A Mother and a Comedian Take On Sarah Palin

There is so much about Sarah Palin to find offensive. Her fans are so entrenched that she can do no wrong in their eyes. I have discussed many times in the comments section of the blog one particularly distasteful aspect of her persona, the way she shamelessly exploits her special needs child. What I get in response from her tireless defenders is that I am the one exploiting this child to make political attacks against Sarah. So I was pleased to find an eloquently written letter on the web today. This letter comes from the mother of a special needs child and she did a much better job than I could ever do of calling Sarah out.

I am the mother of a 16 year-old girl with severe intellectual disabilities. I am disturbed by Mrs Palin’s insincere comments when she speaks out for individuals with developmental delays. I watched The Colbert Report last night, and I have never been more proud to call myself a fan of Stephen Colbert.

But also, as a mother I wonder what is in Trig’s future.

If his Down Syndrome does not severely effect his ability and he is able to read, he will read his mother’s autobiography and learn that she questioned if she could love him. He will read interviews that his mother considered even for a split second to terminate her pregnancy, he will become aware that many consider his mother a hero for not terminating her pregnancy – thus knowing that among her fans he is considered beautiful but somehow a burden.

She needs to start treating him quietly as a child who will grow into a man. She needs to learn to advocate for him and not allow him to be a victim of satire when it suits her and a victim of discrimination when it can get her attention.

And she needs to stop using him as a political prop. A child with such needs should surely not be hauled around half-naked in front of flash photographers to promote a book tour, or be routinely referred to in speeches for applause lines. It’s unseemly. But then so much about this person is.

via A Mother With A Special Needs Child – The Daily Dish | By Andrew Sullivan.

After I read this, I wanted to find this woman and give her a hug. You see, the “hero card” that Sarah plays with respect to Trig, how courageous Sarah was not to terminate the pregnancy, sends the exact opposite message from the one a true advocate of the disabled would send. As the mother above points out, if you view your child as a burden, you’re already starting off on the wrong foot. There is no nobility in Sarah keeping Trig. She was supposed to have kept Trig. Had she placed him (or terminated him) it would have been a sign of her weakness as a human being, perhaps a forgivable weakness but a weakness just the same. You don’t get points for doing what you are supposed to do.

The mother also mentions a segment on Comedy Central’s “Colbert Report” where Stephen Colbert takes Sarah to task for her junior high school cheat notes written on her hand and the “retard” hypocrisy she exhibits for attacking White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel but giving Rush Limbaugh a pass for the same behavior. Apparently, so long as satire is involved (and in Rush’s case there was no satire), it’s ok to use the word “retard” according to Sarah. So Stephen Colbert invites us all to declare:

Sarah Palin is a f*cking retard.

It’s just satire right?

Vodpod videos no longer available.

Respectfully,
Rutherford

WordPress.com Political Blogger Alliance

Advertisements

234 thoughts on “A Mother and a Comedian Take On Sarah Palin

  1. No satire in Rush’s case? Did you listen to Rush when he said it? I thought not…

    I don’t think I’ve ever seen Palin use Trig as a prop, and lets be honest, if you were going to have a baby who you knew was going to be mentally disabled, do you not think that regardless of your faith or belief that the notion of abortion might not cross your mind? I think it more courageous and honest to say the thought came and went than to lie about it.

    I don’t think anyone, at least anyone I know, would consider having a downs baby as a burden, but lets be honest, there is a whole lot more that goes into it and it is a challenge most would not willingly take.

    This, just like all your other posts on Palin, is drivel. You are so driven by hate for this women who quite frankly has more experience than your beloved One, and who can do what even the One can do longer, draw thousands to see her speak.

    You need to move on…

  2. Gorilla, you can talk to me about Palin reasonably when your penis is at ease.

    Please defend Rush, please. The politically correct should not get upset when we call retards retards. How do you spin that? How do you spin that Sarah defended Rush’s attack on political correctness using the word “retard”?

    And again, in another example of how Sarah Palin has degraded the women’s movement, what would be your attitude toward any serious male politician who used Facebook as his medium? You’d laugh at him. But the boobs make everything alright, right?

    Did you know that an extended member of her “Dr. Phil family” says that at home in private she refers to Trig as “my retarded baby”?

    Sadly, I won’t be able to “move on” until sometime in 2011 when I can be sure she will not run for the White House. So long as she just wants to be a celebrity, I could care less about her, but for as long as she entertains the notion of leading this country, I will do all I can to bring her mean, ignorant and yes, dangerous mind set into the full light of day.

  3. Rush can defend himself…

    RUSH: Rahm Emanuel’s apology apparently has been accepted. The early news was that it was not accepted, right? But The Politico has a story from Ben Smith and an update: “Emanuel met yesterday with six disability advocates. He sincerely apologized again for using the R-word, promising to sign an online pledge to end the use of the word.” Now, get this. “Emanuel also promised to examine congressional legislation that would remove the word from federal law.” Now, what kind of F-ing nonsense is this? I’m just quoting Emanuel here, folks. (laughing) The Drive-Bys are trying to goad Sarah Palin into denouncing me, just like she denounced Rahm Emanuel. But Sarah Palin knows I’m quoting Emanuel in all this. They’re trying anything to get Sarah Palin. From Andrea Mitchell, NBC News, Washington, to everybody else at MSNBC and Margaret Carlson of Bloomberg, oh, they’re all trying to get Sarah Palin to denounce me just as she did Rahm, and if she doesn’t do it she’s a hypocrite, they’re saying. She knows that I do this kind of thing. Sarah Palin is a lifelong listener to this program.

    I have never told you people this. It was in our Sarah Palin interview in the Limbaugh Letter. But one of the years I’m out at the Bob Hope Chrysler Classic a guy comes up to me and says, “My daughter is a huge fan, would you sign a book for me?” and it was a copy of my book and it was to Sarah Palin, long before she was governor of Alaska. I’ve had a couple chats with her, one on the air here and one for the Limbaugh Letter, the most widely read political newsletter in the country. So they’re trying to goad her into denouncing me like they did Emanuel, but she knows that all I’m doing is quoting Emanuel and highlighting that it’s these people who say this kind of stuff. Now, as for Emanuel promising to examine congressional legislation that would remove the word from federal law because he used the term “retarded” as an insult — and, remember, he was calling his own party members this. He was calling liberal activists the R-word. The Drive-Bys also can’t believe that I came to Emanuel’s defense yesterday. They just do not get it.

    Twenty-plus years and they don’t get it. They thought I was coming to his defense yesterday when I said, “What’s wrong with calling a bunch of retards a bunch of retards?” And the retards he’s talking about are the liberal activists. (laughing) Folks, I can’t tell you — and I’m not going to use the word anymore — I cannot tell you what fun this is. I look at this, if I could just know women like I know liberal media people, how my life would change. How it would have been different, because I know everything. There’s not one question I cannot answer about these people. There’s not one behavioral mode that I cannot not predict. I just know ’em. So because Rahm Emanuel used the R-word as an insult, he’s now going to decree that it must be stricken from the country’s legislation over the past 200 years? I mean he’s promised to examine congressional legislation that would remove the word from federal law? What an arrogance of power and what a waste of money and time. And that is assuming that this is anything more than just an empty promise, which is highly likely.

    For the record, I looked it up here, we did a check, the R-word, or a variation of it, appears nine times in the Senate version of the health care reform bill. Did you know that? And we all know who wrote that bill, don’t we? Democrats. The Republicans were shut out of the process. So the R-word is used nine times in the Senate health care bill. So maybe that fact will kill it once and for all. You can’t pass that bill, you got the R-word in there, the president’s chief of staff just apologized for using it. So if the R-word is to be the new N-word, maybe Mr. Emanuel’s time could be better spent getting the term expunged from his boss’s two autobiographies. We checked into this, too. From Dreams from My Father, page 73: “The old white man sat down, retarded now, or senile, and when I looked again he was a small black girl, her feet barely reaching the pedals.” From The Audacity of Hope, page 22: “At times during his first campaign, [Bill Clinton’s] gestures toward disaffected Reagan Democrats could seem clumsy and transparent (whatever happened to Sister Souljah?) or frighteningly coldhearted (allowing the execution of a mentally retarded death row inmate to go forward on the eve of an important primary).”

    “Luckily there has been no complaint about Mr. Emanuel’s use of the F-word.” Is this not amazing? Is that not amazing? When you stop and think of all of this, he said F-ing. No big deal there. Ha! That’s not a problem. (interruption) Well, I don’t know. Snerdley is asking me how many words are we going to have to ban before this is — I don’t know but we’re certainly headed that way.

    As for the Wallace interview…

    WALLACE: Rush Limbaugh weighed in this week and he said this: “Our politically correct society is acting like some giant insult has taken place by calling a bunch of people who are retards, ‘retards.'”

    PALIN: He was satirical on that.

    WALLACE: Wait! Let me finish!

    PALIN: Okay.

    WALLACE: “I mean these people, these liberal activists, are kooks.” Should Rush Limbaugh apologize?

    PALIN: They are kooks, so I agree with Rush Limbaugh. Rush Limbaugh was using satire to bring attention to what this politically correct —

    WALLACE: But he used the R-word!

    PALIN: He was using satire. Name-calling by anyone — I teach this to my children; you teach it to your children and your grandchildren, too. Name-calling by anyone, it’s just unnecessary. It just wastes time.

    RUSH: Wallace kept going, but Palin stuck to her guns.

    PALIN: I didn’t hear Rush Limbaugh calling a group of people whom he did not agree with “F-ing retard,” and we did know that Rahm Emanuel — it’s been reported — did say that. There’s a big difference there. But again, name-calling, using language that is insensitive by anyone — male, female, Republican, Democrat — it’s unnecessary, it’s inappropriate and let’s all just grow up.

  4. I think using facebook is brilliant since it completely removes the bias of the media from it. Anyone can see what she says and take it from there. It is you and the left that has to react, which is hilarious…

    SO no, no degrading women there. Keep trying though R, I wouldn’t want you to be a quitter…

  5. Interesting article, R….

    On this one, we are not in complete agreement.

    As I mentioned on my own blog this morning, Palin’s advocacy for the developmentally disabled is perhaps the only issue I agree with her on. Let me refine that a bit. I agree with her message – though perhaps not with her motives.

    I don’t think Palin cared a rats ass about the developmentally disabled before Trig was born. Indeed I think she milks it for personal gain. As the mother you cite notes, I don’t think it is particularly good for the child to be paraded around for the cameras.

    But – even if her motives are wrong, her message is good. I am trained in Psychology and my wife and I have both worked with developmentally disabled populations. I can tell you first hand that the public reaction to the mentally ill and the developmentally disabled is “they are gross – I don’t want to see them – get them out of my sight.”

    If you don’t believe me, try establishing a group home for developmentally disabled kids sometime. I guarantee you will hear the most hateful things directed at those kids. I am not talking about former drug addicts or criminals – I am talking about people with the mental level of a 4 year old. They may not be pretty to look at (though there is indeed an inner beauty in them if you allow yourself to see it) – but they are absolutely harmless. There is no moral reason to deny them residence in your neighborhood – but I have yet to see a neighborhood into which they were welcomed.

    The general public do not want to see the mentally ill or the developmentally disabled. By putting a face on these people – and by showing that indeed they can live normal lives – by showing that they can be accepted and loved – Palin is indeed doing a great service for this population.

    Finally, I disagree with the mother you quote. Any honest parent of a developmentally disabled child will tell you that indeed that child is a burden at times. That does not diminish the love you feel for that child – the joy of having the child will far outweigh the burden. But – there will be dark days – and it is simply a lie to claim otherwise. It is not an easy task to raise a DD child – and we shouldn’t attack someone for being honest about that.

    There. I said something nice about Palin. Don’t get used to it because it won’t happen often.

    — hippieprof

  6. Yes, it was Hippie Prof. I agree with the Rabbit. And the difference between your explanation and Rutherford’s rant is level of maturity seldom seen in the progressive circles.

    Rutherford, like his heroes on MSNBC, will stoop to any level if he believes there is something to be gained.

  7. “You know you’ve been blogging too long when you can write your reader’s comments for them. I predicted Rabbit would say he was bored. LOL”

    More like you have been blogging about Palin too long.

    Boring stuff, man.

    There is a ton of crazy shit going down right now.

    Seriously, is there any new angle you have on her? If not, why not just post a link to an older blog.

  8. You mean Rutherford doesn’t know who Elle Light is? The well connected blogger? No mention on PuffHO, or DU, or KKKos, or Queef Ogremann?

    I suspected Rutherford was Elle.

    Well, I can mark one rube and Obama drone off my list. I marked Densico off immediately because she can’t right that well.

  9. HP, one of the things I admire about you is your moderation. However, in comparing our approaches on this, Tex is very simply full of sh*t.

    You probably don’t know this HP but I am disabled. Not Chester with a limp in Gunsmoke disabled. Seriously disabled with enough “birth defects” (to use a non-PC phrase) that at least a small minority of folks assume I am mentally retarded on sight.

    I went to school with children of various developmental levels when I was very young. I am acutely aware of how cruel people can be without even knowing it.

    Now let’s get to Sarah. When Sarah first came on the national scene I had only one consolation about her becoming VP, namely that there would be an advocate for the disabled in the White House. What has happened since? HP, has she advocated a damn thing? What has she done beyond using her child as a constant excuse for outrage?

    Language is important. I know better than most on this blog the challenge of having a disabled child. It is no walk in the park. But I can also contrast my parent’s attitude with that of other parents I knew. My parents worked damn hard with me. I was a challenge but I was no burden. A boy I knew who had muscular dystrophy had to contend with his mother openly pitying him in front of anyone who would listen. It made his short life that much more miserable.

    Parading your Down Syndrome child around and using his disability to score political points is NOT advocacy. Seeing your mentally retarded sister lobotomized and then dedicating your life to improving those of the disabled … that’s advocacy. Sarah Palin isn’t fit to stand near Eunice Shriver’s grave.

    Finally, I don’t blame someone who knows they are about to give birth to a disabled child being very scared. I can even see them being disappointed because everyone has been led to believe that their kid has to fly through the Apgar test with flying colors to amount to anything. If everything I heard about Sarah Palin led me to believe she was compassionate and caring, then any doubts she might have had about Trig would be in a whole new perspective. I’d actually relate to her and have empathy. But she’s a shallow, mean woman so I’m sorry. I don’t give her the benefit of any doubt.

    As I said at the outset, you are fair and you probably give folks more of a chance than I do. And for that I give you sincere kudos.

    I’ve written this from my iPhone so please pardon the typos.

  10. A man not interested in honesty or truth, but to push an agenda with his propaganda, though I’m sure to anyone of sound mind that is abundantly apparent. Somewhere, Goebbels smiles at this putrid piece of shit and that Revolting Pawn creep claps.

    You hide behind your hatred Rutherford and expose your nature elsewhere, occasionally using your disability or your race as excuse to mask your contempt. Why don’t you drop the pretense of nice guy? I was wrong – there’s not an ounce of integrity in you. And you ought to know I’m of the Jerry Lewis opinion – being disabled doesn’t excuse you from being an asshole.

    I’m convinced if Sarah Palin cured MS tomorrow, you could find something to condemn her and her children for. This post is a new low for you. Cheap propaganda pap and nothing but an attempt to destroy when all others have failed. I can’ t believe you didn’t mention the oldest daughter’s baby – you and David Letterman, sick fucks that you are.

    What’s wrong? Did you feel the need to lash out when I answered your insipid questions much to your dissatisfaction on the previous thread? Didn’t beat up on silly Sarah enough? You want me to write a sad, sad story posing as a mother with disabled child and lay it on thick, while savaging Barack so some equally mindless hack from the right can use it as proof of something?

    Let’s just assume Eunice Shriver was a saint for a minute. You didn’t have a problem with Obama mocking the special Olympic participants in a revealing moment exposing his puny ass, now did you? Not a mention, if memory serves. And that mofo would sell you out in a heartbeat if it served his purposes. You’re a fool.

    And I didn’t read you condemn Rahmbo Emanuel either, the ballet twirling tutu, for calling the idiots Obama surrounded himself “fucking retards”, now did you? That’s twice old Rahm has shown his inner self for all the world to see. But somehow, that escaped the Rutherford microscope too. How convenient.

    Feh on your pathetic website. I kick myself in the ass for wasting my time with you and I should have known better. You don’t deserve my attention anymore.

    I’ll use this piece of garbage to link to more worthy sites – and there won’t be a damn thing you can do to stop me, short of turning it off. Count it as hits to boost your fragile ego.

  11. R…..

    No – I hadn’t realized that you were disabled – and I do feel a bit silly now. To say the least, I guess I don’t need to belabor my point about how cruel the general public can be toward people with disabilities.

    You and I are in agreement over Palin’s motives – she does not strike me as particularly sincere in her advocacy for the disabled – perhaps because she wears it on her sleeve so and perhaps because I don’t see any evidence of this prior to Trig’s birth.

    But – I still think her advocacy – whatever the motive – is bound to have a positive effect. Modeling is a powerful thing. If her followers see her acting in an accepting, loving way toward a disabled child it is likely that their own attitudes toward people with disabilities will shift in a positive direction. Every study I know on attitude chance suggests that should happen.

    — hp

  12. “Parading your Down Syndrome child around and using his disability to score political points is NOT advocacy.” — R

    You’re right R, she should just lock him up in a box whenh she’s about so no one gets the impression that she is parading her Down’s kid around.

    While we’re on the subject of child exploitation, I look forward to your next post throwing Obama and Edwards under the bus for having their kids campaign with them. While you’re at it, toss in Kennedy too for allowing photos of the boys in the Oval office (and Obama’s horrendously cheap copy of the photo for that matter).

    Here’s the crux of the issue- Rahm Emanuel is an asswhole, who treats people like shit and has no respect for anyone unless they can give him something. He got caught being an uncouth prick and you’re pissed that A) he was held to account, B) that it was Palin that held him accountable because the media wasn’t saying shit about it till then, and C) that the right has been able to have fun at his expense.

    I’m sorry you’re sad, but get over it…

  13. So Iran is now a nuclear state.

    I know! Maybe if the Chicago Messiah gives them his pattented stink-eye and a lecture, they’ll see the error of their ways and renounce their nuclear ambitions.

    No? Ok then. It wasn’t like Obama was a friend to Israel any way. No great loss, right?

  14. Tex, take a chill pill. You see you’ve upped the emotional ante by defending the indefensible. Usually, you take a position that has a shred of intellectual integrity and I find the only time you go off the edge is when logic can no longer win your argument.

    Sarah Palin is a mean, ill equipped, over-exposed and possibly dangerous personality. The sooner you admit it and move on the better you’ll feel. You’re beside yourself because for once you know I’m right.

  15. Sarah Palin is a mean, ill equipped, over-exposed and possibly dangerous personality. The sooner you admit it and move on the better you’ll feel. You’re beside yourself because for once you know I’m right.

    Funny, I could say the same about the current pResident of the Oval Office, and its something more people would know, except whenever the press came close to anything resembling scrutiny of the small man with a very big ego, he suddenly had to eat his waffle, or was concerned about the reporter wasting their question. But hey, he loves America so much that he has to fundamentally change it, right?

  16. HP, no need to feel silly. You can’t know what you don’t know. Some of the regulars here know it because it has come up in discussion.

    I will grant you this. People already pre-disposed to liking Sarah Palin may see Down Syndrome and other disabilities in a new, more positive light. On that you are right. What is exploitation in my eyes may be “hey never saw a pretty woman walk around with her disabled kid before” in someone else’s eyes. Still I cannot get past how she never gives up an opportunity to politicize it, and frankly HP, I’d like to better understand from you why Rush and Glenn Beck should get a free pass. You don’t see the hypocrisy in that? You don’t see how that unmasks Sarah’s outrage as purely political?

    Back to Tex a minute. Get off your high horse dude. You know damn well I don’t mask sh*t behind disability. I would not have even mentioned it were it not for the fact that HP needed some context and needed to understand that I KNOW what lots of disabled people, including Trig go through.

    I didn’t go after Sarah’s kids in this post so what are you smoking? And you know what? Nasty ass guys like Rahm AND Rush can say “retard” and “gimp” till the cows come home and I won’t ask for their jobs. When Rush continually engages in sedition … yeah that is when I want his f*cking job. When Obama made his Special Olympics joke on Leno … insensitive but not the end of the world. It got folks upset and he apologized. We live in a PC world. Sarah as much as said so herself … defending Rush. But Sarah gets PC when it suits her. Very selectively.

    I’m convinced if Sarah Palin cured MS tomorrow, you could find something to condemn her …

    LOL You’re right. You know why? Because if Sarah cured MS tomorrow, she’d announce on her Facebook page:

    I am proud to announce I have cured that nasty disease Multiple Sclerosis, in spite of every attempt by the Obama administration to stop my progress. This is understandable since it is in the best interests of liberals to keep kids with MS sick and dependent on the government.

    You know damn well, that is how the announcement would read. She is a tumor on the body politic.

  17. G, for goodness sake give it a rest. No, I don’t think Trig should be hidden in a box. Trig flying all over the country on a book tour. Is that the “campaign” you were referring to? There is also a difference between a child being seen with a candidate and an infant being carted around everywhere. Infants need special care and special needs infants need even more care.

    Let’s be fair. You point out for me any female Democratic candidate who has made such a big deal of “hey look at me, I’ve got a new born baby”.

  18. BiW, first on Iran … your solution please? Sanctions or preemptive strike?

    Second, I think you’ve hit it pretty well. I think you dislike Obama, the man, and yes I dislike Palin the woman. Nothing can come from a vacuous venom pit. So in your view, Obama will never do anything to earn your respect and the same goes for me and Sarah. We are indeed at a stalemate.

  19. R said…. I will grant you this. People already pre-disposed to liking Sarah Palin may see Down Syndrome and other disabilities in a new, more positive light. On that you are right. What is exploitation in my eyes may be “hey never saw a pretty woman walk around with her disabled kid before” in someone else’s eyes.

    And that is the point I was trying to make. Indeed people who are disposed to liking Palin should theoretically come away with more positive attitudes. Theoretically, those of us who are not predisposed to liking will like her somewhat better because of this – though it will be muted to the extent we question her motives. That is the case for me – I do have an ever-so-slightly more positive attitude toward her than I would otherwise.

    Still I cannot get past how she never gives up an opportunity to politicize it, and frankly HP, I’d like to better understand from you why Rush and Glenn Beck should get a free pass.

    Wow – I don’t think I ever claimed that Rush or Beck should get a free pass on anything. Either we stop being PC and everyone gets a free pass – or we continue to be PC and nobody gets a pass. Anything else is indeed hypocrisy.

    — hp

  20. BiW, first on Iran … your solution please? Sanctions or preemptive strike?

    You assume that those are the only two answers.

    There is no love lost between Iran and the Saudis, or Iran and Egypt, or…You get the point. Iran has a very serious problem at home, and Obama already blew one chance to be correct with that. It is likely that the Iranians themselves who want “regime change” are no longer adequate to the task since the Official Navel Gazer decided to “bear witness” to their slaughter months ago in the vain hope that Iran wouldn’t condemn us, a plan so brilliant that the Iranian government had no trouble at all messing it up and condemning us anyway, so that we are now double-damned for our silence rather than support for people wanting a small taste of what we have.

    Having completely botched what was perhaps the only opportunity to let Iranians change Iran from within, the only thing that will work now will be outside intervention. Sanctions have been completely ineffective, so doing more of something that doesn’t work makes no sense.

    Therefore, what remains is letting Israel take care of business, which they will do if we don’t…it is about their survival now, or we do. If we don’t back Israel, then we get to hold our manhood cheap, because it will be the last demonstration to the world how we back our freinds and allies when things get tough, and if we do, we find ourselves roundly condemned for it, and likely face and energy embargo that we are ill-equipped to face because of of 30+ years of half-witted environmental policy courtesy of Dhimicrats. But don’t worry. Whatever course we take, I’m sure that Obama will blame it on Boooooosh.

  21. Wow – I don’t think I ever claimed that Rush or Beck should get a free pass on anything. Either we stop being PC and everyone gets a free pass – or we continue to be PC and nobody gets a pass. Anything else is indeed hypocrisy.

    Preach that to everyone on your side of the aisle, HP. Please. I’d love for us to no longer have the condemnations and denounciations as an excuse for us all to not have an honest conversation.

  22. BiW said…. Preach that to everyone on your side of the aisle, HP. Please. I’d love for us to no longer have the condemnations and denounciations as an excuse for us all to not have an honest conversation.

    You know, I think we can agree on that BiW. I won’t agree that my side if the only one doing it – but I would certainly agree that it gets in the way of honest conversation.

    Mine is certainly the party of POLITICAL correctness. Might I suggest that there is another type of PC – PATRIOTIC correctness? I am tired of being told that I am somehow less patriotic because my ideas lie somewhere to the left of what a REAL true American Patriot would think.

    — hp

  23. Tex, since you are already pissed at me, I might as well throw gas on the fire.

    From your medical days, have you ever heard of Trisomy-G? From what I am hearing, it is a medical term for Down Syndrome. What I’m also hearing is that hospital nurses affectionately call babies born with Trisomy-G “trig babies”. I’ve also read the medical community uses the word trig as an abbreviation for the affliction.

    Tex, and I am begging you to be honest here, have you ever heard Trisomy-G shortened as “trig” and if so, could Ms. Palin be odd enough to have chosen the name for that reason? (One theory I read was that at the hospital she heard her son referred to as a trig baby and found it cute not knowing the meaning, so she named him Trig., Of course, Palin has documented that the boy’s name is from the Norse name that is usually spelled Trygg or Trigg.)

    We live in a world of conspiracy theories which is why I would never devote a post to this conjecture but I’d definitely like your opinion at least on the medical terminology aspect. You must admit, if the medical terminology is used, then the boy’s name is most unfortunate.

  24. What do you care if that’s why she named the child?

    You’re just plain old weird sometimes.

    Who cares??????????

    Is this proof to you of Palin being much more evil then other political hacks?

    Al Gore did more then parade his jack ass son around. He hooked him up with some cushy job as magazine editor for getting the “message” out to young people.

    How many times as Al Gore III been arrested anyways?

    We need to investigate the Gore family much more, with special attention given to Al’s dysfunctional son.

    Or not.

  25. I think it’s entirely possible that Rutherford is projecting his own mental problems on Palin.

    Do you have Mommy issues? Some sort of pent up anger blaming Mom for your deformities?

    See how it feels when people play this shit?

  26. Well, you know what Rabbit? Your question about “Mommy issues” is a perfectly valid one for people debating in the public square. You find my feelings toward Palin irrational so you have every right to conjecture on what my motivations might be.

    Palin definitely hits my buttons. I’ll tell you a mother button she hits. My late Mom and other mothers of disabled kids I knew, were (or at least acted) completely unfazed by having a disabled kid. They marched the kid around in public. Included him or her in all sorts of activities. And it looked natural. Nothing forced. No grandstanding.

    Now Sarah is by profession a politician, so maybe I judge her unfairly, but I see politics in lots of what she does. And I’ve read stories that she’s a lousy Mom, not just for Trig but for the whole brood. So what, you ask. I would agree if she weren’t pushing the “hockey Mom’, “girl next door” persona. In other words, I think she’s a fraud.

    You know, this is not an exact parallel but it keeps coming to mind. Rock musician Neil Young has a child (probably a man by now) with Cerebral Palsy. The only reason I know this is that it is mentioned in his biography and he brings it up in interviews from time to time. He’s done work on the down-low to help with CP related things. He doesn’t drag the kid on stage for every gig. Now all politicians display their kids more than average to promote a certain image. I don’t deny that. But Sarah seems to enjoy promoting them as victims.

    I already know you don’t agree with this, but I think Sarah should PRIVATELY have told David Letterman, “if you ever smear one of my kids in public again I will claim every last dollar you ever make again.” She chose instead to engage in a very public feud with him, oblivious to how this might actually worsen the damage already done to her daughter Willow. You see, it’s about Sarah. It’s always about Sarah.

    Finally, since you’re conjecturing about my Mommy issues, I have a conjecture of my own. I think that a lot of guys like Tex are reminded of women they know by Sarah Palin. She is a “type” that is familiar to them, and very endeared to them. So when I insult or attack Sarah, I attack their prototype of the ideal woman. Because I assure you, if you don’t find Tex’s reaction to what I say at least as unhinged as what I said in the first place, then you’re just not seeing things fairly. Palin is bringing out visceral reactions in a lot of us. Positive and negative.

  27. So…..you read somewhere Palin is a terrible mother. You find proof of this prejudice at every turn. (how shocking)

    So much so, that the subject of Palin’s motherhood is a quarterly installment at the Rutherford Lawson blog.

    You hate her politics. Hell, you hate her.

    Fair enough.

    But your desire to demonize her makes you a hypocrite every time you fail to explore, in minute detail, the family relationships of every other politician who enjoys a photo op with the fam.

    Lets cut through some of your bull shit.

    1. Kids can be a burden. I love my son, but if you think he also isn’t a burden at times you must be a rare soul who enjoys being woken up at 3 in the morning on a work night.

    2. Everyone uses there family politically.

    Yes, everyone.

    I love my wife, but I also have found myself “using” the fact I am married as a form of social legitimacy.

    Same with the baby. I use the baby all the time at work. “Look at me, the big goon who is a loving Dad of a cute baby.”

    Are there politicians who are socio-paths? Absolutely.

    But how dare you claim to understand Palin so completely that you feel yourself capable of constantly questioning the very core of her family.

    It just aint right.

    Your conclusions rest on pure speculation.

    Considering the vile rumors that have been proven to be utterly false about the woman, it amazes me how quickly you accept articles on her motherhood as gospel to be only expanded on.

    Ask yourself.

    Is there even remotely the same amount of critical editorials on the motherly or fatherly merits of any other politician?

    No.

    This is why Tex is beside himself with anger.

  28. Now Sarah is by profession a politician, so maybe I judge her unfairly,
    Maybe, but I suspect that you judge her unfairly because she is a conservative politician, since, IMHO, you don’t seem to be able to take very good stock of a lot of them you feel the need to blog about.

    And I’ve read stories that she’s a lousy Mom, not just for Trig but for the whole brood.
    Yeah…about that. I’m not sure that Levi Johnson a/k/a Johnny Hollywood is really the most credible source to consult on her parenting skills. I would actually be very skeptical of any criticism of any person’s parenting skills because so many people have a public persona and a private one, and in many cases, they are very different. Many of the people who get to observe Rutherford the parent, or Blackiswhite the parent only get to see what occurs in public. Put another way, even if you were to observe me with Heir No. One at Cub Scouts and that was it, that one hour a week is not representative of a total style or skill set, and given the fact that he has very high functioning Aspbergers, there are things I might do or say when there to cut through or redirect his otherwise overly emotional reaction to certain things, someone who witnessed it might think that my skills are lacking, or that I am somehow not treating himn correctly. Given the visceral response to Palin that has been programmed into many leftists, I think it is entirely possible that it only increases the likelihood of ill-informed or under-informed criticisms.

    So what, you ask. I would agree if she weren’t pushing the “hockey Mom’, “girl next door” persona. In other words, I think she’s a fraud.

    Or it is just as likely that it simply makes it easier to dismiss her if you can characterize her this way in your head.

  29. I guess I’d ask Rabbit and BiW, did I miss something? I thought her being a Mom, a hockey mom specifically, was a major part of her campaign rhetoric. Didn’t she invite scrutiny in this matter?

    I honestly don’t recall Geraldine Ferraro (our only real precedent) making motherhood a big part of her persona. Did she? Now I DO recall talk of her husband being a mobster so she did get some family scrutiny.

    I don’t recall Hillary Clinton making a big deal out of being a mother either, not during the primary or even as First Lady. If either Hillary or Geraldine had made motherhood a big deal, I think people would have wanted to look under the hood there too.

    Levi Johnston is a scumbag but he also got sucked into a campaign he probably wanted no part of. But I can go beyond Levi …. there is Shannyn Moore, an Alaskan blogger who has followed Sarah closely. So no, I don’t rely on Levi for credible info.

    Your turn, name me any other female politician who has made her own family so central to her persona and then I will fall on my sword for that woman not getting Sarah level scrutiny.

  30. “Your turn, name me any other female politician who has made her own family so central to her persona and then I will fall on my sword for that woman not getting Sarah level scrutiny.”-Rutherford

    An unfair question.

    For one, there haven’t many female politicians on the big stage.

    Secondly, many female politicians actually downplay the family due to strange over-compensation issues or liberal “career first” dogma.

    Lastly, your interpretation of “hockey mom” is out there, dude.

    Palin claiming “hockey mom” status isn’t really a challenge for America to pick a part individuals in her household or her merits as a mother per say.

    It’s one of many bumper sticker terms politicians love to throw around.

    In this case, “hockey mom” insinuates a “middle class” life style in which a ton of time and a large percentage of disposable income goes towards the kids.

    That’s why she used “hockey” instead of “soccer”. Hockey is expensive. Ice time is hard to get. Long trips on the weekend etc.

    Soccer insinuates yuppies driving their expedition to the park on Sunday.

    The sport actually means something in this case, but you’re too much of an East Coast geek to know that.

    It’s a secular term with populist undertones.

    It’s also probably a little silly, as all these corn ball slogans in politics are.

    It’s hard to believe I have to explain this stuff to you, but your in many ways an isolated man.

    Palin is a unique story. She truly rose out of the middle class, starting with the PTA for God’s sake. She showed off her family as proof her middle class status. (You show me a female politician with as many kids as Palin!).

    No doubt. She played the hockey mom card and you have every right to call bull shit. But understand the damn term first.

    The media was insane-INSANE-from day one when it came to Palin’s family. It was and is exponentially out of proportion with any “showcasing” by Palin of her kids.

    The “Hockeymom” motif isn’t a literal

  31. “I don’t recall Hillary Clinton making a big deal out of being a mother either”

    The Clinton’s have done a great job with Chelsea. No doubt, raising a duaghter in the White House must bring about challanges that I can’t even imagine.

    But make no mistake about it. Hillery aint no hockey mom.

    Hillery wasn’t making Hamburger Helper and breast feeding at the same time with her mind on making sure the oldest makes 9 o’clock practice with the ice time check in hand. Oh yeah, there’s the J-O-B too.

    You see the difference?

    Hell, I’m not even saying one is more noble then the other.

    It’s just i can identify with one more. Palin played up this commonality I share with her. That makes her the worst person since Freddy Kruger to you.

    I think the chick is an overachieving dunce. The fact I have to defend her so much on here sheds some light on the fact that you need to learn about the conservatism you claim to hate so much.

  32. Your turn, name me any other female politician who has made her own family so central to her persona and then I will fall on my sword for that woman not getting Sarah level scrutiny.

    Once again, you had the answer in your hand, and once again, you mistook it for the question.

    There is no comparison between Palin and say…Stretch Pelosi or Canckles Rodham Clinton. Not because the latter are better or smarter (I know you think otherwise, R) but because family was different for them. Stretch Pelosi is a grandmother, and her husband is fairly wealthy. You went to an Ivy League school, so understand the difference between growing up wealthy and growing up middle class. Hillary was a busy career-woman in the field of law. More than one child would have been out of the question (and hardly worth it when your husband was chasing other skirts anyway). And both have used those things to craft a persona that in many ways conservatives find just as fraudulent. Hillary sought to portray herself as a smart, tough career woman. I don’t think yelling at people who are there to serve you as their duty to the office doesn’t make you tough (various accounts I have read about her treatment of White House staff and Secret Service in the Clinton Administration…see how easy that is?), just as I think staying with a husband who got a hummer in the Oval Office and made it a national scandal is especially smart, especially as it was one more in a string of “bimbo eruptions”. It tells me that it is about the power and the proximity to it.

    Nancy may be a parent to mulitple children, but did not share the same experiences as many middle class families. The idea of Nancy cooking dinner while holding a baby and making sure the older kids do their homework is a lot less believable than the idea of Nancy being upset because the restaurant lost her reservations, or fretting over which wine to have with the hors d’overs.

    Sarah had a different life, and consequently a different relationship with her family. That doesn’t mean that it is better or worse, but those experiences don’t reasonate with a large portion of Americans. Hers do.

    As for your “blogger” source, did nothing I said get through to you? That would be a little like saying that Rush Limbaugh could make credible and accurate observations on Obama’s parenting style from what he has seen. As I have already pointed out, its weak tea delivered by someone with an axe to grind. However, do you mean to say you took Michelle Obama at her word with her story of her epiphany with her daughter’s visit to the doctor and childhood obesity? Because if you did, there is a bridge near here that I’d like to sell you.

  33. Thank you! You and Rabbit have made my case better than even I could. You two have bought into the MYTH of Sarah Palin. I think the truth is that Sarah is closer to Hillary or Nancy in ambition and lifestyle than you would ever care to admit.

    It is revealed by those who know her, the kids take care of each other. Relatives chip in to help. Sarah does not cook a damn thing while holding babies. You guys have bought into the image hook line and sinker. When the self-promoted image falls so short of the truth, how can you guys not feel bamboozled?

    Actually, Rabbit, I don’t think hockey mom differs from soccer mom because of any economic difference as you cited above. Yes I know hockey as a more expensive sport but that’s irrelevant. The hockey mom moniker maps into the whole Alaska thing. Soccer doesn’t remind anyone of Alaska. Hockey (or skiing, or sledding) does. Nothing to do with economics as far as i can see.

    If you’re really a ball breaking career woman (which Sarah is) then play it that way. Don’t do the bullshit I love my family spiel.

  34. Your wrong about Hockey solely being a reference to Alaska.

    Dead wrong.

    We use both terms here in Michigan. Hockey mom carries an entire different meaning.

    Sara Palin may have turned into the person that you claim to know. Wouldn’t surprise me. But, there is no way she had it that way on rise to the top. Just go back and count up the money coming in.

    You find me a self made middle class woman comparable to Palin.

    You can’t.

  35. It is revealed by those who know her

    Like the obessed blogger you cited?
    You’re becoming a cartoon of yourself, R.

    Perhaps your time, and your credibility would be better spent defending Obama’s economic plans (I can’t believe I typed that without laughing), or his brilliant foreign policy (nope, that was a titter), or how he has restored us to a ….(sorry) position of respect in the world community (i’m sorry. I HAVE to stop…I can’t breathe here)…

  36. Themadjewess, I have no idea how to shorten your name without being offensive so lemme know what you’re comfortable with.

    I do hope you’ll browse around the blog a bit. I think you’ll find Sarah is not my only topic. You probably won’t agree with any of my other topics but variety is the spice of life. Yes, I know we encountered each other on another blog earlier. Glad you stopped by. I hope you’ll stop by and comment in the future. 🙂

  37. lol…..themadjewess, you’re so dead on. It’s a quarterly installment around here. I said the same thing and was told I was being the one predicable.

    (And Rutherford, please don’t think that I’m that person)

    The first 16 minutes of his radio show continued on the with Palin bashing too!

    The crescendo was when the coward Rutherford and his sniveling partner were laughing their asses of over the fact that “Trig” might also be a medical name for a mentally handicapped child.

    I’m 20 minutes into the show and right now and the’re claiming that the pro life advocacy add during the Superbowl was unfair becuase of the absence of another “advocacy” add, mancrush.com.

    Yeah, mancrush.com, a homosexual sex liaison site, is an advocacy add!

  38. Major offensive against the Taliban.

    No discourse on the radio show.

    Euro takes a massive hit.

    No discourse on the radio show.

    Iran defies the world as the middleast spirals toward war.

    No discourse on the radio show.

    Another massive spending bill in the works.

    No discourse on the radio show.

    Obama pushes for more powers under the Patriot Act he ran against.

    No discourse on the radio show.

    Greece going under.

    No discourse on the radio show.

    We did get 20 minute conversation of a fricking weeknight spat on an MSNBC talk show.

  39. A lady called up the show and simply said that it’s important to contact your representative and let them know where you stand on things. The chat room quickly called her tea bagger. Rutherford started swearing and then finger wagged her about those couple offensive signs at Tea Party demonstrations. The lady pretty much said “Huh? What does that have to do with contacting your Congressman?”.

  40. Rutherford started swearing and then finger wagged her about those couple offensive signs at Tea Party demonstrations.

    Hey, I call BS on that one Rabbit. The chat room got out of control. I went out of my way to differentiate her from a racist sign carrying assh*le (the term I used on the show). In fact, if you’d been really listening you would have noticed that I did all I could to find areas where she and I might be in agreement. I was about as conciliatory and non-attack-dog on her as one could imagine.

    The only real challenge I gave her was on HCR and as you could tell the poor lady didn’t know the difference between Medicare and Social Security. So you know what? She wasn’t a teabagger but she’s definitely their target audience. An ill-informed, well-intentioned woman who is a ripe recruit.

    I don’t mind your reviewing the show, heck I actually enjoy it, but at least get your facts straight.

    As for your previous comment, guilty as charged although it was a weekday show (“Morning Joe”) we spent about 10 minutes on. 🙂

    Hey, if you’ve got topics you’d like covered, I’m always just an e-mail away … you can always fake your return address. 😉

  41. Rutherford.. Really, its all about PALIN. Palin is a moonbat, ok? And this is coming from the FAR right wing. Its not that I dont like her, thats not the point, but there ARE things in life, like your own life..You know?
    Like the race issue, the fasicst issue, the commie issue, the dude caught with stockpile weapons, and thinks Armageddon is here in America, Lady Goo goo- Ga Ga, whatever, but PALIN-ARGH!!!!

  42. DR said….

    themadjewess , I went over to your site. You’re an exotic enigma to me.

    DR – we are in agreement there – that was my reaction to TMJ’s site too….

    😉

    — hp

  43. Enigma..a person of puzzling or contradictory character

    Well, Exotic, yes. Enigma? No. I am NOT ‘contradictory’ except to people that are closed up to a liberal mindset and ideology. Puzzling? No, I am WYSIWYG.
    Character?
    Yes, aren’t we all…

  44. I am sorry mistress themadjewess and am eagerly awaiting my proper punishment.

    OK, you get 40 lashes with a wet noodle 😀

    Sorry, I am edgy these days.. You know..Blogging,.. US right wingers have to keep producing links to liberals who never read a word of it, then come back and ask us for more info, so blogging is not so fun to me anymore 😦

  45. Themadjewess said: Sorry, I am edgy these days.. You know..Blogging,.. US right wingers have to keep producing links to liberals who never read a word of it, then come back and ask us for more info, so blogging is not so fun to me anymore 😦

    Hmmm…. as I remember I had to provide a link for you to the US constitution to show that indeed you are not required to be Christian to be President…..

    😉

    — hp

  46. as I remember I had to provide a link for you to the US constitution to show that indeed you are not required to be Christian to be President…..

    No, quite the contrary, I provided YOU with links otherwize. You still cannot fill me in on WHAT Pres. was NOT of the Christian faith.

  47. Themadjewess said….

    No, quite the contrary, I provided YOU with links otherwize. You still cannot fill me in on WHAT Pres. was NOT of the Christian faith.

    …and of course I had to remind you (as I am now) that just because all President’s have been Christian in the past it does not mean that that is a requirement for the Presidency.

    Question – you strongly assert your Jewishness, in your name and on your blog site – yet you seem happy and proud to claim that all Presidents must be Christian. That strikes me as a bit of a contradiction.

    — hp

  48. Well, I checked out TMJ’s site and i am overwhelmed. I’ll have to take more time with it.

    I get a right wing Jews-for-Jesus vibe from just a cursory peek. TMJ am I far off?

  49. I sure hope TMJ has not pushed the “Obama is a secret Muslim” theme. Please, TMJ, say it isn’t so.

    Of course, HP there is a reality that goes beyond the Constitution. Our country, at least as of now, seems more hung up on religion in the White House than race. Think about it, a black becomes President before a Jew, or even a Mormon. I’ve not read enough of TMJ’s stuff to know if she is actually celebrating Christian presidential domination, but history backs up the trend.

  50. Rutherford said….

    I sure hope TMJ has not pushed the “Obama is a secret Muslim” theme. Please, TMJ, say it isn’t so.

    R…. she has now informed me that she prefers to be called by her full name – Themadjewess – and if I promise to call her that she will refrain from calling me commie or fascist. Seems like a reasonable trade.

    Yes – she indeed does play the “secret Muslim” card – in fact that was exactly the conversation she and I were having when I first met her over on Steve’s blog a day or so ago.

    — hp

  51. LOL BiW, I don’t even need to go near Jews-for-Jesus. Now that I have learned that Themadjewess thinks Obama is a Muslim (and I’m now guessing was also not born in this country), I don’t need to look down the list of any of her other views.

    She’s already way out there 🙂

  52. yet you seem happy and proud to claim that all Presidents must be Christian.

    It is against Halacha Law for a Jewish person to EVER enter office in a Christian nation in the Galut-exile.
    While we are in exile, OR choose to go to Israel, we have to abide by the laws of the land that are here. Of course you wont see left-wing Jews take up this cause, b/c they are anti-Christian and anti-White.
    I owe my LIFE to this Christian nation.
    It is not a Jewish nation.
    There are churches all over America and graveyards with crosses to prove what people believe in.
    I am very Pro-Christian American.
    Um Rutherford, is that how you liberals debate your way out of things? To say that someone is ‘way out there?’

    Thanks a lot.

  53. I have Messianics and J4Js as friends, so? What is the issue with that?
    Christians give to my people. and I am in debted to them for helping my people.
    For a ‘tolerant’ people, you sure are nasty, so the reaction that you get, should not be shocking you.

  54. You have to forgive R. He has more than once espoused the view that religion is incompatible with civic life, and while this view would have disqualified a number of US Presidents, Congressmen, Justices, and Military Leaders, he stands firmly by it.

    He gets props for being consistent, and loses them for his stultifying ignorance of history.

  55. Yeah, these are an intolerant breed. It is strange, I know, that I take up for the Christian cause, being a Jew.. but Christians have been good to Jews here in America, and they are being persecuted all over the world by Moslems, and persecuted terribly in S. Africa.
    I take up for whites AND Christians, probably will the rest of my life.
    I used to really be gung ho for the Blacks and Mexicans, but when the racism hit me, and my friends in California, I WOKE up.

    My really good friend is German, pure Aryan white with blue eyes. He is the sweetest person you could ever meet, I dont know how many interviews he has been on, but the comments that are made to him are seriously shocking.. like “If I hire you, will you chase off all of my Mexican workers?” “We have enough whites here” You name it, he is treated like a 2nd class citizen in this nation that he served in, and is an Honorary Sgt.

    So, thats a SMALL story of my little life and why I am the way I am now.

  56. Well Themadjewess, we of course part ways on your notion that this is a Christian nation. We are a secular nation in which no religion is given favor over another. Despite BiW’s claims to the contrary, our Constitution guarantees no promotion of one religion over another. Your gravestone comment leaves me very puzzled. Are there not millions of Jews buried in this country? What do Christian gravestones have to do with anything?

    Hey BiW, you might want to invest about 7 minutes watching this explication of how James Madison’s words are being fabricated to support your notion of a Christian nation. (Yes, it’s Keith “Ogerman” but give it a try.)

  57. Um Rutherford, is that how you liberals debate your way out of things? To say that someone is ‘way out there?’

    Well, I confess that that did sound a wee bit dismissive. But Themadjewess, you must understand that I have very little tolerance for fringe conspiracy theories in a time when record deficits, a lousy health care system and two dubious wars are being waged.

    With all that going on, how anyone as creative and intelligent as you can waste your time with birther nonsense and Muslim Obama theories is beyond me. And yes, I say creative and intelligent sincerely. I did not look at your web site in detail but even a cursory glance shows that you have a creative flair and a very engaged mind.

    P.S. Negative experiences with a few blacks and Mexicans has led you to the conclusion that they are the enemy and whites are your friends? I find that a very sad conclusion. People are people. Some will discriminate against you and some won’t and it doesn’t divide down racial or ethnic lines.

  58. Samuel Chase, Founding Father,
    Religion is of general and public concern, and on its support depend, in great measure, the peace and good order of government, the safety and happiness of the people. By our form of government, the Christian religion is the established religion; and all sects and denominations of Christians are placed upon the same equal footing, and are equally entitled to protection in their religious liberty
    Sherman, Roger (April 19, 1721-July 23, 1793), was an American Revolutionary patriot, jurist and politician.
    You are further to declare that we hold sacred the rights of conscience, and may promise to the whole people, solemnly in our name, the free and undisturbed exercise of their religion. And…that all civil rights and the right to hold office were to be extended to persons of any Christian denomination.

    Witherspoon, John (February 5, 1723-November 15, 1794), was an American Revolutionary patriot and clergyman.
    What follows from this? That he is the best friend to American liberty, who is most sincere and active in promoting true and undefiled religion, and who sets himself with the greatest firmness to bear down profanity and immorality of every kind. Whoever is an avowed enemy of God, I scruple not to call him an enemy of his country.

    It is in the man of piety and inward principle, that we may expect to find the uncorrupted patriot, the useful citizen, and the invincible soldier. – God grant that in America true religion and civil liberty may be inseparable and that the unjust attempts to destroy the one, may in the issue tend to the support and establishment of both

    Thomas Jefferson;
    By our own act of assembly of 1705, c. 30, if a person brought up in the Christian religion denies the being of a God, or the Trinity, or asserts there are more gods than one, or denies the Christian religion to be true, or the Scriptures to be of divine authority, he is punishable on the first offense by incapacity to hold any office of employment, ecclesiastical, civil or military; on the second by disability to sue, to take any gift or legacy, to be guardian, executor, or administrator, and by three years’ imprisonment without bail.

    John Hancock:
    Some boast of being “friends to government”: I am a friend to “righteous” government, to a government founded upon the principles of reason and justice….I have the most animating confidence that the present noble struggle for liberty will terminate gloriously for America. And let us play the man for our GOD, and for the cities of our GOD; while we are using the means in our power, let us humbly commit our righteous cause to the great LORD of the universe, who loveth righteousness and hateth inequity.

    Samuel Adams;
    The right to freedom being the gift of God Almighty, the rights of the Colonists as Christians may best be understood by reading and carefully studying the institutions of The Great Law Giver and the Head of the Christian Church, which are to be found clearly written and promulgated in the New Testament.

    John Adams;
    Now I will avow, that I then believe, and now believe, that those general Principles of Christianity, are as eternal and immutable, as the Existence and Attributes of God; and that those Principles of Liberty, are as unalterable as human Nature and our terrestrial, mundane System.

    ETC……………
    I dont know WHERE YOU went to Elementary School, R, but it is evident, you learned jack shit about AMERICAN History.

  59. Negative experiences with a few blacks and Mexicans has led you to the conclusion that they are the enemy and whites are your friends?

    What do you mean “FEW”? I MOVED from where I lived because it was so BAD. Are you really THAT braindead?
    I wont get into MY own personal life with what has happened to ME with ‘minorities’

  60. BTW: I AM A JEW, I am THE minority. So, I not only face white hate, I face Jew hate as well.
    DAMN you people are HATEFUL, you just cannot get it INTO your thick skulls that this is NOT THE 1960’s ANYMORE.

  61. Themadjewess, for starters the sort of quotes you provided aren’t taught in a nonsectarian elementary school, at least not between 1967 and 1972 when I attended elementary school. You must have gone to some sort of advanced elementary school for the teaching of government. Perhaps the Kennedy Elementary School of Government? 😉

    Sorry but the Jefferson quote looks to me like a complete and utter fabrication, or something taken wildly out of context. Now I’ll have to go research it so anyone reading this comments section doesn’t get confused by your barrage of quotes. (BTW, I don’t deny our founding fathers were Christian, that is not the point.)

    I don’t want to get into your personal business but could the fact you had to move have anything to do with you and not just to do with “them”?

    Finally, as a Jew you are the minority …. and you face Jew hate as well. Is there a point there? If I have tallied this up correctly, blacks hate you, Mexicans hate you, Whites hate you, fellow Jews hate you. And apparently “you people” meaning whomever you think I am, hates you.

    Well I don’t know you so I certainly don’t hate you. Could you tell me why you believe I think this is the 1960’s?

  62. “That so many are still climate change skeptics is truly frightening for our nation.”-Rutherford September 2, 2009.

  63. The truth is that the threat we face is not an abstract concern for the future. It is already upon us and its effects are being felt worldwide, right now. Scientists project that the Arctic will be ice-free in the summer of 2013. Not in 2050, but four years from now.”-Kerry

    “Senator John Kerry makes a clear and chilling case for the impending crisis.” -Rutherford.

    Dude.

    I don’t know what’s crazier. Kerry rambling on about the fricking North Pole melting 36 months from now or Rutherford labeling this lunacy a “clear and chilling case”.

    And skeptics are the ones who are crazy?

  64. DR, your video raised an important point. The issue is not whether climate change is a hoax. It is whom we should be listening to. We should not be getting our climate change info from politicians (that includes Al Gore). When we do, it looks political and not scientific. Your video was full of politicians.

    As far as I’m concerned, the only branch of our government that should be monitoring the climate change debate and reporting on it is the EPA.

  65. R, have you not been paying attention? We apparently can’t trust the scientists either. How many times now of late have they questioned glaring inaccuracies in the 2007 climate report? You know, the 2007 NOBEL PEACE PRIZE winning climate report?

    We got scientists destroying data because they know it won’t stand to scrutiny, you’ve got scientists lying about facts (or supposed facts depending on their ideological position) and you’ve got countries abandoning the UN’s IPCC and establishing their own climate institutions because they can no longer trust the UN panels findings.

    Really R, what these politicians were saying is no different than what the global warming scientists are saying: if it gets warmer- global warming, if it gets colder- global warming, if the weather doesn’t change- global warming. All one has to do to understand the objective of the lefts obsession with global warming is examine the calls in the Copenhagen summit, which was just a massive redistribution of wealth from the industrial nations to the “nonindustrial” nations (China, India, Brazil?).

    Why else do you think Al Gore refuses to actually debate anyone on this? He knows he’ll be publicly humiliated and it’ll further expose the fraud that he is.

  66. This is the same idiot whose been lying and destroying data. When confronted, which is what this Climategate email saga has done, he has been forced to either defend with fact or concede the unprovable. Guess what he’s doing now…

    Climategate U-turn as scientist at centre of row admits: There has been no global warming since 1995

    Professor Jones also conceded the possibility that the world was warmer in medieval times than now – suggesting global warming may not be a man-made phenomenon.

    And he said that for the past 15 years there has been no ‘statistically significant’ warming.

    Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1250872/Climategate-U-turn-Astonishment-scientist-centre-global-warming-email-row-admits-data-organised.html#ixzz0fhFYVu4B

  67. R, why don’t you explain for all of us why the only sources of information questioning global warming seem to be in the UK and Europe? What’s up with our grand media?

    Bias maybe?

  68. Yes, R, people hate the Jew b/c of what the left wing Bolshevik JINOs have done in this nation.
    I am skeptical and careful now, and def. a little predjudiced, is it against the LAW to be that way?

    R said: Sorry but the Jefferson quote looks to me like a complete and utter fabrication

    yes, R, I go out and find fabricated quotes just to make you people crazy. WHAT THE HELL is wrong with you!

  69. Well considering that there has been a bogus James Madison quote floating around, I think I have a right to be suspicious. Folks are making up their own “facts” and please note I didn’t accuse you of fabricating the quote, rather simply repeating it. Sorry but the quote just does not square with the image of Jefferson. But as I said, I’ll check it out. This whole USA is Christian notion needs some serious discussion, and no doubt its own blog post.

    As for whether it is against the LAW for you to be skeptical, there’s an old saying that comes to mind: Just because you’re paranoid doesn’t mean the bastards aren’t out to get you. 😉

  70. All one has to do to understand the objective of the lefts obsession with global warming is examine the calls in the Copenhagen summit

    G, ideally there is no left or right to science. Science is objective. As I stated before, politics has entered into what should be a scientific discussion.

    The part I still don’t understand is … many of the things we might do to combat global warming (which is a hoax according to you) would benefit us anyway. Reliance on cleaner fuels, efforts that cut down on pollution.

    It’s kind of like being told that Vitamin C will cure impotence and since it’s not true everyone stops taking Vitamin C and they get scurvy. The solution to the supposed hoax is good anyway so why all the fuss?

  71. Forgive me if this was covered elsewhere in the 96 count thread but…
    How many champions of any cause initiate their actions without some personal angle.
    I think of how autism awareness has taken off and can’t imagine it having happened if the couple from NBC (I think that is where from) weren’t leading the band.
    If Palin uses her personal experience to garnish support for herself and a cause I don’t see the heresy.

  72. Alfie, I will give credence to the notion that HippieProf suggests that Sarah engages in what I’d call “soft advocacy” for the disabled. By soft, I mean she advocates by showing up, baby in arms. I don’t believe her politics of grievance (e.g. the Rahm Emanuel dust-up and the Trig photoshop brouhaha) achieves much to help the cause. And finally I’m not aware of any of her time or money being devoted to the cause.

    So, as I said, I’ll grant HP’s assertion of soft advocacy and leave it at that.

  73. Sorry but the quote just does not square with the image of Jefferson.

    Jeffersons image has been tainted since the internet is controlled by the FAR left.
    A good way to check if this is truth, is to order a book on quotes and sayings of the Fore-fathers.
    Jefferson was a righteous, holy man of the Christian faith. He also was very much against Islam, he would NOT approve of Barack HUSSEIN Obama being the current US Pres., being that he ordered the Marines to defeat the Muslim Barbary Pirates at the Shores of Triploi. This would be high treason in Jeffersons book.

  74. Then let us call it conservation, not environmentalism. Secondly, let’s start to use our own sources of energy, and expand our domestic production and refinement of natural gas and petroleum. Thirdly, we can essentially cancel EVERYTHING the EPA has done in the last 15 months or so. Cap and Tax can be shit canned- where it belongs and we can start to prosecute Al Gore for financial fraud in his stupid Ponzi scheme to sell carbon credits.

    But alas, you continue to miss the bigger point. Environmentalism is about state redistribution of wealth, not about protecting the environment. I’m all about protecting the environment and conserving nature, I’m not about slitting our throats to making some idiot in Birkenstocks feel better about himself…

  75. Jefferson went after the Barbary Pirates because of piracy, not because they were Muslims.

    I don’t disagree that he would have been adamantly against the One, but it wouldn’t have been over his middle name…

  76. “He also was very much against Islam…”

    Good grief, Rutherford. Where do you find these Islamaphobic nutjobs?

    Jefferson sent the Marines after Muslim pirates, so that means he hated Muslims?

    WTF?

  77. Gorilla 101 Yeah!
    this was said earlier

    There are churches all over America and graveyards with crosses to prove what people believe in.

    In Arlington there are tombstones with crosses,stars and crescents on them. THAT proves what America is about and what people believe in. I’d apply that to HP and his thread he’s got cooking over at his place.
    The Founders were at odds with one another over how much religion should be trotted out of the private sphere into the public sphere. Reality is they recognized that the fledgling democracy needed to have freedom of religion for the sanctity of the nation. This topic could go on for evah but never solve anything. People have made up their minds and over-romanticize the topic with their own view.

  78. G, I forgot about the thread you had running there. I will go there and refresh my memory and provided I find it a balanced discussion, maybe Themadjewess would care to visit there and get educated.

    “LOL” you made me chuckle with your comment! I was just thinking yesterday, Elric is gone and now I have themadjewess to replace him. At least unlike Elric, themadjewess puts her money where her mouth is and devotes time to a blog.

    Oh yeah Alfie, I tried to make the same cemetery argument back on comment 79 but you made it far better. I’ve never seen the likes of themadjewess on this blog before so I hope she sticks around. There’s nothing more enjoyable than a provocateur. 🙂

  79. BiW, myself and HP were having this discussion awhile ago here http://runcockroachrun.wordpress.com/.

    I think it should be continued there…

    Yeah – that was a good discussion – it was really rolling just about the time life intervened and took me away from blogging for a bit. I will try to get over there soon – but life is trying to intervene again after the fu@k!n& nursing home did their very best to kill my mother last night….

    — hp

  80. Forget Al Gore.

    Rutherford, what scares me more then your “group think” and “herd of gazelles” mentality isn’t that you unquestioningly accepted the argument of your former god, Al Gore.

    While I’m not sure the Rabbit has ever been wrong on something so massive, I’ve certainly been wrong many times.

    No, the problem is that by September 3, 2009, you were done with the debate. We skeptics were outcasts to be laughed at. Or, even worse, “dangers to this nation” just like Al Queda or some shit.

    You have it in you to be a fascist, man. And it’s fucked up because you aren’t stupid.

    Sorry for distracting you, go back to your favorite team sport-Obama.

  81. Rabbit, you have either poor or selective memory. I point you to a post I wrote after 9/3/09 where I express my own disappointments about the stolen climate change letters and where I concede that climate change is an unproven theory.

    https://rutherfordl.wordpress.com/2009/11/27/thanks-and-humility/

    Now, with that said, should we throw the baby out with the bathwater? No. Does one screwed up scientist who apparently cannot even maintain an organized office filing system, bring the whole climate change theory to its knees? No.

    To ignore what evidence there is is a fool’s game. We need to know what is going on and we can only do that through continued study … and fewer prognostications from scientifically ignorant politicians on both sides of the issue.

  82. Yeah, while you kind of framed Global Warming as never being your fight in the first place. (You claimed you never wrote about Global Warming in the main part of your blog, my quotes above tell a different story), you did admit that some sketisism is now in order.

    So why wasn’t skepticism in order on September 3?

    What if no one stood up to your September 3rd bullying?

    And how does it make you feel to write about the North Pole completely melting in three years and then calling the people who merely question that fact “dangers” to the nation?

    Where would we be now if not for us brave souls standing our ground while being laughed at on college campuses, mocked in teacher staff meetings?

    Do you know that Al Gore’s video is curriculum gospel in Public Schools?

    And, if the government can’t be remotely trusted to the point that they erroneously claim the North Pole will be gone within one Presidential Term , why do you trust them with everything else in life?

  83. No, the problem is that by September 3, 2009, you were done with the debate. We skeptics were outcasts to be laughed at.

    Rutherford isn’t a scientist. Neither is Al Gore. Neither are the vast majority of people opining on the issue.

    I am a scientist – so here is a scientist’s perspective.

    A good scientist is ALWAYS skeptical about every theoretical claim. Speaking truthfully, no strong scientific theory ever reaches the status of “fact” because some future observation could always disconfirm the theory. It was scientifically dishonest for any scientist to claim that theoretical conclusions relating global warming had risen to the status of “fact.”

    It now looks like some of the pieces in the puzzle are questionable. There are still plenty of pieces of the puzzle that look solid. I am still skeptical. I am in fact more skeptical that I used to be. But, I think the overall theory still looks pretty strong. I could be wrong.

    You guys have uncovered a few dents in the theory. What bothers me is that you seem to believe that the entire theory is now disproven. You need to apply some reverse skepticism. Despite the recent setbacks it is quite possible the theory is in fact correct.

    — hp

  84. I’m a political scientist, so there, I get to chat. 😉

    I do not like how I’ve been told that since I don’t buy it, then I’m 1) stupid, 2) a crack-pot, 3) wanting the earth and all nature to be destroyed by drowning in oil.

    Sounds ridiculous, but it isn’t far off of how the global warming faithful treat non-believers. Rush calls it a religion, I think he may have a point.

    Again, I think there are real sound things we can do that happen to go along with some of the global warming initiatives, like natural gas, but it’ll take time (decades) for that infrastructure to be developed. So, while we’re waiting, can we stop sending billions to the Middle East and drill our own damn oil?

    I like forests too, however, I also believe in logging. These jackasses have kept forests from being touched, so we get California en fuego every other year now. It is these morons who are the destructive type…

  85. First of all, I argue there are more then a few dents. That being said, when have I ever said that entire theory is dis-proven?

    Dear Scientist,

    Thanks for “laying down the law”.

    However, it’s not Professor Quibly I’m worried about.

    It’s the politicians.

    They are the ones that almost had enough momentum to absolutely skull fuck us all over your pretty little theory.

    Why? Because people like Rutherford buy into every spoon fed sound bite that is fed to them by the left.

    For God’s sake, he said I was a “danger to the nation” becuase I didn’t believe the North Pole would vanish in 36 months.

    Lastly, lets talk climate. If you are unable to see that the climate for an objective debate on climate change has been grossly perverted for the last ten years, you’re not much of an observer. And I thought you were a Sir Francis Bacon type. Sigh.

    Ultimatly, I’m not talking science here. I’m not even talking global warming.

    I’m talking about point blank fascism displayed by Rutherford and his friends.

    Emotionally supporting assholes while persecuting dissenters.

    I might not be a Brainy McBrainyson who works at a college.
    But where I worked, doubting global warming wasn’t necessarily a good career move.

  86. “I do not like how I’ve been told that since I don’t buy it, then I’m 1) stupid, 2) a crack-pot, 3) wanting the earth and all nature to be destroyed by drowning in oil.”-Gorilla

    Word.

  87. I’ll even give another example.

    I saw some beatnik throw away the plastic ring on a six pack of some energy drink. I pulled it out of the trash and took it home because I cut the rings. See, waterfowl get their heads caught in the rings and choke. As a duck hunter, I aware of these things and I work to protect them.

    I’m a member of Ducks Unlimited, which has done more than any other organization to restore wetlands and increase the numbers of waterfowl in the US and Canada. Ducks Unlimited is made up largely by duck hunters. Same thing with Trout Unlimited. Those of us who actually use the environment tend to know a hell of a lot better how to protect and manage it.

  88. Gorilla:Jefferson went after the Barbary Pirates because of piracy, not because they were Muslims.

    WRONG.
    Infidel Tax- The Gizzah.
    The Dey of Algiers explained to Jefferson and Adams when they were ambassadors why Islam is attacking them and why they must be in Dhimmi Status. Based on that, Jefferson read the Qu’ran, and based on what he read is WHY he sent 4 frigates to Tripoli to kill them all, and they ALL were Moslems.

  89. Sorry, I am being a TYPICAL white woman. 😀

    http://www.heritage.org/research/nationalsecurity/hl940.cfm

    Over two centuries ago, the United States was dragged into the affairs of the Islamic world by an escalating series of unprovoked attacks on Americans by Muslim pirates, the terrorists of the era. These pirates preyed on unsuspecting trade ships. The hulk­ing merchant vessels of the period were no match for the Muslim pirate ships, which were built for speed and lightning strikes. It was simply a fact of life that— over the centuries—took its toll on countless mer­chant ships and their crews.

  90. “In contemporary terms, this system of piracy was simply state-sponsored terrorism, an extortion racket in which the pirates and the petty North African states were all complicit—as was the Otto­man Empire, to which three of the four states owed at least nominal allegiance.”

  91. Themadjewess, you are the only one I know who could take the fact that Jefferson owned a Koran (a sign of enlightenment) and turn it into his being the Robert Spencer (islamaphobe) of his day.

    I may have to ask Elric to come back just to “meet” you. He would fall in love. 🙂

  92. A random fact for the Rabbit…

    In 1859 hunters brought in 24 rabbits to Australia. By the 1920’s, there were over 10 million.

    Get some 🙂

  93. (islamaphobe) Definition:
    The fact is simple. The term “Islamophobia” is a powerful tool used to silence critics of the Religion of Peace. It’s being used to shut down anything even remotely critical of Islam. While there is discrimination, by and large the term is overused to scare people into submission so they aren’t labeled a racist.

  94. themadjewess, that’s funny, when I look up islamaphobia, I find the following:

    Islamophobia [ˌɪzlɑːməˈfəʊbɪə]
    n
    (Psychology) (Government, Politics & Diplomacy) hatred or fear of Muslims or of their politics or culture
    Islamophobic adj

    I think you gave us an opinion, not a definition.

  95. I’m strangely attracted to the themadjewess and can’t pin point why.

    DR, I don’t want to touch that with a ten foot pole. Since you are a closet intellectual, maybe she is sending sparks through your brain. Heaven knows her web site overwhelms the senses!

  96. You gave a PC definition, I gave the correct onw.

    ‘DR, I don’t want to touch that with a ten foot pole.’

    Are you a man, Rutherford, or just a boy with your pants on the ground?
    NO man talks this way to a woman, just b/c she has an different opinion thatn you, that was awfully unkind and mean-spirited.
    Basically, if you were wanting to make me feel like shit, u did. Thanks a lot.

  97. “The fact is simple. The term “Islamophobia” is a powerful tool used to silence critics of the Religion of Peace. It’s being used to shut down anything even remotely critical of Islam. While there is discrimination, by and large the term is overused to scare people into submission so they aren’t labeled a racist.”

    Ah, kind of like the way “Anti-Semite” is used to silence people who badmouth Israeli policies and practices.

    Also, that article you cited says nothing about Jefferson being against Islam. It says plenty about Islam and the Barbary Coast. And about Islam and the concept of jihad. But not a single word on what Jefferson thought about the religion of Islam.

    In other words, we’re still waiting for that source.

  98. “DR, I don’t want to touch that with a ten foot pole.’”

    My guess is that you are not the “that” of which Rutherford was speaking.

    But you’re free to keep feeling like shit, if you’d like.

  99. themadjewess … you may have misinterpreted me. The “that” in my “don’t want to touch that” was not you. It was a reference to whatever was going on in Rabbit’s mind.

    I do apologize if it sounded otherwise. The only reason I would rule out touching you in any way shape or form is that I am a happily married man whose wife would kill me if I did. Besides, if I’m not mistaken you’re married also, so I’d have two people coming after me. (Besides, I really don’t think I’m your type. 😉 )

    Seriously, re-reading my comment, I can see how you thought I was being crude. I meant nothing of the kind.

  100. Now LOL, don’t get me in deeper trouble than I already am. I don’t care if themadjewess hates my ideology but I really am not a pig.

    It’s bad enough on her own blog she has stated that I’ve created some sort of “hell” for her. I’m kinda hoping to see some elaboration on that. 😯

  101. Gorilla said…

    I do not like how I’ve been told that since I don’t buy it, then I’m 1) stupid, 2) a crack-pot, 3) wanting the earth and all nature to be destroyed by drowning in oil.

    With Elric gone I would never accuse anybody here of being stupid.

    What does bother me is when I see people misinterpreting data and drawing grand yet incorrect conclusions from that. When I see that occur I don’t know how to interpret it. I don’t think people are stupid – but if not why are they doing this.

    The best current example regards snowfall. I have written this over and over but here goes again. Higher-than-normal snowfall does not violate a theory of warming. In fact – it is predicted by the theory. Warmer air holds more moisture and hence there is more precipitation.

    In Illinois we have had lots of snow this winder – but we have had very few of the ultra-cold -15 degree days we normally have during winter. The snowfall is actually an indication that it is warmer.

    I suspect at least some of the people who tout the “snowfall data” are aware of this and are using it for political gain.

    — hp

  102. Ah, kind of like the way “Anti-Semite” is used to silence people who badmouth Israeli policies and practices.

    **Would you not agree that there is bad and good in all things?**

    I do, bad parts of Islam, well, most of it, and extremely TERRIBLE SATANIC things that left wing Jews have done to this nation, namley, for one, Rahm Emmanuel who is PUSHING Obama with executive orders. 44 Jewish Dems and not ONE right wing religious Jewish dem. How do you think that makes religious and conservative Jews feel??
    As far as Israel? they are the least of the issue in the East, they have given over 70% of their land away, and the A-rabs want MORE.

    As far as Islam and Jefferson, I gave the link, there are PLENTY more, just do some research.

  103. Just when you thought Congress couldn’t reach a new low, it did.

    Only a third of US voters think their Congress members have earned the right to get sent back next year — a record-low number, a poll released yesterday shows.

    Thirty-four percent of voters queried think members of the House and the Senate ought to be re-elected — while an astonishing 63 percent were in favor of throwing the bums out, the new CNN poll showed.

    Read more: http://www.nypost.com/p/news/national/congress_poll_ralfzutWeCzpTpC6x1wrhP#ixzz0fnsfHoQv

  104. But as I said, I’ll check it out. This whole USA is Christian notion needs some serious discussion, and no doubt its own blog post.

    Seeing as how you will likely studiously avoid any source material of substance, I foresee having to write one myself, if only to correct the parts you got horribly, tragically wrong.

    Geez, I can’t even go to the beach for a few dys without you pontificating again on things you know nothing about…

  105. “In Illinois we have had lots of snow this winder – but we have had very few of the ultra-cold -15 degree days we normally have during winter. The snowfall is actually an indication that it is warmer.”hippieprof

    Now, as you have pointed out before, I am no scientist.

    Risking sounding silly, want to know how I find out if it’s colder in Illinois?

    I check the temperature.

  106. hippieprof

    By the way, I went back and looked at record lows in Chicago.

    I counted 11 times in recorded history that the temp has ever been below -15.

    I know maybe you don’t live in Chicago and that it’s possible areas to the south get colder (although I doubt much if at all).
    I’m pretty sure your not speaking as a “scientist” on this.

    Or, more ominously, maybe you are!

  107. oooh….Quincy, IL looks cold. I’ll go check the record lows.

    Nope.

    16 times in recorded history has it ever got colder then -15 degrees in Quincy, IL.
    __________________________________________________
    And now for one of my favorite lines:

    “You’re full of shit, Professor.”

  108. DR… you beat me…. I was making a casual observation upon which I had taken no data. Not very scientific at all. I need to be more careful.

    Who knows – I also perhaps overstated on the 15 below. Those are based on the measurements at my home thermometer – not the official recorded temperature. I remember quite a few really cold days over the last 25 years – in the -13, -14, -15 range. When it gets that cold the steering and transmission fluid in your car become so thick it is hard to steer and change gears – so believe me, you remember those days. But, again, those were casual observations. Still, it was really cold.

    I obviously need to be more careful.

    Even though it is based on casual observation, I will stick by the following statement though.

    IT DOES NOT SNOW WHEN THE TEMPERATURE GETS EXTREMELY LOW. I don’t know if you have ever been out in extremely cold weather – if you have I suspect you would not be arguing with me because you would know just how dry the air is.

    But – lets put that to a specific test.

    Lets choose some a really cold place – say Fargo, ND. Go to weatherundergound.com (an ironic name given discussions we have here) and look at the extended forecast. Here is the one for Fargo:

    http://www.wunderground.com/cgi-bin/findweather/getForecast?query=fargo%20nd&wuSelect=WEATHER

    Notice – very cold temps and no snow in the forecast.

    Now choose someplace a bit warmer – say Omaha, which is close to due south of Fargo. Here it is:

    http://www.wunderground.com/cgi-bin/findweather/getForecast?query=omaha%20ne&wuSelect=WEATHER

    Much warmer – and snow in the forecast for 2 days.

    This proves nothing – it is two data points. But – I also suspect that if you did this a bunch of times for a bunch of different cities you would find that snow is associated with relatively higher temperatures.

    Go for it……

    — hp

  109. DR – two quick notes…..

    1) I chose two cities in the great plains because of the absence of geographic features that affect weather (nearby mountains, bodies of water, etc). Denver and Buffalo would not be good choices.

    2) If you live anywhere near me you would know this is true – warm air holds more moisture than cold air. The water from precipitation – rain or snow – is carried in the warmer air. I don’t know how many hundreds of times I have heard a weather reporter say “Thunderstorms and heavy rain will form along the fron, where cold, dry artic air meets warmer moisture-laden air from the gulf…..”

    — hp

  110. HP-

    Again, I don’t necessarily disagree that the planets heats up or cools down, but I don’t buy the man-made disaster bit.

    There needs to be an honest debate instead of the grandstanding that we see today…

  111. Gorilla said….

    Anyone else hear about the CBS/NYT poll that finds that 6% of Americans believe the Stimulus created jobs. 6%!!! One can only chuckle at the failure of this administration…

    But – this thing is – just because only 6 percent believe this has no bearing on whether jobs were created or not. The poll is about perception, not reality.

    Limbaugh and others started calling this “Obama’s failed stimulus plan” about a week after it was passed – before any of the monies had even been distributed yet. It was an obvious propaganda strategy – create the impression that the stimulus failed and repeat it often enough people will believe it.

    There is no doubt you guys are winning the propaganda war. Having a network in your pocket certainly helps. The propaganda says nothing about whether the stimulus is workingh or not.

    — hp

  112. But you have half a dozen OTHER networks in YOUR pocket. 😉

    But, but, but…when you were forced to provide something justifying the claim to a completely made up and unverifiable metric- jobs saved?- you produced a report with made up zip codes, imaginary Congressional districts and non-existent jobs.

    And I haven’t even touched on the PORK that IS the stimulus. Question, when we were told that passing this atrocity would keep unemployment below 8%, and it didn’t, did you even flinch?

  113. There is no doubt you guys are winning the propaganda war. Having a network in your pocket certainly helps.

    I see. MSLSD, NBC, CBS, ABC, CNN can’t counter ‘lil old FOX? Whatever.

    But, but, but…when you were forced to provide something justifying the claim to a completely made up and unverifiable metric- jobs saved?- you produced a report with made up zip codes, imaginary Congressional districts and non-existent jobs.

    C’mon! Sheriff Joe Biden was ON THE CASE!!!

  114. I’m sorry but anyone that thinks the Barbary Wars was Jefferson striking out against Islam is delusional. About the only credible thread regards Jefferson and Islam is a refusal to pay tribute. He got over that though by inserting the word ransom in the treaty. We won and still paid money-awesome.
    Jefferson was an intellectual who believed in ideals like freedom and religion to a level we wrongly place our values and agendas upon.
    Case in point he offered up a bible. He left out the Resurrection.Why?
    Barbary War= fledgling democracy being tested and trade and freedoms being attacked. That was Jeffersons reasons.
    Get off the Spencer crack pipe and read a real history book.

  115. Gorilla said….

    But, but, but…when you were forced to provide something justifying the claim to a completely made up and unverifiable metric- jobs saved? And I haven’t even touched on the PORK that IS the stimulus. Question, when we were told that passing this atrocity would keep unemployment below 8%, and it didn’t, did you even flinch?

    You know, pork bugs be as much as the next guy – but unless it is directly lining the pockets of a corrupt politician even pork spending – even something as outrageous as the “bridge to nowhere” creates jobs. It may not be the best way for the money to be spent – but it does create things like construction jobs.

    I know that “jobs saved” is a tough metric to verify – but logic says that indeed some jobs have been saved. Locally, I know that stimulus money has kept teachers from being laid off.

    I have said it before – in economics you don’t get a control group. I would love it if unemployment were at 8 percent – but I suspect it would be a lot lot lot worse without the stimulus.

    What really does bug me, though, is that stimulus money is apparently being used to outsource jobs. Sorry – that is just plain wrong.

    — hp

  116. BiW said: I see. MSLSD, NBC, CBS, ABC, CNN can’t counter ‘lil old FOX? Whatever.

    I will give you MSNBC (which does not come close to countering FOX)- but I think the others are pretty middle of the road. They certainly try to present all sides of the argument, and are not afraid to criticize Obama. would even say ABC is a tad right of center – they are the “family” network these days.

    — hp

  117. but I think the others are pretty middle of the road.

    I suppose if you are walking to the left of the leftmost median, the center of the road can be pretty difficult to locate. Certainly would explain why it is that the paid talking heads on those networks have such a hard time finding that coveted “Middle-ground”.

    They certainly try to present all sides of the argument,

    Is there a special hour of the day when this is broadcast? I had the misfortune to sit through some CNN and some NBC lately (as a captive audience) and if other sides were presented, they were usually a line or two of a segment, delivered with a sneer or smarmy condescension. I really don’t think that qualifies.

    and are not afraid to criticize Obama.

    There are criticisms and then there are criticisms. Stomping your feet because the new dependant class isn’t getting their shiny new taxpayer-funded entitlements fast enough, and Professor Know-nothing seems ineffectual about it isn’t a very constructive criticism.

    would even say ABC is a tad right of center – they are the “family” network these days.

    Yeah, right. If I grew a beard, and started to split rails before speechifying, I could call myself Abe Lincoln, but that wouldn’t make it true either, and sadly, many of their family programs are not the stuff I would willingly let my kids watch.

  118. Get off the Spencer crack pipe and read a real history book.

    Alfie you’re wasting your time. One look at themadjewess’ blog tells you she has serious issues that cannot be resolved by reasoned debate.

    Playing armchair psychologist for one moment, I think she has had traumatic experiences that she has extrapolated into serious group-think. While I do believe that reverse-racism can be found in our society, I could never so far as to declare white people an oppressed race discriminated against by all. Unfortunately, MJ has reached that conclusion. She appears to be “mad” at a huge swath of America, including many of her fellow Jews.

    Anyway, unlike Elric who never gave any PERSONAL insight into his opinions, she gives plenty and at best I find it a bit sad.

  119. Rutherford said:

    Playing armchair sychologist for one moment, I think she has had traumatic experiences that she has extrapolated into serious group-think.

    Either that or she’s just freakin’ nuts…..

    On another blog she made the claim that Obama is a racist because he “made a lot of while people feel really bad…..”

    — hp

  120. Biw said: Is there a special hour of the day when this is broadcast?

    To be honest, I am going pretty much by their websites (CNN, MSNBC., FOXetc) and I don’t watch a lot of broadcast news – I can get far greater depth reading the articles online. Based on quite a lot of reading for quite a long time I believe CNN presents a broad array of opinions on their website – ranging from the far right to the far left. When I do watch their broadcast I get the same balance – commentators balanced across the political spectrum.

    I honestly never watch an MSNBC broadcast – the only time I see Olberman or Maddow or Matthews it is when someone posts an online a link to something. Their website does carry stories on all ends of the spectrum though. There are plenty of stories posted that criticize Obama.

    Sorry, but on the FOX website I don’t get that broad spectrum. I am not sure I have ever seen a positive story on Obama on the FOX site. Yeah – I am sure you will claim that it is because Obama has done nothing right. Sheesh…. the tail wags the dog.

    — hp

  121. I am sure you will claim that it is because Obama has done nothing right.

    Claim it? No. That would be like dramatically proclaiming that the sun rises in the East and waiting for the acolades. I’ll leave the Captain Obvious schtick to someone else. If it makes you feel better, I will acknowledge that it is a true statement. Hell, the guy can’t even invoke the ghost of the Grace Commission with the correct emphasis.

  122. BiW said….

    Claim it? No. That would be like dramatically proclaiming that the sun rises in the East and waiting for the acolades.

    This is fascinating – I have observed this quite a bit recently and will do a major blog post on it at some point.

    This is how the FOX echo chamber works. You listen to FOX. They tell you – with no true objectivity – that Obama has failed at everything he does. You probably have some preexisting biases that way, so it seems true enough. You continue to listen and it strengthens your belief that Obama is fu@kup. You never stop and question that FOX might be biased because they tell you what you already think.

    It becomes one big tautology…

    How do you know Obama is a screwup?

    Because Fox told me.

    How do you know FOX is right?

    Because Obama is a screwup!

    http://xkcd.com/703/

    Look – I obviouly like Obama – but I agree he has had some failures. We can argue about the ratio of success to failure – but any reasonable person has to believe that he has some of both.

    — hp

  123. Actually, I don’t watch FOX. Well, I sometimes watch “the Great American Panel” on Hannity because it is frequently amusing, and he does tend to draw on a very interesting panel.

    But by all means, perform your uninformed analysis on me. That has great comedic potential also.

  124. Yeah – Carter did have some successes. I didn’t like him and didn’t vote for him – but he had some successes. George W had some successes as well. I guess I am moderate enough to give credit even to those I oppose politically.

    By contrast, I find it amazing that you are so unable to assign any successes to your political opponents.

    So – maybe you don’t watch FOX. I don’t know where you are getting you news – but if they are telling you that all of Obama’s policies are failures – hey – the echo chamber analysis still holds.

    If you are going to claim that you make all your own decisions about Obama – and still feel his is nothing but a failure with *no* successes – then I guess your views are more extreme than I had suspected.

    — hp

  125. Better yet, what did Cahtur succeed at?

    He was ineffective on the economy, he failed at energy independence, his response to the hostage crisis was a resounding failure, the Camp David accords didn’t bring any lasting peace to the Middle East, and communism remained unchecked on his watch. What did he assume that he succeeded at?

  126. I don’t know where you are getting you news – but if they are telling you that all of Obama’s policies are failures

    I get it from a variety of sources. Yahoo, MSN, radio…including NPR (gasp), the Wall Street Journal, the Globe and Mail…yes, I know it is a shock…the idea of a conservative who reads, and actually looks as left-leaning sources.

  127. I don’t watch Fox or utilize their website. That being said I just went to Fox and NPR and compared headlines.i saw a couple that were the same or at least similar. I find the content pretty consistent with seems to be each ones target demos.
    So for giggles I then went to msnbc.
    All in all the big story (typical of American media) is Tiger Woods.
    The next from my cursory glances was Barry O in NV. Takes seemed consistent with what you’d expect.
    I guess what I’m saying is I’m not feeling either side on this one. I think BiWC is a good example of someone like me that goes for other sources. HP I just can’t help but think you give Fox more than its due.

  128. Sorry BiW – as I have mentioned numerous times, I have been dealing with health issues with my mother after she was lucky to survive a serious incident of malpractice earlier this week. I have been at the nursing home for the last hour or so. Yeah – liberal crazies have mothers too. I will be teaching in a few minutes and don’t have time to generate what will be a long list. Here is a quickie.

    He made an excellent choice for his first Supreme Court nomination, unlike the corporate shills Alito and Roberts.

    Yeah – I am sure you will like that one.

    — hp

  129. He made an excellent choice for his first Supreme Court nomination, unlike the corporate shills Alito and Roberts.

    Really? What makes her an “excellent choice”?
    (Here’s a hint…go to my site and search for the post ‘Unfit and Injudicious after giving me your most excellent reasoning)

    And what makes Alito and Roberts corporate shills?
    (I didn’t realize you had a law degree…you might want to read my post on the subject and tell me where I got it wrong)

  130. BiW – see – you don’t get to call an Obama action a failure just because you disagree with it. I know you are a humble fellow, so of course you would never be so bold as to claim that the sole criterion for “success” must be your agreement…….

    Then again, maybe you aren’t so humble. Apparently you think that your law degree is pretty special – and in fact perhaps even more special that most because there are, of course, lots of lawyers who disagree with you. There were four of them on the Supreme Court who voted in dissent in Citizens United – and I suspect they would have found something wrong with your article on the subject. Lots of lawyers support Sotomayor too.

    We first “met” in another legal discussion – and I am well aware that you a very strict constructionist. There are, of course, other viewpoints out there.

    We aren’t going to have a very interesting discussion about this if you continue to wave your law degree around as if it automatically makes your opinion correct. There are plenty of legal minds who disagree with you.

    — hp

  131. Wow. Thank you for that cumuppance. I realize now the error of my ways and the foolishness of questioning my intellectual betters…especially when I have the temerity to use things like judical cannons and the actual statutory language to do so. How very impertinent of me.

    Now that we have dealt with your indignance, can we actually discuss fact? I have asked you in several entries now to actually explain your assertions because that is the only chance they have for becomming compelling, rather than naked statements of opinion without reasons why they should be accepted as fact.

    As for “waiving my law degree around”, it provides a basis for my examination and analysis. You see, unlike many in the media who simply assumed that the “Consitutional Scholar” in the White House was justified in his scolding of the Court, I took the time to actually READ THE DECISION and the APPLICABLE LAW, and having done so, was able to come to the conclusion that the decision was correct. As for the 4 who disagreed, a careful reading shows less of a regard for the law than what they want to believe the potential outcome could be. That said, I still breathlesslessy await your analysis of why Justice Sotomayor was an excellent choice and a success for the President who appointed her, and just how Alito and Roberts (and why just them? Why not Scalia, Thomas, and Kennedy?) are “Corporate Shills”.

    If just telling me how wrong or narrow-minded I am was enough, then the legacy media would have succeeded a long time ago. You have my attention. Try persuasion rather than berating me.

  132. BiW said: Wow. Thank you for that cumuppance. I realize now the error of my ways and the foolishness of questioning my intellectual betters…

    I certainly find it ironic that you raise the issue of “intellectual betters” when in fact it is you who brought up law degrees in the first place.

    I will eventually find time to respond to your post. Until then, I will note that indeed I have been to your site – where (among other things) you urge the Illinois Bar Association to censor Obama for apparently “lying” in the State of the Union address. Fascinating logic….

    — hp

  133. I will note that indeed I have been to your site – where (among other things) you urge the Illinois Bar Association to censor Obama for apparently “lying” in the State of the Union address. Fascinating logic….

    Actually, the discpline is about more than simply “lying”, and I think you would find it less fascinating if you spent an entire semester in a Professional Responsibilty course and then weeks in a Bar Review course learning why what he did was wrong…if he was licenced to practice law, which he is apparently not.

    I’m actually far less concerned about you responding to my post than I am about you answering the questions asked…especially when you were so confident in your assertions. You gave an example of a “success”, but cannot tell me why it is a success. Surely it can’t be that hard to say “Because she has demonstarted a willingness to cast aside integrity to achieve the deisred result” or “because she believes that the role of the federal appellate courts is to make law, rather than apply it to facts”, or simply because “she is a wise latina woman who can make better decisions than gender-impaired old white dudes”. Or could it be that there is a special reason that can only be perceived by enlightened intellectuals of a leftist bent?

    I certainly find it ironic that you raise the issue of “intellectual betters” when in fact it is you who brought up law degrees in the first place.

    And I find it ironic that a well-educated academic cannot discern that the fact was raised to point out that I have training in the discpline at issue (…which would be questioned by the self-appointed cognoscenti if I didn’t dispense with such a hamhanded attempt to discredit the message by discrediting the messenger from the word jump), rather than the lefty elite’s usually implied-rather-than-stated reason, that it means I know better than you what is good for you, and that justifies me banding together with other of a similar bent to abbrogate the average person’s ability to make choices for themselves, and live with the consequences of those choices.

    But I’m sure that such a distinction was obvious, and you simply chose to overlook it.

  134. Ahhh, yes. The CITGO strawman.

    I usually hate cutting and pasting, but since you seemed to miss this pertinent part in the comments:

    Obama’s statement was sweeping in scope and therefore exaggeration but by no means a lie.

    Yes it was a lie…two actually. Let’s dispense with the easy one first, shall we?

    “Overturned a century of law”

    It did no such thing. As I stated above, the only case overturned was the Austin which was decided in 1990, which was 20 years ago. The chapter of the US Code ruled unconstitutional, 2 U.S.C. 441(b), was first enacted in 1976.

    http://uscode.house.gov/uscode-cgi/fastweb.exe?getdoc+uscview+t01t04+11234+0++%28%29%20%20AND%20%28%282%29%20ADJ%20USC%29%3ACITE%20AND%20%28USC%20w%2F10%20%28441b%29%29%3ACITE%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20

    Both are a far cry from “Over a century”.

    2. Now for the part where you might have to think a little bit to understand why the Chicago Messiah lied and was wrong.

    a) As I pointed out above, such “gaming” of the system already occurred with “527″ groups like the ones funded by George Soros, who is not a citizen. The Court was also aware of this when they authored the decision, both in the syllabus:

    “As already explained, Austin was not well reasoned. It is also undermined by experience since its an-nouncement. Political speech is so ingrained in this country’s culture that speakers find ways around campaign finance laws. Rapid changes in technology—and the creative dynamic inherent in the concept of free expression—counsel against upholding a law that restricts political speech in certain media or by certain speakers.”-pg 6

    and more in-depth in the body of the decision itself:

    “We need not reach the question whether the Govern-
    ment has a compelling interest in preventing foreign individuals or associations from influencing our Nation’spolitical process. Cf. 2 U. S. C. §441e (contribution and expenditure ban applied to “foreign national[s]”). Section 441b is not limited to corporations or associations that were created in foreign countries or funded predominantly by foreign shareholders. Section 441b therefore would be overbroad even if we assumed, arguendo, that the Gov-ernment has a compelling interest in limiting foreigninfluence over our political process. See Broadrick, 413
    U. S., at 615.”

    I highlighted that second part because if you agree that the Court did decide the case correctly, as you claim, then you must understand that the arguement you try to make, the same one as the Chicago Messiah, simply doesn’t work. The Court has the authority to overturn a law on the basis that it is overbroad, or that it doesn’t just prohibit conduct that might be constitutionally prohibited, but that it also prohibits conduct that is constitutionally protected. Contrary to what silly liberals, especially ones who believe wise latina women can make better decisions than old white dudes, it is not for the Court to write or fix legislation, and in the case of overbroad laws, their role is to overturn them.

    Now for the part that addresses your CITGO strawman:

    2 U.S.C. 441(e) states:
    (a) Prohibition
    It shall be unlawful for—
    (1) a foreign national, directly or indirectly, to make—
    (A) a contribution or donation of money or other thing of value, or to make an express or implied promise to make a contribution or donation, in connection with a Federal, State, or local election;
    (B) a contribution or donation to a committee of a political party; or
    (C) an expenditure, independent expenditure, or disbursement for an electioneering communication (within the meaning of section 434 (f)(3) of this title); or
    (2) a person to solicit, accept, or receive a contribution or donation described in subparagraph (A) or (B) of paragraph (1) from a foreign national.

    For CITGO’s Venezualian masters to pour billions “to produce films, commercials and other free expressions of speech regarding a political candidate.” they would have to show how such spending did not originate from foreign hands. I realize that you probably have never seen a corporate tax return, especially one for a Foreign-owned US subsidiary, so I’ll make this easy for you: The IRS monitors the flow of money into the country in these corporations as well as the flow out. If these indirect contributions were being made, the Treasury Department would know, and would alert the FEC.

    However, if that particular canard smasher isn’t enough for you, there is also 2 U.S.C. 441(f), which states:

    No person shall make a contribution in the name of another person or knowingly permit his name to be used to effect such a contribution, and no person shall knowingly accept a contribution made by one person in the name of another person.

    As corporations and other business entities have been conferred personhood for legal purposes, this means that CITGO cannot make such expenditures of money funneled from its foreign parent without violating both sections.

    Strawman. And either the Chicago Messiah knew it or should have known it.

    But I’m not surprised. It seems to be what passes for “Investigative Journalism” these days…

  135. OK BiW, a couple of things.

    First, HP was right …. you are the one who waved the law degree in his face. As HP said, you don’t have a monopoly on legal opinion as proven by the fact that four justices with at least as good training as you dissented on Citizens United. I’m all for citing credentials but don’t be surprised if someone gets in a bit of a snit with you when you do it … particularly if the logic is “I’m trained, therefore I’m right.”

    Are you telling me that Jimmy Carter getting Sadat and Begin across a table with each other was chopped liver? Last time I looked Israel and Egypt are at peace. Seems to me this is a glaring omission on your part.

    Back to Citizens United. Even though I supported the decision on first amendment grounds (from my laymans perspective) there is no doubt the decision fails in the court of popular opinion. I can’t dispute your claims about CITGO and based on your citations which I admittedly don’t have the training to dispute, I’ll concede that point to you.

    HOWEVER

    What about American corporations with foreign minority interests? How can you say that there would not be foreign influence through these companies?

  136. “I’m trained, therefore I’m right.”

    No. Its I’m trained, therefore maybe my analysis means more than that of Keith Olbermann.

    I have already addressed the 4 justices who disagreed with me, and while we could go around and around, the “right” result depends largely on your analysis of the correct method of jurisprudence. I happen to believe that if the outcome directs the analysis, then you’re doing it wrong. Our newest Justice would no doubt disagree, but that simply highliights the stark contrast between good lawyering and bad lawyering.

    What about American corporations with foreign minority interests? How can you say that there would not be foreign influence through these companies?

    My answer is “It depends on the corporation.”

    In some public corporations, a minority stake may well translate into operational control of the corporation because the minority shareholder may be the biggest single unified interest holding stock, and may be able to elect several board members all by themselves. This is not true of all such corporations…Ford comes to mind, as the Ford Family will always have the ability to control the company due to its large holdings of stock, and different stock classifications. This is almost a non-concern for private corporations as there is rarely, if ever, such a dilution of ownership that a minority shareholder will have control of the corporation.

    However, even if we are talking about a large public corporation, the tax filings are very informative, and the processes and aims are generally transparent enough that most people, especially ones who read the annual reports, can see if the Board of Directors is using corporate funds for political purposes.

    That said, if it is a real concern, Congress is always free to write a law that addresses those concerns without infringing on legitimate and long standing Constitutional protections. I don’t expect that they will do so because if there is a campaign dollar to be raised, or a benefit to be gleaned, I don’t expect that there will be much political will to shut such a source off. It isn’t the Court’s job to write a law that addresses such issues.

    there is no doubt the decision fails in the court of popular opinion.
    So did Dredd Scott, which was one of several factors leading to the bloodiest conflict Americans have ever been involved in.

    So did Brown v. Board of Ed, and its progheny. Maybe the court of public opinion should adjourn and leave its outrage with Congress?

  137. BiW….

    To be honest, the “foreign influence” dimension isn’t that interesting to me and I didn’t intentionally raise it…. I just thought it interesting that a conservative publication was finding fault with the ruling.

    I do take exception to your claim that somebody with a different legal opinion from yours is lying. The reason they are called legal opinions is because in fact they are just that – they don’t reach “fact” status. Lots of people agree with Obama on this. You can certainly disagree – but don’t try to claim they are lying. They are disagreeing.

    I certainly do not have the legal background to argue with you about this on the basis of case law. I do know that there are well trained legal scholars who disagree with you. That is as far as I can go.

    I am still allowed to have an opinion about how disastrous this ruling will be, regardless of whether it was correctly decided – do I not?

    Let me ask you an honest question – no tricks here – I want to hear your legal opinion.

    Suppose a small town has a Hyde Park style speaker’s corner, where people are allowed to come and stand on a soapbox and give their opinions. It has been working smoothly for ages. One day, one of the speakers is upset because not enough people are hearing him – so he brings a megaphone. In response others do likewise. The first guy keeps escalating – eventually bringing in a huge, expensive sound system. Not only is it so loud that it drowns the other speakers out, but it is so expensive none of the other speakers could afford to match it. The old speakers corner – a symbol of true free speech – is now reduced a single voice shouting so loudly that nobody else can be heard.

    The local government is quite concerned – they liked the speakers corner as it was – so they enact a noise ordinance limiting the volume at which any speaker can speak. This restores the old system where all voices are heard.

    The loud guy of course sues – claiming the noise ordinance violates his free speech.

    The city counters with the claim that its noise ordinance protects the free speech of the quiet speakers – and that in fact the loud guy was infringing on their free speech rights by drowning them out.

    How should the case be decided?

    You can obviously see where I am going with this. Corporations can afford to shout louder than anyone else – and can in fact drown out the softer voices. Limiting their ability to drown everyone out in fact protects the free speech of the soft voices. The Citizens United decision essentially says they can shout as loud as they want.

    Please give me an honest opinion on this.

    — hp

  138. Are you telling me that Jimmy Carter getting Sadat and Begin across a table with each other was chopped liver? Last time I looked Israel and Egypt are at peace. Seems to me this is a glaring omission on your part.

    Oh, I almost forgot. I didn’t consider this to be a big success. Egypt isn’t in direct conflict with Israel. And? Any time they were in the last century, they came out on the wrong end of the deal, so being able to do nothing about the growing extremism (the Muslim Brotherhood) within its own borders and to tacitly fund saintly groups like Hamas and other Palestinian fronts offer the country a far bigger bang for their buck. I don’t think that not getting his ass handed to him again was too steep a price for Sadat to sit across from Begin and make nice for a few hours.

  139. You can obviously see where I am going with this. Corporations can afford to shout louder than anyone else – and can in fact drown out the softer voices. Limiting their ability to drown everyone out in fact protects the free speech of the soft voices. The Citizens United decision essentially says they can shout as loud as they want.

    This is a very interesting argument, but it is based on false assumptions, the chief assumption being that “Shouting loudest” equals influence over public opinion. Its a nice theory, but is demonstrably false. If it were true, then the countless speeches, statements, and hours long infomercials on ABC by the Preisdent in support of the Health Care Takeover would have been successful, especially with all the other voices shouting right along with the agenda, those being all the other networks other than FOX, just about every major newspaper and periodical, Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, Tony Wiener, and Alan Grayson. Hell, Obama even claimed to have God on his side. With all that shouting over such a long period, and fillibuster-proof majorities in the House and the Senate, why, it should have been a done deal months ago. And yet the President is reduced to reconciliation as a means to get the government’s sticky fingers on one-sixth of the nation’s economy. If I accepted your premise, then I’d have to wonder why citizens weren’t showing up all the townhalls praising this plan and DEMANDING that their elected officials pass this travesty IMMEADIATELY!

    I would be lying if I were to assert that money were not a factor in politics. My own experiences have taught me better. That said, I have to ask you if you are as outraged about 527s that purchase “Issue ads”, often in states other than the one in which they were formed, or by foreign nationals? Or political action committees, which are funded by various sources, including unions, and spend enormous amounts of money buying ads in political campaigns and lobbying legislators? How about the influence of “soft money” in campaigns? Now because Corporations are allowed to play too, the whole system is NOW corrupt and wrong?

    Whether you like it or not, corporations are often targets of these influence peddlers, as weill as the candidates they fund. They pay the price through tax policy that deliberately targets them, butuntil Citizens Unitied, they were limited in their participation in the very system that frequently targets them.

    If you’re worried about softer voices being heard, or that untruths will crowd out truth in the marketplace of ideas, then maybe you should start demanding better of the legacy media. Freedom of the press allowed the press to challenge the government, and individual policy makers without fear. In the last election, I watched as it failed to even make a show of vetting the winner, opting instead to back him, and smear anyone who tried to raise formerly legitimate questions. It has been my experience in life that truth eventually comes out. In some ways, we’re seeing this now, as a growing portion of this country is having buyer’s remorse about the pResident. It would have been better to learn these things up front, but better late than never.

    How should the case be decided?

    Mr. Microphone’s right to free speech is not abbrogated by the noise ordinance, as the only thing that makes him different from the other speakers is the amplifcation.

    Before you equate corporate dollars with the amplification, you should consider the fact that corporations are also not treated equally by the state. The corporations you are concerned about (C-corporations) are taxed at a higher rate, are denied many tax breaks offered to individuals, have a significant portion of their earnings taxed twice, are subject to a great deal of expensive and burdensome regulations, which are often written by bureaucrats rather than legislatures, and in many cases are subject to taxation in multiple states at the same time, frequently with little or no offset for taxes paid to other jurisdictions.

  140. I do take exception to your claim that somebody with a different legal opinion from yours is lying.

    Given that Mr. Obama is not licensed to practice law, I don’t think he is entitled to render a “legal opinion”, as it is a term of art denoting an opinon on a legal matter given by one duly licensed to practice law. However, since he made no claim that I am aware of that it was a “legal opinion”, he is safe from a claim of unauthorized practice of law. 😉

    As for it being a lie, I demonstrated it to be such…two, in fact. “No century of law” was overturned, and the decision doesn’t have the legal effect he claimed it does, because of the remaining sections of the statute, which the Court left intact.

    I am still allowed to have an opinion about how disastrous this ruling will be, regardless of whether it was correctly decided – do I not?

    Certainly. Having read Sun-Tzu, I understand the concept of getting out of the way when an opponent is making a mistake. 😉

    So if the gist of your argument is it is wrong to apply the first amendment to a corporation, what do you base that assertion on? An offense rooted in the idea that artificial entities have rights that many other citizens have? Do you actually have a legal argument to say that it is wrong?

  141. There are two things I’d offer roughly in support of BiW here.

    I do agree that the desired outcome should not dictate legal argument. That is putting the cart before the horse. With that said, it is human nature to seek a legal argument that supports the desired outcome.

    The other thing to note is that prior to Citizens United, General Electric had a very loud megaphone in the form of MSNBC, specifically Olbermann, Maddow, Schultz and to a lesser extent Matthews. HP, don’t get me wrong. I understand and sympathize with your concerns but the loopholes were there already and I am a bit of a first amendment junkie.

  142. BiW said…. I happen to believe that if the outcome directs the analysis, then you’re doing it wrong. Our newest Justice would no doubt disagree, but that simply highliights the stark contrast between good lawyering and bad lawyering.

    I am full of hypotheticals tonight…..

    Suppose, in an alternate universe that the framers had explicitly put a right to privacy in the constitution – meaning that Roe v Wade was correctly and unambiguously decided – who knows, lets even make it a unanimous decision…

    I assume this would bother you on a moral basis.

    Would it bother you on a legal basis?

    What I am really asking is if you would be such a strict constructionist if doing so resulted in decisions you found to be immoral. Sometimes it seems like taking a strict constructionist line is pretty convenient because it justifies the conservative morals you (and others) already have.

    Don’t take this as an aggressive question – just curious.

    — hp

  143. HP, when do I get the courtesy of an ANSWER to any of the questions I have asked of you in this thread?

    None of them have appeared to be overly difficult. For things you have been so certain about, I really would not have believed that it would have been so difficult to jot down a couple of lines…especially after the Mr. Microphone hypothetical…for a minute I thought I was back in front of Professor Simmons…until i remembered that I was dead to him the minute I started asking innocuous questions about the footnotes in the BAKKE case.

    Suppose, in an alternate universe that the framers had explicitly put a right to privacy in the constitution

    They did. It was just more confining than the mystical penumbra that some justices “discovered” when they were deciding Griswold v. Connecticut. Perhaps you’ve heard of it:

    Amendment 4: The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

    What’s more, nothing prevents the individual states from expanding this right to include other things, or to offer greater protections for the individual’s expectation of privacy. Take Washington for example:

    SECTION 7 INVASION OF PRIVATE AFFAIRS OR HOME PROHIBITED. No person shall be disturbed in his private affairs, or his home invaded, without authority of law.

    The effect that this has translated to in Washington case law is a much stronger enforcement of the right of privacy than is available under federal law.

    However, I gather than by “Right to Privacy”, you mean that that “penumbra” or “emination” that was stretched from the ruling that many accounts now hold was actually a “friendly suit” (meaning that both parties colluded to create a controversy to get around the fact that there was, in fact no justiciable controversy) regarding the right of married couples to contraception, free of the state’s prohibitions, to suddenly mean that a pregnant woman had the right to privately collude with her doctor to murder her child without the state’s interference, because it is a “medical procedure” rather than a private act undertaken by the mother and babydaddy to end the pregnancy.

    The problem with such a “right” is it still has a significant, built-in constitutional argument against it in the case of abortion, that being the Fourteenth Amendment. Perversely, it is this very Amendment from which the Court intitially discovered the “right to privacy to which you refer, but the decision itself does nothing to resolve this inherent conflict between the plainly stated right to life and liberty that is subject to jeopardy only by due process, and this “right of privacy that had to be mystically devined from the language of the Amendment. Justice White pointed this out in his decision, and Rehnquist fleshed it out in greater detail. Even liberal legal scholars have acknowledged that the rationale for this “right” is weak at best, and nonexistent at worst. Even if I had no moral objection to it, it would still be a vile expansion of federal power as the states themselves rightly governed the matter until the decision was handed down after the rehearing of the case.
    Even if I accepted your hypothetical, the conflict between your hypothetical Amendment and the Fourteenth and Tenth Amendments remain.

    As for why I am a strict constructionalist, it has to do with my belief in the rule of law, which allows a predictablity of result and a degree of protection for ALL men that simply is not present in other systems of law. The cornerstone of this is that making law is the perview of the legislature alone. The Courts apply the law to facts, and in the case of SCOTUS, are the final arbiters of whether or not laws passed by Congress are Consitutional. If we short circuit that system, then the people no longer have any say in the rules they are to live under, and the law becomes what ever at least five people, (or in the case of Executive Orders, one person) say it is. Predictability gives way to the arbitrary and caprecious, and we are off to the races.

    What I am really asking is if you would be such a strict constructionist if doing so resulted in decisions you found to be immoral. Sometimes it seems like taking a strict constructionist line is pretty convenient because it justifies the conservative morals you (and others) already have.

    Would it surprise you to know that I am troubled with the idea that corporations and other artifical entities are granted many of the rights of citizens? Morally, I have many misgivings about it, not the least of which is the concept that they exist at the pleasure of the individual states, and draw their rights from that same source. In a world where so many lines are already sufficiently blurry, and where people often interchange concepts erroneously, I fear that it would be too easy through lazy thinking to start believing that we as individuals also derive our rights from the pleasure of the state…indeed, I could argue about many elected officials who think so already.

    Finally, yet another question for you that I fear you won’t answer: If you believe that the right to abort a child is protected by a right to privacy, how is it that you believe getting the government involved in “providing” health care for people doesn’t violate that right. The proponents of the Health Care Takeover keep touting how they will “control costs” and “cut waste”. How do you think that will be accomplished? Government will have to know what procedures you and your doctor have decided upon, or what prescriptions the two of you have determined are proper before they will pay the bill. Otherwise, how are they to know if they are paying for “waste” or not? However, that means that they also get to determine what is and what is not wasteful, in a decision that ultimately violates that “right to privacy” you seem to hold so dear. Perhaps you could reconcile this?

  144. BiW…

    Fair enough. I am indeed stretched pretty thin of late – constantly running in and out – so I haven’t had time to think and post much. That may seem slightly unusual given the Mr. Microphone scenario – but that one had been on my mind for some time and it thus didn’t take me long to write it out.

    I will make answering your questions the first thing I do when I next post – even before answering stuff on my own blog. It may be Saturday night before I get there though.

    — hp

  145. BiW,

    It is now Sunday morning – and with no crises scheduled for the day I am hoping to get some time to answer your questions.

    Thank you, BTW, for your prayers for my mother. It may surprise you, but it does mean something to me. My own religious views are rather agnostic – but culturally I am Catholic and always will be. I am a member of a Christian community, and though I am skeptical of some of the dogma I nevertheless value the power of community and culture. In that context, prayers do indeed mean a lot.

    Looking back through these last messages it is hard to know exactly which questions you thought I was avoiding. I believe you were referring to the “What did Carter do?” and “What has Obama done?” so those are the questions I will address. Apologies if you meant different questions.

    First note: You will disagree with virtually everything I say. I will say “Obama accomplished the following” and you will respond “no he didn’t” or “that was unconstitutional” or “that was really a failure” or some other variety of responses. I won’t prove anything to you. Nevertheless, here goes.

    Lets do Carter first – his list is shorter:

    I will be honest – Jimmy Carter wasn’t a great President. Indeed, Carter has been far better as an ex-President than he was as a President. My first time voting was 1976 and I voted against him (I voted for Anderson) and I voted for Reagan in 1980. Still, I believe it is a big mistake to claim he had NO positive accomplishments. Carter has been far better as an ex-President than he was as a President.

    You seem to want to play down the Camp David accords. I am not particularly clear how you do that because in the political context of the time they were indeed significant. For the first time ever an Arabic state recognized the existence of Israel as legitimate. How can you not see that as significant? You seem to underplay the bravery of both Sadat and Begin. Sadat was assassinated for his role, and Begin was strongly criticized from within his own Likud party. I can go on – but I am very confused about how you are framing this as anything other than a significant achievement.

    What were Carter’s other achievements? He was a champion of human rights at a time it was dangerous to be one. This came back to bite him, of course – for his refusal to support a brutal Iranian dictator was probably a factor in the Shah’s subsequent overthrow. Nobody at the time anticipated the results of the Islamic revolution in Iran. It is hard for me to condemn Carter for taking the moral high ground – even though it did end up being costly – far more costly than anyone at the time could have predicted.

    Carter did indeed fail to bring inflation under control. Like Obama, he inherited the bad economy. He took office on the heels of OPEC’s oil embargo. Reagan is credited with turning the economy wrong – though an honest analysis would suggest that lots of other factors – beyond the control of either President – were involved.

    Of course – more than anything Carter is remembered for his failure to bring the hostages home. I wrote about this on my own blog a while back…. You remember, of course, the failed military rescue of the hostages. Historical perspective can often hinge on a single event – and had that rescue succeeded, I suspect our historical memories of Carter would be quite different.

    I know you will object to the way I have framed Carter’s successes – and again, I don’t think he was a very good President. However, you are mistaken to claim that everything he did was a failure.

    On to Obama in another note.

    — hp

  146. HP,

    A quick response as I finish my tea before I shower and go to church.

    You may indeed frame those as accomplishments. I can admit that my perspective is colored by the long view, and therefore may be likely to dim them.

    I would, however, like to put a particularly annoying shibboleth to rest, however: this notion of “inheriting” a bad economy from a predecessor as an excuse for poor performance.

    If it were a matter of right that Obama were to succeed Bush, rather than a position that he actively campaigned for, then such an excuse might have a scintila of merit. But when we are constantly being told how damn smart he is, and allusions are constantly being made to his brilliance, this excuse starts to look more and more like what it is…a flimsy excuse. If he was so smart, then he knew what he was campaigning to take over…an argument made even stronger by the fact that the TARP discussions before the election should have made things even clearer to an already ‘brilliant’ mind. Once he began to “rule”, and told us that Spendulous would keep unemployment from going above 8%, and again, he got what he campaigned for, HE TOOK OWNERSHIP, which is what he was elected to do, anyway.

    Cahtur was no different. The economy had been in the toilet since 1971 when he took office, although to be fair, I don’t know that I ever heard him make the “I inherited…” excuse.

    While I tend to respect the hell out of his working for Habitat for Humanity, and thus setting an example for everyone by making charity a personal rather than a government endeavor, his chumminess with communists and groups like Hamas tend to erase any points he has otherwise scored in my estimation.

  147. BiW….

    On to Obama’s successes (including a list of what I see to be his failures at the end). I suspect you will not agree with any of the successes I list. You are entitled to your opinion, as I am entitled to mine. There is no objective standard on most of these – and we have no historical perspective.

    Note also that we are merely 13 months into his term – so much of this remains a work in progress.

    Here goes:

    1) Obama has symbolically broken the racial glass ceiling. He has empowered a huge segment of our society – a group who in fact felt that the American dream did not apply to them. He has given a sense of hope to the disenfranchised. Go ahead and scoff at this – but believe me, it is real and it is important. This is one reason I am so resentful of those who seek to take Obama down for mere political gain. You may have already seen my blog post on the topic: http://hippieprofessor.com/2010/02/10/ahhh-sarah-about-that-hopey-changey-thing/

    2) He has stabilized the economy at a time when we might well have made a tailspin into a second great depression. You will scoff. Seriously – can you honestly claim that the economy would be in better shape right now without the stimulus? Had GM and Chrysler and AIG failed we would have seen a massive cascade of business failures and unemployment would be far far far higher than it is now. I have said it a billion times – in economics we don’t get a control group. Wish we did – because I know I would be right.

    3) BTW – saving GM and Chrysler – at least for now – was a big thing. I suspect you will claim it was illegal and unconstitutional. I tend to think it wasn’t – but as you have pointed out I don’t have a law degree. Now we will actually see the Chevy Volt – and with Toyota in disarray the US may even to be able to catch up in the race for green technology. Yeah – I know – not important to you.

    4) He has articulated a moderate vision of health care reform. Despite dishonest conservative commentary(fueled by a desperate insurance industry) It is far from a progressive position – a progressive position would entail single payer or at least a very robust public option. An honest politican on the right would find a lot to like in the bills now on the table – yet they seek to to score political points instead – and they disgust me. See my section on failures below for commentary on Obama’s failure to get this done.

    5) He is taking strides to end “don’t ask, don’t tell” – he should have done it earlier, and it will take too long in the end – but it is the right thing to do.

    6) He has, as promised, given a tax cut to the vast majority of working Americans. That they apparently don’t realize this is testimony to the power of the conservative press. You can be damned sure that had McCain lowered middle-class taxes to a similar degree FOX would be shouting it from the mountaintops.

    7) He acted boldly and decisively with the Somali pirate situation. Before you scoff, just think what you would be saying had that rescue attempt failed. Why – you would be saying the same things you say about Carter’s failure to rescue the Iran hostages (though of course that was a much bigger undertaking).

    8) He has made an unprecedented outreach to the Islamic world. No doubt you will think this was a mistake – a sign of weakness perhaps. You fail to realize how badly our image has fallen in the rest of the world after Bush. Something needs to be done about that – this is a start.

    9) He made a good choice for his first Supreme Court appointment. I stand by that. I knew what “wise Latina” meant the moment I heard the phrase – and I am saddened that she had to backtrack on that and pretend it meant something other than it did. Yes – we all know what you think here.

    A crisis is brewing – in the form of the wife telling me I have been so busy with my mother that I haven’t done anything around the house all week….. I will need to close this, but I have plenty of other things to list under accomplishments. Here are a few things I think are failures. though:

    1) So far, he has failed to deliver on HCR. He doesn’t have the political power that an LBJ did – and seemingly can’t whip his own party into line. I am still holding out hope that he and Democrats will get it done. All it will take is for the House to pass the Senate bill and the Senate to add a progressive sidecar through reconciliation. That will take some guts – and will require the realization that we will be taking a bath in 2010 midterms anyway so there is nothing to be lost by doing the right thing.

    2) He bungled the Gates affair and looked like a fool as a result.

    3) He put lots of political capital into securing the Olympics, and failed – looking like a fool.

    4) He has taken a big hit with the public on the issue of executive compensation. His hands were tied on the issue of course – but he ended up taking a hit anyway. Perhaps worse, he failed to get it across to the public that the huge executive bonuses are a product of the unfettered free markets conservatives prefer. I scream every time I hear Obama criticized on executive pay because the conservative critics KNOW they are the ones responsible for the situation.

    5) He has somehow managed to allow the conservatives – in disarray just a few months ago – to seize the narrative. I suspect it is because he failed to address the tea party movement, choosing to ignore it instead. In doing so he allowed it to gain strength to the point it is now doing some damage – both to him and the country.

    6) He overestimated his own political power – thinking that he could accomplish things based on his popularity, when in fact he couldn’t. This is probably a result of his inexperience in congress – he really did think he could change how things are done – and congress has reminded him it just isn’t that easy. The really ironic thing is the way that democrats have resisted him – for their own political gain. They made Scott Brown significant because they dragged their feet on HCR. It could all of been finished earlier had they not done so.

    OK – crisis is really on the horizon – wife is getting restless – so I will close. You will enjoy tearing this up, I am sure.

    There is lots more – both positive and negative – that I could write. I had better get cracking on housework too. I also need to catch up on my own blog – so it will be a bit before I can respond to your inevitable trashing of my opinions.

    — hp

  148. Hippie Professor,

    #1 – If you are giving credit for TARP saving us from possible Depression, that wasn’t Obama – that was Bush Administration, under the guidance of Paulson and Bernacke.

    #2 – How do you call unemployment rising 2% and underemployment increasing another 3% since the inception of signing the stimulus as stabilizing the economy? And the accumulated debt from the stimulus has seriously jeopardized the U.S. debt rating.

    #3 – I disagree. Chrysler is still operating in the red and Chrysler’s bond holders were definitely cheated during the buyout.

    #4 – [He has articulated a moderate vision of health care reform]. But the modern version of Obama’s health care was rejected in by all accounts of a majority of the American people.

    #5 Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell may be popular with the American people, but it is very unpopular with the people that count – a great majority of the military and the military leadership.

    #6 – The tax cuts from the stimulus amounted to an average of $13 per paycheck, but during Obama’ first year each American citizen watched the public debt increase $6,000 per citizen, $2,700 of that due to the first stimulus approval. I don’t consider this a fair trade or a smart use of money.

    #7 Obama was very decisive concerning the pirate situation. Obama does deserve praise for handling that correctly.

    #8 Obama’s outreached has been received as mostly weakness if I read it correctly. The situations in Iran, Yemen, and Afghanistan have actually deteriorated in Obama’s first year.

    #9 The appointment of Sonia Sotomayor can not be determined to be either good or bad until many decisions have been rendered.

    Seems like most of your statements are based only on your opinion. Do you have some facts to back up your assertions?

  149. HP in accordance with fair use statutes I feel compelled to tell you that I am copying an amount of your last comment and planning a post on which I go completely postal on it. I will put up a link to your blog unless you choose to ask me not to. I will also open the post with my honest take on you stressing that I hold no real ill will towards you rather see your well articulated points as wrong.
    I have the day off tomorrow and quite frankly am so moved by how you have captured the typical pro Obama stance held by the sane. Again I hold no ill will. Cheers.

  150. Alfie – no problem at all. I love a good debate – that is part of why I do this. I will try to get something provocative up on my blog so that anyone heading over the first time will be stunned…..

    😉

    I do trust, however, that you did see I have some criticisms of Obama. Sure – some of my criticisms are merely veiled criticisms of conservatives – but others – particularly the last – are pretty serious. I do think he read his own press releases and felt he would be able to accomplish a lot more than he is able to do. That gets pretty close to the “arrogance” your side likes to point to.

    So – I really don’t think it is fair to say I am merely a mindless Obama drone – which you know is EXACTLY what Elric will say over there.

    — hp

  151. HP and BiW I might add …. if I am not mistaken the hostages were ready for release under Carter’s administration and shenanigans were afoot to delay the release until Reagan’s inauguration so that Carter would get no credit for it. Again, I’m citing this from memory. I’d have to go find sources to back up my assertion.

    Sorry for my absence the past two or so days. I did my first ever political interview on the internet radio show last night and spent some time preparing for that. Sandi and I interviewed a young man looking to fill the late Jack Murtha’s seat in the 12th district of PA. He’s a sharp cookie and I particularly liked his humanitarian view toward military intervention.

  152. HP the other item in the Obama failure column is the cow-tow to pharma. He let the drug companies off the hook big time in doing any good for HCR.

    Maybe I missed it but you left out a big accomplishment that BiW and especially Gorilla will deny to their last breath. He has CONTINUED the Bush war on terror and is making better progress on it than did his predecessor. 😀

  153. Seems like most of your statements are based only on your opinion. Do you have some facts to back up your assertions?

    First, Cowboy, welcome to the blog. Good to have you here.

    Ehhh, your claim that doing away with DADT “is very unpopular with the people that count – a great majority of the military and the military leadership” is based only on your opinion. Do you have some facts to back up your assertion? 😉

    If it were a slam-dunk it would not be debated right now. The fact is this is not Bill Clinton’s military. This is 2010. Attitudes have evolved.

  154. He has CONTINUED the Bush war on terror and is making better progress on it than did his predecessor.

    OMG!!!!!!!!!!! Please tell me what you base this on so I can reevaluate my potential scorn. I’m thinking you can’t mean Iraq or Afghanistan. Perhaps you mean the domestic side of things and full body scanners?
    Honest to God NEITHER of these guys have executed the GWOT well. I can only give props to W for the initial roll out. From there it’s all down hill baby.

  155. HP I don’t get traffic so I don’ think I’m gonna help your numbers any. I seriously found your points to be true to what I explained. Your negatives list is less motivating although I think it shows you to be consistent in your opinions and standards.

  156. Alfie, we’ve captured two high quality leaders in the past month. I believe we’ve doubled down on the use of drones (not necessarily good depending on your POV). Despite all the sturm und drang we also got good info from Abdulmutulab without torturing him I might add.

  157. Regards drones you are right the Obama Administration has dramatically increased drone activity in Pakistan. Hell that’s purt near a fulfillment of a campaign promise.
    This is from Pakistans major nrewspaper:

    THE US is raining drones on Pakistani soil with a vengeance. On Tuesday alone the drones’ death toll has reached 30. Despite having proven counterproductive in the so-called ‘war on terror’, the drones have primarily killed innocent Pakistani civilians, including women and children, including over one hundred in January this year alone. The fallout for Pakistan is dreadful, Not only does it show that the Pakistani government is allowing its citizens to be killed by the US on Pakistani territory, it also creates more recruits for the extremists and militants and makes the job of winning over the tribals so as to isolate the hardcore militants that much more difficult. It would appear that that is the US insidious design against Pakistan, since they also know that such strikes not only add to the locals’ resolve to fight the Americans, but they also undermine the credibility of the Pakistan military and the state.

    You still loving it?
    I also wonder if you think Mullah Omars sidekick will go the torture free route whence the US gets him into Afghanistan. Of course there is speculation that Baraders arrest is but a show to give a sniff to some Taliban to see if they’ll make nice. If you’ve studied the Taliban and Afghanistan at all you’d know this isn’t a good course.All in all I don’t agree with your points.

  158. Oh yeah R I’d be remiss to point out that the first time I’ve seen you not go the childish leftist “panty bomber”,”BVD bomber”,”Hotpants” route is when you’re trying to give Obama props.
    Hear that? That’s me opening a beer so I can stomach the hypocrisy.

  159. BiW….

    You and I may not agree on much of anything – but we do share an obsession, as related in the comic linked below:

    http://xkcd.com/386/

    I will get a rebuttal up as soon as possible – it may be a while though. Alfie is apparently preparing something similar, and our new friend Keyboard Cowboy has posted something here. It is nice to be so loved….

    😉

    — hp

  160. HP, I have no problem with you being wrong. My problem comes with your belief that you are right. 😉

    As a side note, I am reading a fascinating book on John Quincy Adams right now, and how he spent his post-presidential life in Congress twisting the pro-slavery members up into knots.

  161. You don’t appear to be very honest. You misquoted what I said. I didn’t say citizens. I said military, the ones that count.

    I believe that you think American attitudes have evolved, but that is the same press that said anthropogenic global warming was settled. I do not believe your opinion that America has evolved. I think that is what you want us to believe.

    http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/nov/02/marine-leads-dont-ask-dont-tell-fight/

    The important point: “Most of the senior brass hold deep reservations about President Obama’s pledge to end the ban on gays in the military, especially in the middle of two wars that have put extra stress on the military, down to the platoon level, where soldiers and Marines would be expected to bond with openly gay colleagues.”

    Citizens do not set military policy. Obama is going against the wishes of those who serve, but then I think he is a coward and a traitor.

  162. My issue, as stated before on this blog, is that of logistics.

    We seperate men and women in housing for privacy- based exclusively on sexuality. You are now throwing that on its head.

    Do we create gay barracks? Or should we just mesh everyone together- coed showers, berthing, etc…

  163. A clunker that travels 12,000 miles a year at 15 mpg uses 800 gallons of gas a year. A vehicle that travels 12,000 miles a year at 25 mpg uses 480 gallons a year. So, the average Cash for Clunkers transaction will reduce US gasoline consumption by 320 gallons per year. They claim 700,000 vehicles sold due to the program, so that’s 224 million gallons saved per year. That equates to a bit over 5 million barrels of oil.

    5 million barrels is about 5 hours worth of US consumption. More importantly, 5 million barrels of oil at $70 per barrel costs about $350 million dollars.

    So, the government paid $3 billion of our tax dollars to save $350 million. We spent $8.57 for every dollar we saved per year, while paying interest on the debt incurred.

    Think of what Obama and 60 Democrat Senators could have done with health care?

  164. Think of what Obama and 60 Democrat Senators could have done with health care?

    Well, they could have saved the lives of 47,000 people annually who die because they don’t have insurance. But, apparently, that means little to you….

    — hp

  165. HP I’ve done some looking on the 47k thing. You really like that number don’t you?
    My searching seems to show it’s pretty much bullshit and has roots in a rather inept JAMA study that shows mortality is possibly increased by up to 25% in cases where patients don’t have insurance.
    I’ve seen where other liberal entities have put the number at 18 and 22k.
    I also find it kinda screwy when the same number comes up in different places. 47000 is a number that was trotted out over the mammogram scandal of the earlier Obama health care story lines. 47k more women were going to go down due to less testing.
    FWIW I personally find the number to be unbelievable and a discredit to anything it is attached to.

  166. Lets play a bit with the ludicrous number.
    47 million uninsured.Another bogus number but hey.
    47k deaths.whats the %
    Its less than those that die WITH insurance.

  167. [Well, they could have saved the lives of 47,000 people annually who die because they don’t have insurance. But, apparently, that means little to you….]

    Newsflash: Having insurance means you don’t die. Which one should I purchase for immortality?

    If that is how you are to measure our goodness by determining how many die Hippie Professor, revoke Roe V. Wade and we can ensure that one million won’t die annually. But apparently, that means little to you.

    – KC

  168. KC said: Hippie Professor, revoke Roe V. Wade and we can ensure that one million won’t die annually. But apparently, that means little to you

    Or – perhaps we could put aside our differences and work together to see that abortions are very uncommon? We can work toward the end that people, given a choice, should choose life? We can do this by providing education and counseling services and by providing easy access to affordable birth control. We can improve support services for unwed mothers and improve medical care for all women.

    That sounds like a reasonable and compassionate compromise to me.

    — hp

  169. work together to see that abortions are very uncommon?

    1.21 million in the United States in the year 2005. Not really “uncommon”, let alone “very uncommon”.

    We can work toward the end that people, given a choice, should choose life? We can do this by providing education and counseling services and by providing easy access to affordable birth control.

    *coughcoughBULLSHITcoughcough*

    “Chosing life” wouldn’t be so difficult if 20% (the percentage under 20) weren’t able to kill their children without parental consent when they are not able to vote or legally have an adult beverage.

    Education as an issue? Are you serious? You’d be hard-pressed to be able to find a 13 year old in any community who doesn’t know where babies come from. I grew up with a few of the dumbest people ever to draw breath, and even they knew a few simple truths, such as condoms only have a 100% failure rate when they aren’t used, some girls lie, so you use the condoms any way, and you don’t screw someone that you don’t want to be emotionally entangled with for at least the next 20 years.

    Counseling services? I could actually get behind this, but this national shame is a cash cow for Planned Parenthood, and they aren’t about to allow any real counseling take place. Hell, you can’t even approach PP patrons with literature on the subject in many places without violating injunctions or laws designed to prevent counseling.

    and by providing easy access to affordable birth control.

    Birth control isn’t the issue you’re making it out to be.

    Fifty-four percent of women who have abortions had used a contraceptive method (usually the condom or the pill) during the month they became pregnant. Among those women, 76% of pill users and 49% of condom users report having used their method inconsistently, while 13% of pill users and 14% of condom users report correct use.

    Eight percent of women who have abortions have never used a method of birth control; nonuse is greatest among those who are young, poor, black, Hispanic or less educated.

    Planned Parenthood already provides low-cost contraceptives, and you can buy a 12 pack of spermacidal condoms at Walgreens for $10.99. That’s less than a buck a f**k. If you can’t afford that, then you really should be working instead of having sex. The pimply kid at the McDonalds works enough hours a week to buy more than he’ll ever be able to use.

    Sorry, no sale. What you’re talking about is yet another way the expertocracy wants to sanction things that shouldn’t be happening in the first place.

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