A Chicken Is Not Pillage

Republicants For The Promotion Of Cowardice

Pete Talbot picks apart the lame attempt by Eric Iverson (MiniMe to Dennis Rehburp's  Dr. Stupid) to promote the GGF, Great Gun Fear (The Gubmint Gonna' Take OUR GUNS!!!)  What Pete doesn't highlight quite to my satisfaction is the shear disdain that promoters of the GGF have for voters.

Through more posts than I can link here (given my laziness) I have attempted to show the lunacy of the GGF.  I have argued that no politician would be stupid enough to think they could succeed in such an effort without an epic FAIL on their part.  I have argued that law-enforcement would  not even attempt to follow such a dictate, and if they did, it would be with the help of military or paramilitary enforcement, i.e. you're screwed anyway.  I have shown that most every gun restriction can, has been and will be subverted by the clever populace.  There will be no taking of our guns.  None.  Not Ever.

MiniMe argues that there are people, fearsome frightening people, who *want* to take our guns.  MiniMe wants you afraid of those people.  MiniMe thinks Montanans are cowardly enough to be afraid of those people ... Boo!  This is an insult and absolute bullshit.  I for one have never been afraid of what other people want, except for those with power who want us to be afraid.  There are people out there who want everyone to be blond and blue-eyed.  Though I don't fit that bill, I am not afraid.  There are people out there who want us to accept everything they say as if from authority, when they have very little.  I'm not afraid of them either.  No, it's the one's who want me so afraid that I give my rights and money to them and their friends.  That, I am afraid of, because they tend to be successful in making my fellows afraid.

MiniMe, the NRA, and other lying politicians and political organizations all want us filled with the GGF.  To them I say, "Bite me."  Worse still, they want us terrified of the scary black man who 'wants' to take our guns.  They know that some seemingly rational, non-bitter people will suddenly become bed-wetting children when faced with the GGF.  They bank on it, and I do mean 'bank'.  They want your money to prevent the GGF, when in fact it's already prevented, in part by the very fact that you have those guns.  The Scary Black Man ain't gonna take anything, and he hasn't said one word about his desire to do so; yet MiniMe will lie to you, for he desires profit at your expense in money and dignity.

Barack Obama has been called elitist because he believes that some folks cling to gun ownership (the GGF) out of poorly thought out fears (bitterness).  But he supports the Second Amendment, and is willing to defer to the will of Congress and the people.  Some of my best friends on the right use a litmus test for truth.  Does someone use an issue (like race, guns, gender) to make money?  Despite the claims of Hillary Clinton (Republicant candidate Senator from New York) or John McCain (lobbyist Gelding candidate from Arizona) Barack Obama hasn't attempted to gain funds with his comments about taking guns (comments he's never made).  MiniMe sure has.  Eric Iverson is an elitist because he believes that he can toy with your feelings and manipulate your base fears, and he can make a buck for Richy McRehburg while doing it.

In bringing this to a close, I would be remiss if I failed to point to this comment from Carol Minjares, Fearful Rabbit for H.D. 97:

So they assembled a list of lefty notables who hunt and fish to certify that Obama is an okay guy who won't take our guns away. Wow.

Apparently, MiniMe's manipulation of the cowardly works on some folks ...

She's terrified.  Vote accordingly, Missoula.

In Honor Of In Honor Of ...

Montana Headlines is anticipating viewing Ben Stein's movie "Expelled".  Far be it from me to detract from the experience, but I hope that he(?) approaches the movie with a critical eye.  And so, I offer

Six things in Expelled that Ben Stein doesn't want you to know.

Does The Right Believe Religion Is Bad?

I've noticed something that I want to throw on out there for a bit of review.  It's an oddity, to be certain.

Whenever a 'leftist'/Democrat/'moonbat' embraces an idea or person (or more to the point, an idealistic person) the Right will denigrate that very human response and attachment.  That, in itself, is not surprising.  They really think we're 'self-loathing', 'ignorant' and/or crazy'.  This has been happening for some time now, and though we on the leftward side of policy and issue would often like to blame Bush for this 'with us or crazy' kind of thinking, it actually was codified into appropriate public behavior by, not surprisingly, an actor.

What is somewhat surprising, perhaps only because I've never had reason to notice it quite so strongly before, is that they do it in denigrating religious terms.  For instance, those who mockingly refer to Barrack Obama as 'the Obamessiah' or "the Obamasavior'.  See, that's really rather striking.  It would be simplistic to offer the explanation that they believe 'us' to be worshiping a 'false prophet' in the light of the truth of their own savior, Jesus.  Except that many who do this come from a-religious or atheistic viewpoint.  This isn't a matter of 'dueling messiahs'  (though I'd love to hear the guitar riffs that would settle that cosmic fight.)  No, this is a manner of thought that holds that belief is itself a form of worship; and that if one believes the wrong thing, or in the wrong person, that one is worthy of spite, derision, damnation as the belief is to be ridiculed.

In essence, it's a denigration of several ideals.  Trust, faith, admiration and hope.  If one holds to value any of these things, but stands in opposition to the Right, than what must be dismissed is not only the object of these values, but the values themselves.  Trusting Obama is worshiping Obama.  Not only is the trust misplaced because Obama is bad (an uppity Negro) but trust itself is equated with what must be held to scorn: worship.

"I think Obama was very forthright and honest in his speech about racism."

"Ohhh, you just ~worship~ Obama!"

Notice, the emphasis of scorn is on the idea of "worship"; that to have faith in, to believe in, to appeal to ... anything ... is a shameful act of itself.  It is cast as 'religious' and must be mocked.  But Religion, the act and behavior of being religious, is to worship.  If worship is to be mocked than religion is worthy of mockery, as evidenced by the very behavior of those who mock worship.

So, I cast it out there for all to peruse.  Does the Right just despise religion?

Things I've Learned From The Righty Montana Inter-tubes

1)  Children wanting things is a tawdry political trick.
    a)  Wanting things for children is even worse.

2)  Black men who are correct in their predictions are even more evil than ... ?

“When his enemies find out that in 1984 I went to Tripoli” to visit Col. Muammar el-Qaddafi, Mr. Wright recalled, “with Farrakhan, a lot of his Jewish support will dry up quicker than a snowball in hell.” Mr. Wright added that his trip implied no endorsement of either Louis Farrakhan’s views or Qaddafi’s.

That can't be true, can it?

3)  Barack Obama Hillary Clinton will be the death of the Democrat Partay.

4)  Barack Obama got money for his wife (how exactly remains the domain of innuendo), which is so much worse than screwing around on her ... for money and power.

5)  Africa really sucks.

What does Africa have to be proud of? After thousands of years of civilization, Africa is still a cauldron of racial, ethnic and tribal hatreds with a barbarity only matched by the growing Muslim populations. Don't believe me? Ask the man on the street in Zimbabwe, or the man on the street in the Soweto area surrounding Joburg.

I mean, really, why would that be?  At least with the Muslims, we can blame their "barbarity" on the religion.  With all of Africa, the only common denominator is ...  hmmm ... uhhm ... they're black? I mean, Mike explains that they love America and yearn for freedom, but they just can't achieve it.  What could possibly be to blame for their backwards state?  Melanin, obviously.

6)  Non-Christians really *do* understand Christianity better than Christians ... so much so that they'll tell Christians what they must believe.

Here's my problem with a church that proclaims that their congregation is unashamedly black and that they are an African people: the G-d of your church should be color blind and geography neutral. One of the lessons of your faith should be that G-d loves ALL his children. And don't be so proud of Africa, the cradle of civilization was in the fertile crescent of present-day Iraq. One may even nod in the direction of Egypt, but the ancient Egyptians were all different skin colors but not black, so this worship of the "cradle of civilization" as something distinctly black is a delusion.

Apparently they ought to hate Africa as well, because it sucks and I guess lovin' that isn't Christian.

7)  Your pastor IS YOUR GOD!  Agree with him, or at least be accused of it!  Your spirituality and political philosophy flows from the holy man whose homilies you attend ... as long as you aren't Mitt Romney, or Mike Huckabee, or those for whom we are Constitutionally forbidden to use a religious test, like white guys (read 'safe').

Obama could very well be our next president, and this is his pastor of 20 years. It's reasonable question to ask, does Obama hate us?

I'd kind of expect that reaction from a Catholic or Mormon who actually believes that their church leaders speak for God, but not from one of those who apparently doesn't embrace that particular mythology.

The commenters are even better.

B. Hussein Obama never said he was offering “hope” for Christians or Jews or white Americans. He was talking about “change” for them. And now you know what kind of changes he had in mind.

LIBERAL FASCISM!!!  Black Rule!  They'll take your daughters to orgies and gang-banger the lot of you, white folks!

On second thought, I guess I just haven't learned shit from many Montana righty websites, except this:  They are all in favor of a religious test for public office, as long as it's the Black Guy.  They are all in favor of ridiculous paranoid delusions about some person's personal affiliations, as long as it's the black guy.   They will piss and moan and bitch a fucking fit about me bringing up their latent and obvious racism, as long as it might only hurt the black guy ... or the White woman ... or anyone who's a Democrat. 

And I'm supposed to be the stupidly partisan one ... right.

Stirring The Pot

Certain recent events have once again sparked the never-ending fire of the 'gun-control' debate.  As Jay, at heart, rightly points out, it isn't really a debate anymore.  It's a shouting match, around which the vapors of reality and desire swirl in ever more pointless bickering.  On one side are those who 'want something done about gun violence!'  Quite seriously, that's an understandable position.  On the other side are those who's motives are, shall we say, less than pure.  In the middle are those who attempt some rational effort, but tend to get lost in the shouting mostly coming from absolutists.

But I, oh yes, would rather light a candle than curse the darkness.  I have proposed this idea before, for which I received a death threat even.  (You've no idea the mirth that gave me.)  I propose this:  legal registration of firearms.

I know, I know.  That's what Hitler did.  Those who regularly read NRA releases (and often understand only half the English contained therein) will boldly point out that the Nazi's registered guns before instituting harsher gun controls (taking them away from 'undesirables').  Uhhhm, kids, the Nazis were building a war machine, and manipulated a populace that was not well armed but told that Jews and gypsies and queers and cripples all could use those guns against ... YOU!   BOO!  Grow up.  This is America, not 1930's Deutschland.

And I know this as well (because it's happened before.)  There are those who will scream "Second Amendment!!" at the top of their lungs like it is a 13th level demonic banishing spell.  Sorry, folks, the Constitution isn't a spell book.  The Second reads:

A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

Please notice that at no point does this prohibit weapon registration.  None.  It's not there.  Look for yourself ... it ain't there.  Registration is not infringement; it's mere record keeping.   "But what would those records be used for Wulfgar?  Huuuhhhhh?  Huunnggh?  Argybargle?"  Uhm, record keeping?  Law enforcement?  Public fricking safety?

And ... intimidation.  A lot of the '2A' screechers claim that having guns keeps you safe ... from those who have no idea that you have a gun?  Burglars and home-invaders are more frightened of dogs.  You know why?  'Cause they know you have one!  They bark, they alert, they raise holy hell with the best laid nefarious plans.  If, as the paranoid presume, a "bad guy" were to know for certain that his life depended on my ability to miss with the .44 mag aimed squarely at him, that bad guy is gonna pick a safer target.  So, if as the paranoid presume, gun registries were used to target for crime, then I'm safer having my weapons registered.

Then the '2A' screechers, fearful bunch they are, will bring up the idea of tyranny.  What poor thinking on their part.  Let's be clear:  I want the government to know how well armed I am.  I relish the idea.  I'm excited to be a part of this plan.  You know why?  'Cause it would scare them shitless.

Here's the scene:  Some HitleryObamaniteCommunoIslamoFascist stooge seeks to take my guns with a midnight raid.  They stealthily approach my door, and bash the thing in screaming about law enforcement and military control.  Only two problems.  A)  I heard them do this at my neighbor's house, and they run into bullets, and B)  If they know my arms, they aren't going to be stupid enough to try this shit in the first place.

The only people who actually swallow the choad of belief that says the government will take our guns are the ones stupid enough to believe that they are the special snowflake that the government will target.  If you're stockpiling weapons to resist a government attack, many of them already legally prohibited, you will draw their investigation and ire (see Ridge, Ruby).  At that point, you've already declared war, and this will not stand.  If we all register our weapons, the government functionaries will shit their pants before attempting to take those weapons.  Ultimately speaking, people should not fear their government.  Government should fear the people.  I don't need some wackass nutcase on Ruby Ridge to protect me.  I only need the government to know how much fire power is within 10 square blocks of my house.  Trust me, that will get their attention, and they will be afraid.

I'm just not seeing the downside to firearm registration.  Perhaps you good folk can clear it up for me.

Okay, Mike Has Gone Bye-Bye

What have you got, Egon?

As if it wasn't already obvious, Harris is off his nut.  He begins his take-down of Obama with claims of manufactured outrage over a radio pundits manipulatuion of Islamophobia, supports the Islamophobia, and then asks, 'so what's the big deal'?   He even claims:

despite renouncing and rejecting Nation of Islam leader Louis Farrakhan in a recent debate, Obama stopped short of saying he rejected Farrakhan's description of him as “the hope of the entire world," and specifically said he would prefer Nation of Islam supporters voted for someone else.

Now, if you can parse that sentence, it appears that Mike is saying that it isn't enough that Obama renounces allegiance to Farrakhan, but that Obama is required to start telling people what they are allowed to say in his behalf and who they should vote for (not him).  Does that strike you as retarded, 'cause it definitely looks retarded to me.  Usually, people who advocate such anti-American sentiments are called traitors, but I think we can forgive Mike for just being 'nucking futz'.

Mike then goes off another tangent about how all the ridiculous and stupid attacks against Obama started with (*GASP*) Democrats.  Yeah, so?  Political enemies attacked Obama stupidly, so that makes it okay for other political enemies to attack Obama stupidly.  Apparently, Party affiliation is only sacrosanct to those who feel party affiliation is everything ... go figure.  That is a rather lame projection to justify poor thinking by claiming others did the same first.  Perhaps Mike isn't insane, but just regressing into an 8 year old.  Time will tell.

Mikey then reverses himself, yet again, and then berates McCain for not embracing the attacks that Mike just said don't really matter, even though they do.  To Mike, one shouldn't apologize for an attack that really wasn't an attack unless it came from a Democrat, and then it was an unfair attack.  Man, I get a headache trying to keep up with this kind of psychosis.

Oh, and Mike?  McCain isn't a Maverick, he is a political liability, and he's going to lose.  Get used to it, and try not to slobber when you realize the weakness you endorse.

Mike then goes all off about how you can't call Obama a liberal (but he really IS!!!!!one!).  He uses an article from the Boston Globe to 'prove' his point.

The Globe:

One of the more appealing innovations of Obama's campaign is the way the candidate ends his stump speeches by running through the arguments against him: too young, too new, too naive, too trusting. Speaking before thousands of cheering young supporters in the Texas capitol, Obama added another: too liberal.

Notice, please, that the Globe, while trying pathetically to claim that Obama tells you what you can call him, actually recognizes that Obama repudiates what people *do* call him.  Obama's words:

"Oh, he's liberal, he's liberal," Obama said, mimicking his critics. "Let me tell you something. There's nothing liberal about wanting to reduce money in politics. That is common sense. There's nothing liberal about wanting to make sure [our soldiers] are treated properly when they come home . . . . There's nothing liberal about wanting to make sure that everybody has healthcare. We are spending more on healthcare in this country than any other advanced country, but we've got more uninsured. There's nothing liberal about saying that doesn't make sense, and we should so something smarter with our healthcare system."

Damn.  It looks to me as if Obama is telling the truth.  What is implied by Mike's psychotic label of 'liberal' really has nothing to do with what Obama says, does it?  Just like it's no big shakes that Obama's middle name is HUSSEIN!!!!DIE US DOGS!!!  At no point does the Globe show Obama saying that you can't call him a liberal, only that you are wrong if you call him that pejoratively.  That's called fighting back, something a weenie like Mike Harris poorly understands (except as regards the weenie he's going to vote for in McCain.)

The really fun part is the last few paragraphs where Mikey displays his ignorance and starts pulling anti-communist rhetoric right out of his ass.

He's an old-time socialist. Very little of the stuff that he says he's going to do, his policies, will ever happen.

Mike knows this how?

You go out, you try be a young person, you try to get a job under President Obama. He wants to increase the minimum wage and index it to inflation. You want to blast young people right out of the job market, do the Obama plan. Good-bye high school and college jobs for kids, good-bye entry-level jobs.

This has been unproven, time and time again in the real fricking world.

So will Barack step up and give our tax money to those he puts out of work? Yeah. Because it's never going to be his fault. It will be the evil Republicans in Congress who have no compassion...think the SCHIP debate!

Sorry Mikey, but your Republicans in Congress are going to be in a such a *HUGE* minority that they will have plausible deniability.

He wants to manage upper-end wages, CEO wages. 

GOOD!  I'm tired of my investments giving huge bonuses to people who lead companies into the red.

He wants socialized medicine, to expand unions, empower teachers unions. All of this stuff is Marxism when you boil it all down.

Even copying that comment caused the froth to splatter the inside of my computer screen.  Mike hasn't a fucking clue what he's talking about but he'll rave at you just the same.  COMMIES!!! BEWARE!!!

These are all old ideas, old regressive progressive ideas that have failed, and Obama is a young, naïve man who apparently holds tight to failed old ideas. But the cool thing about being a liberal progressive is that they're like a Trojan Horse, who have to shield their agenda from you, the suckers.

There you go, people.  Mike the psycho, has just called you all idiots because you don't agree with him.  I'd call this a desperate attempt at elitism, but I'm laughing too hard.

How far would Obama get if he actually came out and said that he want's to nationalize health care, raise taxes to confiscatory levels on the "filthy" rich (i.e. who make more than $75,000 a year) preemptively surrender in Iraq, and flood the country with illegal aliens and then turn them into citizens in a transparent attempt to get votes and keep the the nanny state solvent?

This is where Mikey proves that he knows absolutely nothing about Obama's health care proposals or tax plans or the War On Terrified Americans.   Obama has clearly stated his plans for health care, and unlike Clinton, he has gone for opt-in.  Where he has a commie mandate is for kids.  NANNY STATE!!!  Excuse me, but humans have employed nannies for our children for going on 10 thousand years.  Calling Obama a 'nanny statist' for insuring our young is a complement.   Repealing the tax cuts for  wealthy Americans is well favored.  Since the tax cuts were offered 8 years ago, the wealthy have gotten wealthier, and incomes for those who work for a living have flatlined.  Now, Mike, having inherited wealth that he turned into more wealth, obviously thinks that having to pay more is heinous ... to him!  Too bad.  It isn't socialism, it's Democracy, and Mike only wants to cloud the issue with sympathy for himself and fear of that very bad thing.  I think that behind that very bad thing are self-serving head cases like Mike, and I'm not alone in that.  Too bad, Mikey.  The country has given you a lot, and now it's in debt and need.  Your ante is again required.  Pay the fuck up.

As for the great Crusade in Iraq, over 65% of the country now see it as  a vanity war that saps resources from the real WOT.  Mike has issue with Obama ... why?  Because Obama won't put Israelis before Americans?  I really don't get what the hell he's on about, here.  He'll have to explain it through the haze of his obvious foaming nuttiness.  And the illegal alien thing?   It's pretty definite that Mike pulled this terror fantasy right out of his ass, 'cause that just hasn't been real important on the Democratic side .  (GO GO TANCREDO!!!!)  But nevertheless, Mike is going to vote for a guy who's immigration policies are as or more liberal than Obama's.  I can only assume that's because his wife told him to.

What really pulls all this together, and establishes Mike as a  fruitloop, is the comment left to his website that Mike hasn't "repudiated or refuted".  I print it here, since this post might actually shame Mike into action:

Anonymous said...

If anyone is a racist it’s Obama. He belongs to a black separatist church which only ascribes to black values and Africa. They revere Louis Farrakhan. The pastor is anti-white. If he is elected, white people will become second class citizens. Are you for that?
Also Obama is a world socialist controlled by the CFR and Zbigniew Brzezhinski. He will go to war in Darfur, Pakistan, or any other place they tell him to.
This article below proves that he’s merely a tool for the world government and promoter of a tax to be paid to the UN to fuel its totalitarian control over us and to redistribute the wealth to other countries. 
“A nice-sounding bill called the “Global Poverty Act,” sponsored by Democratic presidential candidate and Senator Barack Obama, is up for a Senate vote on Thursday and could result in the imposition of a global tax on the United States. The bill, which has the support of many liberal religious groups, makes levels of U.S. foreign aid spending subservient to the dictates of the United Nations.”
“The bill defines the term “Millennium Development Goals” as the goals set out in the United Nations Millennium Declaration, General Assembly Resolution 55/2 (2000).”
“In addition to seeking to eradicate poverty, that declaration commits nations to banning “small arms and light weapons” and ratifying a series of treaties, including the International Criminal Court Treaty, the Kyoto Protocol (global warming treaty), the Convention on Biological Diversity, the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women, and the Convention on the Rights of the Child.”
An Obama presidency would be racist and a disaster for the USA.
In one of Obama’s campaign offices, there is even a flag with a picture of a murderous Marxist dictator on it!
Read the rest here:
http://www.gopusa.com/commentary/ckincaid/2008/ck_02131.shtml
“MANAGUA, Nicaragua: President Daniel Ortega, who led the 1979 revolution in Nicaragua, says Barack Obama’s presidential bid is a “revolutionary” phenomenon in the United States.”
Yeah, the Marxist Revolution.
Judge the man by the company he keeps. He’s a dangerous empty suit.


Go Ron Paul!
The only real conservative -- still solvent, still in the race.

There you go.  Mike Harris, Ron Paul supporter.

And he thinks that Obama is the racist.  And just for the record, GeeGuy, you know better than to endorse this kind of incredible crap.

Update:  Since Harris seems oblivious to the obvious, I think I need to point out directly that requiring him to own or repudiate the insanity of his commenters is exactly *his* argument.  His refusal to do so means either that his argument about Obama is crap (it is) and/or that Mike is a wailing hypocrite.  But at least it clarifies who the real wannabe-martyr is here.

He establishes his 'hypocrite' cred when he posts from an email I sent him, after getting all up-in-arms for claiming that I posted "private" emails from him.  I've never done that.  Convenient morality you got there, Harris.

And he wonders why I think he's an asshole ...

Protect Me?

Don't get me wrong, I'm all for a strong military defense of the nation.  But just exactly when the hell did it become the government's job to protect *me*?  Last time I checked, that would be ... never.

Jack the Blogger points out exactly what is wrong with the thinking of security fetishists.  Throughout his dim indictment of the leftiness displayed by Jon Tester, JtB consistently conflates and confuses the role that our government was meant to play in defense of the country with personal protection.  The Constitution spells out fairly clearly the need for a standing Army providing for defense of the nation.  No where do I remember it calling for intelligence services required to save his or my ass.

Regardless of how anyone feels personally about the issue of prevention = defense, or civil rights trumping a need to feel safe, JtB has one thing very very wrong.  So many of us who voted for Jon Tester (which I strongly doubt JtB did) voted for him specifically because he saw the dangers inherent in relinquishing freedoms for a (false) sense of security.  That's not a 'liberal' issue or a 'conservative' issue.  That's an American issue that has been with us since before the War for Independence.  Pretending that Jon Tester, who wants to bring down loose FISA standards, the MCA and the Patriot Act,  is a 'liberal' who cares nothing for personal security ... well, that's going to be a very hard sell in the state of Montana.  JtB seems to forget that Tester *won* the election, based in no small part because of his resistance to the encroachment of governmental control.  But I wish JtB well in the pretense.  After all, I consider such illusion to be an insult to the people of Montana, and a plaintive cry for us to surrender what bravery we value most.  So, seriously, good luck with that, Jack.

Chicken Little Is Either Right ... Or A Complete Moron

Seriously, I enjoy opinions that are in disagreement with my own.  I don't hold myself to the impossible standard of being right all the time, unlike some.  But I cannot, will not, abide those who confuse their opinion for wisdom, and celebrate their own stupidity.

As is usual when I make such a statement, it leads right back to 'Andy Hammond'.  Andy thinks that science must bow before his opinion driven will, and blames the media because it won't.  It seems the media reported on a story that makes Andy uncomfortable, and such disagreeable verbiage cannot stand in AndyWorld.

The Billings Gazette reports on a study that claims that much of the West's climate related water trends are human caused and, of course, the AP falls right in line with the report.

This right here should give a clue of just how dumb Andy can be.  The job of the media is to report, precisely as the Billings Gazette did.  But in less than one sentence, Andy separates the Gazette from the AP (a wire service from which the Gazette got the report) and labels the AP 'collaborators' against what Andy knows is the truth.  Really, could Andy's thinking, such as passes for said, be more muddled?  In this case, The Gazette = the AP.  The Gazette reports a story, which is their goddamned job.  Therefore, the AP reports a story which is their goddamned job.  BUT, to Andy, the AP didn't ???, therefore they are falling in line ... with what?  Their job?

Notice, Andy hasn't the chops to actually take issue with the science of the study reported, so he's taking issue with the fact that it got reported.   The real  dumb takes place when he confuses the two.

The report (that would be a scientific study, Andrew  - W) used statistical models and claim to compare «changes that would have happened with natural fluctuations over time» to human caused activity. That's a very powerful statement. How do they know what would have happened naturally over time?

Uhhm, Science?

From the article:

The researchers used statistical modeling to compare climate changes that would have happened with natural fluctuations over time, to climate changes with the addition of human-caused greenhouse gases and other emissions from vehicles, power plants and other sources.

That sounds like accepted practice of study to me.  But not to Andy.

Then they go on to make the claim that 60% of the problem is human caused. I guess when one plugs into the statistical model the assumption of what the climate would have been like with natural fluctuations over time, one can make the claim that humans do cause climate change.

This is the point where I laughed out loud.  This is the same 'Andy Hammond' who has argued so vociferously that the global warming we are seeing is precisely not human caused because we see such fluctuations naturally.   In other words, Andy claims the power to see, have faith in, and predict these natural fluctuations, but scientists trained in that very field are only assuming they know what is happening.  I'd call Andy a "dumbshit" at this point, but the word really doesn't carry enough weight to describe the idiocy that Andy just foisted onto the world  at large.

It's nothing but pure BS. It's an attempt to curtail growth and capitalism.

Yes, Andy, I'm certain that that Ad Hominem argument explains precisely why these scientists have come to the scientific conclusions that they have. 

Don't Look Now ...

But David Neiwert is kicking the Pantload's ass.  Besides showing Jonah to be the petulant little fact-challenged wiener that he is, David plays unfair by quite academically showing how Jonah's sources are not only suspect, but that some of them embrace the very holocaust revisionism that Jonah falsely accused David of falsely accusing him of.

I do have to admit, though, what I find most amusing is that Mike Harris would so tightly embrace the idea that holocaust revisionism is a *good* thing if it makes the people who annoy him look bad.  Dave Budge is at least more contemplative in his incessant cries that we must take Jonah's argument seriously.   I am left wondering, though, exactly why Mr. Budge has never shown the moral value of Jonah's playtime scribblings, or what the consequence of 'taking the Pantload seriously' would or should be.

I really have to shake my head in wonder at many of the comments that David Neiwert garners at Orcinus.  Too many of them foster all sorts of rational expansive theories of why Goldberg would have written such a "provocative" piece.  I dismiss such musings with disdain.  Jonah wrote the book for one function and few purposes.  The purposes are all readily discernible and mundane.  Even Steve figured out right from the get-go that Jonah wrote his fictions to make money.  It's also easy to see that Jonah wrote the book so that he could act the BMOC among his sad and pathetic peers.  They set up a website just for Lucianne's afterbirth to be the special little snowflake.  But the function ... that's a touch more simple.  400+ pages devoted to Jonah granting himself the right to say "neener neener, you're  a fascist!".  That's right, it doesn't need to be any more complex than that.  It's name calling, pure and simple.  Goldberg certainly didn't write it for the academic debate; Neiwert is engaging him and he sobs like a two year about it.  He didn't write it to add to the body of history.  He admits brazenly that it's "revisionist" history.  Yeah, kind of like the Sword of Shanara gives a different historical perspective of the medieval period.  Nope.  Jonah's book can't be taken seriously, and I'd love to hear a moral or practical argument for why it should be, given it's obvious inaccuracies and all.

(And before anybody falls back on the lamest of arguments that I haven't read any of Jonah's book so I'm not allowed to comment {such argument usually coming from the book's defenders who also haven't read it} kindly keep in mind  that I work at a bookstore ... hint.  No Steve.  Jonah ain't gettin' one red cent from me.  Heh.)

Spittle Flecked Freak Out

I had thought by now that Dave Budge would have learned to distrust anything coming from Don Surber, (patron saint of mongoloid drama queens).  But, Sadly, No! (heh!)

This time, old Don's got his bloomers in a wad because the NRA told him to bunch up, bend over and take his man medicine that bad men want bad things for him.  Don states,

Massachusetts legislators seek to remove toxic chemicals from ammo.

Just because I know that it bugs Dave that the funny folk are more salient than he, I must promote the phrase Sadly, No!.  That isn't what the proposed bills state at all.  Despite what Surber is willing to swallow from the NRA, what the proposed bills actually state is the Mass. government will, by all due law, investigate and promote alternatives to known toxic chemicals.  Don't believe me?  Do what Budge and Surber failed to do, and read the bloody things.  You'll notice, there isn't one thing in those proposals that would, as the NRA puts it,

virtually shut down all shooting ranges as well as ban the sale and use of lead ammunition for self-defense, hunting and target practice in Massachusetts. 

Could these things happen? It's possible.  But please notice that the fact checking and financial feasibility provisions are already built into the proposals.  In other words, bullets aren't likely to change because that change would adversely affect the manufacture and sale of the product.

It's not surprising that the NRA would chase this vaporous fear.  They have become fear mongering money grubbers manipulating the stupid for their benefit.  What is surprising is that Don Surber would be stupid enough to snag the chum and think it a banquet.  (Okay, it isn't that surprising.)  What is more surprising is that Dave Budge would follow the lead of the head lemming, Don Surber, without checking and/or balancing his input.   Dave must truly think the rest of us  stupid, or worse, he considers us more stupid than Don Surber.

I seem to remember a wise man asking the question:  who is more foolish, the Fool or the Fool who follows him.  It is almost painful controlling my laughter as I write ... you followed Don Surber, Dave ...