those impediments are features and not “Bugs”.

    7. The real story here, and the one I have not seen reported is what these contracts that the executive branch has made with this jollyband of scofflaws were for. However, even in the abscence of this knowledge, I know that it is not for the Justice Department, lead by that legal and constitutional genius, Eric “I don’t know the precent for the decision to try unlawful combattants in Article III courts is” Holder to subvert the separation of powers set forth very elegantly in the Constitution. You should be troubled by such activity, however, as the separation of powers exists as a check and balance on all three branches of government.

  28. I give an inch and Tex wants a mile. I have said before and I shall repeat here, I view Obama’s administration as a work in progress

    😆 Where’s the progress? Unless the progress in on the road to Perdition. But you make a good point in the fact, when you know that your policies are not working, to continue to progress is more utter failure. In that case, I agree with you. 🙂

    Sure hope we have not gone so far that we can’t change it back.

  29. Your comment is telling in your ignorance about Rick Warren.

    Two points: (1) Can’t speak for Conservatives but I will speak for Christians. Don’t know how you can insinuate that we are not “whole life”. From our charity, to our hospitals, to volunteerism, to letting out walk be our talk, according to every survey Rutherford the Christian community exemplifies “whole-life”.

    The fact that you need Rick Warren to point that out only shows that you conveniently ignore the pesky facts of who is doing what. Which leads to a question. What exactly are liberals doing for charity that doesn’t lend itself to the pubic coffers?

    I don’t see liberals doing much of anything that doesn’t require a shared pool of federal tax dollars. Can you not dig into your own pocket without asking the assistance of others and show us your works and deeds?

  30. Yup, I think you’ve accurately represented the conservative view, hence the reason why many of them dismiss evolution as pure bunk. If they had no stake in this “God created the heavens and the Earth” theory, they’d be a lot more amenable to evolution and probably a good number of other scientific matters.

    Such as what? Last I looked, I hadn’t seen a conservative objection to the Laws of Gravity or Physics. Yet you think I should accept a theory which has yet to be proven in its entirety, a theory that its own originator could not reconcile convincingly with evidence before him that he could eliminate his own uncertanties from his own work on the subject.
    Do you know how many times the he included words of prevarication such as “perhaps”, “maybe” and the like in Origin of the Species? Perhaps you might find it instructive to count some time. Or his own dilemas reconciling his theory with beehives, peacock feathers, and the human eye? And yet, in your eyes, and the eyes of too many in the “scientific community…the same folks that brought us the “settled science” of climate change, I’m somehow a Luddite because I recognize Darwin’s lifeswork for what it is: A theory that requires proof that has yet to be provided, and not an unassailable truth that the ambitious in the ‘Scientific Community” see as a means to exert control over humanity.

    As for those who rely on faith healing alone, I could say that they failed to use the brains that God gave not only to them, but to those who discovered life-saving treatments, but in truth, I find that no less ridiculous than those who cling to the religion of Darwinism, despite its numerous inconsistancies and modern-day auto-de-fe’s against the scientifically heretcal.

  31. There will come a time when the theory of evolution will go the way of Bulbous Gore’s anthropogenic climate change. Somewhere, someplace somebody will provide a dump of all the horse crap published in the name of science and the one-step monkey crowd will also be left with egg on their face.

    Rutherford just doesn’t recognize that because he is still thinking neanderthals – which he used to tell us were predecessor human until mother’s mitochondrial DNA proved that bogus.

  32. Actually, Dearborn is more of a hub for Arabs as a whole. The original “auto” immigrants from the middle east were Lebanese
    Christians (Maronites) and Greek Orthodox Palestinians. They came here during the last big wave of European immigration. The Muslims followed but many missed the boat on the manufacturing boom. Many Assyrians and Chaldeans from Iraq are small business owners.These people are also Christian. Same with many of the Shiite Lebanese, they own a ton of what we call “party stores”-liquor stores.. The latest wave of immigration was in the early 90’s. Iraqis and Yemenites.

    We do have a ton of Muslims though.

    In high school I was one of 5 or 6 white boys stuffed in a car, starting trouble in an Arabic neighborhood. Instantly, we were surrounded by 50 or 60 of them. A chain smashed through one of the passenger windows and took the front teeth out of my loud mouth buddy. We barely made it out alive. I always think of that day when I think of East Dearborn. A chain taking out someone’s teeth. Ha ha.

    I went to the University of Michigan Dearborn and lived there for about 4 years. There were many jihadist types on the campus.

  33. You know that couple that snuck their way into the Obama State Dinner the other night? Middle aged white guy and his blond wife? How many folks would like to wager whether that same scene would have gone down if the couple had been black, or “Muslim looking”.“– R

    R, I personally don’t think it would matter. If anything, what we are seeing is the continuation of ameture hour at the White House. Pure and simple. The Secret Service will get the black eye for this because they are suppose to know better, but diamonds to dough nuts, I’ll bet they’re taking the rap because some idiot from the administration got hood-winked by a smooth talker. That couple is known in those circles and I’m sure that played a factor.

    BiW has once again nailed it, repeatedly. Man made global warming is not a confirmed truth, regardless of what Al Gore thinks. I find it hilarious, and rather telling, that he refuses to debate anyone on the issue. These scientists refuse to debate the plethora of doubting scientists on the issue. That should be the real measure here, if you are unwilling to debate the doubters on your theory, then there is clearly some issues with your theory.

    Consider this, the Copenhagen conference is going to have “skeptic” representatives on the committee by including British National Party leader Nick Griffin, who is basically a racist. Why? Wasn’t Lord Christopher Monckton available? Here’s the reason, get a skeptic with a shady background so his credibility will be severely questioned and use him. Heaven forbid allowing someone with credibility question a theory that is becoming more and more questionable every day…

  34. G, on the face of it, what you say here is true. A theory that can’t be subjected to scrutiny and debate is hardly worth the paper it’s printed on.

    As this post implied, I will stop beating the drum for global warming at least for the time being. That’s not to say I’m totally dismissing it but it deserves far more critical evaluation. (In truth, global warming was never at the top of my priority list of causes to begin with. Unlike Rabbit, I’ve never been an outdoors kinda guy, and never cared all that much about the environment I don’t litter but that’s about the full extent of my environmental responsibility.)

  35. I think in a prior thread Tex posted a link to a Maureen Dowd column. I’m reposting the link here in case any of you didn’t see it. I love Maureen and this piece is actually quite good. She argues, I think correctly, that Obama’s too-cool-for-school approach, somewhat remote and egg-headish is not serving him well right now. Sarah Palin’s gut appeal has its merits. Sadly, you can be dumb as a post but if you get a visceral reaction, there is something to be said for that.

    http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/22/opinion/22dowd.html?_r=2

  36. Palin can be stupefyingly simplistic, but she seems dynamic. Obama is impressively complex but he seems static.

    Seriously? R, if you read this tripe with regularity, then I think I begin to understand why you you seem to subscribe to a befuddling brand of reality-free lack of clarity.

    Ms. Dowd continues to confuse indecision and foolishness with complexity. Apparently she failed to learn that prevarication and chin-stroking is simply part and parcel of not having any idea what to do, and a failure to trust those charged with advising.

  37. Yes BIC, Rutherford is a little misleading in why I provided the link to the vapid Maureen Dowd. The purpose was to show that even the most inane of the leftist media is beginning to recognize Obama weak.

    I neither think Obama complex or impressive and haven’t thought so from the start. In fact, the only thing that impresses me about Obama is his ability to deliver a prepared speech.

    I have often wondered if Obama is so “infinitely complex” to require a teleprompter above the front door to remind him to tell the kids goodbye. In fact, I am beginning to truly think Obama not terribly bright. He’s made one major gaffe after another and far more than G.W. Bush ever dreamed.

    If it weren’t for the double standards represented in the media and TV, and a gullible audience of Oprah loons, Obama would be a laughingstock and the butt of household jokes, exceeded only by the incomparably ignorant Joe Biden. And man, have they pushed Joe out of the limelight. The real brains behind this whole Obama ordeal have always been Axelrod and Rahm.

    Obama happened to be elected at the perfect storm of causality – a weak opponent, a tanking economy, an unpopular sitting President, an angry majority, and white guilt to be assuaged. Obama and the left foolishly mistook this as a signal to radically transform America.

    Only America didn’t like Obama’s idea of transformation and now has huge regret. We will get the transformation America sought. But not the way Rutherford had hoped! 😉

  38. “Obama happened to be elected at the perfect storm of causality – a weak opponent, a tanking economy, an unpopular sitting President, an angry majority, and white guilt to be assuaged. Obama and the left foolishly mistook this as a signal to radically transform America.”-Tex

    That is so utterly true I’ve read it 5 times over. It’s easily provable too. Do the people want this shit or not? Do they want government health care? Are they cool with the porkalus? Are they fighting for the suicidal cap and trade?

  39. Rutherford,

    I just provided not two weeks ago a fairly comprehensive list of Obama gaffes, of which one you tried to dispute before figuring out you were wrong, and the rest you didn’t deny. The list clearly showed that Obama an idiot outside the speaker stand and teleprompter. Do I need to provide the list again of astounding Obama gaffes?

    Why can’t you just admit that you are again suffering from selective amnesia and profess to understand that the only news channels you watch are clearly in the tank for Obama? Their lovefest with Obama didn’t die as you would like us to believe.

  40. A few questions come to mind:

    1) Did this video remind anyone of the TV series Jackass?

    2) C’mon admit it, weren’t you hoping at least one of them would go splat?

    3) Short of that, weren’t you hoping that once they got in their vehicle and started screaming like banshees that they had a head-on with another vehicle?

    👿

  41. Their lovefest with Obama didn’t die as you would like us to believe.

    I wouldn’t put any money on that Tex …. watch Keith Olbermann’s “special comment” tonight as he sh*ts a brick over Afghanistan.

  42. I wouldn’t watch Olbermann to save my life anymore. He makes me puke and Khalid could do the world a favor and saw his Olbermann’s head off when he goes to court.

    Having said that, “so what if Olbermann craps on Obama tonight?” Two weeks after Obama sends troops to Afghanistan, the phony Olbermann will be back on the Obama band wagon and ragging on George Bush history.

    Want to bet?

  43. Olbermann’s funny if I have had too much to drink, especially when he kicks his self-righteousness into overdrive. Its kind of like watching a special ed kid screaming at the the other kids on the block for being stupid. The problem is that it is his only trick, and as such, it grows tired. Quickly.

  44. “so what if Olbermann craps on Obama tonight?”

    I will say this. The funny thing about Olbermann addressing the President directly in his “Special Comment” is that I think Keith really believes the President is listening to him.

    I enjoy watching Keith tremendously and no one’s research staff is better at popping the Conservative idiot balloon on a nightly basis, but I cannot deny few hosts are more pompous or egotistical.

  45. Do they want government health care?

    Sorry Rabbit, poll after poll after poll says the majority of Americans want the OPTION of having a public option. It does not mean they themselves would sign up for it, but they like the idea of it being available.

    Some 70% of current Medicare (gov’t run reimbursement for health care) recipients like what they have. Don’t come back with “Medicare is broke” ‘cos that’s a bait and switch. You’re talking about popularity, not financial viability and Medicare is popular.

  46. Yet you think I should accept a theory …

    BiW, accept it wholesale? Absolutely not. You should acknowledge that evolution is a reasonable THEORY with holes that must be plugged. If the holes can never be plugged then it needs to be replaced with some other construct. However you cannot be scientifically authentic and offer up creationism as your alternative theory. The existence of God has never and will never be proven scientifically so if creationism really is the answer, then the only conclusion can be that there is no scientific reason for our existence (or at least for our origin).

  47. What exactly are liberals doing for charity that doesn’t lend itself to the pubic coffers?

    Funny you should ask. The other half of that same Meet the Press edition was with Bill and Melinda Gates. Now I’m pretty damn sure Bill is a liberal. Yet he stepped away from Microsoft and does charity full time.

    BAM! 🙂

  48. Oh, we are resorting to Gates and Warren Buffett for supporting lib documentation? 😆

    By the way – as a business man, I think you would find Bill Gates to be about as “unliberal” as they come. In fact, his biggest critics are liberals and Gates was shamelessly ruthless in the competitive market. Does that sound liberal Rutherford? It was the socialist liberals that sued MicroSoft in Europe R.

    No, Gates may be laissez-faire about social issues, but Gates is far from a real liberal as he is first and foremost a businessman. Most of Gates social causes aren’t even domestic. But if Bill Gates social causes are liberal, then I think we would have to define George Bush as a liberal as well, because Bush gave Africa more aid than all other sitting Presidents combined if I’m not mistaken.

    I’m talking about what does the ordinary lib do out of pocket Rutherford? Where are the liberal charitable organizations whose support is derived from their own “congregation. Why don’t you show us YOUR WORKS as example?

    A little side note quote from an interesting source discussing ‘Adolph’ Bush:

    Onyango reserved special words of kindness for former President George W. Bush for a directive he put in place days before the election requiring federal agents get high-level approval to arrest fugitive immigrants, which directly affected Onyango. The directive made clear that U.S. officials worried about possible election implications of arresting Onyango.

    She said she wants to thank Bush in person for the order, which gave her a measure of peace but was lifted weeks later.

    “I loved President Bush,” Onyango said while moving toward a framed photo of Bush and his wife standing with Barack and Michelle Obama at the White House on inauguration day. “He is my No. 1 man in my life because he helped me when I really needed that help.” ~Aunt Onyango Big R

    Bam! 🙂

  49. Why don’t you show us YOUR WORKS as example?

    Well it isn’t really anyone’s business but mine but since it’s been asked by more than one of you in the past, here goes:

    I give annually to:
    The American Cancer Society
    My local PBS station
    Harvard University

    This year I also gave to a fund to provide medical care to Eric de la Cruz who ran into health care red tape. Sadly he subsequently died. I also gave to the fund that provides free health clinics, championed by Keith Olbermann.

  50. PBS doesn’t count – self-serving. Harvard University doesn’t count – self-serving (none of my business, but why in the hell would you give to one of the world’s largest endowments; they obviously aren’t using it for the students?)

    American Cancer Society kudos to you. Don’t know Eric de la Cruz but sounds noble. Anything with Keith Olbermann affiliation is stained beyond recognition and unworthy. Probably a sham being filtered by to Keith’s oversea’s accounts. That is how much I trust that scumbag. He had to do it because O’Reilly is far more generous, far more successful. 😉

    I salute you then. Still say you are a rarity.

  51. Rutherford, something far more important to talk about. 😆

    You said you were a fan of TNG – me too. I was also a fan of the original now and when I was a kid. I can actually say I watched them as a 1st grader.

    If you are a Trekkie, did you see the new one? I thought it was the best of the bunch – besides the Borg two-part from the TNG series. The TNG movies have been for the most part rotten.

  52. By the way, something else mentioned from above.

    I will go on record knowing more than most about genetic mutation and the like: I don’t find evolution as currently defined possible – not even remotely so. I believe the argument has little to do with science. I can find absolutely no support for macro-evolution; none whatsoever. The fossil record is a joke, the math doesn’t work, there are more than just holes, and most importantly its hypothesis testing if you can call it that has a miserable record. Only thing evolving about evolution is the speculation itself.

    But Richard Dawkins doesn’t want you to understand that so he talks academia, knowing fully well most aren’t schooled enough to know what he speaks. I would debate Richard Dawkins and win.

  53. BiW, accept it wholesale? Absolutely not. You should acknowledge that evolution is a reasonable THEORY with holes that must be plugged. If the holes can never be plugged then it needs to be replaced with some other construct.

    And yet if you dare to utter a word against the sacred theory of evolution while under the gaze of the acolytes, whether innocuous, or spoiling for a real fight with them over the very real problems with their “truth”, you are still treated as a heretic. That isn’t surprising when you consider that it requires as much or more faith to believe in evolution as it does other religions, especially when as “scientists”, they are at least constructively aware of the very real problems with the theory that are laid bare in everyday evidence.

  54. May I say in defense of the black man 😆 (That was exclusively for Rutheford to make him smile or smirk; not sure which).

    As a man (forget color), if I were rich and idolized like Tiger Woods, I too would probably find it hard to resist temptation. I have often wondered if I was continually being wooed by beautiful women like I’m sure he is and sitting in some house away from home week after week, probably by himself much of the time, would I have the strength to resist temptation?

    I have one of the world’s best wives, have been married for over 20 years, consider her my best and love her until death, think she is possibly the world’s best mom, and still when I have had that occasional proposition from some average broad, that urge to “venture out” is almost overwhelming. If that happened every day of my life, like Tiger I would have probably succumbed by now.

    I never even really blamed Clinton for succumbing because I know how difficult the temptation is to overcome. What I blamed Clinton for is where and when, then lying about the sordid affair.

  55. The Harvard donation is much more self-serving than you can imagine Tex. Since I can’t afford to give enough to have a building named after me, I figure if I give consistently from the time I graduated to the time my kid applies, it might give her a boost on admissions. 😉

  56. Actually, I can’t call myself a Trekkie. Was never a huge fan of the original … space based sci-fi never did much for me. My wife got me hooked on TNG and it was the character-based stories that held my interest and the larger philosophical themes. From what I understand, the original Trek delved into social issues also. Who knows, I may discover the original in my old age.

    On a side note, I once called my uncle a “Trekkie” and he thought I said “Turkey” and pulled my chain about it for the next 10 years.

  57. I have been very thankful for lack of opportunity in the cheating arena. I also have the great fortune of having found the only woman on the planet who finds me the least bit attractive. So I hear you loud and clear Tex. I think it is close to impossible for a celebrity with even a half functioning sex drive to stay faithful.

    No excusing what Tiger might have done, but I understand.

    Hey Tex, for as much as we’re on tangents here … what’s your next step employment wise? Come up with a way for us to make some money dude!

  58. Rutherford,

    Employment is a dirty word to me! Retired fits me so much better. But with two weddings on the horizon some day, two college tuition for two, possibly paying for my oldest kid’s med school (still to be decided), I guess I really do need to go back to work after six years.

    I’d rather debate philosophy with you. Two old, underemployed, overeducated goofs spinning tall tales? Can we make money off that? You know, something like Rutherford and Tex instead of Hannity and Colmes? Perhaps on MSNBC?

    Besides girls, it is about the only thing that interest me anymore.

  59. I’d rather debate philosophy with you. Two old, underemployed, overeducated goofs spinning tall tales? Can we make money off that? You know, something like Rutherford and Tex instead of Hannity and Colmes? Perhaps on MSNBC?

    It is almost scary how we can be so different and yet so alike. When I posted my money making question, I almost brought up Hannity and Colmes. You truly read my mind.

    As for retirement … heck, if I could retire and attend to this blog and other political/trivia pleasures all day, I’d gladly do it. Not even remotely within the realm of financial feasibility. I don’t know how you’ve lasted six years. Either you outright own your home or you got one helluva golden parachute when you left corp America OR you are frugal enough to make Jack Benny look careless, and you’ve been living off savings. (Sorry, I left out the possibility that your wife makes more than you and I did combined).

    No matter how you slice it, age at this point is NOT an asset in the job search. Network is everything. I don’t know how good you are at networking but my entire network consisted of the company that threw me overboard so they are of no “use” (terrible word) to me now. That is unless you count the others that have gotten thrown overboard since …. they’re looking for jobs too.

    The man may be a blowhard but Rush Limbaugh has got it made! The dude has a friggin radio studio right in his home. It doesn’t get much better than that.

What's on your mind?

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s