jawa.mee.nu

March 06, 2006

Australia to Crack Down on Hoons

Tougher anti-hoon laws planned
March 06, 2006
THE West Australian Government is planning tougher anti-hoon legislation in a bid to crack down on road rage and reckless driving.
Premier Alan Carpenter said today that amendments to the state's anti-hoon laws would be introduced into Parliament during its first session this year.
Police would be able to impound the cars of drivers who endangered other road users or caused criminal damage to their vehicles as part of road rage incidents, he said.

In a possibly related story, a recent poll shows that nearly two thirds of Australians believe there is underlying racism in the country.

Whether or not the story is related depends on just what the hell a "hoon" is.

Also posted at The Dread Pundit Bluto.

Posted by: Bluto at 12:50 AM | Comments (21) | Add Comment
Post contains 134 words, total size 1 kb.

1 "HOON?
We have all been one or seen one. The slightly rebellious, sunglass clad, ever so cool dude usually spotted behind the wheel of something special, his arm mysteriously jutting out the window, usually with a smile a mile wide - he has an abnormally heavy right foot and it is believed gasoline flows freely in his veins.

He longs for the good old days - when auto makers had imagination and flair - when they produced vehicles of style and individuality - he loathes the clone cars produced for the last 25 years.

Herds of HOONS gather in their thousands at motor racing events, auto shows, swap meets and cruises. HOONS are happiest behind the wheel or tinkering under the hood/bonnet of his bride & joy - he is simply a petrolhead!"

Courtesy of Google.

Posted by: blert at March 06, 2006 03:03 AM (/cQjW)

2 American equivalent; rednecks, trailer trash etc

Posted by: dave at March 06, 2006 04:53 AM (Xa/Xn)

3 So, dave, anyone who likes cars is a redneck and trailer trash? Here's a hint for future reference; if you don't know what the fuck you're talking about, remember that it's better to remain quiet and be thought a fool, than to open your mouth and remove all doubt.

Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at March 06, 2006 05:02 AM (0yYS2)

4 Now that confused me until "blert" explained what a hoon was. I thought, with the accompanying link about racism, that a "hoon" was a race I hadn't heard of yet.

Posted by: Oyster at March 06, 2006 06:47 AM (YudAC)

5 Source - Wikipedia:

Hoon is an Australian and New Zealand colloquial term applied to individuals who typically drive fast and dangerously. The term is also used as a verb: "to hoon" or "to hoon around", meaning to act in a reckless or otherwise less than sensible manner.

The stereotypical hoon is a young male who owns and/or drives a high-performance or otherwise modified automobile, often a Japanese import.

Posted by: wiremu1306 at March 06, 2006 07:00 AM (pEQyL)

6 Over here they put spoilers on Ford Escorts.

Posted by: Oyster at March 06, 2006 07:41 AM (YudAC)

7 I become a "hoon" every time I drive my wife's Nissan Maxima. What's wrong with that? After driving a GMC Sierra 4-wheel drive all week, I look forward to "hooning" on the weekends. In the USA, that's cool, at least to me.

Posted by: jesusland joe at March 06, 2006 08:33 AM (rUyw4)

8 No I don't. Hoons are dickless punks and a social menace. Theres nothing nice about em. Thats all.

Posted by: dave at March 06, 2006 09:03 AM (Xa/Xn)

9 Cracking down on hoon what are the aussies planning? i have this feeling their going after emus and kangaroos that are doing road rage

Posted by: sandpiper at March 06, 2006 09:43 AM (UwJcR)

10 looks like I'm going to have to acquire a new nickname, that's the second 'dave' to post in the last two weeks that pissed off the regulars.

Posted by: dave at March 06, 2006 10:47 AM (CcXvt)

11 I knew it wasn't the real "dave", dave. LOL! It was a "dickless punk and social menace" who tried to steal your nick.

Posted by: jesusland joe at March 06, 2006 10:53 AM (rUyw4)

12 I gotta agree with Dave. Hoons are a social menace. 'Hoons' are also very different from car. Car enthusiasts generally show responsibility in how they drive and where they choose to open their cars up. For a hoon the car is merely a way of gaining attention, hence the blinding paint and overall obnoxiousness of their creations. If you're not sure if you're a hoon or not, check out those new Volkswagen GTi commercials. If you dress like that and your car looks like that, you're a hoon and VW is making fun of you.

I hope the Missus gets to take the Sierra off roading, JJ. Fair is fair, after all.

Posted by: Graeme at March 06, 2006 10:57 AM (cm8TO)

13 Dave, can we pick a nick for you?

Posted by: Oyster at March 06, 2006 11:01 AM (n/nt4)

14 I say we hold a contest for picking a new nick for Dave.

Posted by: Oyster at March 06, 2006 11:04 AM (n/nt4)

15 I was just going to add a single character in front of 'dave' seeing some of the entries in the last contest probably not a good idea

Posted by: dave at March 06, 2006 11:26 AM (CcXvt)

16 The missus hates my truck, Graeme, saying that it is like driving a tank. Compared to her Maxima, well, it is, but the Maxima doesn't quite make it when there is serious hunting and hauling to do. However, she does like to drive my son's Toyota Tacoma.

After looking at some photos of those hoons, I am more in the car enthusiast category, as I like to open up the Maxima on the Interstate Highway system where I don't interfere with other drivers. Especially in rural Arkansas where I can really open it up and see what the Maxima will do. I chickened out at 130 mph, which would be about 200 kph, I think.

Posted by: jesusland joe at March 06, 2006 11:45 AM (rUyw4)

17 Well JJ, if your wife reads these comments, she'll now understand why every Monday morning she needs to change the tires and the brake pads

A 'new nick for Dave' contest sounds cool, Oyster. I cast my vote for 'Fabio', since it stands out and I can't see anyone wanting to steal it.

Posted by: Graeme at March 06, 2006 12:12 PM (cm8TO)

18 Fabio? Hmmm...that name sounds familiar, Graeme. But I have to agree that no one would steal it, that's for sure. Well, dave, the ball is in your court. Or should I say the Fabio is in your court.

Posted by: jesusland joe at March 06, 2006 01:16 PM (rUyw4)

19 Oh man I've been flamed big time. Sorry to all the hoons I've offended here. Or the rednecks, or the trailor trash for that matter.

Posted by: not dave anymore at March 06, 2006 08:01 PM (amAMP)

20 And don't forget us car enthusiasts either, not dave anymore.

Posted by: jesusland joe at March 07, 2006 10:41 AM (rUyw4)

21 so where did the word come from?

Posted by: pst314 at March 08, 2006 09:04 AM (OA547)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

March 04, 2006

Gun Control: A View From the Front Lines

The author is a 30-veteran retired Syracuse Police Lieutenant. He has sent a letter containing the essential points below to the New York State Senate. - Bluto

I am a retired police officer with over thirty years experience. As a Sergeant, and later Lieutenant, for the Syracuse PD, I worked with the Director of the Bureau of Research in City Hall. We examined and proposed programs for violent crime reduction. Now retired, I basically perform the same tasks on a contract basis.

Read the Rest

Posted by: Bluto at 01:34 PM | Comments (21) | Add Comment
Post contains 93 words, total size 1 kb.

1 "It is not the gun laws that are weak, it is the pitiful imposition of sentencing and bail guidelines that frustrate police officers!"

EOM

Posted by: heroyalwhyness at March 04, 2006 04:12 PM (XU9K/)

2 I have a very different view of gun control than what these pricks in NYS have. Gun control for me is being able to hit the target every time I shoot, expecially with that all important second shot....to the chest cavity. Gets the bastards every time, if you use the .45 auto, or something similar. I just prefer the .45.

Posted by: jesusland joe at March 04, 2006 04:43 PM (rUyw4)

3 Like he said its nothing more than Democrat politicians exploiting the PC angle to satisfy constituency, with the end goal of eliminating all guns. They've got no evidence, no facts. It is that simple.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Jawa Report: An error occurred: Fruitcake error: Too many connections

Posted by: Javapuke at March 04, 2006 07:31 PM (eRdh4)

4 AMEN...Jesusland Joe! A .45 is indeed very good, but in the past I used a .38 cal....same result! I worked with this Lieutenent and he knows what he's talking about. I'm a Retired Sergeant from the same Department and he wrote a very truthful and factual letter...Cookie

Posted by: Cookie at March 04, 2006 07:32 PM (Ffvoi)

5 You hardly even need to aim with a Mossberg.

Posted by: Oyster at March 04, 2006 08:27 PM (YudAC)

6 can anyone explain to me how certain states can prohibit possession of firearms, like:

Thus, it is unlawful to possess, acquire, or bring into Washington D.C. any handgun which was not registered as of Feb. 5, 1977.

and why it is not a problem to remove a citizens constitutional rights depending on which State they live?

Does this mean, you could in theory be disarmed by the State, at a time of their choosing, just by the State prohibiting personal possession of weapons to civilians?

excuse my ignorance

Posted by: dave at March 04, 2006 09:30 PM (CcXvt)

7 Does this mean, you could in theory be disarmed by the State, at a time of their choosing, just by the State prohibiting personal possession of weapons to civilians?
Posted by Dave.

As long as there are red necks and the NRA exists, it will be difficult to take away the guns from American citizens.

The following from an old bumper sticker may help.

They can have my gun when they pry it from my cold dead hands.

I like a S&W simi 40 cal or a 20 guage.

Posted by: The Texican at March 04, 2006 10:38 PM (2hBg0)

8 dave, good question, and one that has yet to be fully answered by the SCOTUS. Handguns have been banned in certain jurisdictions such as Washington, D.C. and cities in Illinois and California. There may be other examples.

However, the 2nd Amendment has so far prevented the outright ban of all firearms such as what we have seen in Britain and Australia, and to a lesser degree in Canada. What the SCOTUS will decide in the future is unclear, and that is why it is so important to have strict constutionists on the SCOTUS rather than liberals who seem to think the Constitution can be changed by judicial fiat. We shall see in our lifetimes how this plays out, but I am more hopeful now that there are at least 2 new conservative justices on the Court.

Posted by: jesusland joe at March 04, 2006 10:48 PM (rUyw4)

9 I love Oysters! Raw, thank you very much!

Posted by: forest hunter at March 05, 2006 02:18 AM (Fq6zR)

10 Ten years ago, whenever guys started talking guns around girls, it was rare that a girl would join in. Now, it's surprising to learn how many girls own guns and/or shoot regularly and love to talk about it. My very own mother-in-law, who wouldn't even allow guns in her house when I started dating her daughter, just last weekend proudly showed me her shiny new concealed carry permit. We're winning, the libtards are losing, and I love it.

Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at March 05, 2006 06:36 AM (0yYS2)

11 I grew up with guns. My dad made sure that we understood and had respect for guns. He completely removed the fear and ignorance that so many suffer from in regards to firearms. He took us out in the everglades for target practice often growing up. It was fun and exciting. Because of him I can take my Glock apart completely, clean it and reassemble it. I've never hunted though. I just don't have it in me. I'm sure if I was starving I'd kill something with a quickness, but as long as the grocery store is nearby and I have a dollar in my pocket I won't be shooting at anything but a painted target ..... or a burglar.

I did have to point a gun at another person one time, but thankfully didn't have to pull the trigger. He ran away.

Posted by: Oyster at March 05, 2006 09:53 AM (YudAC)

12 Dave,

The Second Amendment only restricts the federal government. Some amendments have been "incorporated." You can search "incorporation doctrine." States can ban firearms unless there is a state constitutional provision to the contrary.

Only then do you get into federal and state case law.

What is most annoying is the idea gun laws will stop someone who alread breaks the other laws. How simple can it be?

Posted by: Chip at March 05, 2006 10:23 AM (9VozQ)

13 Thanks Chip, that makes sense. In the original question I asked :
Does this mean, you could in theory be disarmed by the State, at a time of their choosing, just by the State prohibiting personal possession of weapons to civilians?

How would that occur, would it have to be voluntary or could it be enforced by State law enforcement?

The reason I ask, is I read a post about:
A

Washington DC's gun laws + San Francisco total gun ban (sale ammunition/weapons)

B

The seizure of civilian weapons after Katrina.

If anyone knows any good site, I am willing to read

Posted by: dave at March 05, 2006 01:34 PM (CcXvt)

14 Go to the site of the National Rifle Association, dave, or perhaps a group called The Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms. Both of these are excellent. The NRA also published a book called The Second Amendment Primer a few years ago, but it may be out of print. I have a copy but haven't seen it around in a few years.

Posted by: jesusland joe at March 05, 2006 01:47 PM (rUyw4)

15 How about instead of anymore worthless and rediclous gun control why dont they instead go after the lowlifes who misuse guns like giving them 60 or 70 years in prison with no parole and no furloughs

Posted by: sandpiper at March 05, 2006 02:08 PM (stdEd)

16 dave,

You should also join the NRA if you have any concern about gun and gun confiscation laws. The NRA works nationwide to promote gun ownership and gun safety so that all Americans can have access to weapons that make self-defense possible. Self-defense is hardly a right if you have no means to defend yourself. You would think this to be elementary logic, but few liberals can grasp the concept. Thus you can get what you now have in Britain, one of the highest crime rates in the World with an almost total firearms ban.

That's when you should realize that firearms bans have nothing to do with crime and everything to do with totalitarianism. Britain is headed down that road like a bat out of hell. Their totalitarianism will be of the Islamic flavor.

Posted by: jesusland joe at March 05, 2006 02:13 PM (rUyw4)

17 You're not wrong there, Joe.
In England you have the right to be murdered in your home, it is against the law to use lethal force to defend your life, a lot of the violence is against the elderly, during a burglary.

13,140 people murdered in Britain in the past 20 years.
Britain's murder rate for the population as a whole has almost doubled in the past 20 years, with young men from poor backgrounds by far the most likely victims.
Last year Home Office statistics recorded 833* murders in England and Wales, compared with just 565 a decade ago
wow, more people murdered in a year than the loss of the U.K military in three years in Iraq.

The study reveals that the five main causes of murder were fights, poisoning, strangling, firearms and cutting by glass or broken bottle.
WHERE DO THE FIREARMS COME FROM??

in fact, proportionately more murders are committed with guns in well-to-do areas. They account for 29% of murders in the richest parts of the country
Wait something doesn't make sense here? what could it be??

Ah, yes it's the fact that all the weapons are being used by Farmers, obviously seeing as they have most access, wouldn't that mean that Farmers are very rich people??

One reason for this is that farmers still have legal access to shotguns. "The more affluent an area, the more likely it is that guns will be used," said Dorling. Richer, more educated people, he says, also prefer to kill by methods that do not involve physical contact, possibly because they are too squeamish. As Dorling puts it: "For the rich, the brutal methods are going out of fashion."

ah, Evil,rich White Men™ do the most murdering!

Do not defend yourself however:
Man guilty of burglar manslaughter
http://news.b\bc.co.uk/1/hi/england/2248635.stm

Farmer who killed burglar jailed for life
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/htmlContent.jhtml?html=/archive/2000/04/20/nmar20.html

Director 'battered and stabbed' burglar
http://news.b\bc.co.uk/1/hi/england/nottinghamshire/2976496.stm

Anyone that supports a gun ban, deserves everything they would get, relying on the Police to do violence on their behalf.

Posted by: dave at March 05, 2006 04:12 PM (CcXvt)

18 dave, I was on Tim Blair's blog a few minutes ago and saw some of the same statistics you just reproduced. I also know that crime in Scotland has shot(nice term) through the roof and might be ever higher than what you quote for England and Wales.

What we see happening in the UK is this: the more gun control and bans you have, the higher the crime rate. You see, logic should tell you that criminals are more likely to assualt, rob, and kill people who are unarmed. Even the criminals are smart enough to use logic, whereas the liberals are either too stupid or too brainwashed. But we know this is not about crime anyway as the liberals and leftists are concerned about taking over, which they are unable to do as long as the populace at large is armed. That's why one of Hitler's first actions after taking over the German government was to ban private ownership of firearms. Totalitarianism rears its ugly head, so know where the Left is going with gun confiscation.

Posted by: jesusland joe at March 05, 2006 04:25 PM (rUyw4)

19 Joe,
Indeed.
The amusing part for me was the ability to use numbers to give a skewed perspective of what is occuring, e.g that firearms being used by the "rich" and then claiming it's because Farmers still have firearms!
lacking also, was a comparison between criminals using illegal Firearms to commit murder, but statistics for wealthy people using guns!

I guess we can see the enemy in the U.K class system, the wealthy are evil, because they have things other people want to steal

Posted by: dave at March 05, 2006 04:41 PM (CcXvt)

20 Good point, dave, as the liberals reach the genius category when it comes to skewing statistics to favor whatever outcome they desire. And heaven forbid that any facts should get in their way.

Posted by: jesusland joe at March 05, 2006 04:59 PM (rUyw4)

21 Don't let these lefties fool you. These liberal elites who push for gun control have a very good understanding of the difference between law-abiding citizens being stripped of their right to bear arms and the criminals who don't pay attention to any other laws and are not likely to adhere to gun laws as well. They have such a good grasp of the concept they have no problem with their body guards carrying guns to protect them from those who want to steal their stuff. It's not that they "don't get it". They "get it" all right. They just feel that their reason for wanting protection is legitimate - but not the great unwashed. Oh my, no.

Posted by: Oyster at March 05, 2006 07:15 PM (YudAC)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

March 03, 2006

Do You Suffer From Bush Derangement Syndrome?

Created by Erik Axelson

If you think you might have Bush Derangement Syndrome, or BDS, just take this simple self-administered test: more...

Posted by: Bluto at 12:09 AM | Comments (12) | Add Comment
Post contains 803 words, total size 5 kb.

March 02, 2006

Liberal Teacher Suspended After Bush Bashing

That's nothing. My high-school social studies teacher was the President of the California Radical Teachers Association. No joke.

Posted by: Rusty at 09:05 AM | Comments (8) | Add Comment
Post contains 24 words, total size 1 kb.

1 hahaha! busted. Stupid moonbats.

Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at March 02, 2006 09:21 AM (8e/V4)

2 The real problem is that this crap goes on all over the country. Most kids don't have the guts to call their teachers out on these kinds of things.

Posted by: jesusland joe at March 02, 2006 10:03 AM (rUyw4)

3 Spewing your political beliefs in a classroom should be illegal. Parents don't sign on to have their kids indoctrinated. They`want them educated. You rarely, if ever, hear of some raving neocon besmirching liberals. It's always some disgruntled leftist bashing the right. That's bsically why we have nation that more and more, rejects its own culture. Our universities are TEEMING with these pukes.

Posted by: Richard at March 02, 2006 10:53 AM (7KF8r)

4 My son's "Great Moral Questions" teacher last year was out of the same mold. First order of business, spend two days screening Farenheit 9/11! Not to mention the pin he wore that said "Bush Lied".
The sad thing is that most kids love this stuff... rage against the authorities!
The sad thing is that my son's older brother is in the Navy. Kind of hard to balance the rhetoric against the facts in the family, not that the high school teacher cares, or even thought about it. The only person being offended is the union teacher...

Posted by: Babs at March 02, 2006 01:00 PM (iZZlp)

5 Drudge Reports via Rocky Mountain Nws that hundreds of students walked out of class in support of the teacher, while chanting "Bush Sucks" and forming a long car parade. But Hey !! they are kids !! What do they know !!

Posted by: john ryan at March 02, 2006 05:36 PM (TcoRJ)

6 The fact is a great number of those kids didn't even know why they were walking out. Any reason to just leave class. The kid, Allen, said he asked many students if they knew what it was all about and got the response, "Who cares?" Or that they didn't know. They weren't all in support of the teacher.

And, of course, the slackers stayed behind a little longer chanting anti-Bush slogans in a park while the rest went back to class.

Posted by: Oyster at March 02, 2006 06:18 PM (YudAC)

7 >>>the slackers stayed behind a little longer chanting anti-Bush slogans in a park while the rest went back to class.

slackers = Liberals

Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at March 03, 2006 09:51 AM (8e/V4)

8 The ACLU which dedicates itself to supporting radicals and terrorists will be defending this creep

Posted by: sandpiper at March 05, 2006 02:26 PM (stdEd)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

February 08, 2006

Academic Freedom (Except to Criticize Islam)

Guest commentary by Inigo Montoya: Freedom. You keep using that word. I do not think it means, what you think it means. American professor fired for showing cartoons to students in UAE. Here is the money quote:

Shaikh Nahyan emphasised that there is freedom of opinion and expression in the UAE, as well as academic freedom enjoyed by all educational institutions, but what happened in Zayed University does not relate, in any sense, to any relevant concept of freedom.

In all honestly, it's not like American universities are much more free.

Posted by: Rusty at 04:39 PM | Comments (7) | Add Comment
Post contains 96 words, total size 1 kb.

1 If there is no freedom to criticize Islam, there is no freedom. Simple, that!

Posted by: jesusland joe at February 08, 2006 06:05 PM (rUyw4)

2 JJ there is freedom to criticize islam, it's just that a billion people don't like it. Sticks and stones etc, except when talking about muslims; they are superior to us if we are to believe their preachings.

Posted by: Jester at February 08, 2006 06:39 PM (2FYdV)

3 Hmmmph! Yeah, well, I don't believe their teachings, and frankly, why should I? They come to the West from their hellholes and want to tell us what to say or do. My answer is for Muslims to go back to the hellholes they came from. It wouldn't take the deportment of 100 of these guys before we heard them singing a different tune. I'll bet you on that.

Posted by: jesusland joe at February 08, 2006 06:48 PM (rUyw4)

4 Offcourse there is freedom of speech in the Middle East, they are also free to criticise, insult and mock all other religions.

They are also free to call jews and americans, pigs and/or apes.

I'm surprised that there are female students in the UAE, oh my, things have changed, Arab women have brains, they are allowed to learn, truly shocking.

Posted by: MathewK at February 08, 2006 07:29 PM (pVHqF)

5 Another paradox of this ongoing - how to say this - educational bias/prejudice. If one wishes to gain access to gainful employment, it has been/will be required to have spent considerable time and money in these American Universities. For without the entitlement granted in exchange for the substantial financial support contributed to these brainwashing specialists, the employment options narrow to a disparaging level. The option to feed the Jaba's at the top and everywhere in between seems non-existent.

Posted by: forest hunter at February 08, 2006 07:49 PM (Fq6zR)

6 Check it out guys, apparently the cartoons were published in Eygpt in Oct 2005, with no reaction from anyone, also the newspaper running the holocaust cartoons already has pictures of Mo on its website, so much for not having pictures of him.

http://egyptiansandmonkey.blogspot.com/2006/02/boycott-egypt.html

http://www.hamshahri.org/vijenam/javan/1384/841115/panke3.htm

Posted by: MathewK at February 08, 2006 10:56 PM (pVHqF)

7 Shall we burn the Egyptian embassy down? Or should we demand they burn their own down? I mean, fair's fair, right?

Posted by: Oyster at February 09, 2006 05:26 AM (YudAC)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

February 07, 2006

Yankee Doodle Danish

Denmark is the only nation other than the United States that celebrates US Independence Day on July 4th as a national holiday. I found out about this when I was a stamp collector and came across a series of Danish stamps celebrating US Independence, issued on July 4th. Kinda cool.

Posted by: Demosophist at 09:05 PM | Comments (5) | Add Comment
Post contains 53 words, total size 1 kb.

Bad News: Statistics Show Strong Correlation Between Islam and Authoritarianism; Good News: Muslim Nations Becoming More Liberal After Bush

[Ed note: this post is a response to Dean Esmay's post which shows that at least two Muslim countries are considered 'liberal democracies', the conclusion being that Islam is not antithetical to liberalism, and Rusty's response which argues that a more meaningful measure would be to correlate the number of Muslims in a country with that country's freedom index. Demosophist and Rusty hash out the methodological problems associated with this statistical analysis here.]

OK, I did some coding last night and obtained the latest Freedom House Indices for 2006 as well as some numbers for the percent of the population that's Muslim for 164 countries. Although I have some fairly consequencial objections to Rusty's methodology regarding this data, I thought I'd go ahead and run some correlations and a quick regression using both of the composite Freedom House indices that I calculated. (Basically it's just the mean of civil liberty and political freedom, so doesn't include press freedom.) I'm not sure how to present the regressions, but since they show essentially the same picture as the Pearson correlation coefficients I'll just post those first.

Correlation between % Muslims and the 2001 Freedom House Index = 0.6044
Correlation between % Muslims and the 2006 Freedom House Index = 0.5650

For those not familiar with correlation, anything over 0.5 is considered large. But things at least seem to be moving in the right direction. As one might expect since the regression is on only one variable it shows pretty much the same pattern as the correlations. The raw coefficient for the percent Muslim for 2001 is 0.031. That means that for each increase of 1% in the percentage of Muslims in the population the level of freedom goes down by 0.031 points on a scale of 7. (Roughly 1 in 200.) The relationship is also highly significant.

In other words, the relationship has positive slope. (Remember that the dependent variable isn't freedom, but repression, because the higher the score the less free the society.)

Now, using the 2006 index the coefficient for the percentage of Muslims goes down a bit, to 0.029. However both numbers are within a 95% confidence interval. For those used to thinking in terms of beta coefficients, the betas are mathematically identical to the Pearson coefficients above, for a simple regression like this. Unlike the raw coefficients these are scaled to variation, which is why they're called "standard coefficients." They provide a little better sense of what's going on: about 0.04 for 5 years, or about 0.01 per year. (I guess it depends on when you start counting.) That's not very much in absolute terms, but it'd be interesting to know whether it's greater or less than the previous 5 year period. Is the trend toward freedom in the Ummah accelerating or decelerating?

I used only one set of numbers for the percent Muslim, because it was all I could find. For anyone who'd like to duplicate this effort, and possibly retain a few more cases, the data are here. They're for 2005 so the change in percent Muslim from 2001 to 2006 probably doesn't explain why the coefficient has dropped, since the percentage of Muslims has been growing. For the 2001 regression the percentage of Muslims is overestimated, so the actual coefficient would he greater relative to the 2006 number that this analysis shows. In other words the resistance to freedom in the Muslim world may be dropping faster than this suggests. It's hard to say how much greater unless one finds the percent Muslim data for 2001, which I don't have. But assuming the drop is real and significant (the coefficient for a "dummy variable" for 2006 is negative and almost significant at the 90% confidence level with a coefficient for the percent Muslim of 0.30) it's reasonable to suppose that the change is either part of a long term trend toward freedom, or it's a result of policies followed by the US. At any rate this analysis certainly doesn't support the Left's notion that Bush is making things worse. (We sort of knew that though, right?)

The bottom line is that Islam puts up considerable resistance to civil and political freedom, but that resistance is at least not increasing over time, and it is probably decreasing.

Well, make of it what you will.

(Cross-posted to Demosophia)

Posted by: Demosophist at 08:25 AM | Comments (6) | Add Comment
Post contains 667 words, total size 5 kb.

February 06, 2006

The Problem is 'Islamophobia'

Iran's official news agency bemoans the spread of Islamophobia in Europe:

"Unfortunately, Islamophobia is currently spreading in Europe in different forms and at an alarming speed.
"Insult to Islamic values and Muslims' sanctity in the West has been now turned into a main challenge facing the Islamic nations now. It is vital to seriously confront this challenge," Mottaki said.

Meanwhile, Reuters reports that Islamist thugs in a government-organized demonstration attacked the Austrian embassy in Teheran with Molotov cocktails.

The regrettable "Islamophobia" problem follows other evil Western obsessions like "Jew-burning-Naziphobia", "Mass-murdering-Communistphobia", and, of course, "Baby-blood-drinking-Mongolhordephobia".

Also posted at The Dread Pundit Bluto and Vince Aut Morire.

Posted by: Bluto at 12:19 PM | Comments (15) | Add Comment
Post contains 108 words, total size 1 kb.

1 Islamophobia?

How about Scaredofgettingmyfuckingheadsawedoff-obia.

You goat lovers have some nerve. How about dirtybeardophobia?

How about terroristophobia?

Dudes, we don't like your holier than thru bullshit and the whole kidnapping,sawing of heads, terrorist stuff does nothing for your image either.

What if the rest of us started acting like you dirty muslims eh? Everytime we get "offended" we go on a rampage burning stores, consulates and threatening everyong who stinks like kabbab with a head sawing.

Posted by: FilthyAllah at February 06, 2006 12:28 PM (5ceWd)

2 No, the problem is Islam. Islamophobia is not burning down embassies and threatening to kill people. And in some cases murdering people.

Posted by: jesusland joe at February 06, 2006 12:33 PM (rUyw4)

3 Would it be fair to say there is a fair amount of Catholic phobia in Iran?
Donâ€™t agree? Try passing the NIV bible out in Tehran. I bet you start running into phobias pretty quick.

Posted by: Brad at February 06, 2006 12:59 PM (3OPZt)

4 >>> "Insult to Islamic values and Muslims' sanctity in the West has been now turned into a main challenge facing the Islamic nations now. It is vital to seriously confront this challenge," Mottaki said.<<<

Translation: "Say you like us or we'll kill you!"

Posted by: Graeme at February 06, 2006 01:05 PM (19Fdh)

5 just seen sheik bakawi on british evening news say he wants to see the danish cartoonist executed after a muslim trial...............

Posted by: ian uk at February 06, 2006 01:16 PM (GhCfc)

6 and he was complaining about liberal muslims being apologetic to the british people

Posted by: ian uk at February 06, 2006 01:23 PM (GhCfc)

7 Danish Cartoonists, Super bowl Referees, Jeremy Stevens,
all should die after a Muslim trial.

Posted by: Sheik Bakawi at February 06, 2006 01:23 PM (3OPZt)

8 lol

Posted by: ian uk at February 06, 2006 01:26 PM (GhCfc)

9 bush is caught out lying about phone taps eh? hehe.

Posted by: ian uk at February 06, 2006 01:34 PM (GhCfc)

10 I'll give the sons-o'-bitches a brand new phobia if they start getting uppity around here.

Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at February 06, 2006 01:35 PM (0yYS2)

11 . In Afghanistan, The Associated Press reported four people were killed -- two of them when police fired on protesters trying to enter a U.S. airbase.

Danish cartoons == assault an American air base.
When is the MSM going to realize the Muslims use any excuse to create violence, often random and sporadic violence against anyone, or anything?

It's the same when the Muslims in France, claimed the Police killed Muslim youths and were "outraged" -- who got targetted? that's right French citizens cars and a pensioner who is set on fire.

Posted by: dave at February 06, 2006 01:46 PM (CcXvt)

12 now the egyptian government is blaming bin laden for that ferry sinking.....

Posted by: ian uk at February 06, 2006 02:04 PM (GhCfc)

13 HEY !!! let's not make any comparisons with buddhism. Buddhists have been at peace with the USA for more than 30 years.

Posted by: john ryan at February 06, 2006 02:06 PM (TcoRJ)

14 Sorry, but a "phobia" is generally "an unreasonable fear".

If it's reasonable to be afraid, it's just good sense.

Posted by: mojo at February 06, 2006 02:08 PM (c/L4b)

15 >It's the same when the Muslims in France, claimed the Police
>killed Muslim youths and were "outraged" -- who got
>targetted? that's right French citizens cars and a pensioner
>who is set on fire.

Or Muslims in the Netherlands. I just read about Moroccan youths who were angered and provoked when a police station was built next to a mosque in Amsterdam. One Moroccan guy they interviewed was certain that certain people in his neigbourhood would like to blow up the police station because of this affront.

Posted by: Miranda Vink at February 06, 2006 02:42 PM (MQICW)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

February 04, 2006

Former National Security Lawyer: 'FISA Unconstitutional'

Former National Security Lawyer and Central Intelligence Agency Officer H. Bryan Cunningham has submitted a 24-page letter to Arlen Specter, Patrick Leahy, and ten other Congressional leaders that raises serious questions about the Constitutionality of the FISA law.

Taken to its logical extreme, the Critics' position would fundamentally alter the system of separation of powers and checks and balances created by our Constitution, transforming our governmental system into one in which Congress alone reigns supreme in virtually all spheres of governmental action

Cunningham served under both the Clinton and Bush administrations.

Also posted at The Dread Pundit Bluto and Vince Aut Morire.

Posted by: Bluto at 11:33 AM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 107 words, total size 1 kb.

January 30, 2006

The Emperor's Clothes

OK, I'll just get this second post in under the wire if I'm lucky. And I wouldn't even bother were it not for the fact that I think the state of academia is important to the emergence of a New Liberalism (in the classic anti-statist sense). A friend of mine at the James Madison Program in American Ideals and Institutions posted the following link to an article in Inside Higher Education that's about the details of a rather smarmy movement. I mean you really have to keep your wits about you to suss out what these folks actually intend, which is the educational establishment equivalent of selling a bullet-to-the-head as a cure for migraines. Excerpting: more...

Posted by: Demosophist at 11:31 PM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 585 words, total size 4 kb.

January 18, 2006

Alumni Group Tagging Radical Profs At UCLA

From the LA Times:

A fledgling alumni group headed by a former campus Republican leader is offering students payments of up to $100 per class to provide information on instructors who are "abusive, one-sided or off-topic" in advocating political ideologies.
The year-old Bruin Alumni Assn. says its "Exposing UCLA's Radical Professors" initiative takes aim at faculty "actively proselytizing their extreme views in the classroom, whether or not the commentary is relevant to the class topic." Although the group says it is concerned about radical professors of any political stripe, it has named an initial "Dirty 30" of teachers it identifies with left-wing or liberal causes.

Some of the libby profs have accused the Bruin Alumni Association of a "witch hunt". I don't understand why they're upset. They act as if they're ashamed to have their classroom politics exposed to the light of day.

If you find yourself ashamed of your political views, it might be time to change them.

Also posted at The Dread Pundit Bluto.

Posted by: Bluto at 10:06 PM | Comments (36) | Add Comment
Post contains 172 words, total size 1 kb.

1 As my father always said - if you don't like the way the truth makes you look - better change the way you act, because you cannot change the truth.

Posted by: The Random Yak at January 18, 2006 11:09 PM (p0W/4)

2 As long as this association produces its "Shitty Fifty" list of radical right professors in a reasonable amount of time, the Lib professors should have no gripe.

Posted by: Drew at January 18, 2006 11:10 PM (oxMjD)

3 Drew, it's UCLA. Just how many rightwing professors do you think are on the faculty?

Posted by: The Dread Pundit Bluto at January 18, 2006 11:13 PM (RHG+K)

4 Actually a lousy way of going about it - seems more like a PR stunt.

Of course Professors are going to have views and agendas (and overwhelming lib/left to boot). So what! Its their perogative - in writing and contract no less!

The focus should always be on abuse of position! Slanted grading, harrassment, attempts at career sabotaging etc. These things do happened! And with the right case and documentation, should be actionable under civil law!

I have seen this happen in EDU - with the expressed goal of preventing a student from entering the education field because of the "personal ideology".

FIRE is using this approach, and looking for the right case to take the distance in court. That's were it matters! Not in a PR stunt whose sole goal is to tell me something I already know.

Bluto - it should be obvious I believe in "winning isn't everything - it is the only thing." I'm not interested in trick fancy plays for amusement - only in the final score.

Posted by: hondo at January 18, 2006 11:15 PM (3aakz)

5 Bluto: I've got the feeling we won't find out from these fellows. Even if its three, let's see the names of the ones that are going "too far."

Posted by: Drew at January 18, 2006 11:15 PM (oxMjD)

6 hondo: ignore PR at your own risk. PR cost us Vietnam, and may cost us Iraq and the GWOT.

Drew: I agree. Professors should not be forcing their political agenda on students.

Random Yak: it's nice to have a smart father.

Posted by: The Dread Pundit Bluto at January 18, 2006 11:26 PM (RHG+K)

7 What ignore?

This group wants to expose bias in the classroom and then what - blog about?

I and FIRE want to bring a solid civil suit of several million dollars against a university and some professors knowing full well in will end up in major courts with full media attention (they couldn't help it).

Which one is truly serious? Which one is looking for a real battle?

Posted by: hondo at January 18, 2006 11:35 PM (3aakz)

8 heh. This might go over better across town at SC...

Posted by: caltechgirl at January 19, 2006 01:29 AM (uI/79)

9 PR stunt or not, if it makes just one lib-tard have thoughts about keeping his personal feelings to himself, I support it.

Teach me physics, fetch my mocha grande, or STFU.

SOTG

Posted by: Son Of The Godfather at January 19, 2006 07:47 AM (maXzk)

10 I like how they work so hard that they have to pay 100 bucks to student snitches.

Is it legal to tape record lectures?

Posted by: actus at January 19, 2006 09:11 AM (TEHSD)

11 actus: In some instances I think it is legal. I'm not sure of the rules, but it's my understanding that it is.

Posted by: Oyster at January 19, 2006 09:19 AM (osKlJ)

12 >>>"They act as if they're ashamed to have their classroom politics exposed to the light of day."

These Leftwing brainwashers would prefer to do their work under cover of dark and below the radar. Very much like cockroaches also like to do their thing in the dark. Flip on the kitchen lightswitch though, and watch them scatter for cover. That's why they don't allow tape recorders in their classrooms-- it would ACCURATELY reflect what they're saying, and they don't want that. Liberalism, as we've noted on numerous occassions, is a stealth ideology that has to keep many of its cards close to the vest. They wouldn't want to alarm the ignorant unwashed masses until it's already too late to do anything about it-- for the good of the unwashed masses, of course.

Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at January 19, 2006 09:26 AM (8e/V4)

13 Is it legal for rectus to be a whiney little traitor bitch? Rectus, if upon waking I found that I was you, I'd kill myself. Honestly, you liberals are such pathetic little whiney fucks, how do you live with yourselves? There's not an ounce of manhood to be found among a thousand of you. Goddamn gay cowboy movie-watching losers.

Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at January 19, 2006 09:32 AM (0yYS2)

14 "actus: In some instances I think it is legal. I'm not sure of the rules, but it's my understanding that it is."

Is it legal to tape record lectures at a public, taxpayer funded university, and then sell them for personal profit?

"They act as if they're ashamed to have their classroom politics exposed to the light of day"

Light? these people sound more like the dark side really.

Posted by: actus at January 19, 2006 09:33 AM (TEHSD)

15 I don't know what good it will do anyway. Look at where Ward Churchill's exposure has gone. He's still on the lecture circuit, still has his job and still sucks.

Posted by: Oyster at January 19, 2006 09:37 AM (osKlJ)

16 As I said, actus, I'm not sure of the rules. If you're so concerned, why don't you look it up?

Posted by: Oyster at January 19, 2006 09:48 AM (osKlJ)

17 "As I said, actus, I'm not sure of the rules. If you're so concerned, why don't you look it up?"

Eugene volokh has. Answer is as you would expect.

Posted by: actus at January 19, 2006 10:06 AM (TEHSD)

18 I used to record my professor's lectures all the time, just so I didn't have to take notes. None of my professors objected, even the "whiny little bitches" teaching sociology and English Literature.

Of course, this was several years ago when the Leftist assholes had everything going their way. Now, being the chicken shits(most, not all) that they are, they are trying to limit free speech in the public arena. If the schools are public, then everything they say in the classroom should be for public consumption.

What say you, Mr. Actus?

Posted by: jesusland joe at January 19, 2006 10:23 AM (rUyw4)

19 " If the schools are public, then everything they say in the classroom should be for public consumption.

What say you, Mr. Actus?"

I say its awright to prevent commercial re-use of taxpayer funded education. But I agree with you that everyone should get free education from CA public universities.

Posted by: actus at January 19, 2006 11:01 AM (CqheE)

20 It sounds like actus opted to punt.

Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at January 19, 2006 11:16 AM (8e/V4)

21 actus

Its allowed - whether it LEGAL is totally dependent on what the tape is to be used for. Its legality will vary depending on utilization - and would then have to be decided by relevant authorities - like say in a civil suit.

Oyster - ref. Churchill - there are even lecture videotapes - so what. A tenured professor has virtually an absolute freehand - by law and tradition - see my point.

What they say doesn't matter - its what they do after saying it does - that should be the target of interest! Not a sideshow distraction.

Posted by: hondo at January 19, 2006 11:46 AM (3aakz)

22 actus, your new Delta name is Polly Prissypants.

Posted by: The Dread Pundit Bluto at January 19, 2006 12:30 PM (RHG+K)

23 "Its allowed - whether it LEGAL is totally dependent on what the tape is to be used for. Its legality will vary depending on utilization - and would then have to be decided by relevant authorities - like say in a civil suit."

In this case the tape is being sold for 100 bucks.

Some people believe that since this is a public institution, everyone ought to get those lectures, not just people who pay tuition. I think that's a laudable system -- full public financing of education -- but rather unfair to those who are asked to pay tuition to attend these lectures.

Posted by: actus at January 19, 2006 12:56 PM (GkLkk)

24 Al jezzera of the west ( you guys know who they are, so you'll have to change that part of the address below) has a related article at
http://www.Al jezzera of the west.com/2006/EDUCATION/01/19/academic.freedom.ap/index.html

Posted by: memphis761 at January 19, 2006 12:56 PM (D3+20)

25 actus

You see me arguing with you?

Posted by: hondo at January 19, 2006 01:12 PM (3aakz)

26 Actus has a hard time staying on point. He is the typical Leftist, when you are kicking their ass in an argument, they change the subject. Very much like my 10-year old daughter. Hmmm....liberals and 10 year-olds, yep they have about the same maturity level.

Posted by: jesusland joe at January 19, 2006 04:19 PM (rUyw4)

27 "actus

You see me arguing with you?"

Do you see me arguing with you? No. I'm just adding some more information so that we can all be well informed.

"He is the typical Leftist, when you are kicking their ass in an argument, they change the subject. Very much like my 10-year old daughter."

You kick your daughter's ass in arguments? what kind of a grownup are you?

Posted by: actus at January 19, 2006 05:06 PM (TEHSD)

28 Ha Ha Ha Ha

JJ - you did serve that one up - to the showers!

Posted by: hondo at January 19, 2006 06:32 PM (3aakz)

29 "you kick your daughter's ass in an argument? what kind of grownup are you?"

The kind that wants her to grow up to be a decent human being. And the reference is to her changing the subject, not getting her ass kicked. The mental reference between you and her still stands, as it is accurate. But she is improving, and you seem to be going the other way.

Posted by: jesusland joe at January 19, 2006 07:38 PM (rUyw4)

30 "And the reference is to her changing the subject, not getting her ass kicked. The mental reference between you and her still stands, as it is accurate. But she is improving, and you seem to be going the other way."

You homeschool don't you?

Posted by: actus at January 19, 2006 10:11 PM (TEHSD)

31 actus

Homeschool - I did with my daughter - don't under-estimate it. Its a growing trend that in many cases now has nothing to do with ideology per se - but quality.

Posted by: hondo at January 19, 2006 10:23 PM (3aakz)

32 Nope, my daughter goes to public school. Why would you think I homeschool? All three of my kids go to public school.

Posted by: jesusland joe at January 19, 2006 10:30 PM (rUyw4)

33 JJ

He's attempting to make a negative association, but its not a good one. More of a quick one-liner comeback.

actus isn't stupid. He himself would opt for homeschooling under the right conditions and situation and proper resources.

Posted by: hondo at January 19, 2006 10:48 PM (3aakz)

34 hondo, I would not homeschool mainly because I don't have the time. I might consider sending my kids to a private school, but I live in a small town that just happens to have an excellent school system. Although we are small in numbers, we had students from our high school this past year receive full scholarships from prestigious schools such as Southern Cal and Harvard. We also had three Merit Scholar finalists in the class of 2005.

Posted by: jesusland joe at January 19, 2006 10:59 PM (rUyw4)

35 JJ - Good for you

I'm here in NYC - my daughter (blonde blue eyed) was a trophy for the color by numbers game. (I'm talking HS here).

I didn't have the financial resources of my very affluent liberal neighbors for private school (I live in DEM/GREEN country!) but I had the time and the perfect job for it.

It worked out pretty good. Its a growing option particularly among the afluent now - the Public Ed crowd quietly fears it more than charter schools.

Posted by: hondo at January 19, 2006 11:24 PM (3aakz)

36 hondo,

Believe me when I say that I support home schooling. It is a wonderful option for people who are in a situation where their kids are being indoctrinated in public schools. And private schools can be very expensive, so yes, middle income parents should have the option to educate at home.

Posted by: jesusland joe at January 20, 2006 05:20 AM (rUyw4)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

January 16, 2006

We'll take the ni***rs and the ch**ks, but we don't want the Irish!!!

Apparently in the U.K. they have affirmative action for the Irish. Which they need. Filthy drunks....

Posted by: Rusty at 04:53 PM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 29 words, total size 1 kb.

January 10, 2006

Are ALL Florida Professors Terrorists or Spies?

Another traitor found teaching at another Florida institution of higher learning. Sami Al-Arian must be happy to know that he's not the only traitor running loose in South Florida's academy. I'm thinking they could get their buddies together for an annual conference of the University Association of Spies, Traitors, Jew Haters, and Terror Supporters of South Florida.

UPDATE: Here is what FIU's webpage says about Carlos M. Alvaraz.

Carlos M. Ãƒï¿½lvarez is associate professor in the department of educational leadership and policy studies and a member of the faculty coordinating committee of the graduate certificate program in conflict resolution. He holds a Ph.D. in clinical psychology from the University of Florida. Dr. Ãƒï¿½lvarez teaches graduate level courses and conducts research on topics related to conflict resolution and the construction of ethnonational identities. He recently published a book entitled Ethnic Identity: Understanding Contemporary Perspectives. He has also published essays on the issue of Cuban American identity from a social psychological perspective. Dr. Ãƒï¿½lvarez has worked for more than 25 years as a consultant, visiting professor, lecturer, and trainer at different educational institutions in Latin America, the Caribbean, and Spain.

From another FIU webpage:

Carlos M. Alvarez is Associate Professor in the Department of Educational Foundations and Professional Studies in the College of Education at FIU. He received a Ph.D. in Psychology from the University of Florida in 1972, and is a specialist in the psychology of ethnic identities, interactive conflict resolution,and higher education in Latin American and the Caribbean. Dr. Alvarez has chaired discussion groups and presented papers relating to Cuban-American ethnic identity, education and society in Cuba, and the political psychology of U.S.-Cuban relations at several international conferences. He has been a consultant for a number of educational institutions and organizations, including the Department of Educational Planning and Research for the Organization of American States in Washington, D.C. Published works include "Ethnicity: A review of related concepts" in Cultural and Social Foundations of Education: An Interdisciplinary Approach (1996) and "La identidad Cubano-Americana en el sur de la Florida: Un analisis contextual" in Razon y pasiÃƒÂ³n: Veinticinco aÃƒÂ±os de estudios cubanos (1996).

Posted by: Rusty at 03:50 PM | Comments (3) | Add Comment
Post contains 356 words, total size 3 kb.

January 06, 2006

New Study: Forests Aggravate Global Warming

From the Edmonton Journal:

Canada's forests may actually worsen global warming rather than cool the planet, says a controversial study by a Stanford University physicist and environmental scientist.
Trees soak up massive amounts of energy from the sun. Much of this, he argues, is gradually released in the form of heat, especially in dark evergreen forests in the north, but also in temperate forests.
Unlike tropical forests, Canadian forests don't release much cooling moisture.
His computer model indicates that this warming influence is more powerful than the cooling job that forests do when they soak up carbon dioxide.

There you have it. It's Canada's fault. Those bastards.

Also posted at The Dread Pundit Bluto.

Posted by: Bluto at 02:24 PM | Comments (16) | Add Comment
Post contains 119 words, total size 1 kb.

1 Not surprised. Ronald Reagan said as much back in the 80s, and Libs laughed at him, but as with everything, they are eventually proven wrong.

Libs want to do things the "new" way, we conservatives believe in time-tested ways. It's no wonder they're wrong so often.

Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at January 06, 2006 02:45 PM (8e/V4)

2 Damn liberal Canadians! And they've been blaming the US and western Canada for all the GW problems in No. America while they disguised their diabolical plot to keep the Canadian forests from being cut and blaming GW on my pickup. Oh, the humanity! That liberal government in Canada should fall! Oh, it already fell. Serves them right, I say! Haha!

Posted by: jesusland joe at January 06, 2006 03:34 PM (rUyw4)

3 You've got to give the Canadians credit - their military may be on life support, but their special weapons projects kick ass: forests of mass destruction, killer cows, Celine Dion. Forget Iran. Get El Baradei over to Ottawa immediately!

Posted by: Graeme at January 06, 2006 04:08 PM (YOYhS)

4 "forests of mass destrution, killer cows, Celine Dion..."

FOTFLMAO

Posted by: jesusland joe at January 06, 2006 04:20 PM (rUyw4)

5 Save the Earth, destroy the trees! Honestly, this crap is getting riduculous. I wonder what it'll be tomorrow, oven-fresh biscuits?

Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at January 06, 2006 05:42 PM (0yYS2)

6 IM,

What Bluto is trying to convey is the fact that GW is caused by a myriad of factors, most of which we do not understand. Our tampering might even cause the problem to worsen, rather than helping. I think that he might agree with my position, which is to causiously approach the problem, rather than saying we know what to do when in fact we don't.

I agree that reducing all emissions wouldn't hurt anything, that's for sure, but we don't need to jump on the Kyoto bandwagon. That treaty is flawed, and I really don't want to discuss the Kyoto protocols here because it will attract the moonbats.

Posted by: jesusland joe at January 06, 2006 06:33 PM (rUyw4)

7 I get it JJ, I was just trying to be clever.

Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at January 06, 2006 08:34 PM (0yYS2)

8 Canadian ass kissers probably imported muslim trees to satisfy the rag head immigrants.

Posted by: greyrooster at January 06, 2006 09:21 PM (ZsYgO)

9 ALERT! ALERT! ALERT!. For the second time in less than a year TEAM GREYROOSTER won first place in the recent yellowfin tuna tournament in Venice Louisana. Everyone on board is a conservative. Proof is in the ice chest. We kicked ass. Most fish. Biggest fish. 168 Lb Yellowfin Tuna.
Lost many that I consider would have been Louisana record.
Liberal asses. Open your canned tuna. Your betters eat better. Ah!

Posted by: greyrooster at January 06, 2006 09:52 PM (ZsYgO)

10 Where's Cindy Sheehan ???. Heh, heh, heh.
Last report I had, was that she was enjoying a traditional muslim thanksgiving of Salmon and rice.
Yep! One thing about those sand dunes is that they produce a lot of Salmon and rice. How dumb can the bitch get?

Posted by: greyrooster at January 06, 2006 09:57 PM (ZsYgO)

11 Good job Rooster.

Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at January 06, 2006 10:38 PM (0yYS2)

12 Graeme, you made my morning! That was great.

Posted by: Oyster at January 07, 2006 06:50 AM (YudAC)

13 It's always good to start the day with the "Blame Canda" song singing in your head! Thanks!;0)

Posted by: Lisa at January 07, 2006 11:13 AM (oJ7a4)

14 oops, meant Canada, but does it really matter!

Posted by: Lisa at January 07, 2006 11:14 AM (oJ7a4)

15 Lisa, nobody here would try to blame Canada for anything really, because Canada is completely inconsequential.

Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at January 08, 2006 10:26 AM (0yYS2)

16 fukin dumbass american ignorant redneck bastards u got no clue...

Posted by: derek at January 21, 2006 12:39 AM (vY/OT)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

January 04, 2006

Ancient Global Warming Discovered

From Breitbart.com via The Drudge Report:

An extraordinary burst of global warming that occurred around 55 million years ago dramatically reversed Earth's pattern of ocean currents, a finding that strengthens modern-day concern about climate change, a study says.
The big event, the Palaeocene/Eocene Thermal Maximum (PETM), saw the planet's surface temperature rise by between five and eight degrees C (nine and 16.2 F) in a very short time, unleashing climate shifts that endured tens of thousands of years.

But wait. Mankind was certainly not around 55 million years ago, and as we know from environmental activists, only evil, greedy capitalists cause global warming.

What unleashed the PETM is unclear. Most fingers of blame point to volcanic eruptions that disgorged gigatonnes of carbon dioxide, or coastal reservoirs of methane gas, sealed by icy soil, that were breached by warmer temperatures or receding seas.

You know, I could have sworn that Rush Limbaugh was excoriated as a Neanderthal for suggesting that volcanoes could cause global warming.

Also posted at The Dread Pundit Bluto .

Posted by: Bluto at 07:22 PM | Comments (44) | Add Comment
Post contains 173 words, total size 1 kb.

1 You mean that dinosaurs and palm trees living in Antarctica, and glaciers in Ohio had nothing to do with my pickup truck? Damn, imagine that.

Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at January 04, 2006 07:31 PM (0yYS2)

2 Mars could be undergoing major global warming

http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn1660

Looks like those SUVs aren't just warming the earth-- they're warming the whole solar system!!!

Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at January 04, 2006 09:10 PM (8e/V4)

3 Damn, I better go shut that engine off on my truck. Well, I was watching the game and forgot about it. Piss on Mars!

Posted by: jesusland joe at January 04, 2006 09:24 PM (rUyw4)

4 I've got gas heat n' so far this winter its been quite mild here in NY - 52 today - no need for heat!

so JJ - turn that engine back on - please!

Posted by: hondo at January 04, 2006 10:19 PM (3aakz)

5 A meteor, perhaps?

Posted by: Guess at January 05, 2006 05:39 AM (lGolT)

6 OR that huuuuge volcano under Yellowstone, that is scheduled to blow up again within the next 500 years.

Posted by: No need to say at January 05, 2006 05:42 AM (lGolT)

7 Or the Sun's output.

Someone turn that damn Sun off!

Posted by: Oyster at January 05, 2006 05:58 AM (YudAC)

8 And they did,nt have factories or SUVs back then it was cuased by volcanos and burping dinosuars and perhapes some dino fetulence as well eeeuuwww the dipldocus just cut one

Posted by: sandpiper at January 05, 2006 08:43 AM (4pkrX)

9 Of course, there weren't billions of people living along coastal areas 55 million years ago, either.

Hence, the concern now. Unless, of course, you're willing to billet some of these people out of the goodness of your heart.

Posted by: Venom at January 05, 2006 09:15 AM (dbxVM)

10 Venom,

the point is not a lack of "concern" about all those people on the coasts. We all know they're up shit creek. The point is WHAT is causing global warming. Is it the evil corprayshuns or is it a natural cycle. Warming on Mars would suggest the latter.

Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at January 05, 2006 09:49 AM (8e/V4)

11 I'll billet a few of them coasties if they got the money, but I didn't take 'em to raise. Last time I checked(this AM) land was available here in Texas, and there's still plenty of room. Except for liberals. We don't need or want any more liberals down here.

Posted by: jesusland joe at January 05, 2006 10:18 AM (rUyw4)

12 Well, Mars is a little different from Earth...but that's neither here nor there.

Besides, who cares if volcanos contribute to global warming? They're beyond the scope of humanity's control. The fact is that emissions caused by corporations, cars, etc. can be controled and/or dealt with. Since they contribute to global warming (notice I didn't say "are the main cause of"), why not try to reduce them?

Posted by: Venom at January 05, 2006 10:21 AM (dbxVM)

13 THE END IS NEAR - REPENT NOW!

Sorry, not interested - but you are absolutely free to live in a grass hut and make your own butter.

Posted by: hondo at January 05, 2006 10:31 AM (3aakz)

14 >>>Well, Mars is a little different from Earth...but that's neither here nor there.

Actually that statement is neither here nor there given that the warming on Mars suggests that our own warming isn't "global", but SOLAR. And switching to hybrids and shutting down the corprayshuns isn't going to change that.

As far as reducing emissions, I'm sure that's a worthy cause (I guess), but not if other polluters don't also participate. I don't think whitey should be penalized, while China and India, and all the 3rd worlders get a pass. Eff that.

Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at January 05, 2006 11:12 AM (8e/V4)

15 Vote for Rush.

Posted by: greyrooster at January 05, 2006 11:19 AM (XioYD)

16 You miss the point, Carlos. Who gives a shit if it's warming on Mars? Do Volcanos contribute to global warming here on Earth? Sure. Do emissions from factories, cars, etc. contribute to global warming, too? Yes. Can something be done about volcanos erupting? No. Can something be done about the latter? Yes. Soooo....maybe, um, reducing emissions could have a positive impact for you and I? It's not really that kwazy an idea.

Oh, and sure, China and India contribute a lot of greenhouse gasses. But I don't see why the West can't continue to reduce said emissions even if other countries won't. Unless, of course, you don't consider the West to be better than third-world countries. Besides, they're in the middle of their Industrial Revolution, so they're not going to stop. That doesn't mean the West should hold off on further reductions until they're ready.

Posted by: Venom at January 05, 2006 11:49 AM (dbxVM)

17 >>>"Yes. Soooo....maybe, um, reducing emissions could have a positive impact for you and I? It's not really that kwazy an idea.

You're going to have to do better than "maybe" if you intend on putting people out of jobs and getting folks's homes foreclosed when you slow down our economies because of "maybe". Maybe "maybe" just aint gonna cut it.

Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at January 05, 2006 12:55 PM (8e/V4)

18 >>>But I don't see why the West can't continue to reduce said emissions even if other countries won't.

Venom,

you're a perfect example of why I think Liberalism is so idiotic. If other countries don't reduce-- especially China and India-- then it won't make a difference whether we reduce. It just becomes a Liberal exercise in feel-good and self-loathing.

If you REALLY cared about global warming you Libs would INSIST that China and India, and all the little brown people's of the world sign onto Kyoto. But you don't. It's all targeted at the West.

And what does this prove? That Kyoto is more about self-loathing and Liberal notions of "fairness" than it is about global warming.

And in the meantime, Solar warming progresses and China's and India's billions pump out more pollution in one year than the West would in 10, but Libs FEEL GOOD ABOUT THEMSELVES!!! YIIIPEEE!

Liberalism is a mental disorder.

Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at January 05, 2006 01:09 PM (8e/V4)

19 Went the "solutions" to a "problem" happen to be identical to the same "solutions" they have been advocating for "other problems" for the past many decades - one wonders.

The lib/left's position - we need to change the socio-industrial-economic-political structures because .....

Posted by: hondo at January 05, 2006 01:26 PM (3aakz)

20 REPENT! (er, change - less it sounds like some new kind of religion) THE END IS NEAR!

CONFESS YOUR SINS! (er, crimes - same problem)

Don't you all just love all the religious analogies found in the Evironmental movement. quite apocalyptic - isn't it?

Posted by: hondo at January 05, 2006 01:33 PM (3aakz)

21 Once again, Venom takes a swing and misses completely. Of course, it's hard to hit a ball coming over the plate when you're in the parking lot.

Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at January 05, 2006 01:34 PM (0yYS2)

22 IM,

everyday the evidence mounts-- Liberalism is a mental disorder. It's a scourge upon Western civilization. A civilizational AIDS virus.

Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at January 05, 2006 01:42 PM (8e/V4)

23 Carlos, are these the same jobs that have already gone to China and India? I mean, most true American companies have abandoned their patriotism to secure higher profits in those countries already. Especially those manufacturing jobs that can take advantage of the lower emission standards in those countries you already stated. Please, don't play the job card. It's already been done.

And Carlos, appreciating the environment isn't liberalism. I'm a Conservative. Maybe not of the douchebag variety you've succumbed to, but a conservative nonetheless. Oh right, anyone who doesn't think like you is a raving lib. Gimme a break. It's dumbasses like you who continue to marginalize middle-of-the-road conservatives that are going to get the Dems back in power.

Oh, and I'd really like to see your science that says that the West reducing emissions would have no measureable impact on global greenhouse gas emissions. Or, is it that you're talking out of your ass again? Ah, thought so. Sure, India and China spout more, but you don't seem to get it that we're all on this planet together and that any kind of progress is GOOD PROGRESS.

Get India and China to sign on to Kyoto? Who gives a fuck. Why doesn't the U.S. sign it outright? Oh yeah, that "jobs" thang. The ones that have for the most part, are already gone. Right. Why do you need a third-world country to go first? America is going to lose jobs to those countries regardless of if they sign on or not. Maybe if America signed on, it could flex its muscles and get others to sign on.

Posted by: Venom at January 05, 2006 01:48 PM (dbxVM)

24 Once again, Clueless Maximus types away, but no one really cares. Of course, it's hard to be taken seriously when most posts are about killing off all the Muslims and liberals.

Posted by: Venom at January 05, 2006 02:05 PM (dbxVM)

25 >>>Carlos, are these the same jobs that have already gone to China and India?

And Kyoto will only turn that outsourcing of our jobs into an unstopable flood. Is that what you mean by "positive impact"? Please, LIBS, don't do us any favors.

>>>And Carlos, appreciating the environment isn't liberalism.

I didn't say it was. But I prefer the term "conservation" because it doesn't carry all the mental disorder Liberal wacko baggage that environmentalism does. The former entails sound policy and common sense, the latter is nothing but feel-good religion for otherwise atheistic Leftists looking to fill that hole in their lives.

>>>Oh, and I'd really like to see your science that says that the West reducing emissions would have no measureable impact on global greenhouse gas emissions.

Is science really the issue for you? And yet you glibly dismiss warming on Mars, or ancient global warming. You're a religious nut, and no conservative, you little phony.

>>>Get India and China to sign on to Kyoto? Who gives a fuck.

hahaha! proof this isn't about global warming. Just more Liberal self-loathing.

Liberalism is a mental disorder.

Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at January 05, 2006 02:08 PM (8e/V4)

26 Hahaha, what an absolute dumbass you are. Please, tell me why 1) I'm a liberal, 2) I'm a religious nut, 3) you have any credibility. You're completely closed-minded to anything that doesn't "jive" with your neocon bullshit. You give the rest of us conservatives a black eye, and then you wonder why liberals and democrats continue to get the support they do.

What unstoppable flood? The flood of what meagre manufacturing jobs are still here? Dude, did you just come out of a coma or something? The vasy majority of American manufacturing jobs have already left. To Mexico, China, India, and more. Maybe to you the leaving of a scant few percent of what American jobs used to be here consists of a "flood," but if that's the case, then you're provervially wet behind the ears.

Ok, so you prefer the term "conservation." Good for you, give yourself a pat on the back. Maybe I could split hairs, too. I prefer conservatism, you prefer neo-conservatism. The former harkens back to a day of fiscal responsibility, love of one's country, family. The latter, unfortunately, is a philosophy adhered to by those of myopic tunnel vision who see a boogeyman behind everything. Can you see which side you fit on? (hint: it's the latter!)

I'm dismissing warming on Mars because I prefer to compare apples to apples, and also because it has no bearing on the here and now. Did Mars experience some kind of warming event? Sure. Did Earth? Sure. Are circumstances different between then and now? Yes. Are volcanos having a measureable impact on global warming now? Maybe some. Do manmade emissions have a measureable impact? Of course. Can we do something about said manmade emissions. Yes. So, why don't we?

Carlos is a mental disorder. Read his posts with caution.

Posted by: Venom at January 05, 2006 02:27 PM (dbxVM)

27 >>>"neocon bullshit."

You just gave yourself away. Only moonbats use that word.

And what a complete fucking moonbat moron you must be if you don't realize that more regulation under Kyoto wouldn't excacerbate the outsourcing of jobs. If that simple fact is beyond your tiny brainwashed Liberal mind then you're completely hopeless.

Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at January 05, 2006 02:35 PM (8e/V4)

28 Nope, us conservatives use it also to distance ourselves from frothing-at-the-mouth dumbasses like yourself. If you were able to poke your head out of your cocoon once in a while, you might have noticed. But, since you're unable to distinguish between neo-conservatism and conservatism, you're almost a waste of breath to even attempt to discuss with. I mean, even the president called himself a "compassionate conservative." In your mind, he might as well have called himself Chomsky, right?

And hey, at least I've figured out that there aren't a whole lot more jobs (from a Kyoto) standpoint to outsource anymore anyways. But, like I said, you don't seem to get out a whole lot so maybe your ignorance is excusable. Maybe. And like I said, fuck Kyoto. America shouldn't need a pact to see the benefits of a cleaner environment. But you can't figure that out, either.

Interesting article, by the way. Too bad it doesn't add to your point. CO2 emissions come from a variety of sources. On Mars, it comes from CO2 ice. On Earth, a lot of it is manmade. Nice try. Would you like to keep trying?

Posted by: Venom at January 05, 2006 02:45 PM (dbxVM)

29 >>>On Mars, it comes from CO2 ice.

It comes from the ice because it's MELTING you fucking moron. HEAT causes the MELTING, moron. SOLAR radiation is causing that HEAT on Mars, moron. Just like it causes HEAT everwhere else in the SOLAR system, INCLUDING EARTH. I can barely stand it how stupid you people are. My GOD you people are stupid.

Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at January 05, 2006 02:52 PM (8e/V4)

30 And sorry, cocksucker. You ain't no conservative, "neocon" or otherwise. There's no conservative on the planet that buys into your environmental wackoism.

Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at January 05, 2006 02:58 PM (8e/V4)

31 Holy fuck, I didn't think I had to actually spell out that the CO2 ice is MELTED for the greenhouse gas to emit. I didn't think I had to dumb it down and connect every dot for you, but based on you batting 1.000 in MISSING THE FUCKING POINT apparently I did. Good for you, the SUN melts it, whoopitydoo....you get a sticker, smarty. It doesn't change the fact that Mars' warming and Earth's is COMPLETELY FUCKING DIFFERENT! How did you even pass high school, you fucking douchebag? Solar warming. Give me a fucking break. Obviously the SUN plays a part in any kind of global warming. Apparently the issue of CAUSE and EFFECT are two terms you've NEVER FUCKING HEARD OF. Do you get it now, dummy?

And yup, sorry to say, I am a conservative; just not to your clueless kind, dumbfuck. You know, maybe you aren't a neocon. Maybe dumbfuck is your political stripe. You know, no matter how many times proof is shown at them, they close their eyes and believe something else? Yeah, sounds like you.

Posted by: Venom at January 05, 2006 03:13 PM (dbxVM)

32 Are you actually trying to argue that the Sun is warming up Mars-- as evidenced by it's melting ice and release of gases-- but NOT also warming the Earth? You're saying that the Sun is just picking on Mars for some reason and giving Earth the big pass?

Please clarify if that's what you actually think because I don't want to jump to any conclusions about the severity of your mental retardation.

Again, the Sun is warming Mars, but not Earth? And if so, tell me how that's possible. Don't go off on tangents and red herrings please. Just how the Sun can warm Mars but not Earth.

Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at January 05, 2006 03:24 PM (8e/V4)

33 >>>And yup, sorry to say, I am a conservative;

Fanfuckingtastic, and I'm a Liberal who objects to how Liberalism got taken over by all you anti-American, self-loathing moonbats, Leftwingers and communists. See how easy that is? moron.

Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at January 05, 2006 03:32 PM (8e/V4)

34 Carlos, did I not fucking say "Obviously the SUN plays a part in any kind of global warming."? Please, nice try in attempting to change the goalposts. Or, maybe your comprehension skills are, shall we say, third-world? Obviously the Sun warms any thing under it - Earth, Mars, even Pluto gets a measly degree Kelvin of warmth from it.

The point, which you seem intent on missing, is that global warming happens for a variety of reasons. On Mars, CO2 ice melts (yes, via the Sun) and it's released into what atmosphere Mars has. On Earth, it's released from factories and cars (and yes, from volcanoes). And good golly, the Sun warms it all up and creates a greenhouse effect. Yes, the Sun, because I apparently had to state before, the Sun is integral in global warming. But, as you can maybe fathom, there are no cars on Mars. No factories. Not even a clueless neocon whose best feat so far is converting his oxygen into CO2. So, Mars is warming because of different reasons than Earth. And, because of that, I once again don't see the relevance in bringing Mars into a debate about global warming on Earth.

Get it?

Posted by: Venom at January 05, 2006 03:43 PM (dbxVM)

35 Carlos, please tell me how I'm anti-American. I know you can go on and on about how liberals are anti-american and blah blah blah. But please tell me what I've ever said that makes me a liberal, despite the fact that in the 1 1/2 years I've been posting here, I've maintained by conservative values. Please, because I'm really interested in how your thinking works. Perhaps you make things up so they fit what you want to believe?

Posted by: Venom at January 05, 2006 03:48 PM (dbxVM)

36 >>Obviously the SUN plays a part in any kind of global warming."?

Venom,

progress. So what evidence do you have that given the forces of the universe arrayed against us we can make any noticeable difference by tanking our economies while giving our enemies (China) the big pass? I don't see how that terrible cost can justified the extremely SPECULATIVE benefits.

Re your anti-Americanism, your whole bit about putting America under Kyoto and giving 2.5 billion Chinese and Indians a pass reeks of anti-Americanism. Look what the Chinese are doing to their country right now even as we speak. Now imagine them all driving SUVs. Get it?

Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at January 05, 2006 03:52 PM (8e/V4)

37 Carlos, the jobs are gone. You seem to think that by signing to Kyoto, you sign away these hordes of jobs. They're long gone. And that's why I said fuck Kyoto. America can go it alone, hell even exceed Kyoto. My fundamental point is that there is a lot of room for improvement with respect to greenhouse emissions and reducing them. If that comes across as being anti-American, then I apologize. Perhaps I love America so much, I want to see it exceed everyone else's expectations. As a leader in the world, it ought to have a place front-and-centre. It can use its clout to encourage other countries to get on board, whether it's Kyoto or some other kind of agreement. American jobs have been disappearing for over 20 years. Most are long gone. A few still remain. Without Kyoto, they're going anyways. Is Kyoto the answer to everything? Of course not. But, it's presumptious to assume a "sky is falling" mentality to even consider it, especially when all the economic damage it might have done has already been committed over years and years.

Are the benefits speculative? Sure. But the costs to our planet aren't. It's measureble. I say again, you don't have to be a liberal to love the environment. I know many conservatives like myself who love the environment. We fish, we hunt, we hike. Being environmentally conscious isn't the sole domain of hippies and beatniks. Fuck that. Everyone should see that the environmental damages in the last hundred years could have a monumental impact for centuries, and that we ought to be doing something about.

Posted by: Venom at January 05, 2006 04:11 PM (dbxVM)

38 >>>Carlos, the jobs are gone.

Don't be simple. The problem with Liberalism (I don't care what you call yourself-- it's Liberalism) is that it operates in a fantasy world of slogans and feelings.

According to the Center for the Study of American Business at Washington University, giving the 3rd worlders a pass would actually INCREASE cO2 emmissions:

"Imposing a carbon tax solely on industrialized nations would still result in a net increase in global greenhouse gas emissions, Lash reports, and would likely result in a decline in their production of carbon-emitting goods. Reduced demand in advanced countries could lead to falling oil prices. In turn, lower oil prices would encourage poorer, developing states using less fuel-efficient technologies to increase their use of fossil fuels. This "carbon leakage" would then move employment in energy-intensive industries offshore, costing American jobs while simultaneously increasing CO2 emissions - a lose-lose proposition."

Do you see how speculative the benefits truly are? And more:

"Also, implementation of the Kyoto treaty would depress wage growth by an average of 5 to 10 percent and increase domestic energy costs by as much as 86 percent, decrease the income of the average American family by $2,700 annually, require a 25 percent reduction of U.S. domestic consumption of fossil fuels - the equivalent of stopping all highway, rail, air, and sea traffic permanently, and increase U.S. farm production costs by $10-20 billion annually and depress farm income annually by 24 to 48 percent, resulting in higher food prices, fewer agricultural exports, and the loss of many small farms."

http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewEnviro.asp?Try=No&Page=\Enviro\archive\ENV19990804b.html

Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at January 05, 2006 04:23 PM (8e/V4)

39 And if you're really a conservative, I want you to say in all CAPS that Liberalism is a mental disorder. Say it and maybe I'll believe you.

Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at January 05, 2006 04:27 PM (8e/V4)

40 Awwww wassamatter venom? Is it irked that I busted it without even having to address its precious little attempt at an argument? Please, you're not smart enough to argue with me, so go grow up, get a job, move out of your mom's basement, and contribute to society, then maybe someone will care what you say.

Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at January 05, 2006 05:38 PM (0yYS2)

41 Sniff, sniff, aw gee Mr. Clueless Maximus, please don't make me cry with your big tough words. You're such a powerhouse. lmfao.

What a joke you are, CM. Not even Rusty takes you seriously. Not smarter than you? Fuck, you're one of the most ignorant people that's ever posted here. Anyone is smarter than you. And I should give a shit about what you say? Boo-hoo, cry me a river. Why don't you get fucked, you peenass. lol.

Carlos, your stance on American jobs seems to be the one that ignores reality. For whatever reason, you're ignoring the fact that the job exodus has been occuring for a very long time. According to the Economic Policy Institute, 1.5 million since 1989. And that's just to China alone. They're gone. You seem to think that the scant few percent still here amount to the full 100% that have been here forever. I say it in simple terms because I can't seem to make it any clearer. Are there jobs still here? Sure, but the shifting of American jobs to other countries is a trend that's not going to reverse any time soon, because America is progressing forward. And signing on to Kyoto or staying off of it isn't going to make a lick of difference. Big business is going to do what it wants, it doesn't really matter what kind of administration is in power.

And sure reducing emissions is going to cost money and some jobs. I never said it it wouldn't. But the benefits in doing so could be worth it. Changes often do require a fair bit of expenditure. Just by reducing the dependency on coal, America could reduce it's emissions by 40%. You're saying that's not worth it? It's an ineffecient fuel to begin with. Look, to move forward, change requires a cost. Should we all continue to live in the dark ages because it's expensive to move forward? Job transitioning is part of the business cycle. You can't have change without losing some jobs. It's inevitable. It's realistic.

And Carlos, I'm not going to say that, caps or otherwise (because it's dumb, actually). What I will say is that liberalism is misguided and incongruent with progress. The same as neoconservatism. Conservate thinking (the pure, non-shortsighted kind) is the only kind worth considering in this day and age.

Posted by: Venom at January 06, 2006 09:46 AM (dbxVM)

42 Jesus, that's sad. I almost feel bad for dumbass above for being such a lamer. Almost.
Hey moron, just so you know, I have about as much regard for your opinion as I do for the dog crap I step over in my back yard, so don't waste your time.

Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at January 06, 2006 10:45 PM (0yYS2)

43 "Holy fuck, I didn't think I had to actually spell out that the CO2 ice is MELTED for the greenhouse gas to emit."

Actually, CO2 ice sublimates. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sublimation_%28physics%29

/pedant

Posted by: MegaTroopX at January 07, 2006 01:56 PM (yT/Rw)

44 lol, Clueless Maximus, the only thing missing from that last post of yours was the trademark "I know you are but what am I" retort.

Posted by: Venom at January 09, 2006 08:52 AM (dbxVM)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

December 29, 2005

The Pedagogical Role of Peers.

In the comment section of a recent post about an impending "Intra-Generational Conflict" one reader (IM) observes:

I call these trustfund babies the "rage against your allowance" generation.

VDH sees something similar, but afflicting the entire culture in "The Plague of Success:"

What explains this paradox of public disappointment over things that turn out better than anticipated? Why are we like children who damn their parents for not providing yet another new toy when the present one is neither paid for nor yet out of the wrapper?

more...

Posted by: Demosophist at 12:38 PM | Comments (8) | Add Comment
Post contains 443 words, total size 3 kb.

1 I'm flattered, or I would be if the intent was flattery. I should say rather that I'm honored, especially to be mentioned in the same breath as VDH.

Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at December 29, 2005 01:48 PM (0yYS2)

2 Since I have two kids who belong to this generation, I have been in a position to watch these kids. What I have found to be their major problem is a complete lack of maturity, which is mainly the fault of the parents. I'm 50/50 on my two kids, one has hit his stride, matured, and zoomed into orbit. The other is sitting on the launch pad.

They also tend to lack motivation, and although they will exercise just for the sake of exertion, they hate to exercise if it involves any work. Status is more important than love to these kids, and status becomes an end in itself. A rather strange dichotomy.

Posted by: jesusland joe at December 29, 2005 04:31 PM (rUyw4)

3 Beatings and starvation are excellent motivators JJ.

Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at December 29, 2005 05:06 PM (0yYS2)

4 Haha, IM, but a better one is taking their wheels and making them walk. The status thing sets in, and now you can get some behavior modification.

In their early years, a hickory switch did the trick, and when told to go out back and cut a hickory, ah, their eyes said it all. Do I cut a little switch, or should I cut a good one and just get it over with? Most of the time they cut a good one and took the quick whipping instead of choosing to prolong it by cutting an inferior switch and having me reject it. Then they had to go back outside and cut a switch that satisfied me.

Posted by: jesusland joe at December 29, 2005 07:04 PM (rUyw4)

5 Our mom made us cut our own switches, and if we brought a bad one back, she'd send us back until we got a good one, and the longer we screwed around, the worse it'd be.

Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at December 29, 2005 07:30 PM (0yYS2)

6 Agent Smith says that peers are good, unless they are bad.

Agent Brown says that Smith thinks he is the boss.

Agent Brown says that only faucets are peerless.

Posted by: Agent Smith at December 29, 2005 10:06 PM (TP7SP)

7 I've recently dealt with some of this generation who were inappropriately designated as managers, and their concept of management is control. They're so afraid of looking ineffective (the status thing) that they'll virtually go to any lengths to maintain overt control of those in their charge, whether ethical or not. They've also learned the lessons of relativism and interpretive philosophy, so that any time you call them on something the response is: "Well, that's a matter of interpretation." i.e.: We had an agreement about workplace boundaries, which you violated. How is that a matter of "interpretation." You simply broke the agreement, and then denied it.

They're also inclined to be superficially PC, as long as it serves their short term interests. They don't actually give a damn about descrimination, but they know they're supposed to, so there's a kind of ongoing war against white males (especially older white males) that they feel totally justified in promoting.

Basically there aren't any principles behind this cohort of "brattish" managers. They just do what seems expedient, without even bothering to consider whether in furthers their long term goals or objectives. Control for the sake of control. They'd be robust little totalitarians given half a chance.

And then there's the other side of that cohort, which has the potential to set the brats straight if we let them. It could get ugly though.

Posted by: Demosophist at December 30, 2005 02:16 PM (l9QJh)

8 It always kills me to see a 19 year old kid as a mangager at anything. At that age, they're not good for much until the military gets hold of them.

Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at December 31, 2005 12:04 PM (0yYS2)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

December 27, 2005

An Intra-Generational Clash

This article, from the Chicago Sun Times explains why so many of these folks seem like such brats:

Harris, 19, is in her second year at Loyola University. But she has no desire to distance herself from her parents now that she no longer lives at home. Nor does she plan to rely less as a college student on her parents for help or advice.
"Something happens, your first thought is call Mom,'' she says. "Mom will fix it.''
The record number of students now at colleges and universities are bringing with them something not seen as much on campus in generations past: their parents. The current generation of students, experts say, increasingly chooses to maintain strong bonds with their parents. With cell phones and e-mail, they're able to stay in touch to a degree not seen among previous generations. The strings are so tight some experts have come up with a name for these college students -- the "coddled generation.''

I'm sure there are some good things about remaining close to your parents, but the contrast with the folks in this LA Times article by Robert Kaplan (who are from the same generation, ironically) could not be starker:

Regardless of whether you support or oppose the U.S. engagement in Iraq, you should be aware that that country has had a startling effect on a new generation of soldiers often from troubled backgrounds, whose infantry training has provided no framework for building democracy from scratch.
At a Thanksgiving evangelical service, one NCO told the young crowd to cheers: "The Pilgrims during the first winter in the New World suffered a 54% casualty rate from disease and cold. That's a casualty rate that would render any of our units combat ineffective. But did the Pilgrims sail back to England? Did they give up? No. This country isn't a quitter. It doesn't withdraw."

I see trouble brewin' when Group I clashes with Group II. More at The Belmont Club.

Posted by: Demosophist at 04:30 PM | Comments (7) | Add Comment
Post contains 330 words, total size 2 kb.

1 The Pilgrim casualty rate is a bad comparison, I think, because they didn't exactly bring round-trip tickets. The options were survive or die in the colonies.

I should leave it to the ground-pounders to say what kind of casualties they could tolerate today, but historically it's been civilian, more than military, morale that gets tossed by U.S. casualties. So far as I can make out the last time our ground forces suffered a large-scale rout was in the Korean War. Since then our deployments have been restricted not by any lack of courage in our soldiers, but by TV-watching civilians who lack any educated idea of the sort of casualties to be expected.

Posted by: ShannonKW at December 27, 2005 06:22 PM (dT1MB)

2 Agent Smith searched the archives and found a tidbit:

The so-called "Pilgrims" were dangerous Eurasian religious fanatics who secretly hatched up their mono-maniacal theocratic schemes in Northern European port cities. Once they excecuted their social upheaval campaign, they were discovered and ruthlessly hounded by the security services. On the run from the European authorities, they lashed out to invade the Americas in their fast-flying vessels. It gets worse: once their unrestrained plague of god-violence hit the American shores, the religious zealots laid the groundwork for a multigenerational war of conquest and never-ending conflict against the unbelievers.

Agent Jones says they exchanged baloney for turkey.

Agent Brown says we must do whatever we can to find those so-called "Pilgrims" and smoke 'em out of their New England holes!

Posted by: Agent Smith at December 27, 2005 07:33 PM (Gy73I)

3 I guess the point I was making wasn't so much about the pilgrim allegory, but about the stark difference in character between the "coddled generation" and the campaign-crucible-tested citizen soldiers. Or rather, it's about what happens when the insufferable brats meet the warriors in a contest for power. My money is on the warriors.

Posted by: Demosophist at December 28, 2005 04:42 AM (lH8jm)

4 And in these colleges, how many of these "coddled children" will be taught by their professors to hate everything their parents stand for while they gleefully take the parents' money?

Posted by: Oyster at December 28, 2005 06:11 AM (YudAC)

5 She calls her parents becuase they know better then all those mindless collage administartors

Posted by: sandpiper at December 28, 2005 09:53 AM (6rkkO)

6 I call these trustfund babies the "rage against your allowance" generation.

Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at December 28, 2005 11:29 AM (0yYS2)

7 Agent Smith calls Improbulus the "rage against himself" anomaly.

Posted by: Agent Smith at December 31, 2005 02:12 AM (HuVhz)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

December 19, 2005

Media Bias Quantified By UCLA Study

A UCLA study linking news media reporting to Americans for Democratic Action political scorecards found a "significant" bias to the left:

"I suspected that many media outlets would tilt to the left because surveys have shown that reporters tend to vote more Democrat than Republican," said Tim Groseclose, a UCLA political scientist and the study's lead author. "But I was surprised at just how pronounced the distinctions are."

Editorials were excluded from the study, to gauge the effects of bias on news gathering:

Of the 20 major media outlets studied, 18 scored left of center, with CBS' "Evening News," The New York Times and the Los Angeles Times ranking second, third and fourth most liberal behind the news pages of The Wall Street Journal.

The Dread Pundit Bluto would like to modestly propose a solution; an Affirmative Action program to help media outlets balance their staffs in order to represent political orientation fairly. Unfortunately, given the state of media bias found in the study, that means most news organizations won't be able to hire any more liberal reporters for probably twenty years or so.

Via The Drudge Report.

Posted by: Bluto at 12:07 AM | Comments (7) | Add Comment
Post contains 191 words, total size 1 kb.

December 14, 2005

Finals Day 3: Scantron Haiku

Two finals to give today. A haiku dedicated to the Scantron.

A, B, C, or D?
Number 2 pencil on thee
all hopes and dreams rest.

No blogging for me.

UPDATE: Consider this an open mike in comments section and open invitation for co-bloggers to, you know, pick up the slack.

Posted by: Rusty at 09:35 AM | Comments (13) | Add Comment
Post contains 56 words, total size 1 kb.

December 13, 2005

Finals Blogging: Day 2

You ever notice that so many grandmothers seem to die during finals week?

Posted by: Rusty at 09:58 AM | Comments (14) | Add Comment
Post contains 17 words, total size 1 kb.

1 ????????????

Posted by: hondo at December 13, 2005 10:03 AM (3aakz)

2 Yep, mine died three different times. But, heh, Rusty, I did the makeup test and made a goo...well..kinda goo...ok, bad grade. I should have taken it the first time. Are you happy?

Posted by: jesusland joe at December 13, 2005 10:19 AM (rUyw4)

3 Most common excuse for rescheduling exams.

Posted by: Rusty Shackleford at December 13, 2005 10:19 AM (JQjhA)

4 Do any of the excuses involve the dog?

Posted by: Oyster at December 13, 2005 11:26 AM (YudAC)

5 Let's keep in mind that sometimes the excuse is true. Some cynicism is understandable, but I'm sure Dr. Shackleford handles the requests delicately.

Posted by: Jill at December 13, 2005 11:36 AM (j/eWI)

6 I see your grandmother dying and raise you a bad case of pneumonia.

Posted by: Leopold Stotch at December 13, 2005 11:45 AM (vz9ML)

7 In light of this information, can you explain to me what this means? What prompted this group to kill some hostages, and let others go?
What do you make of their silence?

Thanks,
Jill

Posted by: Jill at December 13, 2005 11:57 AM (pbum3)

8 I don't know if you've ever mentioned it here or not since I found your blog several months ago, but what do you teach (in general terms) if you don't mind my asking? If you prefer not to answer, I understand. If I ever got motivated enough to publish my own, I would probably try to stay as underground as possible.

Posted by: slug at December 13, 2005 12:50 PM (DbAnU)

9 so good Doctor

Are you working with a proscribed curve?
Any inflationary pressures?
A system of your own design?

The real fun begins after posting - that's when the complaints and stories really get desperate.

Posted by: hondo at December 13, 2005 01:43 PM (3aakz)

10 Just tell them what my First Sergeant told me: "She'll still be dead afterwards, won't she?"

Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at December 13, 2005 01:52 PM (0yYS2)

11 My dog used to eat of lot of non-edibles during finals week.

Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at December 13, 2005 02:06 PM (8e/V4)

12 They don't just die-they die IN MEXICO. Some place far far away is the ticket.

Posted by: Girlgonemil at December 14, 2005 01:17 PM (0IZ80)

13 I had never heard it when I was a student, so I was shocked my first semester as a teacher to have three students tearfully tell me about grandma's demise. Makes you want to assign a big paper and have it due before finals.

Posted by: tee bee at December 14, 2005 01:48 PM (q1JHF)

14 I never used a dead anybody excuse. Nearly everytime I was presented with being late on something I'd be completely honest:

"I'm not going to demean your intelligence by creating some crappy story of how the dog ate my homework. I'm late. I screwed up. What can I do to fix it?"

Yes, it was either this or a crappy school system that got me my Magna.

Posted by: Jeremy H. Bol at December 20, 2005 09:06 AM (A20i1)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

November 25, 2005

Vermont Teacher Under Fire For Gross Liberal Bias

From the Boston Globe:

BENNINGTON, Vt. --The school superintendent whose district includes Mount Anthony Union High School has labeled "inappropriate" and "irresponsible" an English teacher's use of liberal statements in a vocabulary quiz.
"I wish Bush would be (coherent, eschewed) for once during a speech, but there are theories that his everyday diction charms the below-average mind, hence insuring him Republican votes," said one question on a quiz written by English and social studies teacher Bret Chenkin.

Here's a question for Chenkin:

"A teacher would be of (below-average, unsound) mind to endanger his job over his own (radical, infantile) political views."

It certainly takes a well-below-average mind to think that teenagers are going to keep quiet about it. The school superintendent is not amused:

Southwest Vermont Supervisory Union Superintendent Wesley Knapp said he would not want his children subjected to such teaching.
"It's absolutely unacceptable," he said. "They (teachers) don't have a license to hold forth on a particular standpoint."
Knapp said he was recently informed of the situation and that it was a personnel issue that he took seriously.

Prepare yourselves for shrieks and lamentations from liberals everywhere.

After school, head for The Dread Pundit Bluto, where every liberal dork gets a free swirly.

Posted by: Bluto at 11:31 PM | Comments (23) | Add Comment
Post contains 210 words, total size 2 kb.

1 I'm amazed that she got to keep her job.

Posted by: IO ERROR at November 26, 2005 12:41 AM (FVbj6)

2 Only one 'problem' with the sentence you proposed ("A teacher would be of [below-average, unsound] mind to endanger his job over his own [radical, infantile] views."). Doesn't there have to be a WRONG answer in there somewhere? Oh wait - nevermind. I forgot the audience you were testing for.

Posted by: The Random Yak at November 26, 2005 01:20 AM (bms3S)

3 I don't think that the teacher was concerned about losing his job. At all levels within the US education system, the classroom has become each teacher's little empire where they're free to spice up the curriculum however they see fit. Should their job ever be in danger, there'll always be a lobby group standing ready with "experts" to back them up (by threatening to sue the district).

Posted by: Graeme at November 26, 2005 05:54 AM (sehX+)

4 Methinks Graeme knows the public school system in the US very well. Graeme, I thought you were from another country. Haha! Doesn't matter, you know of what you speak. After years of putting up with crap just like the post, I put my children in a Christian school. I finally had enough!

Posted by: knight templar at November 26, 2005 08:38 AM (rUyw4)

5 You're correct Sir Knight - I'm not from the US (bummer, but when life gives you lemons......). If things were as they should be in the public schools (and universities), persons like myself wouldn't know very much about the education system.

Posted by: Graeme at November 26, 2005 09:54 AM (sehX+)

6 My little darlings would be in a Christian school if it was affordable for us. Instead they are homeschooled. I truly would be in the headlines if some of the things going on in schools today happened in one of my daugher's classrooms. They would arrest me.

Posted by: thirdee at November 26, 2005 10:20 AM (e7Gv8)

7 >>>"I'm amazed that she got to keep her job"

Is there anything at all these sick demented Leftists won't politicize? And they have the FUCKING NERVE to accuse Bush of being "devisive".

I'm not one bit surprised that she got to keep her job. I'm amazed she didn't get a raise.

Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at November 26, 2005 10:35 AM (8e/V4)

8 A common practice in Education - though this particular teacher was an idiot for allowing their biases to surface so clearly (the opinion of his colleagues I'll wager).

While not isolated, this is not as important as you think. The real biases are built in to critical elements of the curriculum on a wide range of subject matters with social cross-over.

My first degree was in ED (El & Secondary) - was a big touted option during the past reduction in forces. 2 years at those levels were enough! - University (7) was a lot more interesting - you learn the importance of tenure! (my case - I sucked at kissin' ass). Hondo's sisters - the hondettes (3) are in the system (tenured! - they BS'd better than I.

This story is just the tip of the iceberg - you would be surprised at what you don't hear about!

Posted by: hondo at November 26, 2005 10:43 AM (Jvmry)

9 "I wish Dhimmicrats would be (sane, patriotic) for once during a speech, but there are theories that their everyday outrages charm the below-average mind, hence insuring them traitors' votes."

A good liberal is a dead liberal.

Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at November 26, 2005 01:27 PM (0yYS2)

10 One of the things I noticed when I perused the textbooks used even in elementary schools was the amount of propaganda used as examples of people and places. Only whites were used as villians, and minorities were always depicted as heroes. Now I would not be against this per se except for the fact that my daughter asked me why we were so mean and bad.

I was so angry I went to the school and proceeded to request a reply to her question. There was no answer other than there was nothing they could do about it. Thats how the textbooks described people. I protested that this was not a true depiction of life and they shrugged. I did what I should have done 10 years earlier and took my kids out of public school. Best decision I ever made, and my 1998 Toyota pickup is just as good as the 2005 GMC. That was the trade off I made. Not bad for a quality education, less exposure to sex and violence, less worry about safety and I found a good church to go to besides. Win, win situation!

Posted by: knight templar at November 26, 2005 01:49 PM (rUyw4)

11 Slightly off topic but many of you may find this interesting. John Daly(not the golfer), the moonbat professor at Warren County Community College who wrote an e-mail to a student where he advocated soldiers fragging their officers has resigned.

A special meeting had been called to look into his statement and other comments directed toward a student. Apparently he saw the handwriting(haha) on the wall, and decided to leave before he got his butt fired. Bully for the good guys! Here's an asshat who has learned a lesson in humility, and there needs to be many more in academia before the mess they created is straightened out. But it is a start.

Posted by: jesusland joe at November 26, 2005 02:44 PM (rUyw4)

12 Daly was nothing more than an extremely low ranking PT adjunct. He taught a couple of remedial English writing classes thats all.

Much ado about nobody.

Posted by: hondo at November 26, 2005 03:59 PM (Jvmry)

13 It's not only a psychological victory but a tactical one as well, hondo. It doesn't matter how important the guy is, what is really accomplished is that the guy resigned under pressure. The pressure was applied by the public, and I consider this to be important in the sense that it shows what can be done.

The fact that it didn't happen to Ward Churchhill at Colorado is no reason to denigrate this victory. Small steps, baby steps, but steps in the right direction, hondo.

Posted by: jesusland joe at November 26, 2005 04:09 PM (rUyw4)

14 I find it very interesting that many people find his actions so outrageous. It is not nearly as bad as the throngs of people who teach creationism, an opinion and unproven fact, in the classroom, denying the facts of evolution. Besdies Bush really could stand to be more coherent in his speech.

Posted by: Jonathan at November 26, 2005 04:37 PM (jI1q0)

15 Jonathan,

What throngs of people teaching creationism?

Posted by: jesusland joe at November 26, 2005 05:05 PM (rUyw4)

16 Hmmmm? Creationism isn't taught in any classsroom I know of save possibly a few religious based schools. There is some ongoing debate over the inclusion of ID in some schools but the actual scope is quite small.

Interesting - to you teaching the above (when its not) is worse than advocating the killing of American soldiers by other soldiers (the Daly issue).

The only thing that has evolved here if the fact that you clearly are a moron of some repute!

As far as Bush coherent issue - maybe its you - it would help your hearing if you took your head out of your ass.

Posted by: hondo at November 26, 2005 05:08 PM (Jvmry)

17 Jonathan,

that's parody right? you're pulling our leg?

Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at November 26, 2005 06:10 PM (8e/V4)

18 COme on, time to stop, we all know this is a GOP USA funded blog and you in house folks are just masterbating back and forth from your geek boy cubicles. america hates you and your trite little ideology is faltering, you moral value americans you...why cant you stop talking about killing and oppressing people...anyway jeff gannon america, we are on to you and think you paste eaters suck...

ernie

Posted by: ernieervin at November 26, 2005 10:06 PM (ocmaF)

19 I'm still not convinced that ernie isn't greg. He's changed his IP before. And we haven't heard from greg.

Posted by: Oyster at November 27, 2005 05:59 AM (YudAC)

20 Ernie Ervin is an anomaly.

Posted by: Agent Smith at November 27, 2005 06:43 AM (cKU7u)

21 Greg actually wrote me and said that every time he gets banned, he just buys a new computer to get a new IP address. I'm still not sure whether he's really that stupid, but given his complete lack of capacity for reason, he might actually have six or seven computers, as he claimed. I think ernie is greg, just because that level of stupidity is actually quite rare, and the incoherent blabber is about the same, though ernie doesn't cut-n-paste, but just rambles moronically on.

Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at November 27, 2005 09:07 AM (0yYS2)

22 ernie seems particularly obsessed with Gannon and "cock".

Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at November 27, 2005 09:33 AM (8e/V4)

23 And you achieved ...what???

Posted by: hondo at November 27, 2005 10:14 PM (Jvmry)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

November 24, 2005

Putting the Cart Before the Horse

I hadn't planned any serious posts for Thanksgiving. However, opening the local newsrag this morning to a snotty little piece of disinformation from New York Times political hack Paul Krugman (and no, I won't provide the link) changed my mind. Since the enemies within won't take a break today, neither will I.

From the Associated Press via Yahoo!News:

WASHINGTON - The Bush administration and military leaders are sounding optimistic notes about scaling back U.S. troops in Iraq next year, as public opposition to the war and congressional demands for withdrawal get louder.
While military leaders would not confirm the size of possible withdrawals, conversations with defense officials and analysts suggest troop levels could drop below 100,000 next year, contingent on the progress of the Iraqi government and its security forces. There are currently about 155,000 U.S. troops in Iraq.

Contingency plans of this complexity don't happen over the course of a few days, or even a few weeks. These plans have obviously been in the works for some time. Just as obviously, it isn't in the country's best interests for Islamist terrorists to know details about such plans, or even that they exist.

Now we know the reason for increasingly loud Democrat attacks on the Administration and the troops. Democrat leaders got wind of (were most likely consulted on) contingency plans to lower the number of troops, and made a cynical decision to create the illusion that any planned cutbacks were the result of their "protests", knowing of course, that they could depend on their water-carriers in the mainstream media to help them make the case.

I am continually amazed at the willingness of Democrat party leaders to put US troops at risk to further their own political schemes. Of course, as someone educated in the purported principles of journalism I'm continually amazed at the overwhelming number of "journalists" who are willing to aid and abet such schemes.

Also at The Dread Pundit Bluto. Get there before the tryptophan kicks in.

Posted by: Bluto at 10:55 AM | Comments (23) | Add Comment
Post contains 336 words, total size 2 kb.

1 The plans for troop withdrawal (there are several to choose from) have been in the works from almost the day the U.S. first went in. At best, this is overreaction.

Posted by: IO ERROR at November 24, 2005 11:15 AM (FVbj6)

2 "the enemise within", ya everyone who doesnt have their head up their ass and follows your neo-nazi quasi soviet ass into the abyss. you diiots are in the minority and remember, we do hate you. your idiocy woke america up. we see how "jean schmidt" you are...cowards, trying to comfort yourself in state worship while dressing in the flag.

we all know your type. weak, impotent, nerds, the paste eater calss of jackasses with little soul.

anyeway, 34% for you and bush...and dropping. get ready for the hate to swell against your treson.

ernie

Posted by: ernie at November 24, 2005 02:16 PM (ocmaF)

3 "ernie"? Aren't you the ass who was pretending to be a Marine? yeah bud you gots lots of credibiilty. Y'all sound like a jihadi to me.

Posted by: Darth Sirius at November 24, 2005 04:23 PM (M7kiy)

4 ernie...did you ever go to school? or are you still there?

Posted by: Jester at November 24, 2005 05:06 PM (BypR5)

5 Happy thanks giving guys.

IO Error is right (mmmm, how else do i put it), the plan was always to kick out Saddam, establish a democracy, kill some terrorist scum, probably leave a small base behind and go home and sit back and watch democracy take root in the middle east, give the people a future other than burning american flags and flying planes into buildings.

Posted by: MathewK at November 24, 2005 05:16 PM (pVHqF)

6 Neo nazi's and "Quasi" soviets follow two completely DIFFERENT ideologies completely. Please may you not include communists and nazis in the same sentence. Remember hitler HATED the communists, probably the reason he invaded russia in World war 2.

Posted by: Sam at November 24, 2005 05:39 PM (rksST)

7 If anyone figures out what ernie is smoking, let me know.

Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at November 24, 2005 05:45 PM (0yYS2)

8 ernie's not old enough to buy cigarettes. It's sugar cookies that his grandma cooked for him. He'll leave soon enough to deliver pizza! Haha!

Posted by: jesusland joe at November 24, 2005 06:36 PM (rUyw4)

9 Rusty,
Seriously, this is silly.
Why don't you just clearly delineate your rules and I will adhere to them, provided that you enforce then even-handedly.

GO TEXAS LONGHORNS!

Posted by: Menezes' ghost at November 24, 2005 06:58 PM (/6SSQ)

10 ernie is Greg. Should have known.

Posted by: jesusland joe at November 24, 2005 07:19 PM (rUyw4)

11 lil' ernie is not greg. lil' ernie is just a boy looking for a place to go and a place to display his anger - and his anger isn't about his subject matter.

go a lil' easy on him because of his age.

Hear that maxie! Don't want you traumatizing the boy now!
Oh, and I love your new Capital One Christmas commerical.

Posted by: hondo at November 24, 2005 11:21 PM (Jvmry)

12 ernie must be a real hit at the anti-war protests with his "On Bolod for Iole" and "Buush = No.1 Wrold Treroristist" signs.

Posted by: Graeme at November 25, 2005 04:49 AM (R23sB)

13 Ernie was buggered by a muslim and liked it.

Bush should agree to a withdrawal time. Something like we will withdrawn two soldiers on Jan. 1. Then we will send 20,000 more Jan 2nd. Why not copy the liberal traitors and lie, lie, lie.
Quote their leader. " I didn't have sex with that young woman, Miss Lewinski, No, not one time.

Or. I don't consider oral copulation as sex. Ha, Ha.

Posted by: greyrooster at November 25, 2005 06:55 AM (ZaAd/)

14 A comment I left under Rusty's post Bloggie Goodness on the 21st was putting forth two theories, besides Astute Blogger's theory, to account for the ramped up rhetoric from the left:

"The Democrats merely used him [Murtha] as a poster boy to push for an early withdrawal because three independent analyses opined that they could find no substance to the charge of "fixing" intelligence to go to war and the current commission wasn't coming up with any either. So before the report even has a chance to come out and deny that charge again they begin a new strategy in ernest.

Or ...

It's possible that a troop reduction (of what ever number) may very well be in the stars within the next year and by starting their push now they can claim credit for it when it happens.

Or ...

It could be all three; Astute's [astuteblogger.blogspot.com worth the read] implications AND both of mine all rolled into one."

As someone here said just a few days ago, the left may be wrong but they're not stupid.

Posted by: Oyster at November 25, 2005 08:21 AM (YudAC)

15 "The Democrats" are in as much disarray as the Republicans
over Iraq..Some democrats want immediate withdrawal, such as Murtha, others want more troops, such as Sen Biden http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2005/6/30/94916.shtml The state of partisanship in these United States is such that now whatever one party is for the other is anti no matter what. Polls show the country has turned against the war.The republicans are bailing on it, while some democrats now determined to show "oh no, we aren't soft on defense" want to send more troops. You hear quite a bit of rhetoric about giving"aid and comfort" to the enemy. If the jihadists were ever to read this blog they would think the country ready to go to civil war with itself . Respect for the opinion of another citizen ? I don't think so. Training the iraqis? They don't need training nearly as much as motivation. If 150,000 highly trained and motivated US troops can't defeat the insurgents when will 150,000 Iraqi troops be able to do so ? The jihadist al Queda will be taken care of by the Iraqis when they no longer find their limited presence wanted by the Sunni insurgents

Posted by: john Ryan at November 25, 2005 04:07 PM (ads7K)

16 Thank God for Paul Krugman. His wisdom is equal to that of our Founding Fathers.

Posted by: Jack F Adams at November 25, 2005 04:33 PM (aDP6F)

17 hahaha how funny morons playing me in kookooville. dont matter dumbasses. 34 pervent and dropping for you and your pharoah, it dont matter how many GOPUSA dollrs g ot oyour piece of shit blog

ernie

Posted by: ernie at November 25, 2005 07:12 PM (ocmaF)

18 Little man, it sounds to me like they nailed you. Haha! A little troll comes in here and tries to do what, scare someone with delusional rants. Go get your momma to change your diapers, it's obvious you soiled them.

Posted by: knight templar at November 25, 2005 07:27 PM (rUyw4)

19 John Ryan: That is the most sensible comment you've made yet. I'd encourage such thought except for a couple minor points, but I won't nitpick right now.

As far as the Iraqis needing motivation ... yes. But it's happening. They're beginning to acquire a sense of ownership of their country for the first time ever. Just a little more time.

We can argue the merits of going into Iraq all day long, and it is an argument worthy of having, but not now. The fact is, we're there. We cannot turn the clock back. There comes a point where the argument must change from its originating issues to current events. And if things turn out badly (which I pray every day not to happen), we can argue why later. Right now these people need every opportunity for support and motivation. Not to hear us bickering, slinging insults, and bitching about whether or not they're capable of operating in a democratic fashion. It's insulting to them to think that there are those among us here that think they're too backward or too steeped in some 13th century tribalism. I'd be pissed off too. Or at the very least - confused.
-------------------------
And ernie: Good lord, you're messed up. I hope there's someone out there protecting your stupid ass.

Posted by: Oyster at November 25, 2005 07:29 PM (YudAC)

20 Two comments have been deleted because they were signed with another poster's name, but came from different IPs. It's my policy not to allow posing on my threads.

Posted by: The Dread Pundit Bluto at November 25, 2005 11:42 PM (RHG+K)

21 When victory is achieved (and I stronghly believe it will) there will be a lot of disappointed people out there. I wonder how they plan to play it?

Posted by: hondo at November 26, 2005 10:55 AM (Jvmry)

22 "When victory is achieved (and I stronghly believe it will) "

We'll know because there will be a speech with a banner that says 'victory achieved.'

Posted by: actus at November 27, 2005 11:38 PM (Zi15r)

23 And you will of course actus be so obviously disappointed. Be honest, you hope for defeat.

Posted by: hondo at November 28, 2005 10:17 AM (Jvmry)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

November 08, 2005

Leftist McCarthyism in the Academy

If you haven't been following how one Professor of History at the University of Northern Iowa has been trying to sink the academic career of Ph.D. student (and good friend of the Jawa Report) Paul Deignan of Info Theory, you should. It seems that Paul had the nerve to make a pro-life argument in the comments section of a liberal blog. And that, says the liberal professor, should disqualify Paul from getting a Ph.D.

Jeff Goldstein has summarized the exchange here along with phone numbers and e-mails of the relevant parties. Go give Paul your support.

Note to fellow non-tenured academic bloggers and graduate students: blog anonymously or risk your career. Yes, it is that bad at the modern university.

Posted by: Rusty at 08:19 AM | Comments (7) | Add Comment
Post contains 125 words, total size 1 kb.

1 How can they claim to have free spesch/debates on blogs, if only left thinking people can comment on leftish blogs and only right thinking people can comment on right wing blogs?

What's the point? Talk about preaching to the converted! I deliberately look at & comment on blogs that do not think the same way as me, so I can understand their point of view better & sometimes to try and show why my stance is as it is. I don't expect to "convert" anyone, but do have the right to express my views reasonably, and be treated courteously if/when re-buffed.

Surely the professor has to justify his decision to someone if it is questioned/appealed? A difference of opinion (political or otherwise) can not be a reason for giving or witholding qualifications.

Posted by: Mrs Aginoth at November 08, 2005 08:51 AM (cZrVc)

2 You ought to get in touch with David Horowitz over at Front Page Magazine (www.frontpagemag.com)

He's been leading the acedemic freedom movement to expose left-wing professors within the country's colleges and universities.

Posted by: J at November 08, 2005 09:07 AM (kIPzq)

3 Trolling and discussion is a vital part of the blogs it appear to me he is not a troll except he does not agree with the blog.

Posted by: Howie at November 08, 2005 09:38 AM (D3+20)

4 The best thing about the coming breakdown of order in the world is that we will have the freedom to hunt down liberals and hang them by the dozens, as we should be able to do now were it not for this pesky law and order that, ironically, the liberals have been trying to destroy for so long. As they say, be careful what you wish for... If they want a total collapse of law and order, well then, let's give it to them.

Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at November 08, 2005 01:16 PM (0yYS2)

5 As a former 31 year resident of Iowa I find this disturbing. To think that part of my tax dollars from the age I started working at age 14 until I moved to Oregon in 2002 went to pay this moron professors salary upsets me.

I called both the dept. head's office (Prof. Martin was in a meeting) and the UNI President's office (he was out also) but I did speak to a nice lady at the presiden't office and I voiced my displeasure to her about Hettle's behavior. I also gave her the URL of Paul's blog and also the URL to here at Mypetjawa.

I also gave her my name and number and told her to call me if she had any other questions. She said she would forward this info to the university's law dept.

Hopefully we can get this Hettle idiot punished for his assinine behavior.

Posted by: Brent Busch at November 08, 2005 02:37 PM (1iHmy)

6 You mean, of course, give Paul your support... unless you're in academia. I despair.

Posted by: Demosophist at November 09, 2005 09:28 AM (sDdU0)

7 If what Paul Deignan wrote is cause for banning or worse, the harassment from a jerk prof, almost every post I've ever read from anyone should be banned!

Posted by: Don Miguel at November 09, 2005 06:04 PM (+KixN)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

November 07, 2005

Rockefeller, Levin and Feinstein on Truth and Method

The aim stated by Senators Rockefeller, Feinstein and Levin, for the second phase of the work by the Committee to Investigate Pre-Iraq Intelligence is to "assess" whether the intelligence "justified" the public statements made by the Bush Administration. It presumes that the members of this committee can, and will, apply some consistent unbiased standard to the correspondence between the certainty and uncertainty about what we knew and what administration officials said. They're apparently going to close the gap between natural and scientific language that Habermas and Gadamer left open. That'll be fun.

But, why do we need a Senate Intelligence Committee to go through these kinds of heuristic deliberations? What makes their rule of thumb better than my rule of thumb, as a citizen, concerning the public statements of our officials? Doesn't their hubris imply a whopping condescension toward those of us in the Peanut Gallery? Why is Carl Levin's opinion about the President's Niger statement better than mine? Will he take into account the fact that Wilson's own debrief with the CIA supported concerns that Iraq was interested in buying uranium, and that the intelligence agencies of the UK and France still maintain that Iraq was seeking such a buy? Or will he just gauge the statement against the common meme that Wilson was truthful in his NYT dispatch, and that he has adequately debunked that whole yellow-cake myth by sipping a little sweet tea in Africa? Anyone taking bets?

And doesn't the urgency placed on this report by the unprecedented grandstanding of the Democrats also imply a profoundly statist deference toward the black-box hermeneutic/analytic skills of a group of high-placed non-experts? Next thing we know they'll be proposing to re-write the New Testament in order to make it more "accurate." They could sure help us out by "assessing" the extent to which the certainties and uncertainties about the Resurrection justify the many public statements about it by Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. About time they got around to that, dontcha think?

And how much is this Report from Mount Olympus going to cost us, anyway? Couldn't we just siphon that to the victims of Katrina, Rita, and Wilma? Frankly I'd rather have a comprehensive audit of FEMA. That would make some sense.

Posted by: Demosophist at 10:43 AM | Comments (8) | Add Comment
Post contains 382 words, total size 2 kb.

1 I'm all for an indepth analysis of the pre-war intelligence, as long as it starts with what was so damaging that Sandy Burger had to steal it from the archives and stuff it in his pants? and then let's see what Able Danger identified and whom was responsible for burying it? yeah, let's see some of that "pre-war" intelligence?

Posted by: dave at November 07, 2005 11:34 AM (CcXvt)

2 What I love about this is the Republican response: put together a list of many statements made by administration officials, other elected politicians from both parties, and Clinton administration officials, together with a summary of the intelligence that backed up those statements; then show them to the Senators to decide if they were or were not justified, but with the statements unattributed. So the Senators who have to decide whether the statements were or were not justified do not know if the statements were from a Democrat or a Republican. I love it, truly. In fact, I think that's a tactic that we would benefit from as a society if it were used more frequently.

Posted by: Jeff Medcalf at November 07, 2005 11:52 AM (eer2X)

3 This isn't about finding the truth. Its about finding evidence to impeach George W. Bush. Period.

Posted by: J at November 07, 2005 11:54 AM (/P1rH)

4 Yes we are acting just as the enemy expects us to. They don't have to win as long as we will climb over ourselves to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory. They can not win any other way. They know us all too well.

Posted by: Howie at November 07, 2005 12:15 PM (D3+20)

5 Have any of these buffoons read the Butler Report?

Posted by: Oyster at November 07, 2005 12:22 PM (fl6E1)

6 Not to sound like a nutcase or anything, but in light of the current state of our civilization, with the subject of this post as a perfect example, I'm actually looking forward to the day that liberals, blacks, illegals, and muslims start rioting and burning here in America, because then We, the People, can do what has needed doing for a long time now; thin the herd.

Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at November 07, 2005 12:34 PM (0yYS2)

7 "Not to sound like a nutcase or anything,..."

I'm sorry, IM. That one tickled me. ;-)

Posted by: Oyster at November 07, 2005 06:17 PM (YudAC)

8 Like they say, you're not paranoid if there's really someone out to get you. It look pretty inevitable; I just want to go ahead and get on with it.

Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at November 07, 2005 08:37 PM (0yYS2)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

October 17, 2005

First Question Concerning Enantiomorphism, With Profound Consequences for Shelby Foote's Theories About Union Constraints During the American Civil War:

And also for contemporary American geopolitical policy in the so-called "War on Terror."

So, just how do you tie one hand behind your back? I mean, as opposed to tying both of them?

Discuss...

Posted by: Demosophist at 09:39 AM | Comments (6) | Add Comment
Post contains 53 words, total size 1 kb.

243kb generated in CPU 1.3378, elapsed 1.6243 seconds.
56 queries taking 1.4878 seconds, 534 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.

Search Thingy

March 06, 2006

March 04, 2006

March 03, 2006

March 02, 2006

February 08, 2006

February 07, 2006

February 06, 2006

February 04, 2006

January 30, 2006

January 18, 2006

January 16, 2006

January 10, 2006

January 06, 2006

January 04, 2006

December 29, 2005

December 27, 2005

December 19, 2005

December 14, 2005

December 13, 2005

November 25, 2005

November 24, 2005

November 08, 2005

November 07, 2005

October 17, 2005

Recent Comments