March 10, 2008
CCR is good for the soul.
August 23, 2007
What did I do? What did I do? I worked hard to try to kill him. I authorized a finding for the CIA to kill him. We contracted with people to kill him. I got closer to killing him than anybody has gotten since.
Not so fast. Sandy Berger may have destroyed other classified documents that he stole from the National Archives to help Clinton and himself on 9-11 failures, but he missed this report:
The report also criticized intelligence problems when Bill Clinton was president, detailing political and legal “constraints” agency officials felt in the late 1990s.
“The restrictions in the authorities given the CIA with respect to bin Laden, while arguably, although ambiguously, relaxed for a period of time in late 1998 and early 1999, limited the range of permissible operations,” the report stated. (Scheuer agreed with the inspector general’s findings on this issue, but said if anything the report was overly diplomatic. “There was never any ambiguity,” he said. “None of those authorities ever allowed us to kill anyone. At least that’s what the CIA lawyers told us.” A spokesman for the former president had no immediate comment.)
In any case, the inspector general found that the CIA's failure to conduct effective covert actions against bin Laden prior to 9/11 was ultimately not because of ambiguous legal authorities but because it did not have effective assets on the ground who could mount a “credible operation” against him.
Just another "stain" from a...well, give Bill Clinton your own psychological profile title.
References from a non-professional
(G.M. would do better):
And, if you want to learn a little about Hillary Rodham-Clinton, as if we don't know enough, here's one, but don't read it. Trust me.
October 17, 2006
Santa Monica, Calif: "The principal said children playing tag suffered both physical and emotional injuries." Emotional? He means self-esteem. If someone tries to win, then he's hurting someone else's self-esteem and is bad, bad, bad. No competition allowed. Here's more.
Cheyenne, Wyo, Wichita, Kan.; San Jose, Calif.; Beaverton, Ore., Rancho Santa Fe., Calif., ...: "The bans were passed in the name of safety, but some children's health advocates say limiting exercise and free play can inhibit a child's development. ...Critics of the bans say playing freely helps kids learn to negotiate rules and resolve disputes."
Spokane, Wash.: Principle (sic) Terren Roloff told Fox News she chose to ban tag because it encourages victimization and students are encouraged to play. ...The National Association of School Psychology agress with Roloff, and other schools have been banning tag as well."
Sacramento, Calif: "Concerned about safety and injuries and worried about bullying, violence, self-esteem and lawsuits, school officials have clamped down on the traditional games from years past. ...At Natomas Park...yard supervisor Janice Hudson spotted a first-grader pushing a girl on the swing. 'Do not push,' Hudson told the student. 'Let her push herself, please.'"
Silver Spring, MD: "The school had been cracking down on those games at recess because, as Principal Doris Jennings explained, 'Body contact is inappropriate for recess activities.'"
Or, you can read a study that influences these school decisions. Neil Williams, chair of the health and physical education department at Eastern Connecticut State University, has compiled and updates "The Physical Education Hall of Shame" list of recess activities that he feels are inappropriate.
"The Physical Education Hall of Shame was established to identify certain activity programs or games which, although physically demanding, do not contribute to the development of motor, cognitive, and affective skills of the students. Such meaningless activities have limited physical activity time, promote minimal participation, embarrass students in front of their classmates and are primarily concerned with having fun. Line Soccer, Red Rover, Simon Says, Spud, Tag and Messy Back Yard are examples of such activities."
Well, we can't have games "primarily concerned with having fun," can we? His list also adds Dodge Ball, Duck Duck Goose, Kick Ball, Musical Chairs, and Steal the Bacon, the last of which I think is a game for inner city school kids.
Many of these schools banning tag are in Massachusetts and California, which are trying to overtake France as the land with the most weenies. Instead of exercising, maybe kids could take up some other activity that is non-contact, like target shooting, walking over to McDonald's to eat and hang out, or playing video games. Those are non-contact, so they might be good.
The education establishment is getting worse and more out-of-touch with the real world, desires of parents, and the best interests of the kids.
July 25, 2006
Ok I had to go back and rewrite this post as it was becoming entirely too confusing.
Let's start with the actors in this too insane to be fiction mystery. Moonbat Jason Leopold from Truthout.org who still to this day insists Karl Rove is under super double top secret indictment. Ex CIA Agent Larry Johnson, self described centrist blogger Seixon, Some commenter named AnonymousArmy, another commenter named topsecretk9, some secret club called VIPS (Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity) the Department of Defense, The Defense Intelligence Agency, lefty blogger Alexandrovna, shadowy Diebold executives and black box voting conspiracy theories, Valerie Plame, Joe Wilson and enough sock puppets to make Glenn Greenwald's head explode.
Nevermind just run with it. Our hero Seixon was just minding his own business one day when some moonbat posted his personal information at ThinkProgress. Seixon justifiably upset put on his Sherlock Holmes hat and went snooping. This is where it gets really crazy. Leopold or one of his cronies had posted Seixon's personal info at Thinkprogress. Seixon deduced this and confronted Leopold via email offering him the opportunity to explain himself.
Leopold responded by republishing the email from Seixon at ThinkProgress but chose to extensively edit the original email to make it appear Seixon had threatened him.
The following text in red was fabricated by Leopold. The following text in blue was edited out of Seixon's original email the black text is the only original content from Seixon:
From: George Gooding [mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org] Sent: Thursday, July 13, 2006 7:06 PM To: email@example.com Cc: jason leopold Subject: Alright…Jason,
I will make lies about you. I can do it. I have my own blog. Tell me all you know about Larry Johnson or me and anonymousarmy will hurt your reputation even more. We’ve already succeeded planting phony stories about you and we will continue to do it until you tell us everything about VIPS and who they are working with.
I now have you on the record lying. You sent anonymousarmy threatening or intimidating emails:
May 8 - from Boston
June 12 - from your ADSL near Irvine
June 19 - a couple emails sent from the Vance Hotel in Seattle
ahhh thats a lot of creative licence wouldn't you say?
Leopold doesn't stop there. He extensively edits another email from Seixon:
From: George Gooding [mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org] Sent: Thursday, July 13, 2006 10:56 PM To: jason leopold Subject: Re: Alright…
Blackmail? You’re damn right it’s blackmail. Johnson must be stopped and you’re the target. I will take you down and I will have the National Review back me up.
Jason, normally I would have just published what I have without even asking you to comment. This time I thought I would ask you to comment on this stuff, since this clown Dean went harassing me and my family, so I'm pretty pissed about it. Now, the reason for all this is basically all your fault because you just can't tell the damn truth.
As I said, I don't appreciate when people lie to me.
Now I have only given you a glimmer of Leopolds fabrications or the web of intrigue surrounding this. To be honest the whole damn thing confuses me. You are going to have to go to Seixons blog and read the whole thing. Here is the first post, and here is the second.
There is a whole series of comments at Thinkprogress by someone calling themselves DOJ. There is another series of comments at Seixon's blog by several sock puppets who Seixon has identified as Leopold.more...
July 19, 2006
I took some photos of my kids naked on a camping trip. A drugstore employee called the police -- and my family's life became a living hell.
I don't want to diminish the horror of child abuse and the need for protecting abused children. I suspect that G.M. has an even greater appreciation for that and may have some stories from his work that would be too hard for me to hear. However, government, in many cases, just casts too broad of a net and causes unnecessary damage that will never be forgotten or repaired.
I know two families who have suffered from unsubstatiated accusations of child abuse. In one situation, the parents did not agree to a medical procedure for their new born child, as they felt that the treatment was premature and excessive. (The mom was a health care provider herself, and it turned out that she was correct.) The doctor reported them to authorities for child abuse for not taking his advice, and they had to undergo extensive investigations and home visits. Another parent was in a doctor's waiting room with her child when the child decided to test the limits of patience by acting terrible. The mom clarified the limits with a good swat to the child's bottom. Result? The doctor's receptionist called authorities reporting child abuse, and that parent's nightmare started. Even though there was no crime, the parent was warned that she only gets one pass and that the child will be taken into protective custody with just the filing of another complaint.
If government cared so much about "the children," then it would try to help their parents rather than turn their lives upside down. If it cared for the children, then government would properly train it's workers to recognize and handle real cases and to distinguish them from false accusations. Real victims need help and need those resources being wasted chasing down frivolous claims.
Are government workers being stupid, afraid to apply good judgment to poorly written laws, trying to justify their jobs, or maybe getting a charge out of their power (which may be the case when they won't give it up?) Whatever the problem, they need to make changes so that these nightmares don't become a continued problem for parents who love and care for their children. Currently 60-70% of such claims are without merit. That's too high of a miss ratio and indicates that government has more problems than do parents.
The job of protecting children is important and must be hard. That's why it should be done right without the usual government ineptness.
Found at Nealz Nuze
June 01, 2006
There are some really good posts available here, I hope you will read them all ((especially mine) and especially IndianCowboys. I think this is going to be fun!
January 07, 2006
Not having ever examined Teddy Kennedy, and the last time I spoke to him (we chit chatted for all of 4 or 5 minutes in the halls of congress when my brothers and I were prowling the corridors of power) was in the mid 60's when I was in High School in the Washington D.C. area, I cannot say if Senator Kennedy is suffering from anything other than old age and being over weight. His drinking excesses are, however, legendary and it is rumored that he definately has an alcohol problem.
Dana Milbank, writing in the Washinton Post noted Kennedy appeared at a rountable discussion with a number of reporters and Milbank wrote:
Sen. Edward M. Kennedy (D-Mass.), hosting a morning roundtable with reporters, had nothing nice to say about Alito. "We here in the United States are not going to stand for monarchial tyranny," he said, protesting Alito's support for "unfettered, unlimited power of the executive." He faulted Alito for belonging to a group that was "anti-black and also anti-women." Kennedy wondered if "the average person is going to be able to get a fair shake" under Alito.The Goldwater Presidency? Must have been something I missed since I distinctly remember being highly disappointed when Goldwater gave his concession speech in November, 1964.
Briefly, Kennedy rewrote the outcome of the 1964 election. "This nominee was influenced by the Goldwater presidency," he said. "The Goldwater battles of those times were the battles against the civil rights laws." Only then did Kennedy acknowledge that "Judge Alito at that time was 14 years old."
Maybe it's time for the Good Senator to retire. No maybe about it... it's well past time.
Linked at TMH's Baconbits
January 01, 2006
Drummond notes that:
Democrats know full well that their tactics of slander and defeatism are not working to win elections, yet they just will not consider their position in any kind of mature light. Strange. Yet we have seen this before, and the problem seems to be based on raw emotion overriding better judgment."This is a good beginning of the description. Surely they can read polls and know that the majority of the American electorate are supporting the use of wiretaps, believe that they are legal and even Bush's ratings have gone UP since these yahoos got on this particular meme, but that doesn't seem to stop them. Point in fact, since the 60's, the United States voter has generally shown that they distrust Democrats with national security issues. Yet in 2004 they nominate a man who served in Vietnam for only 3 months or so of a normally 12 month rotation, gets 3 wounds none of which required more than a bandaid, at least one of which was rejected for a Purple Heart by the treating physician (yet Kerry manuvered one anyway - by hook or crook we don't know) and opted out of Vietnam based on having three Purple Hearts. Then the man comes back and scathingly trounces his fellow troops, calls them war criminals, consults with the enemy in Paris and many years later, gets up on the podium at the DNC and gives the silliest, sloppiest most unprofessional salute I have ever seen (and since I grew up in the Army and served in the Army, I've seen plenty of them) and the Democrats think they have a winner. Infact, Markos M. of The Daily Kos goes so far out on that proverbial limb, he projects Kerry the Winner.
What is the left's response to The Daily Kos for that sloppy, unbelievable, insane prediction? They make DK the number one blog in the blogosphere. How's that for insanity?
But, I digress, and the opening topic today is DJ Drummond's diagnosis of the left. Lets take a look at some of the other mental health issues that the conservative blogosphere has put out:
John Moore, a good friend believes that the appropriate diagnosis is Cognition Disorder of Progressives and offers a number of symptoms for the same:
utopian thinking - A delusional belief that the patient knows simple, side effect free solutions to all social problems. In some cases this is associated with psychotic delusions of grandeur.
anthroplastic ideas - a delusion that behavioral conditioning, performed by the government, will cure all behavioral and social problems, i.e., will change all non-CDP people into CDP . Implicit in this delusional system is the idea that people can be "programmed" to be "perfect."
This symptom leads to a reflexive, vehement resistance by the patient to even the idea that people may have immalleable characteristics. The worst known example is that of Pol Pot, who attempted to remove all undesirable influences in the belief that the perfect socialist man would then emerge.
anti-theistic rebellion - an emotional antagonism against Christianity... probably caused by an abnormal persistence of adolescent rebellion... may also be related to the need to avoid counter-arguments to desired policies (see utopiate thinking, above). This ranges from a mere antagonism to Christianity to a hatred of religions of all forms. Generally the more "western" a religion is, the more it is hated. Thus these patients may accept primitive and animalist belief systems.
naturist delusion - a sincere belief that mankind is evil and nature is benign. The incidence of this symptom is inversely related to the practical experience that the patient has with nature. Self hatred is a feature in this area. Typical thinking includes a belief that mankind is a cancer on earth, and that earth (viewed as a feeling being) will retaliate with a deadly virus.
The utopian view of nature is remarkable in that most patients are also believers in evolution, which has resulted in vast amounts of suffering and cruelty in the natural arena.
environmental spasm - the patient experiences episodes of manic activity on behalf of "the environment." The delusional nature of this is evidenced by the misanthropic attacks on all works of man, and also by the focus on visible or totemic objects... for example, the Mount Graham Red Squirrel or the Spotted Owl.
An example of the paradoxical nature of these delusions is given by the Red Squirrel and the Santa Barbara Sand Fly. The Squirrel, a subspecies of the very common Red Squirrel, is fought for aggressively, while the Sand Fly, equally at risk and a truly distinct species, inspires little passion.
The patient usually is obsessed only with cute or cuddly animals, which is probably a displacement of the nurturing urge, itself unfulfilled due to abortion.
control obsession - this is the tendency of the patient to strive for excessive control over others, through government action. This is probably a projection of an unconscious fear of losing control over ones' self, even though the conscious manifestation is viewed as "compassion."
racist/feminist hypocrisy - the patient passionately advocates discrimination based on sex or race, while loudly proclaiming opposition to policies which are "racist" or "sexist."
overemotional perceptions - the patient is far more concerned with how a social action "looks" or "feels," and resists or denies objective evidence to the contrary, This also leads to very superficial cognition about matters of significant impact, as the patient merely gets the "feel" of the issue rather than truly understanding it.
sexual dysfunction - the patient is highly anxious about sexual matters, and this is manifested as:
Obsession with sexual and gender roles.
Passionate embrace of most non-traditional sexual preferences.
A need to define individuals by their gender or sexual preference, and make social policy as if everyone were equally obsessed.
A need to constantly push the envelope of indecent art.
John is probably on to something, but there is also something missing. For example, John calls this a cognition disorder which indicates faulty wiring in the brain, and while this may be true, it doesn't encompass the irrational part of the disorder that is exhibited by the Democrats/leftists. The Assistant Village Idiot believes that the tendency to want to "rule" is the direct result of being highly intelligent. He may be on to something. Didn't the left taut Kerry's obvious (to them at least) superior intelligence based on nothing more than the ability to speak in public with a solid Kennedyesque cadence? In fact, they kept that one going until it turned out that Bush made slightly better grades than Kerry did in college. As the AVI noted:
All you folks who think that the world would be better if the smart people were in charge ÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â€šÂ¬Ã¢â‚¬Å“ drop that idea. I have never interacted with a group that had screwier ideas, listened less, or postured more. Everyone arrived with the idea at long last, people I can reason with, but the discussions were as petty and unreasonable as everywhere else. Higher vocabulary and more formulas, same arguments
OK, we've included in the run-up to making a good diagnosis at least one factor, the intellectual/cognitive dysfunction exhibited by the oh-so-highly-intelligent members of the left and the Democratic party, we'll keep that in mind."
But, as Drummond noted that this disorder is also based in emotion, raw unreasoning emotion. Rush Limbaugh has noted in the past that the right thinks, the left feels. And I think there is something to this and we may be able to add another factor to our workup for a functioning diagnosis. One of my very favorite people in the Blogosphere is Dr. Sanity. She, as a practicing Psychiatrist has looked at the seeming mental illness of the left. Too, she recently did a post called PsychbloggerTouch And Go survey of mental health professionals who blog and does a regular "Carnival Of The Insanities," a not to be missed weekly carnival. Perhaps her most important work in her blog is describing Narcissism and Society in three parts. You absolutely must read the whole thing, but here is a teaser:
In some ways, the rise of human civilization from the cave to the present day has resulted because of attempts through the Rule of Law and social controls to set limits on the unrestrained Grandiose Self. This is primarily due to the destructiveness of the Narcissistic Rage generally associated with that part of the Self.
Because of this, the Grandiose Self has received a bad reputation philosophically, morally, and politically. The natural development of Governments and Religions (which ultimately are an expression of the Idealized Parent Image/Omnipotent Other side of the Self)have all too often attempted to ruthlessly suppress the Grandiose Self--much to the detriment of the individual AND the success of the particular society or religion.
In fact, despite the obvious truth that governments, nations, and religions are in a much better position to wreak far more systemized misery and death on human populations, it is almost always the Grandiose Self that gets the blame. As Wretchard at The Belmont Club pointed out in a recent post, a review of the 20th century, for example, shows that all the "people's revolutions" supported by the Left and purportedly for the purpose of "freeing" large populations of people; resulted instead in enslaving them and increasing authoritarian rule.
Without a political or economic framework that is able to incorporate what we refer to as "human nature" into its calculations, all so-called "perfect" societies and ideologies will at best simply fail in the real world; and at worse cause untold human suffering. With the best of intentions (this is perhaps debatable), the social engineers of philosophy, political science, and economics have caused so much more slavery, misery and death on a grand scale--that the grandiose CEO's of the largest corporations can be considered mere pikers by comparison.
Another Psychblogger who attempts to look at one issue of diagnosis is Shrinkwrapped who looks at the left's inability to face reality in the war against Islamic Fascism in this post The Left's Inadvertant (?) Anti-Americanism. A note, if one sees a reality that no one else can fathom, either the "see'er" is a dreamer with a view of the future, improbable as it seems, or the "see'er" is psychotic, that is out of touch with reality. The focus of Shrinkwrapped's post then is that the left is either covertly or overtly helping the other side and is, as George Orwell noted:
Pacifism is objectively pro-fascist. This is elementary common sense. If you hamper the war effort of one side, you automatically help out that of the other."more...
December 19, 2005
Dr. Helen took the article to task because of perceived bias. She wrote:
I have mentioned a research study by the APA entitled, Political Conservatism as Socially Motivated Cognition, that appeared biased against conservatives. The study pointed out that there had been little research done on the traits of liberals--but they must have overlooked ...[an]... article in Clio Psych's Journal from 2003."In the Political Conservatism as Socially Motivated Cognition, article, you will find this:
Ten meta-analytic calculations performed on the material - which included various types of literature and approaches from different countries and groups - yielded consistent, common threads, Glaser said.
"The avoidance of uncertainty, for example, as well as the striving for certainty, are particularly tied to one key dimension of conservative thought - the resistance to change or hanging onto the status quo, they said.
"The terror management feature of conservatism can be seen in post-Sept. 11 America, where many people appear to shun and even punish outsiders and those who threaten the status of cherished world views, they wrote. [emphasis added]"
And, Dr. Helen would be right, that is biased. But what seemingly really ticked off the good Dr. was the statement inclusion of a statement that, according to Dr. Helen:
The study pointed out that there had been little research done on the traits of liberals--but they must have overlooked this article in Clio Psych's Journal from 2003".And the article that Dr. Helen notes? An excerpt:
Research on the psychology of radical activists helps us to understand this mismatch between Chomsky's ideas and his personal style. In the 1970s, Stanley Rothman and Robert Lichter administered Thematic Apperception Tests to a large sample of "new left" radicals (Roots of Radicalism, 1982). They found that activists were characterized by weakened self-esteem, injured narcissism and paranoid tendencies. They were preoccupied with power and attracted to radical ideologies that offered clear and unambiguous answers to their questions. All of these traits can be found in the work of Chomsky and other anti-imperialist intellectuals. [emphasis added]"
So, weakened self esteem? Injured narcissism? Paranoid tendencies? Preoccupied with power? Attracted to radical ideologies? Seems to me to be a good description of the vast majority of those found on DU, DK, and in the Democratic party today. I'd be even willing to bet that if the same research were to be duplicated today, the results would be pretty near identical.
I think I'd rather be willing to hang on to terror(ism) management and punish the outsiders (who cause the terrorism in the first place) than be considered to have an injured narcissism. But that is just me. Heh!
And a Tip of the GM Chapeaux to Dr. Helen and to James Taranto
November 12, 2005
Yes, by all means let's talk about Mark A. York's qualifications. First, he is as narcissistic as John "Do you know who I am?" Kerry. Mark brags about "endangered fisheries." This of course he means to imply that he is fighting to save, as he once published in the "DailySundial" wild salmon. But fisheries is defined as:
The industry or occupation devoted to the catching, processing, or selling of fish, shellfish, or other aquatic animals.Hah, this guy has a bachelors degree in journalism Not biology, if he has any biology at all, it is as a minor and that requirement is only 18 hours. Furthermore, according to his book, he was a GS-4 Technician.... The lowest of the low, the least qualified of the qualified, so low that a degreed person with NO experience was placed over him in his sojourn to the ANWR and that his work was seasonal. Oh, and his lifetime of environmental work... hmmm, according to his own words (he published this remember): he spent 17 years as a construction worker going from "the kid who always got beat up to the terminator." as he protected the others in his fisheries crew from having to deal with the "tough" oil field hands.
A place where fish or other aquatic animals are caught.
A fishing business.
A hatchery for fish.
The legal right to fish in specified waters or areas.
Oh, by the way, that's from his book "Against A Strong Current and you can find an excerpt here: Chapter 7. Interesting book by all accounts... NOT!
Actually, this book is sent to an electronic publisher, not accepted for mass publication by an ÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â€šÂ¬Ã…“accepted publisherÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â€šÂ¬Ã‚Â�, but printed on order by Xlibris Corp a vanity type press and he rails against Woody and me for unsourced material but where we werenÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â€šÂ¬Ã¢â€žÂ¢t being humorous, we sourced just fine. Oh, and by the way, Mark has a screed against the vanity press here: July, 07 which when you read it is hilarious; this guy has more bathos than the Marx Brothers. But I digress, here is a "review" of York's Against A Strong Current:
Refreshingly objective and candid nonfiction concerning an issue at the core of our very existence-the environment.At the core of our very existence. Lion's and Tigers and Bears Oh My!!
While others turn a blind eye or are swayed by the powers that be seeking to exploit the
planet, the author is a fearless champion for the planet as evidenced also by the conditions he braves on his quest. [emphasis added, but I couldnÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â€šÂ¬Ã¢â€žÂ¢t help myself my gawd, this guy is overweening]
That review is a little over the top and I have absolutely no doubt that York himself wrote it using a fake ID for the purpose. However there are two other reviews which kind of put York in his place:
Sorry Mark, but this book needs some first aid. I decided to read it after reading the author's comments in a Rick Bass review. It reads like a stump-filled hillside, slipping, tripping, and falling all over the place. There is no sense that it was edited; there are misspellings, frags, story lines smashed to bits. Descriptions of the beautiful areas are adjective-free. There is also a lot of what I sense as " doesn't play well with others." I'll stop here.............and
this book lacked any sort of editing on the author's part. seeing as the book was published with Print On Demand technology, he had no editor. It seems like he wrote this in a week -- maybe two -- tops, then just handed it in. Couldn't believe the horrible editing.
Editing makes a book hard to read, skimming over all those errors. Sigh.
Hey, i tried to read it. But... it was just so bland and awful - and that's editing aside.
Atta boy York, slammed twice for your hubris. However, our intrepid enviro-warrior doesn't quit, I'll give him that. Take a look at the sites he has been banned at beginning with mine (yet, he continues to come around). Also here (Roger Simon) and here (Done Deal) here (Press Think - 2 times no less). He claimed to be a "pen pal of sorts" with Bill Clinton He was kicked out of Yahoo Groups. Lastly, and then I'll quit because I really hate having a battle of wits with York when it is so obvious that he is half armed; York was banned from my blog for the use of foul language. He claims he didn't use anything stronger than "ass" and, unfortunately I deleted all the really vile language and York knows it. Unfortnately for York, the net is full of his postings and he typically and usually gets frustrated (low frustration tolerance is a hallmark of lefty trolls) and posts something like this [WARNING - strong language follows]
How pathetic do you have to to (sic) fixate on one website to get control for your sick ideas you ignorant shithead. IÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â€šÂ¬Ã¢â€žÂ¢ll tell you what Timo if I could get a hold [of] your sick neck it would be broken. Now thatÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â€šÂ¬Ã¢â€žÂ¢s a promise you fvcking (sic) ad hom (sic) machine. Is it true because the credential-less tim-troll says it? LOL! What a dickhead. You scared little twit.with all those misspellings this guy purports to have a degree in journalism? "Ass" indeed! "... doesn't play well with others." I couldn't have said it any better myself.
Which brings us to Randy PaulÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â€šÂ¬Ã¢â€žÂ¢s entry in the flame wars. Paul advertises his blog as ÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â€šÂ¬Ã…“A Proud Member Of The Reality Based Community.ÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â€šÂ¬Ã‚Â� Oh my! He congratulates York here:
I thought that I would comment on this bizarre post attempting - with the aid of a right-wing think tank no less - (talk about aiming low and still missing your target) to refute claims that global warming is real, but someone beat me to it and did it well.Paul goes on to say ÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â€šÂ¬Ã…“hereÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â€šÂ¬Ã¢â€žÂ¢s a little something about their sourceÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â€šÂ¬Ã‚Â� and references a coal baron (one would assume) by the name of S. Fred Singer. Only one problem Paul, I didnÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â€šÂ¬Ã¢â€žÂ¢t reference Singer in a realistic post or any other post that I could find so I have no idea where you came up with it. And your reference of YorkÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â€šÂ¬Ã¢â€žÂ¢s post was in reference to my post. Paul, you really need to get a real life. Further, if you were really going to debunk the articles I posted on, then by all means do so, but be sure to cite your sources, not your fevered imagination.
OK, letÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â€šÂ¬Ã¢â€žÂ¢s go on to PaulÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â€šÂ¬Ã¢â€žÂ¢s qualifications in this little bit of byte-drama. Paul has a ÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â€šÂ¬Ã‚Â¦ are you readyÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â€šÂ¬Ã‚Â¦ degree in FÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â€šÂ¬Ã‚Â¦.IÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â€šÂ¬Ã‚Â¦.LÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â€šÂ¬Ã‚Â¦.M! There you have it boys and girls. A degree in film and a good deal of knowledge about south and central America. ThatÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â€šÂ¬Ã¢â€žÂ¢s it. OK, not quite it. In his next sentence he ÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â€šÂ¬Ã…“provesÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â€šÂ¬Ã‚Â� that Woody is all wet regarding the cost of removing CO2 from the burning of fossil fuels with that paragon of scientific journals (you know, the one that York always champions) THE ÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â€šÂ¬Ã‚Â¦ againÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â€šÂ¬Ã‚Â¦ readyÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â€šÂ¬Ã‚Â¦ here it comesÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â€šÂ¬Ã‚Â¦. a NEW YORK TIMES EDITORIALÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â€šÂ¬Ã‚Â¦. Well, IÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â€šÂ¬Ã¢â€žÂ¢m sure castigated. Gawrsh as Goofy would say!
Well, the editorial does in fact say that removing CO2 would only be ÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â€šÂ¬Ã…“$1.00 per tonÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â€šÂ¬Ã‚Â� Only one problem, and that is the number of tons produced worldwide in a ten year period from 1994 through 2003 (and we are using those figures because that is what we will have to pay over the next 10 years if we start on Jan. 1, 2006ÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â€šÂ¬Ã‚Â¦ letÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â€šÂ¬Ã¢â€žÂ¢s seeÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â€šÂ¬Ã‚Â¦ itÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â€šÂ¬Ã¢â€žÂ¢s about 465,528.69 MILLION METRIC TONNES at one dollar per ton (and remember, a metric tonne weighs 2, 200 pounds whereas a ton weighs only 2000 pounds, so a metric ton is about 10% larger. Having said that, and even converting metric tones to standard tons we are talking about $512,081,559,000.00 we are talking about 512 billion dollars; you don't think you will feel that in your pocketbook?. Oh, and Paul, York, that figure is from YOUR guysÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â€šÂ¬Ã‚Â¦ the ones that you say BELIEVE in GW.
PaulÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â€šÂ¬Ã¢â€žÂ¢s parting comment is ÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â€šÂ¬Ã…“If you can't get the truth behind them they just make things up.ÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â€šÂ¬Ã‚Â� Paul, I propose that reducing the cost to only one ton and hiding the total number of tons is making things up.
But you see, radical out in left field lefties like Paul and Mark are all about that; scare, fear mongering and popular pablum; about purporting theory as fact (actually, to the amusement of all and sundry, that fellow York actually said "A theory in science is indeed fact." I'm surprised he graduated with that kind of thinking... all of my professors would have flunked me if I held that view. Then again, I went to a real university. and have more than 60 graduate hours with a 3.75 GPA, I'm a member of a national honor society as well. York on the other hand, maintained that grades of well, mediocre at best ) and their proposed solutions are the only hope of mankind. Well, remember global winter, the next ice age, how silicone implants caused all kinds of medical problems, how electric transmission lines caused cancer and other dire threats from magnetic currents (which is all the rage now, wearing magnets that is), how cell phones would give you brain tumors in a relatively short timeÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â€šÂ¬Ã‚Â¦ all debunked, but all part of the fear mongering and the cost of finding out that it was fear mongering was staggering. Dow Corning went bankrupt and spent over 3 billion dollars for the privilege, we spent well over 25 billion on powerline research, money that could have helped an awful lot of kids who were hungry, or a lot of treatment for aids victims in Africa or even on honest climate research. Reality based community indeed.
Update: Some of my readers have gone to leave comments at York's site. He banned them! Bwahahahaha!!! Oh Mark, you are such a dweeb!